Free Will ! - Is there any?
Offline Can we strictly stay on the Free Will topic.
I am genuine looking for solid refutiating arguemnt to my thesis.
[I am a hardcore atheist and sometime agnostic.]
To prove/understand that there is no free will we have to take into account following 3 major points for the only system that exists, UNIVERSE
1. Newtonian Mechanics (NM)
2. Quantum Mechanics’ Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Randomness within h/pi margin of error. (QM)
3. Emergence Theory (ET) that states composite objects can exhibit certain characteristics that are not displayed in sub-objects.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence.
To keep it simple let’s tackle one variable at a time.
Implication of NM:
In a strict “NM only” world there is strict cause and effect. No particle, atom, molecules, object, in the universe, either individually or collectively, or partially collectively, or in composite fashion, inside or outside of our body can violate the laws of nature, regardless of we know all the laws of nature or not. Our knowledge has more to do with if we can predict the future or not. For accurate predictability we need 2 things, a) complete knowledge and b )huge processing power (machine). Today, we don't have either. Lack of predictability doesn’t necessarily implies Free Will. But 100% accurate predictability does imply predestination. Using only NM one could conclude that our fate, each and every action, including what you are thinking now, was determine at the time of big bang. This proves “No Free Will”. This is pure logic.
Now Let’s bring in QM.
With QM, the fate of the universe was not precisely determined at the time of the big bang. QM allows small variations (h/pi). h = 6.35 x e-34 j.s. and pi = 3.14159...[I wrote this from my memory. you can verify and fix it if I erred.] However, the the QM's allowed wiggle room is not controlled by us. Therefore, we still have no free will.
Now let’s bring in ET
Although it is true that some of the properties of molecules are not seen in electron but same combination produces same result within the wiggle room allowed by the QM.
Therefore, still we have no free will.
Free Will is not definable just as God is not definable. Hundreds of years ago when we dreamed up ideas like God, and Free Will we had no idea what we were trying to say. Now, empowered with, modern physics, neuropsychology, fMRI, we know God and Free Will is neither definable therefore even the question of its existance is nonsense. I see a complete parallel in these two. It is like if I ask you, Does ChuChu exist? What is ChuChu? I do not know. I can't define it.
- Login to post comments
Tim, I don't know about Emergence Theory, but if I understand it correctly, it sounds like you're saying that "the whole can be slightly different than the sum of its parts."
I'm not going to tackle that because I just don't know anything about it.
As you know, I fall on the "no free will" side of the fence. I also agree with you that the definition is so hazy that it's hard to even deny or assert that the thing exists.
Having said that, I think there's an important distinction to make. We do make choices, and we do solve problems and arrive at answers. On the subatomic level, it might be that we were predestined to arrive at the conclusion, but as you say, not having all knowledge, this kind of predictability is impossible.
This is one of the hardest things for me to explain. It sounds like a paradox, but here it is:
I don't believe in free will.
I believe that people are accountable for their own actions.
How can it be that this is not contradictory?
It's related to the logical fallacy of composition. To say that the individual particles that make up a human being have no choice but to act as they do is correct. It is also correct to say after the fact that a person had no choice but to come to the conclusion they did, given the evidence they were presented, and the physical makeup of their brains, which allows for the thoughts held therein. However, concluding that we do not actively make choices is fallacious. We don't have foreknowledge of the outcomes of our choices, and we are hard-wired to make abstract connections between bits of data. These connections take time, and sometimes conscious effort, and since we cannot predict the outcome of our effort, we are effectively moving from the unknown to the known.
Furthermore, it is errant to conclude that we don't make choices because the analogy of (subatomic particles:multicellular, intelligent life forms) is false. Particles do not have brains, and are incapable of processing data, and so any mention of choice does not follow when comparing the two.
Again, I think you are implying a composition error, even though you may not mean to.
If there is no free will, then I do not make choices, and am not responsible for my actions.
This is incorrect, and does not follow from the arguments you make concerning subatomic particles.
On the advanced multicellular organism level, I do make choices daily. I worry over many of them, and often make incorrect choices. The question of responsibility is almost self-evident. I make my own decisions, and am therefore, the Newtonian "cause" for the "effect" of my decisions. I leave the questions of how to regulate that responsibility to the government. It's another topic entirely. As to the question of "free will" I agree with you that it is so poorly worded as to be incoherent, and unanswerable.
In conclusion, I agree with you that there is no "free will" for the following reasons:
1) It is not defined coherently, and therefore cannot be discussed.
2) On a subatomic level, it contradicts known physics (given the current, unsatisfactory definition of "free will" )
3) True "Freedom" involves power that humans don't have. (this has been covered elsewhere. I didn't feel the need to repeat myself, as it was not in your thesis.)
However, I disagree with anyone who would use this position to absolve people of responsibility for their actions because:
1) It is an error of composition.
2) It is a false analogy.
3) According to NT, it is unavoidable that humans' actions are causes, and therefore, by definition, humans are responsible for the effects of their actions.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
HD,
I read your post 3 times. Thought about.
Tried to find things that differ from my understanding. I couldn’t find any.
Now, let's analyze the next step - moving from Physics to Psychology.
Despite of you, I and several other atheists at this site who are able to CLEARLY see that there is "No Free Will" why so many atheists vehemently disagree with it?
What is the psychology behind it?
In the last 5 years, I have done some Poll on this topic at various atheist's sites and found that initially there is 50%-50% split among atheist.
Then, after debating, taking a lot of insult, hammering and getting hammered only 10% to 20% fo the atheist change their mind in favor of "No Free Will".
Still remains, about 40% atheists who are not able to see NO Free Will.
I ask myself why it is so.
To understand No Free Will, one doesn't even need differential equation or complete in depth understanding of Quantum Mechanics (QM)- Observer Created Reality (OCR), or General Theory of Relativity. An average open mind with basic high school knowledge of math, science and logic should be able to see this. One doesn't even have to be genius.
Doe this have anything to do with psychology of how and why one became atheist in the first place?
Does it have to do with ego, and inferiority complex in the acceptance of No Free Will? [One looses control when realized there is no Free Will]
How much emotion is involved here?
What do you think?
I lost faith in God 35 years ago when I was only 15. It happened, when I figured out that there is NO Free Will. My conclusion against theist had nothing to do with personal experience. It was pure logic.
What psychology is behind this stubbornness of some atheists?
What do you think?
I can understand if two smart atheists disagree on if US had gone to Iraq or Not. [We do not have all the facts about world politics.]
But I can't understand why two smart atheists will disagree in such a clear cut issue like "No Free Will"?
That brings us to the second level of psychology of atheist. How and why one became atheist in the first place?
Case Study 1
John is a theist. His mother god sick. John prayed to his Jesus for the cure. He loved his mom a lot. His mom had sacrificed a lot to raise him. John was a good person too. But Jesus did not answer his prayer. His mother died. He cried and cried. Why? Why? Why my mother had to die?Gradually, anger builds up. He got pissed on God. 6 months later he denounced Christianity. He declared himself atheist. John no longer believes in god. He read a lot of atheist books and started giving arguments that he read on those books.
Case study 2
Tommy was raised in a non-practicing Christian family. His father was a scientist. He read a lot of scientific book. Stephen Hawking became his ideal. He search for the truth all of his life. He took theist and atheist side alike, alternately to test his own understanding. His objective was neither to neither prove nor disprove theism or atheism but to find what the truth is. Finally, he decaled that the probability of atheism be correct is much higher than that of theism.
When new complex question asked, John stumbled. Tommy responded with coherency and logic. However, both are denying the existence of god.
How would you describe the state of John and Tommy's mind?
I agree, that according to dictionary definition: Anyone who denies the existence of god is an atheist.
But as I have said, earlier that we need to go after logical definition of words.
I would like to declare myself as "XYZ" (or atheist) provided the requirement to be in this group is: "the state of mind has to be logical and coherent". Just saying “there is no god” is not sufficient.
A properly configured, connected neural network , coherent, consistency in reasoning, is far more fundamental than uttering "No God" or "God".
Method of determination of God or No God is far more important that the result of it.
We should love the methodology and not necessarily the conclusion.
What should the logical definition of atheist:
a) a coherent mind or
b) declaration of "NO GOD'?
I suspect, half of the self proclaimed atheist belongs to John’s category-case study 1 above.
I agree with you that, my calling someone “Fake Atheist” doesn’t win me friends.
Maybe, I should call them BrainWashed atheist.
I firmly believe there are many brain washed atheists just as there are brain washed theist out there.
Of course, I can clearly see that you and many other are not brainwashed.
Why am I here in the first place?
To win friends?
To please others?
Or to test my ideas and learn, enhance my understanding of this Universe?
Ok. I understand what you're saying.
I think you're probably putting too much importance on a single aspect of the total argument against theism, but I see what you're saying.
Think of it this way. Suppose someone suggested to me that flies spontaneously grow out of dead meat. I could do any number of experiments to determine if this is true or not.
First, I could get a piece of sterilized meat, and keep it in a clean, impenetrable place, and observe it until it rotted away into nothing. I could do this multiple times, and after 100 out of 100 times, no flies appeared, I could say with some certainty that flies do not grow out of dead meat. They come from somewhere else.
Now, the experiment is a good one, and the results are true, and I have refuted the claim. I'm done.
However, someone could come along and say that I'm ignorant because I don't actually know where flies do come from. But, maybe all I was interested in was knowing that flies do not come from meat. Maybe that's enough for me, and I'm not interested in knowing exactly where they do come from. Or perhaps, it never occurred to me to ask where they came from.
The point is, I'm not wrong. I'm correct in believing that flies do not come from meat. I'm just as correct as the person who knows where flies do come from.
In the same way, there are dozens of ways to logically deduce that god doesn't exist. Suppose someone thinks of one of the easiest ways to deduce this:
There is no evidence that god exists. If god did exist, we would see evidence. Therefore, god doesn't exist.
It's not a very strong proof, but it's all true. If it's enough for this person, then he loses belief in god, and he's an atheist. If he goes the rest of his life, and never seeks any deeper logical truth, then he is still an atheist.
Then there are those of us who specialize in debating theists. We need to know as many arguments as possible, so we search as deeply as we can to find as many different angles as possible. It's not that we become more atheist, it's that we reinforce our already existing belief.
Just because I happen to be well versed in all the theist arguments and how to refute them, it doesn't make me more atheist or better atheist. It just means I have more interest in pursuing the philosophy of atheism.
Frankly, Tim, I find it very difficult to condemn other atheists simply because they don't feel the need to pursue deep philosophical truths. If they're happy living atheist lives, I'm happy for them.
(And, also, I still don't see why you think it is important for every atheist to believe that there is no free will. That's a puzzle to me. I didn't come to that conclusion for a decade after becoming an atheist, and it didn't really do anything practical to my conception of the universe.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Very good question. I am glad you made me think on that. I just started thinking on my own psychology on this.
Why? Why? Why? May be my meme gene. It might have something to do with my number 2 of my following 3 ground rules. Application of :
1. Filter of justice (symmetrical test) to extract the truth
2. Qualified, 3td Party, Double Blind Test. [Q3PDBT]
3. Successive Approximation.
I learned that it is possible for one (including myself) to go crazy or have multiple personality disorder or have some kind of problem in mind. Or I can simply make mistake. Anticipating the possibility of such a situation I am obligated to use [Q3PDBT]. That is I need confirmation from other 's heads. Theists are neither qualified nor can behave like Double Blind. So I go to atheist site. Since "No Free Will" is so solid and clear to me but I cannot get 80% to 90% atheist agree on it I probably, started to suspect, my conclusion. Not because I got blurred in my mind but because it is not getting a good grade from atheist [Q3PDBT] that forces me to look into my own logic again. I don't find error. Probably that's what frustrates me. But that's OK. I can learn to live with that.
Practicality? I think, there is very little practicality in philosophy anyway. some say, it is just mental masturbation.
Have you watched the movie title, "Beautiful Mind"? This movie is about the Nobel Laureate, Mathematician, and John Nash. He is in his 70s now. Later I watched his interview on 60 minutes. He had split personality in his 30s to 50s. But he was able to manage/control his mental illness only by utilizing [Q3PDBT] that is, relying less on his own mind but a little more on outside world and other's mind.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes and formatting]
Just a note for the sake of clarity. John Nash did not have Multiple Personality Disorder. John Nash was schizophrenic. He forced himself to not acknowledge his hallucinations.
There's a huge difference.
Schizophrenia Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction.
Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) Dissociation is defined as a complex mental process that provides a coping mechanism for individuals confronting painful and/or traumatic situations.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Quantum physics suggest randomness, I haven't head of anything that can get down on a more granule level in the universe, anything that could be predicted with accuracy... but then there wouldn't be a need for quantum physics. It suggests free will. But I'm not sold on it.
The day any future outcome in the universe can be predicted with 100% accuracy is the day I know free will no longer exists, until then it can be demonstrated that humans' lives are simply less predictable then a rock.
"There was a 100% chance I was going to write this" - Heisenberg.
Susan,
You are correct about John Nash.
My mistake. Sorry.
I just realized, that I knew John Nash had Schizophrenia and not multiple personality disorder. I think, I avoided that word because I could neither pronounce nor spell Schizophrenia. Shame on me. Funny isn't it.
And ...thank you very much for fixing the format of my previous post.
I have noticed sometime some weired things happens in formatting at this site. sometime things get copied multiple time.
Plus it would be great if you folks can add Poll feature at this site.
thanks.
Ive read your post and I think it is pretty interesting.
I have always theorized that if we had a computer able to handle the work load we could put all the data of the atomic makeup of something and all the data about outside forces and the make up of those forces...ect. We could predict what we see as random outcomes...rolling a die, flipping a coin.
This never seemed too much of a stretch for me, I just dont think we will ever possess a computer to handle the work load. But on a theory level I thought it was reasonable.
I just never really made the next step.
Using Newton's laws, every action requires a previous action and a following action.
Every cell in your body is controled by a series of previous actions. Including the release of biochemicals that, I assume, are responsible for emotions, memory and "choices" you make.
So it seems logically if you know the previous step you can predict the next one. and if you know that previous step you can predict the previous one. Also if you know the present step you can predict the future one and so on...
This would work for dice, coins or human emotions and choices. Does prediction with 100% accuracy mean there is no free will? it sure sounds like it.
But I am not ready to buy into the whole free will thing...I think it is worth more debate and thought but this is why I am not really sure...
1st, I am not the most educated with advanced physics...maybe some of my base assumtions are false.
2nd, I dont know if Newtons laws really apply to QM.
3rd, I dont think we know the total truth to physics....If we are missing a few vital parts it could ruin the whole logic process.
4th, there really seems no way to test this hypothosis without the Supercomputer which I feel is not possible.
5th, from my personal point of view...there seems to be the illusion of free will...it is hard to deny. Maybe the interlocking of events and reations is just on too grand a scale for my mind to see as predictable.
Of course...feel free to correct me, enlighten me, refute me or praise me...
Edit: I forgot to comment on this...as far as no free will not be responsible for your actions stuff. a fire can be said not to be responsible for its actions nor does it have free will but it is danerous and we destroy it, the same should be dont to any object or person who is a direct threat to your life if they dont have free will does not change the fact they are just as dangerous...plus if we dont have free will the outcome of the reaction to action of the perp is prederermined.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Universe as a whole is the system.
Nothing is more complex than the whole Universe. My argument for "No Free Will" concept takes the whole universe, excludes nothing, nothing, period.
All adaptation is within the system, Universe. Nothing, nothing in the universe can change anything at will.
Lot like they got faith. It is just not the same faith as theists.
iluvc2h5oh,
You are good. you are doing fine.
Just keep thinking with open mind. Even after If and when you are convinced of "No Free Will", please do not stop there. Then think why about half of the atheists of the world do not initially agree with it? Why?Is it sufficient to utter something to be in a vaunted group?
That would be religion's way. Wouldn't be?
Or there should be a requirement for at least minimum intellectual capability, coherency.
We must acknowledge that there are many Brain Washed atheists out there.
But then again, keep in mind,,,, who am I (Tim)?
I am just a foreigner who doesn't even speak English properly.
Some referred me to the American movies that show US military killing foreigners.
Some called me troll.
Some called me theists.
It is so sad to see the quality of atheism, agnosticsm, and Free thinkers is weakening in an attempt to increase its number. Religion emphasize on number of convert, we should emphasize on quality and quantity both. Obviously, command of English language is not my strength.But some failed to realized, that many non-English speaking scientists from all over the world, Japan, Germany, Frence, China, some who could even speak English as much as I do were able to communicate and came to consencious in many complex scientific issues because the logical meanings are far more important than dictionary meaning of words. It is the person ability to dive deep into the text to extract the concept, reading between the lines, sets scientists, psychologist, and philosophers apart from general public.
Note, these shorter, lighter, Non-English Japanese makes commercially most viable cars of the world.
Math and science and logic are the universal language of intellect, not English.
I admit, However, English is the best language among all other language of the world in its efficiency of accurate communication compared to any other language of the word. Every foreigner should learn and practice English language for his/her own good.
Tim,
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying:
Belief that there is no free will is not necessary to be an atheist, but it is a natural consequence of combining QT, ET, and NT?
Are you also saying that your main interest in asking the question is validating your own conclusions?
Is that correct?
If so, then my answer is that I agree 100% with the statement that it's not a necessary belief, but I don't know enough about any of the sciences mentioned to make an authoritative stand. As far as validating your conclusions, I'd suggest this: If 50% of atheists think one thing, and 50% think the other, it's fair to say that neither side represents a "mental deficiency." Considering how new QT is, I'd say there's probably still some wiggle room.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I don't believe in God, but I have some questions about this logic here. It seems to me to be assumptions and not facts. The assumption that if god existed we would see evidence. We might not. The blind man sees no evidence of light yet light exists. Maybe we don't have the technology or our minds aren't still enough or we are handicapped. And the other thing. And that there is no evidence; isn't the universe evidence?
Now this sounds like a theist argument I am sure. But make no mistake, just because the universe is here doesn't mean I believe in a Deity. I have my own theories that aren't part of this forum.
But for the freewill thing... I don't care. This is philosophical concept that has no reality. It just proves that humans have a specially evolved mind that is aware of the mysteries at the heart of everything. If I want to cut my hair right now, I can. Freewill. If I want to escape my destiny and live forever or redo mistakes I can't. No freewill.
sexysadie,
First, I'd suggest that red is a bad color. For most of us, it's very difficult to read. Maybe something a little more subdued next time?
Now on to your post.
You've kind of missed my point. My personal arguments for atheism are much more in depth, and logically sound.
My point was that for some people, that one argument is enough. Fact is, there are atheists with IQs of 90 and atheists with IQs of 190. Beyond that, there are people who really don't care much either way, and that simple argument is enough for them. They were never scared of hell, and never in danger of believing Christianity, so they don't need much of an argument at all to disbelieve in god. Without indoctrination, it's really simple not to believe in god, actually! The depth of the argument is proof of the depth of indoctrination, not the power of the arguments for theism.
My point is simple: More atheists is a good thing, regardless of what logic they want to use to get there. Holding everyone to the standard of graduate level logic is unreasonable. There's a reason not many people have graduate degrees.
I think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of philosophy test to prove that you're a "true atheist." If you answer "NO" when someone asks if you believe in god, then you're an atheist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Like you are? Lulz.
Possibly because, you know, you can't actually prove your position and therefore any answers are likely to be subjective based upon individual interpretation of both the concept of 'free will' and at what level it can be evaluated?
Better than you have tried and we're still just left with opinion.
Opinions are welcomed. Debate is welcomed. Arrogant insistence that your interpretation and only your interpretation is correct less so because...
See?
Intelligent people make choices based upon evidence and the logical interpretation of that evidence. Because people view things in different ways that means that their interpretation may not match yours.
Yes, I appear to be replying to one.
I honestly do think you're a troll. You make backhand insults and for a foreigner your English is just a little to imperfect - it looks like someone who's first language is English and who's trying to disguise it.
But, hey: opinions, right?
Yes. If you were genuine your posts would fill me with a great deal of sadness. Such intolerance.
And then we can put anyone who doesn't fit the bill in a concentration camp. On the other hand we can accept that just because our common theme is a lack of belief in God or gods that we're not going to agree on everything else.
You know, I'm not so sure of that.
And since most of the sciences use standard naming conventions and units and we have people called 'translators' a dictionary isn't necessary.
Actually I think it's their education and research and it only sets them apart when they're talking about their field. Apart from that they're the same as everyone else.
Using methods learnt from Americans such as W Edwards Demming.
What about biology and chemistry? Hey, where's the love?
Actually it's not. Spanish is probably better it's just that English is the world's trade language which is really what makes the world go round, not science.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
My determination that English is the best, however not perfect, language of the world is not based on the number of people can speak and understand it but on the basis of efficiency of a language. Number of people can speak a language must be, and is also a major factor in determining the comparatively better language.
Given the fact that most major languages already have sufficient grammar, syntax rules, the number one criteria for a superior language is the number of words a language has. Higher number of words in a language implies fewer multiple meaning per word, therefore, less possibility for misunderstanding.the content of information for each word measured in binit. Higher the number of words with distinct meaning in a language conveys the more information when communicated. following is well established mathematics used in information science and cryptology.
Content of the information I = 1 / (log p) binit
I = Information (new info. that I will learn)
log = log base 2p = probability of the new information to be true in my mind before I learn it is true.
The amount of invention and discoveries in all fields of arts, science, psychology, economics, etc. in the last 200 years is far greater than that of last 10,000 years. During this time British and more recently America led the world. Guess what? English language ended up with most new words. English language has close to 2 million words. No other language comes even close to that.
Note, I gave credit where it is due, regardless of if it is my mother tongue or not.
Can you objectively do that, Patrician?
Or are you driven by ego and ego only?
Welcome to the world of objectivity, Patrician!
Rest of your comments are not worth responding for.Tthose are insult not argument.
HD,
2. My following explanation is directed to those atheists ONLY who are able to see and are convinced that there is "No Free Will".
3. Note, that RRS forum has Free Thinker ONLY thread - no theists are allowed in this forum.
4. It will be waste of time debating theists at this level.
5. Similarly, I can put another finer filter for this post of mine. HD,
6. Why some atheists/Free Thinkers inability to see "No Free Will" bothers me?
7. You, I and some other atheists at this forum agreed that using NM, QM, and ET it is pretty clear that "Free Will" cannot and doesn't exist.
8. We also agree the strongest but safest statement a Free thinker can and should give about god is this:
9. "There is no proof that there is a god."
10. Many free thinkers will be reluctant to say, "I can conclusively prove that there is no god."
11. I, Tim, concur.
12. Now compare the strength and clarity of proof against the existence of
a) God
b) Free Will
13. Which one is clearer and more certain in your head?
14. Obviously case against "Free Will" is far stronger than the case against the God since we agreed on line 7.
15. Therefore, one must ask why some free thinkers are quick to accept there is No God but can't or do not want to see there is "No Free Will"
16. This is what puzzles me.
17. What is happening in their head?
18. How much emotion, feeling is taking over their brain's logical circuit.
19. That’s all. I do not think they are bad person or anything. I can live with them.
Thanks.
Are you seriously suggesting that a language is more efficient because it contains more words? You do know that efficiency usually implies less of something rather than more of it, don't you?
Going by your definition the purpose of any language is to facilitate communication and therefore it falls that the easier it is to understand the key principles of that language then the easier it is for people who are not native to a particular tongue to pick it up. English, whilst not the most difficult language to learn, has complexities that the easier romance languages like Spanish and Italian don't. Therefore, from an efficiency point of view you're better off with Spanish.
But, like I said, people learn English because it's the world's trade langauge. That's just the way it works. I'd also point out that the increase in scientific advancement is more likely down to the development of free education, literacy and scientific method than whatever language was in vogue at the time.
Incidentally English probably does have the most words of any comparable modern langauge, however a lot of those words are absorbed from French, German and Dutch. In addition the Oxford English Dictionary states that there are about 170,000 basic words in common usage and about 50,000 that are obsolete. Add in colloquialisms and slang and it brings the figure up to about a million.
So where do you get two million from given that the OED is pretty much the definitive source for the English language - although it acknowledges that, unlike France for example, it is not an official commitee?
Oh and the vocabularly of the educated English speaker is estimated at about 25-30,000 words or so. Just thought I'd point that out to put things in context.
Feel free to interpret them that way. I'm just going to assume that you can't reply to them.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Patrician,
I admire your inquisitiveness.
Just to remind you, English is my second language, I am a foreigner from US perspective, and that I am not a theist.
In communication the accuracy (least ambiguity) is required.
1. The more words you have in a language (which leds to fewer multiple meanings/word, example. 2.3 meanings/word) the more accurate that language is. “Happiness” is a general word. Recently we learned that there are many kinds of happiness. Not only that some feelings are so jumbled mumbled in our head that we did not even know what it was. We found some of those are not even happiness. Recently with the help of neuropsychology, and fMRI, and a lot of Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind Test we are probing deeper and deeper into our psyche to understand what we mean when we say something.
Yap, you are getting there. ...a lot of time we ourselves have no idea what we want to say.
One of the root causes is our still poor choice of words. One of the main reasons why human race is most intellectually advanced is due to our language skill.As a result we are coming up with new words/terminology - mostly are in English. - it is science. Science of language. Many of the ambiguity, false expectation of existence of “Free Will” started from poor vocabulary.
Check out some psychology book and you will find dozens of sub-ordinate words of happiness that explain various types of happiness. These understanding of human emotion, psychology, and then the coining of words to express each feeling accurately are done in English than any other language in the word. This is because most invention is done by English speaking scientists than any other single language. Similarly, pick up dictionary of Economics, Physics, Marine Biology, or anything else. You will be amazed by the power of English language vocabulary. In physics there are some very complex thoughts. those are communicated most effectively in English.
2. Now, you talked about importing and incorporating foreign words into a language. Every language does that. It is just how much import and export are going on. A language cannot and should take the credit of imported words. Otherwise, all language can be shown to be equal.
3. You talked about average person's vocabulary. Notice, I did not attempt to prove my case for English as the best language on the basis of number of people who speak English or on the basis of their vocabulary. Rather I showed you the intrinsic value of English langue over any other language of the world. I do not have good command of English. This is not the fault of English language. It is my fault. My poor vocabulary is my problem. But English language does provide a large number of words for those who want to use it.
Content of the information I = 1 / (log p) binit
I = Information (new info. that I will learn)
log = log base 2p = probability of the new information to be true in my mind before I learn it is true.
What is this formula called, I would like to read more about it.
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Iluvc2h50h,
Well, I am an old man from your standard, just guessing.I do not remember the name of this formula. I learned this 27 years ago and could never forget it because of its reach and implication on many deep thoughts.
I just typed that up from my memory. Google "Information Theory" you might find it.It is pretty easy to understand.Formula is for engineering use but the concept is far more important. Try this.
It might be I = log (1/p)
I am a kind of rusty on these now. I think earlier i typed I = 1 / log p. I will check this later.
Which of the following brings in more information? [I am assuming you are familiar with US cities.]
a) 25 people died in Los Angeles in a single car accident
b) 25 people died in San Francisco in a single car accident
Now, useful information is a different story.
Usefulness would be relative. Whether a large piece of information is useful or not that depend on your particular situation. Above formula is about raw magnitude of information.Here is another example.
This will take 3 sequences of questions/answer back and forth.
Please answers these questions without looking it up otherwise this illustration won't work. You can look it up later.
Do not be afraid. I am not trying to prove you or anyone else dumb or smart. I am trying to illustrate the insight of the Information theory.
here it is...
What is the capital of the following country? [I am assuming you do not live in one of those countries.]
a) Australia
b) China
c) Switzerland
d) UAE (United Arab Emirates)
Melbourne
Bejing
Zurich
Dubie
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Don't look for the correct answers yet.
I wish you had said "I do not know" at least for one of the above.
Now I will have to ask you more. sorry.
What is the capital of
a) Nigeria
b) Nepal
c) Bhutan
d) Brazil
Feel free to say I do not know if you do not know.
You did not give your answer to my first question about 25 people dieying in a single car accident. Please give your answer and justify it.
You will love it when I explain.
I really dont know which gives more information, though I think about it is a greater % of the population in LA as opposed to SF. Or it could be mass transit in SF, one of those trolly cars.
and as for the capitals...
I dont even have a guess for the 1st three.
And Brazil I am thinking 3 different cities....
Ill guess
Brazila (Sal Palo and Rio De Geniro where the other 2 BTW)
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Correct answers are:
1. Capital of Australia is Canberra
2. Capital of Nigeria is Abuja
Please go ahead now varify these capitals then answer the following question.
Which of the above two brought you more information?
In other words by learning those two capitals in which case you gained more?
[BTW, Capital of UAE is not Dubai but Abu Dhabi, and of Brazil's is Brasilia.]
Ok, I checked both of them...they are correct.
1. you didnt ask me about Australia.
2. Which give me more useful info? I could make an argument for both.
a) Australia - it is a western nation and knowing that info could be useful more often than knowing the capital of Nigeria.
b) Nigeria - the capital is lesser known I would guess, so by me knowing that info it makes the knowledge I have of it more valuable. (1 person knowing the formula for coca cola out of 2 people's knowledge would be more valuable than nucular knowledge of one person if that knowledge is known by 1 billion others)
But if I had to pick one to be more valuable to me I would pick knowing the capital of Australia.
(BTW what about that car crash?)
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
I did not ask for useful or valuable information.
As I have stated earlier ( you can scroll up and see that where I first gave out the formula) that usefulness/value of information is relative and could vary depending on zillions of thing.
Here the question is about raw information. The mathematical formula I = log-base 2 (1/p) doesn't measure useful information. It measure absolute magnitude of information.
In another way to look at it is as follow.
$100 may be very useful to you or me but of very little use for Bill Gate or for a person who is stuck in a desert and looking for water and water only. Nevertheless $100 is more than $10 and less than $1,000 in magnitude. No one can deny that.
In science, we learn to measure the magnitude of each characteristic/attribute to its raw magnitude separately regardless of its usability or value. For example, length, time, mass, temperature, charge etc. Each can be compared only with the same kind of attribute. Some attributes/characteristic could be more relevant or important in for different purpose in different situation.
Scientific measurement, "time" could be very important for a person who is 70 years old than who is in his teen. But the fact remains, 1 year is smaller than 2 years. Similary, you can take any kind of measurement. No matter how you slice it we must learn how to meaure each characteristic sperately, individually. Combining things to come up with a conclusion for a specific problem is a different story. Science and Engineering is about measurement.
Having said that.Now tell me which brought you more information.
[I did ask you about Australia.]
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there should be some kind of intellectual benchmark achieved to be an atheist? I hope that's not what you are saying here. Maybe you could clarify this for me? Using very small words
Short answer: Yes. But not until facts and logic already presented, explained and given time to digest it. Coherent mind will be able to see it.
We can apply 1) Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind Test and 2) Succesive Approximation to incorporate this.
Long answer.
It is true that according to dictionary definition whoever says there is no god qualifies as atheist.
But if we dig deeper and go for logical definition/understanding of atheist then we will find a stricter definition.
What I am saying is that my mp3 recorder/player can utter "there is no proof of god" [After I record it and hit the play button]. I wouldn't consider my mp3 player an atheist. I have to see and test the coherency, consistency, logics presented by someone/something in defense of his/it's statement. This test can be done by asking many other logical questions related to this topic.
Another way that might help you to see from my angle is to ask yourself, could there be brainwashed (in certain topic) people?
Three people can say the same thing: "If you go into the space in a straight line for a very long, long time, you will end up where you started from.
"Person A may be just reciting the statement as he/she read somewhere and accepted it.
Person B might give one or two supporting logical explanation in support of that statement and no more. Like, saying because the space is curved in the 4th spatial dimension. But he/she couldn't go any further.
Person C, let's say, gives you a bunch of supporting explanation and was able to answer/explain all sorts of question when asked. In addition, when something else XYZ is proved to him and then shown that xyz is not consistent to his./her statement he did not stumble but reconciled the discrepancy.Who do you think have (better) understanding of what he she/says and who is brain washed.? [Of course, there is a degree of brainwashing]
That brings up to the question of what is the difference in the state of mind ofa) a Brainwashed person (in certain topic)b) a reasoned/understood person (in the same topic). If you think hard you will see it is all about coherent, consistent, holistic logical thoughts in mind that counts and desirable regardless of what we just say.
I agree no one knows the answer of everything. But when pointed out, explicitly shown, and still one doesn't understand or accept it then he/she got some problem in his mind. Not knowing is not a major problem. Not able to see/learn even after clearly presented is a mind problem. [Bug in the software or hardware.] Vorax wrote:Subjective (unverifiable) proof of the Invisible, Undetectable Ring Worm in my Butt: - Sometimes my ass feels itchy and I don't know why
Tim,
Even if you are hypothetically correct about "No Free Will", what is your point? It seems to me that you have an idea that you want everyone to agree with, but it's so subjective. I don't know about you, but I don't react to stimuli like a sheep would.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Vexed wrote:
"I don't know about you, but I don't react to stimuli like a sheep would."
Vexed,
I understand that you think you do not react to stimuli but what objective logic made you to conclude that?Are you in possession of some particles in your head that can violate the laws of nature?If not then you are bound to react in a certain way. It is a different story if you are consciously aware of that or not.
It is like saying, well my mind doesn't give signal to my heart to pump because I do not feel that is happening in my head or I am not aware of that is happening. Power of Logic can span beyond what we feel and consciously aware of. That is the beauty of reason.
We are consciously not aware of that our mind constantly balancing our body while we walk. But our mind does.
I didn't say that I did not react to stimuli, merely that I don't react the same way a sheep would on the same set of stimuli. A sheep just reacts, a person should weigh the Pros/Cons of an action which takes critical thinking.
Conscious decisions require one to validate in their mind what they are doing, which uses reasoning (even if their reasoning is flawed), which is not simply reacting (as 'no free-will' would indicate).
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
I'm actually going to differ with this and a later point, from my own perspective. "Free Will" doesn't exist in my mind for two reasons:
1) We have no choice what we believe. I cannot choose to believe that the sky is red, no matter how hard I want to. Decisions that I reach, though they are colloquially described as "choosing between options" are theoretically 100% predictable, if you happen to have enough data. Since what we choose is always "what we think is the best choice" we're actually not free to choose otherwise.
If I say, I am going to choose what I think is the second best choice, I have a reason for doing so, and have concluded that choosing what I think is the second best choice -- is the best choice.
2) "Free Will" has never been properly defined for me. I'm not saying there isn't a proper definition, but I have never heard it if there is.
(2) is what gives me problems with some of your points. Since there may be a proper definition of free will that I have not heard, it's quite possible that I'm wrong, and that free will does exist. So, I am not clearly sure that there is no free will. I would say I am reasonably certain.
I actually disagree. The strongest statement an atheist can make is "Any god that is defined as 'supernatural' does not exist with 100% certainty, because 'supernatural' cannot refer to anything."
I am much more comfortable with this statement than the one about free will. Even though I am unable to logically disprove every conceivable god, I am 100% certain that ANY and ALL gods that are described as "supernatural" or any variant of the word, cannot, and therefore, do not exist. It is simple logic based on 100% certain definitions.
I am actually not 100% certain that there is no proof of a god that doesn't fit the above description. I have never seen any, and I am 99.9% certain, but that is less certainty than my statement about supernatural.
I agree, so long as we don't include the word "supernatural." If we include that word, then I can conclusively prove that it does not exist.
God.
I have explained my disagreement.
In my case, the definition of god is more certain than the definition of free will, so I feel more certain of my opinion of god.
My conclusion that there is no free will didn't affect me emotionally at all. It was an interesting discovery, but it did not change the way I thought about my day to day life at all. I regard it as a philosophical puzzle that is amusing to think about.
I suspect a lot of atheists simply haven't given it much thought because it doesn't seem immediately important.
I admit, I'm still puzzled as to why it is important to believe this. Even though I think that it's correct to say there's no free will, I don't understand why this should change anything tangible in my life.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
So, which particle, molecules, body cell, neuron, individually and/or collectively, or partially collectively can violate the strict laws of nature?
I'm not American but that's a moot point.
Absolutely.
Up to a point. In reality a lot of the additional words are actually synonyms which make a language more ambiguous.
Fascinating but irrelevant from the efficiency of a language. As mentioned before, the more synonyms a language has, the more confusing it is.
As for your example, given that you are unlikely to have a vocabulary in excess of, say, 30,000 words splitting hairs is a somewhat pointless exercise.
True. Spoken and written language are just parts of communication protocol.
Again true. One of the reasons it was held back was because people were not given access to these skills, hence the explosion in development over the last couple of hundred years with the advent of free and widespread education.
I disagree with this. Most of the additions to the English language are evolutionary to reflect different environments. In addition the development of the English language has actually helped improve the arguments for and against free will be defining terms to describe relative positions on the matter.
In other words it cuts both ways.
You'll get the same in a dictionary.
A lot of whom are importing words from their native tongues into their new language. A classic example is 'schadenfreude', a German word meaning to take pleasure in the misfortunes of another. English has had no equivalent word in usage for over 200 years yet this has now been adopted as a loaned word.
The reason English expands faster than other languages, which I think I touched on in my previous post, is not just because its native speakers invent new words for new situations - which, like speakers of all other languages, they do - but because it is constantly importing words from other tongues.
And were communicated in Latin quite adequately. English is just the tool being used because it's a trade langauge. If Spanish or French had been the dominant language of America I can assure you we would be using that instead. Of course, it wouldn't be the same French or Spanish as is spoken now just as English would not be the same if it hadn't been the international trade language for the last few centuries.
I know. However when it's used as secondary langauge by a considerablel number of different nationalities all with their own languages and dialects it wil absorb more.
I'm sorry but a language is merely the sum of its component words. Every language evolves and the more opportunities it has to do so the faster this will happen. If you compare Old English to Middle English to Modern English they are all very, very different and most of these differences are down to the absorption of words from other langauges.
I know, but since they're the ones using the language it's important to note its limitations.
Which is where I think you're wrong. English is the way it is because it has been added to for centuries. This has made it a complex beast although its basic principles are still fairly straightforward. English has only become like it is because it's a trade language. It isn't really intrinsically superior to any other modern language.
More commonly used? Yes. Better and easier to learn? No.
It does, however a lot of them were not originally English.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Error
Patrician
In all of your above argument you are trying to show why English ended up with more vocabulary. I already have showed you that.
You are trying to show why new English words added as new inventions/discoveries grew; US, British Empire, world politics, economics, and of course there 101 other reasons for it.
I did not argue about how and why it became so. I said, it is so.
When one guy beats another in a game, the loser says: we both are equal. You won because you practice more. You won because you were born rich and got to hire good instructors. You won because you are in better health than I am. You won because you are not lazy as I am. Patrician, you are making loser’s argument.
English is superior language to all. Period.
Do you agree or not that English has most vocabulary?
Do you agree that I = log (base 2) 1/p?
On this basis alone English is far superior.
Patrician
Now, how come you ran away from your own thread, "OK, Tim, Let's play".
I have thoroughly cornered you there too. Please go there and respond.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9209
Correct.
Your standards of intellect are relevant only to you. I understand that no true atheist would behave in a fashion outside of your equation but does someone really need to hop through your mental hoops to qualify to have their thoughts?
Hardly.
But still you do not have any counter argument.
I do not rely on my mind to much. I use "Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind Test"
Didn't know there were "Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind Tests" in regards to 'Justice vs Compassion'. I'd love to see all of these 'double blind tests', since I don't rely on your mind either.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
I don't know what that means.
I must not be a "true" atheist. I guess I'll be going then.
Free will- is there any?
This question is independent of god.
We could all be a computer simulation made by a highly advanced race. (Tons of algorithms). IE no free will.
Or we could be controlled by 'god' (assuming god's existence, where I don't believe it, just because it definitely is a possibility).
Or we could be subject to something more mundane that restricts free will.
Or things could be as they seem and your decision to buy coke instead of Pepsi could actually be a decision.
Nobody knows.
The question just seems irrelavent to me.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
If free will is simply the result of your brain's current state, can the same thing be said about "free thought"?
Is that just a pathetic joke as well? Should we all give up and go (back) to church?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That is a real joke.
Not sure what you're saying here...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think he meant "giving up and going back to church" is a real joke.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I would like to state simply that the question "Do we have free will?" doesnt supply you with enough information as to what the person asking the question is really asking... The person asking the question might actually mean, Do we have the ability to "change our minds", in which case the answer would be yes. He or she might also mean, is it posible for us to predict the future outcome of anothers choices because their choice has to be what it is and cant be any other choice, in which case, as was already stated, the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says it would not be possible. If he or she means, can our brains defy the laws of physics because we want or feel like they should, then the answer is obviously no... The laws of science do not give way to convience, people can make a choice and that choice may or may not be preditermined by the laws of physics, but the person is still making the choice of their own will, their will may be a byproduct of atoms and energy just interacting in a way that they have to, but the person is still making the choice according to the persons own will...
Incorrectly. You state that English has two million words. It doesn't. You also say it's a more efficient language because it has more words. It isn't.
Moving on.
Well, duh.
Did you? Really? Was that when you said it was better than other languages even though English actually borrowed words from those other languages?
Really? Despite the fact that:
a) Your statement about the number of words in the English language is wrong.
b) You state that a language having more words makes it more efficient.
Hmm... You lost because your 'facts' are wrong. That's all.
No. It. Isn't. English is the world's trade langauge. It isn't the easiest to learn and it doesn't have the best grammatical structure. What it does have is common usage. That doesn't make it intrinsically better than other modern languages.
Or are you going to claim that Ford Focus' are better cars than Porsche 911's because, you know, more people use them?
Yes, I believe I pointed that out when correcting your mistake about the number of words in that vocabulary.
No idea.
And as explained countless times. No it isn't, it's just used more.
Possibly because I have other things to do than monitor an internet message board? Also possibly because you were talking a load of ill informed bollocks there too.
But, hey ho, I'll reply.
No, you've just convinced me that you're either a troll or a mental patient if I'm being honest.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.