Let's redo a classic: Freewill vs Determinism

[belligerent drunk]

Was re-reading the thread and noticed another thing I would like to address.

I'll believe it after conciousness is proven to be nothing more than a chemical construct.

Why? I think it is the opposite of a logical and scientific stance on such a matter. It may be (and probably is) extremely difficult to prove that something like that is purely a chemical mechanism - we would need to come up with and experimentally prove a very detailed model of how consciousness/brain works. Right now we're very far off from that goal, but that doesn't automatically mean that there is something more to our mind. If there is no evidence to disprove something, it doesn't mean that it exists. Just like there's no evidence to disprove the existence of god (and how can there be?), but that doesn't automatically mean that god exists.

I'm of the opinion that one should base their beliefs and understandings on things that there is compelling evidence for. There is no evidence to suggest that (if there is, I would like to see some!) our brains cannot be a result of chemical reactions, and that there needs to be something "supernatural" for it to all work. Sure, there is no evidence to exclude that possibility either, but that is not enough to believe in it.

I can see why humans tend to prefer to believe such things as "there is a purpose in life", "I have free will" and so on. It makes existence easier and it can also help explain a thing or two, but only on a spiritual and subjective level. You can just as easily say that our illusion of free will is a mechanism in our brains that developed as a part of our ability to analyze everything around us. It is hard to imagine a thinking device, which is able to analyze events and whatnot around itself to such an incredible extent that we're able to, but cannot and does not analyze itself.

In short, I see such a stance as saying "I believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth (although there is NO evidence to suggest that), and although it is more logical (based on current available evidence) to think that it's the other way round, I will believe in it only after my position is utterly disproven". Do you not agree that it is not a very rational way to go about believing things?

 

[Nixiam]

This is partially me wanting to retain what bit of spirituality I have left, but I'll get over it sooner or later. We don't know what conciousness is exacactly, and a lot of people exploit this lack of knowledge to support their own spirituality (which seems a bit delusional). But if conciousness were to be spiritual, how could we prove it? Maybe in a few hundred hears after science has evolved more we might begin to speculate on the matter. It very well may be purely a chemical construct, and I suppose I'll be fine with that sooner or later.

It is a pretty irrational way of thinking. I can't argue against that, but spritual arguments generally invoke irrationality. Philosophy seeks explanation where Science gives description.


It is false that lack of evidence for one thing is evidence for another. Seems like a last swing to save what bit of faith a person has in an argument. It is hard greatly for me to let go of the idea of free will and spirituality having been raised wih such ideas. The reason for saying that was only to say that it might be a possibility, a thread of hope for those who want to retain spirituality.


Keep in mind I am strongly against religion.


Anoher thing is I don't really strongly believe in a sprituality as much as I like the idea of it. But, not in a suicide bombing way.


I feel at some point I will be disproven. I simply don't believe EVERYTHING is predetermined, but our actions to situations might.
And probably are.


RIP I gotta run (school)

 

[belligerent drunk]

This is partially me wanting to retain what bit of spirituality I have left, but I'll get over it sooner or later. We don't know what conciousness is exacactly, and a lot of people exploit this lack of knowledge to support their own spirituality (which seems a bit delusional). But if conciousness were to be spiritual, how could we prove it? Maybe in a few hundred hears after science has evolved more we might begin to speculate on the matter. It very well may be purely a chemical construct, and I suppose I'll be fine with that sooner or later.

It is a pretty irrational way of thinking. I can't argue against that, but spritual arguments generally invoke irrationality. Philosophy seeks explanation where Science gives description.


It is false that lack of evidence for one thing is evidence for another. Seems like a last swing to save what bit of faith a person has in an argument. It is hard greatly for me to let go of the idea of free will and spirituality having been raised wih such ideas. The reason for saying that was only to say that it might be a possibility, a thread of hope for those who want to retain spirituality.


Keep in mind I am strongly against religion.


Anoher thing is I don't really strongly believe in a sprituality as much as I like the idea of it. But, not in a suicide bombing way.


I feel at some point I will be disproven. I simply don't believe EVERYTHING is predetermined, but our actions to situations might.
And probably are.


RIP I gotta run (school)

Your PM inbox is full, so I cannot reply to your message; you have to delete some. That is if you're expecting a reply in the first place!

 

[turkalurk]

the concept of freewill is all about ego reinforcement. The word works fine without the free attached to it. We have a will of our own, but how is it free? Your brain can make choices, but the you(ego) claiming to be free isn't even the one making the choices. In fact, the voice you hear in your head, that part of you that you think is in control, is only processing the choices you have already made. Thats why we have computer programs that can read your brain activity and predict where you decide to throw a ball before your voice in your head even makes the decision. We process information in a variety a ways using a variety of interconnected feedback loops and we get to decide which results have the most influence on a particular action, but how is any of this free? Espclecially in the context of the Supreme Being that is Existence? How are we free from the world that made us? it gave us everything! it provides the nature and the nurture. It determines every potential out there. It provides the choices you encounter, it provides every experience that ever influenced the way you make your decisions. It provided all the biology that makes your decision-making possible.
the word is only useful as an apologetics tool, to reconcile the paradox of how a loving all powerful all knowing creator god could be so incompetent. Its so apparent that freewill is incompatible with god's qualities as portrayed in the bible. If god gave us free will, then he must have limitations. For example, his foreknowledge could not predict human action, because if he created something knowing exactly what it would do, then whatever the thing did would be god's will acting itself out. I, personally have no qualms with this, but its not very appealing the the ego. The individual wants all the control. But, in reality, we are all just pieces of the world being what the world made us to be. Whether it had any thoughts about what you'd be is rather inconsequential. Maybe the world has conscious thoughts. That would be really cool, and I will be ecstatic if thats the case. But, it just seems anthropomorphic to me. I don't need the world to be conscious to revere in its awing magnificence.

 

[swilow]

Mind/body dualism may not be helpful here. A reactive process begins in the body before conscious awareness, but is still your body reacting. We are not riding our seperate bodies, our consciousness is diffused throughout. Humans learn complex tasks so that we can react unthinkingly but this does not mean that our bodies reactions are somehow not our own...

I think a dualistic worldview, where mind and body are seperate, nullifies free will. But, I don't think that we are only our thoughts. I am my perspective as much as I am my ability to walk upright. I taught my body to react without my conscious decision, but it is still me reacting.

Not sure if above makes sense...

 

[Nixiam]

I would lke to believe that mind and body are seperate. But that's the ego in me seeking a pure form of sepreation fom the chemical chains that secure me to these blurred lines. In other words, I would rather adopt a dualist perspective, that mind and body are seperate. Mind being conciousness. Scentific evidence can't prove it is seperate, but as of yet can't disprove it. I think that its reasonable for now to adopt which one we're more comfortable with, but when its proven otherwise, such a belief would be more self delusion than an ideal perspective.

Yay for seeking answers science hasn't provided description of!

 

[turkalurk]

Mind/body dualism may not be helpful here. A reactive process begins in the body before conscious awareness, but is still your body reacting. We are not riding our seperate bodies, our consciousness is diffused throughout. Humans learn complex tasks so that we can react unthinkingly but this does not mean that our bodies reactions are somehow not our own...

I think a dualistic worldview, where mind and body are seperate, nullifies free will. But, I don't think that we are only our thoughts. I am my perspective as much as I am my ability to walk upright. I taught my body to react without my conscious decision, but it is still me reacting.

Not sure if above makes sense...

if you are responding to my thoughts you have made several misassumptions as usual. I do not believe your mind is seperate from your body. But, I am confused why you think mind body dualism nullifies freewill. I talked about the different parts of you, but never did I mention these parts of you are not you and other parts are you. Its all you. Without your brain, how are you going to process information? I am not sure how you are relating any of this to how a will is free or not? I say we have a will of our own, but its not free from the world that made us. I say the world provided our biological make up and our experiences that have molded the way we make decisions. Our will does not exist seperate or free from our world because we would not exist without it. Nothing that I have experienced in this life has made me think otherwise, nor have I heard any convincing arguments to the contrary, but if I ever discover otherwise I'll be glad to hear it.

let go of that ego willow, experience the oneness with the world around you. Your subjective reality only functions to represent a portion of the objective world. You are a potentiality being actualized. You are free to experience playing the hand you were dealt, but your options are limited and how you decide is dependent upon preexisting conditions.

 

[swilow]

if you are responding to my thoughts you have made several misassumptions as usual. I do not believe your mind is seperate from your body. But, I am confused why you think mind body dualism nullifies freewill. I talked about the different parts of you, but never did I mention these parts of you are not you and other parts are you. Its all you. Without your brain, how are you going to process information? I am not sure how you are relating any of this to how a will is free or not? I say we have a will of our own, but its not free from the world that made us. I say the world provided our biological make up and our experiences that have molded the way we make decisions. Our will does not exist seperate or free from our world because we would not exist without it. Nothing that I have experienced in this life has made me think otherwise, nor have I heard any convincing arguments to the contrary, but if I ever discover otherwise I'll be glad to hear it.

let go of that ego willow, experience the oneness with the world around you. Your subjective reality only functions to represent a portion of the objective world. You are a potentiality being actualized. You are free to experience playing the hand you were dealt, but your options are limited and how you decide is dependent upon preexisting conditions.

I was going to reply in detail but then read ad hom bullshit at the end and gave up. You might be the wisest person on earth but your penchant for insulting people negates the value of your remarks.

 

[Kittycat5]

Entropy. Plus external factors (like radiation) and the way most organisms reproduce. Mutations of all kinds happen all the time, and even our reproduction involves some alterations in the genetic makeup of the child compared to its parents. The latter is just needed for evolution, otherwise we'd all been dead meat sacks!

You're right, we know close to nothing about consciousness, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily more to it than what I said. I'll take my words back as soon as there's reasonable proof to the contrary, but until then I see no logical reason to believe that humans (or other organisms for that matter) are more than a sum of its parts, so to speak.

What I mean by that is, is there a reason to believe that laws of nature apply differently on different scales?

Yes, there is. Quantum physicists undoubtedly believe that probability governs the microscopic world but if asked, the majority would say this is not true as you scale up be it a single organism, the biologic sciences that deal with how species behave and interact or the scientific/humanitarian studies like anthropology. I have posted a video from a theoretical physicist named Sean Carroll who explains it better than I and would gladly post it again.

I personally agree with those that say even if free will is an illusion, it feels real enough to me to render this topic of debate futile. I will paraphrase Einstein, a determinist through and through, who said I may know that a criminal is not responsible for his actions, but I still choose to not take tea with him.

 

[turkalurk]

I was going to reply in detail but then read ad hom bullshit at the end and gave up. You might be the wisest person on earth but your penchant for insulting people negates the value of your remarks.

there was no ad hominem bullshit, you are misinterpreting what I mean by ego. Everyone has ego. Letting go of one's ego and feeling that parietal lobe inhibition is a very powerful experience. I sincerely hope you can find your way to such experiences. The only problem I have ever really had with you is your ability to misconstrue what I mean, make implications based on poorly made assumptions, and then I feel like my time was always wasted just trying to clarify what my argument actually is. I know it is not your intention, we just have very different styles of thinking that it makes effective communication with you rather difficult.

here is a definition of ego so maybe that ego of yours won't get so bent out of shape. Also, just because you find something offensive or insulting does not make it an ad hominem. It depends on the context of the argument. it is only an ad hominem if the insult is used as support of an argument when in fact it has no relevance.

ego
[ee-goh, eg-oh]
noun, plural egos.
1.
the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

you remember the whole "beautiful moral high horse" thing. Never meant that as an insult either. If I wanted to use it as an insult, then I wouldn't have called the high horse "beautiful." Hell, I even said it was a high horse I'd love to ride but simply lacked integrity, but somehow you felt you knew better. I've remained pretty consistent though haven't I? Maybe someday you will be able to see things from my shoes. I see things from your shoes which is why I give you my time and try to clarify things with you, regardless of my doubts of success. I am sorry that I have ruffled your feathers far more than I have ever intended. I get that I am difficult to understand, but I am ok that. I am perfectly fine with you ignoring me like you have said you would.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Yes, there is. Quantum physicists undoubtedly believe that probability governs the microscopic world but if asked, the majority would say this is not true as you scale up be it a single organism, the biologic sciences that deal with how species behave and interact or the scientific/humanitarian studies like anthropology.

I contest that. I think the reason people believe in such is simple. The probabilistic nature of our universe is not easily observable on macro scale. But that doesn't mean that macro scale is not a result of its billions little micro parts. The same way you cannot observe the collisions of individual water molecules, some escaping "the surface" of the body of water - the surface being hardly defined at all at such a small scale - and yet we see water in our glass being perfectly still. The surface of an inflated balloon being "bumped" from inside and from the outside by individual gas particles gives energy to segments of its body that move it in a certain direction (making it "bigger" or "smaller"), yet we see the balloon perfectly still. Hell, even particles of your table are vigorously vibrating up and down, left and right, always changing the "micro shape" of your table, yet it looks perfectly still. I hope you see where I'm going with this - on macro scale the "fluctuations", so to speak, cancel eachother out, so we see the "balanced" result. That does not mean that on the micro scale there are not happening lots of peculiarities all the time. To suggest that laws that apply on a small scale do not apply the same way on a bigger scale and vice versa makes no sense to me, and if you have any proof to backs that suggestion up, I'm very curious. If there is any proof at all that nature's laws are different in different parts of the universe or on different scales, I'd be very interested in taking a look at it.

Just a random reminder: the relativistic nature of spacetime is not apparent in every-day life either, yet the GPS navigation system needs to account for it or otherwise it wouldn't work. You know, just sayin'.

E: PS I haven't watched that video, but I believe I know where to find it and will take a look at it when I get home, but I'm doubtful that it talks about the same question as we are.

E2: I don't think you disagree with me, Kittycat, I just think I've done a poor job at getting my point across, so I'll provide a few more examples of similar situations. For example, as you know, in biochemical modeling gravity is most often not accounted for, because its relevance compared to electromagnetic interactions is negligible at that level; however, that does not suggest that gravity does not work at the level of individual molecules or their complexes, does it?

Perhaps a more random example: acid-base equilibrium. As you know, the proportion of a protonated population of a base (let's take fluoride for example, a moderate-strength base) or an acid compared to the whole population of that substance (so HF and F- combined) is determined by pH; for example log ([A-]/[HA]) = pKa + pH. How does an individual molecule or ion know how much it should dissociate/associate? The answer is, obviously, it doesn't. It's also a game of probabilities: how probable it is that a fluoride will grab a proton from someone else in that solution compared to how probable it is that HF will give its proton to somebody else. Why this example? Because here as well, we can say that the system is static with a certain pH, however at the same time we acknowledge that in reality it's a dynamic system with particles interacting in all sorts of ways, but which compensate for eachother to achieve this pseudo-static state that we can observe.

 

[swilow]

there was no ad hominem bullshit, you are misinterpreting what I mean by ego. Everyone has ego. Letting go of one's ego and feeling that parietal lobe inhibition is a very powerful experience. I sincerely hope you can find your way to such experiences. The only problem I have ever really had with you is your ability to misconstrue what I mean, make implications based on poorly made assumptions, and then I feel like my time was always wasted just trying to clarify what my argument actually is. I know it is not your intention, we just have very different styles of thinking that it makes effective communication with you rather difficult.

here is a definition of ego so maybe that ego of yours won't get so bent out of shape. Also, just because you find something offensive or insulting does not make it an ad hominem. It depends on the context of the argument. it is only an ad hominem if the insult is used as support of an argument when in fact it has no relevance.



you remember the whole "beautiful moral high horse" thing. Never meant that as an insult either. If I wanted to use it as an insult, then I wouldn't have called the high horse "beautiful." Hell, I even said it was a high horse I'd love to ride but simply lacked integrity, but somehow you felt you knew better. I've remained pretty consistent though haven't I? Maybe someday you will be able to see things from my shoes. I see things from your shoes which is why I give you my time and try to clarify things with you, regardless of my doubts of success. I am sorry that I have ruffled your feathers far more than I have ever intended. I get that I am difficult to understand, but I am ok that. I am perfectly fine with you ignoring me like you have said you would.

Fair enough. It just felt like you interpreted my post as disagreeing with you and then start talking about my ego. That's what I called ad hom bullshit.

 

[Nixiam]

We just gotta love Turk for who he is.

 

[swilow]

I agree. He would probably be surprised to know that I appreciate his perspective. I'd just rather he stop the personal remarks. My ego will always compel me to instantly dismiss those comments.

Science has demonstrated that our bodies react before we are consciously aware. If our minds are 'riding' our bodies, and are seperate from the body, I don't think we have free will. But, I consider my body part of me and my mind part of my body, so my non-conscious reactions are still me reacting.

Semantic...

 

[Nixiam]

Just because my reactions are predetermined doesn't mean my concious decision to do so is. Kind of like being forced against your will, except your will is deprived of its senses.

For example, say you lick a 9 volt battery. Your tongue contracts, which you can't really help in the moment. I didn't conciously want it to contract, or think it the most forethought I have for my tongue to contract, but it did by mechanism. Maybe a body conciousness exists for that, not a mental one.

Kind of an iffy example, but you catch my drift.

 

[ElJefe3]

Think about the nucleus of a cell and compare it to our brain. Our cells would not survive without a brain, and you wouldn't survive without a brain either. Your tongue contracts because of nerves in your body, that send connections to your brain and nervous system to tell your brain for you that you are getting hurt. Its kind of like when you are under water, and you can't hold your breath any longer and your body struggles to get to surface. Thats why its impossible to drown yourself.

 

[Nixiam]

Think about the nucleus of a cell and compare it to our brain. Our cells would not survive without a brain, and you wouldn't survive without a brain either. Your tongue contracts because of nerves in your body, that send connections to your brain and nervous system to tell your brain for you that you are getting hurt. Its kind of like when you are under water, and you can't hold your breath any longer and your body struggles to get to surface. Thats why its impossible to drown yourself.

Jump into a pool, then put a cover over it. Congratulations, you've drowned yourself.

 

[Kittycat5]

Perhaps you are correct, belligerent. A cosmic ray can cause a genetic mutation, the phone I am using would not exist without QM, hell if you believe in the many worlds interpertation of QM, our whole timeline is directed by quantum mechanical events.

A better way for me to convey what I mean is the following: When examing higher order systems, you can use the concepts and mathematics of QM, but you may be calculating forever. The probabilistic nature of the quantum world is so trivial when exploring the macro world, it is futile to consider utilizing its power and a more classical approach gives you far greater insights into its nature.

As an example, if you want to describe the movement of air in your room, you could use QM to explain it (assuming you knew the position or velocity of every particle) but fluid dynamics gives you a simpler and equally "correct" description of the flow of the air.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Perhaps you are correct, belligerent. A cosmic ray can cause a genetic mutation, the phone I am using would not exist without QM, hell if you believe in the many worlds interpertation of QM, our whole timeline is directed by quantum mechanical events.

A better way for me to convey what I mean is the following: When examing higher order systems, you can use the concepts and mathematics of QM, but you may be calculating forever. The probabilistic nature of the quantum world is so trivial when exploring the macro world, it is futile to consider utilizing its power and a more classical approach gives you far greater insights into its nature.

As an example, if you want to describe the movement of air in your room, you could use QM to explain it (assuming you knew the position or velocity of every particle) but fluid dynamics gives you a simpler and equally "correct" description of the flow of the air.

That I agree with completely and it's actually what I wanted to also say, but forgot to. As you say, it is often more simple and efficient to model higher-order systems as "simplifications" of reality without accounting for all of its factors, but I think you agree with me that that's all it is - a simplification to make calculations etc easier, it does not suggest that higher-order systems actually function differently from its smaller parts. Right?

However, in this discussion (whether free will exists or not) it is actually irrelevant. You don't even have to believe in quantum theory to realize that we can't have free will. Atomic theory is already enough.

 

[Kittycat5]

Yes, it is off topic but raises questions too. If everything is governed by the quantum world and it is itself governed by probability, can deteriminism be true? I dont know and it hurts my brain to ponder it.