do we really have the ability to make choices independently of a situation (hopefully that makes sense) or are we just some sort of machine constantly reacting to stimulus that learns "how" to react based on past experiences?
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 22, 2011, 09:25:10 AM
do we really have the ability to make choices independently of a situation
or
are we just some sort of machine constantly reacting to stimulus that learns "how" to react based on past experiences?
I would judge both of the two ideas stated above to be correct. The latter is applicable only if we
allow ourselves to default to a non free-thinking position.
As for the existence of free-will, well that depends on whether you consider self-imposed limitations on ones expression of desires to be insurmountable. The debate between determinism and libertarianism still rages...
yeah, I would have thought that it's a mixture of the two, partly dependent on how our brains are wired and how capable we are of 'thinking outside of the box' and considering all possible responses to a given situation.
All I can work out is that society has to assume that people have free will, otherwise it can't judge them. As to the question - maybe it isn't answerable in terms of what really goes on in the brain.
I have no idea, but I think we may have limited or restricted will.
Assuming we don't really know, the least we can say is that we have the illusion of free will, because we're not conscious of the processes that lead to some decisions, if not all.
Maybe there is a difference in the weight people give to different information when making a choice, but the outcome can also be rather predictable based on how much the person knows, instinctual behaviour (reptilian brain, mostly) and the situation they're in.
I tend to lean more towards determinism than not.
I've never really understood the "question" of free will. Or, rather, how anyone could have a completely deterministic point of view.
I mean, if I'm "destined" to be a rocket scientist, does that mean that I can drop out of highschool and just coast along in life because it's bound to happen anyways? Obviously our choices have weight and impact our lives. Everyone makes choices, so I get confused when people start arguing about this kind of thing. ???
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 22, 2011, 09:25:10 AM
do we really have the ability to make choices independently of a situation (hopefully that makes sense) or are we just some sort of machine constantly reacting to stimulus that learns "how" to react based on past experiences?
I am a hard determinist. Given perfect knowledge of the present, the future could be predicted perfectly. Only our imperfect knowledge of the present renders our predictions of the future more or less unreliable. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says merely that our knowledge of the present with regard to the sub-atomic realms will inevitably be imperfect. It doesn't say the sub-atomic future is undetermined. It merely says, whether or not the sub-atomic future is determined, we won't know in what direction it is destined to go, or if we know in what direction, we won't know how fast. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is agnostic toward determinism.
If you were omniscient with regard to my genetic composition, omniscient with regard to the phenotypic and psychodynamic ramifications, and omniscient with regard to my every experience from conception to this moment, you would know precisely what I was going to do next. You could produce this very post I'm now typing, verbatim, simultaneous with my own typing of it. On what do I base this? Causality, which as far as I can tell is ubiquitous. Nothing happens except as the result of something else happening prior, and if A caused B yesterday, then all else being equal, A will cause B today.
The above has no bearing on our ability to impose law on ourselves. If we want people to leave other people's property alone, we make a law to that effect, and if we want people to comply with that law, we associate penalties with non-compliance. Law isn't morality. Law is leverage. Law is behavior-modification by way of threat, imposed so as to preserve a status quo desired by the lawmakers or their bosses or constituents. It isn't at all necessary for us to pass moral judgment on the lawbreaker. We condemn and punish so as to deter, and we deter so as to preserve a status quo to our liking.
No such thing as free will.
We do make choices but they are based on many things, physical makeup, upbringing, culture, teachings, dietary intake.
If you could create the exact same conditions, likely the same decision would be made.
Free will supposes a soul detached from all of the physicality but somehow floating around, following a particular life system. It would suggest that a different soul within the same life system, same situation, would make different choices, because that soul is more good or more bad than other souls hence it is likely to make the wrong or right choice and then god will judge it.
1. I have no belief in gods
2. I have no belief in morality (good, bad)
3. I have no belief in soul
4. I have no belief in free will
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 06:06:46 PM
If you could create the exact same conditions, likely the same decision would be made.
Definitely the same decision would be made.
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 06:06:46 PM
Free will supposes a soul detached from all of the physicality but somehow floating around, following a particular life system. It would suggest that a different soul within the same life system, same situation, would make different choices, because that soul is more good or more bad than other souls hence it is likely to make the wrong or right choice and then god will judge it.
Even if I knew unequivocally that I had a soul, I would still be a hard determinist, since causality would still apply.
Aristotle posited four elements to causality: (1) a thing's nature; (2) a thing's structure; (3) a thing's history, including what just happened a moment ago; and (4) any plan imposed on the universe by its maker, if maker there be. You and I would dispense with the fourth. As for the second, let's grant for simplicity's sake that a soul lacks structure. The first and third element would still remain. A soul would have some sort of nature, and some sort of history, together comprising the causality impressing upon the soul's decision-making apparatus. Not even souls can escape causality.
I guess in many cases, the correct definition of "free will" hinges on how absolute a freedom you put into the word "free".
The one thing that may alter a completely deterministic world view is intelligent self-consciousness and self-reflection, which humans alone possess on this planet, it appears. Once one begins to contemplate one's own actions through reflective thought, one is presented with a variety of options that creatures ruled by instinct do not have. The mere act of considering all the alternatives presented by a situation interferes with the process of strict determinism. One may decide to resist normal impulses to act and thoughtfully consider other choices. This process itself becomes part of the causal chain, and creates a feedback loop that influences the ultimate outcome. While deterministic forces may still apply within the feedback loop, the whole process of stopping the normal course of cause/effect to thoughtfully reflect has introduced a previously unknown factor into the equation. In this manner, humans do have some capacity by their wills to alter outcomes. I wouldn't call it entirely "free" will, but neither is it slavish determinism.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
While deterministic forces may still apply within the feedback loop, the whole process of stopping the normal course of cause/effect to thoughtfully reflect has introduced a previously unknown factor into the equation. In this manner, humans do have some capacity by their wills to alter outcomes. I wouldn't call it entirely "free" will, but neither is it slavish determinism.
I am not quite following you.
Alter the outcome?
Doesn't your god already know what will happen? Nothing has been altered.
What is this seemingly random facter that does not follow cause/effect? Do our brains have a random generator, or do we use past events to make decisions hence altering the future? Sounds alot like cause and effect.
I'm a crappy determinist, however, it often does seem that the future is pre-determined in hindsight, if you know what I mean.
(In case you don't, I do not think an event is pre-determined before it occurs, but after it occurs, one can usually dig up a bunch of contributing factors, given the lack of life, getting laid or anything at all better to do)
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
While deterministic forces may still apply within the feedback loop, the whole process of stopping the normal course of cause/effect to thoughtfully reflect has introduced a previously unknown factor into the equation. In this manner, humans do have some capacity by their wills to alter outcomes. I wouldn't call it entirely "free" will, but neither is it slavish determinism.
I am not quite following you.
Alter the outcome?
Doesn't your god already know what will happen? Nothing has been altered.
What is this seemingly random facter that does not follow cause/effect? Do our brains have a random generator, or do we use past events to make decisions hence altering the future? Sounds alot like cause and effect.
First, I didn't mention anything about God. But since you brought him up, my view of God is that, while he knows a lot, he doesn't know literally everything that will happen. That is one consequence of the creation of creatures with intelligence. Second, yes, we use past events to make decisions. But because of our capacity to reflect and consider, two separate brains may view past events in different ways, and thus decide to arrive at different conclusions based on the same input. Or, they may decide to act capriciously in a way that is impossible, even for God, to predict. Human brains alter the processes of determinism, IMHO. Of course, this alteration is only within relatively small parameters. There are many things that we cannot change.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 22, 2011, 06:49:03 PM
I guess in many cases, the correct definition of "free will" hinges on how absolute a freedom you put into the word "free".
Yes, I agree. If, for example, "free will" means there's no spirit in the sky pulling my strings like a puppeteer, then mark me down as a free will proponent. But if "free will" means my decisions are independent of my genes and my history, then mark me down as a determinist.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The one thing that may alter a completely deterministic world view is intelligent self-consciousness and self-reflection, which humans alone possess on this planet, it appears.
I've watched my cat follow a decision process that looks pretty human to me, as far as I can tell. For example, I recently started handing little treats to her. Her initial reaction was to move away from my outstretched hand, as she tends to interpret most interactions as some sort of game involving some sort of chase. But she wanted the treat. I watched her hesitate, then move toward my hand, them move away, them move toward it again, and finally take the treat. Something was definitely going on in her head.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The mere act of considering all the alternatives presented by a situation interferes with the process of strict determinism.
I don't see why. Genes and history determine whether alternatives will be considered at all, and which alternatives, and by what standard they'll be measured. Genes and history determine our thoughts and our feelings, which in turn determine our actions.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
While deterministic forces may still apply within the feedback loop -
They do, of course.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
- the whole process of stopping the normal course of cause/effect to thoughtfully reflect has introduced a previously unknown factor into the equation.
Every entity has some method of processing stimulus so as to generate a response. That method may be mechanical, as in the case of a tire jack, or chemical, as in the case of a stomach, or psychodynamic, as in the case of an animal. Whatever the method, the stimulus will be processed and a response will be generated, and in every instance, the processing will follow the path laid down for it by the entity's governing nature and the entity's history.
I think our ability to make decisions by analyzing situations and possible outcomes rather than by acting purely on natural instinct counts as free will; at least in a practical sense.
I don't really focus too much on if reality is deterministic or not because at the end of the day we'd all still act as if it were not....it's just something that can be interesting to discuss from an academic point of view. I don't think we actually know enough about the universe yet to know exactly how much of reality is determined by previous events (like how far back does the butterfly effect go).
I don't think the existence or lack of a soul affects free will as I can imagine programing a computer so that it could function (genes) and placing it in a world where it could interact (environment) and that it would be able to do so freely only being held back by basic barriers necessary to its existence. A soul would just be god (or something) programming something that is beyond natural explanation.
I am a firm believer in free will. I am also a firm believer in freedom to choose. I think they are one and the same.
For example, the westboro baptist church has the free will to do what they do and picket funerals. They have the freedom to choose to say what they say, but maybe that choice should still have consequences? Maybe this would help them make the "right" choice based on a broader societal view that sees what they are doing is harmful to those that are just trying to grieve?
On the opposing side, maybe I as an adult make the choice to let my 8 year old sit on my lap and steer my vehicle down a dirt road. When I was growing up, this was normal and something my father did with me, yet today - I would likely be put in jail for "choosing" to do such a thing.
Free will and freedom of choice is like ethics. An Ethical choice isn't necessarily "legal" or "illegal". That is based on what society as a whole deems as right and wrong.
One problem I see in America today is that more and more freedom of choice and free will is being legislated out of the hands of individuals. (For example, we make laws to punish a choice that is deemed "wrong" by making it illegal or even worse -- a government agency with little oversight does so) Instead, the decision whether a choice that is made is right or wrong lies in the hands of people that may not reflect the society an individual grew up in.
I think this may be one reason Free Thought is so "popular" today. Choices, or "Free Will" are slowly being taken out of the hands of individuals and the only thing left is free expression of thought.
Apologies for going a bit off topic - excercising free speech =P
I think there should be a distinction between "determinist" and "fatalist". I don't think that "determinism" really conflicts with free will for any practical purpose, but "fatalism" does.
"Determinist", to me, implies the logical conclusion of cause and effect - if you know every single possible variable, you should be able to know the effect. On the largest scale, this should apply to every aspect of human nature. Of course we don't have anywhere close to that amount of knowledge that this would require, but it should be theoretically possible. However, even if this were the case, I would argue that this doesn't need to mean that we have no "free will".
What's the definition of free?
Quote"1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another"
So, if we're talking about variables, can we really say that we're enslaved by them? I don't think so. Every aspect of our reality is limited in one way or another - humans need boundaries, but that doesn't mean these boundaries are all prisons. We think and process using our (limited) brains, but how many of us feel like we're enslaved by our brains? Maybe some people do, but I'd argue that most don't.
Similarly, when it comes to this position, can we say that we're controlled by the obligation or will of another? Not really. Even if all of the variables line up and we can predict every outcome, there's no "purpose" or will behind the variables and the outcomes don't need to have any coherent direction beyond being the logical conclusion of the variables.
We are still the primary players, despite the fact that our actions may be predicted.
It's only when you get into an argument of "fatalism" that I think we move into "no free will" territory. Fatalism implies a "mover" or that there is an unconscious direction that everything we do moves us towards. Like Oedipus (or the stupid "final destination" movies) nothing we do can stop our "fates". It's less about cause = effect and more about action = destiny. Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.
Sooo yeah. Those are my two cents ;D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 23, 2011, 12:25:40 AM
Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.
Sooo yeah. Those are my two cents ;D
Agreed! Fatalism is like the lazy man sitting down and saying, where is my food woman!!? Then complaining when he is about to die of malnutrition. Life is not about any one individual, it is about how you impact the lives of those around you.
I accept that everything should be predictable to an omniscient being.
I'm not sure predictable detracts from freedom.
I am me, I've inherited characteristics from the universe which will determine what I type next.
But I have inherited these things, they are mine, so my decisions are mine, I own them.
I don't really accept the theoretical predictability of my actions makes me less free except in an extremely abstract sense.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 03:29:56 AM
I accept that everything should be predictable to an omniscient being.
I'm not sure predictable detracts from freedom.
I am me, I've inherited characteristics from the universe which will determine what I type next.
But I have inherited these things, they are mine, so my decisions are mine, I own them.
I don't really accept the theoretical predictability of my actions making makes me less free except in an extremely abstract sense.
The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.
The idea of predictability in a choice or series of choices could only be marginally equated with the Reasonable person rule in Law. If a reasonable person has the motive and opportunity to kill another human being but decides not to do so because of the punishment (lets say in a Death Penalty state) we can assume that is what a reasonable person would do. In a case where someone DOES make the choice to kill another human being, they are therefore unreasonable under the law and should be punished. That is what the punishment is there for to deter the choice we DONT want to see as a society. Society invents these rules not because we know what choices will be made under a set of circumstances, but because we know what will deter those choices.
We are free - to make our own choices. That some believe those choices are predestined by or known by an omniscient being seems to me to be a completely unreasonable idea. Also, unproven to date with no positive data with which to theorize.
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 23, 2011, 03:40:59 AM
The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.
omniscience: The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Probably is ludicrous, it is just a way of imagining the implications of determinism.
An omniscient being could have no other ability other than to know.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 08:44:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The one thing that may alter a completely deterministic world view is intelligent self-consciousness and self-reflection, which humans alone possess on this planet, it appears.
I've watched my cat follow a decision process that looks pretty human to me, as far as I can tell. For example, I recently started handing little treats to her. Her initial reaction was to move away from my outstretched hand, as she tends to interpret most interactions as some sort of game involving some sort of chase. But she wanted the treat. I watched her hesitate, then move toward my hand, them move away, them move toward it again, and finally take the treat. Something was definitely going on in her head.
It all greatly depends on how those terms are operationalized. There's research on non-human primates that shows they exihibit forethought, self-awareness and self-recognition, show empathy, coordinate with each other in complex ways, plan ahead and solve problems through application of knowledge. Some have gone so far as to identify aspects of regional group differences in social behavior as primitive culture.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 04:06:01 AM
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 23, 2011, 03:40:59 AM
The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.
omniscience: The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Probably is ludicrous, it is just a way of imagining the implications of determinism.
An omniscient being could have no other ability other than to know.
How do you know an omniscient being could have no other ability than to know. Is this something you know that you aren't sharing? :D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 22, 2011, 02:34:30 PM
I've never really understood the "question" of free will. Or, rather, how anyone could have a completely deterministic point of view.
I mean, if I'm "destined" to be a rocket scientist, does that mean that I can drop out of highschool and just coast along in life because it's bound to happen anyways? Obviously our choices have weight and impact our lives. Everyone makes choices, so I get confused when people start arguing about this kind of thing. ???
no, this means that based on your exact situation reading this thread caused you to believe dropping out of highschool will not affect your future because you are predestined. so the only thing you were predestined to do is to read this thread and drop out of highschool. never becoming anything.
basically what i meant was are our reactions set in stone based on our circumstance. if we kept being presented with the same exact circumstance with the same knowledge and memories of the past, would we honestly be able to make a different choice?
Quote from: yepimonfire on December 23, 2011, 04:28:59 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 22, 2011, 02:34:30 PM
I've never really understood the "question" of free will. Or, rather, how anyone could have a completely deterministic point of view.
I mean, if I'm "destined" to be a rocket scientist, does that mean that I can drop out of highschool and just coast along in life because it's bound to happen anyways? Obviously our choices have weight and impact our lives. Everyone makes choices, so I get confused when people start arguing about this kind of thing. ???
no, this means that based on your exact situation reading this thread caused you to believe dropping out of highschool will not affect your future because you are predestined. so the only thing you were predestined to do is to read this thread and drop out of highschool. never becoming anything.
basically what i meant was are our reactions set in stone based on our circumstance. if we kept being presented with the same exact circumstance with the same knowledge and memories of the past, would we honestly be able to make a different choice?
Possibly. Haven't there been some situations in your life where you made a choice, but it was a very, very difficult choice to come by and you aren't even certain, afterwards, why you made it? I don't think every decision that I've made and everything that's happened to me so far has ever been a certainty. I think probabilities are more useful for understanding the nature of our experiences. Everything else seems like a trick of retrospect to me, really.
For instance, the paragraph I just wrote is pretty consistent with my "style" of writing, but it isn't the only way I could have ever written what I wanted to say while staying in a familiar "DJ-way". Yes, maybe if you knew all of the variables that were going in my brain, you could predict exactly what I was going to write, but I don't think that means it was the only "choice" available to me.
I went over this more in my evolution thread, but I want to make a couple points here, since I see several people believing in determinism.
I don't believe determinism is applicable to all reality.
One of the main arguments a determinist will use is the cause-effect argument. That all things must follow the laws of physics, which are cause-effect logic, deterministic. But, the cause-effect relationship only applies to material systems. If you start with the premise that consciousness and the choices from it are the products of matter, then the cause-effect is logical.
However, if one starts with the premise that consciousness is immaterial and eternal, the cause-effect chain would not absolutely bind them. Since, from this premise, consciousness is not the creation of matter, therefore not effected by matter. Our consciousness role would be to direct matter and energy. Of course, this premise can bring up several questions of its own, but I won't go into that further now.
The second premise, which I posted on, so I'll just briefly mention, is based on intuitive senses. If one admits that their intuitive senses are capable of providing them with information that is accurate to a degree, of objective reality, such as the sense of hunger among many others, then it is hard to argue why all humans would also develop a sense of agency, which is completely illusionary.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:16:31 AM
The second premise, which I posted on, so I'll just briefly mention, is based on intuitive senses. If one admits that their intuitive senses are capable of providing them with information that is accurate to a degree, of objective reality, such as the sense of hunger among many others, then it is hard to argue why all humans would also develop a sense of agency, which is completely illusionary.
Hunger isn't an intuitive sense, it's instinctual and hardwired. It just is one of those sense that you're born with and you'll know when it's satisfied. There's no need to postulate actual higher learning with this one. Sort of like pain. When you feel pain you do, but when you remove yourself from what's causing you pain, you don't feel pain anymore. some of those involve responses that have even become automatic, so whether free will is involved in a conscious decision to remove your hand from a flame is really debatable. That is an automatic response, and it's better for it, because if people had to first make a string of conscious decision, more harm might be done.
My hand is in the fire, it's causing me pain. I don't like pain. I must remove my hand from the fire.(removes hand)
Meanwhile, the hand was at least a couple of seconds longer in the fire than it would've been had the response bypassed the brain areas which make those sort of decisions.
Likewise, how do we know that all of the processes that lead up to our decisions are conscious? Is it applicable, in your opinion to say that you chose to remove your hand?
As for situations and circumstances that could cause people to make certain choices...though varied, how is thinking that a certain choice was the best possible one given the situation any different?
(I hope my writing's been clear, it's late and so it's probably muddled. I hope I got the point across.)
Good points. I do believe in subconscious processes. No one I would say, is fully in control of all their decisions.
I'd like to put aside the actual decision for a minute though, and just focus on the sense itself. A child, as you say, is hard-wired, so-to-speak, to know by sense alone, certain objective information about reality, such as the need to eat, without having to reason.
And a child gradually develops other senses, and they become more acute with time. Why would a child, all humans, begin to develop the sense of agency, that they have some freedom, if this sense gives zero information about objective reality, while the other senses do give the child information?
Also, if the sense of agency is 100% illusionary, as the determinist will claim, then why trust any instinctual senses?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 23, 2011, 12:25:40 AM
It's only when you get into an argument of "fatalism" that I think we move into "no free will" territory. Fatalism implies a "mover" or that there is an unconscious direction that everything we do moves us towards. Like Oedipus (or the stupid "final destination" movies) nothing we do can stop our "fates". It's less about cause = effect and more about action = destiny.
If fatalism implies something like Aristotle's First Cause, the notion of a teleological universe, then I am not at all a fatalist. Nature as a whole has no intentionality as far as I can tell. Only individual creatures have intentionality, to the best of my knowledge.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 23, 2011, 12:25:40 AM
Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.
The universe could be teleological and still be indifferent to individuals. We could all be threads in a tapestry, and the tapestry could be all the Weaver cares about, hence the willingness to cut the threads. If I believed in a Puppeteer, it would be one who has no qualms about subjecting its puppets to any torture for the sake of the show. This is the God of the Deists in my view, if we grant that God omniscience and intention. Such a God would have predicted, and thus purposefully caused, any and every horror you could name from history, all for the sake of its art.
Someday a human art museum will have an exhibit consisting of a terrarium with an anthill in it, plus a gadget that repeatedly torments the ants with some sprayed chemical they hate but which doesn't immediately kill them. The title of that exhibit will be, "God."
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 23, 2011, 10:05:05 AM
Someday a human art museum will have an exhibit consisting of a terrarium with an anthill in it, plus a gadget that repeatedly torments the ants with some sprayed chemical they hate but which doesn't immediately kill them. The title of that exhibit will be, "God."
Perhaps we should invite interpretations of this.
How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 11:47:53 AM
How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.
Is the idyllic green field real life, and the head-stuck person a believer, oblivious to the idylls of green due to the imposition of the diorama, which represents faith?
If so, and if I were the artist, the green fields would have luscious fruits, singing birds, and a rolling stream - and on some of the fruits, blight; running from some of the birds, mice; and in the stream, someone drowning.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 23, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 11:47:53 AM
How about an idyllic green field with a lovely stream flowing through, a person seated at a table in the middle of the field with their head stuck in a diorama, at their eye level we have a representation of hell, if they strain to look upwards they can glimpse a shiny man and light.
Is the idyllic green field real life, and the head-stuck person a believer, oblivious to the idylls of green due to the imposition of the diorama, which represents faith?
If so, and if I were the artist, the green fields would have luscious fruits, singing birds, and a rolling stream - and on some of the fruits, blight; running from some of the birds, mice; and in the stream, someone drowning.
Yes yes, you have my intent.
QuoteThe trouble with a classicist he looks at a tree
That's all he sees, he paints a tree
The trouble with a classicist he looks at the sky
He doesn't ask why, he just paints a sky
The trouble with an impressionist, he looks at a log
And he doesn't know who he is, standing, staring, at this log
And surrealist memories are too amorphous and proud
While those downtown macho painters are just alcoholic
There's a problem with realists as well, they are bothersomely honest.
Quote from: Whitney on December 22, 2011, 09:20:31 PMI don't really focus too much on if reality is deterministic or not because at the end of the day we'd all still act as if it were not....it's just something that can be interesting to discuss from an academic point of view.
I really don't find it all that interesting. The conversation is rather short, unless one wants to argue about whether it's true or not, but even that gets old quickly. The position is currently as unfalsifiable as a god, so I don't bother.
If there is some variant of "free will", then I will act as I please, if it's determined, then I have no choice in how I act. There really is no quantafiable difference between the two.
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 06:06:46 PM
No such thing as free will.
We do make choices but they are based on many things, physical makeup, upbringing, culture, teachings, dietary intake.
If you could create the exact same conditions, likely the same decision would be made.
Free will supposes a soul detached from all of the physicality but somehow floating around, following a particular life system. It would suggest that a different soul within the same life system, same situation, would make different choices, because that soul is more good or more bad than other souls hence it is likely to make the wrong or right choice and then god will judge it.
1. I have no belief in gods
2. I have no belief in morality (good, bad)
3. I have no belief in soul
4. I have no belief in free will
You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.
OR, "I" could refer to the sack of bones and other things which probably taste good once roasted long enough.
You don't need to make "you" more complicated than the body and electrical and chemical processes therein.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 23, 2011, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.
You don't need to make "you" more complicated than the body and electrical and chemical processes therein.
Then why do you keep doing so yourself? Why keep referencing such immaterial things like "I" if they're just illusions. Why not say 'my brain did this, my brain did that" 'Brain' says this.
Apparently "I" really is an illusion. "I" would be more like a "we". The brain is modular.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:03:32 PM
Then why do you keep doing so yourself? Why keep referencing such immaterial things like "I" if they're just illusions. Why not say 'my brain did this, my brain did that" 'Brain' says this.
The above is pretty much idiotic.
Your brain does not pour coffee in your cup - it commands other subsystems to do that. When I say "I'm going for a fag", I mean the body - arms, legs, heads - the whole thing, and everything it contains is about to move from one location to another in order to inhale some nicotine fumes.
"I" is a bit more than a brain, since I am composed of several systems. The
Pereption of "I", however, is generated in and by the brain.
Ok. So you simply observe your body doing things, and "I" is a reference to your body. You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:09:07 PM
You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
No. That is not at all what I am saying.
"I" AM the bloody body. Of course I can ontrol what it does. I'm it. It's me. We are one and the same.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:09:07 PM
Ok. So you simply observe your body doing things, and "I" is a reference to your body. You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2vb3ec7.jpg&hash=405992aef91354f08ef4738f330502e266a90e13)
Quote from: Asmodean on December 23, 2011, 08:18:30 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:09:07 PM
You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
No. That is not at all what I am saying.
"I" AM the bloody body. Of course I can ontrol what it does. I'm it. It's me. We are one and the same.
Ok. But if your body is composed of atoms and molecules, such as neurons are, and that matter functions according to the laws of physics, then wouldn't the laws of physics control your body?
And if they don't , then you're admitting there's something within your body which is exempt from the cause-effect laws of physics. How could that be? Unless, it was something immaterial?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:23:43 PM
Ok. But if your body is composed of atoms and molecules, such as neurons are, and that matter functions according to the laws of physics, then wouldn't the laws of physics control your body?
No. Laws of physics explain in what ways matter and energy behave. The laws themselves do not govern matter. The misunderstanding aside, yes, I am very much a subject to physical laws. Otherwise, I'd most certainly ignore gravity and beome invisible on ocasion.
Quote
And if they don't , then you're admitting there's something within your body which is exempt from the cause-effect laws of physics. How could that be? Unless, it was something immaterial?
I think the above answers it well, if in few words. Not bored enough to write a wall of text this evening.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:23:43 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 23, 2011, 08:18:30 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:09:07 PM
You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
No. That is not at all what I am saying.
"I" AM the bloody body. Of course I can ontrol what it does. I'm it. It's me. We are one and the same.
Ok. But if your body is composed of atoms and molecules, such as neurons are, and that matter functions according to the laws of physics, then wouldn't the laws of physics control your body?
No they wouldn't. Atoms are building blocks of a body in the same way that a brick is a component of a building. Put enough bricks together in the right way and you get a house. Put atoms together in the right way and you get a body. 'Houseness', is an emergent property of correctly assembled bricks. Life is an emergent property of correctly assembled atoms.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:23:43 PM
And if they don't , then you're admitting there's something within your body which is exempt from the cause-effect laws of physics. How could that be? Unless, it was something immaterial?
Your logic is flawed because your presumption is that inanimate atoms cannot build an animate body.
Quote from: Crow on December 23, 2011, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:09:07 PM
Ok. So you simply observe your body doing things, and "I" is a reference to your body. You have no active role in controlling it. Is that what you're saying?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2vb3ec7.jpg&hash=405992aef91354f08ef4738f330502e266a90e13)
Count to 10 slowly and take deep breaths :D
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 08:36:20 PM
Your logic is flawed because your presumption is that inanimate atoms cannot build an animate body.
I never understood the need some people have to separate body and mind... Mind is a function of the body - there is, to the very best of my knowledge, nothing to indicate otherwise.
I don't see how my logic is flawed. Determinism arouse because philosophers assumed that if the laws of physics control all matter, than they would presumably control matter everywhere it exists, even in the brain.
Are you saying matter in the brain is exempt from these laws?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.
"I" is the way I refer to the instance of the long running process operating the body/brain that is typing this post. It is purely a result of a physical system of energy/matter.
Quote from: Stevil on December 23, 2011, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
You don't believe in free-will, yet you keep referring to the immaterial concept of "I", which is a reference to your own sense of agency and freedom of control over your actions.
"I" is the way I refer to the instance of the long running process operating the body/brain that is typing this post. It is purely a result of a physical system of energy/matter.
Ok. So then you believe the function of your consciousness is to simply observe your body doing things? It plays no actual role in operating your body?
I guess it would be so then too, that* I'm having a conversation with matter and energy, interesting... materialism is just fascinating, isn't it?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:48:39 PM
Ok. So then you believe the function of your consciousness is to simply observe your body doing things? It plays no actual role in operating your body?
Yeah. I let Old Rusty's steering wheel just observe the rest of Old Rusty drive about. It plays no actual role... Oh wait! I aint dead yet... And neither is Rusty. Weird, isn't it?
Consciousness is a process of the body. In some cases, it is involved in active decision making processes, but in many cases, it doesn't even observe the body doing things.
How long has it been, for instance, since your consciousness observed you turn beer into piss?
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:52:31 PM
I guess it would be so then too, that* I'm having a conversation with matter and energy, interesting... materialism is just fascinating, isn't it?
Yes, this conversation boiled down to its simple components is nothing more than matter and energy interacting and changing states. What did you think it was..? The will of YHWH? ::)
Oh! By the way, "will" is a function of the body too, so... What DID you think it was? ???
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:52:31 PM
I guess it would be so then too, that* I'm having a conversation with matter and energy, interesting... materialism is just fascinating, isn't it?
This is exactly the case, we are a bunch of matter and energy, that walks and talks. It really is quite fascinating how this has happened and hopefully one day science can discover how inanimate objects have become animated.
If theism had its way we would stop looking and instead praise a god or two.
But I like the discovery process.
nm that.
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:44:50 PM
I don't see how my logic is flawed. Determinism arouse because philosophers assumed that if the laws of physics control all matter, than they would presumably control matter everywhere it exists, even in the brain.
Are you saying matter in the brain is exempt from these laws?
philosophers assumed says it all really. The brain is exempt from the detailed laws of physics in the same way a car is exempt from the detailed laws of chemical interaction. The brain exploits the chemical and electrochemical laws to be a brain. It is not controlled by the laws, it functions because it is constructed of atoms and molecules and exploits those laws but is not a hostage to them. Recall the relationship between a brick and a house.
Quote from: Tank on December 23, 2011, 09:04:50 PM
Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 08:44:50 PM
I don't see how my logic is flawed. Determinism arouse because philosophers assumed that if the laws of physics control all matter, than they would presumably control matter everywhere it exists, even in the brain.
Are you saying matter in the brain is exempt from these laws?
philosophers assumed says it all really. The brain is exempt from the detailed laws of physics in the same way a car is exempt from the detailed laws of chemical interaction. The brain exploits the chemical and electrochemical laws to be a brain. It is not controlled by the laws, it functions because it is constructed of atoms and molecules and exploits those laws but is not a hostage to them. Recall the relationship between a brick and a house.
This is a pretty interesting insight.