Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 11-27-2002, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:


I haven't heard of that 'version'. Does it have a specific name, so I can look it up?

Theli, it is quantum determinism. To say that something is deterministic is just another way of saying it is predictable. For a deterministic universe it is not nessecary for the phenomena to be exactly repeatable. There are many kinds of repeatablity that would result in a universe that has predictability.

Starboy

xeren · 11-27-2002, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
Zadok001...

It comes down to definition, how would you define "free will"?
If the term itself is a contradiction then how can you use it to describe something? even by saying the bulldog lacks it?

I think i see what you're asking!
Zadok001, if i may,

Basically the free will that you would have to have to avoid being influenced by anything is incomprehensible, but most people don't really think about the issue much, so they think that they are only slightly governed by caused and uncaused events.
That's all there is, caused and uncaused events, but most people don't take it to its logical conclusion, so they don't really realize that the free will they think they have just plain doesn't make sense. It is THAT free will that i think were are all saying we don't have.

Zadok001 · 11-27-2002, 12:36 PM

Ah, gotcha. Xeren, that's exactly what I would have said.

11-27-2002, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:


It is THAT free will that i think were are all saying we don't have.

But then there is no argument. To have "that" kind of free will we would have to stop our heart beat because there is also some (higher) form of intelligence that makes it go.

Zadok001 · 11-27-2002, 04:15 PM

Amos:

What? How does THAT work? We don't make a choice to make our heart beat! (Well, some people can control it in a limited manner, but you know what I mean.)

Nothing in this concept says we MUST do anything, only that we can never freely choose to do something. How are you extracting that statement from this argument?

xeren · 11-27-2002, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


But then there is no argument. To have "that" kind of free will we would have to stop our heart beat because there is also some (higher) form of intelligence that makes it go.

Amos,
You seem like a really nice person, but once again, i have no idea what the HELL you are talking about. And i don't think many other people around here do either.

If anyone could translate for me, or Amos, if you could tell me what stopping your own heart has to do with anything, or what proof you have that god makes our hearts go, then I'm all ears(or eyes, in the case of these forums).

Sandslice · 11-28-2002, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


But then there is no argument. To have "that" kind of free will we would have to stop our heart beat because there is also some (higher) form of intelligence that makes it go.

Not quite; the brain also works on a subconscious level, constantly running "programs" which keep your heart beating, and other bio-functions running around inside you of which you might not be aware. The conscious, where free will is capable of existing (in theory,) can exert influence over these instincts, such as slowing your heart and breathing rates.

John Page · 11-28-2002, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
...If we were to postulate that for an individual to have free will he would have to be in control of his own thoughts/actions. And the general idea with determinism is that those thoughts/actions is caused by a prior event. Am I correct in this observation?

But the problem here is that the claim above is false. It assumes that the "self" is something external to the thoughts/actions that we need to trace back to in order to have free will.
Wich ofcourse contradicts the first premiss of the claim, that the "self" is process of the brain. The no free will argument seems ambiguous to me.

Happy Holidays!

...but re the above, and the way this thread has recently turned, you seem to be excluding the fact that thoughts and actions are in part determined by prior thoughts and actions. This being the case, I don't see any any contradiction between a 'causal' or 'deterministic' model of mind.

Furthermore, that there are functions/workings of the mind that are not available to to our conscious awareness is rather consistent with the illusion that there is a "self", soul etc. working magically behind the scenes.

In summary, just because we don't know how our minds work does not mean they are non-deterministic. That we behave unpredictably doesn't necessitate free will.

Cheers, John

Theli · 11-28-2002, 08:18 AM

xeren...

Quote:

Basically the free will that you would have to have to avoid being influenced by anything is incomprehensible, but most people don't really think about the issue much, so they think that they are only slightly governed by caused and uncaused events.
That's all there is, caused and uncaused events, but most people don't take it to its logical conclusion, so they don't really realize that the free will they think they have just plain doesn't make sense. It is THAT free will that i think were are all saying we don't have.

Yes, the 'nonlogical' free will has been discarded long ago on this board. But from the approach taken by people using determinism as evidence to disprove free will seems to use a more serious definition. By saying that a person has no control over his choice, because it has already been set by prior causes/conditions.
The problem there is that those people don't present a coherent definition of the term their argument rests on. There has been several threads presenting several nuances of the non-free-will argument, but noone tends to explain what they try to disprove.
What would the opposite be? What is this free will we don't possess?
I've asked this question in every post on this thread (I think), and you are the one closest to answer it.
It seems very strange to me that there has been so much fuss over this issue, naming determinism as the big villain that stole our free will.
Thanks for replying.

Starboy · 11-28-2002, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
It seems very strange to me that there has been so much fuss over this issue, naming determinism as the big villain that stole our free will.
Thanks for replying.

I suppose your argument would be applicable if classical determinism existed but that is not how nature works. The kind of determinism that nature uses is quantum determinism and that allows a predictive univese with free will.

Starboy

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

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

11-27-2002, 12:36 PM	#23
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Ah, gotcha. Xeren, that's exactly what I would have said.

11-27-2002, 04:15 PM	#25
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Amos: What? How does THAT work? We don't make a choice to make our heart beat! (Well, some people can control it in a limited manner, but you know what I mean.) Nothing in this concept says we MUST do anything, only that we can never freely choose to do something. How are you extracting that statement from this argument?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.