Atheism feels shunned...

[Kyuuketsuki]

Do amoeba have free will? Bacteria? Plants? Insects? Reptiles? non-mammals? Mammals? Apes? Humans? If some do and some don't where does the dividing line sit and why?

No I don't think so. I think free will is tied to sentience, and so we would be the only creature we know of with free will. In fact, god itself may not have such a luxury.

God? Which one?

What do you base that on? That we are supposedly top of some evolutionary tree? That's just speciesism. What if a hyper-intelligent alien race arrived and assessed us as having no free will? As not being sentient? Would they be right?

Personally I think I have free will

a little evidence would be nice!

I said that there is information pointing to both conclusions. You claim that there is either free will, or a good illusion of such. You go first. Or don't, but then don't expect me too.

There is no validatable evidence in support of free will, none that cannot be interpreted equally validly in other ways. I do not need to provide evidence, I am not making a claim of any sort ... I am simply assuming free will does not exist until otherwise demonstrated.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes. What evidence is there to believe it's anything other than mechanical?

Is information mechanical?
Maybe the transfer of information or the storing proces of information but the information itself, its semantics, its meaning, its connotation?

I do stuff...I say stuff - I think stuff...But any of this 'stuff' that I think, say or do - what evidence is there that i control this? When; I'd have to control the 'me' that does this 'stuff' to have any control that isn't mechanical?...And how can I control this 'me', this 'self'....if it is this 'me', this 'self' that does the controlling?...If this 'self'....is me...so how can I can control it...that would just be it controlling itself, wouldn't it?: And where's the evidence that that's possible!?

For the record, I don't say you control it.

Whether there is real control from thought to the physical or not, either way you'd perceive the 'I' and either way you would be incapable of checking if there is a real connection from thought to atom, if you somehow push the electrons around in your brain with pure willpower. Still the 'I' is what you perceive, it is undeniable. To deny 'I' you would be 'not-I' and that seems a rather unhealthy kind of situation that does not leave much room for debate with yourself. The 'I' exist but not necessarily with control over matter. I take it we agree on the fact that the 'I' exists and that there is no reason to make this existence a priori dependent on having control over matter?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm more-or-less in Ev's camp in that I don't accept the presumption of free will ... however I wouldn't go as far as saying everything is mechanical (I have no free will) I just assume I don't until otherwise demonstrated.

Kyu

Assuming I don't have 'free will' until otherwise demonstrated, and assuming everything is mechanical until otherwise demonstrated, so there's no 'free will' in that sense anyway; namely the sense that everything is assumed to be mechanical...same difference?

I mean, I don't think it's worthy to call anything 'free will' if it seems as though there's no evidence that everything isn't ultimately just, mechanics.

EvF

---

Yes. What evidence is there to believe it's anything other than mechanical?

Is information mechanical?
Maybe the transfer of information or the storing proces of information but the information itself, its semantics, its meaning, its connotation?

Semantics, meaning, connotation..? What - like language? Grammar? Well they exist in the human mind and on paper, etc...right? They exist in the universe...as ideas...? In the brain (internally) and on the outside word like on paper and in computers (externally). They are made of matter and energy (like everything else that we know of that actually exists...this is a materialistic universe..do you agree?)...and as far as I know, all matter and energy, and everything that exists...is purely mechanical? And it all, resonates...mechanically?

So yes - it's mechanical. Ideas are in the brain or externally stored. Anything that exists, as far as we know, is mechanical yeah? Energy flows...and as far as I know this is all automatic, despite the emergent intelligence, that can...emerge from it...right?

Where's the evidence that our intelligence and awareness, our complexity, the fact we're 'alive', or whatever anyone suggests is any indication whatsoever that we are not mechanical too? As far as I'm concerned we're just highly complex biological robots, whether it's in a deterministic universe or an indeterministic universe.

It seems to me that many people seem to think that consciousness equates to 'free will' in the sense that it means a conscious being - such as us humans - can somehow override this. But where's the evidence for that? How does consciousness do that? No evidence that it does at all...in any way...is there? It's an assumption based on our own self-importance if anything (it's our conscious selves speaking and wanting to be 'free' methinks (in the sense of having 'free will')), or something to that effect I reckon.

We could just as easily be aware and not have 'free will', right? Well - easier considering no evidence is required for 'no free will' in the sense of everything being mechanical...because there's already evidence for mechanics!! But not that anything can override it - not for anything non-mechanical (as far as I know? If not; enlighten me ).

There's no actual evidence at all that consciousness makes us have 'free will', in the sense of overriding the mechanics of the universe, so being able to 'do otherwise'. I mean, apart from if it's a quantum accident due to indeterminisim. If it can 'be otherwise' and we can 'do otherwise' because of indeterminism, where's the evidence that we can choose that? Choose the path that the indeterminacy goes without ourselves just being entirely controlled by those very laws ?

IOW: If we 'do otherwise' due to indeterminism...where's the evidence that we can in any way direct that?

And if this universe is/was deterministic then obviously that question doesn't apply. The universe is mechanical in that sense that it can only be one way (if the universe is/was deterministic).

I don't see how being more random - being indeterministic - makes it any less mechanical though. Possibility is open maybe (well, if only because in that case: it's not determined!) - but I still know of no evidence that this universe isn't mechanical. And I have no idea why it would be at all likely...considering everything that there's evidence of seems to be entirely mechanical...methinks this is way the universe works! Mechanically! And I shall believe that until otherwise demonstrated.

For the record, I don't say you control it.

Cool. Are we in agreement there, then?

Whether there is real control from thought to the physical or not, either way you'd perceive the 'I' and either way you would be incapable of checking if there is a real connection from thought to atom, if you somehow push the electrons around in your brain with pure willpower. Still the 'I' is what you perceive, it is undeniable. To deny 'I' you would be 'not-I' and that seems a rather unhealthy kind of situation that does not leave much room for debate with yourself. The 'I' exist but not necessarily with control over matter. I take it we agree on the fact that the 'I' exists and that there is no reason to make this existence a priori dependent on having control over matter?

The 'I' exists as an illusion to it. As a belief in my (its) brain. It's a belief in my brain, so it's physical (like everything else?...Even ideas are stored in the brain). It's my self image. So whether real or fake, illusion or reality (I say it's illusion and reality...the reality of the illusion in my brain! The illusion of this 'me', when really that's just how I perceive myself (just how it (my 'self') perceives it IOW ), and not actually 'me' (my self isn't actually how it perceives it to be IOW.). There's no evidence that I can direct this 'I'.... I am it...right? Where's the evidence that the 'me' this 'I' this 'self' in my head...can direct itself? Or that I can direct my self (this 'I'). Same difference.

People talk about controlling themselves sometimes...but that means the person in question's self controlling itsself, if you think about it. Because 'they' are their self. So to control their self is for their self to control itsself. How can your self control itself? That would mean your 'self' had a 'self'. And what, does that self's self then have a self too?] I smell the infinite regress of the homunculus argument fallacy.

And it sounds like accidental dualism to me! Hidden in our language! How can you control yourself when that means yourself controlling itself, as if it has a self too? (Ad Infinitum) .

Where's the evidence that it's not all just mechanics?

As far as I'm concerned there is only evidence for the material, and the mechanically material. Where's the evidence for anything that isn't controlled by the mechanics of the universe? (Being controlled by another part of this - I presume - entirely mechanical universe...I know of no evidence for anything that isn't the universe either ).

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I'll give a more specific reaction later but as for now I would say this:

If the concept of the number five will prove to coinicide with a certain configuration of (a part of) atoms and electrons in the brain, we still haven't shown that the concept of five IS IDENTICAL TO that configuration. A set of electrons Y may correspond to a mental state X, that does not mean that it IS the mental state X. By stating that all thought is mechanical you neglect to prove this identification. The concept of 'I', though as real as can be, is not identical to a set of electrons in the brain. You're mixing the conceptual level of existence with the physical level.

[fr0d0]

Evie

Don't the choices we make because of our 'intelligence' differentiate us from other species (supposedly)? People are also separated by their intelligence as well as outside influence (education) of course.

I agree free will is mechanical but I think it also stands to illustrate the difference between gut choices and reasoned decisions.

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes. What evidence is there to believe it's anything other than mechanical?

Is information mechanical?
Maybe the transfer of information or the storing proces of information but the information itself, its semantics, its meaning, its connotation?

Semantics, meaning, connotation..? What - like language? Grammar? Well they exist in the human mind and on paper, etc...right? They exist in the universe...as ideas...? In the brain (internally) and on the outside word like on paper and in computers (externally). They are made of matter and energy (like everything else that we know of that actually exists...this is a materialistic universe..do you agree?)...and as far as I know, all matter and energy, and everything that exists...is purely mechanical? And it all, resonates...mechanically?

First let me say that I have no definite opinion on these issues. The questions I ask are to challenge the stances you seem to take with ease. I am simply wrestling with these issues. For me the answers on these questions are not clear at all, but when pressed to state my view I would lean towards non-reductive physicalism. This is a monism, e.g. it holds that everything is a product of the physical but not that mental states are reducible to physical properties. This means that mental states are not identical to physical states (as I explained in former post). A central argument for this is the argument of multiple realizability, the idea that the same mental state can be implemented in many different physical configurations, analogous to the fact that you can store information in many different ways, on a hard disk, on paper, in your mind. Two people can think of 'five' but still the configuration of neurons, atoms and electrons in their brain may be completely different. The concept or information is the same, the physical configuration may vary considerably. You however simply equate identity of the physical with the mental. Multiple realizibility shows that this is not an accurate description to say the least.

Where's the evidence that our intelligence and awareness, our complexity, the fact we're 'alive', or whatever anyone suggests is any indication whatsoever that we are not mechanical too? As far as I'm concerned we're just highly complex biological robots, whether it's in a deterministic universe or an indeterministic universe.

There is no evidence for equating the physical identical to the mental, the conceptual. By asserting this, you are the one to provide the evidence. Contrary to your claim is the mutiple realizability. If a mental state Y can be implemented by different physical states let's say X1, X2, X3 there is no identity relation between Xi and Y.

It seems to me that many people seem to think that consciousness equates to 'free will' in the sense that it means a conscious being - such as us humans - can somehow override this. But where's the evidence for that? How does consciousness do that? No evidence that it does at all...in any way...is there? It's an assumption based on our own self-importance if anything (it's our conscious selves speaking and wanting to be 'free' methinks (in the sense of having 'free will')), or something to that effect I reckon.

The idea of free will is quite another subject than consciousness, I agree. I do not assert that consciousness necessarily means free will.

I don't see how being more random - being indeterministic - makes it any less mechanical though. Possibility is open maybe (well, if only because in that case: it's not determined!) - but I still know of no evidence that this universe isn't mechanical. And I have no idea why it would be at all likely...considering everything that there's evidence of seems to be entirely mechanical...methinks this is way the universe works! Mechanically! And I shall believe that until otherwise demonstrated.

Again quite another subject. Randomness does not lead to control from the mental over the physical. But equating the mental identical to the physical is nonsense.

For the record, I don't say you control it.

Cool. Are we in agreement there, then?

Not quite, I reckon.

Whether there is real control from thought to the physical or not, either way you'd perceive the 'I' and either way you would be incapable of checking if there is a real connection from thought to atom, if you somehow push the electrons around in your brain with pure willpower. Still the 'I' is what you perceive, it is undeniable. To deny 'I' you would be 'not-I' and that seems a rather unhealthy kind of situation that does not leave much room for debate with yourself. The 'I' exist but not necessarily with control over matter. I take it we agree on the fact that the 'I' exists and that there is no reason to make this existence a priori dependent on having control over matter?

The 'I' exists as an illusion to it. As a belief in my (its) brain. It's a belief in my brain, so it's physical (like everything else?...Even ideas are stored in the brain). It's my self image. So whether real or fake, illusion or reality (I say it's illusion and reality...the reality of the illusion in my brain! The illusion of this 'me', when really that's just how I perceive myself (just how it (my 'self') perceives it IOW ), and not actually 'me' (my self isn't actually how it perceives it to be IOW.). There's no evidence that I can direct this 'I'.... I am it...right? Where's the evidence that the 'me' this 'I' this 'self' in my head...can direct itself? Or that I can direct my self (this 'I'). Same difference.

Here you deny the existence of 'I'. Also at every moment you perceive 'I', but your brain configuration alters rapidly from one moment to the next. The 'I' cannot be unambigously reduced to the physical.

And it sounds like accidental dualism to me! Hidden in our language! How can you control yourself when that means yourself controlling itself, as if it has a self too? (Ad Infinitum) .

Where's the evidence that it's not all just mechanics?

Multiple realizability.

As far as I'm concerned there is only evidence for the material, and the mechanically material. Where's the evidence for anything that isn't controlled by the mechanics of the universe? (Being controlled by another part of this - I presume - entirely mechanical universe...I know of no evidence for anything that isn't the universe either ).

Let's take one step at the time. First we should deal with the question whether the mental can be reduced to the physical.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'll give a more specific reaction later but as for now I would say this:

If the concept of the number five will prove to coinicide with a certain configuration of (a part of) atoms and electrons in the brain, we still haven't shown that the concept of five IS IDENTICAL TO that configuration. A set of electrons Y may correspond to a mental state X, that does not mean that it IS the mental state X. By stating that all thought is mechanical you neglect to prove this identification. The concept of 'I', though as real as can be, is not identical to a set of electrons in the brain. You're mixing the conceptual level of existence with the physical level.

I am not arguing that free will is impossible. I know that I haven't proved that the concept of the 'I' is just part of what goes on - the electrons etc? - in the physical brain. I'm not trying to prove that. I'm just saying that there's no reason to believe rationally, and logically - because there's no evidence - that there's anything extra to the mechanics. On the matter of concepts - there's no (rational) reason to believe that concepts themelves aren't mechanical, right? There's no evidence (as far as I know anyway?) that everything that exists isn't mechanical...that this isn't a mechanical universe, right?..That just, flows?

I'm just sticking with the least complex hypothesis because I know of no evidence for the non-mechanical. Ultimately anything that we think of as 'not mechanical' is all controlled by mechanics! (as far as I know?). The mechanics of the universe...? The universe just flows mechanically whether it's deterministic or indeterministic, yeah?

Like I said - as far as I know. I'm really curious to see if anyone can (somehow? I dunno what it would look like (or be like)) 'show me otherwise'.
EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I'll give a more specific reaction later but as for now I would say this:

If the concept of the number five will prove to coinicide with a certain configuration of (a part of) atoms and electrons in the brain, we still haven't shown that the concept of five IS IDENTICAL TO that configuration. A set of electrons Y may correspond to a mental state X, that does not mean that it IS the mental state X. By stating that all thought is mechanical you neglect to prove this identification. The concept of 'I', though as real as can be, is not identical to a set of electrons in the brain. You're mixing the conceptual level of existence with the physical level.

I am not arguing that free will is impossible. I know that I haven't proved that the concept of the 'I' is just part of what goes on - the electrons etc? - in the physical brain. I'm not trying to prove that. I'm just saying that there's no reason to believe rationally, and logically - because there's no evidence - that there's anything extra to the mechanics. On the matter of concepts - there's no (rational) reason to believe that concepts themelves aren't mechanical, right? There's no evidence (as far as I know anyway?) that everything that exists isn't mechanical...that this isn't a mechanical universe, right?..That just, flows?

I'm just sticking with the least complex hypothesis because I know of no evidence for the non-mechanical. Ultimately anything that we think of as 'not mechanical' is all controlled by mechanics! (as far as I know?). The mechanics of the universe...? The universe just flows mechanically whether it's deterministic or indeterministic, yeah?

Like I said - as far as I know. I'm really curious to see if anyone can (somehow? I dunno what it would look like (or be like)) 'show me otherwise'.
EvF

It seems you haven't read my last posting here. There I give a reason why the physical does not equate to the mental, but still from a monistic physicalistic view.

That you're simply asserting that the mental = the physical without evidence in the face of contrary arguments is exactly why you should evaluate the multiple realizability argument. There is no identity relation. An identity relation (i.e. X=Y) works two ways: given X you get exactly Y, given Y you get exactly X. Delve into it.

[Faith Tester]

I agree and disagree. I think it is disrespecting to say "We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe.".

I find the concept of the game show quite amusing though, and I think it would be a laugh. It all depends on whether they actually select atheists or people pretending to be atheists, or people who are simply apathetic about their atheism.

I hope it ends up with none of them being converted; the arguments of the theists being destroyed. That would be a little on par with this show:
[youtube]qNoX0XKUZlk[/youtube]
A rationalist leader challenged India's most "powerful" tantrik to kill him using only tantrik magic on live tv. The guy patiently stood there for hours...and survived

erm maybe I am a little lost, but this video was more about whether majic works or not? It had nothing to do with atheism. Or am I missing something?

[Purple Rabbit]

erm maybe I am a little lost, but this video was more about whether majic works or not? It had nothing to do with atheism. Or am I missing something?

Just the point. Nothing important really.