Liquidrage

D'oh !
You said beforehand in the last thread we encountered each other that to you it was just so "obvious".
Here from that thread is what you said:

I said it was obvious to me.
Not that it was magically obvious.

Nonsense.
The current state of affairs is, as you acknowledge yourself, that - for just one example - QM theory is simplified by assuming strict determinism, however assumptions of free will are still possuible.
hey, listen, LiquidRage, you're getting on my nerves, especially with this last post of yours; don't assume you can simply preach at me, then use anti-theist agitprop to try to rhetorically smear me (as you did in a previous thread).
As a hardline atheist, and as one with not inconsequential scientific training, I find your evangelist dogmatism quite boring.
I suggest you discuss with me, since I won't hold with being simply preached at.

Who's preaching what?
I at least attempt to explain my view by presenting the evidence that led me to me conclusion.
You just present you conclusions and argue without those that have different conclusions.

I'm also sick of hearing about your training, degree's or whatever they are. They add nothing to the discussion and whether you're the King of Prussia or not your viewpoints I do not agree with nor do I feel you've presented any case to support your views.

Hey, why don't you let me know when you're willing to drop the rhetoric and the fallacies of overbroad generalization and simplification, and we can resume our discussion, you and I ?

What's the matter? Can't argue it so you resort to avoiding the issue? It's not a simplification. It's the point of the issue. Unless somehow the mind escapes the laws of physics then it is bound by them. That leads to what do the laws of physics say. My view is that the laws of physics are deterministic and that the mind does not escape them. Don't like it? Then stop replying with me. Say you disagree and move on. This isn't the first time you've resorted to personal attacks on my character and frankly I am getting sick of that.

D'oh, d'oh, noooooooo, I never read posts I respond to, I simply pick words at random out of a barrel and toss them into a response.
Come back when you're willing to be logical.

Great Gurdur. Once again you avoid the issue. The issue in this instance was not whether free will exists but the definition of the word. Which I consider to be already defined.
The rest of your reply shows this. You're the one that brought of my response. I clarified what my reponse was in regards to. You then went on to belittle my views again.

Liquidrage

D'oh, you've been given reasons already by both Bill and me (previous thread), you just ignored them.
Emergent properties of complexity, I remind you, just for a start

Now, if we can try and discuss, this would be the center piece.

I myself have bought up this point before as well.
If someone believes that the mind as a collection of it's parts is capable of escaping determinism then that is their belief. It is a valid viewpoint even if I would consider it unlikely.
I just don't hold that belief myself nor have I seen anyone reason to believe that.

A3

Hi Liquidrage,

It is an act done, on purpose, behind the scenes, anonymous, untraceable.

There is the world of physical matter that science can measure, identify and manipulate. Than ‘above’ or inside this there is an (to the natural eye) invisible world of spiritual substance. A garden rake is a physical object with “attached” to it an invisible use, a purpose ogf design. As humans we have a similar but higher entity which is called spirit. If you are “really” interested I can send you a file “The Spirtual World.” Several times in the Bible it is described as “being taken up in the spirit.”

I am sorry to hear that, but that is life, you don’t have to see anything you don’t want to see.

Great to see we agree on that. There is just one Divine, the provider of Life, and we are just receivers of life. Our micro-building blocks are the same as those of rocks, it is the spirit that makes us human, not the building blocks, or the arms or the eyes or anything physical. It is not any of those that make us unique individuals, it it the spirit. It is the thought that counts. At least that’s what I believe.
====================================
to DRFSEVEN,
OK I get your point, because we have an intellect, and use it, we are not as free as a vacuum cleaner or AC or a thermostat. You are refering to a “decision- making process,” does this also apply to those appliances you mentioned?

How about more alive, how about more human, higher IQ, more freedom to move around (no extension cord) Oh sorry, you wouldn’t be free there because you would have to think...

Our mind oberves this physical world through our physical eyes. We believe our mind also has spiritual sight which we call thought. It is our love in our will that turns our attention to whatever it wants to think about or ‘see’ or (as in your case) turns our attention away from whatever it does not want to think about or ‘see.’
Swedenborg’s famous quote is: “Thought from the eye closes the understanding but thought from the understanding opens the eye.”

kennyminot

A response to all those with the 'will to philosophy' -- back to the question of the 'why' and 'how' people feel the need to have the categories 'free will' and 'determinism'.

Nialscorva -

A habit Nietzsche unfortunately acquired from his friendly neighborhood atheists -- and one that you seem to share -- is to view every issue from the perspective of religion, to see everything tinged with 'Godly' meaning and to reinterpret things in a nastly light with that lens. You claim that people care about 'free will' and 'determinism' for three reasons: one of them being, of course, that they believe in an omniscient God, and they want to hold people accountable for their sins. In a way, as an atheist, I can see why you would have a hostility toward the idea of 'free will' . . . because it seems like, if you attack this concept and destroy it, mercilessly and without compassion, then the entire religion will fall to its knees and beg forgiveness. Christianity is a religion fascinated with 'free will' and 'morality' -- one that takes its actions so seriously, with such utter care, that they can barely act because of their fear of breaking some commandment. But for those of us who are not atheists, who are not even religious, who are, in a sense, above religion, this perspective seems tainted with the boring yawn of antiquity. The best way to eliminate Christianity, if there is a way, would be to ignore it. You need to become a person who never thinks about religion, where the very idea of 'God' and 'heaven' never enter into your conversation. Atheists, though they claim to be godless, are still religious, because they still continually define themselves in relation to a religion. To be 'a-religious' is still not to have risen above religion.

Now, when you continue, you try to show that another aspect of the debate, of course, involves practical 'secular' matters, which is much more interesting. You ask: "How can we choose anything if we don't have a choice?" The problem is, of course, that if you allow the tyranny of the scientific perspective, which requires a deterministic universe, into discussions about everyday human life, it begins to transform everything into a mirror image of the 'wound-up clock' that ticks the Universe toward some undefinable destination. Science deals with prediction -- it orders life into boring chains of cause and effect -- it requires that there only be an 'is' and not a 'should', because the 'should' implies the word 'spontaneous'. 'Should' and 'should not' are luxuries for people who feel they have control over their lives. Science has no space for that kind of freedom.

The last thing you said, I think, is interesting: "Free will is a term used to answer a bunch of unanswerable questions, unanswerable because they invoke hypotheticals that cannot be known or because they are an artifact of our language." Here the tyranny of science returns. People think they need to justify everything, that they need to 'ground' their ideas in something else, something more stable, something that is 'fundamental'. Science works by searching for the underlying reason -- to find atoms, then to search even deeper, to find space-time, then to search even deeper, until they have dug so deep that they hit the core, the final, absolute, single equation that explains every phenomenon. Normal convesation involves talk about 'responsiblity' and 'choice' . . . but the tyranny of science claims that these people need to 'root' these ideas in something more foundational. So people invoke 'free will' and claim it justifies all this morality talk. But can you imagine tossing all this aside, in short, to stop talking about choices, simply because you can't find a reason for it? Maybe our society needs more faith in the mob.

Cool little violin guy:

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

A3:

Bravo for this comment: "I am sorry to hear that, but that is life, you don’t have to see anything you don’t want to see."

DRFseven

To me, you are saying that science renders life boring because it seeks to remove the mystery. For plenty of people, though, science is NOT boring and I, for one, think searching for reasons for things is both unavoidable and exciting, not boring.

Why bravo? It's not true; obviously we have to see things we don't want to see all the time.

NialScorva

Kenny Minot,

I was *very* tempted to just brush off the whole god issue, but it left rather little to write about. I find no need to refute theism, in fact, I do my best to *avoid* theism as much as possible in philosophical discussions. The problem is, in all my searching on the issue of free will, the cases I found for the free will debate that didn't relate to religion were rather sparse, and several were of the same form as the theistic question (that of the outside observer). I'm not according the religious question any special place, except that it's the most popular of free will debates.

You mention that I should "to become a person who never thinks about religion, where the very idea of 'God' and 'heaven' never enter into your conversation". Do a search for my posts in Existence of God or Misc Religious Discussions, you'll quickly see that I do not post on those issues. Now, look back over the archives in this forum, and you'll quickly see that there's a lot of non-theistic questions about free will. If you read my posts on this thread carefully, you'll realize that I started it completely because I think that "free will" isn't an experience or thing in debate, it's a concept promoted to an experience or thing that people keep talking about.

Stop talking about choices? That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that "free will" isn't a real debate in itself, since there's nothing to decide about it. However, it's an absolutely fascinating study in language and how we can manufacture crisis as a side effect of having the ability to describe things.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a hardcore empricist, quite simply because it works. Tyrrany of science? Hardly. Science is a useful tool, nothing more. I will use the tool, but I will realize it's limitations.

I do it interesting that you speak so disparagingly of science, it's need to pick and pull things "until they have dug so deep that they hit the core, the final, absolute, single equation that explains every phenomenon", quickly followed by the above admonition about throwing things away carelessly.

John Page

How about Pinocchio as metaphor. Did he think he was a real boy because he'd lost his strings? Did he think he was a real boy because he wasn't wooden anymore?

As NialScorva indicates, we have to look carefully at the use of language. Just because you can't see Pinocchio's strings anymore and he has human physiology doesn't automatically confer "free will" upon him, does it?

Next stage, if this is true for Pinocchio, why shouldn't it be true for us? The more obviuous explanation (to me) is that "free will" is an imaginary property conferred by the observer (because it can't figure out cause and effect since humans are complicated).

Gotta love Disney, dontcha.

Cheers, John

kennyminot

NialScorva -

Thanks for the response.

I agree. Let me clarify my own position on the issue. 'Free will' arose from the burning desire to find reasons for every human experience. People make choices, which seem to be in their control, so they thought they needed an explanation for it. It would be unfair to blame this tendency completely on science, but it seems to be the main force spreading this myth in our society. I believe that people should be 'playful believers'. My credo: experiment with different ideas and don't worry about the consequences. So, while I understand your perspective, that 'science is a useful tool', I feel that I need to be more harsh toward it. I like science, when it focuses on tracing the path of stars and making cherry-flavored yogurt, but, at other times, when things start to get more personal, I think it stands in the way.

Good point! And, while I would insist that people should not throw away the common-sense language about choices, I would expect a person, if they felt the burning desire to ditch them, to toss them aside and see what the world feels like without them.

Good! I am a little sensitive about this issue, so I am glad that you agree.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: kennyminot ]</p>