Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

20 Jul 2012, 9:06 am

Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Declension wrote:
I think that people who talk about "free will" are basically just confused. If you carefully pick apart the concepts surrounding the issue, you find that people actually agree on the relevant facts.

FACT 1: My behaviour, as seen from the outside, is entirely consistent with physical laws.
FACT 2: I make choices.

These two facts do not contradict each other.

I do not agree with the 2nd fact.


What do you mean? You don't think that I make choices, or you don't think that you make choices?

I don't believe that either of us make choices.

(Btw, I edited my post after you answered.)


Well, I can't know whether you are being dishonest or not. All I can tell you is that I know that I make choices, in much the same way that I know I exist.

I believe my behaviour "happens". There is no decision to be made. If my behaviour is the result of neuro-chemical activity, then there is no decision at all, no choice, because there is no alternative. Basically, saying that one's choice of tie is a "decision" is to fit it within a narrative structure to describe and explain behaviour that would have happened anyway, whatever one's consciousness tells one.

Obviously, this depends on the definition of self, and this can be discussed on a number of levels.



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

20 Jul 2012, 1:48 pm

Declension wrote:
I think that people who talk about "free will" are basically just confused. If you carefully pick apart the concepts surrounding the issue, you find that people actually agree on the relevant facts.

FACT 1: My behaviour, as seen from the outside, is entirely consistent with physical laws.
FACT 2: I make choices.

These two facts do not contradict each other.

The problem is we don't have a complete understanding of those physical laws; that is, physics hasn't ended. For example, there was no "physical" explanation of a lot of chemical phenomena in the 18th century because it was not compatible with the then physics. Physicists ridiculed at chemists for their silly models. It turned out that the chemists were right. It just happened that the then physics was wrong. Quantum mechanics allowed the unification of chemistry with physics but only after physics was altered.

In my opinion, the strongest argument put forth for the possibility of "free will" are positions that are able to challenge the following premise by Carl Hoefer:
Quote:
The presumption in favor of upward causation and explanation (from microphysical to macrophysical) that comes with causal completeness is what cuts free agency out of the picture, whether this causation is deterministic or partly random.

If it can shown that there exists the possibility for some type of 'downward causation' between the macroscopic/microscopic domains, then maybe "free will" can occur? Determinism or non-determinism is irrelevant, in my opinion. I can't even see how a indeterministic universe would help the "free will" position anymore than a deterministic universe. It seems that would just lead to a "random will"?



ShamelessGit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 718
Location: Kansas

20 Jul 2012, 2:18 pm

I don't think whether free will exists is significant from a functional perspective, because apparently we can't tell whether we have free will or our choices are determined but are just too complicated to understand well.

If you accept that physical laws describe the way things work then this follows:
1) All known physical laws are either deterministic (classical mechanics) or probabilistic (quantum mechanics)
2) Free will is neither determined nor random
C) There is no evidence to support the existence of free will

Ordinarily when there is no reason to believe in something you don't believe in it. But you may as well posit the existence of free will the same way you posit the randomness of a die because you don't know enough about the die's trajectory at any given time to be able to calculate the outcome before it happens. Theoretically if you knew everything about the die and it's immediate surroundings in a single instant of time then you could calculate the outcome with 100% accuracy. But we still think of dies as being random.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

20 Jul 2012, 3:27 pm

kxmode wrote:
I watched a movie tonight called The Adjustment Bureau. There is one scene in particular that piqued my interest. It is a scene where a character known as Thompson explains free will.

Quote:
David Norris: What ever happened to Free Will?
Thompson: We actually tried Free Will before. After taking you from hunting and gathering to the height of the Roman Empire we stepped back to see how you'd do on your own. You gave us the Dark Ages for five centuries. . . until finally we decided we should come back in. The Chairman thought maybe we just needed to do a better job of teaching you how to ride a bike before taking the training wheels off again. So we gave you the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution. For six hundred years we taught you to control your impulses with reason, then in 1910 we stepped back. Within fifty years, you brought us World War I, the Depression, Fascism, the Holocaust and capped it off by bringing the entire planet to the brink of destruction in the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that point a decision was taken to step back in again before you did something that even we couldn't fix. You don't have free will, David. You have the appearance of free will.
David: You expect me to believe that?
Thompson: You have Free Will over what tie you pick in the morning, or what beverage to order at lunch. But humanity just isn't mature enough to have control over the important things.
David: So you handle the important things. The last time I checked the world is a pretty screwed up place.
Thompson: It's still here. If we'd left things in your hands, it wouldn't be.


I agree and disagree with Thompson's explanation of free will. Let me address both starting with my disagreement.

Where I disagree with him is in his explanation of free will, or the fundamental nature of free will itself. As a believer in Jehovah God, the bible states that we were made in his image, and in the likeness of God. (Genesis 1:26) Since Jehovah God has free will, it is only reasonable to conclude that this gift was endowed upon the first human pair. (Genesis 1:27,28) In the likeness of God simply means we mirror God's many qualities like love, justice, wisdom, and so forth; including free will. (Galatians 5:22,23) As imperfect beings - in no small part thanks to Adam, Eve and Satan (Genesis 3:1-15; Romans 5:12) - we are unable to reflect God's qualities perfectly. But when it comes to free will this is perhaps the one aspect of God's qualities that humans use to its fullest. In what way? Jehovah God, through his son's perfect random sacrifice, has given humanity the most powerful use for their free will in deciding if they will exercise faith in Jesus' sacrifice and serve Jehovah, or to not serve him. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Proverbs 27:11; Isaiah 48:18) While we live in this time period Jehovah God does not force this choice on anyone. (Zephaniah 2:2,3; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20)

Where I agree with Thompson are his statements on the "appearance of free will" and "control over the important things". As created beings our Heavenly Father has endowed us with many wonderful traits but the one thing we were never gifted with is the ability to govern ourselves or others. Jeremiah agrees; "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23) What has been the result of centuries of humans trying to direct the steps of millions? Wise King Solomon answers, "man has dominated man to his injury" (Ecclesiastes 8:9) and those words are more truthful today than they were during Solomon's time. Only Jehovah God has the right to govern mankind because he “created all things, and because of [his] will they existed and were created." (Revelation 4:11) As Thompson concludes if left to humanity we would literally destroy ourselves. Similar words were spoken by Jesus over 1,900 years ago. Referring to a cataclysmic event he called the great tribulation he states that wicked mankind will bring themselves to brink of destruction to a degree that he adds, "In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." (Matthew 24:21,22)

The ultimate expression of "control over the important things" can be seen in the apostle John's inspired words: "Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world — the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life — does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever." (1 John 2:15-17) The "control over the important things" is fundamentally what's at stake. Jehovah sovereignty, or his right to rule, was challenged by Satan in the very beginning. Through Jehovah's perfect justice he has allowed a set amount of time for Satan to present his case not only before the spiritual realm of angelic beings but also the physical realm of humanity. Our decision to side with Jehovah or Satan is at the very heart of our free will. (Proverbs 27:11)

Beyond the agreements and disagreements, free will is a wonderful gift given by Jehovah God so that we can simply enjoy life. But more important this unique ability we possess can help us serve Jehovah and his interests. How can this be free will? Very simply if you love someone, free will empowers you to do the things they ask out of love.



Please stop proselytizing using your sig. line.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

20 Jul 2012, 8:04 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
If my behaviour is the result of neuro-chemical activity, then there is no decision at all, no choice, because there is no alternative.


Whatever "I made a choice" means, it certainly does not mean "the laws of physics permit me to have chosen differently".

If that's what "I made a choice" means, then I could say "I made a choice" if my choice was determined by a random number generator. That would be silly.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

21 Jul 2012, 9:18 am

Declension wrote:
FACT 2: I make choices.


How is that a fact? What defines 'I'?



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

21 Jul 2012, 10:56 pm

Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
If my behaviour is the result of neuro-chemical activity, then there is no decision at all, no choice, because there is no alternative.


Whatever "I made a choice" means, it certainly does not mean "the laws of physics permit me to have chosen differently".

If that's what "I made a choice" means, then I could say "I made a choice" if my choice was determined by a random number generator. That would be silly.

I don't really understand what you mean.



graywyvern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 666
Location: texas

23 Jul 2012, 11:02 am

two somewhat pertinent quotes from my book:

"Refusing to believe in chance is the most subtle, & perhaps the least pernicious, form of denial. But who is there can believe in neither chance nor necessity?"

"My doctrine of Moments of Choosing: humans don't have free will except at long intervals & for brief moments, & they mostly let them go by; but for that time, it is possible to make a more free or less free choice, with ramifying consequences thereafter. Thus it is wisdom to develop sensitivity toward such moments, & to learn what to do with them while they are here."

actually, rather than quibble at all, i can today only marvel at people's readiness to plunge into sides-taking in any discussion whatsoever without defining the key terms: almost as if doing so, would invalidate the heroism of the plunge. (but then, where would philosophy be?)

perhaps they would only discover, that even though these words cannot be defined, we're still unwilling to give them up.

which is something, after all, to know.


_________________
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity
to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they
do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic
reasoning." --William Blake


kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

23 Jul 2012, 10:19 pm

slave wrote:
Please stop proselytizing using your sig. line.


Here's where the discussion starts to get a little meaner. As far as I know my sig line does not breaks any forum rules. I would simply say that if you, personally, don't like my sig line you can ignore it.



Last edited by kxmode on 23 Jul 2012, 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

23 Jul 2012, 10:35 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
If my behaviour is the result of neuro-chemical activity, then there is no decision at all, no choice, because there is no alternative.


Whatever "I made a choice" means, it certainly does not mean "the laws of physics permit me to have chosen differently".

If that's what "I made a choice" means, then I could say "I made a choice" if my choice was determined by a random number generator. That would be silly.

I don't really understand what you mean.


Imagine that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, like a clock. In such a universe, a thing that happens could not have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Now imagine that the universe is fundamentally random, like a coin-flip. In such a universe, a thing that happens could have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Is it really true that I can make choices in the second universe, but not the first?



kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

23 Jul 2012, 11:11 pm

Declension wrote:
Imagine that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, like a clock. In such a universe, a thing that happens could not have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Now imagine that the universe is fundamentally random, like a coin-flip. In such a universe, a thing that happens could have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Is it really true that I can make choices in the second universe, but not the first?


And this relates to the original post how?

If it doesn't relate, then...
Image



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

24 Jul 2012, 1:09 am

kxmode wrote:
Declension wrote:
Imagine that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, like a clock. In such a universe, a thing that happens could not have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Now imagine that the universe is fundamentally random, like a coin-flip. In such a universe, a thing that happens could have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Is it really true that I can make choices in the second universe, but not the first?


And this relates to the original post how?

If it doesn't relate, then...
Image


Try following the quotes.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

24 Jul 2012, 9:15 am

Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Declension wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
If my behaviour is the result of neuro-chemical activity, then there is no decision at all, no choice, because there is no alternative.


Whatever "I made a choice" means, it certainly does not mean "the laws of physics permit me to have chosen differently".

If that's what "I made a choice" means, then I could say "I made a choice" if my choice was determined by a random number generator. That would be silly.

I don't really understand what you mean.


Imagine that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, like a clock. In such a universe, a thing that happens could not have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Now imagine that the universe is fundamentally random, like a coin-flip. In such a universe, a thing that happens could have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Is it really true that I can make choices in the second universe, but not the first?

No. Assuming that universal determinism is wrong does not void "anthropic" determinism. Indeed, there is apparently an amount of randomness, as I understand it, in quantum mechanics, even though it does not cause observable differences. To argue for free will, one would need to show that the observed indeterminacy is caused in fact by choices made by individuals.

However, if universal determinism holds, or at least holds outside particle physics, then there is no room for free will.

kxmode wrote:
Declension wrote:
Imagine that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, like a clock. In such a universe, a thing that happens could not have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Now imagine that the universe is fundamentally random, like a coin-flip. In such a universe, a thing that happens could have happened differently according to the laws of physics.

Is it really true that I can make choices in the second universe, but not the first?


And this relates to the original post how?

If it doesn't relate, then...
Image

Well, your OP was a very nice piece of byblical exegesis on the theme of free will, and the thread went on to talk about free will without any hermeneutics.

I say it's a move forward.