Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hans · 03-22-2002, 10:13 AM

I recently rediscovered the idea that we lack free will. I say rediscovered because:

1) I have intuitively believed such but under a slightly different perspective. I have argued to myself that we are always self serving in our choices, even when those choices are to the benefit of others. It seems inescapable to me that even if we choose to, say, give a needy person help at some expense to ourselves, we do so because we find the reward of good feelings better than what we sacrifice.

2) I then read the following Tenet of Naturalism:

Quote:

From: <a href="http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm" target="_blank">Naturalism.org</a>
The causal view: From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people call free will, the ability to cause our behavior without being fully caused in turn.

Naturalism takes the position that since everything is the product of causality so too are our choices. But I wonder if Naturalism's dependency on causality can be reinforced by observation.

It seems apparent to me that we are subject to the desires of our mind. An example would be selecting an item from a menu. Lets say there are 9 chicken items on the menu that Jack doesn't like and 1 beef item that he does. And then defy Jack to select an item he doesn't desire. While one might argue he could simply select anyone of the 9 chicken items we know he doesn't like, but if he did isn't he doing so because he desires to? Isn't any selection the product of his desires?

Although I can offer no element of predictability to our will I do offer the proposition that an observable manifestation of our lack of free will is found not in our ability to choose what we desire but in our ability to only choose what we desire. Thoughts?

Hans · 03-22-2002, 10:49 AM

I'm going to repost this in the philosophy forum as it may be more appropriate there. If a moderator would like to remove this topic please feel free.

My bad.

Bill · 03-23-2002, 07:26 AM

Please pick up the discussion of this post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000107" target="_blank">OVER HERE.</a>

== Bill

Jeremy Pallant · 03-23-2002, 05:23 PM

At the risk of contradicting Bill, I'm reopening the topic because Science certainly can be applied to the subject of Free Will. For example, regardless of how much free will we may have, we cannot flap our arms and achieve flight for reasons that are scientific in nature. Basically the arm is not an aerofoil. That constitutes a boundary on our free will.

Answerer · 03-23-2002, 08:00 PM

Well Hans, if string theory is true, then the the particle tarchyon will definately show to be existed and the laws of causuality will be violated.

Corey Hammer · 03-24-2002, 11:30 AM

Free Will is a philosophical concept. It really doesn't have meaning in science. In fact, B.F. Skinner used Free Will in derision to describe more cognitive psychological paradigms.

However, we can talk about volition, which is a separate concept from Free Will.

Bill · 03-24-2002, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>Well Hans, if string theory is true, then the the particle tarchyon will definately show to be existed and the laws of causuality will be violated. </strong>

WRONG ANSWER!

First, you are talking about a "tachyon" (not a "tarchyon"). Second, the tachyon predates string theory by a bunch. It was first proposed in a 1967 physics paper by Gerald Feinberg. Third, try as you might, you cannot use tachyons to violate causality. As it says <a href="http://www.weburbia.com/physics/tachyons.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>:

Quote:

The bottom line is that you can't use tachyons to send information faster than the speed of light from one place to another. Doing so would require creating a message encoded some way in a localized tachyon field, and sending it off at superluminal speed toward the intended receiver. But as we have seen you can't have it both ways - localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal.

<a href="http://www.weburbia.com/physics/tachyons.html" target="_blank">That article</a>, by the way, contains a wealth of information about tachyons, and it is very readable to those who have at least some grounding in the essentials of modern physics.

== Bill

Hans · 03-26-2002, 06:32 AM

Firstly, let me apologize for the dual post. I copied my first post here and reposted it under philosophy with the intention of returning here and deleting this post. It was then that I discovered that this BB is set up so as to prevent members from deleting there own posts.

I certainly concur that this topic is related to science as well. But I was uncertain which forum was best. I find the position of naturalism regarding free will an agreeable one. But I had hoped to offer something in our own experiences that one could use to identify our lack of free will.

But alas, after a short discussion within the duplicate topic in the Philosophy forum I realized I really don't have the background in human behavour to support the posotion I offered here. It may or may not be as I offered but either way I wont be the one to validate it, at least not at this time.

Hans · 03-26-2002, 06:45 AM

If anyone is interested in entertaining the ignorant I have a question.

How does a theory (or theories) that suggest a lack of causality at some level (a level of which I'm unfamiliar) in turn suggest that our volitions may somehow be uncaused by the whole of our biological and psycological make up?

Corey Hammer · 03-26-2002, 05:35 PM

Quote:

How does a theory (or theories) that suggest a lack of causality at some level (a level of which I'm unfamiliar) in turn suggest that our volitions may somehow be uncaused by the whole of our biological and psycological make up?

It suggests that green leaves sleep furiously while contemplating the nature of blue freedoms.

In other words, your little story makes no sense based on anything I know about volition, conscious control, and automatic control.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Corey Hammer ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2002, 10:49 AM	#2
Hans Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 247	I'm going to repost this in the philosophy forum as it may be more appropriate there. If a moderator would like to remove this topic please feel free. My bad.

03-23-2002, 07:26 AM	#3
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	Please pick up the discussion of this post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000107" target="_blank">OVER HERE.</a> == Bill

03-23-2002, 05:23 PM	#4
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	At the risk of contradicting Bill, I'm reopening the topic because Science certainly can be applied to the subject of Free Will. For example, regardless of how much free will we may have, we cannot flap our arms and achieve flight for reasons that are scientific in nature. Basically the arm is not an aerofoil. That constitutes a boundary on our free will.

03-23-2002, 08:00 PM	#5
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Well Hans, if string theory is true, then the the particle tarchyon will definately show to be existed and the laws of causuality will be violated.

03-24-2002, 11:30 AM	#6
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Free Will is a philosophical concept. It really doesn't have meaning in science. In fact, B.F. Skinner used Free Will in derision to describe more cognitive psychological paradigms. However, we can talk about volition, which is a separate concept from Free Will.

03-26-2002, 06:32 AM	#8
Hans Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 247	Firstly, let me apologize for the dual post. I copied my first post here and reposted it under philosophy with the intention of returning here and deleting this post. It was then that I discovered that this BB is set up so as to prevent members from deleting there own posts. I certainly concur that this topic is related to science as well. But I was uncertain which forum was best. I find the position of naturalism regarding free will an agreeable one. But I had hoped to offer something in our own experiences that one could use to identify our lack of free will. But alas, after a short discussion within the duplicate topic in the Philosophy forum I realized I really don't have the background in human behavour to support the posotion I offered here. It may or may not be as I offered but either way I wont be the one to validate it, at least not at this time.

03-26-2002, 06:45 AM	#9
Hans Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 247	If anyone is interested in entertaining the ignorant I have a question. How does a theory (or theories) that suggest a lack of causality at some level (a level of which I'm unfamiliar) in turn suggest that our volitions may somehow be uncaused by the whole of our biological and psycological make up?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.