I have Faith

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty funny. I started a thread about free will, after I've already stated that I dislike threads about free will, when I intended to start a thread about faith, and the fact that I am not bothered in the slightest by holding a belief about the fundamental nature of mankind and the universe that I cannot prove or disprove.

Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
On faith then. Nothing wrong with faith, just something wrong with those who insist the belief doesn't depend on faith.

chez

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
(Probabilistic determinism seems like the most likely scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, but it's totally conceivable.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if I'm not mistaken some scientists believe that when you have to make that choice in the morning, two "new realities" are created, one in which you choose option 1, the other in which you choose option 2. So there is a separate reality for each choice you make and which reality "you" exist in depends on your choice. Maybe)

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense but this is big BS. It's not scientific, it's faith-based. (well, then again this IS a faith thread, but you said otherwise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Anyway, I heard the concept before and it's no different than believing in the almighty one with His white beard and all or whatever other fantasy you wish to believe in. There is absolutely no evidence that even suggests such a ridiculous theory.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty funny. I started a thread about free will, after I've already stated that I dislike threads about free will, when I intended to start a thread about faith, and the fact that I am not bothered in the slightest by holding a belief about the fundamental nature of mankind and the universe that I cannot prove or disprove.

Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting indeed [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

My apologies for screwing up your thread [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I wouldn't have replied, but I felt tempted to read on and found replies that I just had to reply to. I never said anything about your original post. It's your faith, I have nothing to say in the matter.

[Borodog]

No apologies necessary. I was just commenting. I'm not going to interfere with a discussion people are clearly enjoying.

[Nut4Dawgs]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont have faith in free will. probabilistic determinism still leaves no room for free will. ...and, yes, the illusion is very good!

[/ QUOTE ]
You write science fiction books, don't you?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
How do I teach my kids the importance of study habits, work ethics, even having goals, or going to college, etc.? How do I convince them they can be whatever they want to be, if I can't convince myself of the same? Why should I make goals if it's already pre-determined whether or not I'll achieve them? Etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they will get to bask in the glorious belief that they are ultimately responsible for their own success. Of course they will be wrong if the world is deterministic, but regardless life is just better when you believe you deserve some credit.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
I find the endless threads about free will versus determinism tiresome and irresolvable. The same with the associated randomness threads. And then it suddenly occured to me, I have Faith!

I have Faith in free will. I cannot prove that I have free will. The closest I could come is argumentum ad ignorantium, which is clearly fallacious and I am always quick to snap people off for, so it's no proof at all.

Yet I am utterly convinced that I have free will. If I don't it's a fantastically good illusion. I have Faith.

So this is what it's like.

[/ QUOTE ]



A quick point. Not having a proof of what you believe doesnt mean your belief is based on faith. Unless you construe faith in such a way that when my friend buys a lottery ticket, and I believe he won't win my belief is based on faith. My belief is based on the fact that there is a 99.99%+ chance that he won't win, so I believe he won't win.
Now you could say I have to have faith to believe that because it isn't 100%. This is fine but now even beliefs for which you can offer proof require faith because the proof might have some flaw that you just haven't recognized. Sadly, we are fallible creatures.

I don't think what I said above is directly relevant to free will unless you have some justification to think you have free will which you don't count as proof. What makes you so sure you have free will? Any good reasons?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so sure you have free will? Any good reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. If I had good reasons, I wouldn't need Faith. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When I go to the Waffle House, sometimes I pick pancakes, and sometimes I have a waffle. And then other times, I decide to go to IHOP.

Feels like free will to me. Can I prove it? Nope.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is a leap many people make. "The future is defined by causal events, therefore I have no control over it." This doesn't logically follow. That the mechanics of your control are physical and causal doesn't in any way diminish the fact that you have control.

[/ QUOTE ]I would disagree, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "control".

[ QUOTE ]
On the contrary. The fact that your actions will have causal effects throughout the future of your life (and of the universe itself) indicates that your actions are extremely significant.

[/ QUOTE ]This is certainly true, but significance doesn't establish control.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I believe this is incorrect. I have to go now. I can try to explain why I don't think this follows later tonight. But it would help me if I understood why you feel this is true. What is your definition of choice? And why do you feel that a deterministic sequence of events takes away that choice?
</font>

I don't think I'm looking at deterministic events properly. The way I'm looking at it is:

If A = B, then C

If A = C then [Print:]

Is this a choice? I say no. While the variables may seem random (to a thinking computer this might seem like free will), the result is pre-determined depending on the actual input.

Screw it. This doesn't say what I want. What you seem to be saying is that we have choice. What I'm saying is (if you're correct) it is only the "illusion" of choice. And that bothers me for some reason.