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 »

Clemsy
I think there is one other aspect to this debate.

When some people are confronted with the idea that they have no free will, and if it is presented coherently, the response to the argument can be quite emotional.

The concept of a lack of free will undermines who we think we are.
"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 »

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION LAW FOR CAUSE AND EFFECT. MATERIALISTS MADE THAT UP.

AS A SCIENTIST I REFUSE TO BE SWAYED BY A FANTASY.

Science has nothing to say about free will, I don't know how many times I have to say this.

You can choose to believe anything you desire. That is your privilege, but you don't have a scientific argument. That is BS.
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: THERE IS NO CONSERVATION LAW FOR CAUSE AND EFFECT. MATERIALISTS MADE THAT UP.
And yet we have the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If you think a large negative delta G is not a potential cause and a high activation energy a potential inhibition of that cause, that is your perogative.
Roncooper wrote:AS A SCIENTIST I REFUSE TO BE SWAYED BY A FANTASY.
And yet you believe in panentheism?
Roncooper wrote: Science has nothing to say about free will, I don't know how many times I have to say this.
You claim your beliefs are in accord with science and specifically you have suggested there is scientific evidence that disputes Libet's findings. So you claim science as relevant when you think it is in your favour, but then say it has nothing say about free will.
Roncooper wrote:You can choose to believe anything you desire. That is your privilege, but you don't have a scientific argument. That is BS.
Well there are other scientists who have weighed in on the subject.
These are some I have a little familiarity with.

Neuroscientists that come to mind are:
David Eagleton
Sam Harris
Michael Gazzaniga

Psychologists
Susan Blackmore
Bruce Hood

Physicists
Hawking
Einstein
Mlodinow

Leonard Mlodinow reviewed 800 scientific papers for his book Subliminal, that were pertinent to how our choices are shaped by the environment unbeknownst to us.

yep science is irrelevant to the subject of free will, but only if we ignore it.
"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 believe in Panentheism because it is more reasonable. It accepts science and human experience.

And yet we have the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If you think a large negative delta G is not a potential cause and a high activation energy a potential inhibition of that cause, that is your perogative.
What does this have to do with a conservation law for cause and effect?

You post a list of materialist. All I can say is I see your Einstein and raise you one Kant. I doubt that Einstein thought about it very much.

I read a book by Modinow. His mind is as closed as a steel trap.

That fact that a person can deny reality demonstrates that the intellect is independent of cause and effect. One of us is denying reality so the intellect must be free.
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 »

And from the late Victor Stenger (physicist) who also weighed in on the subject

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vste ... keptic.pdf
"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 »

These people assume materialism and than go on to show something that is consistent with their assumption. That's not scientific. It's not even logical. I'm beginning to think our college system is a failure.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

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

Post by Clemsy »

"In my book philosophy and science are one. " ~Rom
Oh dear. Not in mine.
"When some people are confronted with the idea that they have no free will, and if it is presented coherently, the response to the argument can be quite emotional." ~Rom
And others are otherwise.

And I would say, Rom, that when a coherent argument for free will is presented, some just ignore it, or spin and deflect. This has happened quite often in this thread. lol
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

Science uses the tools of philosophy all the time, logic, deduction and induction.

It is only relatively recently that natural philosophy has gone off and called itself science.

The coherent arguments presented for free will have been a change in semantic definition. The ability choose.

Can you give an example of spinning and deflecting?
"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 »

Ron already gave you an example that the ability to deny reality is proof enough that we have free will.. (I really liked that example btw)

It's also kinda paradoxical to say that people have no free will yet at the same time ask them to change their minds... don't you think?
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

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

Post by Roncooper »

Andreas,

I can't take credit for my argument. It was a variation of Immanuel Kant's argument. He said that the intellect's ability to see things not as they are, but the way they ought to be demonstrates that the intellect acts independently of cause and effect.

One smart guy.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

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

Post by Andreas »

Good to know Ron. Haven't read Kant yet. Definitely will add him in my wish list.. There is certainly a connection between consciousness and how it relates to the outward reality. if not mystical, certainly metaphysical.. or at least beyond the grasp of the intellect. Seems to me.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

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

Post by Roncooper »

Andreas wrote
There is certainly a connection between consciousness and how it relates to the outward reality. if not mystical, certainly metaphysical.. or at least beyond the grasp of the intellect. Seems to me.
I definitely believe that consciousness goes beyond the intellect, but i also believe it goes both ways. The intellect goes beyond consciousness, but in a different way.

In my opinion, my intellect is my right hand and my consciousness is my left hand. The only question is; am I right handed or left handed?
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 »

Andreas wrote:Ron already gave you an example that the ability to deny reality is proof enough that we have free will.. (I really liked that example btw)

It's also kinda paradoxical to say that people have no free will yet at the same time ask them to change their minds... don't you think?
Was his denial caused by anything?

This is a fairly common mistake in this debate. Confusing freedom of action with the freedom of will.
"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 »

Yeah it is caused by something... as far as I am concerned, by the fact that we just have no clue what reality is so it is left open to interpretation. Scientists also did that when they challenged the status quo of the church 500 years ago.

There is cause and effect no arguments there..

And I get your arguments... Everything is semantics for you, all that it matters is the evidence which points that consciousness is a product of matter, biology in this case. No arguments there either. Having trouble understand why it is linked with free will somehow

What I don't agree with is with the fact that reality is completely known. I can go as far as to say that it is misknown if you don't like it to be unknown but to say that we totally know, is to close the doors to any new discoveries that might exist and at the same time deny the hard problems of the argument.
“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: Yeah it is caused by something... as far as I am concerned, by the fact that we just have no clue what reality is so it is left open to interpretation. Scientists also did that when they challenged the status quo of the church 500 years ago.
And science still challenges the status quo ... the concept of god given free will for one.
Andreas wrote:There is cause and effect no arguments there..
Then are not the choices you make all caused?
.
Andreas wrote: Everything is semantics for you, all that it matters is the evidence which points that consciousness is a product of matter, biology in this case. No arguments there either. Having trouble understand why it is linked with free will somehow
I think semantics are important, especially if we wish to understand one another's point of view. Don't you think?

You don't see why determinism is linked to free will? Causal Determinism
Andreas wrote:What I don't agree with is with the fact that reality is completely known. I can go as far as to say that it is misknown if you don't like it to be unknown but to say that we totally know, is to close the doors to any new discoveries that might exist and at the same time deny the hard problems of the argument.
As a devout agnostic I would agree, I am not sure I know anything, never mind reality completely. But that is not the issue, the issue is denying cause and effect. The problem is if you deny cause and effect, then even your best and most reasoned choices are done for no reason. If you embrace cause and effect then your will is determined, in the sense of causal determinism.

In either case we end up with something like the Buddhist not self, or what I would call a lack of an intrinsic self.

Speaking personally, I think free will is an unnecessary concept.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Locked