Free Will

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Andreas wrote:He assumes that anyone who believes in free will somehow must also believe in the supernatural.
I think his point when believing in contra casual free will (or libertarian free will) we believe in a process that aspects of godlike behaviour, and therefor is the supernatural.

ie our choices we make are our very own first cause.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

In my opinion using loaded words like Godlike points to an emotional rather than a logical argument. However, if choosing to wear black socks rather than blue socks is Godlike, then we are Godlike.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:In my opinion using loaded words like Godlike points to an emotional rather than a logical argument. However, if choosing to wear black socks rather than blue socks is Godlike, then we are Godlike.
Loaded words?

The issue is not that we make choices, it is how we make them.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

romansh wrote:
Andreas wrote:He assumes that anyone who believes in free will somehow must also believe in the supernatural.
I think his point when believing in contra casual free will (or libertarian free will) we believe in a process that aspects of godlike behaviour, and therefor is the supernatural.

ie our choices we make are our very own first cause.
I understand what he said Rom. and I don't agree with it... I don't agree because there is no basis to make such assumption. I believe that we have free will and don't believe in the supernatural. We choose and yes our environment and/or biology plays a role but at the same time we have the power make up our own minds..

Otherwise why you even bother to change our minds about how we view free will... :P
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Andreas wrote:Otherwise why you even bother to change our minds about how we view free will... :P
I have no free choice in the matter.
Andreas wrote: I understand what he said Rom. and I don't agree with it... I don't agree because there is no basis to make such assumption. I believe that we have free will and don't believe in the supernatural. We choose and yes our environment and/or biology plays a role but at the same time we have the power make up our own minds.
And yet contra causal free will, has super naturals aspects.

Compatibilist free will is a redefinition of free will. I chose to pick my nose whilst driving therefore I have free will, sort of thing.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom wrote:
The issue is not that we make choices, it is how we make them.
Since this is a mystery we fall back on our belief systems. My religion allows for free will and your's doesn't.

In this I follow the teaching of Rumi and the Dali lama. The Dali Lama said that if your religion makes you a better person it is a good religion. So, if your materialism make you honor others of differing views, makes you more loving and compassionate, then that is all that matters.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote: Since this is a mystery we fall back on our belief systems. My religion allows for free will and your's doesn't.
Two things Ron
First, while there is much we don't understand about this universe, we do understand some. It would be foolish to ignore what we do understand, and embrace unconditionally what we don't, at least in my opinion. Don't you think, Ron?

Secondly on a semantic note, we can parse belief into three ... belief, lack of belief, and active disbelief. The middle one is agnostic on the matter. This position forces me to ask which position is the better description of what we see around us.

For a materialist, the answer can be easy. In fact most philosophers tend to believe in free will, even if they are materialists. But to be fair they describe free will in different terms.
Roncooper wrote:In this I follow the teaching of Rumi and the Dali lama. The Dali Lama said that if your religion makes you a better person it is a good religion.
Good and evil are in part what this thread leads to. So what do we mean by better and who or what is the arbiter of this better?

I think our wants (wills if you like) are what drive us. Ultimately we don't choose them.
Roncooper wrote: So, if your materialism make you honor others of differing views,
:roll:
Roncooper wrote: makes you more loving and compassionate, then that is all that matters.
To whom?
My lovingness and compassion have not changed with the loss of my belief in free will, at least not that I am aware of. Oxytocin and mirror neurons have not gone away. Understanding that there are evolutionary mechanisms in place for love and compassion, in no way diminishes my awe of such things. Perhaps the reverse.

I volunteer more since I lost my belief, but I suspect there many other causes other than my loss of belief.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Andreas, on the transcendence thread you said
Andreas wrote:Ron, I think it was Kafka who said "The whole is not just greater than the sum of its parts, its something entirely different."
This is quite relevant to the free will thread ,,, quite often we have sum of the whole or emergence type arguments for free will. As a chemist the concept synergy is quite real and demonstrable, and I used this as an argument for free will.

After a little bit of thought, I realized that the model underlying the demonstration of synergy was wrong or at the very least incomplete.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom,

I am glad your materialism help you. That is all that matters. The two individuals you linked to were arrogant, holier than thou types in my opinion. I don't think Sagan was that way and I'm sure you are not.

Rom wrote
After a little bit of thought, I realized that the model underlying the demonstration of synergy was wrong or at the very least incomplete.
In my opinion that is because you left out essential stuff that you don't believe in.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote: Rom,

I am glad your materialism help you. That is all that matters. The two individuals you linked to were arrogant, holier than thou types in my opinion. I don't think Sagan was that way and I'm sure you are not.
No I am not, but then neither are Rumi or the Dalai Lama

Ultimately we walk are own path and are guided by the universe.
Roncooper wrote:
After a little bit of thought, I realized that the model underlying the demonstration of synergy was wrong or at the very least incomplete.
In my opinion that is because you left out essential stuff that you don't believe in.
Perhaps, but then again I did not put in unsubstantiated and unnecessary beliefs either. I had no free choice but to leave them out.

Having said that ... what was I supposedly missing in examples of chemical synergy?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote: The two individuals you linked to were arrogant, holier than thou types in my opinion. I don't think Sagan was that way and I'm sure you are not. .
Just curious what did Jung say about disliking other people?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

I don't know. I ask you to reread the lady physicist's first paragraph with objective eyes. It seems arrogant to me.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:I don't know. I ask you to reread the lady physicist's first paragraph with objective eyes. It seems arrogant to me.
Sabine wrote:I wish people would stop insisting they have free will. It’s terribly annoying. Insisting that free will exists is bad science, like insisting that horoscopes tell you something about the future – it’s not compatible with our knowledge about nature.
First sentence - a statement of fact.
Second sentence - a statement of fact assuming she is referring to herself.
Third sentence
  1. First part - more of a opinion in my book, but if we see science as a study of cause and effect, then will free of cause does seem a little incongruous to me.

    Second - I don't think horoscopes are good science, do you Ron?

    Third part - if we don't think "nature" responds to cause and effect, then I could see this possibly causes one to think of it as arrogant.
I think I read it in PoM, and I believe Campbell was quoting a Jungian concept, where Campbell said something like, think of someone you dislike, you have a fear that you may have some aspect of that personality. Perhaps someone knows the actual quote?

Anyway, ever since, I have been a little hesitant to call people arrogant and ignorant. For example when we discussed the second law, you were wrong on two counts:
  1. 1) You and I were taught the second law in terms of order/disorder likely 40 or more years ago. The text books have changed, now it is taught simply in terms of energy and temperature.
    2) This in part explains your position on life and reversal of entropy, But it it also shows we are not taking the whole system into account. Imagine you had a flat lead acid battery and you charge it. By your account this would disprove the second law of thermodynamics, as the entropy in the battery decreases when lead sulphate splits back into lead dioxide and lead metal.
What I don't understand is why have you (apparently) not checked that your position is correct (and your position on life violating the second law was never correct).
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I think the issue is, quite precisely, that free will is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. One may as well substitute any of the noble abstracts in its place.

I agree with Ron on this one. Yes, quite.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Clemsy wrote:I think the issue is, quite precisely, that free will is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. One may as well substitute any of the noble abstracts in its place.
Ah we have a brand new NOMA, science and philosophy.

In my book philosophy and science are one.

There is a semantic issue here for sure. We can define free will however we want. But if you think cause and effect are irrelevant to free will, then we are talking about different beasts. And I would need really persuasive arguments that science is not about cause and effect.

If you are talking about some immaterial force/energy/power then Clemsy I am at a loss for words. Which is unusual for me. ;)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Locked