Is free-will an illusion?

@layman,

Quote:

For centuries now, scientists have convinced themselves that they "know" a "universal law of gravity." So what happens when objects no longer seem to "obey" the law of gravity?

Do they reject their theory as in any way lacking? Of course not!

They start making up **** (and LOTS of it) which, by definition, can never be directly detected because it doesn't in any way interact with light or any other matter. They call it DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY.

Of course this "matter" is only present when some explanation is required to account for the observation that gravity is not "attracting" things in the required (by theory) degree, i.e., when things "should" (by prediction) be flying apart but are not.

But, this little device is quickly abandoned when there is a need to explain why gravity isn't stronger (rather than weaker) than it is predicted to be.

On those occasions a new anti-gravity "force" is created, ad hoc and ex nililo, which totally contradicts the "dark matter" invention. It is a new, "unknown cause."

Enter the equally mysterious and totally unobserved "dark energy" (which Einstein called the "cosmological constant" before he changed his mind--based on new evidence--at which time he removed it from his theory, calling it his "biggest blunder"). But now it's back again!

Are these completely unempirical, opposite acting, inventions coherent or consistent? It doesn't matter. It serves to salvage our theory of gravity, which we KNOW is indubitably true and valid, everywhere.

As a result, they now say that only 4% of mass/energy is in the form that we "know" it to be. The other 96% is "dark," unobservable, and unknowable (74% dark matter, and 22% dark energy, by one current account, anyway).

Now that's science, eh!?

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

You're not a mind? Am I talking to some body part right now, like a leg or something?

2 Replies

@FBM,

Whatever. I don't talk to liars.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am a body; a place that is the product of things that have been passed down.

Quote:

Am I talking to some body part right now, like a leg or something?

You're talking to a prefrontal cortex which "passed down" the precise words he used, Ollie (including the semi-colon!). He's just reading and reciting the script he's been given.

Likewise, I take it, those precise words were somehow "passed down" to the prefrontal cortex. From where, and by what, I don't know. But I'm sure Brian can tell us.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You're not a mind? Am I talking to some body part right now, like a leg or something?

Well that was kind of you. I half expected you to say I was talking out of my ass Wink

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

LOL. My English is too weak for that kind of jokes... :-)

0 Replies

@layman,

Yes, it seems most participants were unwilling to outright explicitly say they don't believe in free will to avoid the sort of mess this thread has displayed, but they have suggested it often along the debate, except in one case...

People are very personal on this matter and have serious trouble in doing an unbiased approach. Don't you agree ?

Now would you be so kind to mechanically explain to me how does "free will" works from your pov ? I am still waiting for your model !
Is it a different substance in the Universe ? A soul ? A "ghost" in the machine ? Or is it Indeterminism (which is even worse) once you cannot AUTHOR your own will if that's the case...

I just want a straight forward honest answer from you. Your model please...surely you must have one to make sense of the problem.

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

It just seems to infuriate you that scientists with their fancy words and fancy degrees make strong conclusion statements.

Yeah, sometimes it does, although "infuriate" isn't really the right word. I dislike it when they over-reach and make pretense to "knowing" something that they obviously have no way of knowing.

As the Hughes guy I quoted said, it tends to make one skeptical of just about anything a guy says, once he does that. What is a an expert or a "specialist," exactly? Well, as one perv put it (can't remember who, offhand):

Quote:

“Expert (specialist): Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.”

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

People are very personal on this matter and have serious trouble in doing an unbiased approach. Don't you agree ?

Yes, I do.

Quote:

Now would you be so kind to mechanically explain to me how does "free will" works from your pov ? I am still waiting for your model !
Is it a different substance in the Universe ? A soul ? A "ghost" in the machine ? Or is it Indeterminism (which is even worse) once you cannot AUTHOR your own will if that's the case...

I don't have a model, and wouldn't pretend to. I BELIEVE in free will, but I don't claim to "know" it's a fact (as I said, at bottom I'm an agnostic on this issue).

I can see a spaceship get blasted off the earth, and believe it happened, even if I can't begin to explain just "how" that's possible, know what I'm sayin?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Is it a different substance in the Universe ? A soul ? A "ghost" in the machine ? Or is it Indeterminism (which is even worse) once you cannot AUTHOR your own will if that's the case...

1. There is inanimate matter, which simply passively and irresistibly reacts to any and all external forces imposed on it (but it does at least "push back"). Then there is seemingly self-organizing matter, such as the matter in an embryo. This type of matter acts in a purposeful fashion, and kinda goes where it wants (or where it is told). So, even within the broad rubric of "matter," I would say there are two distinct types (substances) of it.

2. I see no inherent problem whatsoever in saying that I could have made a different choice (say chocolate instead of vanilla ice cream) without having the whole theoretical structure of the so-called "laws" which govern inanimate matter suddenly break down. They're not really even that closely related.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I don't have a model, and wouldn't pretend to.

It's a great question though, very speculative but interesting. I have a sort of idea, according to which agency works in a Darwinian way. These are great systems to explain how order can emerge from chaos without the need for some overall architect or driver.

A Darwinian system always combine two broad steps: 1) the haphazard generation of new "candidates"; and 2) the competitive selection of the best candidates. Here, "candidates"would be thoughts. There would be a random production of new thoughts as a first step, and a selection of some "winning thoughts" through one or several competitive processes, as a second step.

For instance, the sub-conscious could be in charge of producing random thoughts in response to a particular problem, and do some weeding out already somehow. The thoughts that pass that process would then be submitted to the conscious arena, where they further compete and/or get combined with other ideas using logic and other tools, leading to a (always temporary) decision about what to do. At that level we do have an "author", which is the conscious self. That "author" is capable of orienting thoughts, combining them, focusing them etc. but he cannot generate them. He is a bit like the conductor of a classic orchestra, from that point of view, or the driver of a car: the car makes all the work, and the instrumentalists make all the music, but if the driver/conductor was not there, there would be chaos.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I have a sort of idea, according to which agency works in a Darwinian way.

Well, Ollie, I think most of what you said makes sense, i.e., it is plausible.

However, I don't really like the analogy to Darwinian evolution. I guess that's because I see it as one of the most loosely used (and thoroughly mis-used) concepts on the planet. I don't even see Neo-Darwinism as a scientific theory near as much as it is a rigid ideology based on metaphysical premises (like, say, communism, with it's "dialectical materialism"). It is a dogma, and a vehicle for promulgating a faith.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Whatever. I don't talk to liars.

Fair deal. I prefer not to waste time with denialists. Adios.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/LibetExperiment.png

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

. . . It is a dogma, and a vehicle for promulgating a faith.

You noticed!
People will ignore you for that.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

You noticed!

I don't mean to say that's how all people approach it. And I'm not saying it's always conscious.

But some, like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, for example, are very explicit about it.

They are both militant atheists and both claim that Darwinism "proves" there is no God.

But that's not really even the primary faith I had in mind. Many people, religious or not, adopt strict, mechanistic materialism as a basic tenet, an "article of faith," if you will. This dogma also serves to comport with, and even promulgate, that faith, too.

Conversely, there is no requirement whatsoever that you be religious in order to be inclined to reject strict materialism. But guys like Dawkins (and many others) think otherwise. If you don't accept Neo-Darwinism, then, in their view, you are a religious "creationist."

1 Reply

Challenging someone's belief in free will is a whole lot like challenging their religious beliefs, seems.

Quote:

DERK PEREBOOM
CAN YOU BE RELIGIOUS AND REJECT FREE WILL?

Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University.

Free will and religion are closely intertwined. Many religious perspectives value human moral responsibility and creativity, for which freedom of the will is often regarded as a requirement. Free will is also taken to be required for explaining how the world’s evils are compatible with the existence of God—God gives us the gift of free will, but the risk taken is that we will use it for evil. On the other hand, for a number of prominent religious views, God’s providential control over everything that happens is essential, and this idea potentially conflicts with human free will. Can everything that happens be a part of God’s providential plan if we can freely will our actions?
...

http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-free/essays-and-opinions/derk-pereboom-opinion

0 Replies

@layman,

How could you cause, have, a choice without a mechanical relation ?
If you peak indeterminism where is the causer, the agent ? A random decision is not YOUR decision...I honestly don't get your pov because you don't present any kind of rational explanation to it. I need one. I have no trouble changing my mind as soon as I see an explanation which is convincing enough.

2 Replies

@layman,

I suppose when you get to the bank with your card you expect the atm machine to throw out the amount of money you requested don't ya ? How come you don't believe in mechanics...its bullshit and you know it...
I rather we had an honest non complicated straight forward talk.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

How could you cause, have, a choice without a mechanical relation ?
If you peak indeterminism where is the causer, the agent ? A random decision is not YOUR decision...

You seem to presupposing a number of things here, such as:

1.Any influence one thing has over another must be "mechanical," and
2. That any free choice must necessarily be a "random" one.

I don't agree with either of those assumptions. On what basis to you seem to adopt them?

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know