OK, Tim. Let's play...
Offline Given that free will is - at least in your eyes - an incoherent concept and therefore every possible action is determined by a prior cause to the point where we cannot change the way we are then why do people make different choices during different iterations of the same or similar scenarios?
See, I'm a compatabilist. I believe that - as I quoted in your topic:
There is no such thing as predestination, there is only a selection matrix of choices some of which have a higher probability of being picked than others.
That is, free will and determinism are compatible. We may have arrived at where we are by the influence of external agencies that mold us into what we are but we are free to make individual choices based on who we are now. If this were not the case then our actions would be utterly predictable, yet we cannot say for certain how an individual will act in a certain situation even if we have seen them act in a particular way a thousand times before.
Of course, you may argue that we can only make the choices that our own personality allows us to make given a particular set of stimuli - and to a degree my quote supports this - but a lack of free will intimates that we are doomed to make the same choice again and again rather than selecting a weighted preference from a range of possibilities.
So, what say you?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
- Login to post comments
HD,
Should I even respond to this?
What do you think?
The patrician,
Please re-read my thesis that uses, NM, QM, and EM. Answer to your questions/argument are already there. Also see HD response.
Why do you need a seperate thread?
Please continue in the existing thread "Free Will - If there is any?"
Because each iteration (and events in between) change the state of the brain which can alter the outcome. Simply aging is enough to produce a different result. Also each iteration would have to be slightly different as it would be impossible to recreate the exact same scenario.
That's still the state of your brain responding to external stimuli. How does that imply choice?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
LOL, Tim. you're on your own to decide what to respond to. I'm just interested in making sure everyone keeps it on the debate level, and not the ad-hominem level.
As a mod, I will point out that this does look an awful lot like the previous thread. You guys care if I merge them?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby - He asked for a debate. He's getting one.
Tim - I read your 'thesis' and it's my opinion that it's a load of ill informed bollocks. The purpose of this thread is to start the debate without having to wade through reams of verbiage.
But it doesn't matter where it takes place as long as you respond, does it?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Simply because we do not limit ourselves to one action. The state of our brain is merely its state at the time an action was carried out.
What you should be asking yourself is what puts the brain in that stae in the first place and how do we quantify it.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Patrician,
I was talking about this thread:http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9203
Have you read and ponder on it?
Here is my response to your argument.
You asked, "why then do WE make different choices in same or similar situations".
Counter argument 1
"Similar" doesn’t work properly in science to get the same result. It has to be the “same”.
Counter argument 2
There is no "same" situation out there.
Do you think, each and every cell, molecules, particles, in two people is exactly the same?
Do you think their history is the same?
Do you think our relative position, location is the same in the universe? [No two objects can occupy the same space and time.]
If not then why would the result be the same?
Counter argument 3
Until you tell me that some neurons, body cells, molecules or particles in the universe can break the laws of nature, Free Will is not even possible.
If there is some violation of laws of nature is going on in the Universe then Free Will could be possible but still is not necessarily probable. We still have to show that Free Will is there.
Exact same line of logic is applied against the existence of God. How can then some atheists are very quick, and draw comfort in denying the existence of God but cannot apply consistent logic in case of “No Free Will”? [one possibility is that accepting “No Free Will” make them feel small, losing controll. Not a desirable-ego friendly outcome.]
I therefore, accuse only this class of atheists of having FAITH (Brain Washed) atheists.
There are many (not all) Brain Washed atheists out there and almost all of the theists are Brain Washed. [Please read my response to HD post in the above link where I gave example of Case study 1, and 2, and last few lines in the same post.]
Consistency, coherency, justice, symmetrical test, with your own thoughts is the scientific method that a free thinker should love and apply. If this methodology proves there is God or Free Will, then so be it. Fact of the matter is this methodology proves neither.
Ok, will do.
Unprovable given that you could argue that no situation is exactly the same if you take it down to a subatomic level. However, we can say that some situations - as far as human conciousness goes - are sufficiently similar to be regarded as identical.
Since humans cannot perceive things at the subatomic level I maintain that there are situations that are sufficiently similar as to be, for all logical purposes, identical.
Quantum physics suggests this. Of course, there are counter arguments against this but they're for you to find.
We are arguing for or against the possibility of free will, not it's likelihood.
And that's where you miss the point: I believe there is no God I do not know there is no God. Similary I believe there is free will, I do not know if there is and, since this is one of the oldest metaphysical questions around, I would say that it's pretty obvious no-one else does either.
Not at all. I'm just not arrogant enough to pretend I know something that can't be proven one way or the other.
Absurd. You have to have faith in anything that isn't absolutely proven. Sure, some things require a lot less faith to believe in than others but the point still stands. You can believe or disbelieve all you want but you do not know. That's all that matters in the end.
Nor disproves it.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
No, I accept that currently neither God nor free will can be proven or disproven.
Feel free to answer the rest of the points raised.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The only difference i see between your and my statements above is that you inserted the word "currently".
Do we agree on that?
Yes, we can agree on that although I think you see that as a starting point whereas I see it as a final deduction.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Patrician,
Good. We found some common ground.
I am begining to think you are a reasonable person. A reasonable person is the one who relies on reason.
Please note that anything and everything we discuss, then conclude and arrive to a resolution is and must be based upon what we know today, now. Otherwise, anything goes.
What if tomorrow, a new theory comes in and throw away all of our scientific theory, laws, understanding, logic of the last 10,000 years and come up with a new one, then what?
Should we allow any future knowledge of which we know nothing about to interfere in our debate, understanding, decision making?
So, there is an implicit understanding when communicating between two intelligent lifeforms that we will apply all existing knowledge to understand and explain things. We cannot and shouldn't make our conclusion on the basis of what we do not know.
I think, inside you are a fair minded person and will do the justice.
Absolutely. And at the current moment free will cannot be either proven or disproven.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Even if I take your words as is then why you (and other brain washed atheists) are so quick to accept that there is no god but not willing to accept there is no-free will. Is that fair?
I believe that there isn't a God just as I believe there is free will. I have no way of knowing if either is true or not.
Belief is about levels of confidence. I do not believe in God because no satisfactory case can be made for his existence therefore I am confident that he does not exist. Conversely I believe in free will because the compatabilist position puts forth a cogent argument giving a compelling case for its existence at the very least in the terms that Hume and others define it. That's the difference.
It's interesting you use the term 'brain washed' here. My Chambers' on-line defines this as "to force someone to change their beliefs or ideas, etc by applying continual and prolonged mental pressure". Were English your first tongue I'm sure I wouldn't have to explain the irony of your usage of the word to you given your monomaniacal belief that your interpretation is right and all others must be converted.
Tim, you have nothing new to say, all you have is your opinion and, unfortunately for you, opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one. The reason I let this die is because you aren't bringing anything fresh to the free will argument and until you do so I don't see much value in responding.
After all, I could just read the Free Will section on Wiki and have all the opinions that have been presented in here and your topics.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Don't expect an answer. He asked to get banned a couple days ago and they did.
I see. So he was a troll after all.
Shock horror.