Free Will
Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
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.
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!"
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.
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
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
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: THERE IS NO CONSERVATION LAW FOR CAUSE AND EFFECT. MATERIALISTS MADE THAT UP.
And yet you believe in panentheism?Roncooper wrote:AS A SCIENTIST I REFUSE TO BE SWAYED BY A FANTASY.
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: Science has nothing to say about free will, I don't know how many times I have to say this.
Well there are other scientists who have weighed in on the subject.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.
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!"
I believe in Panentheism because it is more reasonable. It accepts science and human experience.
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.
What does this have to do with a conservation law for cause and effect?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.
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
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
And from the late Victor Stenger (physicist) who also weighed in on the subject
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vste ... keptic.pdf
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vste ... keptic.pdf
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
Oh dear. Not in mine."In my book philosophy and science are one. " ~Rom
And others are otherwise."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 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
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
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?
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!"
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?
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
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.
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
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
Andreas wrote
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?
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.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.
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
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
Was his denial caused by anything?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?
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!"
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.
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
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
And science still challenges the status quo ... the concept of god given free will for one.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.
Then are not the choices you make all caused?Andreas wrote:There is cause and effect no arguments there..
.
I think semantics are important, especially if we wish to understand one another's point of view. Don't you think?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
You don't see why determinism is linked to free will? Causal Determinism
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.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.
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!"