Is free-will an illusion?

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

I'm surprised you would stoop to crank-level argument. Wasn't it you who defended so vigorously some of the findings of climate science? If you are going to be a defender of science, then stay the course. Being wishy washy when the subject matter challenges a belief you've held is not being consistent.

Let's not start insulting one another just because we disagree.

I'm a big fan and "defender" of science, which is precisely why I know that modern science is not 100% determinist. Quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, biology, social sciences are all founded on probabilities. Climatology is similar: We can for instance predict that the climate will be on average hotter and that extreme weather events will be more frequent 50 yrs from now, but we cannot predict that a megacyclone will hit New Orleans 50 years from now. Nobody can predict that with any level of certainty. Except perhaps God ... Which why I say that full determinism is a religion: It implies a God's view, God omniscience, this sort of things.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

When you throw the religion word at scientiphic philosophy, one, it makes no sense, and two, it's designed as a pejorative against the person with whom you are having the argument. You and I both know this and I'm calling it for what it is.

If you use the word determistic to mean that there is a perfect contingency between an antecedent event and its consequence (e.g., release a ball held from a given height and it will fall, and that it will fall at a given rate every time) then you are using the word differently than I and the community of biological scientists use the word. Sciences are not 90% deterministic or 32% deterministic.

As you pointed out climate scientists cannot say that on the 3rd of July, 2066, a megacyclone will hit New Orleans. Does that therefore mean that weather patterns are not happening as they are due to the sun's effects in combination with the host of systems on the planet? You are confusing current understanding and the state of predictive modeling with determinism. The natural order of our universe couldn't care less about our predictive powers, and our limitations in this area is not evidence of a creative Mind or mind.

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

However you chose to interpret my words, it's a fact thatl i did not insult you, and would appreciate if you could keep it civil. It's in your interest too: you don't want to come across as a sore loser.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

If determinism is a scientific theory, it follows that it should be falsifiable. Can you think of any experiment that could prove determinism wrong?

If not, you're just confusing your metaphysical beliefs with science.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You would like it if you could shift the argument from the examples of determinism presented to a personal attack that never happened. There is no way to map free will onto the patterns in the data presented so you lob the religion word at the argument and then point fingers at the response. "Sore loser"? Playing the word games you chide others for playing? You wouldn't want to come across as a hyoocrite, do you?

If you have a true interest in debating the soundness of the position then maybe you might have a weakness to question in the methodology used for the data presented?

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

Your data just prove that people can learn. How is that proving determinism? Or behaviorism, for that matter?

Science is a mix of rationalism and empiricism. If you cannot test it, it's not scientific. How can you ever test determinism? Even quantum mechanics, based on underterministic laws, have been said by some to "miss" or "hide" some unkown, underlying deterministic laws.

It's untestable. Pure metaphysics, if religion is now a hate word.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

He doesn't...yes he is an hypocrite, and moreover he lacks the comprehension skills for distinguishing epistemic problems from ontic ones...last but not least he is a very sour loser with an envious and venal personalitty. Guess why I set in on ignore long ago.
In sum my dear friend, you are wasting your time preaching at a thick wall, but what the hell so long it makes you happy keep at it.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It's SORE loser, Fil. You should know... :-)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's SORE loser, Fil. You should know... :-)

I will indulge in addressing you just this once because its off topic and just to funny not to. First my reply was posted from a mobile and a typo happened but you just did prove my point about you, thank you for that. Curiously my level of English is besides the point as unfortunately my mother and father decided for me the baguette language ought to be my first one in school, go figure why, this coming from the country who defied Darwinism and the true rules of Nature with its naive Humanist tradition and shallow fashionable life style made of appearances and "decorations" on your head...
"La liberte, l'amitie, et la fraternite"...hahaha...oh boy its sugar...
...Now shaming, bashing, and ad hominem aside, I will let you get back to playing Lego's with those who have time to spare with people like you Frenchy.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I just love it when you blow a fuse....

Tell you what: why don't you try and explain to Brian what YOUR opinion on the matter of free will is? Let's see if you two can agree on anything else than "Olivier is a bad bad poster who blew up my comfortable, 19th century philosophy of science". I predict that you will be at each other's throat in less than two pages.

1 Reply

I make a very good distinction between what we can know and what ought to be a matter of fact in spite of what we know. For instance, an illusion, if an illusion, is a TRUE illusion...
Furthermore I don't believe in Mickey mousse. "Free will" is for Donald duck and Mickey mousse lovers...the freaking theory is self contradictory and lacks internal consistency because it both requires Determinism to be true n false.
In sum either things are bound, mechanically, and relate in very precise and mathematical manner, or the world is pure chaos with no degree of pasterns whatsoever.
...this is not the sort of matter where you can have grey answers...some get it some don't, "c'est la vie" !

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Your data just prove that people can learn

Learning means a change in behavior. If one does not learn then one's behavior does not change; even if the behavior is private and not accessible to others. You can see behavior change in frequency of response. One can speak more, write more, perform more complex actions, etc. A scientific analysis of these phenomena is an investigation into the conditions under which the changes occur. When it is demonstrated that learning takes place after, and only after, an environmental change, then that does take something away from "the inner person." In other words, the learning or behavior change cannot be attributed to a homunculus. And if it is true...and I think that it is...so what???

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Tell you what: why don't you try and explain to Brian what YOUR opinion on the matter of free will is? Let's see if you two can agree on anything else than "Olivier is a bad bad poster who blew up my comfortable, 19th century philosophy of science". I predict that you will be at each other's throat in less than two pages.

I have seen Fil's take on the topic and I have never once attacked him for it. I might not understand a position taken, but I do not respond with my ignorance by quote-mining the internet for excerpts that are contrary to the position. I bet you would agree that there are better ways to address a disagreement or lack of understanding.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

I don't think that learning takes away anything for "the inner person", in practice. It adds to it, rather. A learnt person is better than an unlearnt person IMO. As for proving that learning can only happen withba change in the environment, how would you go about proving that? If i go to school everyday from 3 yr old to 24 yr old, i might learn something, but how is my environment changing?

So i don't your data proves anything about free will or determinism or "the inner person".

Forgeting for a second about the logical paradox of a person negating himself, WHY would anyone try to negate "the inner person"? What gain is derived from negating our own existence??? What's in it for you, if you don't exist? That sounds like philosophical suicide.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

I have seen Fil's take on the topic and I have never once attacked him for it. I might not understand a position taken, but I do not respond with my ignorance by quote-mining the internet for excerpts that are contrary to the position. I bet you would agree that there are better ways to address a disagreement or lack of understanding.

Not sure what you are talking about here. Quote mining? My point was simply that you and Fil appear in clear disagreement re. the existence and importance of "minds", although you are both determinists.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

A learnt person is better than an unlearnt person IMO

I agree.

Quote:

As for proving that learning can only happen withba change in the environment, how would you go about proving that?

By performing analyses (systematic manipulations) of behavior. When behavior change occurs as a result of environmental changes and threats to internal validity have been adequately addressed, then one attributes the behavior change (i.e., learning) to the change(s) in the environment (i.e., the independent variables).

1 Reply

"Mind" is an epiphenomena and there is a level for debating that within Determinism Indeterminism debate, simply put that is not the level I chose to debate it, it doesn't mean it has no place or it can't be done. It just happens my take intends to go to a more fundamental level on the issue at hand. Similarly I rather debate physics then chemistry and rather debate chemistry then biology...well, you get the point...

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

That you can debate chemistry and biology is commendable.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

I suppose it depends what you call "environmental change". To me, a school is a fairly stable environment, and kids can learn in it...

My beef, as you might have guessed, is not with the idea that people respond to incentives. It's not even with the idea that one can treat the mental world as a subjective black box for certain narrow fields of enquiry. It's when people who live inside that box tell me that there's nothing inside that box that I tend to not believe them.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

There's no such thing as epiphenomena in biology. All the bits and pieces in your body serve a function (or several, quite often) and have been honed, polished and perfected for millions of years by evolution to serve that function(s). Therefore the mind exists for a reason. It helps our survival. Otherwise we would not have one.

2 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know