Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Generally it is. And trying to justify the invalid methods of arriving at conclusions in order to prop up the faith -claim rubber stamps it. Of course this is the natural way of thinking, and logical reasoning is the human construct, so even atheists can use the same bad arguments. But the brand of 'thinking' atheists you get on discussions like this have got there by sound reasoning, so you generally won't gt irrationality from them.
If we don't have free will then every problem with a person, every crime they commit or their lack of ambition or depression goes from a problem with their "spirit" or "emotions" to a problem with the physical structure of their brain. If we could learn enough about the brain, then we could even fix these things.
I think that chaos theory dashes this hope. Just because our thoughts are ultimately biochemically mediated electric impulses doesn't mean that these impulses can't adapt to circumstances at all or that the adaptations as finally realized are 100% deterministic and unchosen. Just as a coastline or a snowflake's exact shape is the end result of an infinitude of shapes it COULD have had, that we could backtrack from its final form up the causal chain to some deterministic starting point doesn't mean that we could expect the exact same final result if we repeated the progression of events from that starting point a second time.
I suppose that the key question is, the second time around, assuming that all the chaotic inputs of weather and temperature and fluid dynamics and so forth were identical, would we still have the exact same shape at the end? I doubt that the answer is yes, because I believe that nature in effect "rolls the dice", that there are the natural equivalent of random number generators at points along the way that would "select" a particular path differently each time. When it comes to we humans, our consciousness makes "selections" and acts as one of those randomizing agents. We think that we are making free choices, but my guess is even if we are -- partially, or some of the time -- our "choosing" is generally far less real than it seems to us to be. And to the extent it's real, it's far less special, unique or remarkable than we want to suppose that it is.
But that is no more a bad thing than is our mortality. We are simply doing what we have evolved by natural selection to do. As such we fulfill what passes for inherent meaning and purpose. So long as one finds a way to subjectively enjoy the process, it is largely an academic question how "real" free will is or is not. Particularly since a lack of free will does not equate to a lack of choice or an absence of found meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
The problem, as you touched on here, is not that God cannot be supported, it's that you arrive at the conclusion "God" through completely unscientific processes. By that I mean, you should not choose a conclusion then identify how to support it. You should look at the evidence then let it lead you to the conclusion. The inability to draw conclusions from evidence or otherwise follow patterns seems to be a dead giveaway to someone's religiosity.
Yes, this cannot be emphasized enough. Religious faith begins, rather than ends, with the conclusion.
I think that chaos theory dashes this hope. Just because our thoughts are ultimately biochemically mediated electric impulses doesn't mean that these impulses can't adapt to circumstances at all or that the adaptations as finally realized are 100% deterministic and unchosen. Just as a coastline or a snowflake's exact shape is the end result of an infinitude of shapes it COULD have had, that we could backtrack from its final form up the causal chain to some deterministic starting point doesn't mean that we could expect the exact same final result if we repeated the progression of events from that starting point a second time.
I think it actually does mean that we will end up with the same snowflake if we could reattain the exact starting state; which is really all that matters.
The chaos theory deals with a different eh... "level" of reality than I am talking about. I am talking about theoretically, if we could put every single atom, electron, quark back in it's exact original state in space and time, would you get the same result. If you could go back in time, could you really have made a different choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I suppose that the key question is, the second time around, assuming that all the chaotic inputs of weather and temperature and fluid dynamics and so forth were identical, would we still have the exact same shape at the end? I doubt that the answer is yes, because I believe that nature in effect "rolls the dice", that there are the natural equivalent of random number generators at points along the way that would "select" a particular path differently each time. When it comes to we humans, our consciousness makes "selections" and acts as one of those randomizing agents. We think that we are making free choices, but my guess is even if we are -- partially, or some of the time -- our "choosing" is generally far less real than it seems to us to be. And to the extent it's real, it's far less special, unique or remarkable than we want to suppose that it is.
Why do you believe this? Can you show me a process that can give me a truly random result? Can you prove that this process is giving a truly random result? I am not convinced in any way that our brains are somehow random number generators that afford us "choices".
What you keep doing that's confusing me is referring to choices and our ability to choose as two separate entities as though they exist independently. I don't think they do. Let me explain why, and you can correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
What you're saying sounds as though our brain is generating any number of different choices on a relatively random basis (may be based on preexisting factors, but still random). From this, our consciousness can choose between the random choices our brain presents us.
The problem with this is that we still have some entity not bound by laws capable of making one choice or another.
In reality with this model, I'd think it would be that the choices are an illusion and the choice is the random roll of the dice. Again, I don't know if there's a true random yet, so I'm waiting on evidence for that first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
But that is no more a bad thing than is our mortality. We are simply doing what we have evolved by natural selection to do. As such we fulfill what passes for inherent meaning and purpose. So long as one finds a way to subjectively enjoy the process, it is largely an academic question how "real" free will is or is not. Particularly since a lack of free will does not equate to a lack of choice or an absence of found meaning.
I agree that the question of free will seems academic but I do not concede for a moment that the lack of free will does not equate to a lack of choice. Of course the lack of free will equates to the lack of choice. What do you mean by this?
I want to say, as I mentioned in the last post which you discarded with the chaos theory, I think identifying and accepting the lack of free will does open interesting doors in finding and remedying problems such as undesirably character traits.
I think that chaos theory dashes this hope. Just because our thoughts are ultimately biochemically mediated electric impulses doesn't mean that these impulses can't adapt to circumstances at all or that the adaptations as finally realized are 100% deterministic and unchosen. Just as a coastline or a snowflake's exact shape is the end result of an infinitude of shapes it COULD have had, that we could backtrack from its final form up the causal chain to some deterministic starting point doesn't mean that we could expect the exact same final result if we repeated the progression of events from that starting point a second time.
I suppose that the key question is, the second time around, assuming that all the chaotic inputs of weather and temperature and fluid dynamics and so forth were identical, would we still have the exact same shape at the end? I doubt that the answer is yes, because I believe that nature in effect "rolls the dice", that there are the natural equivalent of random number generators at points along the way that would "select" a particular path differently each time. When it comes to we humans, our consciousness makes "selections" and acts as one of those randomizing agents. We think that we are making free choices, but my guess is even if we are -- partially, or some of the time -- our "choosing" is generally far less real than it seems to us to be. And to the extent it's real, it's far less special, unique or remarkable than we want to suppose that it is.
But that is no more a bad thing than is our mortality. We are simply doing what we have evolved by natural selection to do. As such we fulfill what passes for inherent meaning and purpose. So long as one finds a way to subjectively enjoy the process, it is largely an academic question how "real" free will is or is not. Particularly since a lack of free will does not equate to a lack of choice or an absence of found meaning.
Yes, this cannot be emphasized enough. Religious faith begins, rather than ends, with the conclusion.
Excellent. Of course, while it certainly the case that doing the same experiment could yield a different result, because complex influences can combine in differing weights of influence even though they are the same - like throwing the same dice. To that extent free Will is random, though the influences (unknown to us) are there. What is more reliable if checking back the causal chain which would give the same result - or set of causes/origins, for that particular event every time.
It might not be Free Will as in totally random choice, but that's no more a problem than an engineer looking at the figures and coming up with a solution rather than laying out the plans and picking one at random
To that extent free Will is random, though the influences (unknown to us) are there. What is more reliable if checking back the causal chain which would give the same result - or set of causes/origins, for that particular event every time.
It might not be Free Will as in totally random choice, but that's no more a problem than an engineer looking at the figures and coming up with a solution rather than laying out the plans and picking one at random
I don't think totally random choice would be free will either But yes, you explained it well. This is what I was trying to get at.
I don't think totally random choice would be free will either But yes, you explained it well. This is what I was trying to get at.
Totally random choice does sound like Free Will to me, though I could be wrong. And I d
think that a choice without much rationale other than personal preference and a choice between
doing what God says or just pleasing ourselves is what the religious theory requires.
Doing tings for a good reason is a bit awkward for the doctrine, as one might have to choose between doing what's right and doing what God says. Though in theory what God says is always right.
Except that it isn't always. Except that it always is, if God says so - or you believe God says so. Which is where the problem comes in.
In the humanist system, we would do things for a rational reason - though as I see it, the impulses that make us choose are impulses me might be unaware of....
Can you show me a process that can give me a truly random result? I am not convinced in any way that our brains are somehow random number generators that afford us "choices".
I do not literally think there is a random choice generator, more that there are mechanisms that serve as pseudorandom choice generators. Predictable of me, I suppose, as this comes from my role as a software developer. Yes if you could put every single quark in the same position and energy state as a starting point, it's possible the outcome would be identical (though this is inherently not a falsifiable hypothesis for a real-world system of any complexity). But the fact is you couldn't (Heisenberg uncertainty). And then there's the problem that observing changes outcomes (observer effect). When there are enough uncontrollable variables, it has the same effect as a pseudorandom number / choice generator (though with likely less randomness than something specifically designed and tuned to strive for randomness).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
What you keep doing that's confusing me is referring to choices and our ability to choose as two separate entities as though they exist independently. I don't think they do.
Truly free will is unbounded choice and unbounded power / ability / authority to implement any random choice without undesired or unanticipated consequences. That this doesn't exist doesn't mean we have no choices at all, just that they are highly constrained by various factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
What you're saying sounds as though our brain is generating any number of different choices on a relatively random basis (may be based on preexisting factors, but still random). From this, our consciousness can choose between the random choices our brain presents us.
No, rather I think there are a finite menu of possible / feasible choices further constrained by our failure to perceive and correctly value all of them, and therefore to discount some of them, and the only unknown is which ones we will (1) notice and (2) act upon or discount for reasons that are very often (3) less than rational or systematic. In fact our personality and character and circumstances tend to bias us toward certain choices and away from others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
I don't know if there's a true random yet, so I'm waiting on evidence for that first.
Quite possibly not, but random ENOUGH to be random for practical purposes. In software systems, pseudorandom numbers are "seeded" from something like the current # of microseconds accumulated on the system clock, so that every requested pseudorandom number sequence has a different starting point; and then it is algorithmically manipulated from there to produce an even distribution of numbers within a desired range. It can be mathematically shown whether it is as good as a true random number sequence for a defined purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
I agree that the question of free will seems academic but I do not concede for a moment that the lack of free will does not equate to a lack of choice. Of course the lack of free will equates to the lack of choice. What do you mean by this?
As stated above, limited choice does not mean there isn't sufficient choice and lack of free will therefore does not mean that we don't have ENOUGH choices to make our existence interesting, maybe even at times compelling.
I do not literally think there is a random choice generator, more that there are mechanisms that serve as pseudorandom choice generators. Predictable of me, I suppose, as this comes from my role as a software developer. Yes if you could put every single quark in the same position and energy state as a starting point, it's possible the outcome would be identical (though this is inherently not a falsifiable hypothesis for a real-world system of any complexity). But the fact is you couldn't (Heisenberg uncertainty). And then there's the problem that observing changes outcomes (observer effect). When there are enough uncontrollable variables, it has the same effect as a pseudorandom number / choice generator (though with likely less randomness than something specifically designed and tuned to strive for randomness).
Truly free will is unbounded choice and unbounded power / ability / authority to implement any random choice without undesired or unanticipated consequences. That this doesn't exist doesn't mean we have no choices at all, just that they are highly constrained by various factors.
No, rather I think there are a finite menu of possible / feasible choices further constrained by our failure to perceive and correctly value all of them, and therefore to discount some of them, and the only unknown is which ones we will (1) notice and (2) act upon or discount for reasons that are very often (3) less than rational or systematic. In fact our personality and character and circumstances tend to bias us toward certain choices and away from others.
Quite possibly not, but random ENOUGH to be random for practical purposes. In software systems, pseudorandom numbers are "seeded" from something like the current # of microseconds accumulated on the system clock, so that every requested pseudorandom number sequence has a different starting point; and then it is algorithmically manipulated from there to produce an even distribution of numbers within a desired range. It can be mathematically shown whether it is as good as a true random number sequence for a defined purpose.
As stated above, limited choice does not mean there isn't sufficient choice and lack of free will therefore does not mean that we don't have ENOUGH choices to make our existence interesting, maybe even at times compelling.
Okay, so to make sure I'm understanding you; what I take you to be saying is we are presented with a limited amount of choices to act upon, but we still get the choice of which one to act upon? So it's not quite free will because of the limited choices, but it's not a lack of choice.
I guess this is in part my fault for diluting the meaning of free will quite a bit. Let me explain that. From what you're saying about free will it sounds to me as though you're thinking there's one entity which is providing a limited amount of choices and another entity which can choose between them. I agree that there seems to be a separation between some entity presenting you with choices (subconscious) and the entity deciding on a choice (conscious). What I don't agree with is that the conscious actually has a choice. It seems to be impossible scientifically. There was an experiment in which scientists demonstrated that they could know what you were going to decide before you decided it consciously. The idea being that through some subconscious process, your brain/mind is already aware of the choice you are going to make before the conscious "you" are. See Dylan Haynes's experiments on free will for this. Essentially, he found you could predict what someone would consciously choose to do a second before they chose it and sometimes up to 10 seconds before. In another experiment, a scientist was able to predict with 80% accuracy a second before the subject had made a decision what they were going to do.
To me free will is even the ability to make a conscious choice between two options. What's more, I don't think it exists.
On a side note, I didn't realize you were a programmer. That's pretty cool. I am a software dev as well
Okay, so to make sure I'm understanding you; what I take you to be saying is we are presented with a limited amount of choices to act upon, but we still get the choice of which one to act upon? So it's not quite free will because of the limited choices, but it's not a lack of choice.
Yes I define "free will" literally, as complete freedom of choice and unhindered agency without unwanted consequences or side effects. It is a rather stricter definition than many who speak of free will actually use. Technically you would have to be a god to have it. That is also why I make a distinction between freedom of choice and free agency (and, for that matter, between "freedom" and "free").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
I guess this is in part my fault for diluting the meaning of free will quite a bit. Let me explain that. From what you're saying about free will it sounds to me as though you're thinking there's one entity which is providing a limited amount of choices and another entity which can choose between them.
I'm not implying any agency on the provisioning side of things. We aren't "provided" with choices by some being, but our choices are naturally constrained by natural law and practical considerations. I don't have the choice to flap my arms and fly like a bird. Even for those things I'm capable of doing -- like, say, not paying my taxes -- I wouldn't want to accept the consequences. And then there are all the choices I haven't even thought of, or find repulsive, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
I agree that there seems to be a separation between some entity presenting you with choices (subconscious) and the entity deciding on a choice (conscious).
I don't think of it in terms of entities or of being "presented with" choices. Options just EXIST, I'm aware of and willing to consider a subset of them, others aren't practical, etc.
I understand where you're going with the research indicating the unconscious appearing to decide matters before one is consciously aware of having decided. But if you see the conscious and unconscious as just components of what is is to be you, then all the research teases at, is that decisions are partly unconscious. It is probably a cooperation between the conscious and the unconscious, not necessarily something imposed BY the unconscious. I think the conscious is perfectly capable of blocking one's id from getting its decisions implemented. Most of us have murderous thoughts and feelings from time to time that we would never act on. My mother in law is one of those people who "need killing" but she needn't lay awake worrying about me creeping into her house at night and blowing her away. Much, anyway ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
Essentially, he found you could predict what someone would consciously choose to do a second before they chose it and sometimes up to 10 seconds before. In another experiment, a scientist was able to predict with 80% accuracy a second before the subject had made a decision what they were going to do.
I haven't looked closely at the design of those experiments but I suspect that they were fairly simple binary decisions, and not fraught with much moral ambiguity or other pressures. I would like to see how that predictive ability holds up with more complex scenarios. What we know is that the unconscious has a role, possibly a major role, in making decisions, but what this doesn't tell us about is the feedback loop between the conscious and unconscious, how one incorporates the other's perceptions and insights. Even if the unconscious is entirely in the immediate driver's seat about snap decisions, it may be subject to broader and longer term constraint and modification by the conscious. Not that it particularly matters to me; if I experience a compelling illusion of choice, it's the same as having choice in terms of my subjective experience of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
On a side note, I didn't realize you were a programmer. That's pretty cool. I am a software dev as well
33 years and counting. Mostly a back-end guy at this point in my career. Cut my teeth on Z-80 assembler, writing printer drivers for the LSDOS/TRSDOS operating system, then among other things, a stint as a FoxBase/FoxPro consultant. Giving away my age here. These days -- I'm a .NET server-side dev specializing in large database applications, though I dabble in Python 3 as well.
Yes I define "free will" literally, as complete freedom of choice and unhindered agency without unwanted consequences or side effects. It is a rather stricter definition than many who speak of free will actually use. Technically you would have to be a god to have it. That is also why I make a distinction between freedom of choice and free agency (and, for that matter, between "freedom" and "free").
I'm not implying any agency on the provisioning side of things. We aren't "provided" with choices by some being, but our choices are naturally constrained by natural law and practical considerations. I don't have the choice to flap my arms and fly like a bird. Even for those things I'm capable of doing -- like, say, not paying my taxes -- I wouldn't want to accept the consequences. And then there are all the choices I haven't even thought of, or find repulsive, etc.
I understand you're not implying agency. Perhaps entity was the wrong word. I just mean two distinct things. In this case, I think we can agree that this would be consciousness and unconsciousness.
I think when you say "Choices I haven't even thought of", that's a big one. How many choices has your subconscious mind never even presented you with? You wouldn't be free to choose them because you didn't have the choice to think about them in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I understand where you're going with the research indicating the unconscious appearing to decide matters before one is consciously aware of having decided. But if you see the conscious and unconscious as just components of what is is to be you, then all the research teases at, is that decisions are partly unconscious. It is probably a cooperation between the conscious and the unconscious, not necessarily something imposed BY the unconscious. I think the conscious is perfectly capable of blocking one's id from getting its decisions implemented. Most of us have murderous thoughts and feelings from time to time that we would never act on. My mother in law is one of those people who "need killing" but she needn't lay awake worrying about me creeping into her house at night and blowing her away. Much, anyway ;-)
Well, thanks for the warning!
I know when discussing with some of my philosophically minded friends, their kneejerk reaction is "I don't care if I thought it or my subconscious thought it. They're both me". I don't think so. As you say though, we can't necessarily show that it's imposed by the subconscious yet, but I reckon we'll be able to show that before long. Again a natural world has natural explanations. I don't think you can get to freedom of choice without invoking a soul or spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I haven't looked closely at the design of those experiments but I suspect that they were fairly simple binary decisions, and not fraught with much moral ambiguity or other pressures. I would like to see how that predictive ability holds up with more complex scenarios. What we know is that the unconscious has a role, possibly a major role, in making decisions, but what this doesn't tell us about is the feedback loop between the conscious and unconscious, how one incorporates the other's perceptions and insights. Even if the unconscious is entirely in the immediate driver's seat about snap decisions, it may be subject to broader and longer term constraint and modification by the conscious. Not that it particularly matters to me; if I experience a compelling illusion of choice, it's the same as having choice in terms of my subjective experience of life.
Yes, I believe in both cases they were (as well as older, but similar experiments). I agree that there's probably some interfacing with the subconscious, but this doesn't seem to regain you any control or choice in the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
33 years and counting. Mostly a back-end guy at this point in my career. Cut my teeth on Z-80 assembler, writing printer drivers for the LSDOS/TRSDOS operating system, then among other things, a stint as a FoxBase/FoxPro consultant. Giving away my age here. These days -- I'm a .NET server-side dev specializing in large database applications, though I dabble in Python 3 as well.
You got me by a short 31 years. I think the gameboy used Z80. I spent a while trying to write an emulator for it. That gives me a pretty good appreciation for the people who actually coded in it.
The driver stuff is cool. I hope to do that at some point as well.
Personally, I do some .NET as well, and PHP and most of the web stack.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But yes, you explained it well. This is what I was trying to get at.
