Dog's breakfast about free will

[davidpbrown]

<Some posts moved from thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=11711) in the debate proposals forum -- DMB>

I feel obliged somehow to suggest there is already a ten page thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=10471) already that ran from Jan-Mar 2011.. and the undead thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=8862) seemed to touch on similar questions.

In that free will thread I'd resolved what I thought.. a random seed would cause free will even in clockwork.
tldr; We just need a Universe that isn't clockwork to allow for clockwork like machines to have free will. Exercise for the reader to determine that something happens for no reason, in order to seed the random Universe..

but I would say that wouldn't I ;)

[davidpbrown]

http://i.imgur.com/90Q6j.jpg

:D

[toker]

I feel obliged somehow to suggest there is already a ten page thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=10471) already that ran from Jan-Mar 2011.. and the undead thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=8862) seemed to touch on similar questions.
For sure. So what?

In that free will thread I'd resolved what I thought.. a random seed would cause free will even in clockwork.
tldr; We just need a Universe that isn't clockwork to allow for clockwork like machines to have free will. Exercise for the reader to determine that something happens for no reason, in order to seed the random Universe..

but I would say that wouldn't I ;)
Um, free will doesn't mean random. But since you know this universe isn't clockwork, and you know random stuff happens, it follows that you believe in your own version of free will and so you aren't eligible for this debate.

[toker]

http://i.imgur.com/90Q6j.jpg

:D
Neuroscience makes no such claim, but you kid.

[toker]

A coward on another board blathers on and on and on about how brains are made of neurons and so our actions are fated, but the chickenshit won't debate. I'm just letting off steam.

[davidpbrown]

Will is Innocent - Free Will!

[toker]

Fire at will! (Oops, sorry Riker.)

[columbus]

Yes free will. I'll fight for what I have. You have no choice but to oppose me, so do it. Chose to argue against free will.

To me this isn't complex. Free will exists in the same abstract way that horizons and randomness exist. They are words we use to describe the outer limits of human perception, but they have no objective existence.

A horizon is the line beyond which our eyes cannot perceive. We can look at it, talk about, whatever, but it doesn't really exist. Random events, like a coin toss outcome, are those events which are determined by forces too subtle to be perceived. Similarly, Free will is what we use to describe behaviour whose determiners are too subtle to perceive, even by ourselves.

But the bottom line is that we humans are not free to choose anything except what we perceive as in our own best interests. What we perceive as being in our best interests is sometimes determined by causes that are obvious, or at least pretty clear. But humans are complicated, sometimes the factors in our decisions are murky to the point of incomprehensibility. That is where the illusion of Free will comes in.

I don't think this would be much of a discussion point if it weren't for the tendency of religionists to use Free will to plaster over the obvious contradictions in theology. The Problem of Evil would blow Abrahamic theism out of the water. So they invented the sanctity of Free will to explain why God isn't really AllPowerful, but is constrained from violating our Free will. God doesn't want us to suffer, but since we freely choose it the suffering is our responsibility. Unless we are free to choose Hell for ourselves, God would be a moral monster for putting us there, etc. It is primarily a religious construct.

Tom

[columbus]

I'm afraid I must point out that I'm going to have to move this thread if it doesn't firm up into some sort of debate proposal. Toker appears to be game for a debate. Is anyone else going to take the challenge?I am surprised it has lasted this long in this forum, when clearly it is philosophy thread.

Tom

[toker]

We all know we can actually make decisions on purpose. There is no debate, there is no actual controversy. There is no argument against free will that doesn't depend on determinism or reductionism, and both those views are known to be false. So lock the thread.

[toker]

But the bottom line is that we humans are not free to choose anything except what we perceive as in our own best interests.
Suicide, or any other self-sacrifice, cannot exist. You must be right. :rolleyes:

[toker]

Free from not having the ability to make choices on purpose.I can't make heads or tails of sentence. Give me an example, maybe.
Raise your hand, either side, as you choose. You claim to have no such ability? Did you lose an arm in the war?

[toker]

I'm afraid I must point out that I'm going to have to move this thread if it doesn't firm up into some sort of debate proposal. Toker appears to be game for a debate. Is anyone else going to take the challenge?I am surprised it has lasted this long in this forum, when clearly it is philosophy thread.

And we all know philosophy topics can never be the subject of formal debates.

[mood2]

http://i.imgur.com/90Q6j.jpg

:D

:bunny:

[Monad]

I feel obliged somehow to suggest there is already a ten page thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=10471) already that ran from Jan-Mar 2011.. and the undead thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=8862) seemed to touch on similar questions.
For sure. So what?

In that free will thread I'd resolved what I thought.. a random seed would cause free will even in clockwork.
tldr; We just need a Universe that isn't clockwork to allow for clockwork like machines to have free will. Exercise for the reader to determine that something happens for no reason, in order to seed the random Universe..

but I would say that wouldn't I ;)
Um, free will doesn't mean random. But since you know this universe isn't clockwork, and you know random stuff happens, it follows that you believe in your own version of free will and so you aren't eligible for this debate.

Yeah, as I pointed out in that thread, the whole quantum argument is a red herring. It's no more free will than determinism. The random argument takes away both the free and the will.

[davidpbrown]

Um, free will doesn't mean random. But since you know this universe isn't clockwork, and you know random stuff happens, it follows that you believe in your own version of free will and so you aren't eligible for this debate.

Yeah, as I pointed out in that thread, the whole quantum argument is a red herring. It's no more free will than determinism. The random argument takes away both the free and the will.

It wasn't a quantum argument. Pure random seed ≠ Statistical random deterministic.

:yawn:

[Monad]

Um, free will doesn't mean random. But since you know this universe isn't clockwork, and you know random stuff happens, it follows that you believe in your own version of free will and so you aren't eligible for this debate.

Yeah, as I pointed out in that thread, the whole quantum argument is a red herring. It's no more free will than determinism. The random argument takes away both the free and the will.

It wasn't a quantum argument. Pure random seed ≠ Statistical random deterministic.

:yawn:

It wasn't just a comment on your argument but more general - there is no foundation for free will in random factor arguments whether quantum or otherwise (like the Dice Man). If what I do is based say on the throw of a dice that is no more my choice than if it's based on determinism.

[rog]

At the moment I'm seeing myself as being on the fence, with a leaning towards free will but some concerns that need addressing.

I look forwards to your formal debate, I hope that it is enlightening :)

[columbus]

At the moment I'm seeing myself as being on the fence,
Cowboy Bob and cowboy Joe were riding the fences in Texas. They came across a heifer whose head was stuck in the fence. Cowboy Bob jumped off his horse, dropped trou, and had his fun with the trapped heifer. He then encouraged Joe to try it. "It's fun, and nobody will ever know." Joe wouldn't at first, but Bob insisted. Finally Joe, reluctantly, got off his horse, went over to the fence, and stuck his head through the wires...

Tom

[toker]

To me this isn't complex. Free will exists in the same abstract way that horizons and randomness exist. They are words we use to describe the outer limits of human perception, but they have no objective existence.
The ability to make decisions on purpose isn't a mere observation from a given perspective, like horizons. Instead, it's an ability.

That ability exists. You cannot look at it under a microscope, though. Because it doesn't exist there.

[toker]

At the moment I'm seeing myself as being on the fence, with a leaning towards free will but some concerns that need addressing.

I look forwards to your formal debate, I hope that it is enlightening :)
Me and my son (my son and I?) were on a long drive recently, and to pass time I brought up the whole free will vs no way issue, and he quickly picked up the no way side, and soon we were both laughing hard. Tears in my eyes, nk. There is no way to resolve the issue conclusively, using current tech.

I mean, I'm no hot-shot debater, don't put pressure on me. Unless you have no choice.

[toker]

At the moment I'm seeing myself as being on the fence, with a leaning towards free will but some concerns that need addressing.
List them here, please.

[Ozymandias]

I imagine the violation of the laws of physics might be his first one.

[rog]

Toker, Columbus: So, are you two still wanting a formal debate?

[davidpbrown]

Objection! Russell's teapot (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

[toker]

But the bottom line is that we humans are not free to choose anything except what we perceive as in our own best interests. What we perceive as being in our best interests is sometimes determined by causes that are obvious, or at least pretty clear. But humans are complicated, sometimes the factors in our decisions are murky to the point of incomprehensibility. That is where the illusion of Free will comes in.
Except for your last sentence, I don't disagree too much. Nothing you've said supports that last sentence.

If we can choose to do "something" because we find that "something" to be in our own best interest, then we have free will.

To be, or not to be. eg, u c.

[toker]

I imagine the violation of the laws of physics might be his first one.
Ah. The laws of physics preclude our ability to make decisions. Of course. ;)

[toker]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

[rog]

Don't you have an opening post for a formal debate to write? :)

[Politesse]

I rather suspect that he just wrote it.

Toker's opening post for "formal debate":

We have free will! It's obvious! You'd have to be stupid not to think so! Look, I just moved my arm! I just typed a post! That's Free Will! I have Free Will! I'm smoking grass! That is also Free Will!

[rog]

I rather suspect that he just wrote it.

Toker's opening post for "formal debate":

We have free will! It's obvious! You'd have to be stupid not to think so! Look, I just moved my arm! I just typed a post! That's Free Will! I have Free Will! I'm smoking grass! That is also Free Will!

We'll have to see what he comes up with. I suspect that you're an idiot if you don't agree with me won't fly in a formal debate & if he tries that then he'll look silly; but then I'm sure he already knows that.

[columbus]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

I already did Toker, you didn't respond.

As usual.

Two or three short rounds in a short space of time. I don't think there is much to say about a subject that is a semantic brawl about things that cannot be known by limited humans. But I will say what I think, if you will stop horsing around and agree to some debate parameters.

Go on, stick your head in the fence.

Tom

[rog]

Toker, word to the wise, if you have changed your mind & If you don't want to have a formal debate with Tom, you should just say so.

[Politesse]

Go on, stick your head in the fence.

Hey, that reminds me of a joke.

[columbus]

Toker, word to the wise, if you have changed your mind & If you don't want to have a formal debate with Tom, you should just say so.

Really Toker, if you prefer to just discuss the concept of Free will, I'd do that. I'd prefer it to a formal debate. I'm not a formal kind of person.

Tom

[rog]

I'm trying to be constructive now, why don't you both find a definition of free will that you can agree on? If you do have a formal debate at some point, at least you won't spend all of you time trying to knock down each others strawmen.

[columbus]

, why don't you both find a definition of free will that you can agree on?

There you go. To me, that is the whole point to this subject. We, Toker and I, have different definitions of the term "Free will". Mine actually exists, and his is an abstraction. It isn't that either of us is right or wrong, it is that I have a more sophisticated view of the meaning of the term "Free will"

But if a hot guy wants to climb down into an oil pit with me and fight, I will go along. You are hot, aren't you Toker?

Tom

[toker]

I use the dictionary, and have given my def, and find support from the experts. Tom's def is still a mystery.

[toker]

Toker, word to the wise, if you have changed your mind & If you don't want to have a formal debate with Tom, you should just say so.

Really Toker, if you prefer to just discuss the concept of Free will, I'd do that. I'd prefer it to a formal debate. I'm not a formal kind of person.

Me either. I like the idea of no outside distractions, though I'd rather be in the peanut gallery.

[toker]

I don't think there is much to say about a subject that is a semantic brawl about things that cannot be known by limited humans.
And yet our entire culture is built around it. Odd!

I've had someone claim there is no free will, and when asked for her definition, she said "something that is impossible". So I need to hear Tom give his definition before I bother with this anymore.

[toker]

I rather suspect that he just wrote it.

Toker's opening post for "formal debate":

We have free will! It's obvious! You'd have to be stupid not to think so! Look, I just moved my arm! I just typed a post! That's Free Will! I have Free Will! I'm smoking grass! That is also Free Will!
Says the person who begged out. She's like that, all snippy from the sidelines, with no balls at all.

[Politesse]

I rather suspect that he just wrote it.

Toker's opening post for "formal debate":

We have free will! It's obvious! You'd have to be stupid not to think so! Look, I just moved my arm! I just typed a post! That's Free Will! I have Free Will! I'm smoking grass! That is also Free Will!
Says the person who begged out. She's like that, all snippy from the sidelines, with no balls at all.

Dude, that's the reason I signed out.

[toker]

Good! You have nothing to offer here. We all see that.

Your stance is stupid, and I'll prove it. Find a hero to support, someone who figures it makes sense to choose to argue we cannot make choices. I'm not going away.

[davidpbrown]

Surely you should define the free will you believe in?.. by default devil's advocates don't believe and should be required to define a free will definition that you suggest does exist and that you can then contest, as if you win because they get it off target. That was the point of the teapot. I suspect that's also why Politesse was parodying your likely reply.

If you believe free will exists, define it. Where is the point at which we have choice and what class of actions, if any, are not chosen?

[Ozymandias]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

You have that backwards. You are claiming the existence of something analogous to Russell's teapot. The default stance is that there is nothing there, so you have the burden of proof to provide evidence for free-will.

All our experiments show that the world is deterministic except for quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse, which is random. Neither determinism nor randomness provide space for free-will.

[David B]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

You have that backwards. You are claiming the existence of something analogous to Russell's teapot. The default stance is that there is nothing there, so you have the burden of proof to provide evidence for free-will.

All our experiments show that the world is deterministic except for quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse, which is random. Neither determinism nor randomness provide space for free-will.

If so, what is the point of saying things like

Fix your own problems - don't come whining to the state to fix them for you. ?

I'd agree that randomness is no friend of free will, but would defend a compatibilist view that the ability to make decisions, including morally significant decisions is compatible with a deterministic universe.

Rather as the use of words like 'you' is useful in a deterministic (with quantum randomness) universe, though from the atomic or QM level of reduction a word like 'you' would make no sense at all that I can see.

David

[Ozymandias]

I'd agree that randomness is no friend of free will, but would defend a compatibilist view that the ability to make decisions, including morally significant decisions is compatible with a deterministic universe.

Rather as the use of words like 'you' is useful in a deterministic (with quantum randomness) universe, though from the atomic or QM level of reduction a word like 'you' would make no sense at all that I can see.


Irrespective of whether or not you have free will, you still exist. After all, cars exist but don't have free will. You are just a collection of atoms obeying the laws of physics.

Also, it does not absolve you from responsibility for your actions. All actions you take are influenced by the configuration of your atoms; in other words, they are influenced by you. If you were different (a different configuration of atoms) your actions would be different and have different consequences.

Of course, this seems intuitively different from the usual notion of "blame" for ones bad behaviour. After all, if "you" have no control over the configuration of your atoms, how can "you" be blamed for their influence on your actions? But this is bad thinking because it presupposes a "you" separate from you as a collection of atoms. I would say there is not other "you" at all, so there is no separation.

This influences my opinions on the notion of "blame". I have said elsewhere on this forum that I disapprove of the notion of apportioning blame - I think the word "justice" to describe our system for dealing with criminals is philosophically faulty and in some sense just woo. We should instead take logical steps to prevent people from harming our society, in much the same way that we would take steps to prevent a machine malfunctioning. If a machine malfunctions and harms someone, we don't feel the need to punish the machine. We fix the problem, or maybe retire the machine from service, and move on.

[Jack Willsson]

I will do whatever seems most valuable to me.

If that, for example, includes breaking a speed limit in order to keep an appointment then I've shown that it's more important/valuable to me to keep my appointments than to comply with the traffic regulations.

Some law enforcement officer "does" me for speeding.

If that happens regularly the "penalty" will get stiffer until it stops being the case that as long as I keep my appointment I don't care if I comply with traffic regulations. I will (hypothetically of course ;) ) probably learn to get up earlier in the morning so that I can keep my appointments without speeding.

I will still do what seems most valuable to me and the law enforcement has worked. In this case it's not "punishment". It's more akin to dog-training.

[columbus]

I will do whatever seems most valuable to me.



This is the point. Nobody is free to do anything except what they perceive as being in their own best interests. What they will perceive as being in their own best interests is not within their control. So, in the absolute sense, there is no such thing as Free will. There is only the freedom to choose what you think is best, from the choices you know about. Ultimately, your choices are as pre-determined as the orbit of the earth.

Those choices are arising from the chaotic system of human brains, which gives the illusion of having no determining factors.

Tom

[Monad]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

[columbus]

relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions

I would agree with this. Relative Free will, and the illusion of absolute free will look the same to me. Freedom is the ability to implement the choices made, but the choices themselves are not free in any absolute sense.

Tom

[Ozymandias]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

[Monad]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

They don't need to

[Monad]

relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions

I would agree with this. Relative Free will, and the illusion of absolute free will look the same to me. Freedom is the ability to implement the choices made, but the choices themselves are not free in any absolute sense.

Tom

An absolutist concept of free will was always a bit of a red herring - even Sartre did not propose magic or that we could do things nature would not allow - only that we have choice. Freedom exists in the ability to choose between options - those options are real and humans and conscious beings have a more sophisticated ability to model and anticipate consequences than less cognitively able organisms, plus the ability to act, which can affect the options available in material ways, not through magic.

[Ozymandias]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

They don't need to

The laws of physics are purely deterministic or random, and thereby leave no room for free will. Which part of that sentence do you have issue with? Do you dispute that the laws of physics are deterministic or random; or do you dispute that this leaves no room for free will?

[Monad]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

They don't need to

The laws of physics are purely deterministic or random, and thereby leave no room for free will. Which part of that sentence do you have issue with? Do you dispute that the laws of physics are deterministic or random; or do you dispute that this leaves no room for free will?

You clearly haven't understood any of my post.

[Ozymandias]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

They don't need to

The laws of physics are purely deterministic or random, and thereby leave no room for free will. Which part of that sentence do you have issue with? Do you dispute that the laws of physics are deterministic or random; or do you dispute that this leaves no room for free will?

You clearly haven't understood any of my post.

You clearly haven't understood any physics.

[David B]

Actually the deterministic nature of macro scale phenomena is exactly why relative free will is possible. i.e. organisms like humans with a large enough cognitive processing capacity to be able to model and anticipate real world events and at the same time factor themselves into that process including the results of their own actions (which themselves also change the conditions within which choices are made) - even on multiple levels of self/system modelling (levels of intentionality) - are able to make decisions (choices) based on their models, expectations and actions. There is nothing magical about the concept of free will, it is entirely possible within a materialistic conception of the universe that understands that human activity is in itself material and therefore part of that universe, and it should always be understood that while we can make choices we can't entirely choose the circumstances under which we make those choices so there are always also real world constraints on choice (and in fact without those constraints choices become meaningless - choice always exists in a context - our freedom is contingent upon necessity). Nevertheless, choice does exist. Marx is probably a better guide than Sartre here ("Man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing") - Merleau Ponty also wrote some good stuff on free will and choice within material (and embodied) conditions.

So can you please explain the mechanism by which the atoms and molecules in your body evade the laws of physics in order to manifest this "free will"?

They don't need to

The laws of physics are purely deterministic or random, and thereby leave no room for free will. Which part of that sentence do you have issue with? Do you dispute that the laws of physics are deterministic or random; or do you dispute that this leaves no room for free will?

You clearly haven't understood any of my post.

You clearly haven't understood any physics.

How do physical laws account for arms and fingers moving to make words on a typeface without some sort of volition on a different level of reduction?

David

[Monad]

lol as if this is about physics

[davidpbrown]

Monad, are you suggesting that the software (mind) can think beyond the hardware (physics)?..

Surely the software is limited to the dimensions that the hardware can see and then only has an illusion of being free. Except in the case that there is a pure seed that sparks the machine, you can only be free where you move beyond what the physical world prompts.

I think FUBG is right in contesting this, as you're not making it clear what is beyond the physics and how.

No doubt there is complexity but that isn't sufficient.

[Ozymandias]

lol as if this is about physics

Of course it is about physics. The physical laws tell us how David B's "arms and fingers" will move, just as surely as they will tell us how a rock will fall if we drop it. To have them move in any way that is not dictated by these laws, to have "free-will", you need to explain to us how the laws can be circumvented.

[Monad]

It's not necessary to circumvent anything as I explained.

[columbus]

It's not necessary to circumvent anything as I explained.

You didn't explain this well enough for me to understand. It still looks to me like you consider the illusion of free will to be free will. In a sense it is, of course. Illusions are quite real, as far as they go.

So, while we very complex molecules might have the ability to model things and make choices based on our perception of those models, we aren't free to do anything outside of the model. We are utterly constrained by our models of our identity and it's relationship to reality. All of our choices are determined by reality, which will remain even if we stop or start believing in it.

ETA: Reality is what doesn't change regardless of what people believe or do.

Tom

[David B]

lol as if this is about physics

Of course it is about physics. The physical laws tell us how David B's "arms and fingers" will move, just as surely as they will tell us how a rock will fall if we drop it. To have them move in any way that is not dictated by these laws, to have "free-will", you need to explain to us how the laws can be circumvented.

My bold.

Not so much circumvented as taken advantage of by the blind algorithms of evolution.

Monad and I are neither of us advocating any sort of magical free will, just evolved abilities to make choices at a different level of reduction to (though consistent with) the laws governing gravity etc.

A corpse does not have the freedom to type, but you do.

David

[Monad]

It's not necessary to circumvent anything as I explained.

You didn't explain this well enough for me to understand. It still looks to me like you consider the illusion of free will to be free will. In a sense it is, of course. Illusions are quite real, as far as they go.

So, while we very complex molecules might have the ability to model things and make choices based on our perception of those models, we aren't free to do anything outside of the model. We are utterly constrained by our models of our identity and it's relationship to reality. All of our choices are determined by reality, which will remain even if we stop or start believing in it.

ETA: Reality is what doesn't change regardless of what people believe or do.

Tom

You're still stuck in this idea that free will must be either absolute or an illusion. It's a false dichotomy.

[Monad]

Monad, are you suggesting that the software (mind) can think beyond the hardware (physics)?..

Surely the software is limited to the dimensions that the hardware can see and then only has an illusion of being free. Except in the case that there is a pure seed that sparks the machine, you can only be free where you move beyond what the physical world prompts.

I think FUBG is right in contesting this, as you're not making it clear what is beyond the physics and how.

No doubt there is complexity but that isn't sufficient.

No this software/hardware analogy is flawed. This is not at all just about thinking but also action - the cognitive aspect is the ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions, plan actions and anticipate how they in turn affect our choices but we can also act to change the world around us in material ways, for example to change our environment using tools etc. There is no need to go "beyond the physics" - that is an absurd idea.

[columbus]

It's not necessary to circumvent anything as I explained.

You didn't explain this well enough for me to understand. It still looks to me like you consider the illusion of free will to be free will. In a sense it is, of course. Illusions are quite real, as far as they go.

So, while we very complex molecules might have the ability to model things and make choices based on our perception of those models, we aren't free to do anything outside of the model. We are utterly constrained by our models of our identity and it's relationship to reality. All of our choices are determined by reality, which will remain even if we stop or start believing in it.

ETA: Reality is what doesn't change regardless of what people believe or do.

Tom

You're still stuck in this idea that free will must be either absolute or an illusion. It's a false dichotomy.

OK, I see the dichotomy. What I don't see is why your truth is truthier than mine. I can well see why humans would prefer to believe that their choices are free. Beliefs based on preference, rather than evidence, are what I mean by Faith. But I see no evidence that humans are able to make choices that are not determined by forces beyond their control, and so I see Free will as a Faith based belief.

Change the meaning of the term "Free Will" subtley from "unconstrained" to "unconstrained except by human limitations", and I'm OK with it. But what that means to me is that you are changing the meaning of Free will from Free to "less constrained". I see humans as being just as constrained as stars, but in different ways. Our behaviour is more chaotic than the gravitational pull on a star, but it isn't any less determined by forces beyond human control.

Human behaviour is like weather. Very predictable, but only in a long term way. That is why we teach classes in macro-economics and climate, but you can't take a class in "what will your wife do if you don't like her new jeans" or "what will tomorrow's weather be like in London"

Tom

[Politesse]

Suppose I mispel a word in this post. I do not, in fact, need to do so. There are many, many ways I could have written that word in this post, plenty of ways I could have tried to make the same rhetorical point.

Nevertheless, what I "could" have done seems to me far less important than what I "would" have done, or indeed did do. A thousand factors may have influenced my decision to mispel misspell. The language I speak, the culture I belong to, the woman who taught me English and the man who taught me Debate, my personality and disposition, what I saw as my goals in this thread, and all of the deeply internalized ideas about logic and persuasion I have acquired. And it seems to me that the likelihood of my doing it in any other way only seems to have a probability of more than zero because so many of those factors are unknown to us. In objective reality, I simply would not have done it any other way, even if I technically could. Monad's free will is a simple observation that choices, demonstrably, exist. I don't dispute this. But if human behavior is completely and utterly predictable, I don't really see how our wills can really be called free. We will always do whatever we think it is best. But what we think is best is based on entirely solid, demonstrable, discoverable reasons and influences. I don't think there's any point in remarking that I could have had turkey sandwich this morning, if in reality the probability of my having gone for ham instead was 0, if you knew all of the factors that informed my decision, and the cultural sources that taught me how to evaluate those factors and make the call. What kind of a useless choice is it, if I was always going to go for the turkey?

[davidpbrown]

Monad, are you suggesting that the software (mind) can think beyond the hardware (physics)?..

No this software/hardware analogy is flawed.
...
There is no need to go "beyond the physics" - that is an absurd idea.

It's not absurd, it's fundamental. If you're suggesting we are more than deterministic machines, built from the physics, then understanding what is beyond the physics and what is not, is key to understanding our limitations.

Changing the environment and the other examples you gave are properly trivial, they don't necessarily suggest anything of free will. Politesse gave similar example.

What I was tempting was the idea of a non-deterministic Turing machine (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Non-deterministic_Turing_machine) but you seem to be on a different line from that.

If you are suggesting that we are non-deterministic Turing machines and that we have the option of more than one action for a given situation, then that is perhaps beyond the limitations of the simple physics. The physics being the stage on which we play our games.

That is, free will is having choice in a given situation.

[Monad]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here - I will try one more time and then that's it because I hate discussing philosophy generally anyway - it always ends up in arguments over semantics etc - very boring.

It seems to me you're all arguing still against an absolute concept of free will and can't escape the idea that any sort of free will, even relatively free will (which is what I'm arguing for) is somehow against natural law. No one is saying (at least as far as I can see) that there are no constraints, no limits, no physical laws etc, or that we don't have certain tendencies - whether the result of nature or nurture, that influence our thoughts and actions. My point was that it is precisely because of those laws etc that we can make some predictions and model the consequences of the choices we are given and the influences upon us, and make conscious decisions based on that. In fact we have the capability not only to model events, but also to model other people's intentions and potential actions (to multiple levels of intentionality) and the consequences of our own actions, including any actions that may affect the choices we are given (because for humans our environments are not fixed things, we actively interact with them to adapt them to improve the choices we have at our disposal) - a lot of philosophy and psychology ignores the importance of human activity but it isn't trivial at all, it changes everything - we are not passive observers and modellers of the world but active participants in it and we change the world through our activity. So to start with we have a relative amount of freedom of choice, but we can also act to widen those choices and potentially to widen our freedom of action, as well as use our cognitive skills to problem solve options so where it might have seemed there was no choice, choices can be found that no organism without the capacity to problem solve would have even known existed.

So we have relative freedom of action, relative freedom of volition (will) and the ability to widen the choices we have thorough our activity and our problem solving abilities. All this is the result of our biological and cultural evolution. No magic involved at any point - we are adaptive and relatively flexible sentient beings, we are not blind robots.

[David B]

Dennett put in two words as the title of a book, and at rather greater length within it's pages.

Freedom evolves.

Hofstadter, Dennett's friend and occasional collaborator, goes into depth about understanding things differently at different levels of reduction in 'I am a Strange Loop'.

I commend both to those mystified by how people like me can talk about free will as a meaningful concept without inserting anything magical.

David

[Ozymandias]

davidpbrown is exactly right - we are deterministic machines based on the laws of physics. Any action we take is either predetermined by the laws of physics acting on the initial conditions of the system or random as prescribed by quantum mechanics. I am willing to entertain the notion that this might not be true, but no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

Free will is woo, and people like Dennett are either intellectually dishonest or high priests of woo (and perhaps both).

[David B]

davidpbrown is exactly right - we are deterministic machines based on the laws of physics. Any action we take is either predetermined by the laws of physics acting on the initial conditions of the system or random as prescribed by quantum mechanics. I am willing to entertain the notion that this might not be true, but no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

Free will is woo, and people like Dennett are either intellectually dishonest or high priests of woo (and perhaps both).

So the opportunities for a person to make choices are the same as the opportunities of a rock to make choices?

Both are subject to physical laws, sure, but I don't think so.

David

[Ozymandias]

So the opportunities for a person to make choices are the same as the opportunities of a rock to make choices?


Yes. Free will is an illusion. If you don't agree, then you should provide evidence for the physical mechanism that allows it.

[David B]

So the opportunities for a person to make choices are the same as the opportunities of a rock to make choices?


Yes. Free will is an illusion. If you don't agree, then you should provide evidence for the physical mechanism that allows it.

Well both you and I can make posts on discussion boards. If you think a rock can do it as well, then I'd suggest that that is something that you need to provide evidence for.

David

[Ozymandias]

Well both you and I can make posts on discussion boards. If you think a rock can do it as well, then I'd suggest that that is something that you need to provide evidence for.

David

Do you honestly believe it needs free-will to make posts on a message board?

[David B]

Well both you and I can make posts on discussion boards. If you think a rock can do it as well, then I'd suggest that that is something that you need to provide evidence for.

David

Do you honestly believe it needs free-will to make posts on a message board?

The non existent sort of magical free will, no.

Evolved degrees of freedom, then yes.

A rock can't do it.

David

[Ozymandias]

So you are claiming that free-will comes out of intelligence? At what point does a being have enough intelligence to have your "free will"?

[David B]

So you are claiming that free-will comes out of intelligence?

Not really. More the ability of an entity (I think you have conceded implicitly that there are entities) to detect something and react to it.

At what point does a being have enough intelligence to have your "free will"?

I don't see will as being an on/off switch. More a continuum.

Somewhere towards the bottom of the scale would be the ability of a germinated seed to grow leaves up and roots down, giving it a level of freedom denied to a dead seed.

Higher up the scale would be a crow making a decision to cache a piece of food, but observing another crow watching, and hence pretending to cache it, then caching it elsewhere.

Note that both involve things moving in ways not directly predicted by Newton's laws.

David

[Ozymandias]

Not really. More the ability of an entity (I think you have conceded implicitly that there are entities) to detect something and react to it.


Like how a thrown rock detects gravity and reacts to it by falling?


I don't see will as being an on/off switch. More a continuum.

Somewhere towards the bottom of the scale would be the ability of a germinated seed to grow leaves up and roots down, giving it a level of freedom denied to a dead seed.

Higher up the scale would be a crow making a decision to cache a piece of food, but observing another crow watching, and hence pretending to cache it, then caching it elsewhere.


Either something has free-will or it doesn't. There can be no half way. It seems that you are saying that a seed has free-will since it reacts to its environment via an algorithm encoded in its DNA. What about a computer, that reacts to external stimulus according to a programmed algorithm? Does it have free-will too?


Note that both involve things moving in ways not directly predicted by Newton's laws.


On the contrary, both of these are well within the remit of Newton's laws (although I admit that a crow's brain may have some quantum mechanical effects). Each of these is perfectly predictable if you have a big enough computer.

[David B]

Not really. More the ability of an entity (I think you have conceded implicitly that there are entities) to detect something and react to it.


Like how a thrown rock detects gravity and reacts to it by falling?

A bit too minimalist for my taste. A flying bird detecting gravity, and counteracts it by exploiting other physical laws has a greater degree of freedom, and that would be on my freedom scale.


I don't see will as being an on/off switch. More a continuum.

Somewhere towards the bottom of the scale would be the ability of a germinated seed to grow leaves up and roots down, giving it a level of freedom denied to a dead seed.

Higher up the scale would be a crow making a decision to cache a piece of food, but observing another crow watching, and hence pretending to cache it, then caching it elsewhere.


Either something has free-will or it doesn't. There can be no half way. It seems that you are saying that a seed has free-will since it reacts to its environment via an algorithm encoded in its DNA. What about a computer, that reacts to external stimulus according to a programmed algorithm? Does it have free-will too?

Such a computer has a greater degree of freedom than one identical except insofar as it is switched off.


Note that both involve things moving in ways not directly predicted by Newton's laws.


On the contrary, both of these are well within the remit of Newton's laws (although I admit that a crow's brain may have some quantum mechanical effects). Each of these is perfectly predictable if you have a big enough computer.

I'd have thought that there would be chaotic effects rendering perfect prediction problematical, but that is something of a red herring to my mind. Certainly Newton's laws are involved, but not Newton's laws alone.

Both have abilities, and to a greater or lesser extent, volitions, denied to a dead seed or a dead bird.

We agree that there is no magical freedom, but I still maintain that possessing faculties like abilities and volitions render the concept of freedom meaningful and valuable.


David

[trendkill]

If free will is the ability to make choices, then I believe in free will. However, dictionaries list different definitions for it, such as this one (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/free%20will):The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.This kind of free will is patent nonsense. And I would say that the second kind is the only kind that matters for the sake of philosophical debate. It is obvious that we make choices. The only question is whether those choices are free or not. If freedom is some kind of idiocy like being free from the circumstances that make us who we are, then clearly, we are not free (and have no need for freedom). And that is the kind of idiotic "freedom" that the free will debate is about.

[Monad]

Well the ideas of "fate" and "divine will" are patent nonsense too so not a good definition really. Then again, the problem with ultra determinism that doesn't recognise the role of relative freedom of choice and volition or human activity is it often ends up as a kind of metaphysical fatalism.

[Ozymandias]

Such a computer has a greater degree of freedom than one identical except insofar as it is switched off.


You didn't answer my question. Does the computer have free-will? Does my laptop have free-will?



I'd have thought that there would be chaotic effects rendering perfect prediction problematical, but that is something of a red herring to my mind. Certainly Newton's laws are involved, but not Newton's laws alone.


This is a common misunderstanding of Chaos. Chaos is about order emerging from disordered systems. There is nothing acausal in chaos - everything still obeys cause and effect, and if Newton's laws are applicable (ie. no relativistic or quantum effects) they remain applicable in chaotic systems.


We agree that there is no magical freedom, but I still maintain that possessing faculties like abilities and volitions render the concept of freedom meaningful and valuable.


I think these two statements are inconsistent. The "concept of freedom" requires "magic" in the sense that it requires a violation of physical laws. It may be that this magic exists - there may be some physical mechanism that we don't know about that lets us have free-will, but we have no evidence for it, so why should I consider it?

In my opinion, believing in the existence of free-will requires just as much woo as believing in an omnipotent god.

Then again, the problem with ultra determinism that doesn't recognise the role of relative freedom of choice and volition or human activity is it often ends up as a kind of metaphysical fatalism.

You can't just change the nature of reality because you deem it to have negative social consequences. I am sure that many people would say that a world-view that doesn't recognise religion often ends up as a kind of metaphysical amorality, but we don't recognise that view as legitimizing religion.

[David B]

Such a computer has a greater degree of freedom than one identical except insofar as it is switched off.


You didn't answer my question. Does the computer have free-will? Does my laptop have free-will?

I don't accept your assertion that free-will is an on off switch. A computer which can monitor the environment and change its actions accordingly would, as I use the word, have some sort of proto free-will.



I'd have thought that there would be chaotic effects rendering perfect prediction problematical, but that is something of a red herring to my mind. Certainly Newton's laws are involved, but not Newton's laws alone.


This is a common misunderstanding of Chaos. Chaos is about order emerging from disordered systems. There is nothing acausal in chaos - everything still obeys cause and effect, and if Newton's laws are applicable (ie. no relativistic or quantum effects) they remain applicable in chaotic systems.

Then let us say 'butterfly effect' instead.


We agree that there is no magical freedom, but I still maintain that possessing faculties like abilities and volitions render the concept of freedom meaningful and valuable.


I think these two statements are inconsistent. The "concept of freedom" requires "magic" in the sense that it requires a violation of physical laws. It may be that this magic exists - there may be some physical mechanism that we don't know about that lets us have free-will, but we have no evidence for it, so why should I consider it?

In my opinion, believing in the existence of free-will requires just as much woo as believing in an omnipotent god.

My bold. My concept of freedom requires no such thing. It lies at bottom on a facility for rendering what would be otherwise inevitable avoidable. As in a fly being able, sometimes, to react to and avoid a fly swatter.

Then again, the problem with ultra determinism that doesn't recognise the role of relative freedom of choice and volition or human activity is it often ends up as a kind of metaphysical fatalism.

You can't just change the nature of reality because you deem it to have negative social consequences. I am sure that many people would say that a world-view that doesn't recognise religion often ends up as a kind of metaphysical amorality, but we don't recognise that view as legitimizing religion.

But we can recognise that not recognising religion does not inevitably end up as a kind of metaphysical amorality. Some of us do:)

David

[trendkill]

Well the ideas of "fate" and "divine will" are patent nonsense too so not a good definition really.I don't see why that follows. Fate and divine will are just specific examples of potential "external circumstances" that free will proponents tend to fear. They aren't the only kind. In fact I'd say more mundane circumstances are cited much more often than supernatural ones (e.g. the "determinism" boogeyman).

Then again, the problem with ultra determinism that doesn't recognise the role of relative freedom of choice and volition or human activity is it often ends up as a kind of metaphysical fatalism.I'm not sure I can make any sense out of this sentence, but it sounds like the same kind of nonsense that characterizes the usual pro-free-will position, i.e. the idea that volition or choice is somehow in opposition to determinism/causation rather than being dependent on causation.

[Monad]

If you think so you haven't read my earlier posts - if anything it requires causation. I don't see why a concept of fate or in particular divine will is any less nonsensical than absolute free will though. They all seem pretty mystical and probably untestable concepts really.

[trendkill]

If you think so you haven't read my earlier posts -I suppose I haven't. When I post a reply to an OP in a long thread, I generally do not carefully read over the entire thread first. If someone else then decides to reply to me, I usually take the reply at face value.

if anything it requires causation. I don't see why a concept of fate or in particular divine will is any less nonsensical than absolute free will though. They all seem pretty mystical and probably untestable concepts really.Any claim that something exists and is relevant to our world is probably testable, at least in theory.

[Ozymandias]

Any claim that something exists and is relevant to our world is probably testable, at least in theory.

Of course their claim is testable. We have been testing it for generations, and so far, all phenomena have been perfectly predictable. So there is plenty of evidence that free-will is just woo, but of course some people on this site like to ignore the evidence when it doesn't fit their point of view.

[Monad]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah right

[columbus]

If free will is the ability to make choices, then I believe in free will. However, dictionaries list different definitions for it, such as this one (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/free%20will):The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.This kind of free will is patent nonsense. And I would say that the second kind is the only kind that matters for the sake of philosophical debate. It is obvious that we make choices. The only question is whether those choices are free or not.

This sort of semantic argument is why I think Free will makes a poor debate topic amongst the atheists of Secular Cafe. Absolute Free will only exists in the minds of theists who are trying to plaster over the incoherency of the POE. Otherwise, freedom is just the ability to choose from amongst the tiny set of choices available based on our own personal idiosyncracies. Freedom is relative. The more able to choose what is in your own best interests the freer you are. Because that is all we are free to do.

Tom

[Kracker]

If free will is the ability to make choices, then I believe in free will. However, dictionaries list different definitions for it, such as this one (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/free%20will):The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.This kind of free will is patent nonsense. And I would say that the second kind is the only kind that matters for the sake of philosophical debate. It is obvious that we make choices. The only question is whether those choices are free or not.

This sort of semantic argument is why I think Free will makes a poor debate topic amongst the atheists of Secular Cafe. Absolute Free will only exists in the minds of theists who are trying to plaster over the incoherency of the POE. Otherwise, freedom is just the ability to choose from amongst the tiny set of choices available based on our own personal idiosyncracies. Freedom is relative. The more able to choose what is in your own best interests the freer you are. Because that is all we are free to do.

Tom

:evil:'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'......I dont consider myself a theist Tom. I guess I'd call myself a 'Jesus man'. Would you consider me a theist based on that ? I know the protestant reformers didnt believe in free will. Luther left more room than Calvin in that regard. The bigger question is why doesnt anybody want to see you naked ? I'm starting to think all kinds of crazy shit and feel sympathy for you at the same time. I truly have no desire to either but if would make you feel better I'd look.:o

[trendkill]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah rightTell that to all the scientists who have done studies on intercessory prayer.

[Ozymandias]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah right

If they are "relevant to our world" as trendkill said, then they must be testable. If they can't be tested, they are not relevant. I personally would say that these two are not relevant, but if you can define them in a way which is, I am happy to test them...

[Politesse]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah rightTell that to all the scientists who have done studies on intercessory prayer.

I note that such tests assume a God willing to be proven.

[trendkill]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah rightTell that to all the scientists who have done studies on intercessory prayer.

I note that such tests assume a God willing to be proven.I dunno about that. Maybe they assume a God who is not going to leave people hanging whose prayers he would have otherwise answered just because a scientist happened to be paying attention at the time. But I don't think they even need to assume that much. If they see nothing much that looks like a response to prayer (which I gather is basically the case), that just means that there's no evidence of prayer. It could be interpreted as evidence for a God who wants to make sure people don't have any evidence of him, but that's where Occam's Razor comes in.

[columbus]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah rightTell that to all the scientists who have done studies on intercessory prayer.

I note that such tests assume a God willing to be proven.

That would be a reasonable assumption if we are talking about the god of the Bible.

Didn't he lead His People out of Egypt, and stop the sun in the sky? Didn't He make water into wine, and walk on water? The god being prayed to by Christians has flaunted His Existence all through the Bible.

He only became too shy to perfom mighty acts quite recently in historical terms.

Tom

[Ozymandias]

Divine will and fate are things in the world and therefore testable? Yeah right

I also note that you are reinforcing my argument here, since you place "divine will" and "fate" on a comparable scientific standing as "free will". If you regard the belief in "divine will" as woo, why do you not regard "free will" as woo too?

I am happy to believe in "free will" if you can provide any evidence of it. Until then, I will regard it as fanciful delusion.

[jimbo]

Here's an interesting video i watched a while back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3AiOS4nCE

Maybe on some things your unconscious mind has already made a decision and your conscious mind has no choice but to follow through on it.
Interesting.

[columbus]

OK, Toker.

You said you wanted a debate about Free will. I accepted the challenge. I described the terms I thought reasonable.

You never have responded. I keep getting PM's from DMB, and I always respond to her and you, but you never respond. She keeps getting in the cross-fire, but you never say anything.


If you want to debate me then stop ignoring my many posts and stop pestering DMB. Respond to me directly, leave DMB out of it. I posted that I would debate you, and you have ignored me ever since! You have not once acknowledged that I have taken up your debate, you keep ignoring that.


Frankly, I'm not as inclined to bother with you as I was a couple of weeks ago. I took you up, you ignored me, and here we are now. You give me a reason to believe that debating you is worth my time, or just shut the fuck up.

Tom

[columbus]

:evil:'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'......
OK, you just made me go dig out Pearl. Hope you're satisfied.:D

I dont consider myself a theist Tom. I guess I'd call myself a 'Jesus man'. Would you consider me a theist based on that ? No, I don't think you are a theist based on that. I consider you a theist based on other things you've said. But, I do think you are a theist.
I also consider myself a "Jesus man". However, I am confident Jesus' body is centuries old dust and that there is no "ineffable omni-max Being", so I am not a theist.

I do wonder why you don't consider yourself a theist. It sounds, to me, like the Christians who say, "I'm not religious. I'm a Christian!". Like making the assertion that their religion is reality is more convincing if a baldly unsupported claim:dunno:

I know the protestant reformers didnt believe in free will. Luther left more room than Calvin in that regard. I think that by then it was becoming obvious to all thinking people that Christian theology was logically incoherent. So theologians were plastering over the incoherencies they felt were most important, even if it left other gaping holes widening.

The bigger question is why doesnt anybody want to see you naked ? I'm starting to think all kinds of crazy shit and feel sympathy for you at the same time. I truly have no desire to either but if would make you feel better I'd look.:o
Anybody who wants to see me naked is Free to do so. I, personally, consider clothing an over-rated option. I like being in places where I don't have to wear clothes. Today is sunny and in the high eighties. I don't need clothes for anything, except to protect the sensibilities of others. But if you want to see me naked, you'll have to come here. You won't find any pics of me on the net.

Notice that I did not ask you to describe the "crazy shit" you are thinking and feeling and not desiring. Truly, I'd rather not know.

Tom

[Kracker]

:evil:'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'......
OK, you just made me go dig out Pearl. Hope you're satisfied.:D

I dont consider myself a theist Tom. I guess I'd call myself a 'Jesus man'. Would you consider me a theist based on that ? No, I don't think you are a theist based on that. I consider you a theist based on other things you've said. But, I do think you are a theist.
I also consider myself a "Jesus man". However, I am confident Jesus' body is centuries old dust and that there is no "ineffable omni-max Being", so I am not a theist.

I do wonder why you don't consider yourself a theist. It sounds, to me, like the Christians who say, "I'm not religious. I'm a Christian!". Like making the assertion that their religion is reality is more convincing if a baldly unsupported claim:dunno:

I know the protestant reformers didnt believe in free will. Luther left more room than Calvin in that regard. I think that by then it was becoming obvious to all thinking people that Christian theology was logically incoherent. So theologians were plastering over the incoherencies they felt were most important, even if it left other gaping holes widening.

The bigger question is why doesnt anybody want to see you naked ? I'm starting to think all kinds of crazy shit and feel sympathy for you at the same time. I truly have no desire to either but if would make you feel better I'd look.:o
Anybody who wants to see me naked is Free to do so. I, personally, consider clothing an over-rated option. I like being in places where I don't have to wear clothes. Today is sunny and in the high eighties. I don't need clothes for anything, except to protect the sensibilities of others. But if you want to see me naked, you'll have to come here. You won't find any pics of me on the net.

Notice that I did not ask you to describe the "crazy shit" you are thinking and feeling and not desiring. Truly, I'd rather not know.

Tom

;)I guess I would fit the label of a theist by my 1946 Winston college dictionary. I remember the time I considered myself a Deist and would put in in the blank that asked for religion. You can imagine the looks I got then. Luther said reason was anathema to faith. I guess thats true as far as my beliefs go. I believe, I faithe because I have made a choice to do so. For me its not based on reason but on my life experiences. I do believe there is "the that, behind all that' as the buddhist's say. C.S.Lewis said either Jesus was who he said he was or he was delusional much like the man who said he was a boiled egg. I will be the first to agree that the notion of An all powerful, all knowing God sending his son to die for the same people who denied and persecuted him is 'crazy'. Maybe you have to be a little 'off center' to have faith in the story of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I will say it has changed me. I dont judge anyone else or have any hatred in my heart for anyone. As Lynard Skynard sang 'I aint hiding from nobody, aint nobody hiding from me'. I aint gonna say I'd give ya my last dime but you're welcome to a nickle of it. There are far more people claiming to be christians than they're truly are. And what if I'm wrong and this life is all there is ? I havent lost anything by believing and It's not a bad way to live. I'm at peace whitin myself. I dont fear the sight of the 'man in the mirror'. I truly believe though. With as much faith as I can muster I believe. Be well Tom.........Gregg

[columbus]

If you believe that there is an omni-max being(s) you are a theist. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you are a Christian theist. You seem to believe, quite strongly, that both of these are true, which is why I consider you a theist.

If I am misunderstanding you, then feel Free(not that Free). Tell me what Christianity means in the absence of theism.

Tom

[columbus]

C.S.Lewis said either Jesus was who he said he was or he was delusional much like the man who said he was a boiled egg. I think CS Lewis was a very educated idiot. There are plenty of reasons for the stories about what Jesus said that have nothing to do with God or theology. The fact is, nobody knows what Jesus said about anything. C S Lewis just assumes that what other people claim Jesus said is truth.

I have more respect for Jesus than to take other people's word for what He said, much less what He meant.

Does that make me a "Jesus man"? Jesus is too cool and important to limit Him to Christian theology in my very strong opinion.

I don't believe in God, but I believe in Jesus.

Tom

[Kracker]

C.S.Lewis said either Jesus was who he said he was or he was delusional much like the man who said he was a boiled egg. I think CS Lewis was a very educated idiot. There are plenty of reasons for the stories about what Jesus said that have nothing to do with God or theology. The fact is, nobody knows what Jesus said about anything. C S Lewis just assumes that what other people claim Jesus said is truth.

I have more respect for Jesus than to take other people's word for what He said, much less what He meant.

Does that make me a "Jesus man"? Jesus is too cool and important to limit Him to Christian theology in my very strong opinion.

I don't believe in God, but I believe in Jesus.

Tom

Yep Tom, that makes you a "Jesus man". And I'm in agreement with you as well in the 'limiting' of Jesus to Christian theology. He's too big to put in a box. Thats where the theology fails. Be well

[columbus]

C.S.Lewis said either Jesus was who he said he was or he was delusional much like the man who said he was a boiled egg. I think CS Lewis was a very educated idiot. There are plenty of reasons for the stories about what Jesus said that have nothing to do with God or theology. The fact is, nobody knows what Jesus said about anything. C S Lewis just assumes that what other people claim Jesus said is truth.

I have more respect for Jesus than to take other people's word for what He said, much less what He meant.

Does that make me a "Jesus man"? Jesus is too cool and important to limit Him to Christian theology in my very strong opinion.

I don't believe in God, but I believe in Jesus.

Tom

Yep Tom, that makes you a "Jesus man". And I'm in agreement with you as well in the 'limiting' of Jesus to Christian theology. He's too big to put in a box. Thats where the theology fails. Be well

I'm still curious.

You sound like a theist, someone who believes in God. If you are an atheist/skeptic/agnostic/whatever then what makes you a "token" at Jobar's gatherings?

You don't have to be a theist to be a Jesus man. But you sound like a theist to me. So if you do not believe in God then you aren't a theist. But if you do believe in God, even if it isn't Jesus, then you are a theist. If you believe in God and don't believe that Jesus is a God, then you could be a theistic Christian. However, that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Are you a Christian, or a Jesus man?

Tom

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

I would venture that we are all born with innate free will - then it's a matter of context as whether we are allowed to exercise it - e.g. living in a democracy, you're pretty much free to think and act as you please, within reason and the laws of the land (and even then you're free to brake them, although not with out consequences).

By comparison, those living in dictatorships (e.g. the former USSR, China, Libya, Iran etc.) may have free will, but are not free to exercise it.

Then there are other contextual aspects which might affect one's ability to exercise free will - e.g. drug dependency - you might not want to take the drugs, but invariably you will do unless you have a will of steel or cannot get access to them.

Other aspects which might affect one's ability to exercise free will include mental health issues, where conflicting signals from the brain disavow you of the ability to make the proper or required cognitive actions - e.g. dementia.

Just some thoughts.

[David B]

Very good! Those claiming we have no free will, are drinking from Russell's teapot. It would take a gigantic idiot to choose to claim we cannot make choices. Idiots abound, so I'm waiting. Speak up, Tom.

I would venture that we are all born with innate free will - then it's a matter of context as whether we are allowed to exercise it - e.g. living in a democracy, you're pretty much free to think and act as you please, within reason and the laws of the land (and even then you're free to brake them, although not with out consequences).

By comparison, those living in dictatorships (e.g. the former USSR, China, Libya, Iran etc.) may have free will, but are not free to exercise it.

Then there are other contextual aspects which might affect one's ability to exercise free will - e.g. drug dependency - you might not want to take the drugs, but invariably you will do unless you have a will of steel or cannot get access to them.

Other aspects which might affect one's ability to exercise free will include mental health issues, where conflicting signals from the brain disavow you of the ability to make the proper or required cognitive actions - e.g. dementia.

Just some thoughts.

My bold. I see infants as very much constrained by their abilities to cry, shit, suckle and breathe, start learning about the world they find themselves in and how to move their limbs and eyes and stuff like that.

Not a lot of what could be reasonably called free-will in a newborn infant to my mind.

David

[Full Tilt Boogie]

My bold. I see infants as very much constrained by their abilities to cry, shit, suckle and breathe, start learning about the world they find themselves in and how to move their limbs and eyes and stuff like that.

Not a lot of what could be reasonably called free-will in a newborn infant to my mind.

David

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't advocating that new born infants are able to exercise free will - I said humans were born with it. Naturally the skills and experience required to exercise it come with time.

[David B]

My bold. I see infants as very much constrained by their abilities to cry, shit, suckle and breathe, start learning about the world they find themselves in and how to move their limbs and eyes and stuff like that.

Not a lot of what could be reasonably called free-will in a newborn infant to my mind.

David

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't advocating that new born infants are able to exercise free will - I said humans were born with it. Naturally the skills and experience required to exercise it come with time.


Oh - so when you say we are born with innate free will you mean it in the same sense as we are born with the innate ability to play football?

David

[Full Tilt Boogie]

My bold. I see infants as very much constrained by their abilities to cry, shit, suckle and breathe, start learning about the world they find themselves in and how to move their limbs and eyes and stuff like that.

Not a lot of what could be reasonably called free-will in a newborn infant to my mind.

David

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't advocating that new born infants are able to exercise free will - I said humans were born with it. Naturally the skills and experience required to exercise it come with time.


Oh - so when you say we are born with innate free will you mean it in the same sense as we are born with the innate ability to play football?

David

No - whilst anyone can hoof a ball about, the ability to play football to any decent level is an acquired skill (which you either possess or you don't) - which only develops with practise - I think the juries still out on claims that you can be a "born football player".

[Kracker]

C.S.Lewis said either Jesus was who he said he was or he was delusional much like the man who said he was a boiled egg. I think CS Lewis was a very educated idiot. There are plenty of reasons for the stories about what Jesus said that have nothing to do with God or theology. The fact is, nobody knows what Jesus said about anything. C S Lewis just assumes that what other people claim Jesus said is truth.

I have more respect for Jesus than to take other people's word for what He said, much less what He meant.

Does that make me a "Jesus man"? Jesus is too cool and important to limit Him to Christian theology in my very strong opinion.

I don't believe in God, but I believe in Jesus.

Tom

Yep Tom, that makes you a "Jesus man". And I'm in agreement with you as well in the 'limiting' of Jesus to Christian theology. He's too big to put in a box. Thats where the theology fails. Be well

I'm still curious.

You sound like a theist, someone who believes in God. If you are an atheist/skeptic/agnostic/whatever then what makes you a "token" at Jobar's gatherings?

You don't have to be a theist to be a Jesus man. But you sound like a theist to me. So if you do not believe in God then you aren't a theist. But if you do believe in God, even if it isn't Jesus, then you are a theist. If you believe in God and don't believe that Jesus is a God, then you could be a theistic Christian. However, that isn't the same as being a Christian.

Are you a Christian, or a Jesus man?

Tom

Tom I do believe in God. I believe in the Triune God. God the Father (The Ancient of Day's) God the Son (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) God's only begotten son who came in the flesh to kin himself with mankind in order that his sacrifice would be sufficient to regain the birth right mankind lost at the fall. And then God the Holy spirit. The greek word is paraclete (the one who walks beside).. I dont pretend to truly understand it nor can I explain it. Even Billy Graham stated he couldnt either. Its not required that I understand only that I believe or 'faithe'. Its the act of faith that connects my spirit with God through Jesus and adopts me into the family of God.......Now all thats basic christian theology that 80% of the preachers flock are not being taught. When I call myself a 'Jesus" man I'm attempting to shed any 'labels' from any denominations saying only that I believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a real historical person who was truly 'God' come in the flesh. Old testament law held that if a person lost an inheritence only another kin to him could buy it back....folks see the ten commandments and dont realize there are over 600 in total Moses brought to the Israelites(not jews but Israelites) All jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are jews. Jew is just an abbreviation of decsendants from the tribe of Judah. There are 11 more tribes 10 of which were supposedly lost to history during the babylonian captivity. I know I've gotten long winded here but thats as concise as I could explain it:)

[columbus]

Tom I do believe in God. I believe in the Triune God. God the Father (The Ancient of Day's) God the Son (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) God's only begotten son who came in the flesh to kin himself with mankind in order that his sacrifice would be sufficient to regain the birth right mankind lost at the fall. And then God the Holy spirit.

OK, I understand all that. It is standard issue Christian theology. What you claimed is that you are not a theist. That was the statement that I was questioning.

So, I'm still asking. Why did you say that you are not a theist, when you also say that you believe in God?

The standard issue USonian belief about God, no less. That is theism, here in Jesus man land. We USonians allow other flavors of theism, sometimes, but you are have just described yourself as the most standard variety of theist possible.

So, I'm asking. Why did you claim that you are not a theist?

Tom

[Ozymandias]

So, I'm still asking. Why did you say that you are not a theist, when you also say that you believe in God?


Following on from the discussion we had with Poli a wee while ago, if Kracker wants to self-identify himself as a non-theist, he should be allowed to do so, irrespective of the details of his beliefs.

[Kracker]

Tom I do believe in God. I believe in the Triune God. God the Father (The Ancient of Day's) God the Son (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) God's only begotten son who came in the flesh to kin himself with mankind in order that his sacrifice would be sufficient to regain the birth right mankind lost at the fall. And then God the Holy spirit.

OK, I understand all that. It is standard issue Christian theology. What you claimed is that you are not a theist. That was the statement that I was questioning.

So, I'm still asking. Why did you say that you are not a theist, when you also say that you believe in God?

The standard issue USonian belief about God, no less. That is theism, here in Jesus man land. We USonians allow other flavors of theism, sometimes, but you are have just described yourself as the most standard variety of theist possible.

So, I'm asking. Why did you claim that you are not a theist?

Tom

I dont think I claimed I wasnt a theist. I believe I said I really didnt consider myself a theist. After you initially questioned me on it I did a little further study and realized I would fit the definition of a theist. I believe I was confusing deist with theist. The majority of our founding fathers were more closely aligned with deist than theist. A deist being one who believes in God based upon reason rather than revelation or authority.

[columbus]

I dont think I claimed I wasnt a theist. I believe I said I really didnt consider myself a theist. After you initially questioned me on it I did a little further study and realized I would fit the definition of a theist. I believe I was confusing deist with theist.

I expect you'd be fun to spend an evening with, on a Georgia river bank, doused in DEET and Jack Black:)

Tom

[Kracker]

I dont think I claimed I wasnt a theist. I believe I said I really didnt consider myself a theist. After you initially questioned me on it I did a little further study and realized I would fit the definition of a theist. I believe I was confusing deist with theist.

I expect you'd be fun to spend an evening with, on a Georgia river bank, doused in DEET and Jack Black:)

Tom

:)Enough Jack Black and you dont need the DEET. 'Skeeter's wont bite if your BAC (blood alcohol content) is high enough. Be well Tom

[Full Tilt Boogie]

So, I'm still asking. Why did you say that you are not a theist, when you also say that you believe in God?


Following on from the discussion we had with Poli a wee while ago, if Kracker wants to self-identify himself as a non-theist, he should be allowed to do so, irrespective of the details of his beliefs.


sFBOQzSk14c

[Kracker]

So, I'm still asking. Why did you say that you are not a theist, when you also say that you believe in God?


Following on from the discussion we had with Poli a wee while ago, if Kracker wants to self-identify himself as a non-theist, he should be allowed to do so, irrespective of the details of his beliefs.


sFBOQzSk14c

As funny as that clip is (and it IS FUNNY!) its a lot closer to the reality of some 'theological' discussions I've witnessed.

[toker]

I imagine the violation of the laws of physics might be his first one.
You cannot make conscious decisions without violating physics?

Yet you consciously decided to declare such a view anyway.

You are awesome!

[Ozymandias]

I imagine the violation of the laws of physics might be his first one.
You cannot make conscious decisions without violating physics?

Yet you consciously decided to declare such a view anyway.

You are awesome!

I can make conscious decisions since by definition it is my brain that works them through and acts on them. My brain is part of me, and therefore part of "I". But the physicality of that was all determined by the laws of physics. There is no external "me" separate from the atoms in my brain that imposes this decision on my neurons. The firing of each neuron was perfectly in tune with physical law and could be extrapolated had you known their state at an earlier time. So there is no free will, but I still make my own decisions because I am the deterministic system on which that decision played out.

To put it another way, your inability to understand this simple concept is a deterministic consequence of the laws of physics, but you are still to blame for you misunderstanding because it is your physical makeup that contributes to the outcome. So you are to blame for your lack of understanding in the same sense that my TV is to blame for me missing my favourite TV show when it broke down the other night.

[David B]

What pushes what around the brain?

subatomic reactions, elecrical impulses, chemicals...pushing ideas?

Ideas pushing chemicals, electrical impulses, subatomic particles?

Feedback between the two?

http://people.uncw.edu/puente/sperry/sperrypapers/60s/125-1966.pdf

David

[Ozymandias]

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

[David B]

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.

Which I will now do.

David

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

Care to substantiate that assertion?

[rog]

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.


Is that idea formed through free will or as a result of activity in the limbic system?

[David B]

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.


Is that idea formed through free will or as a result of activity in the limbic system?

Doesn't matter. The point is that as well as low level stuff shoving impulses around the brain, high level stuff shoves stuff around too.

There are all sorts of possible routes for a brain to decide to make a cup of coffee, but, the decision having been formed, it in its turn changes all sorts of stuff within the brain.

With consequences to be explored.

Now I'm off to register for poker tourney about to start.

David

[Ozymandias]

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.


No - the idea doesn't push anything. The interactions of the atoms does that.

Ideas are just information. Rearrangements of the atoms. Ideas can't push anything.

Care to substantiate that assertion?

Which bit? That ideas are information? Or that ideas can't push?

[David B]

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.


No - the idea doesn't push anything. The interactions of the atoms does that.

Pedantry! It is the idea that I go make coffee that impels subsequent motions within both brain and body.

That idea can come from all sorts of motions between subatomic particles in one's brain, just as listening to your CD of Mahler can come from all sorts of states of the air between the speaker and one's ears.

High level stuff has to be consistent with low level stuff, but once a high level decision has been made, then it is it that leads rather than follows.

David

[mood2]

The idea that I will make a cup of coffee pushes all sorts of things - the brain activity and hence the body activity that is involved with making said coffee.


No - the idea doesn't push anything. The interactions of the atoms does that.

Pedantry! It is the idea that I go make coffee that impels subsequent motions within both brain and body.

That idea can come from all sorts of motions between subatomic particles in one's brain, just as listening to your CD of Mahler can come from all sorts of states of the air between the speaker and one's ears.

High level stuff has to be consistent with low level stuff, but once a high level decision has been made, then it is it that leads rather than follows.

David

I'm not understanding how the'high level stuff' isn't just another link in the chain of cause and effect, rather than a 'decision'?

[Ozymandias]

Pedantry! It is the idea that I go make coffee that impels subsequent motions within both brain and body.


No it isn't. The idea is just the realisation that you will go make some coffee. You are on the path to making coffee whether you like it or not since that is what the deterministic laws of nature make you do.

[David B]

Pedantry! It is the idea that I go make coffee that impels subsequent motions within both brain and body.


No it isn't. The idea is just the realisation that you will go make some coffee. You are on the path to making coffee whether you like it or not since that is what the deterministic laws of nature make you do.

I wouldn't be on the path to making coffee if I didn't like it.

I'll get back to what you say about the word 'You' at some point. I have a busy day tomorrow, and too much to drink tonight.

Have you looked at the link a few posts back?

David

[columbus]

Toker is trying to goad me into a debate on the subject of free will. I am feeling uninclined to do so because this seems like a fight about semantics when we all know what the reality is.

If what Toker means by free will is volition, then yes humans have it, mostly. What I mean by free will is that there is no cause beyond human control for our choices. Both of these are true.

A relevant metaphor seems like "Humans can not see the back of their heads, yet they can see the back of their heads". Every time I get my hair cut, my barber holds up a mirror reflecting the mirror in front of me. I can say "Oh, it looks great, thanks". I'm talking about the hair on the back of my head. However, I can not see the back of my head. I can only see a reflection of the back of my head in a pair of mirrors. I can see the back of my head. Seeing the back of my head is impossible. Both of these mutually contradictory facts are true.

It is a semantic issue. Free will is similar.
We have volition, but that volition is directed by forces beyond our control. So we have free will and we also do not have free will.

Tom

[Ozymandias]

We have volition, but that volition is directed by forces beyond our control. So we have free will and we also do not have free will.

How can anyone regard it as "free will" if it is "directed by forces beyond out control"?

[columbus]

We have volition, but that volition is directed by forces beyond our control. So we have free will and we also do not have free will.

How can anyone regard it as "free will" if it is "directed by forces beyond out control"?

I don't. That is why I don't think humans have free will.

Perhaps you want to take up Toker's debate challenge?
;);):evil:

Tom

[Ozymandias]

I don't think Toker is capable of understanding the issue, so I won't waste my time thanks.

[toker]

If what Toker means by free will is volition, then yes humans have it, mostly.
Yes.

What I mean by free will is that there is no cause beyond human control for our choices.
So you use the term wrong. Happens a lot.

A relevant metaphor seems like "Humans can not see the back of their heads, yet they can see the back of their heads". Every time I get my hair cut, my barber holds up a mirror reflecting the mirror in front of me. I can say "Oh, it looks great, thanks". I'm talking about the hair on the back of my head. However, I can not see the back of my head. I can only see a reflection of the back of my head in a pair of mirrors. I can see the back of my head. Seeing the back of my head is impossible. Both of these mutually contradictory facts are true.

It is a semantic issue. Free will is similar.
Semantics are involved. But the issue is larger than just semantics.

You see the back of your head when mirrors are used. I bolded a sentence which your own anecdote directly contradicts.

We have volition, but that volition is directed by forces beyond our control. So we have free will and we also do not have free will.

You say we have volition, but you say we don't. Clear as mud. The problem is with your self-contradictory view.

[toker]

I don't think Toker is capable of understanding the issue, so I won't waste my time thanks.
Good! I want to talk with someone who has a clue. You cannot even articulate what the issue happens to be.

[toker]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you.

I'm so fucking right, even the look-at-me blowhards beg off.

[Ozymandias]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you.


Prove it. You are making an extraordinary claim, so you should provide proof. Please provide evidence that a choice is made. In other words, please provide evidence that anything other than what happened, could happen.

[davidpbrown]

Toker, as FUBG suggests you need to suggest why we should believe in free will. You also perhaps need to define it.

As I've suggested before this is a Russell's teapot (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

You've also not addressed questions raised by a previous post (http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=220803&postcount=28), where I was trying to encourage a much clearer suggestion of where the argument is.

[toker]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you.

Prove it. You are making an extraordinary claim, so you should provide proof. Please provide evidence that a choice is made. In other words, please provide evidence that anything other than what happened, could happen.
Your claim is the extraordinary claim. The idea that people are responsible, to some degree, for their own behavior is quite normal. Our entire culture is built around that fact.

Your requirement is kinda stupid. No one can re-wind reality. But I can raise either hand, as I choose. Can't you? Did you lose a limb?

[trendkill]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.

[toker]

Toker, as FUBG suggests you need to suggest why we should believe in free will. You also perhaps need to define it.

As I've suggested before this is a Russell's teapot (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).
Science studies our ability to make conscious decisions. 'Free will' is the colloquial term for volition.

You've also not addressed questions raised by a previous post (http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=220803&postcount=28), where I was trying to encourage a much clearer suggestion of where the argument is.
I don't go to random urls. If you think you have a point, fucking declare it.

[davidpbrown]

I'm getting déjà vu. :rolleyes:

[toker]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.

[toker]

I'm getting déjà vu. :rolleyes:
So you advocated a stupid position before.

[Politesse]

If you have free will, how come you only seem able to respond to posts in a few ways?

[toker]

If you have free will, how come you only seem able to respond to posts in a few ways?
If I don't, how come you're so silent otherwise?

Maybe you have no choice in how you react. Give me reason to think I have no choice. I promise, polly, to never think you have options.

[trendkill]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than other kinds of reactions, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.

[toker]

Pedantry! It is the idea that I go make coffee that impels subsequent motions within both brain and body.


No it isn't. The idea is just the realisation that you will go make some coffee. You are on the path to making coffee whether you like it or not since that is what the deterministic laws of nature make you do.
Jesus, Guy, you just admitted you have no control over your own behavior. So we should pay attention to you, the same way we'd pay attention to a see-n-say.

[Jobar]

Toker, if you really want to debate about this subject, you should try to avoid getting your potential interlocutors so pissed off at you that no one will agree to debate.

I rather agree with your stance, myself. But if I didn't, I wouldn't choose to debate it with someone who was so abrasive to anyone who disagreed.

(Not speaking with my staff hat on here, just advice from many years of experience with online debates.)

[toker]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than the reaction, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.
Maybe your decisions are thermostatist. Mine have more power. I feel embarrassment about your weakness here. I'd challenge you to a debate, but the decision isn't up to you.

[toker]

Toker, if you really want to debate about this subject, you should try to avoid getting your potential interlocutors so pissed off at you that no one will agree to debate.

I rather agree with your stance, myself. But if I didn't, I wouldn't choose to debate it with someone who was so abrasive to anyone who disagreed.

(Not speaking with my staff hat on here, just advice from many years of experience with online debates.)
I should be sorry? That's your position here?

I'd rather fight. I can make decisions, and so can you, and the reasons otherwise are retarded. My stand is here.

[toker]

Toker, if you really want to debate about this subject,
Yes, I do. Let's see your position. I would love to see you claim you cannot make choices.

[toker]

(Not speaking with my staff hat on here, just advice from many years of experience with online debates.)
So ban me.

[Jobar]

Not saying you should be sorry, at all. But making such a battle out of an abstract philosophical/theological issue is just going to drive away most people who might want to discuss it in depth with you, or carry on a formal debate.

[davidpbrown]

Shouting down the opposition doesn't win the argument.

You've been challenged several times to define what you consider free will to be and how it is that we can choose between two options and why that isn't just a delusion. You fail, until you do. The onus isn't on us to prove your teapot doesn't exist, that's the point. Yes, obviously the idea that we have the ability to control our lives is seductive but where's the evidence? As I've suggested before, the challenge is for you to define free will, not for us to defend that free will doesn't exist. There is no debate other than a determination of 'what can be suggested about the notion of free will'. To date I've not seen anything concrete from you.

So, stop trolling and define what you consider free will to be and where its boundary is against the clockwork reaction of a machine.

[Jobar]

(Not speaking with my staff hat on here, just advice from many years of experience with online debates.)
So ban me.

:rolleyes:

Man, I'm trying to help you. Hell, I'd like to see you find someone to debate the issue with.

[Politesse]

If you have free will, how come you only seem able to respond to posts in a few ways?
If I don't, how come you're so silent otherwise?

Maybe you have no choice in how you react. Give me reason to think I have no choice. I promise, polly, to never think you have options.

I offered to debate you on this topic properly.

[trendkill]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than the reaction, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.
Maybe your decisions are thermostatist. Mine have more power. I feel embarrassment about your weakness here. I'd challenge you to a debate, but the decision isn't up to you.I make decisions perfectly well, and so do you, despite the fact that there is no supernatural power behind your decisions making them more decisive than they would otherwise be. So is that your definition of free will, then--supernatural power that makes your decisions more special and decision-ey than anything that mere matter could provide? Sorry, there's no need for that. Decisions work just fine with only matter involved.

[mood2]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than other kinds of reactions, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.

we understand why a thermostat reacts, why it responds in a certain way in certain circs, there's no way it can't follow the laws of physics.

What laws are you saying we have to follow when we think we're making a choice?

Psychological laws? Cause and effect physical laws affecting neurological processes? Or what?

[Ozymandias]

Your claim is the extraordinary claim. The idea that people are responsible, to some degree, for their own behavior is quite normal. Our entire culture is built around that fact.

Your requirement is kinda stupid. No one can re-wind reality. But I can raise either hand, as I choose. Can't you? Did you lose a limb?

Your claim is that you choose to raise your hand. Either you raise your hand or you don't, so at any one point in time you have raised it or you haven't. Considering an instance in time when you have raised your hand, can you prove to me that you could have chosen to leave it down? I am fairly sure you cannot.

Also, your argument that our "entire culture is built around" free-will, so it is not an extraordinary claim, is a fallacy. Our culture was also built around Christianity, but that is, I would hope you agree, an extraordinary claim.

[David B]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than other kinds of reactions, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.

Free will in any magical sense of the word, then no.

But free will in a compatibilist sense, then then yes, sort of.

Complexity does not lead to any magical free will, but it can, and I would maintain does, lead to more degrees of freedom.

A thermostat has more degrees of freedom than a rock.

One more.

But that is not the end of the road

A gregorian creature has more degrees of freedom than a popperian creature, in Dennett's terminology.

http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/dennett

Darwinian creatures are created by random mutation and selected by the external environment. The best designs survive and reproduce.

Skinnerian creatures can learn by testing actions (responses) in the external environment. Favourably actions are reinforced and then tend to be repeated. Pigeons can be trained to press a bar to receive food.

Skinnerian creatures ask themselves, "What do I do next?"

Popperian creatures can preselect from possible behaviours / actions weeding out the truly stupid options before risking them in the harsh world. Dennett calls them Popperian because Popper said this design enhancement "permits our hypotheses to die in our stead". This is Dennett's enhancement of behaviourism. Popperian creatures have an inner environment that can preview and select amongst possible actions. For this to work the inner environment must contain lots of information about the outer environment and its regularities. Not only humans can do this. Mammals, birds, reptiles and fish can all presort behavioural options before acting.

Popperian creatures ask themselves, "What do I think about next?"

Gregorian creatures are named after Richard Gregory, an information theorist. Gregorian creatures import mind-tools (words) from the outer cultural environment to create an inner environment which improve both the generators and testers.

Gregorian creatures ask themselves, "How can I learn to think better about what to think about next?"

All consistent with physics, but more degrees of freedom, to the point that, I would maintain, that a person has more freedom than a rock, in any sensible understanding of the word freedom.

Hofstadter has what I see as an illuminating chapter on this in 'I am a Strange Loop' where he asks, in effect, what shoves what around the brain?

Is it the blind electrochemical reactions shoving ideas around?

Is it ideas shoving electrochemical ideas around?

My answer, and I think Hofstadter and Dennett's. Both And. With feedback and a bit of strange loopery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

Hofstadter thinks our minds can determine the world by way of "downward causality", which refers to a situation where a cause-and-effect relationship in a system gets flipped upside-down. Hofstadter claims this happens in the proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem:
“ Merely from knowing the formula's meaning, one can infer its truth or falsity without any effort to derive it in the old-fashioned way, which requires one to trudge methodically "upwards" from the axioms. This is not just peculiar; it is astonishing. Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce whether the statement is true or false. (pp. 169-170) ”

Hofstadter claims a similar "flipping around of causality" happens in minds possessing self-consciousness. The mind perceives itself as the cause of certain feelings, ("I" am the source of my desires), while scientifically, feelings and desires are strictly caused by the interactions of neurons, and ultimately, the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics.


David

[columbus]

I'm so fucking right, even the look-at-me blowhards beg off.
Perhaps you'd like to discuss something else, then?

Tom

[trendkill]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than other kinds of reactions, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.

we understand why a thermostat reacts, why it responds in a certain way in certain circs, there's no way it can't follow the laws of physics.

What laws are you saying we have to follow when we think we're making a choice?

Psychological laws? Cause and effect physical laws affecting neurological processes? Or what?
Er, the laws of physics. Do you really think that brains defy physics? :dunno:

[toker]

You've been challenged several times to define what you consider free will to be and how it is that we can choose between two options and why that isn't just a delusion. You fail, until you do.
Free will is volition. How it works is under investigation by science.

The onus isn't on us to prove your teapot doesn't exist, that's the point.
Yes, the onus is on those who claim this ability to direct our own behavior doesn't exist. Our justice system is built on it. We teach our kids that they have control over their behavior. We all make choices so routinely. The onus is on you.

Yes, obviously the idea that we have the ability to control our lives is seductive but where's the evidence? As I've suggested before, the challenge is for you to define free will, not for us to defend that free will doesn't exist. There is no debate other than a determination of 'what can be suggested about the notion of free will'. To date I've not seen anything concrete from you.
Google volition.

So, stop trolling and define what you consider free will to be and where its boundary is against the clockwork reaction of a machine.
Yeah, your position is stupid, so try the trolling charge.

[toker]

(Not speaking with my staff hat on here, just advice from many years of experience with online debates.)
Okay, advise.

[toker]

If you have free will, how come you only seem able to respond to posts in a few ways?
If I don't, how come you're so silent otherwise?

Maybe you have no choice in how you react. Give me reason to think I have no choice. I promise, polly, to never think you have options.

I offered to debate you on this topic properly.
Yeah? I missed it, or just forgot. I admit to being flakey sometimes, but that doesn't make me wrong here. Billions of years ago, when our universe came to be, your next response was ordained. Sure, I don't buy that story.

[toker]

Your claim is that you choose to raise your hand. Either you raise your hand or you don't, so at any one point in time you have raised it or you haven't. Considering an instance in time when you have raised your hand, can you prove to me that you could have chosen to leave it down? I am fairly sure you cannot.
So your position is default unless someone can rewind reality? And that is not so unreasonable in your world. Got it.

Also, your argument that our "entire culture is built around" free-will, so it is not an extraordinary claim, is a fallacy. Our culture was also built around Christianity, but that is, I would hope you agree, an extraordinary claim.
Ouch. Score one for the cynic. But Guy, do you think we should teach our kids that they have no control over their own behaviors? Do you practice what you preach?

All cultures are built on the fact of volition, even the ones you don't like. Even the oppressive cultures realize that people have choice - that's why they crack down.

[toker]

A thermostat has more degrees of freedom than a rock.

One more.
How do we measure degrees of freedom? I need baby steps. How many degrees would give people the ability to make their own decisions on purpose?

[Politesse]

If you have free will, how come you only seem able to respond to posts in a few ways?
If I don't, how come you're so silent otherwise?

Maybe you have no choice in how you react. Give me reason to think I have no choice. I promise, polly, to never think you have options.

I offered to debate you on this topic properly.
Yeah? I missed it, or just forgot. I admit to being flakey sometimes, but that doesn't make me wrong here. Billions of years ago, when our universe came to be, your next response was ordained. Sure, I don't buy that story.

It wasn't "ordained", but it has certainly been an inevitability since then, because what I am typing now is exactly what I most want to type. And what I think I want is determined by powers and influences far beyond my grasp. There are no causality police; there don't need to be. We will always do exactly what we wish; and what we wish is utterly and entirely predictable. "Free will" is what we name the emotional experience that goes with the process of transforming will into action. But there isn't really anything free about it, aside from what it feels like. Indeed, the emotional experience of feeling like you have made a decision comes after (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046374) the brain has irrevocably decided on its course of action. By the time you are conscious of making the decision, you haven't made the action yet but it is too late to stop you from doing so.

[davidpbrown]

The onus isn't on us to prove your teapot doesn't exist, that's the point.
Yes, the onus is on those who claim this ability to direct our own behavior doesn't exist. Our justice system is built on it. We teach our kids that they have control over their behavior. We all make choices so routinely. The onus is on you.

So, stop trolling and define what you consider free will to be and where its boundary is against the clockwork reaction of a machine.
Yeah, your position is stupid, so try the trolling charge.

The rather obvious point you seem to be missing, is that we can't establish anything of value where you take such a woolly position. You seem to believe in some vague undefined woo, and we're taking the skeptical position, looking for what is certain .. I can't see any progress here, so I'm out.

[Ozymandias]

So your position is default unless someone can rewind reality? And that is not so unreasonable in your world. Got it.

My position is that we should not claim the existence of a phenomenon that violates the know laws of physics unless we have evidence.


Ouch. Score one for the cynic. But Guy, do you think we should teach our kids that they have no control over their own behaviors? Do you practice what you preach?


Of course! I think we should teach our kids how the world works according to physics rather than lying to them about mystical woo. Don't you?

However, this view does not dissolve us of responsibility for our actions. My actions are still mine because I, the physical collection of atoms, influence them just like a mountain influences the local weather. Also, actions have consequences irrespective of whether or not I "choose" the actions.

[David B]

A thermostat has more degrees of freedom than a rock.

One more.
How do we measure degrees of freedom? I need baby steps. How many degrees would give people the ability to make their own decisions on purpose?

Hard to tell, except in very technical senses of 'Degrees of Freedom' in different fields.

I see the question as being a little like the question of when a fertilised human egg becomes a human being. At some point it is clearly not, at other points one might hum and ha about various aspects of humanity, and at other points the result of the fertilised egg is clearly a human being.

We have to learn to deal with some fuzziness of definition in many real life situations, I think. A fuzzy definition does not make a concept meaningless.

When is a bit of writing literature? Depends on how you define literature for one thing - one could say that any writing is literature by definition, of course, but that would render the concept of literature in the sense of good, profound writing meaningless.

If one wants to use the term literature to mean good - as opposed to bad - writing, especially published writing, then the definition becomes much more fuzzy, though I think most people could recognise that Mark Twain is literature in that sense in a way that Jack Chick tracts ain't.

David

[mood2]

Do street lights and thermostats make decisions? They react to stimuli, but have no choice in how they react. I have choice in how to react. So do you. A decision is a kind of reaction. It's when a mind reacts to something with thought and deliberation.
Yes. This way or that way. My choice.But it's no more free willed than the thermostat. The decision is more complicated than other kinds of reactions, but I don't see any claims that free will = complexity.

we understand why a thermostat reacts, why it responds in a certain way in certain circs, there's no way it can't follow the laws of physics.

What laws are you saying we have to follow when we think we're making a choice?

Psychological laws? Cause and effect physical laws affecting neurological processes? Or what?
Er, the laws of physics. Do you really think that brains defy physics? :dunno:

No, but we don't know everything about the laws of physics and emergent phenomena. Consciousness seems to be a phenomenon of a different order to everything else we know of - crucially it introduces the element of subjectivity. As I understand it (which is hardly at all ;) ) the physics of cause-and-effect operates in the territory of empiricism and objectivity. So it seems possible to me that different rules may apply in our subjective internal worlds to those which apply in the external objective world, which could open up the possibility of free will.

We subjectively feel as tho we have free will, and many of our decisions feel motivated/driven by subjective fears and desires, not objective external forces. And you could argue that things directly experienced subjectively are more immediate than those filtered through our perceptions of the external world, and therefore more likely to be experienced as they really are...

I dunno what the answer is, but it seems to me that toker is taking a valid position that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Then there's Davidb's loopy theory, which takes into account the physics of neurological interactions, but still makes space for something akin to free will.

So it's not just a choice between physics and woo

[trendkill]

No, but we don't know everything about the laws of physics and emergent phenomena. Consciousness seems to be a phenomenon of a different order to everything else we know of - crucially it introduces the element of subjectivity.That's easily explained as being an artifact of perspective, though. The only thing we know from the perspective of being it, rather than sensing it, is ourselves. Subjectivity is no reason to think that anything "extra" is going on.


So it's not just a choice between physics and wooDepends on what you mean by "woo". My criticism of free will is basically the same as my criticism of anything supernatural or magical: it postulates unnecessary and unevidenced entities.

[Ozymandias]

So it's not just a choice between physics and wooDepends on what you mean by "woo". My criticism of free will is basically the same as my criticism of anything supernatural or magical: it postulates unnecessary and unevidenced entities.

Exactly! It may well be that there is some mechanism that allows for free-will in physics. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that and plenty of evidence against it. Until someone provides me with evidence, I will continue to disregard the idea as woo, just like fairies, unicorns and gods.

[toker]

It wasn't "ordained", but it has certainly been an inevitability since then,
You make a distinction with no difference.

because what I am typing now is exactly what I most want to type. And what I think I want is determined by powers and influences far beyond my grasp.
I get that point. Volition or will is just the ability to do what we want.

There are no causality police; there don't need to be. We will always do exactly what we wish;
Yes, at least we'll try.

and what we wish is utterly and entirely predictable.
No. If we want to know how a sentient will behave, we have to pay attention. A lot of what we do is predictable, and a lot isn't.

"Free will" is what we name the emotional experience that goes with the process of transforming will into action. But there isn't really anything free about it, aside from what it feels like. Indeed, the emotional experience of feeling like you have made a decision comes
'Free will' is the colloquial term, and 'volition' the technical, for a natural human ability.

after (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046374) the brain has irrevocably decided on its course of action. By the time you are conscious of making the decision, you haven't made the action yet but it is too late to stop you from doing so.
There are more robust interpretations of the sit. It helps when we aren't all faith-belief in determinism. It happens that when we make conscious decisions on purpose, it's more of a process than just a single atomic event. Our desires - WHAT WE WANT - affect how we behave and what we accomplish.

Your view, as you made clear in your first sentence, is that your behaviors were determined when the universe began. My behaviors are up to me, right now. Within obvious limits, of course.

[toker]

My criticism of free will is basically the same as my criticism of anything supernatural or magical: it postulates unnecessary and unevidenced entities.
So my view is entirely free from your criticism.

[toker]

Exactly! It may well be that there is some mechanism that allows for free-will in physics. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that and plenty of evidence against it. Until someone provides me with evidence, I will continue to disregard the idea as woo, just like fairies, unicorns and gods.
You go do what you want, Guy. :p

Just pretend we cannot make conscious decisions on purpose and that that non-existent ability is not studied by science. Just dance around singing about unicorns until you feel satisfied.

[Politesse]

It wasn't "ordained", but it has certainly been an inevitability since then,
You make a distinction with no difference.

because what I am typing now is exactly what I most want to type. And what I think I want is determined by powers and influences far beyond my grasp.
I get that point. Volition or will is just the ability to do what we want.

There are no causality police; there don't need to be. We will always do exactly what we wish;
Yes, at least we'll try.

and what we wish is utterly and entirely predictable.
No. If we want to know how a sentient will behave, we have to pay attention. A lot of what we do is predictable, and a lot isn't.

"Free will" is what we name the emotional experience that goes with the process of transforming will into action. But there isn't really anything free about it, aside from what it feels like. Indeed, the emotional experience of feeling like you have made a decision comes
'Free will' is the colloquial term, and 'volition' the technical, for a natural human ability.

after (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046374) the brain has irrevocably decided on its course of action. By the time you are conscious of making the decision, you haven't made the action yet but it is too late to stop you from doing so.
There are more robust interpretations of the sit. It helps when we aren't all faith-belief in determinism. It happens that when we make conscious decisions on purpose, it's more of a process than just a single atomic event. Our desires - WHAT WE WANT - affect how we behave and what we accomplish.

Your view, as you made clear in your first sentence, is that your behaviors were determined when the universe began. My behaviors are up to me, right now. Within obvious limits, of course.Your behaviors are up to you, but someone with all the pertinent information necessary would know, in advance, exactly what you are going to choose; there's no magic involved, no exceptions from the patterns of causality that give the universe its form. You are not essentially different from any other thing, nor are you exempt from the analysis of science or the regularity of cause, effect and substance that make inference possible.

[mood2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mood2

No, but we don't know everything about the laws of physics and emergent phenomena. Consciousness seems to be a phenomenon of a different order to everything else we know of - crucially it introduces the element of subjectivity.
That's easily explained as being an artifact of perspective, though. The only thing we know from the perspective of being it, rather than sensing it, is ourselves. Subjectivity is no reason to think that anything "extra" is going on.

Maybe, I'm just knocking ideas around really. How about this -

The laws of physics somehow create consciousness via brains, which is an awareness of perceptions (and therefore inherently subjective).

Consciousness/awareness/a subjective view of the self and the external world leads to psychological states, including emotions like desire and fear, and to agency and will.

Once we have goals and will, choices become available and decisions have to be made.

The mechanism for all of this (including decision-making) is neurological, governed by the laws of physics and driven by natural selection.

However, psychological states have become integrated into this complex, interconnected neurological mechanism (maybe in some feedback loopy system) and in effect filter options on the basis of subjective psychological desirability rather than just pure logic.

Now for the more controversial bit :)

The above leads us to our current situation where choices exist and decisions are unpredictable to out an outside observer. eg You don't know exactly what I'm about to decide to type. (Nor do I come to think of it lol) .

The question then is, is that unpredictability solely to do with not having all the cause-and-effect info available? Or is there something about the subjective nature of psychological states like emotions which throws a spanner into the mechanism and disrupts the web of cause and effect or creates new causes?

I think it's valid to argue that once conscious/unconscious psychological states themselves become the goal (I want to be happy) then we become entities who can generate new chains of cause and effect. Creative creatures :).

[trendkill]

I agree that such a phenomenon, if it were shown to exist, might justify thinking of consciousness as qualitatively different from other physical reactions in some way over and above the way that I already do (I mean, aside from the fact that it is conscious, self-aware, capable of well-being and suffering, etc.). I just don't see any reason to believe that such a phenomenon exists.

[toker]

The laws of physics somehow create consciousness via brains, which is an awareness of perceptions (and therefore inherently subjective).
The brain-laws, those laws that allow subjective experiences via brains, we can't make them exist by depending on the laws of physics. But they exist anyway, and they do not contradict the laws of physics. The key is to put reductionist analysis on a sideboard, not dismissing it, but realizing there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around.

[Ozymandias]

So be precise. What exactly is the "more going on than just atoms bouncing around"? Explain what you mean by this in scientific terms please.

[trendkill]

My criticism of free will is basically the same as my criticism of anything supernatural or magical: it postulates unnecessary and unevidenced entities.
So my view is entirely free from your criticism.On the contrary. You said that choices on your view have, and I quote, "more power" behind them than just natural powers. That is a statement of supernatural belief.

[trendkill]

The key is to put reductionist analysis on a sideboard, not dismissing it, but realizing there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around.So, in other words, not dismissing it, but dismissing it.

[toker]

So be precise. What exactly is the "more going on than just atoms bouncing around"? Explain what you mean by this in scientific terms please.
Look at some other sciences beyond physics, and began to answer your own question.

Reductionism has a strong hold on our views. It makes sense. But there is much it fails to explain.

That is why physics is not the only science.

[Ozymandias]

No. Physics is not the only science because things become too complicated to explain using physics. Effective models are required instead. But this is only in a calculational sense - they never ever contradict the underlying physics.

[toker]

My criticism of free will is basically the same as my criticism of anything supernatural or magical: it postulates unnecessary and unevidenced entities.
So my view is entirely free from your criticism.On the contrary. You said that choices on your view have, and I quote, "more power" behind them than just natural powers. That is a statement of supernatural belief.
I never said anything remotely like that. Your expectations color your view of reality.

Which just goes to show the power of mind.

[toker]

The key is to put reductionist analysis on a sideboard, not dismissing it, but realizing there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around.So, in other words, not dismissing it, but dismissing it.
Whatever you say. We cannot see the value in a view that isn't fanatic.

[toker]

No. Physics is not the only science because things become too complicated to explain using physics.
I understand that point. It fails, because our physics understandings do not capture the whole of reality. Looking at parts doesn't entirely tell us what happens next.

Effective models are required instead. But this is only in a calculational sense - they never ever contradict the underlying physics.
How do we know how stuff behaves? WE WATCH IT. People happen to exhibit the ability to self-determine their own behavior! That is a fact.

Reductionism is not good thinking. When your daughter is hot for a worthless person, do you tell her she has no choice?

[toker]

No. Physics is not the only science because things become too complicated to explain using physics.
Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

[Ozymandias]

How do we know how stuff behaves? WE WATCH IT. People happen to exhibit the ability to self-determine their own behavior! That is a fact.


Watching is not enough. We must also make predictions, and test them with our watching. This potentially provides evidence for our hypothesis, or rules it out. You have no evidence for your hypothesis of free-will whatsoever.

I will ask you again. Provide us with just one observation that is compatible with free-will and incompatible with quantum mechanical determinism.


Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

You are correct that we cannot use physics to explain everything. We need biology and chemistry and many other disciplines too. But none of these other sciences ever contradict physics like you are trying to do.

[toker]

I will ask you again. Provide us with just one observation that is compatible with free-will and incompatible with quantum mechanical determinism.

You interested in communication? I never claimed that free will contradicts 'quantum mechanical determinism'. Maybe you see something in that term which has evaded me.

You are correct that we cannot use physics to explain everything. We need biology and chemistry and many other disciplines too. But none of these other sciences ever contradict physics like you are trying to do.
I've never said anything that contradicts physics. :mad:

You believe that biology and chemistry reduce to physics. Admit it. Tell us that all science is nothing more than physics.

I love physics. But you think physics are god-speak.

[BioBeing]

Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

What then? All you ever do is say "no" but you never expand on that. Why does physics fail? What view do we need?

[toker]

Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

What then? All you ever do is say "no" but you never expand on that. Why does physics fail? What view do we need?
Physics makes no claims about whether volition exists or not (it neither requires it nor precludes it).

Maybe chemistry reduces to physics, but there are other sciences which don't. Realize that not all sciences reduce to physics, and we've taken a baby-step towards answering your question.

[toker]

But none of these other sciences ever contradict physics like you are trying to do.
I've never tried to do that. Why do you claim otherwise?

[Politesse]

Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

What then? All you ever do is say "no" but you never expand on that. Why does physics fail? What view do we need?
Physics makes no claims about whether volition exists or not (it neither requires it nor precludes it).

Maybe chemistry reduces to physics, but there are other sciences which don't. Realize that not all sciences reduce to physics, and we've taken a baby-step towards answering your question.Other disciplines reduce to the physics to the extent that they concern physical processes. Are you proposing that volition is a extra-physical process? Or is it, like all other physical processes, restrained by the constants described by physics?

[toker]

Volition doesn't contradict physics.

Other disciplines reduce to the physics to the extent that they concern physical processes.
What other sorts of processes are there?

[Politesse]

Volition doesn't contradict physics.

Other disciplines reduce to the physics to the extent that they concern physical processes.
What other sorts of processes are there?

Spiritual? Metaphysical? Woo? I dunno, you're the one claiming there are things unreducible to physics. That is only possible if there are non-physical processes on some level. Otherwise, the physical interactions that make them possible are most definitely reducible to physics, at least in theory.

[BioBeing]

Got it. Physics fails to explain what is going on.

We need another view.

What then? All you ever do is say "no" but you never expand on that. Why does physics fail? What view do we need?
Physics makes no claims about whether volition exists or not (it neither requires it nor precludes it).

Maybe chemistry reduces to physics, but there are other sciences which don't. Realize that not all sciences reduce to physics, and we've taken a baby-step towards answering your question.

Another non-answer.

What non physical sciences are there? What do they reduce too?

More importantly what is a neuron doing if it isn't reducible to chemistry and physics?

[Ozymandias]

Volition doesn't contradict physics.


Yes it does! That is the whole point. In order to "make a difference" the entity with the volition needs to interact with the physical universe. To do that it has to exchange momentum somehow, or at least change the momentum of some particle. One can postulate such an interaction, and then test for it. No experiment has ever seen such an interaction.

[toker]

Volition doesn't contradict physics.

Yes it does! That is the whole point.
No, it doesn't. I'll politely wait for your proof, but I know you have none.

In order to "make a difference" the entity with the volition needs to interact with the physical universe. To do that it has to exchange momentum somehow, or at least change the momentum of some particle. One can postulate such an interaction, and then test for it. No experiment has ever seen such an interaction.
Lots of experiments have shown volition exist. The question is how does it work.

[David B]

OK I'll try a late night post.

A thought experiment.

Imagine a speaker system which speaks a command, like 'touch your nose with your right index finger', and that as a willing participant in an experiment you have committed yourself to carrying out any reasonable instruction.

The transmission of the message depends on waves propagating through the air, but the exact position of the air molecules makes not a jot of difference to the message - if the message had been transmitted a second earlier or later the position of the air molecules that the instruction was transmitted through would have been different, but the message would have been the same.

Similarly if the transmission had been transmitted a second earlier or later, the states of the neurons in the brain as a whole would have been different, but not to the point that the instruction would have been different.

From the point the instruction is received a whole new cascade of brain activity takes place to touch the nose with the finger, but the exact brain state leading up to that cascade is not relevant.

The instruction is then shoving the brain activity around, independently of the exact state of the brain before hand.

Thoughts shove neuron activity around, as well as vice versa.

David

[mood2]

The laws of physics somehow create consciousness via brains, which is an awareness of perceptions (and therefore inherently subjective).
The brain-laws, those laws that allow subjective experiences via brains, we can't make them exist by depending on the laws of physics. But they exist anyway, and they do not contradict the laws of physics. The key is to put reductionist analysis on a sideboard, not dismissing it, but realizing there is more going on than just atoms bouncing around.

yeah although reductionism is a good rule of thumb, I think it's valid to keep an open mind when it comes to a whole different order of phenonemon like consciousness.

As I understand it, so far we have been able to correlate certain atoms bouncing around with certain mental states, and that's about it. We don't understand the mechanism which creates/activates consciousness. Or whether the cause and effect between thought and brain is solely a one way street. We don't know if consciousness once generated has its own internal set of laws, which may lie within or outside what we currently know of the laws of physics.

Physics has understandably been shit at explaining all this basic stuff so far, which is why free will remains an open question. Maybe because physics developed as a way of seeing the world in terms of interacting Objects rather than Subjects with agency. Or...maybe not. :)

[Ozymandias]

No, it doesn't. I'll politely wait for your proof, but I know you have none.


Which objects are your "volition" working on? Are they physical objects in the real world? Will physical objects possibly be in a different state because of the choices you make? If so, there must be a trail of cause and effect. Each object affected, must have been affected by something. Work that back as far as you can and you get to the neurons in your brain. But these are physical objects too, so what is affecting them? Either it is something physical or it is not; if it is, continue the same argument ad nausiam; if it is not, what is the physical interaction. The latter is effect is a violation of the laws of physics.

You need to prove that physical law can create different, but non-random, outcomes. But you can't.

[toker]

No, it doesn't. I'll politely wait for your proof, but I know you have none.


Which objects are your "volition" working on? Are they physical objects in the real world? Will physical objects possibly be in a different state because of the choices you make? If so, there must be a trail of cause and effect. Each object affected, must have been affected by something. Work that back as far as you can and you get to the neurons in your brain. But these are physical objects too, so what is affecting them? Either it is something physical or it is not; if it is, continue the same argument ad nausiam; if it is not, what is the physical interaction. The latter is effect is a violation of the laws of physics.

You need to prove that physical law can create different, but non-random, outcomes. But you can't.
If you want to learn about volition, google it. You write as if the idea were an ideosyncratic invention of mine. Instead, it's an ability we exhibit with loads of scientific research on the subject.

You write as if cause/effect were necessarily deterministic. But it isn't. The old clockwork-universe is dead. Modern physics recognizes that reality is indeterministic.

You write as if only the physical can exist. You're right, if "physical" includes stuff that isn't material.

I suggested you should make a case. You didn't. You showed a bunch of unjustified preconceptions though.

[toker]

Maybe because physics developed as a way of seeing the world in terms of interacting Objects rather than Subjects with agency. Or...maybe not. :)
There are still some who think biology reduces to physics. Or that the earth is flat.

[rog]

Maybe because physics developed as a way of seeing the world in terms of interacting Objects rather than Subjects with agency. Or...maybe not. :)
There are still some who think biology reduces to physics. Or that the earth is flat.

I think that's more than a little unfair!

[Ozymandias]

If you want to learn about volition, google it. You write as if the idea were an ideosyncratic invention of mine. Instead, it's an ability we exhibit with loads of scientific research on the subject.


If I want to learn about God, I could just google him. A bunch of crackpots speculating doesn't make scientific research.


You write as if cause/effect were necessarily deterministic. But it isn't. The old clockwork-universe is dead. Modern physics recognizes that reality is indeterministic.


See? You just proved that you know squat. quantum mechanical indeterminacy is purely (and scientifically proved) random. No volition there.


You write as if only the physical can exist. You're right, if "physical" includes stuff that isn't material.


Woooo! "Stuff that isn't material"! :rolling:What a crackpot! :tin::facepalm:


I suggested you should make a case. You didn't. You showed a bunch of unjustified preconceptions though.

I gave you a reasoned argument that you have failed to counter. You have given me only woo.

[toker]

If you want to learn about volition, google it. You write as if the idea were an ideosyncratic invention of mine. Instead, it's an ability we exhibit with loads of scientific research on the subject.

If I want to learn about God, I could just google him. A bunch of crackpots speculating doesn't make scientific research.
That's a good point. Misdirected, though. Research into volition is mainstream. Because the ability exists and is useful and we should try to understand it.

You write as if cause/effect were necessarily deterministic. But it isn't. The old clockwork-universe is dead. Modern physics recognizes that reality is indeterministic.

See? You just proved that you know squat. quantum mechanical indeterminacy is purely (and scientifically proved) random. No volition there.
Either reality adheres to determinism or it doesn't. Science says it doesn't, as a matter of fact.

You write as if only the physical can exist. You're right, if "physical" includes stuff that isn't material.

Woooo! "Stuff that isn't material"! :rolling:What a crackpot! :tin::facepalm:
Nice rebuttal.


I suggested you should make a case. You didn't. You showed a bunch of unjustified preconceptions though.
I gave you a reasoned argument that you have failed to counter. You have given me only woo.
No, you didn't give me any reasoned argument showing that volition doesn't exist.

Our culture is built on the acceptance of it. Our justice system depends on it. Our science investigates it. Since you really really figure you have no ability to control your own behavior on purpose, the burden is on you to make a case.

[toker]

Woooo! "Stuff that isn't material"! :rolling:What a crackpot! :tin::facepalm:
What sort of atoms are math made of? Let's collect a bottle full of mathematics for Ozzy.

[toker]

Maybe because physics developed as a way of seeing the world in terms of interacting Objects rather than Subjects with agency. Or...maybe not. :)
There are still some who think biology reduces to physics. Or that the earth is flat.
I think that's more than a little unfair!
Why? Modern physics disproves determinism. It doesn't work good enough. The emperor has no clothes.

[BioBeing]

Scientists study volition as it exists as a phenomena. People apparently make choices, and yes, that can be studied. Wow. Now, if you would, please give me some citations to the primary scientific literature where scientists have figured out the non-physical processes you seem to claim are occurring.

What you are doing, it seems to me, is putting the choice making machinery into a little black box. Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, shows this is nonsense. That little black box still has to interact with material, non woo stuff. How is that achieved? How does the non-woo part make the decision to interact with the woo? If you are sitting, pondering two possible courses of action, how does the non-woo bit decide when the woo bit has made it's choice?

Adding woo doesn't help. It doesn't make the problem any simpler. In fact, you add a whole new category of stuff to explain. As William of Ockham once said "Just get out your razor and slice it off, baby."

:winace:

[toker]

Scientists study volition as it exists as a phenomena. People apparently make choices, and yes, that can be studied. Wow. Now, if you would, please give me some citations to the primary scientific literature where scientists have figured out the non-physical processes you seem to claim are occurring.
I don't claim non-physical processes occur.

What you are doing, it seems to me, is putting the choice making machinery into a little black box. Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, shows this is nonsense. That little black box still has to interact with material, non woo stuff. How is that achieved? How does the non-woo part make the decision to interact with the woo? If you are sitting, pondering two possible courses of action, how does the non-woo bit decide when the woo bit has made it's choice?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I put the "choice making machinery" into the person. Try re-stating your question without the underlying assumptions that reality must be deterministic and reductionistic. Seriously.

Adding woo doesn't help. It doesn't make the problem any simpler. In fact, you add a whole new category of stuff to explain. As William of Ockham once said "Just get out your razor and slice it off, baby."
The idea that we don't make decisions, because our 'decisions' were pre-ordained at the big bang, that is the woo here. The idea that a universal explosion billions of years ago determined exactly your next response... so that none of us have any responsibility for our reactions... so that no-one has any control over their own behavior... that is the woo, and it contradicts everything our society and culture is built upon.

But maybe reality is wrong and your biased preconceptions are right.

[toker]

Scientists study volition as it exists as a phenomena.
Think it through. The phenomenon exists, and is studied by science. You just said so.

Now tell me why you figure you have no ability to chart your own course.

[David B]

Looking back at my post 206, which was vaguely based on something I read in Hofstadter, I don't see any comments on that.

It still, looking back on it, seems to me to succeed (in a way that introducing some sort of quantum uncertainty doesn't) in removing discreet decisions (which introduce new cascades of physical events) from the exact physical conditions which precede it.

David

[toker]

Looking back at my post 206, which was vaguely based on something I read in Hofstadter, I don't see any comments on that.
That happens a lot when you are right.

[BioBeing]

Scientists study volition as it exists as a phenomena.
Think it through. The phenomenon exists, and is studied by science. You just said so.

Now tell me why you figure you have no ability to chart your own course.

FFS. A phenomena is an observable occurrence. That is all. The fact that a scientist can study a phenomena means absolutely nothing in this discussion. If the phenomena occurred via material methods or non-material methods (i.e. woo, as you insist) a scientist can still study it.

So why no tell us what scientists say about it? What non-material things have they discovered? Come on, don't be shy.

[BioBeing]

Scientists study volition as it exists as a phenomena. People apparently make choices, and yes, that can be studied. Wow. Now, if you would, please give me some citations to the primary scientific literature where scientists have figured out the non-physical processes you seem to claim are occurring.
I don't claim non-physical processes occur.

Yes you are.



What you are doing, it seems to me, is putting the choice making machinery into a little black box. Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, shows this is nonsense. That little black box still has to interact with material, non woo stuff. How is that achieved? How does the non-woo part make the decision to interact with the woo? If you are sitting, pondering two possible courses of action, how does the non-woo bit decide when the woo bit has made it's choice?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I put the "choice making machinery" into the person. Try re-stating your question without the underlying assumptions that reality must be deterministic and reductionistic. Seriously.

But HOW do you put the choice making machinery into the person? You make lots of baseless assertions and arguments from personal incredulity, but that is it.

That reality reduces to determinism and reductionism is my working hypothesis. If you prove me I'm wrong, I'll change my mind. But merely saying "No it doesn't" does nothing to move me down that path.




Adding woo doesn't help. It doesn't make the problem any simpler. In fact, you add a whole new category of stuff to explain. As William of Ockham once said "Just get out your razor and slice it off, baby."
The idea that we don't make decisions, because our 'decisions' were pre-ordained at the big bang, that is the woo here. The idea that a universal explosion billions of years ago determined exactly your next response... so that none of us have any responsibility for our reactions... so that no-one has any control over their own behavior... that is the woo, and it contradicts everything our society and culture is built upon.

But maybe reality is wrong and your biased preconceptions are right.

You really need to read Dennett. Or something else.

[Barefoot Bree]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

[trendkill]

Determinism is a red herring. Nobody has yet been able to explain why determinism, even if it were true, would keep people from being responsible for their actions. It's just taken as self-evident by both sides of the "debate".

[Politesse]

Determinism is a red herring. Nobody has yet been able to explain why determinism, even if it were true, would keep people from being responsible for their actions. It's just taken as self-evident by both sides of the "debate".
If determinism is a red herring, assuming that critiquing the existence of free will means thinking that no one should be held responsible for their actions is a red Chilean sea bass. The belief that free will is the only justification for moral culpability is the assumption of those who believe free will exists, not those who don't.

[columbus]

Determinism is a red herring. Nobody has yet been able to explain why determinism, even if it were true, would keep people from being responsible for their actions. It's just taken as self-evident by both sides of the "debate".

It certainly isn't self-evident to me. Culpability is not connected to having free will.

Culpability is our limited way of influencing behaviour. People are only free to choose whatever they think is in their own best interests, and culpability helps them choose what we as a society want them to choose.

Tom

[BioBeing]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

Free will is just an illusion. We appear to have it, so we act as if we do.

[David B]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

I don't think there is any the concept of determinism, but a number of current concepts.

One would be an ultra-reductionist version, which makes everything inevitable, and denies any sort of freedom at all.

Another would be that everything is determined except for what some magical figure removes from causality by divine fiat, which in many variants includes divinely granted 'free will' being removed from mechanical causality.

Another - that once living beings developed sensing and avoidance techniques naturalistic-ally, then events became 'evitable' or avoidable.

A position which is consistent with metaphysical naturalism, but which allows degrees of non-magical freedom.

This last perhaps most notably expressed by Dan Dennett in 'Freedom Evolves'.

David

[toker]

I don't think there is any the concept of determinism, but a number of current concepts.

All based on a single concept. Which is known to be false. Reality is not pre-ordained, and your next response was not settled at the big bang.

It happens, as a matter of fact, that your response is up to you.

[toker]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

Free will is just an illusion. We appear to have it, so we act as if we do.
And that is different from actual volition, how?

How do you scientifically determine the difference between actually charting your own course, and just thinking you did?

My position entails that I can, under normal circumstances, raise either hand. As I choose. You say I'm wrong. I'd ask you to explain why, but you have no choice. The difference between you and an automaton is zero. I'll agree YOU have no choice. Now give me reason to think that I have no choice.

Am waiting.

[Pandora]

I've always had a problem with determinism. Maybe it's my brain, but I can't seem to square it with a few things: volition, cognition, and abiogenesis.

Determinists might say that volition is an illusion... but then I've got to wonder what makes me move my fingers in an orderly fashion to type this message, if not volition? There's not some outside agency forcing me to type this. And it seems a bit too orderly and coherent to be the result of randomness in the universe.

I've never really gotten a good response on cognition. We know it exists - there's a fair bit of research related to it. We definitely process information, but more importantly we take existing information, rearrange it, and innovate. Sometimes we even innovate when not all information is present - we experience inspiration, we make leaps of logic and call them intuition. These behaviors certainly exist, and I can't fit them into the deterministic schema.

Abiogenesis is the other piece of data that I look to in these arguments. There is a distinction between a complex molecular chain and a living organism. I don't think any of you dispute that, do you? An organism is still a collection of molecules, and hence a bunch of atoms. But they're organized in such a fashion that they become something more than just a complex set of molecules. They become a living thing, capable of acting in response to its environment and of creating offspring. To the best of my knowledge, physics doesn't have an answer for this - we still don't understand how it happens that under the right environmental influences a collection of molecules becomes an organism... but it does. Just because reductionism can't answer it definitively doesn't mean that life is an illusion, does it? In the same fashion, there is a level of complexity and a particular arrangement at which an organism begins to reason - they actively think and they anticipate the outcomes of their actions, rather than just responding to their environment through a prior set of instructions (instinct). That behavior is free will. That ability to think ahead and to anticipate outcomes and choose the action that produces the outcome you want - that is free will. Humans aren't the only ones who have it, although I'd argue we've got the most sophisticated ability we've seen so far. Many animals exhibit the capacity for forethought to some extent. Crows and ravens use tools to solve problems in relatively innovative ways. A dog that got into the trash while you were out will act contritely when you come home before you've discovered the mess in the kitchen.

Simple observation demonstrates that humans have the ability to reason, problem solve, innovate, and learn. All of these seem to me to be directly antithetical to a deterministic world.

But as has already been pointed out - it's not exactly unbound free will. You can't will purple unicorns into existence for your pleasure. Not all things are possible. One must still work within the confines of reality, and yes - physics. But within that construct, choice does exist.

Limited Free Will FTW!

[Ozymandias]

There is a distinction between a complex molecular chain and a living organism. I don't think any of you dispute that, do you?

It is only a distinction of definition, in the same way that there is a distinction between red and orange because we define them to be particular wavelengths of light.

[BioBeing]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

Free will is just an illusion. We appear to have it, so we act as if we do.
And that is different from actual volition, how?

To us, there is no difference.

How do you scientifically determine the difference between actually charting your own course, and just thinking you did?


I don't know.

How do you scientifically prove the magic box needed for your system. Oh, that's right - you can't. Unless you are going to give me the references I asked for weeks ago now. Am waiting.


My position entails that I can, under normal circumstances, raise either hand. As I choose. You say I'm wrong. I'd ask you to explain why, but you have no choice. The difference between you and an automaton is zero. I'll agree YOU have no choice. Now give me reason to think that I have no choice.
We have the same degree of choice. Unless of course, I have only one arm.

Am waiting.
You am also very rude. I am waiting for you to tell me how you think free will actually works. As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.

[Pandora]

There is a distinction between a complex molecular chain and a living organism. I don't think any of you dispute that, do you?

It is only a distinction of definition, in the same way that there is a distinction between red and orange because we define them to be particular wavelengths of light.

One actively responds to its environment and reproduces itself in some fashion... the other just exists. I'd say that distinction is more than just one of definition, wouldn't you?

[toker]

Could someone please attempt to explain to me (and perhaps toker, who I suspect understands it no more than I do) how the current concept of determinism works?

Free will is just an illusion. We appear to have it, so we act as if we do.
And that is different from actual volition, how?
To us, there is no difference.
Right! So, since you can't tell whether we have volition or not, why did you choose (lol) the side you come down on?

How do you scientifically determine the difference between actually charting your own course, and just thinking you did?

I don't know.
Again: so why decide we cannot make choices?

How do you scientifically prove the magic box needed for your system. Oh, that's right - you can't.
Prove it needs a magic box. Oh, that's right - you can't.

Our culture depends on it, our relationships assume it, our justice system is built on it, I experience it, so do you, and multi-disciplinary science studies it. You should seek the source of your incredulousness. Why in the world do you believe your next actions were pre-ordained at the dawn of time? What weird cult do you adhere to?

Unless you are going to give me the references I asked for weeks ago now. Am waiting.
lol. Restate your request. Better yet, research your own question.

My position entails that I can, under normal circumstances, raise either hand. As I choose. You say I'm wrong. I'd ask you to explain why, but you have no choice. The difference between you and an automaton is zero. I'll agree YOU have no choice. Now give me reason to think that I have no choice.
We have the same degree of choice.
I have free will. That is the degree of choice I have.

Am waiting.
You am also very rude.
Sheltered, you are.

I am waiting for you to tell me how you think free will actually works.
Entities exist which can make decisions for themselves. Brute fact. Open your eyes, and do all the research you want.

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

[toker]

People are only free to choose whatever they think is in their own best interests,
Nonsense. People surrender their own best interests routinely. For ideals; for the kids; for the fire in your heart.

[Ozymandias]

There is a distinction between a complex molecular chain and a living organism. I don't think any of you dispute that, do you?

It is only a distinction of definition, in the same way that there is a distinction between red and orange because we define them to be particular wavelengths of light.

One actively responds to its environment and reproduces itself in some fashion... the other just exists. I'd say that distinction is more than just one of definition, wouldn't you?

"Actively" responds? What does that mean? I would say that viruses satisfy both your requirements, but are not considered life. Which rather proves my point...

[BioBeing]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.

[toker]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.
You didn't answer the question.

Why must I know how it works, for it to exist? That's really a weird requirement you make. As I said, science is attending the question. I do know that the failed philosophies of reductionism and determinism are useless here.

Seriously: do you tell your kids they have no choice? Their behavior is not up to them? They are just biological machines with no options?

The clockwork universe died long ago. Catch up.

[toker]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.
Volition exists. I agree it needs explaining. But hey if you figure you have no control over your own behavior, I accept that. Bio is just a zombie, with nothing important to say. He has no ability to control his own behavior.

[BioBeing]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.
You didn't answer the question.

Why must I know how it works, for it to exist? That's really a weird requirement you make. As I said, science is attending the question. I do know that the failed philosophies of reductionism and determinism are useless here.


Reductionism might well not work, and this might be it's Waterloo. But you haven't shown that. You keep saying it, but you haven't shown it.

And if reductionism doesn't work, then what? You have to propose some new non-physical thingy that sounds an awful lot like magic to me to to replace it. You've gone from one mystery (free will) to two (free will plus whatever it is you need to explain it).

Get back at me when you've got that Nobel Prize.

[Pandora]

There is a distinction between a complex molecular chain and a living organism. I don't think any of you dispute that, do you?

It is only a distinction of definition, in the same way that there is a distinction between red and orange because we define them to be particular wavelengths of light.

One actively responds to its environment and reproduces itself in some fashion... the other just exists. I'd say that distinction is more than just one of definition, wouldn't you?

"Actively" responds? What does that mean? I would say that viruses satisfy both your requirements, but are not considered life. Which rather proves my point...

Getting out of my depth here... but IIRC, virus do not reproduce - they replicate. Additionally, they don't respond to their environment - they interact with it by going through a repetitive set of actions... specifically those of "Steal some genetic material, build a copy of me, move on to the next cell". They're nanobots. not organisms.

ETA... out of all of that great big post I made, I'm a little disappointed that this one line is the only thing that got responded to. In my arrogance, I like to think that's because you have no response to any of the other major points that I made ;)

[Pandora]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.

So what? You can't provide any sort of mechanism for how the big band worked either - nobody has any clue as to why it occurred, what set it off, what happened "before". Does that negate the Big Bang Theory? No. You know why? Because observational data seems to fit what the theory would predict. Similarly, the theory of free will seems to fit the observational data of how people act, respond, and interact.

BTW... determinism does NOT seem to fit the observational data. So for lack of a mechanism, you're choosing to follow a theory which demonstrably fails to reflect reality. How's that Earth-centered universe working out for you?

[Ozymandias]

So what? You can't provide any sort of mechanism for how the big band worked either - nobody has any clue as to why it occurred, what set it off, what happened "before". Does that negate the Big Bang Theory? No. You know why? Because observational data seems to fit what the theory would predict. Similarly, the theory of free will seems to fit the observational data of how people act, respond, and interact.


You have this all wrong. The Big Bang Model is a very comprehensive description of the time immediately after the hypothesised initial singularity. It is a very full description and explains in great detail what happened. It says nothing about the singularity itself (so in some sense is a little misnamed) but it doesn't intend to.

By contrast, you just assert that free-will (or volition or whatever) exists with no attempt to explain it, or make it compatible with the laws of physics, or even properly define what you mean.


BTW... determinism does NOT seem to fit the observational data. So for lack of a mechanism, you're choosing to follow a theory which demonstrably fails to reflect reality. How's that Earth-centered universe working out for you?

The universe is non-deterministic only when making a quantum measurement. Everything else (including the evolution of the wavefunction) is deterministic. The result of quantum measurements are random, which is even less compatible with free will than the deterministic part!

[Pandora]

And yet none of that fits observational data about how cognitive beings behave and interact with each other and the world around them.

So where does that leave you?

[Politesse]

What observational data?

[BioBeing]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.

So what? You can't provide any sort of mechanism for how the big band worked either - nobody has any clue as to why it occurred, what set it off, what happened "before". Does that negate the Big Bang Theory? No. You know why? Because observational data seems to fit what the theory would predict. Similarly, the theory of free will seems to fit the observational data of how people act, respond, and interact.

BTW... determinism does NOT seem to fit the observational data. So for lack of a mechanism, you're choosing to follow a theory which demonstrably fails to reflect reality. How's that Earth-centered universe working out for you?

Oh, noes this is hard != Disproven.


And science gets advanced when people don't just demolish old theories, but they provide new ones to replace them that explain the data better. Saying "oooh, magic" has never been science.

[Ozymandias]

And yet none of that fits observational data about how cognitive beings behave and interact with each other and the world around them.

So where does that leave you?

Doesn't it? Now this is indeed a claim worth investigating. Could you please describe this observational data that does not fit with physical law?

[toker]

As you seem to be envisioning it, it needs a little black box. Dennett tells us why that doesn't work. Or Dennett is wrong - so tell us why. Baseless assertions are get boring.
If Dennett says black boxes are not useful, he's a fool. Does he say that, Bio?

Point is - you cannot provide any sort of mechanism for how you actually think free will works. Dennet takes on claims such as yours in Freedom Evolves. In detail. He doesn't just throw out stupid one-liners backed up by nothing more than a hunch, which is all you have.

Tell me how free will WORKS, and then we can talk again.
You didn't answer the question.

Why must I know how it works, for it to exist? That's really a weird requirement you make. As I said, science is attending the question. I do know that the failed philosophies of reductionism and determinism are useless here.


Reductionism might well not work, and this might be it's Waterloo. But you haven't shown that. You keep saying it, but you haven't shown it.

And if reductionism doesn't work, then what? You have to propose some new non-physical thingy that sounds an awful lot like magic to me to to replace it. You've gone from one mystery (free will) to two (free will plus whatever it is you need to explain it).

Get back at me when you've got that Nobel Prize.
So. Your objection to free will is that reductionism is true. Show that all sciences other than physics are unneeded, and I'll buy one of your tickets.

I like reading about science. I've noticed that science, despite your wishes, is not limited to physics.

[Pandora]

What observational data?

People make choices on a daily basis. Nearly all of our culture is predicated on some concept of choice - what do you want to eat for dinner? Should you have the yummy fried chicken, or should you focus on health and have the green salad? Should I spend time on the Internets arguing with folks, or should you spend time with my family and friends? What should I wear today? Which car should I buy? How much money should I put away for retirement? And so on...