Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:31 pm
Ok real life. it's clear you can't/won't understand what I'm trying to tell you.

It's clear you will continue to dodge, distract, and build strawmen.

The one challenge I put to you, when we first started this dialog, has continued to be dodged/ignored.

Not sure why I expected more from you.

Let me try to get this through to you one last time. First, think of one thing that 'happens' that is proven or even appears to be without cause. I'm assuming you can't.
Second, consider what the 'free' part of 'freewill' implies freedom from.
If 'freewill' is the ability to make 'choices' free of causes (IE something that 'happens' without any ties to things that have happened before), the only way for this causeless effect to be it's own cause (ludicrous) is to invoke the supernatural.
If your stance relies on the existence of the supernatural you are standing on thin air, if not...once again for the 30th time, demonstrate how freewill can exist without being mutually exclusive to magic.


I expect you still won't understand my argument or rise to the original challenge, but save the cries of 'circular argument';I think that particular straw man has had enough
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 07:49 pm
Doktor S wrote:


Let me try to get this through to you one last time. First, think of one thing that 'happens' that is proven or even appears to be without cause. I'm assuming you can't.
Second, consider what the 'free' part of 'freewill' implies freedom from.
If 'freewill' is the ability to make 'choices' free of causes (IE something that 'happens' without any ties to things that have happened before), the only way for this causeless effect to be it's own cause (ludicrous) is to invoke the supernatural.
I'll opt for moral choice as being without cause from the supernatural or any other entity. I suppose you might say it depends on your definition of 'moral'. But go ahead and chew on it.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 09:07 pm
Hey Doc,

Care to respond to my last post below? You may have overlooked it. At the least if there are any strawmen they might be serving the purpose of keeping the raven at bay. My response starts with 1) Alan Turing....

Doktor S wrote:
Hi Chum.
Quote:

Don't expect me to demonstrate how free will and causality can co-exist without invoking the supernatural that's fer damn sure!

I certainly didn't expect you to. this challenge was directed more towards real life, who seems to assert the two (freewill/supernatural) are not mutually exclusive. For the life of me I can't imagine how.
Quote:

By free wall as applied to people do you mean: "the partial freedom of the agent, in acts of conscious choice, from the determining compulsion of heredity, environment and circumstance"? http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm

Sure, that works. the qualifier 'partial' may make it easier to argues against my point, but I'm willing to accept that. Still seem's one heck of a mountain to climb to separate that partial freedom from supernatural inferences.
Quote:

I take it you believe there will come a time when a new scientific theory supplants Quantum Theory, and the proposition of causation will once again reign supreme in the subatomic world, or are you only referring to the philosophical implications of Quantum Theory as applied to people?

I don't know that QT will be supplanted, only that in it's current state the evidence isn't there to call it hard science. Perhaps one day, not today.
Quote:

Staying with the Quantum premise for a bit, assuming I built a thinking machine that used a random number generator to guide its actions, could that machine be in some sense considered to have free will?

There is no such thing as a 'random' number generator..only a program that would produce digits unknown to us beforehand. The mechanisms used by software to produce a digit isn't really random. However the lack of foreknowledge of the number produced to the observer would create an appearance of freewill. Much like human action. I do believe in the illusion of freewill, but see deterministic mechanics in the background.
Quote:

How do you explain the individual's objective perceptions that a least to some degree, under certain circumstances, it appears to said individual that at least in some sense, a decision was reached based on freedom of choice? Is it simply that the individual has neither the time nor ability to assess the underlying causation in its entirety? Is it hubris?

The conscious mind is only a small part of the human machine. There is much we have no conscious control of, or even awareness of. (what is your kidney doing at this precise moment in time I wonder?)
Just 'cause an individual cannot fully comprehend the myriads of causes that drive his actions doesn't mean they aren't there.
Example: Joe wants an ice cream cone. He has a 'choice' between chocolate and vanilla. Joe 'chooses' chocolate.
Why? Joe once drank a bottle of vanilla extract as a child. He got very sick and was throwing up vanilla for hours. Joe forgot about this, but the memory still resides in his subconscious. Also, joe has been inundated lately with adds for hagen-das gourmet chocolate ice cream. The adds weren't on his mind at the time of the purchase, but again..they were in his subconscious. Imagine 10 or 11 more possible experiences throughout his life similar to the ones described, both in and out of conscious memory, and his 'decision' reads much more like an equation.
Ask joe and he'll tell you he just doesn't like vanilla, without really knowing or caring why. To him, the choice to eat chocolate was purely of the will, but when examined that just isn't the case.
Quote:

Do you see any difference between the free will arguments one might make as per the individual, and the free will arguments one might make as per mankind as a whole?

How would they differ?
Chumly wrote:
1) Alan Turing proposed an operational test of intelligence as a replacement for the philosophical question, "Can machines think?" Why can't a similar replacement for the philosophical question "Can machines have free will?" be applied to the said machine?

To be a further trouble maker we could split a beam of photons on a beam splitter (a quantum mechanical source of true randomness) for said machine's random number generator.

Granted Will Durant's definition of freewill means "acts of conscious choice" so we must also use the Turing Test as a replacement for the philosophical question, "Can machines think?"

2) As to your views that Quantum Theory "in it's current state the evidence isn't there to call it hard science". Although the predictions of quantum mechanics have never been falsifiability|disproved after a century's worth of experiments most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances.

The only known exceptions, where quantum mechanics may fail, are situations where the effects of general relativity, the dominant theory of gravity, are important: this happens in the vicinity of black holes, or when considering the observable Universe as a whole. It is believed that the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the two great achievements of physics in the 20th century, contradict one another.
http://wiki.advancedphysics.org/index.php/Quantum_Mechanics

3) As to your how might I see differences between the free will arguments one might make as per the individual, and the free will arguments one might make as per mankind as a whole:

Without freewill mankind as a whole would have a genetic-sociological inevetitlblty/causality of which the individual could not really encompass as their genetics are fixed (so far) and they don't live long enough (so far). Also at least using Will Durant's definition of freewill unified "acts of conscious choice" do not seem possible with mankind as a whole. So in that sense it would appear mankind as a whole has less potential for freewill than the individual,

Yet on the other hand, it brings up the question of the butterfly effect in terms of whether or not a sufficient level of randomness exists as per mankind as a whole to potentially negate (at least to some degree) the genetic-sociological inevetitlblty/causality if we replace the philosophical question, "can mankind as a whole have free will", with the equivalent of a random number generator guiding mankind as a whole. The equivalent in this case being the butterfly effect.

4) A while ago I posted that if there is any chance of freewill it would have to exist within a given time frame (Neo teased about this, now he gets his comeuppance).

By that I meant with very short time periods (fractions of a second) an individual could not have freewill nor could mankind as a whole. And again with longer time periods, an individual's freewill appears to be impossible due to either death, or the inability to consistently maintain the specified (presumably) freewill derived objective. And with multi generational time periods the question of the individual versus mankind as a whole rears its ugly head as per 3) above.

Comments welcome from all creatures big and small.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:42 pm
neologist wrote:
I'll opt for moral choice as being without cause from the supernatural or any other entity. I suppose you might say it depends on your definition of 'moral'. But go ahead and chew on it.



If 'moral choice' is 'without cause from the supernatural or any other entity', are you implying 'moral choice' is a result of naturalistic process?
Please explain.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:45 pm
Chumly.
Ya, I saw your post. Good reading.
Wasn't aware I was 'supposed' to respond to that one. Nothing there to challenge or poke at really, it's mostly supplementary information.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:59 pm
Oh right you are!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:20 am
Doktor S wrote:
.....consider what the 'free' part of 'freewill' implies freedom from.
If 'freewill' is the ability to make 'choices' free of causes (IE something that 'happens' without any ties to things that have happened before), the only way for this causeless effect to be it's own cause (ludicrous) is to invoke the supernatural........


You confuse 'cause' with 'influence'.

Let's live dangerously and use a political illustration to show freewill.

If I live in a town where everybody and his monkey votes for the Purple candidate, and all I hear about is how wonderful it is to have Purple legislators serving my town, this does not mean that I will be influenced sufficiently to vote for the Purple candidate.

No amount of influence can 'cause' me to vote Purple unless I assent (freewill).

So just because there are ties to prior events, knowledge of the opinions of others etc that may be considered when making my choice, it doesn't mean that I will be 'caused' to vote Purple.

Freewill does not mean that there are no factors that influence or no knowledge of previous events, etc.

Freewill means that nothing can FORCE me to assent to an action, adoption of an opinion, etc. I must decide to assent for it to be so.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:56 am
Doktor S wrote:
neologist wrote:
I'll opt for moral choice as being without cause from the supernatural or any other entity. I suppose you might say it depends on your definition of 'moral'. But go ahead and chew on it.



If 'moral choice' is 'without cause from the supernatural or any other entity', are you implying 'moral choice' is a result of naturalistic process?
Please explain.
I don't get it. Is naturalistic process a cause?

Moral choice would come from within, no?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 03:11 pm
Quote:
Moral choice would come from within, no?


It comes from within and without. It is influenced by your family, culture, religion and your inner sense or right and wrong.

Morality has no single source. A multitude of inputs and experiences, coupled with your inner sense of right and wrong, develope and shape, over time, your moral judgements. What you may have seen as moral at 20 may now seem immoral at 60.

What changed? You? Society? The times?

Society changes its morality from generation to generation. Would you think you would be looked on kindly if you were to ask for some breast of turkey at a staid Victorian dinner 130 years ago?

White meat, not the immoral breast.

Can you imagine what a bikini clad hottie would be thought of on a Victorian beach 100 years ago.

A whore.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 05:29 pm
Why do Christians feel the need to teach the Bible? If the Bible is the word of god why does it need to be taught at all? Why isn't Christian biblical truth universal, self evident and innate? Why are there millions upon millions of people who do not believe the Christian bible? Why are there so many versions of the Christian bible? Why are there so many branches of Christianity?

How can one even begin to rationally examine the presumption of free will or the lack thereof from a religious Christian perspective with such a topsy-turvy often contradictory theological landscape.......
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 07:53 pm
Chumly wrote:
. . Why isn't Christian biblical truth universal, self evident and innate? . . .
Good question. I think I'll leave you to ruminate on that for a while.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:00 pm
Chumly wrote:
Why do Christians feel the need to teach the Bible? If the Bible is the word of god why does it need to be taught at all? Why isn't Christian biblical truth universal, self evident and innate? Why are there millions upon millions of people who do not believe the Christian bible? Why are there so many versions of the Christian bible? Why are there so many branches of Christianity?


Simple answer; Christianity is not the true religion Christians claim it is.

There is one rule that seems to be universal.

Quote:
Bahá'í World Faith
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism
This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
Mahabharata 5:1517

Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana Varga 5:18

Christianity
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12, King James Version

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31, King James Version

ConfucianismHinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself.
Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

Islam
None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Number 13 of Imam
"Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Jainism
In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 31:a

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Leviticus 19:18

Sufism
The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.
Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh,
master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order

TaoismRegard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
T'ai Shag Kan Ying P'ien

Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:33 pm
xingu,
do you hold a religious belief?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 01:01 am
Hold on to your shorts.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 04:25 am
Deist.

I do not follow any religion.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:24 am
xingu wrote:
Deist.

I do not follow any religion.
Assuming you believe one of some version(s) of the below:

a) Have you been able to rationalize that god created the universe and then abandoned it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?

b) Have you been able to rationalize that the best of all possible worlds has already been created and any godlike intervention could not improve it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?

c) Have you been able to rationalize that god became the world and does not exist as a separate entity from it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?

d) Have you been able to rationalize that god intervenes only as a subtle and pervasive force in the universe, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?

e) Do you believe in the watchmaker analagy, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:01 pm
You like to ask difficult questions.

Let me give you a bit of history here. I've gone from Christian (not a strong one) to atheist to agnostic to Deist. My current beliefs are based on Near Death Experience. It is the best evidence, IMO, of the existence of what we think a God is.

With that I do not pretend to know what God had to do with the creation of the universe or anything that has happened on this planet since its inception. I have some guesses but no definitive answers. People who have had it explained to them say it's very simple but they can't bring it to terms in our world.

Therin lie the problem. God, the name I will give the Light, resides in a dimension different from our own. We can't understand or explain anything outside of our 4 dimensional world. The only rules we know are those of our dimension. We theorize of another dimension but we can't possibly understand it.

My feeling is we were not meant to understand. We were put here for a purpose, a purpose unique to each individual. Conflict happens as this is the way we learn. When our time here is done we all, and I mean all, go back. We will come back again.

Life is not the time we are born here on earth and die. Life is in the soul. Our soul was in existence before we came here and it will be in existence when our body dies.

I see a lot of NDE in religions. The Golden Rule is one aspect of NDE. But no religion can explain God's dimension or understand it any more than I can. Unfortunately religion is used as a tool to gain wealth, power and control over other people. They create Gods and use the power of their Gods (fear, vengeance, etc.) to control and conquer. I have very little respect for religions and the Gods they create.

Quote:
a) Have you been able to rationalize that god created the universe and then abandoned it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?


I don't know if God created the universe or, if at creation, god was created along with the universe. There may be an infinite number of universes and an infinite number of Gods. Did God abandoned it? I don't think he abandoned it. But I don't believe if he controls every aspect of it either. We have the will to behave as we choose. When we return we go through a life review. We see the mistakes we made. Those mistakes were not programmed into us. We were faced with certain situations and we reacted to them. Perhaps there were better ways to react to them then what we chose. If so we will be told. So, yes, we do have a free will. We make decisions without a God putting our decisions into our heads, as some Christians believe.

Quote:
b) Have you been able to rationalize that the best of all possible worlds has already been created and any godlike intervention could not improve it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?


What is the best possible world? The Romans thought they had the best possible world. Do you agree? The Indian nomads felt they had the best possible world. Don't we all try to make the world the best possible world with the conditions we are given? Isn't free will our quest to make the world we have the best possible world?

Quote:
c) Have you been able to rationalize that god became the world and does not exist as a separate entity from it, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?


I do not believe God is the world or the universe. My assumption is God is the sum total of all souls. We are all a tiny bit of God. The sum total of all the souls knowledge is God's knowledge. We come here to learn, we take back what we learn. For all I know this could be happening in a billion earths.

Quote:
d) Have you been able to rationalize that god intervenes only as a subtle and pervasive force in the universe, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?


I'm inclined to believe God does not intervene. Things take their own natural course. Did God make a meteorite crash into the earth so he could destroy the dinosaurs and create humans? I'm inclined to think not. For what purpose would he do that? What purpose was the Permian extinction? To make dinosaurs? If the end result is to make humans why didn't we appear a billion years ago?

Quote:
e) Do you believe in the watchmaker analagy, and if so how does such a view pertain to freewill?


No. I think once things got started it went on its own course. My analogy is this. Remember when the atomic bomb first came out? In trying to explain how it worked they used the mousetrap demonstration. A table would have a hundred set mousetraps on it. On each mousetrap was a ping pong ball. One ball was dropped in the middle. Suddenly, spontaneous eruptions of ping pong balls. Did anyone guide each and every one of those ping pong balls? Or did nature take its course, so to say?

The Big Bang started it all. After that it was nature on its own. That's my take on it. I can't prove it. But no one can prove otherwise. There are some things we don't know and never will know until we pass on. So don't ask me what was before the BB. I don't know.

We are put on this earth with a purpose and the talents to do what we're suppose to do. How we do it and if we use that talent the best possible way is our free will. Where it all leads to is the sum total of all of our free wills. Each soul has its own thing to do, its own thing to learn. It may not be able to do it. It may have to come back and try again.

People are always asking did God do this or that. God is in a different world then ours, a world we can't possibly understand. We're not meant to know what's going on in God's world. We'll find that out when we return home. Until then we should be concerned about our world, how we behave towards one another and to our environment. We have control over that. We don't have control over anything outside our dimension.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:17 pm
Chumly,

You seem to claim that the existence of a god that created this world and can intervene in this world precludes the concept of Free will?
If I'm incorrect in my assumption, please say so. For all I know, a god might change everything around me all the time in an effort to let me make certain decisions. But, I am not sure. And as long as certainty regarding this phenomenon doesn't exist, I can exercise my free will.

Lets take mice in a tranparent maze in a laboratory. They have been put there by a professor, and their environment has been changed in such a way they have to walk through the maze in order to find food, the exit or both. Now, from an OUTSIDER point of view, this means the mice have no free will. They are forced to make certain decisions in order to reach a certain goal. But, from their OWN point of view, Free will still exists. Mouse A can at any given point of time decide in which direction to walk, or not to walk, or feel the walls, or sniff the air, or scratch his back or sleep... well, you get the point. So long as we are not CONSCIOUSLY certain our environment is being manipulated in order to force us to make certain decisions, free will exists for us.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:19 pm
najmelliw wrote:
Chumly,

You seem to claim that the existence of a god that created this world and can intervene in this world precludes the concept of Free will?
If I'm incorrect in my assumption, please say so. For all I know, a god might change everything around me all the time in an effort to let me make certain decisions. But, I am not sure. And as long as certainty regarding this phenomenon doesn't exist, I can exercise my free will.

Lets take mice in a tranparent maze in a laboratory. They have been put there by a professor, and their environment has been changed in such a way they have to walk through the maze in order to find food, the exit or both. Now, from an OUTSIDER point of view, this means the mice have no free will. They are forced to make certain decisions in order to reach a certain goal. But, from their OWN point of view, Free will still exists. Mouse A can at any given point of time decide in which direction to walk, or not to walk, or feel the walls, or sniff the air, or scratch his back or sleep... well, you get the point. So long as we are not CONSCIOUSLY certain our environment is being manipulated in order to force us to make certain decisions, free will exists for us.

What you are describing is the illusion of freewill, which, if left unexamined, is most convincing.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:28 pm
Aah, but even if the mouse was to sit on its haunches and think about the choices open to him/her, would (s)he find (s)he was being manipulated?
How can we, humans, ever find out for sure whether we have Free will or not, as long as we cannot obtain the outsider Point of view?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Omniscience
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 07:41:13