|
Post by Vegas on Jan 19, 2018 15:28:20 GMT
No.
NEXT!!!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 19, 2018 15:31:16 GMT
I'm not sure the argument from the religious side of things (so that both omniscience and free will can obtain at the same time) makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 19, 2018 16:53:47 GMT
Catman had no choice but to say no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 20:10:54 GMT
Yes, except for so called 'compatibilist free will', because that would mean that the universe is deterministic. Rudimentary logic also precludes the possibility of (libertarian) free will existing. Even if the universe doesn't operate deterministically, free will could not exist. It's equally disallowed by determinism (including in a universe in which an omniscient god knows everything that will happen) and indeterminism (as randomness by definition is something that isn't willed).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:26:14 GMT
tpfkar Yes, except for so called 'compatibilist free will', because that would mean that the universe is deterministic. Rudimentary logic also precludes the possibility of (libertarian) free will existing. Even if the universe doesn't operate deterministically, free will could not exist. It's equally disallowed by determinism (including in a universe in which an omniscient god knows everything that will happen) and indeterminism (as randomness by definition is something that isn't willed). Continuing hogwash. Just because you desperately want it so does not make it so. Free will is making choices according to who and what we are, which we do all day long every day. You can naval gaze about how we got here all we want, as in your case for pure religious purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that we are making the calls and acting on them, and that we're part and parcel of the process. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 19, 2018 20:32:57 GMT
Can anyone say how the universe would be observably different based on whether free will existed or didn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:41:50 GMT
tpfkar Can anyone say how the universe would be observably different based on whether free will existed or didn't exist? It pays great dividends to try real hard to convince people to change their minds to believing they have no free will. What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of me and Arlon left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:08:05 GMT
Can anyone say how the universe would be observably different based on whether free will existed or didn't exist? It would be impossible to even imagine the universe in which free will existed. Even the most intelligent human brain couldn't conceive of such a system of logic which would permit free will to exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:12:38 GMT
tpfkar Yes, except for so called 'compatibilist free will', because that would mean that the universe is deterministic. Rudimentary logic also precludes the possibility of (libertarian) free will existing. Even if the universe doesn't operate deterministically, free will could not exist. It's equally disallowed by determinism (including in a universe in which an omniscient god knows everything that will happen) and indeterminism (as randomness by definition is something that isn't willed). Continuing hogwash. Just because you desperately want it so does not make it so. Free will is making choices according to who and what we are, which we do all day long every day. You can naval gaze about how we got here all we want, as in your case for pure religious purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that we are making the calls and acting on them, and that we're part and parcel of the process. Does Free Will Exist?The only definition of free will that I'm interested in discussing (and the one that most people hold) is the one which enables people to act contrary to who and what they are (such as accepting Christ as saviour if every single causal factor in the universe is directing you to reject Christ, or refraining from committing an evil deed even when every causal factor in the universe including inside your own brain is directing you towards the commission of that deed). I'm not interested in 'we do all the things that we couldn't possibly refrain from doing, and never anything else' definition of 'free will'.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 23:21:26 GMT
tpfkar Continuing hogwash. Just because you desperately want it so does not make it so. Free will is making choices according to who and what we are, which we do all day long every day. You can naval gaze about how we got here all we want, as in your case for pure religious purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that we are making the calls and acting on them, and that we're part and parcel of the process. Does Free Will Exist?The only definition of free will that I'm interested in discussing (and the one that most people hold) is the one which enables people to act contrary to who and what they are (such as accepting Christ as saviour if every single causal factor in the universe is directing you to reject Christ, or refraining from committing an evil deed even when every causal factor in the universe including inside your own brain is directing you towards the commission of that deed). I'm not interested in 'we do all the things that we couldn't possibly refrain from doing, and never anything else' definition of 'free will'. That's nonsensical and certainly not even remotely resembling what "most people hold". And I understand you're interested in what most never considered free will was as that's the only thing you think assists you in your quest bring all down to your level. Even those that think there is some disembodied spirit or that there is some "objective good" don't believe your straw-absurdity that they act by something other than themselves, just that they are open to whatever inputs. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 23:35:12 GMT
tpfkar The only definition of free will that I'm interested in discussing (and the one that most people hold) is the one which enables people to act contrary to who and what they are (such as accepting Christ as saviour if every single causal factor in the universe is directing you to reject Christ, or refraining from committing an evil deed even when every causal factor in the universe including inside your own brain is directing you towards the commission of that deed). I'm not interested in 'we do all the things that we couldn't possibly refrain from doing, and never anything else' definition of 'free will'. That's nonsensical and certainly not even remotely resembling what "most people hold". And I understand you're interested in what most never considered free will was as that's the only thing you think assists you in your quest bring all down to your level. Even those that think there is some disembodied spirit or that there is some "objective good" don't believe your straw-absurdity that they act by something other than themselves, just that they are open to whatever inputs. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?I'm referring to the 'free will' paradigm which forms the foundation of the justice system throughout the world (with the possible exception of Norway and maybe or or two other very progressive European nations). What I have described is also the only type of free will which would make Christ's salvation available to absolutely everyone, bar none, and by which God would be able to judge us for evil deeds. It is also demonstrably the most common conception of free will throughout the world, as demonstrated by sociological evidence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 23:51:26 GMT
tpfkar That's nonsensical and certainly not even remotely resembling what "most people hold". And I understand you're interested in what most never considered free will was as that's the only thing you think assists you in your quest bring all down to your level. Even those that think there is some disembodied spirit or that there is some "objective good" don't believe your straw-absurdity that they act by something other than themselves, just that they are open to whatever inputs. Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?I'm referring to the 'free will' paradigm which forms the foundation of the justice system throughout the world (with the possible exception of Norway and maybe or or two other very progressive European nations). What I have described is also the only type of free will which would make Christ's salvation available to absolutely everyone, bar none, and by which God would be able to judge us for evil deeds. It is also demonstrably the most common conception of free will throughout the world, as demonstrated by sociological evidence. Right, and cause & effect certainly doesn't change it. Having some sympathy for struggles people went through doesn't make them different than who they are, other than temporary intoxications and certain pathologies and the like that we're more likely to factor in. No free will can make Christ's salvation or anything else available to anyone, regardless of your bumbling strengthening of what you've overtly expressed you wish to weaken. Only Christ/God pulling whatever trigger can do that. Even then, the creatures acting are still acting according to themselves; it's still them carrying out the virtue or the nukings. It's just that the existence of the homicidal and the like is a great taint on God, as he has the option to eliminate it but does not. No form of "free will" affects that one whit. The majority of the world is and has been religious. And when you try to shovel "indeterministic" not just as the obvious that all is cause and effect and that we're both, but to mean that they're not really making choices and not really responsible for their holocausts or whatever, of course they understand that's gibbered nonsense, and can see through the specific goals of those doing the pushing. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 20, 2018 1:10:18 GMT
Can anyone say how the universe would be observably different based on whether free will existed or didn't exist? It would be impossible to even imagine the universe in which free will existed. Even the most intelligent human brain couldn't conceive of such a system of logic which would permit free will to exist. People can imagine all sorts of things, some more sensible than others. If no one can answer my question, then I'd say that "free will" has no scientific meaning, and that we should understand consciousness better before talking about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 2:07:37 GMT
It would be impossible to even imagine the universe in which free will existed. Even the most intelligent human brain couldn't conceive of such a system of logic which would permit free will to exist. People can imagine all sorts of things, some more sensible than others. If no one can answer my question, then I'd say that "free will" has no scientific meaning, and that we should understand consciousness better before talking about it. I don't think that it's possible to imagine something that goes against even the most rudimentary logic with which we are acquainted in this universe. There's no logic under which free will would make sense, so I'm not sure how anyone could imagine it, and I've never heard of anyone who has been able to imagine a universe in which free will could operate. I could be wrong (about nobody being able to imagine free will), I suppose, but I've never even heard of any science fiction story in which the characters act with free will. I don't think that I've ever heard of any academic making any kind of suggestion for how such a thing could possibly work. There are some who assert that it must exist, but except for compatibilist free will (which just means that everyone does exactly what they're predetermined to do, but they call it 'free will' for fear of how people will react upon learning that they've no free will), it is ruled out by both determinism and indeterminism. If the universe is deterministic, then that means that everything we do is predetermined by factors that we cannot control. If the universe is indeterministic, then that does allow for unpredictability in our behaviour, however that would be randomness, and by definition a random decision is not one over which our decision making is under the control of our will. So there's either deterministic will, or random will. Free will, in any useful sense, is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 20, 2018 2:08:07 GMT
Depends whether it means
Everything that could be
or
Everything that will be
For the former no, for the latter, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 2:42:28 GMT
First define "free will".
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 20, 2018 2:50:35 GMT
...about the same as CAPITALS negate lower case.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 16:42:55 GMT
tpfkar I don't think that it's possible to imagine something that goes against even the most rudimentary logic with which we are acquainted in this universe. There's no logic under which free will would make sense, so I'm not sure how anyone could imagine it, and I've never heard of anyone who has been able to imagine a universe in which free will could operate. I could be wrong (about nobody being able to imagine free will), I suppose, but I've never even heard of any science fiction story in which the characters act with free will. I don't think that I've ever heard of any academic making any kind of suggestion for how such a thing could possibly work. There are some who assert that it must exist, but except for compatibilist free will (which just means that everyone does exactly what they're predetermined to do, but they call it 'free will' for fear of how people will react upon learning that they've no free will), it is ruled out by both determinism and indeterminism. If the universe is deterministic, then that means that everything we do is predetermined by factors that we cannot control. If the universe is indeterministic, then that does allow for unpredictability in our behaviour, however that would be randomness, and by definition a random decision is not one over which our decision making is under the control of our will. So there's either deterministic will, or random will. Free will, in any useful sense, is impossible. Your whole thing is the overtly tendentious and grossly-simplistic question-begging "because there's cause & effect there is no free will". But there in fact is cause and effect and we do in fact have free will - we do what we choose to do based on who and what we are. It would be deranged to do anything other. How we came to be doesn't change the fact that it is what we are and we're doing the choosing. You can't just make it go away by arbitrarily assigning requirements nobody disinterested ever associated with it to call it whatever you want to call it and then dispatch it. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 22, 2018 12:39:03 GMT
Some of neuroscience is coming to the view that, no, we don't (at least in the sense that it understands it). This is based on the significant finding of modern studies that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. It is fair to say though that the jury is still, very much, out. For one thing 'free will' is defined in different ways by different people. But modern thinking would tie in to the suggestion that consciousness itself is a form of illusion, as in a device evolved to help complex organisms work best together.
A considered overview can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 22, 2018 16:01:35 GMT
Some of neuroscience is coming to the view that, no, we don't (at least in the sense that it understands it). This is based on the significant finding of modern studies that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. It is fair to say though that the jury is still, very much, out. For one thing 'free will' is defined in different ways by different people. But modern thinking would tie in to the suggestion that consciousness itself is a form of illusion, as in a device evolved to help complex organisms work best together.
A considered overview can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will If science were to come to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion, would that mean that there would no longer be any moral dilemmas arising from the use of torture (since if consciousness is illusory, so is pain)?
|
|