Clutch

Hokey dinah, sorry for agreeing with you! Yes, it was pretty clear. Clearer, of course, after my comments, and much clearer still after Horwich's... Of course. You even said that the argument had been around for a lot of years. Then I said that it went all the way back to Aristotle. (Now, as to why you're citing whosit Yandell but not even mentioning Aristotle, well, whatever...)

Anyhow, I agreed with pretty much everything you wrote. Which is why I did not disagree with anything you wrote. Notice I quoted your rhetorical question, and answered No to it. Same answer you gave. Just better.

mnkbdky

YAHOO!!! I thought that might be the case, but it is so hard to tell in the text. I have to have things s-p-e-l-l-e-d out for me, otherwise, well . . ., you've seen what happens.

As far as why I did not quote Ari, that is because I am a disciple of Yandell, who teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Nowhere357

I agree my experience appears as illusion to the deterministic worldview. So does my pain.

Your conclusion that therefore free will is "really microscopic illusion" is the logical fallacy of distraction, from ignorance.

I have not ignored the framework of my decision. On the contrary, I am completely on-board with the materialistic/deterministic interpretation of the natural universe. From the POV of physical science, free will is seen as "illusion".

Just for fun, I'll point out that we are not aware of physical reality; we are aware only of our mental experiences of physical reality. The entire physical universe can be seen as "illusion".

I asked for your definition of "random".

I don't understand this "definition". You seem to be admitting a lack of interest in precision and accuracy.

random
adjective
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b : made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>

Now (one of) your error(s) is exposed. Randomness and determinism are not in contradiction. Your conclusion is false.

Free will is alive and well.

Kevbo

You're right, Nowhere, I really don't believe in any of the hypotheticals I was presenting, and I basically agree with you. Though, I suspect you already know that, you sly devil . I started this topic just to show that the free will argument really isn't a good reason to choose Christianity over atheism, as I've heard it espoused from people on other boards.

The_Ist

mnkbdky,

I thought your original post on this thread was pretty insightful. It's good to see similar-thinking theists (you are a theist, are you not?) around these boards.

John Page

Well, logic isn't the be all and end all.

Try this. "If someone says that my decision can be known, before I have made that decision, they are wrong."

And this "I cannot predict my own actions therefore I have free will."

Or this "I cannot predict my own actions therefore I think I have free will."

Finally this. "If someone says that my decision can be known, before I have made that decision, I think they are wrong."

Hopefully this has demonstrated that your line of reasoning is incorrect. To make a statement on this matter, we need to determine whether your decision can be anticipated or not."

Commencing with Pavlov and his dogs there is an increasing body of evidence that our behavior is deterministic. This includes visions of nins that cease after a brain tumor operation. Arguably, not only are your actions deterministic, but so are your thoughts, irrespective of whether they are logical or not..

Cheers, John

John Page

Nowhere:

Can you clue me in on the definition of "free will" you're using here?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Free will can be seen as having deterministic causes.

Known with 100% accuracy? They are wrong.

Predict with 100% accuracy? I cannot.

Correct. The point escapes me. Everything we know, we think we know.

I think/believe/know they are wrong.

It has not. Of course decisions can be anticipated, but not with 100% accuracy.

Agreed.

BTW this doesn't prove the visions were false. I think there is similar evidence that tumors can increase abilities such as creativity.

Agreed, from the deterministic POV. My position is that there is another POV, equally valid, and entirely necessary, when investigating the phenomenae of mind. And free will is an expression or activity of the mind.

I'm talking about introspection, of course.

BTW John, can you recommend a primer about NCC?

Peace

John Page

OK, what percentage of predictability of actions would be required for you to be convinced (believe) there is no "libertarian" free will?
I'm not saying the visions we "false", I'm suggesting they were caused by the tumor (as opposed to some unknowable, unseeable agent).
Not sure I'm the best source on this. I believe current NCC is deficient in not a) assuming the spatial locations of inputs/outputs have relevance and b) taking a "data" view of NCC operations which discards the usefulness of storing processes and modifying them.

I can recommend Dennett's "Consicousness Explained" lots of stimulating content although it don't think it does what the title claims!

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

100%. Since I experience free will, why should I accept anything less?

I agree this is likely.

John, isn't it possible that mental states arise deterministically, but the exact mental state cannot be predected because of a random factor? Thus within a materialistic cause, a range of possible mental states can occur?