16
   

What is free will?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 03:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I have said all along that determinism or indeterminism is hardly relevant. It's just that determinism leads to absurdities.
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 03:23 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I'm about to give up. There is no point reasoning with someone who can't admit the most simple idea that fundamental particles must give large objects that are made out of those particles their properties. You would agree that this is the most simple and basic idea in science. How can someone be so wrong?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 03:24 pm
@fresco,
You don't remember what it says?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 03:29 pm
@tomr,
The discussion of physics is just one area of science about our environment.

We're talking about human biology, and our ability to make choices only constrained by our genes and environment. The choices and options available to us provides us with the freedom of choice as we understand and perceive our life. Physics does not limit human choices; humans limit human choices.

Humans can now fly faster than the speed of sound.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 03:42 pm
@tomr,
I suggest you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Limits_of_reductionism

and move on to there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_level

In short, reductionism (your position) is not the only position, or possibility to explain the world. It's rather dated in fact, doesn't mean it's untrue but it's a fairly ancient way to look at the world.
tomr
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:09 pm
@Olivier5,
Wikipedia-Holism in science wrote:
Alternative to reductionism
The holistic premise is that there is a possible qualitative difference between an entire system and its parts: that modularisation may fail. As applied to science, holists may generally assert that this difference can warrant the kind of rigorous scrutiny typical of scientific inquiry. The distinction of approach then lies not so much in the subjects chosen for study, but in the methods and assumptions used to study them.

Though considered by some[who?] as alternative, holistic methods are not generally at odds with the classical scientific method.[citation needed] Where holistic scientists come from a standard science background, holistic work in science tends to be, to varying degrees, a marriage of the two approaches.[citation needed] For example gestalt psychology grew out of early experimental psychology.[improper synthesis?] When the terms are used constructively in the science context, holism and reductionism refer to how empirical evidence is interpreted, and not only to the methods used to produce such evidence.

Opposing views

Holistic science is controversial. One opposing view is that holistic science is pseudoscience because it does not rigorously follow the scientific method despite the use of a scientific-sounding language. Bunge (1983) and Lilienfeld et al. (2003) state that proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings or to immunise their claims against testing. Stenger (1999) states that "holistic healing is associated with the rejection of classical, Newtonian physics. Yet, holistic healing retains many ideas from eighteenth and nineteenth century physics. Its proponents are blissfully unaware that these ideas, especially superluminal holism, have been rejected by modern physics as well".

Science journalist John Horgan has expressed this view in the book The End of Science 1996. He wrote that a certain pervasive model within holistic science, self-organized criticality, for example, "is not really a theory at all. Like punctuated equilibrium, self-organized criticality is merely a description, one of many, of the random fluctuations, the noise, permeating nature." By the theorists' own admissions, he said, such a model "can generate neither specific predictions about nature nor meaningful insights. What good is it, then?"

One of the reasons that holistic science attracts supporters is that it seems to offer a progressive, 'socio-ecological' view of the world, but Alan Marshall's book The Unity of Nature offers evidence to the contrary; suggesting holism in science is not 'ecological' or 'socially-responsive' at all, but regressive and repressive.


Holism is pseudoscience. This is the only real alternative Wikipedia gives for reductionism, and it is also under the topic antireductionism. There is a reason it is controversial. Real science does not work like this.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:32 pm
@tomr,
Well, that does look like an irreducible metaphysical difference...

Holism is not the only alternative to reductionism. Any serious look at relations between elements in a system will lead you to understand that properties emerge from the system, not from their components.

You can clap hands with two hands, not with one hand. There's nothing inherently 'clappy' in a hand.

That's what you did not understand in the clock example: the structure, the blue-print of how the clock is designed, is what determined the shape of each cog in it, so the determinism here works from large to small. And ultimately, the structure is what makes the clock work, not element A or element B but the whole design and interactions between those elements.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:37 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
fundamental particles must give large objects that are made out of those particles their properties.

Okay, so if i am so wrong, so what particle give my large body its living characteristics? Have we found the boson of life yet?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If you have any strong opinion on how indeterminism can be a good argument for free will "I am all ears"... Laughing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:43 pm
@tomr,
...prepare for the anti reductionist brigade...Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You're mixing apples and oranges. Determinism, pre-determinism, and indeterminsm have different definitions for a reason.

If you wish to discuss indeterminism, start a new thread on that subject.

Good try, but no cupie doll for you!
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You can clap hands with two hands, not with one hand. There's nothing inherently 'clappy' in a hand.

Yes there is there is a potential large flat surface where air can be compressed against.

Quote:
That's what you did not understand in the clock example: the structure, the blue-print of how the clock is designed, is what determined the shape of each cog in it, so the determinism here works from large to small. And ultimately, the structure is what makes the clock work, not element A or element B but the whole design and interactions between those elements.

We can keep going on and on with this but the clock works because of the parts that make it. It gets all its properties because of those parts. Regardless of how that clock came to be a clock.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:52 pm
@tomr,
It became a clock like everything else man invented.

The most accurate clock wasn't invented until they had a contest in England to invent the most accurate clock to measure longitude. That's where the prime meridian came into existence. You should read the story, LONGITUDE, about the lone genius who invented a clock that could withstand the climate change and the unstable ships that rocks the seas. Have you ever visited Greenwich? I highly recommend it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Any serious look at relations between elements in a system will lead you to understand that properties emerge from the system, not from their components.


Have I told you that I that I thought you are smart? It is true but I do wonder if you share bad science at times to get others thinking. Laughing

Lets take a look at the brain's system as you call it a hormonal system first and foremost.

Quote:
The brain is first and foremost an hormonal system.


Do hormones control you or do you have freewill over them? Please explain how you can avoid them if you choose. How are you able to override them?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  3  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:01 pm
@tomr,
...well yes, thankfully reductionist theories are still the prevalent paradigm on how we conduct science...there is some interest on what is called emergent phenomena arising when critical mass gives rise to "behaviour" not seen at lower levels of the chain but still "emergence" needs not be at odds with reductionist principles depending on how you account for the dynamics itself within the process as a necessary part explaining behaviour...rather most scientists opt to look for a better knowledge n better modelling able to explain how such processes truly operate. Holistic explanations although apparently appealing basically explain nothing once they jump away the mechanical links able to justify phenomenal manifestations...Wholism as is currently, in resume is pseudo science.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:11 pm
@tomr,
Potentials don't actually exist. What the term means is: somebody could possibly do X with Y. Hands don't clap because each hand is 'clappy' but because we use our hands to do all manners of things including clapping. Are fingers inherently anal because you can put your fingers up yours?

Quote:
the clock works because of the parts that make it. It gets all its properties because of those parts. Regardless of how that clock came to be a clock.

No, it works because oc the parts AND the design.

You could change each one of those parts except perhaps the spring, and replace them with other parts made of a different metal or alloy, and the clock would still work.

You could displace in the structure one single piece, leave it there but out of its axis for instance, and the clock will fail to work.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:16 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You could displace in the structure one single piece, leave it there but out of its axis for instance, and the clock will fail to work


Yes but it will still be precise twice a day. Laughing Laughing Laughing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:27 pm
@Olivier5,
Just how all that babbling disproves reductionism ??? Substituting materials n even objects doesn't mean substituting functions...as long any other object is able to perform a given X function the said object shares behavioural properties with the first object. If you are going to speak up for Holism do it right. On the other hand no matter how holistic you go you wont make a set of squares/bricks behave like a circle/wheel.
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:29 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No, it works because oc the parts AND the design.

You could change each one of those parts except perhaps the spring, and replace them with other parts made of a different metal or alloy, and the clock would still work.

You could displace in the structure one single piece, leave it there but out of its axis for instance, and the clock will fail to work.


Well yeah the design is important if you want a clock. Unless you want a sun dial then anything pointy and sticking out of the ground will do. But that is not an example of a thing having properties outside the things that make it up. The arrangement of the pieces is important though(if you want a clock).

Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 05:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The most accurate clock wasn't invented until they had a contest in England to invent the most accurate clock to measure longitude.


See also The Island Of The Day Before by Umberto Eco on the same theme of how precise clocks allowed precise navigation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is free-will an illusion? - Question by MoralPhilosopher23
Free Will --- or confidence in your feelings - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Prove your own free will! - Discussion by hamilton
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Free Will - Discussion by neologist
Free Will vs. Determinism argument - Discussion by Guaire
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is free will?
  3. » Page 18
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 05:11:35