Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hard Determinism and Freewill

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Yet you are talking about future prediction.
And maybe that will be true, or maybe not.
However, freewill is just as unpredictable at the gust of wind you hope to predict.

Do not miss my point.




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MissPoovey
 


I am talking about predictions because if you can predict humans, they are not free. Having freewill is being unpredictable by definition. Not hard to predict, unpredictable... meaning: successfully predicting your actions is a logical impossibility. But, the wind patterns are predictable, we're getting better at it, and so is human behavior. Human behavior is predictable and every time we are surprised by human behavior is nothing but a sign of how bad our knowledge is about how this human works. As science advances, surprises get significantly less than they used to be. One day, there will be no surprises at all. No wind will surprise you and no human behavior will either.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAlmo
 


That was good. Very funny. Star for that one.
Second line.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Quantum mechanics are hardly deterministic.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shogu666
Quantum mechanics are hardly deterministic.


There is uncertainty in quantum mechanics I guess. (I didn't learn QM beyond manipulating symbols on a piece of paper to pass a class, so I don't know what it means at all.)

Are you saying that uncertainty = free will?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Are you saying that uncertainty = free will?


Not really , but it means there is room for it , so free will cant be discarded just as easily.
edit on 11-10-2011 by shogu666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by shogu666
 


I am aware of the so called random behavior found in the sub-atomic level where stuff behaves in a way that is contradicting to our logic. But to that I say something very simple:

Isn't our whole universe built from those illogical atoms? How come that when adding billions of illogical and inconsistent things you get at the end something logical and consistent like reality in our scale? Doesn't that mean that we just can't figure out the logic and consistency at that level, yet?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
The definition of freewill is dependent upon the defintion of "self" - if I define myself as purely endogenous factors, then I have a large extent of freewill - for example I can type this message and at the very least control my fingers. The ability to distinguish what my freewill is, basically, involves the ability to predict my own actions, for example, I know that I am about to type the next word, and I know that I could have typed other words, yet I chose to type a specific word - this occurs before the action itself, and when I perform the action of typing a specific word, I realise that it was my "will" that was the decider.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAlmo
reply to post by filosophia
 

I, obviously, am not talking about freedom of movement and the physical limitations of our body. You can have absolutely no freewill and move perfectly fine just like robots do. If you program a robot with a very sophisticated program that helps it move around, talk to people, is it free?


There are some limitations which can't be avoided in any way simply because of the way humans developed. The human psyche is a result of an uncountable number of humans (our ancestors) interacting with eachother over thousands of years. It's like a sophisticated system of many smaller programs, our ancestors were it's programmers and each generation small applications were added.

To pick out some of this programming under the section of art as an example. At some time, the choice to draw the environment wasn't there, after many individuals drew shapes in the sand it was one who started to draw inside caves which were preserved unlike the shapes in the sand which only lasted shortly and not many got to see it. But even today people find drawings in caves and marvel at them. If no one started to draw with the intention of it lasting then we wouldn't have CGI today. We would never have been able to create anything because we wouldn't be able to communicate plans which grew to become more complex overtime, if it wasn't for those few who began making illustrations inside their caves.

It can be argued it was because of God or aliens but I don't believe that myself, I believe humans were simply bored in between the hunts and gathering of food, maybe it was because of bad weather that forced them to remain inside their caves, be it as it may someone picked up that chalk and started drawing animals and other things. No one put that chalk there for the purpose of trying to get a human to draw or inserted something in the brain that made it pick it up and create art. But it happened and the brain adapted allowing us in 2010 to visualize grand designs leading us from that dark damp cave into space, to imagine the universe both big and small, even if we don't yet fully understand what we're looking at or what is looking.


Let's say you're home watching TV, and you smelled something delicious coming from the kitchen.

It has no choice but to adhere to the universal laws. Human beings are nothing but highly complicated robots that run on an automatically updatable code that is their lives and experiences and due to their complexity, they appear like they have freewill.
edit on 9-10-2011 by TheAlmo because: (no reason given)


The laws of physics do not have to be the same as the laws of the psyche. What makes the food delicious? What if that delicious food isn't, say for example french/freedom fries but fried grasshoppers? Would it make any difference if it is a Chinese dish, or Arab dish, or a whopper?

What do you mean by automatically updatable code? It sounds very indoctrinating, almost cult like where members have little choice in their beliefs and must accept a standard doctrine. No offense, but I'm thinking you are one of those scientists who just want to convince others everything and everyone are completely predictable, no surprises in social behaviour from one self or others, no emotions which can't be explained right away, no reason to boot compassion.exe, it's just not in your programming. I can see you and others with your mindset slowly taking over the globe with those universal laws, promises about magical pills which make one feel happy, the security of technology. It's a huge self fulfilling prophecy, make everyone believe they have no choice in what to think or feel, how to respond, what or how to express and within a few generations everyone will believe just that. Still all in our minds, but slightly different.
edit on 12/10/2011 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Dragonfly79
 


I really can't relate the upper half of your comment to any of what I said in the OP. What do you want to say?

The second half:



"The laws of physics do not have to be the same as the laws of the psyche"


The psyche is itself nothing but electrical signals and chemical reactions as far as we're concerned. Your brain itself is made of a combination of matter that behaves in a deterministic way, but, it's just cleverly combined to seem capable of choosing, where it actually isn't. Just as much as computer are made of semiconductors which are nothing but matter that also behaves in a deterministic way but it seems intelligent and some times aware and alive because it's so cleverly designed.



What makes the food delicious? What if that delicious food isn't...


Right... except that it is because that's my example and I said that it would be delicious, be it Arab food, American food, or anything. Delicious food is delicious because you were raised to like its taste... there's a reason for you loving the taste of delicious food... a scientific deterministic reason that can be traced back to your ancestors, evolution, and eventually cosmological reasons. Which you have no control or choice of neither of them.



What do you mean by automatically updatable code? It sounds very indoctrinating, almost cult like where members have little choice in their beliefs and must accept a standard doctrine.


I can't see how you got the 'culty' smell since all I am saying here is based on facts... but I will explain what I mean. If you're walking in the street the pavement was broken and you hit it with your leg and fell down. What's gonna happen the next time you come near that very spot? You will try to avoid it because what is equivalent to an operating system in your brain updated the information about this specific spot. That's what I mean by automatically updatable.



No offense, but I'm thinking you are one of those scientists who just want to convince others everything and everyone are completely predictable, no surprises in social behaviour from one self or others, no emotions which can't be explained right away, no reason to boot compassion.exe, it's just not in your programming.


It's interesting how the topic of freewill makes people take an offensive stance as if I am attacking their religion of their belief system. Believing that you have freewill is really that big. It's like religion. A vague idea that has no evidence and as the days pass evidence against it is piling up until one day it will be obsolete. Yes, everything is completely predictable... but we can't predict everything. Nothing has no explanation... everything is predictable, logical, consistent 100% of the time. Surprises happen because we are yet to understand how everything works. When we do, there will be no surprises, at all. You want to say that some things have no explanations and they happen just like that and you expect that to make sense, while I, the one who says that everything happens for a reason, am the one who sounds illogical and a cult follower.

Read that again will ya?



I can see you and others with your mindset slowly taking over the globe with those universal laws, promises about magical pills which make one feel happy, the security of technology. It's a huge self fulfilling prophecy, make everyone believe they have no choice in what to think or feel, how to respond, what or how to express and within a few generations everyone will believe just that. Still all in our minds, but slightly different.


Promises about magical pills? Are you confusing my thread with another one? And... if there's such a thing - is it bad? Doesn't believing in freewill require much more belief than not believing in it?
edit on 12-10-2011 by TheAlmo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAlmo
The psyche is itself nothing but electrical signals and chemical reactions as far as we're concerned.


Except that is still to be proven.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAlmo
 


Definitely an interesting argument. Most of the arguments I see against free will these days are grounded in recent discoveries in Neuroscience about how our subconscious minds make decisions before we are even consciously aware of the "choice".

It seems clear to me that free will is logically impossible as you stated as one of your opening premises but the question then becomes, what does this say about holding people accountable for their actions? If we are all bound by causality and our actions and even choices are the result of subconscious decisions beyond our control how can we hold people accountable for what they've done? It would turn the justice system and the way we currently view things on its head. That's why most people I talk to are compatibilist, they dismiss free will but posit that people should still be held accountable.

Anyway a fascinating argument, star and flag



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Here is my explanation about this topic.
The cause and effect cycle applies to the natural laws that rule the physical world.
But we have a soul.
The soul is incarnated in the body.
The soul does not follow the rules of this physical world, the soul is not of this physical world. The physical world is temporary, the soul is eternal, it belongs to the eternal world, which is the souls home.
The soul is here in the physical world having an experience, learning, living, but it is not bounded by its rules.
The body is.
So there you have it. Its the soul that has free will.
All our actions and words come from a combination of the body and the soul.
This combination is our present life personality and it has free will because it has a soul.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Manula
 


Can you present some logical or scientific evidence that the soul exists?

Plus if the soul has free will while the body doesn't than free will is useless, as in order to exercise free will the soul would have to control the body BUT as soon as it controls the body to exercise that free will it is bound to cause and effect. See what I mean? If the soul can only exercise free will through the body and the body is bound by cause and effect than the soul does not have free will OR at least cannot use said free will. Unless the soul can move around and use its free will without the body, which would be an odd thing to claim.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by shogu666
 


If you can provide me with any scientific data of any kind that proves or even theorizes that our psyche consists of anything more than we can already see, I would love to see it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SystemResistor
 


Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
It is already done but not by you. There is no you.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


There are two ways I would respond to your question about morals:

1- As I said in the OP, we don't have a choice to "do" or "not do" anything with criminals. What's gonna happen will happen. We have no choice. So, it's already invalid to argue: what are we going to do if? Stuff will happen when it's gonna happen. No choice here.

2- However, there are causal results of realizing the fact that we don't have a choice, one of which is talking about it right now, and in general. So, that, as an event, has its own effect, and yes, it might and it is already being argued as a moral factor. I think it's wrong to say that criminals are not responsible for what they do because people who judge them are not an exception to causality. It's like punishing people for breathing air, or for being people. It's like a fish punishing another for swimming in the water. Causality is so extra-dimensional that it's wrong to base your judgement of people on it. It's so, impractical too. Because, in order to stop crime, we have to fight criminals, using causality. If people know it's illegal to do this and that, this will have a causal effect on them and will decrease the chance of crime. If we let a serial killer survive, he's gonna kill us all. So, it won't be practical not to stop him. He kills with causality, and we stop him with causality too.

By impractical I also mean that we don't have any data, but, all we have is the fact (let's assume that it's a fact for the sake of this argument) that people are under complete and total influence of causality. So, we have the fact, yet no data about why that is happening and no data on the past or the future. This makes the fact useless. Because, you either know the past and the future and accordingly you will stop crime before it happens and really the one to be blamed if crimes occur will be people who didn't act to stop it knowing that they were definitely going to happen (like god), or they don't have sufficient data and they simply just have to wait for crimes to happen because you can't arrest people before they commit their crimes. Which spawns another set of questions about whether it's "ethical" to arrest people before they commit the crime even if you were certain that they're going to do it. Again, I say, if you are in control of those people and you see their crime and not act to stop it, then it's really your fault. It's like knowing that a building will fall down killing all its occupants, and having the choice to call them all before the collapse, and choosing not to do it. That's a crime.

Now, this gets even more complicated because people who monitor activities in society predicting crimes are themselves bound to causality and they don't dwell in a higher dimension. So, they are not in a better or worse position than those they are monitoring, so, how do we decide if they should play God? I guess it will never be anyone's decision. It will be the good old technique of having power over people by force. Those who are stronger, smarter, and have more knowledge will always control those who are weaker, dumber, and ignorant. It worked that way for millions of years, and will continue to work like that.
edit on 12-10-2011 by TheAlmo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I recently read "The Way of the Explorer" by astronaut Edgar Mitchell. The author had some interesting ideas. I didn't understand everything, but it seemed to be a unification of atheism, science, and mysticism. He believed that science and religion split in the middle ages and now they needed to be brought back together to make further progress.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Well, accepting some kind of determinism, it would only apply to the physical world.
The fact is the body and the soul are together here on earth.
The body is the vehicle but it is the soul that commands.
Body with no soul has no life. Life comes from the soul.
Soul has free will, so life has free will.
Cant explain it better. If the soul has free will, and our actions and words express the soul within this body, then our actions and words are expressions of free will.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Manula
 


Can you present some logical or scientific evidence that the soul exists?
.


Are you kidding me?
There are so many evidences of the afterlife, reincarnation. Testimonies, they are evidence too, accepted in court of law.
A lot of people have experienced out of body experiences, a lot of people remembered past lives and the information they saw was validated by history records and other people that lived those past lives too.

Do your research.

I recommend the books of Brian Weiss and Micahel Newton.

There is a case of a boy that was an aviator in the 2nd world war called James, aired on MSM. Google it






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join