Proof of nonexistence of free will

@litewave,

Quote:

You call yourself an atheist but you don't seem to have anything to say about whether Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin. What about Jesus' resurrection? It seems to make sense in social contexts because many people pray to him, worship him, kill for him and are convinced that they will have eternal life too. Jesus' resurrection makes sense just like free will. According to you free will exists because it makes sense in social contexts. So I suppose that Jesus rose from the dead too, by your reasoning.

I don't have any interest at all in whether scriptural accounts are considered "factual", "allegorical" or anything else. My point is that others operate as though they are, so my social interactions with them take this into account. I therefore find myself at religious ceremonies such as funerals as a both a bemused observer and a friend or relative whose presence gives some comfort to others. These different facets of "self" are context dependent, as is an intellectual facet which protests occasionally against the perniciousness of organized religion at the macro level, despite it being psychologically useful to some at the micro level.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I don't have any interest at all in whether scriptural accounts are considered "factual", "allegorical" or anything else. My point is that others operate as though they are, so my social interactions with them take this into account. I therefore find myself at religious ceremonies such as funerals as a both a bemused observer and a friend or relative whose presence gives some comfort to others. These different facets of "self" are context dependent, as is an intellectual facet which protests occasionally against the perniciousness of organized religion at the macro level, despite it being psychologically useful to some at the micro level.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't have any interest in whether free will is factual but since others operate as though it is, you take it into account in your social interactions with them.

1 Reply

@litewave,

I said ..."considered factual" NOT "is factual".

The word "fact" involves construction (Latin facere French faire) Naive realists connect it with a concept of "objective reality" but that is never accessible (Kant, Heisenberg etc). "Objectivity" boils down to "social agreement" (transmitted by common language) with respect to our common physiology, needs and purposes...and "truth" is "what works" (Richard Rorty etc).

You are merely going round in layman's circles. No scientist thinks "facts" are set in stone. They are temporary conventions which allow for prediction and control in particular contexts. Paradigms (socio-factual networks) shift historically.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You have given no reason why logic (non-contradiction) does not apply to humans.

1 Reply

@litewave,

Yes I have. Read back to my comments on Piaget and dynamic systems.

1 Reply

@fresco,

If non-contradiction is a product of cognition and a subset of general semantics that doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to human behaviors. All social sciences use non-contradictory logic in explanations of human behavior.

I don't see why non-contradiction should not apply to dynamics of interaction. Peter has an apple but wants an orange, while Paul has an orange and wants an apple, so they exchange their fruits and are satisfied.

1 Reply

@litewave,

So according to you, a contrived example explains the intricacies ? How about if it was also important for one of them to deprive the other of his desire etc? The whole of psychopathology is littered with such examples.

For further replies you will need to follow up some of my references.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

How about if it was also important for one of them to deprive the other of his desire etc?

Then it depends on how strong is his desire to deprive the other of his desire. If it is stronger than his desire for the exchanged fruit then he will not exchange. If it is weaker he will exchange. You can complicate the situation with as many reasons as you want; the joint influence of all the reasons will determine the two persons actions, unless there is an element of unintentionality on the part of one or the other person.

1 Reply

@litewave,

I'll leave you to your simplistic explanations with a Jewish joke.

A student on a train asks a Rabbi to tell him the time. the Rabbi thinks for a moment then refuses. When they are reaching their destination the student asks why the Rabbi had refused, since he was clearly wearing a watch. The Rabbi replies:
So - I tell you the time - and we get into conversation - and I find out you have just left your family to study in a strange town - so I invite you to my home for a meal - and my daughter takes a fancy to you - and before we know it the two of you are getting married - and I can do without a son-in-law who can't afford a watch !

1 Reply

@fresco,

What's the problem? The Rabbi clearly had reasons that caused him not to tell the time.

1 Reply

@litewave,

Hey litewave ! I've been reading up your posts on assorted "weirdo-religion" forums and I've worked you could have a point !

The Rabbi, the Student and the Watch represent the Holy Trinity bound together by Einstein's considerations of space-time in his train analogy. Quantum field theory can be used to predict the chances of the chain of events in the Rabbi's reasoning giving rise to his response as a vector in n-dimensional eschatological hyper-space.

Simple ! Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

Obviously Einstein only exists as long as he is useful in certain social contexts and his authorship of the relativity theory is up to social consensus.

I'm beginning to understand you Wink

1 Reply

@litewave,

...actually not the authorship but the theory itself because of the author's religion. Follow this link for Nazi attitudes to "non-German science".
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

2 Replies

@fresco,

There's nothing like a free meal...err...will!

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

...actually not the authorship but the theory itself because of the author's religion. Follow this link for Nazi attitudes to "non-German science".
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

And still Einstein's theory fits empirical observations, no matter what a social consensus is.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

its calculated by the brain, its not a MEARURABLE answer
social sciences are the attempt to explain and measure those factors. stop slowing social sciences down by demotivating people with thoughts of magical free will from explaining phenomenon and advancing human knowledge

1 Reply

@blake118879,

uh... what?

T
K
O

0 Replies

LOL, just read through this entire thread. Fresco wins.

0 Replies

What are the consequences of free will?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

What are the consequences of free will?

We take people's lives from them, for starters. Execution is based on free will.

0 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know