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.
This exact rerun is what I am talking about. Everything would need to be the same. Every little particle. But this is actually interesting. Going off what Skylos said, if you ran it 1000 times, it should come out the same every single time given an exact starting point (Or I'm wrong ).
Well, yes, if every single nanothing was duplicated it should (theoretically) come out exactly the same. In practice though that would never happen, even if you know al the feed -in factors and could control them, there would still be nanofactors that would change it. I don't know whether that clarifies the matter of what decision making actually entails at all since either scenario is totally imaginary.
Well, yes, if every single nanothing was duplicated it should (theoretically) come out exactly the same. In practice though that would never happen, even if you know al the feed -in factors and could control them, there would still be nanofactors that would change it. I don't know whether that clarifies the matter of what decision making actually entails at all since either scenario is totally imaginary.
Yes, both scenarios are imaginary, but I believe that one can make an honest argument for a lack of free will. I also believe it's important because it could have real world effects on morality as well as the workplace, education, and correctional facilities.
My argument is based on several assumptions. Proving any of them false would prove the conclusion false; or in need of revising.
1. Events should have a cause, even if the cause proceeds or occurs simultaneously with the event.
2. Everything existing in the natural world should have a natural law governing it.
This premises lead to the necessary conclusion that free will is illusory.
My dear Skyl3rk, everything we know is illusory, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That there is no actual free will or rather that it is not a totally random choice with no guiding influence doesn't alter the fact that we make choices for reasons (good or bad) whether we know them or not, and that parameters and influences are involved doesn't bother us in the least. Indeed, without them we couldn't have any basis for our decisions.
I rather suspect that this isn't what is behind the free will argument anyway. There is a world of difference between a choice where it is a matter of data or preference and not someone with a gun to the head. It has long been known that the free will argument was just a way of making man take the blame for what God set up, and a handy excuse for why he doesn't do something to improve matters, on the absurd pretext that giving people good reasons to believe he exists would somehow spoil Faith and thus make believers ineligible for heaven.
This is a load of dangleberrries, my old groat, because it should make any more difference if one believed because of what they had been taught, than them believing because they had convinced themselves on evidence.
Cool discussion guys, but, TRANSPONDER, I think you've gone off the track with your last post.
The discussion seemed to be whether we had freedom of choice/free will.
If our choices/actions will always be the same given that ALL events leading up to them were the same, then, to me, that is not free will/freedom of choice.
My dear Skyl3rk, everything we know is illusory, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That there is no actual free will or rather that it is not a totally random choice with no guiding influence doesn't alter the fact that we make choices for reasons (good or bad) whether we know them or not, and that parameters and influences are involved doesn't bother us in the least. Indeed, without them we couldn't have any basis for our decisions.
I rather suspect that this isn't what is behind the free will argument anyway. There is a world of difference between a choice where it is a matter of data or preference and not someone with a gun to the head. It has long been known that the free will argument was just a way of making man take the blame for what God set up, and a handy excuse for why he doesn't do something to improve matters, on the absurd pretext that giving people good reasons to believe he exists would somehow spoil Faith and thus make believers ineligible for heaven.
This is a load of dangleberrries, my old groat, because it should make any more difference if one believed because of what they had been taught, than them believing because they had convinced themselves on evidence.
TRANSPOONER, ol' chap, you're slowly losing me. We don't know if everything we know is illusory, but we operate as if it's real and everything we've discussed thus far is based on the presumption that we've already accepted that reality is real.
Where you lost it is when you said "that doesn't alter the fact that we make choices for reasons -". You see, you didn't make any choices. Your brain made choices totally and 100% because of it's structure and because of how certain neural transmitters fired in certain ways. If we understood this structure and how thoughts are created and stored and decisions are made, we could alter the structure of your brain to be conducive to the ideas and decisions that would be considered desirable. This is a real world impact of recognizing that free will does not exist.
When you think you made a "bad" choice, you didn't really make a bad choice at all, you simply have something in your brain that is not structured correctly and needs fixed. (Understand this is all in context and I am not implying somethings wrong with you ). This will be a huge paradigm shift in morality. Somebody could murder your wife today, have their brain fixed and be a totally and completely mundane and fixed human being tomorrow.
This is indeed relevant and something that creationists are very against. Very often the religions of today require freedom of choice to operate. IE, you need to be able to choose to accept Christ. If you were already predetermined to not accept Christ before you were born then you obviously do not have the same chance as everyone else to get into heaven.
Now, please remember that the Bible is very very explicit in saying you're predetermined to go to hell or heaven; but most Christians do not recognize this, in my experience. Because of this, it remains a hot topic. Though, I'm sure once science determines we don't have free will the Christians will jump on the bandwagon and say "See? The Bible was right the whole time."
Hopefully this is adequate to explain that it is relevant in today's context, it isn't academic and it can have real world impacts.
Also, I don't know what a groat is. Or a dangleberrry.
I do not grant that you're equally likely to do one thing or another. It is only your perception of matters that these events might be equally likely.
What is the practical difference? If my perception is that there's no particular argument for one of the choices, then that's how I'll treat that choice. If I'm unaware of some "deciding" factor I won't take it into account.
What is the practical difference? If my perception is that there's no particular argument for one of the choices, then that's how I'll treat that choice. If I'm unaware of some "deciding" factor I won't take it into account.
The point of me bringing this up in the first place was to show the practical difference in recognizing a lack of free will.
You don't get the choice to take the factors you aren't aware of into account. This is kind of the point. You perceive that you are making choices but in actuality, every single choice you make is the result of a long string of cause and effects that you have no control over and never will have control over.
Cool discussion guys, but, TRANSPONDER, I think you've gone off the track with your last post.
The discussion seemed to be whether we had freedom of choice/free will.
If our choices/actions will always be the same given that ALL events leading up to them were the same, then, to me, that is not free will/freedom of choice.
It is free will inasmuch as it ever could be, and anything much more involving truly random opting (though I can't imagine how we'd ever do it) wouldn't be much use to us. So, whatever you call it, and even if it does fall short of free will however you'd define it, it is what we have, and works perfectly well, or that's the way I see it.
""that doesn't alter the fact that we make choices for reasons -". You see, you didn't make any choices. Your brain made choices totally and 100% because of it's structure and because of how certain neural transmitters fired in certain ways."
That's what I mean by 'reasons'.
A groat is attached to a light socket. A dangleberry is attached and the other end dangled in your beer. Pass a current through it and it refreshes the bubbles.
I didn't mean the choices are good or ba (we don't know until later - much later, sometimes, but the reasons we make them may be good or bad - that's what I was saying.
The idea of everything being an illusion is based on two things
1 everything we think of a real is made of atoms - which are near to a bit of nothing that does something as makes no difference.
2 everything we see or know of is interpreted by our senses into a pattern that we can identify. It is not how it would appear to someone using a totally different set of sense -receptors.
Yes, the combination of free will choices into predetermined plan actually works. But don't tell the Christians.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-02-2016 at 03:00 PM..
It is free will inasmuch as it ever could be, and anything much more involving truly random opting (though I can't imagine how we'd ever do it) wouldn't be much use to us. So, whatever you call it, and even if it does fall short of free will however you'd define it, it is what we have, and works perfectly well, or that's the way I see it.
I don't agree.
The ability to make choices/decisions free from bias/past emotional trauma/etc would be much better than what we have now.
You don't get the choice to take the factors you aren't aware of into account. This is kind of the point.
That is a sort of idealistic approach that says a decision that's not perfectly informed and properly conceptualized by a being that is, essentially, omniscient, isn't worth making. Or that making an imperfect decision means your decisions aren't meaningful.
I believe this is sometimes an over-reaction to the "you make your own reality" tripe of The Secret and similar new age / new thought notions, or to the sappy / happy Pollyanna BS that some spout. I don't believe that the sky is the limit regarding the choices we can make, but on the other hand, we're clearly not automatons either. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, with perhaps a mild bias to nature over nurture, fate over self determination. I think most of us think we have far more agency than we ultimately actually possess. But if you insist we have no real agency then that way lies nihilistic despair and for some personalities, complete abrogation of responsibility for one's actions. How is "I was destined to slit your throat" any better than "the devil made me do it"?
That said ... we have no way to prove either your hypothesis or mine, so I don't see how this informs how we live. It's merely an interesting question. We clearly think we have agency, and it clearly is enough to make most people's lives sufficiently compelling that they keep on living and functioning.
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.
).
). This will be a huge paradigm shift in morality. Somebody could murder your wife today, have their brain fixed and be a totally and completely mundane and fixed human being tomorrow.
