madmax2976

I still require a definiiton of what "free will" is in order to address the issue in any meaningful way.

As for "fatalism" being true, this would presume that if we wound back the clock all the way to the big bang, and then let it all proceed forward again, everything would turn out just the way it has.

Such a hypothesis - one that we could never test - would rest on whether the universe is entirely deterministic in every way, including the human consciousness.

The possibilities could be:

The universe is 100% deterministic (i.e. fatalistic)
The universe is just largely deterministic
The universe is deterministic, but human consciousness with its feedback loop type operation defies this state of affairs.

spacer1

Yes, this is my current line of thought.

spacer1

excreationist,

What distinguishes chance from determinism (by which, throughout this thread, I mean fatalism - I just feel more comfortable using determinism) other than our own knowledge and expectations?? How could the concept of "chance" be a part of reality, distinct from an observer?

excreationist

According to MWI, whatever is possible (by chance) would become a reality as a real parallel universe.
In a totally deterministic worldview, only one outcome becomes a reality.
Having all possibilities becoming realities explains why things that may be unlikely can happen in our universe - e.g. *maybe* the appearance of life and consciousness is extremely unlikely. The chance that the physical constants, etc, of our universe being what they are (which makes life possible) would also be unlikely.

Without people, there would be no-one to give things a label - like "chance". I think quantum physics would act the same way before life came into being... if that's what you mean by an observer... sorry but I'm a bit confused.

spacer1

excreationist,

I am familiar with Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. My point was that notions of "chance" and "likelihood" pertain to future events and our expectations regarding them, given our current knowledge and theories. The universe just exists and changes in some way. The concept of chance cannot run counter to determinism, since determinism - the natural unfolding of events in the universe without observers - isn't dependent upon a mind, whereas chance - the expected likelihood of a given outcome - is dependent upon a mind; specifically, since expectation is involved. The universe does not expect anything to happen, it just happens.

Godless Wonder

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I see perhaps the question is closer to "why did conciousness evolve?" then?

I think nobody really knows. I have my thoughts on it which run like this: I see there is a fairly smooth continuum of nervious system complexity in the animal kingdom. There are various worms, starfish, and so on, with relatively simple nervous systems, moving on up to flies (which, with relatively few neurons) are able to perform amazing aeiral flight maneuvers, on up to your golden retriever, which is about where you start wondering if maybe there is some kind of conciousness going on there, to pigs and gorillas and chimps and dolphins and people. (Someone once said something about there being two opinions among philosophers regarding whether animals were concious or not. These two classes could be distinguished by whehter or not they owned dogs. The dog owners though animals could be concious, the non-dog-owners did not. Or something like that.)

Anyway... my thoughts about conciousness, and language in particular (though I do not consider language to be necessary for conciousness, autistic people seem to think in pictures, or "video" as they have managed to describe it,, but don't seem to have an internal monologue like "normal" people, Would anyone argue that these people are not conscious? ) and why it evolved are basically that it got tangled up with sex, and consequently ran wild, like the peacock's tail.
It's much easier to entertain a mate when you have language. I think there's a much smoother continuum between non-consciousness and consciousness within the animal kingdom than most people seem to think. I think many people conflate language abilities with consciousness.

As far as free will is concerned. After thinking about it a bit more, I think not only does it not exist, I think that nobody can provide any reasonably materialistic explanation for how it could even possibly exist, without resorting to magic. What mechanism can you provide that can produce consciousness which is not ultimately reducible, under the constraint a materialist world view? So to allow for free will is to allow for magic. Right?

Of course this could be "argument by poverty of imagination", which is notoriously fallible, so I could easily be wrong, and I'd be interested to hear opposing views. I think this is an area where philosophizing won't get very far though. Real science is needed.

excreationist

spacer1:
I thought determinism also meant that some expectation was also involved... i.e. that the future was theoretically totally predictable if you know the current state of the universe and the rules of physics.

Godless Wonder:
It depends what level of consciousness you're talking about... i.e. Do dogs sit around and wonder what happens after they die? Do they worry about getting old when they currently are young? Do they wonder why the sun comes up every day? Do they think about what their ultimate goals for their life will be? Those kinds of things are what high-level consciousness is all about.

According to http://www.doyletics.com/arj/autrvw.htm
autistic people have some problems kind of related to consciousness:
- qualitative impairment in reciprocal social interaction;
- qualitative impairment in verbal and nonverbal communication and in imaginative activity;

And to learn and communicate abstract thought (like talking about what it would be like after their death, etc) they'd use language.

spacer1

excreationist,
"Predictability," "the current state of the universe," and the theoretical "rules of physics" would not exist without observers. If, as I have conjectured, the existence of consciousness falsifies fatalism, it follows that our brains (and minds) needn't necessarily conform to the usual "rules of physics." For example, people can quit smoking even though it runs counter to their physical inclinations.

Therefore, when you say:
I would disagree.

excreationist

spacer1:
Just because you believe that consciousness can't exist with in a fatalistic world, it doesn't mean that a world without consciousness must be fatalistic. (Which I assume is a synonym for determinism, which I roughly defined in my last post)

So that's your proof that we have free-will and the workings of our brains (our thoughts) go against the usual rules of physics?
Well I think we can simultaneously weigh up many considerations at once. In the case of giving up smoking, we would be aware of a desire to smoke (due to an addiction), but we'd also have a desire not to smoke - due to the desire to avoid health problems (which we'd associate with negative emotions) and maybe the high cost of cigarettes (also associated with negative emotions), etc. If the person is successful at overcoming the urge to smoke, basically the emotions associated with not smoking outweighed the opposing emotions... often the decisions we make are obvious and there is a clear winner as far as which course of action we determine is best. But sometimes (like in the case of giving up smoking) there can be a real struggle if the conflicting desires are too similar in intensity. Sometimes we can cave in to the addiction due to the intensity of the addictive desire (pleasure) outweighing our competing emotions (like various fears).

So do you mean single-celled organisms, from billions of years ago, changed the way that quantum physics behaves somehow? Or is it just humans or mammals that effect quantum physics? Do you think people's wishes can alter quantum physics?

spacer1

excreationist,
It may not necessarily follow, but that's why I started this discussion. Would you care to describe how a consciousness could exist within a fatalistic world (which is the question posed by my OP), or how a world without consciousness is not fatalistic?
And you think that consciousness played no part in this decision? Consciousness allows for the smoker to be aware of the possible consequences of his actions and alerts him to the fact that his actions may be self-destructive in the longer term, even though his physical body craves more nicotine in the short-term. Consciousness allows for a choice, rather than just an automated (consistent with Newton's laws of motion) response, to be made.
It is not my contention that consciousness alters physical laws. My contention is that consciousness allows for us to have enough of a degree of freedom to be able to defy those physical laws somewhat. The idea of oneself as an ex-smoker may be all the impetus one needs to defy these laws, but I don't consider an idea to have physical dimensions, despite its most probable dependence upon the physical brain.