(March 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm)toro Wrote: I don't believe in free will.

It seems to me a simple combination of the confusion to describe consciousness (which is none other than neurological changes created by the body doing things outside its control) with social norms, language, entropy, and the subjectivity of physical existence.

Could you please elaborate on that? It sounds interesting and I want to understand more about how you see consciousness being confused with social norms, etc.

(March 6, 2012 at 10:08 pm)toro Wrote: I don't believe in free will.

It seems to me a simple combination of the confusion to describe consciousness (which is none other than neurological changes created by the body doing things outside its control) with social norms, language, entropy, and the subjectivity of physical existence.

What the hell does entropy have to do with this? Are you just using fancy words to try to make yourself seem smart?

@ genkaus, thanks for sharing your view, we will have to agree to disagree though, as a christian I see love as selfless not selfish.

(March 7, 2012 at 4:09 am)Godschild Wrote: @ genkaus, thanks for sharing your view, we will have to agree to disagree though, as a christian I see love as selfless not selfish.

Love can be both, at the same time.

As to free will, we live in a chaotic universe, the rules of which determine how things must happen but not the outcome.

For instance if you drop a dice gravity ensures it must fall towards the centre of the earth, but there are no laws determining what side will be facing up when it comes to rest.

Similarly 10 different people will make 10 different choices when confronted with a complex situation.

If there were no free will they would be constrained to make the same choice as the others.

Quote:If there were no free will they would be constrained to make the same choice as the others.

As xtians are want to do.

(March 7, 2012 at 5:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: if you drop a dice gravity ensures it must fall towards the centre of the earth, but there are no laws determining what side will be facing up when it comes to rest.

I disagree. If you were to track, mathematically, the trajectory, the speed and all factors affecting the fall of that dice, ie: gravity, weight, mass, shape etc, you could determine exactly which number it was going to land on. The reason it seems to be random, is because we can never drop it in exactly the same fashion or environment as before.

(March 7, 2012 at 5:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Similarly 10 different people will make 10 different choices when confronted with a complex situation.

If there were no free will they would be constrained to make the same choice as the others.

Yes, they make different decisions, but this is because they are different people, coming from different genetics and growing up with very different backgrounds with very different influences through their life.

Using the example of the dice you used, if you were to throw two identical dice from an identical starting point and position, each being affected by identical forces, they would land on the same number. However if the dice were different, if one was slightly bigger, or slightly more rounded, or a little heavier, then that would mean that the forces acting upon it would create a different outcome and the dice would land differently.

(March 7, 2012 at 6:01 am)picto90 Wrote:

(March 7, 2012 at 5:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: if you drop a dice gravity ensures it must fall towards the centre of the earth, but there are no laws determining what side will be facing up when it comes to rest.

I disagree. If you were to track, mathematically, the trajectory, the speed and all factors affecting the fall of that dice, ie: gravity, weight, mass, shape etc, you could determine exactly which number it was going to land on. The reason it seems to be random, is because we can never drop it in exactly the same fashion or environment as before.

(March 7, 2012 at 5:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Similarly 10 different people will make 10 different choices when confronted with a complex situation.

If there were no free will they would be constrained to make the same choice as the others.

Yes, they make different decisions, but this is because they are different people, coming from different genetics and growing up with very different backgrounds with very different influences through their life.

Using the example of the dice you used, if you were to throw two identical dice from an identical starting point and position, each being affected by identical forces, they would land on the same number. However if the dice were different, if one was slightly bigger, or slightly more rounded, or a little heavier, then that would mean that the forces acting upon it would create a different outcome and the dice would land differently.

Then you don't know about quantum indeterminacy.

Quantum- anything does not have a noticeable effect on dice, they're a bit too large. By "a bit", I mean by many orders of magnitude, of course. The same goes for our "free will" generating apparatus. You know I'm actually very frustrated with all the quantum this and thats being bandied about in service of randomness. You know how we know about quantum anything? By leveraging deterministic processes and creating "probability fields". Even the "quantum" can be predicted to a relative degree of success. Quantum never means what anyone seems to think it means. Similarly, by the time something reaches a size that were likely to begin having a discussion about it as a part of our experience it has long left the domain of the quantum and entered the very humdrum world of things that seem to behave in accordance with what we have roughly coined "laws", since we can find no exceptions. This again seems to have something to do with probability. As you approach ever increasing "sizes" your choices become more and more limited, at a point what you are, where you are, and when you are, becomes something that may as well be etched into stone, because the probability that you will or even could (the very next moment) become something else, somewhere else, some-when else drops to nil. The best way to phrase this, with regards to quantum anything, is that some things appear to be so small that they fly under the radar of some known laws some of the time, but not all of them all of the time. Once these things collect together into something even marginally larger, they loose this ability to go into "stealth mode", and behave accordingly.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

I must confess, free will philosophy always confuses the pants off me, and I'm usually capable of understanding at least the basic precepts.

It always seemed to be a matter of what level of observation you are analyzing the problem from. A relative matter.

In terms of omniscient knowledge of all factors governing an action, that action would be absolutely predictable and unchangeable. Anything contrary to this would be due to random factors which again, do not illustrate a free will, quite the opposite. Mentioning quantum indeterminacy for instance seems irrelevant to the point, as it would merely be an unpredictable factor in the outcome of an action, rather than an expression of any free will in the matter.

However, from our vastly less than omniscient point of view, we have choice in what we do, and in the absence of an ability to repeat any action with a perfectly exact circumstance makes it a distinctly unfalsifiable question.
Free Will is the perfect example that self-authenticating private evidence is useless because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. (that phrase is so useful )

Of course, I may have got the whole idea of free will wrong, like I said, its one of the concepts that baffles me.

My point of view, is actually quite heavily determined by my poker playing. I play hundreds of thousands of hands of poker online, and one thing you do learn is that most people do not act in an unpredictable fashion. Gather enough information, statistics, and you can make a reliable probability prediction on what they are likely to do in a given situation and more importantly connecting the dots to their actions to the motivation(in most cases their "hand").
The fact that there is the possibility that they will not act predictably, is in itself a predictable factor which can be taken into consideration. However, this variable itself only becomes apparent in those who are self-aware of their own determinism of action. Theories on successful range merging at higher levels of game (short version: acting in an unpredictable fashion in a repeated situation tuned so that unprofitable actions yield long term profitable results due to an opponents recognition of potential unpredictability and unprofitable) rely on this.

Randomness isn't the best thing to leverage as far as free will is concerned, I think it was either this thread or the other wonderful free will thread that I might have mentioned the "mad scientist" theory of being forced to make decisions at random, which still wouldn't qualify as free will, but does, sometimes, line up with the observations people make about what "free will" is, or can do. Random does not equal free.