Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Do you believe in free will? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Cum Goblin[/m] at 3:13 am on July 6, 2009[quote]You realize that for the majority of people who use this site, it's between 3am and 11am? Ask your [i]real[/i] questions at a better time.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post static nightmare Posted at 3:12 am on July 6, 2009 Not sure how well I can explain this, but here is what they mean: -libertarian Free Will - non-causal freewill -Soft Determinism - compatibilism; Free will and Determinism -Hard Determinism - No free will What do you believe?

Replies Forever Angel Posted at 6:41 pm on July 12, 2009 I don't believe that how I act or what I choose are the only actions I could do or choices I could make as long as other options are available. I don't believe there is an external agent determining everything I do. These "external forces" may have influence, but they are not "destiny". Event Horizon Posted at 5:43 pm on July 12, 2009 I will repost this point, to get us back on track, then: I am a compatibilist. I think any definition of "Free will" that does not take into account causality is absurd and unusable. Choices must, by their nature, have causes--otherwise they are random. Thus, any definition of free will must account for the causes behind any and all decisions. The way I see it, the complexity of the human brain is what allows us our "free will". I am a determinist, and I believe that our personalities, our concerns, our feelings toward others, everything is determined by outside causes. I believe that we can reflect on our thoughts and change our minds [i.e. internal causes] but that these actions, too, are the result of external factors. However: 1. I am everything I see, do, hear, touch, feel, know, think, experience, etc. There is no homunculus, pre-existing "me". 2. Those things are determined by external factors [I cannot choose what I see, what thinks I experience, etc] 3. Thus, "I" am a being created as a result of external factors. 4. When speaking of "will" we necessarily imply a being which will be doing the willing. I.e. "I" 5. Thus, the question of personal free will asks if "I" --a being created qua external factors-- can make decisions of my own volition. here is the crux 6. SO. If "I" am every single factor and influence that I have ever experienced, and any decision I make comes directly from those experiences and nothing else [how could it?], then were comes the external forces that would take away free will [that is, those that are not the set of external forces that constitute "I"]? It is true, then, that all decisions made by "I" are capable of being completely free of outside forces. "I" will act exactly how "I" will act, and no different. But "I" act freely and of "my" own volition. Forever Angel Posted at 8:03 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:53 pm on July 11, 2009 With this post I reiterate that you are a: Fool. The limits of science are obvious. If you don't get that, then you have no place in any discussion like this. Though, I'd say that barring your death, science tells me that you will breathe at least several times within the next couple of minutes. You call me "fool" and cry about me calling you "dear"? I certainly know that there are limits, though Moridin would not seem to. "Science can predict the future based on the past?"  . . . "That's a core feature of science." I'm starting to wonder, though, if you understand the written word. My argument in this thread is that my voluntary actions and decisions are my own. That I am the causal agent for those things. Period. Moridin Posted at 4:27 am on July 12, 2009 Forever Angel, those equations predicting human behavior do not have to be complex -- think of the economic turns on the free market. Even if the equations where super complex, we would simply use computers to solve the equations for us. Also, just because something is not possible in practice does not mean it is impossible in principle. Event Horizon Posted at 7:53 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:51 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:41 pm on July 11, 2009 Obviously the changes are not so drastic, but as Moridin pointed out, causal chains are very sensitive to initial conditions, and--really--all conditions there-after. All previous causal chains are already "set in stone", they are the "initial conditions, can you tell me exactly any real event (aside from time passing) that's going to happen in even the next minute? Moridin said predicting the future is a core feature of science... he placed no limits on that statement. With this post I reiterate that you are a: Fool. The limits of science are obvious. If you don't get that, then you have no place in any discussion like this. Though, I'd say that barring your death, science tells me that you will breathe at least several times within the next couple of minutes. Forever Angel Posted at 7:51 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:41 pm on July 11, 2009 Obviously the changes are not so drastic, but as Moridin pointed out, causal chains are very sensitive to initial conditions, and--really--all conditions there-after. All previous causal chains are already "set in stone", they are the "initial conditions, can you tell me exactly any real event (aside from time passing) that's going to happen in even the next minute? Moridin said predicting the future is a core feature of science... he placed no limits on that statement. Event Horizon Posted at 7:41 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:24 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:14 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:05 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 7:32 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:59 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:24 pm on July 9, 2009 "... a point before the formation of the Earth, and so on."     So an accident that happens this afternoon was predetermined even before the universe was born?           I don't make the claim that the causal chain can be traced back to "before" the conception of the universe, whatever that may mean. In the universe, as it stands, effect follows cause and everything is deterministic and predictable including what goes on in our brains.           Can you clarify your objection here? I would have thought it obvious that the "accident" is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics and the world as it stands. Science can predict the future based on the past?       . . .   That's a core feature of science. Tell me, then, when is the next time I'm going to stub my toe on a rock... or have a child and what will be the sex of that child? When will I die?    Fool Why? Is this any more ridiculous than your responses in the other thread? Yea lol, it is. I've responded there. If your tired of being a pedant. Anyway. If you'd like me to explain why you are being foolish: Asking for a specific action to be determined by scientific observation is just fucking stupid. Either you are ignorant and don't understand how science functions, and its limitations, or else you do know and are simply posting that to obnoxiously reply to what you know is a valid point. Either way, you are acting foolishly. Science can predict tendencies. It can predict that when you mix certain chemicals together, you will get specific changes and a specific result. It can predict that if certain conditions are met, a certain result with be produced. It can't, by any stretch of the imagination, predict when you will next stub your toe. The factors that go into an equation like that are unimaginable and too complex to be considered rational. Which is what you don't understand about the argument. A butterfly's batting it's wings does not affect you directly. But that butterfly, if it is killed, might have otherwise eaten an ant, which--now alive--could then help carry off a crumb that would have otherwise been left behind by the colony, which now must be swept up by some janitor with a pan and broom. That extra second caused the janitor to think of some thought a second or two later than he would have. With that delay, he might have been left to think harder on that thing; standing idly for a minute to finish his thought. Finishing work a minute later than he would have had the butterfly beat its wings, he leaves work and nearly makes a traffic light, only to be T-boned by another driver who nearly made the green. His death triggers more changes, and on and on and on and... Obviously the changes are not so drastic, but as Moridin pointed out, causal chains are very sensitive to initial conditions, and--really--all conditions there-after. Forever Angel Posted at 7:24 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Event Horizon at 9:14 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:05 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 7:32 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:59 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:24 pm on July 9, 2009 "... a point before the formation of the Earth, and so on."             So an accident that happens this afternoon was predetermined even before the universe was born?    I don't make the claim that the causal chain can be traced back to "before" the conception of the universe, whatever that may mean. In the universe, as it stands, effect follows cause and everything is deterministic and predictable including what goes on in our brains.    Can you clarify your objection here? I would have thought it obvious that the "accident" is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics and the world as it stands. Science can predict the future based on the past?   . . .       That's a core feature of science. Tell me, then, when is the next time I'm going to stub my toe on a rock... or have a child and what will be the sex of that child? When will I die? Fool Why? Is this any more ridiculous than your responses in the other thread? Event Horizon Posted at 7:14 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:05 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 7:32 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:59 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:24 pm on July 9, 2009 "... a point before the formation of the Earth, and so on."    So an accident that happens this afternoon was predetermined even before the universe was born?       I don't make the claim that the causal chain can be traced back to "before" the conception of the universe, whatever that may mean. In the universe, as it stands, effect follows cause and everything is deterministic and predictable including what goes on in our brains.       Can you clarify your objection here? I would have thought it obvious that the "accident" is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics and the world as it stands. Science can predict the future based on the past?    . . .  That's a core feature of science. Tell me, then, when is the next time I'm going to stub my toe on a rock... or have a child and what will be the sex of that child? When will I die? Fool Forever Angel Posted at 7:05 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 7:32 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:59 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:24 pm on July 9, 2009 "... a point before the formation of the Earth, and so on."         So an accident that happens this afternoon was predetermined even before the universe was born?   I don't make the claim that the causal chain can be traced back to "before" the conception of the universe, whatever that may mean. In the universe, as it stands, effect follows cause and everything is deterministic and predictable including what goes on in our brains.   Can you clarify your objection here? I would have thought it obvious that the "accident" is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics and the world as it stands. Science can predict the future based on the past? . . .   That's a core feature of science. Tell me, then, when is the next time I'm going to stub my toe on a rock... or have a child and what will be the sex of that child? When will I die? Moridin Posted at 5:35 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:22 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 6:14 pm on July 10, 2009 Cause and effect. Nothing you think or do exists in a vacuum. It is the result of what happened before. Is it such a great stretch of the imagination to trace that back through the centuries? If I lived 30 or 40 thousand years, I suppose it wouldn't. But I can't relate to the idea that the movement of a butterfly's wings in any era of history has anything to do with a single decision or action in my life today. What is it that you don't get? That dynamical and non-linear systems are very sensitive with regards to  initial conditions? It isn't that hard to understand, is it? Moridin Posted at 5:32 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:59 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 3:47 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:24 pm on July 9, 2009 "... a point before the formation of the Earth, and so on."   So an accident that happens this afternoon was predetermined even before the universe was born?    I don't make the claim that the causal chain can be traced back to "before" the conception of the universe, whatever that may mean. In the universe, as it stands, effect follows cause and everything is deterministic and predictable including what goes on in our brains.    Can you clarify your objection here? I would have thought it obvious that the "accident" is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics and the world as it stands. Science can predict the future based on the past? . . . That's a core feature of science. Forever Angel Posted at 4:22 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 6:14 pm on July 10, 2009 Cause and effect. Nothing you think or do exists in a vacuum. It is the result of what happened before. Is it such a great stretch of the imagination to trace that back through the centuries? If I lived 30 or 40 thousand years, I suppose it wouldn't. But I can't relate to the idea that the movement of a butterfly's wings in any era of history has anything to do with a single decision or action in my life today. SpM Posted at 4:14 pm on July 10, 2009 Cause and effect. Nothing you think or do exists in a vacuum. It is the result of what happened before. Is it such a great stretch of the imagination to trace that back through the centuries? Forever Angel Posted at 4:05 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 5:53 pm on July 10, 2009 No, the explanation which involves the fewest unnecessary assumptions is usually correct. We have a perfectly naturalistic explanation for human decisions (and it does not dispute that "what we do is up to us and we make our own choices"). Postulating a magical area of the human brain which is immune to the fundamental laws of nature and logically absurd is not necessary. You lost me. What "fundamental laws of nature" state that when I make a decision it's because the tiger ate the neanderthal? Most recent 15 of 83 previous replies displayed.