(March 11, 2012 at 11:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The answer is "emergent complexity", simple laws can have unexpected affects.

Which is why Conways Game of Life is so fascinating to watch (even though I'm told it's boring as hell, it's only boring when you aren't watching it while considering the implications).

(September 7, 2010 at 12:48 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:to admit that we truly have free will is to admit that we are actually a person with an immaterial soul

That strikes me as a non sequitur.


In the news today a man was arrested after leading police on a chase while driving a dump truck. Was that little exercise of "free will" due to the fact of an "immaterial soul" or due to the fact that he's an idiot?


I've frequently seen outlandish assertions...usually disguised as "philosophy." Meaningless.

Idiot or not, he still chose to drive the dump truck.

---

(September 16, 2010 at 2:23 pm)everythingafter Wrote:

(September 8, 2010 at 1:28 am)Flobee Wrote: Yeah it's strange isn't it that computers were created by intelligent beings and according to you the human brain was created by pure intelligence and yet the brain far exceeds any technology or human invention ever intelligently designed.
But if the brain was not the act of intelligence what reason do we have for trusting it? And I mean if we don't really have free will and our brains were created by unintelligence and we are not really guided by intelligence we are simply being controlled by deterministic natural laws I just don't see why we should trust anything.

You must have missed my meaning. I didn't say the human brain was created by "pure intelligence," unless by that term you mean selective "intelligence" inherent in natural selection. Human brains came about — I wouldn't like to say "created" — by the same natural forces as every other brain in the animal kingdom. Some brains, indeed, can't be trusted (terrorists, extremists), while others, generally law-abiding citizens can, until they give us a reason not to trust them. Nonbelievers have free will to do whatever they want as long as they accept the positive or negative consequences. Indeed, it's in their best interests to act as polite and civil members of society, but they are free to carry on with any other behavior if they wish.

Believers, on the other hand, don't have free will because, at least from the Christian view, you either believe and have eternal life or don't believe and perish in eternal separation from God. There are no other options. You can't "opt out" as it were of the whole eternal life thing and simply choose to die a mortal death like dogs or cats, for even nonbelievers, according to doctrine, are eternal beings as well ... it's just that their eternity will be filled with weeping and gnashing of teeth. As the popular mural goes: "Heaven or Hell. It's your choice." While this presents the illusion of some kind of free will, it's not really free will because of the lack of a third or fourth or fifth option. God doesn't really let us choose, for the consequences and causes of each possible choice predate the choice itself. "Created sick, but commanded to be made well ..."

Actually, the Bible teaches that we ALL freely do and will reject God, if left to our own wills. The ones who choose God, God has intervened, so now they freely choose Him. In other words, no choice can be made without bias. Basically, we choose what we desire. We are slaves to our desires. God simply changes the desire in some.

(March 11, 2012 at 11:29 am)black36 Wrote: Idiot or not, he still chose to drive the dump truck.

Still mistaking the illusion of free will with actual free will there. Just because we feel like making choices, and acting on them, does not mean there aren't a billion deterministic reasons why you did so.

Quote:Actually, the Bible teaches that we ALL freely do and will reject God, if left to our own wills. The ones who choose God, God has intervened, so now they freely choose Him. In other words, no choice can be made without bias. Basically, we choose what we desire. We are slaves to our desires. God simply changes the desire in some.

Bible is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can prove it is all true.

Your interpretation of the bible teaches such a thing. That's the trouble isn't it, without interpretation the bible is incapable of teaching anything. Probably has something to do with it being a work of fantasy fiction, and not a technical manual for life. I don't have to interpret the instructions on a box of Kraft Mac-n-Cheese.

(March 10, 2012 at 7:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Sincere question to all...do you consider free will necessary for rational thought? If your thinking must follow a pre-determined course does it even matter how beliefs and conclusions are reached?

Absolutely. I can never understand why some people seem to think their thoughts do not count as free will. If you are free to realize just how deterministic the world and everything in it including yourself must be, then you must believe you have some degree of free will. If you realize your thoughts are just as determined, why bother to express them?

If I am asked to believe that you have some awareness that is free and but that doesn't count toward free will, then there really is no reason to continue the conversation. It's just too sad to realize you're trapped in there, knowing better, but constrained to watch the words flow out your mouth. Good luck.

Your "if" is showing. Are you free to realize this, or might there be a deterministic cause for such a realization? Can you simply change your beliefs on the subject Chad, Whateverist? Can you freely stop believing in free will? Are you capable of "realizing" that free will is illusory? If not, why not? If so, are you changing your mind or is your mind changing you?

(March 11, 2012 at 11:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your "if" is showing. Are you free to realize this, or might there be a deterministic cause for such a realization? Can you simply change your beliefs on the subject Chad, Whateverist? Can you freely stop believing in free will? Are you capable of realizing that free will is illusory?

(March 11, 2012 at 11:49 am)whateverist Wrote: Absolutely. I can never understand why some people seem to think their thoughts do not count as free will. If you are free to realize just how deterministic the world and everything in it including yourself must be, then you must believe you have some degree of free will. If you realize your thoughts are just as determined, why bother to express them?

If I am asked to believe that you have some awareness that is free and but that doesn't count toward free will, then there really is no reason to continue the conversation. It's just to sad to realize you're trapped in there, knowing better, but constrained to watch the words flow out your mouth. Good luck.

The free will argument always seems to play to the trap of "what is preferable".
It may be preferable to believe that you are the sole reason for the actions and things you do, but it does not necessarily mean its true, and is not an argument in favour of free will.

Not withstanding, that the illusion of free will is so powerful, due to our inability to comprehend even a millionth of the factors involved in our choices, decisions and thoughts.

We can throw in factors which cause the universe to be unpredictable, that does not remove the fact there is a causation for your conscious thoughts, and random chance does not support free will, merely unpredictability.

To put my point into a well known phrase normally attributed to technology, any sufficiently complicated system that defies our abilities to describe, will appear to be magic. Or in this case, free will.

To answer your query in regards to expression of these views, it all comes down to the powerful illusion of free will. Whilst I recognise (from my point of view naturally) that my actions are determined by billions of little causations, it creates enough of an illusion of free will to express the views that these causations lead to. Certainly enough illusion for it not to bother me beyond a philosophical discussion about it.
Its not a pleasant thought, but as I said, preferable =/= true

Just to offer a thought experiment. When do you obtain free will over the atoms in your body? Between your conception and adulthood there is a point where there is no free will and *ping* free will. The nature of the discussion is such that there is no grey area between free will, and the lack of it.

In short, when did your decision-making process inject itself into the middle of natural, causal interactions that were taking place before you were a twinkle in the milkmans eye? To me, the answer is never. Nothing changed in the state of the universe. You are in control of exactly the same amount of control you had over the universe you had before you were born.

(March 11, 2012 at 11:42 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Just because we feel like making choices, and acting on them, does not mean there aren't a billion deterministic reasons why you did so.

And it doesn't mean there are either, so? Are you suggesting everything you do is determined? Then your viewpoint is irrelevant. Come on, you don't believe that your viewpoint is irrelevant or else you would not be here imposing your perspective.

(March 11, 2012 at 11:42 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Bible is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can prove it is all true.

I can say the same for your viewpoint. Plus, I am not claiming the Bible's true (even though I think it is). I'm just sharing it's respective.

(March 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: The free will argument always seems to play to the trap of "what is preferable".

I don't think it would be at all preferable to have total freedom to choose what to do or what to want with complete independence. I suspect that would be like being deeply depressed with no affect and no direction. Why do anything?

(March 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: It may be preferable to believe that you are the sole reason for the actions and things you do, but it does not necessarily mean its true, and is not an argument in favour of free will.

I think we have only fleeting instances of constrained will with some wiggle room during which we are free to decide which of our given tastes, values and other preferences to let reign. That decision may be unconsciously predetermined for all I know but there comes a point at which, if I don't get on board, no want gets served. So conscious, limited I am a player in my own actions. The proof of that is that I can get the calculus of what course of action would best satisfy my given wants wrong, forcing me to try again.

(March 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Just to offer a thought experiment. When do you obtain free will over the atoms in your body? Between your conception and adulthood there is a point where there is no free will and *ping* free will. The nature of the discussion is such that there is no grey area between free will, and the lack of it.

In short, at what did your decision-making process inject itself in the middle of natural, causal interactions that were taking place before you were born? To me, the answer is never. Nothing changed in the state of the universe. You are in control of exactly the same amount of control you had over the universe you had before you were born.

I was reading recently, sorry but I don't have the source, that what we think of as free will doesn't show up until about the age of three. Just as the brain takes some time to put the world together cognitively from the input of vision so, apparently, it takes us a while to realize we have choices to make that require deliberation. So I suspect, empirically at least, there very much is some grey area between free will and its lack.

So what is free will understood in the mundane empirical sense? I suspect it is merely the capacity to put the brakes on responses in order to consider the how new knowledge of the consequences stand to change the evaluation of what we most want. We want to go grab a handful of that cake in the refrigerator but we don't want to piss off mommy or spend the rest of the day in our room away from everyone else. There is a point at which we are unaware of consequences but we are animals that are capable of learning from our experience. Admittedly we still ultimately act to serve wants we never consciously chose, but our conscious involvement in the intake of new knowledge of consequences gives rise to 'free will'. Not philosophy textbook 'free will', just the garden variety described by child development.