Trick of the Language?

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I wouldn't mind an explanation of the issue of will or language as it relates to the existentialists.

I'm not sures about language but doesn't the existentialist stress the reality of freewill. Of course it'll have different interpretations depending upon with whom you're arguing

http://onelook.com/?w=existentialism&ls=a

Quote:

Or can a concept of free will be derived in existentialism?

The existentialist probably thinks so but Intuition (mine anyhow) insists the Great Megillah is 99% determined

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Thanks, I better understand your thinking about all of this now. However, I am a bit perplexed by your avoidance of formal philioophical methods and your expressed (in another post) preference for "just using logic" to examine the sequence of (presumably physical) events before one takes an action, perhaps in order to verify that a 'free will' (something you referred to as a contradiction in terms) exists or does not exist.

The domain of physical science, based on observation and verification, ends with the Big Bang. Science, based on observation and verifiable propositions, can reach no farther.

My argument about determinism and chaos was directed at the fact that there are many physical processes, well understood by science and fully deterministic in its terms , whose future states are not knowable. That is to say there can be no observational proof of that determinism in such cases. Assuming for the moment that the ever-plastic neural networks in the human brain are also subject to chaos (as seems likely), that means that observational science (logic) cannot determine whether free will exists or doesn't exist based on experiment and observation - the question is moot.

The limits of science noted above also mean that "magical" thinking or uncaused events are themselves beyond the domain of science. Nowhere has it been established that such science includes all that can possibly exist or occur. That said, some (including some scientists) do postulate that nothing outside the domain of observational science can possibly exist. The fact that all extant scierntific models for the origin of the universe culminate in a singularity, or a postulated (and inherantly unverifiable) infinite sequence of creation & destruction or equivalently infinite set of quantum multiverses - all of which are themselves unverifiable, and therefore by definition outside the domain of science, often does not get a recognition of the supreme irony involved here. It turns out that materialist science does indeed involve some "magical thinking" on the part of its practitioners.

If, for the moment, one excludes uncaused events or magical thinking as you wish, then it is surely true that man has no free will. However, Despite that, the available facts strongly suggest that, even if it is entirely deterministic, human behavior can never be reliably predicted in individual cases. We will be left only with the statistical inferences about central tendencies that we do quite well now. The only thing uniting chaos and freedom is unpredictability. The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise one way or the other, just as it can't offer a verifiable theory obout the origin of the universe.

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

3 Replies

@dalehileman,

Thanks Dale for the link and the humor.

Quote:

The existentialist probably thinks so but Intuition (mine anyhow) insists the Great Megillah is 99% determined

I have 99% determined that in deference to the originator of this thread, from whom all good will should flow, I will exercise my will in redirecting further discussions, as raised to the link provided when I bowed out.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

Freedom is ultimately meaningless. We are only free to be who we are.

Sure. That was my point. But who we are has choices included. Choices not included are dead ends, it's true. But I'm not going to be picky. The universe has enough potential events that might give me more choices, and I have enough. I can't have more than I have anyway, so I'll just get on with enjoying and maximizing what I have.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

...which perhaps relates to the extrapolation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which suggests that in any system there is always at least one axiom whose "truth" cannot be verified.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I had a thought on this. http://able2know.org/topic/208648-1#post-5256980

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The domain of physical science, based on observation and verification, ends with the Big Bang.

Very interesting Geo that you should so assert because I've often contemplated much the same. At first reading I reacted, "No, doesn't end, it starts with with the Big Bang." Of course I soon realized you meant its conjecture was about as far as we can go with Science and Reason

So it's important at this juncture to exercise the Intuition, which insists for instance (mine anyhow) to bypass all that contradiction and paradox entailed in the idea of creation, on the forever scenario: Big bang, Big Show, Big Expansion, Big Crunch, then Big Bang, Big Show…….etc anon

Other Intuitions will come up with even better scenarios

Quote:

That said, some (including some scientists) do postulate that nothing outside the domain of observational science can possibly exist.

Yes, I'd say many.. But now we have to ask them about their idea of Reality: Where on that scale of abstraction with the sidewalk at the concrete end and Her at the other or transcendental, end, one places that arrowhead, everything to the left of which is real and right, non-existent

Quote:

The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise

Forgive me Geo but surmise that what

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Thanks Dale for the link and the humor.

Thanks to you Matt. Now two days made

Quote:
The existentialist probably thinks so but Intuition (mine anyhow) insists the Great Megillah is 99% determined

Quote:

I have 99% determined that…...I will exercise my will in redirecting further discussions……..

It's a rare day when we can exercise that 1%

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise
Forgive me Geo but surmise that what

That man has (or has not) a free will. I think the meaning was pretty clear in the context

I didn't get the meaning your metaphor about placing tha arrohead on the line between the sidewalk and the origin oif the cosmos. Are you suggesting that questions about the origin of the cosmos are somehow "unreal"?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise

Forgive me Geo but surmise that what

Quote:

That man has (or has not) a free will.

Oh. I think you're right but maybe for diff reasons

Quote:

I think the meaning was pretty clear in the context

Geo you have forgive an old fella fighting off incipient Alz's

Quote:

I didn't get the meaning your metaphor about placing that arrowhead on the line between the sidewalk and the origin of the cosmos.

The degree of abstraction spanning something material and real at the left end, say a rock; to something "less real," or more transcendental at the right end; eg, Self, God, etc. So the skeptic is required to define his position by placing that dividing line

Quote:

Are you suggesting that questions about the origin of the cosmos are somehow "unreal"?

Well of course a q can't be unreal. No, I was suggesting that the idea of creation entailing paradox, contradiction as it does, might be dispatched by the assertion that She, It, exists forever

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I have some understanding and empathy for your approach. However, I believe you may be applying it inconsistently.

For example, if you declare that man has no free will, and instead, acts only in terms of his genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning, then you are exercising some magical thinking yourself, simply because you cannot prove this proposition in any concrete, meaningful way. I made my comments about the inherent unpredictability of most complex determinsitic systems for precisely this reason.

Retreating to intuition can also be a way of avoiding troublesome contradictions. Statistical analyses of central tendencies in human behavior are usually intuitively satisfying (in some cases precisely because the surveys and samples used to create them were intuitively constructed simply to verify the intuitive prejudices of the analysists). However, they very often yield only low confidence results, indication the presence of many behavioral inconsistencies. In this sense intuition can simply be a retreat from troublesome, difficult questions that expose the defects in your intuition itself.

Intuition is fine, and often useful. However, it is not a reliable guide to the truth. (Have you ever experienced vertigo?)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I have some understanding and empathy for your approach.

Why thank you Geo, there's some hope for me after all

However, I believe you may be applying it inconsistently.
[/quoe]Could be; Intuition doesn't follow strict rules

Quote:

For example, if you declare that man has no free will,

I gave him 1%

Quote:

…..because you cannot prove this proposition in any concrete, meaningful way.

That's right. I do note however note that humanoids under similar circumstances take like paths suggests the workings of C%E

Quote:

I made my comments about the inherent unpredictability of most complex determinsitic systems for precisely this reason.

I still can't see how predictability impinges either on the freewill issue in any way or on the proposition that I might be a determinist. However I could easily have misunderstood so if it's of any significance you might elucidate

Quote:

Retreating to intuition can also be a way of avoiding troublesome contradictions.

I suppose so but one retreats to Intuition where the facilities of science and reason are exhausted. The Big Bang etc, Her, It, etc

Quote:

Statistical analyses of central tendencies in human behavior are usually intuitively satisfying…...However, they very often yield only low confidence results,…….simply be a retreat from troublesome, difficult questions that expose the defects in your intuition itself.

I'm not sure how statistical analysis figures into the issue, but like I said, we resort to Intuition when there's apparently nothing better immediately available

Quote:

Intuition is fine, and often useful.

Very

Quote:

However, it is not a reliable guide to the truth.

Useful though not entirely reliable but again, it'a all we've got

Quote:

(Have you ever experienced vertigo?)

Do you mean do I get dizzy

Some describe me that way

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I am a bit perplexed by your avoidance of formal philioophical methods

It's not that I wish to avoid invocations of philosophical argument, it's more that fresco kept referring to a plethora of philosophical arguments in quite jargonised prose; taking for granted our education in such traditions. If he/she had perhaps introduced fewer ideas from that field, or explained them in lay-english, I would have been more receptive to his/her approach. I assume people would not be extremely comfortable if I argued exclusively from the standpoint of what I'll loosely call my own field (psychology), and spoke in psychological jargon about theories from the various thinkers within that discipline. He/she also appealed to naive realism, thereby exploding the whole discussion in a way I found less than constructive.

Quote:

The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise one way or the other, just as it can't offer a verifiable theory obout the origin of the universe.

I'd dispute the can't in that sentence. I know of no reason why, in principle, science will always be silent on the matter of ultimate origins. Perhaps you know of one? You say all present models culminate in the big bang -so our present understanding is indeed limited in this way. Why will it always remain so?

Quote:

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

Not quite. Materialism has given us more to go on than theism, so we should trust more in the not-yet proven ideas which emerge from materialism over and above the not-yet proven ideas which emerge from theism. It seems reasonable to argue that "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning" are all that comprise the determinants of our actions, despite not being able to offer 100% corroboration for the claim. There are surely billions of propositions for which this is true, do we therefore abandon all arguments which can't meet this impossibly high standard? And what will theism say about the determinants of our actions outside the diagram of "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning"? Nothing awfully coherent, I imagine.

3 Replies

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

Quote:
The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise one way or the other, just as it can't offer a verifiable theory obout the origin of the universe.

I'd dispute the can't in that sentence. I know of no reason why, in principle, science will always be silent on the matter of ultimate origins. Perhaps you know of one? You say all present models culminate in the big bang -so our present understanding is indeed limited in this way. Why will it always remain so?

Actually there are several current models, though Steven Hawking and others claim that the Big Bang and the associated so-called standard model do indeed establish that the universe definitely had no creator. Others postulate an infinity of creations in Big Bangs followed by destructions in repeated, all consuming black holes, etc. Still others speculate about an infinity of parallel quantum multiverses. Many insist that asking what caused the big bang or what started it all is like asking what is North of the North pole - i.e they insist that the question is not allowed. None of it appears to prove anything in my view. More importantly there is as yet no indication that science is or can ever answer the ultimate questions in that they are intrinsically beyond the reach and observation of science. (How can one verify the explanation of a non reoccurring event?)

quote="medium-density"]

Quote:

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

Not quite. Materialism has given us more to go on than theism, so we should trust more in the not-yet proven ideas which emerge from materialism over and above the not-yet proven ideas which emerge from theism. It seems reasonable to argue that "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning" are all that comprise the determinants of our actions, despite not being able to offer 100% corroboration for the claim. There are surely billions of propositions for which this is true, do we therefore abandon all arguments which can't meet this impossibly high standard? And what will theism say about the determinants of our actions outside the diagram of "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning"? Nothing awfully coherent, I imagine. [/quote]

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

I believe it is inaccurate to credit all human achievements in science to materialism. Science in its own domain is something entirely disjoint from the question of our origins. The issue is whether science, based on experiment, theory and empirical confirmation can possibly explain the origin of the universe. Some scientists have claimed to have already done so, but their theories cannot in principle be confirmed and their explanations contradict science in crucial points (i.e. the singularity, or an infinity of causes and effects or one of parallel universes). In short I believe there are very good reasons to believe science cannot do what you appear to expect.

We're making fast strides in understanding the makeup of human brains, the regions that specialize in functions ranging from emotions, music, short and long-term memory, etc. , as well as the operation of the neural networks of which it is comprised. We can do well in statistically predicting average behaviors resulting from some genetic and many cultural and environmental factors, and, as well, associating the average changes that emerge after damage to various areas of the brain. However the statistical level of confidence in those averages is orders of magnitude lower than that which emerges from real verifiable scientific predictions based on Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equation or Genaral relativity (i.e. ordinary science). In short we are as yet very, very far from understanding or predicting the specific behaviors of individuals, of for that matter in understanding just what it is that makes us who we are. This individuality is still observable in folks with dementia and even those who, owing to injury, have suffered a complete loss of long term memory, but have otherwise complete cognative capability. Finally, given the potential for chaos even in a deterministic system, we are likely never to be able to satisfactorily model individual behavior or, perhaps more importantly, prove the accuracy of the models.

Recognizing these limits of science is not a reason to discontiunue its efforts, or to doubt or diminish the many provable achievments of science. Theism is a choice made in the absence of any equivalent provable alternative. Denial or atheism is also a choice made on the presumption that science will one day make its alternative irrelevant. Both involve leaps of faith. I believe the latter is a bigger jump.

2 Replies

@medium-density,

Note This.

The mission statement of A2K is to provide "expert information" to members.

Therefore, if you raise a traditional philosophical topic like "free will", which has has been discussed many times already here, and has an extensive literature, you are unlikely to get only self opinionated ramblings. Rather, members have traditionally given or exchanged information about references which substantiate their ideas. Complaints about "jargon" are of course valid if they are requests for further expansion and not excuses for doing some basic reading.

There are plenty of alternative forums which provide a platform for lay chatter.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I believe it is inaccurate to credit all human achievements in science to materialism.

All I said was that materialism has given us more to go on than theism, in the sense that it has made verifiable predictions about reality. Theism meanwhile is all talk, and even the talk is misguided.

Quote:

In short we are as yet very, very far from understanding or predicting the specific behaviors of individuals, of for that matter in understanding just what it is that makes us who we are.

Agreed, but our best shot at developing our understanding rests with science, which at the moment enshrines the idea that genes and environment are what comprise the causal diagram of human action. I have repeatedly asked for someone to provide a third component which would make the idea of free will more compatible with science -no one has yet attempted this as far as I can see.

Quote:

Theism is a choice made in the absence of any equivalent provable alternative. Denial or atheism is also a choice made on the presumption that science will one day make its alternative irrelevant. Both involve leaps of faith. I believe the latter is a bigger jump.

It now seems clear that you're making a god of the gaps argument, which I believe is a mistake. People have always invoked god where the limit of science during their time becomes apparent. Even Newton did it when he couldn't resolve the gravitational complexities of the wider solar system. Science of course is officially agnostic on the god question, as it is agnostic in principle on a majority of questions. The point I would seek to make is that theism is no alternative to materialism or science. In a way this discussion is another proof of that assertion: I asked "...what will theism say about the determinants of our actions outside the diagram of "genetic, cultural and environmentsl/experience conditioning"?", and of course you were either unable or unwilling to provide an answer.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The mission statement of A2K is to provide "expert information" to members.

I was insufficiently aware of this. I've probably treated you unfairly on that basis, or rather my complaints have been somewhat ill-founded. Apologies!

However I still think there's room for if not lay-chatter then a more universally comprehensible dialogue. I'm actually not the only person who has found some of your contributions to this thread a little inscrutable. For instance I still don't understand the specific relevance of naive realism to the question of free will. As I keep saying it seems to explode any discussion of matters of existence and truth beyond humanity's observation, which, again as I keep saying, doesn't seem extremely constructive to the thread.

Also I never heard an answer to this point I made about that argument:

Quote:

I don't know if it follows that just because something exists in the mind of a human it means that this mind-bound existence is the ultimate limit of that phenomenon.

To take up the tree falls in a forest allegory again, when the tree falls it creates sound waves which until picked up by the ear of an animal arguably do not represent sound. However we can record sound waves with technology in the absence of any conscious creature, so the idea of non-observed phenomena not ultimately existing doesn't seem so strong as perhaps you are arguing.

3 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

As I keep saying it seems to explode any discussion of matters of existence and truth beyond humanity's observation,

At the risk of "butting in" Embarrassed

.... perhaps again,
I think that from my limited understanding of fresco's position he might actually be VERY sympathetic to a reality based solely on something like "human observation".
I don't however think that his views are (necessarily) compatible with determinism in the sense that you seem to accept as fundamental (please don't take this as an insistence for you to change your view).

I hope you might empathize with the difficulty faced by someone who wishes to share knowledge with someone regarding a particular question, and is then apparently met with hostility for doing so.

I portend to be no expert in philosophy. I have no college education past an associates degree in nursing. I would be happy to "translate" as able if you chose to participate in a dialogue, and if fresco also so chooses. Very Happy

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

I'd dispute the can't in that sentence.

Nah Med I can't either

Eventually it will be shown that matter--neutrons, protons, electrons, etc--naturally evolve from the singular prime substance of the Big Bang

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Steven Hawking and others claim that the Big Bang and the associated so-called standard model do indeed establish that the universe definitely had no creator.

Don't need one if as you point out It, She, the Whole Shebang simply exists forever

Quote:

Still others speculate about an infinity of parallel quantum multiverses.

Now this on the other hand is plain silly. The less evidence for something's existence, the less likely

Quote:

The point I would seek to make is that theism is no alternative to materialism or science.

The pantheist responds, it just doesn't need to be, there's no conflict

0 Replies

Trick of the Language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know