View Full Version : free will and god poll
I was raised 'christian' (went to lame church and had to tithe my allowance), became an outspoken atheist/materialist converting MANY baptists (i was moved to the bible belt in high school which turned me into an atheist) to atheism, and now I am not really interested/spiritual.
I don't really know what did it, there was no moment when I was like AHA! God! But its very clear to me the world isn't just cold material. I have direct experience of the 'holiness' (multi-dimensionality?) of my existence. I also have constant direct experience of my free will.
I am and always have been confounded by those who don't believe in free will. At the very minimum i can manipulate my mind a twinge.. which is free will enough to prove there is more than none. Granted, i cannot prove it to anyone else but it seems they ought to be able to do it themselves.
I cannot convince anyone that there is 'something' about our existence that is beyond the cold existence that is accepted by most lay-atheists, but it seems so counter intuitive that there is no free will.
As a side note I would happily wager an agreed upon amount that any atheist that follows a strict regiment of clean eating, occasional psychedelics (negotiable), meditation, and yoga would 'find god' or at least notice something else going on.
madnak
11-18-2007, 05:51 AM
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
Your use of "free will" is ill-defined. There are two completely different ways in which people use that term. I suspect that you haven't thought it through very well - the fact that many intelligent people believe there is no free will should be a clue that you've missed something.
I've done vegan/meditation/ayahuasca/weed. I doubt yoga would be enough to change my mind.
Your description of matter as being "cold" is just an appeal to emotion and to accepted norms in Western society. Material isn't "cold," nor is the existence accepted by most atheists.
tame_deuces
11-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Aye. I have no idea why the materialistic atheist is classically portrayed as 'cold', there must be some old cultural remnants lying behind. I have always found a mystery and searching for good answers to be far more beautiful than blindly accepting some faith.
hitch1978
11-18-2007, 08:57 AM
Also, it has been proved that freewill does not exist.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12904562&page=4&fpart=al l&vc=1)
/images/graemlins/smile.gif
GoodCallYouWin
11-18-2007, 02:40 PM
Athiest - No Free Will ftw.
thylacine
11-18-2007, 05:20 PM
I am an atheist and I believe free will exists.
I can see how some atheists might not believe free will exists.
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
You need a combination poll to see the correlation in what people believe, though I'm sure it's been done here before a few times.
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nor are agnosticism and believing in god. i don't see your point?
[ QUOTE ]
Your use of "free will" is ill-defined. There are two completely different ways in which people use that term. I suspect that you haven't thought it through very well - the fact that many intelligent people believe there is no free will should be a clue that you've missed something.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are the two ways? I define it here as the experience of having control over our mind/body and the ability to make choices outside of external influence. Everyone has this experience afaik, yet some people chalk it up to illusion due to other metaphysical things they believe in... ie God or physical determinism. I don't believe it is an illusion and I will talk more about that in a bit.
I am well aware that many intelligent, deeply introspective people do not believe in free will. Perhaps I have missed something but it is not for lack of 'thinking it through'. Also many intelligent people do believe in free will, perhaps you are missing something?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've done vegan/meditation/ayahuasca/weed. I doubt yoga would be enough to change my mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps not.
[ QUOTE ]
Your description of matter as being "cold" is just an appeal to emotion and to accepted norms in Western society. Material isn't "cold," nor is the existence accepted by most atheists.
[/ QUOTE ]
I grant that cold is probably a terrible choice to use because of the seeming appeal to emotion. It wasn't meant as that, I didn't mean anything negative by it. A better word would be meaningless? By 'cold' (again, I used the wrong word lets just assume i said 'x') I meant that the universe is just a bunch of sub-atomic particles that are arranged randomly with no deeper meaning and our existence is coincidental.
As for why I don't believe that our experience of free will is an illusion, it's because I have no reason to believe it. Simple, maybe too simple. But it seems to me people say it is an illusion for one of two reasons... either God arranged the universe in such and such way so everything is His Will, or, the universe acts according to strict laws and we are part of the universe therefore we act according to strict laws.
However, my most fundamental experience is that of free will. If nothing else I can modify images/thoughts that are floating around my head, not to mention tough moral decisions we've all had to face. The experience of free will is at the same level as logic. I experience 2+2=4 in my mind as a whole complete idea with no moving parts once i understand 2,+,4, and =. Its deep and fundamental and true. Could it be an illusion? Of course. I don't have any reason to think it though because any of the metaphysical ideas that lead me to that conclusion are built ON TOP of the underlying direct experience of logic and free will.
Besides, where science (again afaik) stands on the issue of the determinability of 'stuff' it leaves the door wide open (if not a custom mold for) free will.
willie24
11-18-2007, 05:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you sure? elaborate.
i don't follow- since, intuitively, the opposite seems true
soon2bepro
11-18-2007, 05:31 PM
quick vote gone wrong.I mistakenly voted I believe in free will. I DON'T believe in free will. Geez
LOL
In fact, I would go as far as to say free will is an impossibility. That is, with logical grounds, I believe free will doesn't exist (which is not the same as not believing it exists). This is something I can't say about God, even though I would call myself an atheist.
furyshade
11-18-2007, 05:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
quick vote gone wrong.I mistakenly voted I believe in free will. I DON'T believe in free will. Geez
LOL
In fact, I would go as far as to say free will is an impossibility. That is, with logical grounds, I believe free will doesn't exist (which is not the same as not believing it exists). This is something I can't say about God, even though I would call myself an atheist.
[/ QUOTE ]
uh...you just bascially said "i have a good argument that free will doesn't exist" then you don't make any sort of argument
soon2bepro
11-18-2007, 05:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you sure? elaborate.
i don't follow- since, intuitively, the opposite seems true
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, the opposite is true. Unless of course you meant to say that theists who believe in free will are irrational. This is redundant as any theist already qualifies as irrational.
On the other hand, the notion of Free Will is heavily linked to religions. Most religions say Free Will exist. And the supernatural belief in a God is of the same category as the supernatural belief in Free Will. So it is to be expected that an irrational person who believes in a personal God also believes in Free Will. Especially since included in their delusion is the notion that this God 'told them that He had granted them Free Will.
soon2bepro
11-18-2007, 05:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
uh...you just bascially said "i have a good argument that free will doesn't exist" then you don't make any sort of argument
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just stating an opinion.
In every free will thread I become involved with, I explain this argument to people. Those who are both able to understand it and withstand it's implications, usually had thought it out by themselves before. As about the others, it's pointless. So I think I'm gonna take a stand here and not give the argument yet again. You can search these forums for any of the other hundreds of free will threads. If it wasn't me who explained this argument in the particular thread you encounter, there was probably someone else.
EDIT: Oh, ok, I can't stand not giving any sort of argument, so here's a quicky one, if you want a more in-deph argument do as I said earlier.
The canonical idea of Free Will is that humans have the freedom to make decisions that are unaffected by the physical rules of this universe, and/or by any interfering factors.
I contest that from what we know of our universe, and what we know about human beings and their consciousness, this is impossible. It may still be true, since we don't know everything (and hence nothing is 100% certain), but the odds against it are infinitely larger than the odds against the existence of a personal God (which are pretty huge already).
willie24
11-18-2007, 05:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
However, my most fundamental experience is that of free will. If nothing else I can modify images/thoughts that are floating around my head
[/ QUOTE ]
this is why i sometimes think that i am God. it makes more logical sense that i invented myself and my world than that i was invented by something else, which was just there.
the hardest thing to fathom about god/science is - if god exists, how? if the world exists without god, how?
if i invented myself, neither the world nor I have to actually exist.
thylacine
11-18-2007, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you sure? elaborate.
i don't follow- since, intuitively, the opposite seems true
[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple really. In a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god, no other being can possibly have free will. This is completely obvious and I won't elaborate further.
There are a lot of things, such as morality, free will, purpose meaning, values, which are purely nonsensical in a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god. Atheists can legitimately claim these issues as there own.
Atheists should not let religious propaganda trick them into believing that they are supposed to believe what religious propaganda says atheists are supposed to believe.
[ QUOTE ]
I contest that from what we know of our universe, and what we know about human beings and their consciousness, this is impossible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Quantum physics necessitates a conscious observer which seems like there is plenty of room for free will. And we know almost nothing about our consciousness
soon2bepro
11-18-2007, 06:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quantum physics necessitates a conscious observer
[/ QUOTE ]
Um... You need to do some reading.
[ QUOTE ]
which seems like there is plenty of room for free will.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? How do you derive such a ridiculous thing?
mbillie1
11-18-2007, 07:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I contest that from what we know of our universe, and what we know about human beings and their consciousness, this is impossible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Quantum physics necessitates a conscious observer which seems like there is plenty of room for free will. And we know almost nothing about our consciousness
[/ QUOTE ]
Tell the truth... you're just making stuff up as you go along, aren't you?
willie24
11-18-2007, 07:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple really. In a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god, no other being can possibly have free will. This is completely obvious and I won't elaborate further.
[/ QUOTE ]
it is equally obvious that free will can't exist when there is no God.
if i claim that God exists, and that the "world" is just an arena for some kind of "will competition" between souls...what logic do you use to prove there can be no freewill? i would think the same logic could be used to prove there is no freewill in the absence of God.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I contest that from what we know of our universe, and what we know about human beings and their consciousness, this is impossible.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Quantum physics necessitates a conscious observer which seems like there is plenty of room for free will. And we know almost nothing about our consciousness
[/ QUOTE ]
Tell the truth... you're just making stuff up as you go along, aren't you?
[/ QUOTE ]
that's an amazing level which i hope it is. if not then oh well.
from what i know about the implication of quantum mechanics, which is granted very little, things exist as a 'probability wave' or something to that effect, a blur of possibilities, until they are observed, and only then do one of the possible things actually 'happen'
google quantum superposition
dragonystic
11-18-2007, 08:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
from what i know about the implication of quantum mechanics, which is granted very little, things exist as a 'probability wave' or something to that effect, a blur of possibilities, until they are observed, and only then do one of the possible things actually 'happen'
[/ QUOTE ]
random occurences on a subatomic level do nothing either for or against the argument of free will.
even if such random probabilities alter an action, no part of the persons "will" was involved in the matter. free will is a 2 part notion, not just the idea that someone could do something different, but also that the person himself actually initiates the altering.
floating on a sea of randomness is a far cry from free will. (although still admittedly better than a strict mechanical view of the world, where no free will exists.)
[ QUOTE ]
floating on a sea of randomness is a far cry from free will. (although still admittedly better than a strict mechanical view of the world, where no free will exists.)
[/ QUOTE ]
that's really all i am saying. it doesn't prove anything. doesn't even imply it, it just leaves room for it whereas billiard ball physics does not; and people usually don't believe in free will because there is no room for it
thylacine
11-18-2007, 09:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you sure? elaborate.
i don't follow- since, intuitively, the opposite seems true
[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple really. In a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god, no other being can possibly have free will. This is completely obvious and I won't elaborate further.
There are a lot of things, such as morality, free will, purpose meaning, values, which are purely nonsensical in a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god. Atheists can legitimately claim these issues as there own.
Atheists should not let religious propaganda trick them into believing that they are supposed to believe what religious propaganda says atheists are supposed to believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
it is equally obvious that free will can't exist when there is no God.
if i claim that God exists, and that the "world" is just an arena for some kind of "will competition" between souls...what logic do you use to prove there can be no freewill? i would think the same logic could be used to prove there is no freewill in the absence of God.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe that, then you are obviously deeply influenced by religious propaganda, which is exactly the point I was making.
willie24
11-18-2007, 10:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it is completely irrational for theists to believe free will exists.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you sure? elaborate.
i don't follow- since, intuitively, the opposite seems true
[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty simple really. In a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god, no other being can possibly have free will. This is completely obvious and I won't elaborate further.
There are a lot of things, such as morality, free will, purpose meaning, values, which are purely nonsensical in a universe with an omnipotent omniscient god. Atheists can legitimately claim these issues as there own.
Atheists should not let religious propaganda trick them into believing that they are supposed to believe what religious propaganda says atheists are supposed to believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
it is equally obvious that free will can't exist when there is no God.
if i claim that God exists, and that the "world" is just an arena for some kind of "will competition" between souls...what logic do you use to prove there can be no freewill? i would think the same logic could be used to prove there is no freewill in the absence of God.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe that, then you are obviously deeply influenced by religious propaganda, which is exactly the point I was making.
[/ QUOTE ]
i don't follow. how does the person being influenced by religious propoganda affect whether freewill can exist? it would appear you are arguing that God can't exist- which is a reasonable argument - but i don't know how you got to: if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
willie24
11-19-2007, 02:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
[/ QUOTE ]
by similar logic - if you don't believe in God, but instead believe that we are products of the natural world, then everything we are is determined by our biology (which is, i suppose, determined by the other sciences). we didn't choose to exist, therefore we can have no free will.
if you say - "biology gave us free will" then you can say "god gave us free will."
if you say - "i know i have free will because i experience it" then it doesn't matter whether there is a God or not.
What if God exists and you are God? that is easiest way for me to comprehend the existence of freewill.
tarheeljks
11-19-2007, 02:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
[/ QUOTE ]
so you're saying there is no scenario in which god acts as solely an observer? or an entity that can intervene but leaves people to do as they wish. while god would have the power to affect our decisions, why do you assume that he would do so?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
[/ QUOTE ]
so you're saying there is no scenario in which god acts as solely an observer? or an entity that can intervene but leaves people to do as they wish. while god would have the power to affect our decisions, why do you assume that he would do so?
[/ QUOTE ]
i don't assume it but i think a lot of people do
dragonystic
11-19-2007, 10:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
[/ QUOTE ]
so you're saying there is no scenario in which god acts as solely an observer? or an entity that can intervene but leaves people to do as they wish. while god would have the power to affect our decisions, why do you assume that he would do so?
[/ QUOTE ]
given all of the evidence (namely that there is none,) if there is some sort of god, this seems to be the most plausible scenario. we needn't a meddling god. humans just wish there was one.
madnak
11-19-2007, 11:21 AM
There's a tremendous amount of material to cover here. I'm not ignoring the thread, I'll get to it, but right now I'm exhausted and I don't have time.
WuTank
11-19-2007, 08:54 PM
poor englisch, me german yada yada yada.
Of course we cant discuss without a defenition of free will, and I think for the purpose of our discussion here the only valid point we have to focus on is determinism.
If there is a omnipotent God every thing is determined and therfore that,what we with our limited consciousness call will, is just a causal consequence of god.
But if you have a naturalistic viewpoint on the world, as I do, without god and all his projection of hope, even the word determinism is made up by man.
Even the thinking complex about free will is made up by man, yeah I am talking about "Cogito ergo sum" and actually about the whole philosophy of Sartre.
Its late here and I would love to go into detail, but I lack an adequate vocabulary in english to discribe my thinking process, but to give an short summary:
Only the fact that we live let,us define ourself.And Defenition ist acutally everything what free will is about, we create images of reality and, in progress ,try to develop an proper image that is in the end identical to the world.And than we are able to get from the bigger picture in our heads to the real world, which we only experience through our senses.
Even though this is more about subjectivism (spelling please), it still leads me to the conclusion, that we humans first of all trie to make an proper copy of our the world in our heads which is influenced just by our senses and this picture only leads all our action.
So we define ourself and even more the world we are living in, whether this is determined in our genes or not is for us unable to answer, because, after all the fact whether we have free will or not doesnt influence our life at all.
Ya spelling is bad, grammer worse and I guess my thinking process lacks in koherent junctions but again its late yada yada yada.
hitch1978
11-19-2007, 09:15 PM
^^^
I am English and his English/grammer and spelling is better that mine.
^^^
I hope you're actually from the US that would be hilarious
theAMOG
11-20-2007, 03:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if God exists, then freewill can't. if it's so obvious, just tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
i think it's basically that god is all knowing and all powerful, and made the universe and everything in it according to his will. therefore anything that you think is your will is actually his
[/ QUOTE ]
1. It is not impossible for God to exist but also NOT be all knowing, and NOT know everything we are going to do before we do it.
2. Even if God is all knowing, nothing forces us to do what we do we still choose. It's all a matter of how you look at it really, as with everything in life.
And yes I do think there is a higher power, only because it seems like the most logical answer to me, and refer to it as God, since that is most easily understood. This doesn't mean I necessarily believe in the God talked about in the Bible, or from any other religion.
Well I was trying to distinguish between the way you (and I also, fwiw) believe in a higher power and the more often accepted notion of God.
So, for 1. I think you're missing the intended definition of 'God'
and for 2. this isn't actually that simple. Lets say you are given a choice between a blue card and a red card, and you get to choose one and only one and there is no clear advantage to you for choosing either. If God knows what you're going to pick before you are ever presented with the cards, you cannot choose the one God didn't know you were going to pick, thus calling into question whether or not the choice was truly free or just felt free.
theAMOG
11-20-2007, 04:53 AM
you cannot choose the one God didn't know you were going to pick.
I disagree.
Firstly, I don't see how this takes away my choice. I am never made aware that God knows what I am going to do. No one ever is in reality, so that point is moot to me, since that is actually how people argue that free will does not exist. With a scenario in fantasy that somehow proves reality.
But let's assume that it did (which it never has). I know that God knows what I'm going to pick.
First consider I pick blue, God tells me he knew I would pick blue. I do it again and pick red, God tells me He knew I would pick red. Anyone could do this if they wait to reveal the information until after. But you assume since it is God He did actually know and therefore you never had a choice. But how do you know He actually knew? Cause he told you? You don't.
Now, consider he infact tells me I will pick blue. I pick red. Then He tells me He actually knew I would pick red. So did He know or not? Does it matter? Did I choose or didn't I? I did. Whether He knew or not, which I will never know if He actually did, didn't affect my ability to choose.
The only situation which would disprove freewill would be He tells me I'm going to pick the red card, and every time He tells me I still pick the red card. So once this happens, I will believe. But I'm not too worried about it.
willie24
11-20-2007, 09:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you cannot choose the one God didn't know you were going to pick.
I disagree.
Firstly, I don't see how this takes away my choice. I am never made aware that God knows what I am going to do. No one ever is in reality, so that point is moot to me, since that is actually how people argue that free will does not exist. With a scenario in fantasy that somehow proves reality.
But let's assume that it did (which it never has). I know that God knows what I'm going to pick.
First consider I pick blue, God tells me he knew I would pick blue. I do it again and pick red, God tells me He knew I would pick red. Anyone could do this if they wait to reveal the information until after. But you assume since it is God He did actually know and therefore you never had a choice. But how do you know He actually knew? Cause he told you? You don't.
Now, consider he infact tells me I will pick blue. I pick red. Then He tells me He actually knew I would pick red. So did He know or not? Does it matter? Did I choose or didn't I? I did. Whether He knew or not, which I will never know if He actually did, didn't affect my ability to choose.
The only situation which would disprove freewill would be He tells me I'm going to pick the red card, and every time He tells me I still pick the red card. So once this happens, I will believe. But I'm not too worried about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
i agree with your logic. whether or not god is all-knowing is uninteresting to me
madnak
11-20-2007, 12:39 PM
Okay. This is going to be one hell of a long post. I'll skip what's not important to keep it as short as possible. I may also inadvertently miss some major points. Oh well. Anyway, here I go...
[ QUOTE ]
What are the two ways? I define it here as the experience of having control over our mind/body and the ability to make choices outside of external influence. Everyone has this experience afaik, yet some people chalk it up to illusion due to other metaphysical things they believe in... ie God or physical determinism. I don't believe it is an illusion and I will talk more about that in a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
This definition is unclear. What do you mean by "having control?" What do you mean by "external influence?" These are contingent and vague terms, but you're using them like they're absolute.
[ QUOTE ]
I grant that cold is probably a terrible choice to use because of the seeming appeal to emotion. It wasn't meant as that, I didn't mean anything negative by it. A better word would be meaningless? By 'cold' (again, I used the wrong word lets just assume i said 'x') I meant that the universe is just a bunch of sub-atomic particles that are arranged randomly with no deeper meaning and our existence is coincidental.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is false. First, determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism) and materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) are two very different perspectives. Most determinists are probably materialists, but that doesn't justify confusing the philosophies. I'm a (probabilistic) determinist and even an empiricist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism), but I'm not a materialist.
Regardless, materialism doesn't imply that the universe has no meaning, and it certainly doesn't imply that our existence is coincidental. It may imply that our universe is a bunch of particles, but it doesn't imply that it's "just" a bunch of particles. Everything is composed of particles, but the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
Let me provide an analogy to illustrate. A novel is a collection of letters. Is a novel "just" a collection of letters? Human beings are composed of atoms. Are human beings are "just" atoms?
[ QUOTE ]
As for why I don't believe that our experience of free will is an illusion, it's because I have no reason to believe it. Simple, maybe too simple. But it seems to me people say it is an illusion for one of two reasons... either God arranged the universe in such and such way so everything is His Will, or, the universe acts according to strict laws and we are part of the universe therefore we act according to strict laws.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're making lots of assumptions here about what other people believe. It will be hard to shatter all of these assumptions in one post. That's why I keep bringing up the fact that many smart people are determinists, and many smart people outright reject free will. Some of these people have written books on the subject. How likely is it that all of these people have the simplistic views you describe here? It seems to you that people call free will an illusion for only two reasons, but you are wrong - there are many reasons that people reject free will, and some are nuanced.
You say your position is based purely on your intuition.
Are you aware that many early thinkers used intuition to discover truth? They sometimes used intricate argumentsto support those intuitions - but the arguments boiled down to "it seems that way to me, and I have no reason to believe otherwise." A few of the beliefs that were based on this position: Maggots come from bread. Each sperm contains a tiny human inside. The sun revolves the earth. Heavy objects fall faster than light objects (this is false, in case you didn't know). Releasing a person's blood will cure their illnesses. There were hundreds of such "facts" accepted by the smartest people around - because they seemed true, and those smart people had no reason to disbelieve. This is part of why we now choose the opposite approach - the approach of science - if there is no evidence that something is true, then we remain skeptical of it until we find such evidence. This approach hasn't resulted in any major errors so far.
Also, what seems intuitive to you probably doesn't seem intuitive to everyone. There are many examples of this, but I'll talk about free will in particular. The notion of free will would have been alien to the ancient Mycenaeans. To them, it seemed "obvious" that human actions were determined by fate. Fate was a big deal for them. And some groups even in later Greece had the same perspective - they had trouble even imagining the concept of free will, much less believing in it. Hell, fatalism was the prevailing view even in Athens! That's probably where the idea of free will (and philosophy as we know it) originated. You said earlier that "everyone" has an experience of free will - you should know that this is untrue. Not only have entire cultures had no such experience, but even some people in our own free-will saturated culture have no such experience. I'm a great example. I was puzzled and confused by the "experience" everyone around me seemed to have when I was young. I thought I was missing something. That something was have been wrong with my mind.
Then I realized that people were just talking about the experience of making choices. Somehow most people felt like that experience was intrinsically tied to free will. This realization helped me arrive at my compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilist).
[ QUOTE ]
However, my most fundamental experience is that of free will. If nothing else I can modify images/thoughts that are floating around my head, not to mention tough moral decisions we've all had to face. The experience of free will is at the same level as logic. I experience 2+2=4 in my mind as a whole complete idea with no moving parts once i understand 2,+,4, and =. Its deep and fundamental and true. Could it be an illusion? Of course. I don't have any reason to think it though because any of the metaphysical ideas that lead me to that conclusion are built ON TOP of the underlying direct experience of logic and free will.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is what you claim, but belief in free will is heavily dependent on culture. Belief that 2 and 2 make 4 is universal. So there's something dissimilar about the two beliefs.
Moreover, If half of the people in the world, including many intelligent people, insisted that 2+2=5, then I would seriously question my belief that 2+2=4. Just because a belief seems fundamental to your understanding doesn't mean that belief can't (or shouldn't) be questioned and investigated.
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, where science (again afaik) stands on the issue of the determinability of 'stuff' it leaves the door wide open (if not a custom mold for) free will.
[/ QUOTE ]
It leaves a tiny crack. I'll get to this. You may think it "leaves the door open" because...
[ QUOTE ]
Quantum physics necessitates a conscious observer which seems like there is plenty of room for free will. And we know almost nothing about our consciousness.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is false. There's a reason most physicists are atheists.
Quantum physics shows that when certain processes of observation are used to measure "particles," the behavior of those particles changes. You seem to have taken the term "observation" and really run with it. "Observation" in this sense basically means "the process of manipulating photons so we can record them." It has nothing to do with consciousness or even with the normal use of the term. There's nothing magical happening - basically when we "touch" a wave, it collapses into a particle. We still call these wave-particle dualities "particles" out of tradition and convenience.
Moving on...
Free will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) It's arguably one of the concepts most frequently misunderstood in the West, by those on both sides of the issue. The ideas are nuanced and almost systematically ill-defined, leaving room for all kinds of missteps. To make matters worse, most conceptions of free will necessitate the navigation of other philosophical swamps - consideration of empirical methods and their epistemological implications, application of statistical data to unknowns, microscopic versus macroscopic views of the world, linguistic analysis, the question of god, the list goes on. And some people toss in the idea of moral responsibility - but nobody has ever been able to explain in rational terms why free will has any bearing on this idea. Worst of all IMO, most people choose to bring only their personal assumptions and intuitions to the table - as these assumptions and intuitions frequently differ, the disagreements can seem inextricably tangled and impossible to resolve. Maybe they are. But there are some relatively simple logical processes we can apply to the problem.
The first question in determining whether free will exists is determining what free will is. But people don't usually go very deep in defining free will. Often they stop at "free will means we can control our actions." Then different people with different ideas of what "control" means can debate for hours/pages based solely on the poor quality of that definition. A good example of these simplistic arguments is as follows...
"Of course we have free will. If I go into an ice cream store I'm not forced to choose vanilla. I can choose any of the flavors. I can choose strawberry or mint or chocolate chip. If people had no choice in the matter, they'd always choose vanilla."
"But if you choose mint, that's because you like mint. Or because you're in the mood for mint. Or because of something. There is a reason you chose your flavor - a cause for your choice. If you absolutely hate rocky road, if it makes you nauseous just to think about it, then you won't choose rocky road without a special reason for it. If you love mint more than all the other flavors combined, you'll choose mint most of the time. You don't have control over your choices, they're based on causes! If people just did things without having any cause for doing them, we'd be killing each other on the streets!"
Both arguments are valid, but they're based on different intuitions and different takes on what "free will" means. And neither one has anything to do with the real question at hand. Everyone agrees that nobody is forced to choose a given flavor of ice cream. And everyone knows that people usually have a good reason for doing what they do. Both arguments are based on a poor understanding of the opposed position. Suggesting that there's no free will isn't suggesting that people are forced to do what they do - it's not the will part anyone argues with, it's the free part. This is confusing because here "will" means "voluntary action," and "free" means "independent." Usually we think of "free" meaning "voluntary," so it's easy to confuse the terms. A determinist believes in voluntary action - he simply believes it's not at all independent. And suggesting that free will exists doesn't mean saying prior events and causes have no impact - most people take prior events into consideration when making their choices, and most people will choose an option if there's a good reason for doing so. But they could have chosen differently if they had wanted to.
So we're already stuck in the muck. How do we clear this up? We use a better definition of free will. There are a couple that are commonly used.
The first definition is that human beings can make selections that do not immediately depend on external factors (ie factors that aren't contained in the decision-making process itself), and that do have an impact on the world. This is a simple macroscopic definition that is wholly consistent with determinism. It is also consistent with personal experience at all levels.
The second definition is more problematic, and is the definition used by most supporters of free will. Thankfully this is the definition that is most vulnerable to logic. It describes free will as an intrinsic ontological property that allows action to be independent from random and causal factors. The negative definitions are easiest to understand - free will is neither caused nor random, free will means that human action can't be determined by evaluating prior events. I don't like these definitions, because they describe what free will isn't rather than what it is, but positive definitions get convoluted. This view of free will is incompatible with determinism.
Obviously the meat of my post will be the arguments against this second definition of free will. But I'm tired so I'm taking a break. To be continued...
einbert
11-20-2007, 05:12 PM
atheist undecided
What I want to know is how you converted baptists. Those are a damn stubborn group of people, and old fashioned to boot.
"Quantum physics shows that when certain processes of observation are used to measure "particles," the behavior of those particles changes. You seem to have taken the term "observation" and really run with it. "Observation" in this sense basically means "the process of manipulating photons so we can record them." It has nothing to do with consciousness or even with the normal use of the term. There's nothing magical happening - basically when we "touch" a wave, it collapses into a particle. We still call these wave-particle dualities "particles" out of tradition and convenience."
This is not true.. it seems you're this idea with the Uncertainty Principle. Or, if it is true it isn't widely known and accepted.
--
The problem with your novel metaphor is that someone wrote the novel. I don't see how I am confusing materialism with determinism, I am aware they are different ideas that are often held by the same people.
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, If half of the people in the world, including many intelligent people, insisted that 2+2=5, then I would seriously question my belief that 2+2=4. Just because a belief seems fundamental to your understanding doesn't mean that belief can't (or shouldn't) be questioned and investigated.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should seriously give consideration (perhaps you have) to an all knowing and all powerful God. I have and for a variety of reasons it doesn't sit with me. I have also done the same with determinism.
My definition was a perhaps poor attempt to use what your first definition was minus the part where human's selections do not have an impact on the world. I don't understand that part nor how it is consistent with determinism.
However, my reason for believing in free will is actually not at all arrived at from logic. Logically consistent systems can be created on top of free will or on top of determinism.
One might think, "everything is an illusion, it only seems real" (like the matrix) or, "everything is real." How do you determine which is true? Well you cannot. If you believe everything is an illusion, then anything used to prove otherwise is an illusion in and of itself.
This seems to be how determinists deal with the fact that our choices feel free. Free being original and not exclusively coerced factors leading to decisions. No one is trying to deny subconscious choices etc.
To me, I arrive at the conclusion of free will not from intuition, because actually my intuition tells me that the world follows physical laws and we are a part of the world, and we therefore follow physical laws in an albeit more complex manner. The weather seems complex and hard to map, but I don't assume the weather has free will.
I experience free will very directly and when I do as Descartes did and not make any assumptions about anything. I disregard everything and start with what can I know? Well the only thing I know is that I have original control over images and thoughts in my mind.
Granted, that could be an illusion. But it could only be an illusion in the way that everything is an illusion, its not provable or unprovable.
Some might say well you can prove it, actually. Look at physics. And I say, LOOK AT PHYSICS! The thing about quantum mechanics that leaves the door open for free will is that when there is a probability wave that collapses, its not just that there was a wave breaking when we touch it; it's that when it collapses into a particle we cannot know where that particle is going to collapse.
That is, over an infinite amount of electrons we can tell what the wave pattern will look like when they hit a photographic plate. However, we cannot know where ONE will hit. Not that we don't know how and that some day we will learn, but it is inherent that there is an element of randomness in each particular particle even though on average we can know a great deal about them in general.
[ QUOTE ]
atheist undecided
What I want to know is how you converted baptists. Those are a damn stubborn group of people, and old fashioned to boot.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was in high school. These kids didn't know why they believed what they did, and I used arguments like, 'would an all loving god do xxx" and the bible contradicts itself 'here here and here.' And I got them to smoke a lot of weed.
willie24
11-21-2007, 04:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I experience free will very directly and when I do as Descartes did and not make any assumptions about anything. I disregard everything and start with what can I know? Well the only thing I know is that I have original control over images and thoughts in my mind.
Granted, that could be an illusion. But it could only be an illusion in the way that everything is an illusion, its not provable or unprovable.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes. i think this is what it comes down to. do i have free will? well, yes, relative to the world i percieve.
what about if my perception is wrong or isn't complete? (i percieve logical and physical evidence that this is so, which is a paradox) well, there is no evidence that the world exists apart from "my" perception.
to me, this seems consistent with the idea that consciousness creates the world, rather than vice versa.
MaxWeiss
11-21-2007, 05:05 AM
Can I believe in individual free will while also believing in psychohistory and the probability of the masses---that is, no free will over large samples and time periods??
tame_deuces
11-21-2007, 05:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Can I believe in individual free will while also believing in psychohistory and the probability of the masses---that is, no free will over large samples and time periods??
[/ QUOTE ]
Some forms of it yes:
Swarm intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence)
tame_deuces
11-21-2007, 05:36 AM
Or to state it a little further. The net result of a mass of free agents may be predictable to a very large degree (in some manners of measurement) even if the behavior of the individual agent is far less predictable.
MaxWeiss
11-21-2007, 06:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Or to state it a little further. The net result of a mass of free agents may be predictable to a very large degree (in some manners of measurement) even if the behavior of the individual agent is far less predictable.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's basically exactly what I meant.
tarheeljks
11-21-2007, 09:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or to state it a little further. The net result of a mass of free agents may be predictable to a very large degree (in some manners of measurement) even if the behavior of the individual agent is far less predictable.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's basically exactly what I meant.
[/ QUOTE ]
i'm really glad someone mentioned this b/c i had thought about and couldn't decide if i was making any sense or not. any other links deuces?
tame_deuces
11-21-2007, 10:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
i'm really glad someone mentioned this b/c i had thought about and couldn't decide if i was making any sense or not. any other links deuces?
[/ QUOTE ]
Classically swarm intelligence has been studied on AIs, engineering and insects since it says the interacting agents have to be fairly simple. Only recently have one began to look at how human intelligence and social factors can be looked at it in a swarm system and how these models can interact.
A combinatory computer model is the 'particle swarm optimization' here is a wiki on it: clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization)
There is also a journal called 'Swarm Intelligence' that has 2 issues out and free online content: clicky (http://www.springerlink.com/content/1935-3812)
Jim14Qc
11-22-2007, 10:43 PM
I was an atheist for a bit.
Then I tried to think, what hapenned BEFORE the big bang? WTF was there? How come that huge concentration of matter was to explode at T=0?
My brain almost imploded. I can't rationalize that it "all" started at the Big Bang, because then what came before it? If nothing, then how did it come to be? If something, then clearly that something is worth exploring.
Also, if there is a (many?) god(s), then who put them there? How did he/they come to be?
So I guess I'm a bit of an agnostic. The presence or absence of God(s) has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever. I abide by what I feel are correct morals, which obviously have been influenced by thousands of years of humanity preaching different gods.
Hopefully I never have to find out 'cuz I live forever n all..
willie24
11-22-2007, 11:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I was an atheist for a bit.
Then I tried to think, what hapenned BEFORE the big bang? WTF was there? How come that huge concentration of matter was to explode at T=0?
My brain almost imploded. I can't rationalize that it "all" started at the Big Bang, because then what came before it? If nothing, then how did it come to be? If something, then clearly that something is worth exploring.
Also, if there is a (many?) god(s), then who put them there? How did he/they come to be?
So I guess I'm a bit of an agnostic. The presence or absence of God(s) has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever. I abide by what I feel are correct morals, which obviously have been influenced by thousands of years of humanity preaching different gods.
Hopefully I never have to find out 'cuz I live forever n all..
[/ QUOTE ]
you just did a pretty good job of pointing out why the existence of the world as we think of it doesn't make sense. which is why im so interested in the idea that consciousness creates the world (and itself).
madnak
11-27-2007, 06:11 PM
I started a whole big post with arguments and such, but then my phone line went out. And stayed that way for a week. As if it's not bad enough to be on dial-up... I'm pretty fried from skimming all the new posts, but I thought I should follow up on this one.
[ QUOTE ]
This is not true.. it seems you're this idea with the Uncertainty Principle. Or, if it is true it isn't widely known and accepted.
[/ QUOTE ]
What don't you think is true and why? I'm being simplistic, granted, because the point is that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your novel metaphor is that someone wrote the novel.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm just talking about the whole as opposed to the parts. I'm not getting into the issue of intelligent design in this thread, I don't see how it's relevant.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how I am confusing materialism with determinism, I am aware they are different ideas that are often held by the same people.
[/ QUOTE ]
You said that the atheist worldview is empty and meaningless, and then used materialist assumptions to support your assertion. Regardless, it's semantic. I'd rather stick to free will because the subject of whether atheism is "cold" will just derail things.
[ QUOTE ]
Then you should seriously give consideration (perhaps you have) to an all knowing and all powerful God. I have and for a variety of reasons it doesn't sit with me. I have also done the same with determinism.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. But I don't get the impression you've familiarized yourself with determinism.
[ QUOTE ]
My definition was a perhaps poor attempt to use what your first definition was minus the part where human's selections do not have an impact on the world. I don't understand that part nor how it is consistent with determinism.
[/ QUOTE ]
That they do have an impact.
[ QUOTE ]
However, my reason for believing in free will is actually not at all arrived at from logic. Logically consistent systems can be created on top of free will or on top of determinism.
One might think, "everything is an illusion, it only seems real" (like the matrix) or, "everything is real." How do you determine which is true? Well you cannot. If you believe everything is an illusion, then anything used to prove otherwise is an illusion in and of itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "illusion" and "real?"
[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be how determinists deal with the fact that our choices feel free. Free being original and not exclusively coerced factors leading to decisions. No one is trying to deny subconscious choices etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean exactly by "coerced?" It seems like you're riding the line of compatibilism. If that's your perspective, then I see no contradictions. If not, then I do.
[ QUOTE ]
To me, I arrive at the conclusion of free will not from intuition, because actually my intuition tells me that the world follows physical laws and we are a part of the world, and we therefore follow physical laws in an albeit more complex manner.
[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds like a logical conclusion, not an intuitive conclusion. But you still aren't explaining why your view of free will and is mutually exclusive with physical laws.
[ QUOTE ]
I experience free will very directly and when I do as Descartes did and not make any assumptions about anything. I disregard everything and start with what can I know? Well the only thing I know is that I have original control over images and thoughts in my mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "original," and what do you mean by "know?" Descartes couldn't construct a valid argument for the life of him, and even dualists rarely accept the Cartesian premise unaltered. Descartes pretended to remove all assumptions, and consistently failed to do so. I'd love to know how you think you can instantaneously do away with your accumulated biases.
[ QUOTE ]
Granted, that could be an illusion. But it could only be an illusion in the way that everything is an illusion, its not provable or unprovable.
[/ QUOTE ]
It may be, if you define your terms and premises. So far what you're saying is largely nonsensical.
[ QUOTE ]
Some might say well you can prove it, actually. Look at physics. And I say, LOOK AT PHYSICS! The thing about quantum mechanics that leaves the door open for free will is that when there is a probability wave that collapses, its not just that there was a wave breaking when we touch it; it's that when it collapses into a particle we cannot know where that particle is going to collapse.
That is, over an infinite amount of electrons we can tell what the wave pattern will look like when they hit a photographic plate. However, we cannot know where ONE will hit. Not that we don't know how and that some day we will learn, but it is inherent that there is an element of randomness in each particular particle even though on average we can know a great deal about them in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, there appears to be true randomness in each particle. This refutes free will. That is, unless you suggest that free will is actually randomness. Of course, that's just probabilistic determinism, it's a form of compatibilism.
But this isn't what you're saying. You're not saying that your actions are random, you're saying that you control your actions. And while it's possible that you could be doing so at the quantum level, this would result in patterns (corresponding to your choices). Eventually we may be able to determine that quantum events in the brain really are random, and then there will be nowhere for supernatural perspectives to hide. There's the die roll, and there's the causal mechanism, and your actions are one or the other (or both).
And such patterns would only further remove the issue - there would be no indication that causal factors aren't responsible for them. We would simply be unable to identify such factors.
It gets to the point of hair-splitting. If you really want to believe that your physical actions are controlled by magical nonphysical factors that are neither random nor caused, you can throw out empiricism entirely. So even if we do disprove free will using physics, it won't end the issue. You can continue to believe what "feels right" to you - just as people have (often incorrectly) for millenia. This is true of any claim. So we can't know that free will doesn't exist.
What we can know is that there is no basis for believing that free will exists. Or at least, we can empirically establish this. But if your basis isn't logical, so be it. There are a number of serious dilemmas raised by the adoption of beliefs purely on the basis of your own personal perceptions, but I don't want to write out my post again, particularly since nobody may be listening. I may come back to it if the thread revives. But you're basically suggesting the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this is one of those cases where it's a valid reference. You claim to have some special knowledge that free will exists that is personal, that can't be logically described, and that is unique to you and people like you (or at least, that doesn't exist for me and people like me). And this special knowledge that you claim to have is your only basis for believing in free will.
And you think that's compelling? Well, given that I lack this "special knowledge," I hope you can appreciate my incredulity. Hell, I myself have had spiritual experiences and have felt "communion with God," so at least I can confront believers on that level. I've never experienced free will, so I'll just have to conclude that I'm a zombie and you're a real person (except that a true pzombie would claim to experience free will - I should have copied that other post into notepad...)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.