• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is free will illusory?

It is actually a very apropos analogy.

It would be except that people are more than just the physical makeup of the body.

Objects behave predictably due to the laws and circumstances of this universe. That is exactly the claim we are making when we say Free Will is an illusion.

With quantum physics that's no longer strictly true... Objects behave deterministically, except the actual observed results will have an element of "randomness".

In the same vein, we act mainly according to deterministic laws, but then there is the possibility to break with the genetics, brain chemistry, and upbringing to exert free will in your decisions.

Frankly, not only is Free Will an illusion but it is impossible to even hypothesize how a universe with free will would behave. It just cannot possibly exist.

Just because you can't conceive of it does not mean it is impossible.

You probably believe in the upward causation model; where you start with quarks and the building blocks of the atom which combine to create molecules, that in turn form the cells, that makes the brain that generates consciousness.

Well, what happens when the atom only exists as a waveform potential because there is no observer to collapse the waveform potential of that atom? This is a paradox that cannot be explained with a materialistic viewpoint.

So, consciousness / awareness is a precursor to life. Even Stephen hawking made that kind of statement, by stating that the universe began as a waveform potential that ultimately collapsed into the big bang. (he did not mention anything about consciousness though, since he is still an atheist)


The Universe either behaves according to the deterministic principles of cause and effect OR (on the subatomic level) it behaves randomly as suggested by modern quantum theory. No combination of those two spontaneously births the commonly accepted definition of Free Will.

Randomly is still the wrong word, because it's probabilistic based on some definite equations, just the actualized results are random. Since that's the buildup of the universe, it's just the opposite, the material world would not exist without the conscious / awareness / observer that possesses free will / creative capacity in order to collapse the possibilities into actualized reality.



Free Will simply cannot exist in this Universe

More like the universe simply cannot exist without free will.
 
People are not objects. Thank you for proving that gravity has nothing to do with anything and you have no argument. I accept your surrender.

Ya, it's like saying there is no material difference from a living thing and a dead thing...

There's a clear difference between living and dead, but because materialistically they are the same, they are treated as the same.
 
It would be except that people are more than just the physical makeup of the body.



With quantum physics that's no longer strictly true... Objects behave deterministically, except the actual observed results will have an element of "randomness".

In the same vein, we act mainly according to deterministic laws, but then there is the possibility to break with the genetics, brain chemistry, and upbringing to exert free will in your decisions.



Just because you can't conceive of it does not mean it is impossible.

You probably believe in the upward causation model; where you start with quarks and the building blocks of the atom which combine to create molecules, that in turn form the cells, that makes the brain that generates consciousness.

Well, what happens when the atom only exists as a waveform potential because there is no observer to collapse the waveform potential of that atom? This is a paradox that cannot be explained with a materialistic viewpoint.

So, consciousness / awareness is a precursor to life. Even Stephen hawking made that kind of statement, by stating that the universe began as a waveform potential that ultimately collapsed into the big bang. (he did not mention anything about consciousness though, since he is still an atheist)




Randomly is still the wrong word, because it's probabilistic based on some definite equations, just the actualized results are random. Since that's the buildup of the universe, it's just the opposite, the material world would not exist without the conscious / awareness / observer that possesses free will / creative capacity in order to collapse the possibilities into actualized reality.





More like the universe simply cannot exist without free will.

Hopefully I can make this clear to you so I don't have to hear anymore of this pseudo-scientific babble that just seems to spew unbidden from the "non-local" fuzzy word factory you call your consciousness.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are so desperately wrong and/or misinformed about Modern Quantum Theory that it is difficult to even begin to explain how very wrong you are. PUT DOWN SUPERBRAIN OR RADICAL KNOWING OR WHICHEVER BOOK BY DEEPAK CHOPRA OR AMIT GOSWAMI YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDS AND LEARN ACTUAL SCIENCE. Both of those men are charlatans capitalizing on the uninformed masses(ie YOU) to make money or to make themselves feel ultra-super-mega important. Every single theoretical physicist, when asked about these men will tell you without hesitation that they are not accurately portraying the science they talk about.

If you want a point by point rejection of your claims feel free to ask but I am not just going to type it out here because, frankly, I don't think you would read it.
 
Well, there's a part that is like a dice roll, but it's still a "decision" to "observe" and so collapse the randomness into an actual.

No it isn't because that "decision" is a result of mechanical and natural activities in the brain all casued by the laws of nature and causality.

Actually not quite; there were studies that were done, the one that showed that your brain made the decision to act in the microseconds before the actual act. That made a case against free will, but with a small tweak, by telling the person to change their mind about the action at the last second, and the brain activity reflected the choice building up until the "choice" broke with that and made a different action.

Yeah that study doesn't really convince me 100% against free will, my oposition fo free will is philosophical. But that doesn't show anything FOR free will. his change of mind was still done through mental activity which are 100% caused by physical phenomenon, otherwise new energy is being inserted into the universe EVERY time a decision is made. but that isn't the case, the last second command to change ones mind, caused imput into the brian changing the physical brain state which caused a different decision.

Well, there was a study in the early 90's, where a group of meditators over 4 weeks would intend to lower crime, murder rates did not drop but with all violent crime they dropped the crime rate by about 20%.

Another one, look up quantum SQUID...

Even the studies where it was shown that intention has an impact on random number generators, and then expanding that to reflect the "delayed choice" experiment.

The first study I need to look at because I'm extremely skeptical about that.
Also what does quantum SQUID have to do with anything?
THe random number generators is more than free will thing, what your proposing is a kind of telekenysis or something, I need to see the studies.

The simplest way would be to say that, just like how matter is probabilistic and uncertain (without observation), our brains operate indeterminately based on probabilities rather than the determinism of materialism.

But that isn't (even if it were true) agency ... it's still materialism.

But if our brains work that way why doesn't the rest of matter? Or brain is just carbon and electrical waves and so on.

Ya, but they both have the same genetics and virtually the same upbringing, the only difference was the meaning they took from their lives that set them on a different path...

Either way, I don't see that deterministic viewpoint as being sustainable in light of the new physics.

No that's nonsense, virtually the same upbringing is not the same upbringning, and they don't have EXACTLY the same genetics, and at everypoint in their lives they are getting different sense data.
 
Hopefully I can make this clear to you so I don't have to hear anymore of this pseudo-scientific babble that just seems to spew unbidden from the "non-local" fuzzy word factory you call your consciousness.

http://www.academia.edu/1798929/A_Proposed_Experiment_on_Consciousness-Related_Quantum_Teleportation

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/146724002

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are so desperately wrong and/or misinformed about Modern Quantum Theory that it is difficult to even begin to explain how very wrong you are. PUT DOWN SUPERBRAIN OR RADICAL KNOWING OR WHICHEVER BOOK BY DEEPAK CHOPRA OR AMIT GOSWAMI YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDS AND LEARN ACTUAL SCIENCE. Both of those men are charlatans capitalizing on the uninformed masses(ie YOU) to make money or to make themselves feel ultra-super-mega important. Every single theoretical physicist, when asked about these men will tell you without hesitation that they are not accurately portraying the science they talk about.

First, consider that for centuries there has been a split between science and philosophical / religion religious questions.

This continues to this day, consider that you will spend a few years learning classical physics and calculus just to get into the math required, so the reductionist / material model is a tough idea to let go.

Especially when the implications risk crossing into the territory of philosophical issues...

Now, this is not all, but in order to avoid the questions of consciousness, most scientists discussing the effects found in quantum physics come up with a variety of interpretations, that create other logical problems.

the point is that while the effects are quite conclusive, and the math being EXTREMELY accurate in its predictions, the interpretations, however are numerous and each have a variety of experimental evidence to back up those assertions.

But, since the same effects also explain some of those strange synchronicities that happen randomly in every day life... Like when you think of a friend you haven't talked to in a while and your phone rings.

Also, btw...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone

If you want a point by point rejection of your claims feel free to ask but I am not just going to type it out here because, frankly, I don't think you would read it.

No, I'm not usually one to give those one line responses, but my first concern is that you are planning to build a strawman..
 
No it isn't because that "decision" is a result of mechanical and natural activities in the brain all casued by the laws of nature and causality.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, there's causality, but then there's also an element of free will.... How do you handle your roll of the dice?


Yeah that study doesn't really convince me 100% against free will, my oposition fo free will is philosophical. But that doesn't show anything FOR free will. his change of mind was still done through mental activity which are 100% caused by physical phenomenon, otherwise new energy is being inserted into the universe EVERY time a decision is made. but that isn't the case, the last second command to change ones mind, caused imput into the brian changing the physical brain state which caused a different decision.

Yes, the brain still is involved in the new decision, but the "preparation" indicated a different result.


1-The first study I need to look at because I'm extremely skeptical about that.
2-Also what does quantum SQUID have to do with anything?
3-THe random number generators is more than free will thing, what your proposing is a kind of telekenysis or something, I need to see the studies.

1- http://kristofferhell.net/doc/Maharishi-Effect_Washington-93-study_fulltext.pdf
It's not a huge effect, 20% sounds like a lot, but for a period of 4 weeks, there's not going to be a big number of violent crimes... That said, robberies (and murders) did not decrease, but assaults and rape did decrease...

2- that quantum effects exist on a macro level.

3- http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_2_mason.pdf

This is just one paper of literally hundreds of replications on this type of experiment. With very similar results, which follows quantum theory in that the effect is proportional to the number of people involved and inversely proportional to the sample size (the random string).

The results even matched when this study was performed to replicate the "delayed choice" experiment.

But that isn't (even if it were true) agency ... it's still materialism.

But if our brains work that way why doesn't the rest of matter? Or brain is just carbon and electrical waves and so on.

Maybe I misstated, because the material cannot be ignored, but to say that materialism is primary is unsustainable.

I think a key question that would help address this is to address what the difference is from a living and a dead body.

Material wise there is no distinction to be made...



No that's nonsense, virtually the same upbringing is not the same upbringning, and they don't have EXACTLY the same genetics, and at everypoint in their lives they are getting different sense data.

But it's as close to the same circumstance as you could find... More important than the details here is the principle that it's not just the nature / nurture, theres Also the factor of how just taking a different meaning from what happens in your life can have a drastic variation on the direction your life will go.
 
A Proposed Experiment on Consciousness-Related Quantum Teleportation | Boris Ko

Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. et al - ''The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain...'' - Physics Essays, Vol 7, No 4 - 1994.pdf



First, consider that for centuries there has been a split between science and philosophical / religion religious questions.

This continues to this day, consider that you will spend a few years learning classical physics and calculus just to get into the math required, so the reductionist / material model is a tough idea to let go.

Especially when the implications risk crossing into the territory of philosophical issues...

Now, this is not all, but in order to avoid the questions of consciousness, most scientists discussing the effects found in quantum physics come up with a variety of interpretations, that create other logical problems.

the point is that while the effects are quite conclusive, and the math being EXTREMELY accurate in its predictions, the interpretations, however are numerous and each have a variety of experimental evidence to back up those assertions.

But, since the same effects also explain some of those strange synchronicities that happen randomly in every day life... Like when you think of a friend you haven't talked to in a while and your phone rings.

Also, btw...
Macro-Weirdness: "Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once: Scientific American



No, I'm not usually one to give those one line responses, but my first concern is that you are planning to build a strawman..

So I call out the figurehead of your movement as a fraud and a charlatan and the only "evidence" you can come up with to support your ideas is based on the work of said fraud...

Those papers are trash.

Oh and BTW as an alumnus of UofA I happen to know two of the people cited in those studies. Neither of them would support their work being cited by Koznjak.
 
So I call out the figurehead of your movement as a fraud and a charlatan and the only "evidence" you can come up with to support your ideas is based on the work of said fraud...

Those papers are trash.

Ok, funny how the studies have also been repeated, More times than I had sourced.

Also, that's just ad hom argument there... Well, Chopra is kinda goofy, and Amit well, all I could find about him is that he's had been a physicist for something like 30 years, and has even written some textbooks.

That entire argument, however, is still a strawman in that I am only vaguely aware of those two (aside from looking them up to see who you were talking about and what evidence of fraud there is)

That said, among the eminent physicists, the top dogs in the field, it's really a rift where the more numerous materialist scientists come up with ways to ignore the question of consciousness. Then there is a smaller number of equally qualified people that see this all as the most direct evidence for "god" (though it may require a better definition) that's ever come around.


Oh and BTW as an alumnus of UofA I happen to know two of the people cited in those studies. Neither of them would support their work being cited by Koznjak.

Seems to me you are attacking this from a position of dogma.... I don't suppose you have any actual published counters to those articles?
 
My thoughts on this subject break down like this:

1) The discussion about determinism, and specifically, the kind of determinism, is pretty important. Determinism in any modern sense is an invention of the enlightenment (though it has ancient roots), and whether fortunately or unfortunately, it turns out to be almost certainly false. Without a deterministic universe, it's difficult, though not impossible, to formulate arguments against free will.

2) With regard to the point about the deterministic universe being almost certainly false: determinism in the sense that some cause x leads, via physical law, to some effect y, is probably false. Let's call this D1. Another kind of determinism, which is much milder, merely has it that for any effect, there is some like cause. This is D2. In D2, there is a question about how this term "like" is to play out, but there is also no evidence that we live in a world predicated by D2.

3) So, we don't know what kind of world we live in. We do have an experience of willing some kinds of things to happen (like moving an arm or going to the store), and then those things do in fact happen. I think points 1 and 2 should lead us to a point of complete neutrality about whether we have free will or not. The fact that our experience seems to indicate that we have free will seems to be the only thing that really tips the scales one direction or another.

4) Despite 3, how much value you place on experience will likely determine where you come out on this issue. If you don't think felt experience is probative, then you may still incline towards a lack of free will on the basis of some ideas about how to interpret the findings of physics, or perhaps out of the difficulties of defining just what "free will" might mean (it can't be random, and it can't be determined). If you do think experience is probative, then you may incline to believe there is free will.

There's no good way to resolve the debate. I think experience is probative, but I acknowledge those who don't have good reason to think so. The only comment I would make is there doesn't seem to be a lot of reciprocity about this, and perhaps for meta-philosophical reasons, I choose not to align with that position.
 
That's pretty much what I'm saying, there's causality, but then there's also an element of free will.... How do you handle your roll of the dice?

No, you're missing the point, even without full causality due to quantum indeterminism, that give you free will, it gives you randomnes which is NOT free will.

Yes, the brain still is involved in the new decision, but the "preparation" indicated a different result.

Yes in the same way a cloud is involved in a thunder storm, but it doesn't act differently than all other matter in nature, it still is 100% determined by the laws of nature and causality, (or quantum indeterminism).

1- http://kristofferhell.net/doc/Maharishi-Effect_Washington-93-study_fulltext.pdf
It's not a huge effect, 20% sounds like a lot, but for a period of 4 weeks, there's not going to be a big number of violent crimes... That said, robberies (and murders) did not decrease, but assaults and rape did decrease...

2- that quantum effects exist on a macro level.

3- http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_2_mason.pdf

This is just one paper of literally hundreds of replications on this type of experiment. With very similar results, which follows quantum theory in that the effect is proportional to the number of people involved and inversely proportional to the sample size (the random string).

The results even matched when this study was performed to replicate the "delayed choice" experiment.

Corrolation doesn't mean causality, and what you're proposing is telekenisis ... not free will, that WAY beyond.

I'll have to look at that stuff.

Maybe I misstated, because the material cannot be ignored, but to say that materialism is primary is unsustainable.

I think a key question that would help address this is to address what the difference is from a living and a dead body.

Material wise there is no distinction to be made...

I'm not proposing materialism, even without a materailistic worldview you can't have free will, even if we have a soul, the decisions the sould makes are either caused or internal to it's nature.

The difference between a living and a dead body is that the brain is functioning in a living one ....

But it's as close to the same circumstance as you could find... More important than the details here is the principle that it's not just the nature / nurture, theres Also the factor of how just taking a different meaning from what happens in your life can have a drastic variation on the direction your life will go.

No matter how close the circumstances are, the brain is EXTREMELY complicated, there are so many things you have to take into account, but the twin argument isn't an argument for free will, rather it's a nature/nurture argument.
 
No, you're missing the point, even without full causality due to quantum indeterminism, that give you free will, it gives you randomnes which is NOT free will.



Yes in the same way a cloud is involved in a thunder storm, but it doesn't act differently than all other matter in nature, it still is 100% determined by the laws of nature and causality, (or quantum indeterminism).



Corrolation doesn't mean causality, and what you're proposing is telekenisis ... not free will, that WAY beyond.

I'll have to look at that stuff.



I'm not proposing materialism, even without a materailistic worldview you can't have free will, even if we have a soul, the decisions the sould makes are either caused or internal to it's nature.

The difference between a living and a dead body is that the brain is functioning in a living one ....



No matter how close the circumstances are, the brain is EXTREMELY complicated, there are so many things you have to take into account, but the twin argument isn't an argument for free will, rather it's a nature/nurture argument.
Quantum indeterminism is utterly irrelevant to the free-will argument. The arbitrary movements and collocation of particles is merely the nature of things, and does not effect free-will. The twin argument is an argument against free-will, a further argument that shows individuals are confined by their genetic make-up. Free will also cannot exist in a universe where an all knowing deity exists. Having a soul would make free-will possible, by separating the mind from material needs, desires, evolutionary instincts, etc. Free will is an impossibility of logic, whether in a determinate reality or an indeterminate one, everything can only lead inevitably to one outcome, nothing is predetermined, but everything has a set proclivity to a specific outcome.
 
Quantum indeterminism is utterly irrelevant to the free-will argument. The arbitrary movements and collocation of particles is merely the nature of things, and does not effect free-will. The twin argument is an argument against free-will, a further argument that shows individuals are confined by their genetic make-up. Free will also cannot exist in a universe where an all knowing deity exists. Having a soul would make free-will possible, by separating the mind from material needs, desires, evolutionary instincts, etc. Free will is an impossibility of logic, whether in a determinate reality or an indeterminate one, everything can only lead inevitably to one outcome, nothing is predetermined, but everything has a set proclivity to a specific outcome.

That's my point with Quantum indeterminism, even if it wasn't predictable, or 100% mechanical or causal in the classical sense, it's not free will, you need agency for free will.

Having a soul won't fix it, because no matter how you describe the soul, you "get" a certain soul and just have to live with it, and that soul is effected by causes (since decisions require reasons) and other than that it's just the nature of the soul. Is it the psychopaths fault he has a psychopathic soul?

The all knowing deity I'm convinced isn't a full argument against indeterminism since you have arminianism as a kind of explination of how it could be possible.
 
No, you're missing the point, even without full causality due to quantum indeterminism, that give you free will, it gives you randomnes which is NOT free will.

From an outside observers perspective, that is what free will would be; it would be determined with elements of random variation.

Yes in the same way a cloud is involved in a thunder storm, but it doesn't act differently than all other matter in nature, it still is 100% determined by the laws of nature and causality, (or quantum indeterminism).

Yes, exactly, you can figure out a range of possible behaviors of a system, but cannot determine it because of the element of randomness... This is the same as my perspective on free will, it's mostly determined, but ultimately ends in a choice.


Corrolation doesn't mean causality, and what you're proposing is telekenisis ... not free will, that WAY beyond.

I'll have to look at that stuff.

Well, it also shows that intention has an influence on reality (that's influence, not stronger), in the same way your free will is expressed through intention to make a decision that defies the "default" causal action that one might take in a given circumstance.



I'm not proposing materialism, even without a materailistic worldview you can't have free will, even if we have a soul, the decisions the sould makes are either caused or internal to it's nature.

The difference between a living and a dead body is that the brain is functioning in a living one ....

It's not quite cause- effect when dealing with free will, it's action-internalization- interpretation- reaction.

Since we accept that there is a difference from living matter and inanimate matter, shouldn't it be reasonable to say that, unlike the inanimate material that follows much more deterministic rules, that, in small, but potentially significant ways, free will allows certain decisions to act against would is the most likely outcomes.

No matter how close the circumstances are, the brain is EXTREMELY complicated, there are so many things you have to take into account, but the twin argument isn't an argument for free will, rather it's a nature/nurture argument.

Ya, the situation is extremely complex, that's why twins are the sample of the closest that you could find...
 
Quantum indeterminism is utterly irrelevant to the free-will argument. The arbitrary movements and collocation of particles is merely the nature of things, and does not effect free-will.

No, more like these effects reflect free will.

The twin argument is an argument against free-will, a further argument that shows individuals are confined by their genetic make-up.

The point was of twins with an abusive father that had repeated stints in jail, and having one twin become successful where the other twin followed the fathers footsteps, and both could say "it's my dads fault"

Free will also cannot exist in a universe where an all knowing deity exists. Having a soul would make free-will possible, by separating the mind from material needs, desires, evolutionary instincts, etc. Free will is an impossibility of logic, whether in a determinate reality or an indeterminate one, everything can only lead inevitably to one outcome, nothing is predetermined,

That depends on your definition of "god", the "soul" (lack of better term) would be the mechanism of free will.

The last point is interesting, but the present is just the actualization process through "time" (which is inseparable from "space"), of all the seemingly infinite potential from the previous universal delta-t, that contains all the potentials for the next tick.

but everything has a set proclivity to a specific outcome.

Exactly, and that's the mechanism of free will, there is a proclivity to a specific outcome, but there's always a non-zero chance that free choice can create a different outcome that the outcome with the best odds of occurring.
 
From an outside observers perspective, that is what free will would be; it would be determined with elements of random variation.

From ANY perspective, quantum particles that make up a rock don't choose what they do, it's random, (probabilistic to be more clear), anymore than the quantum particles that make up a brain.

Yes, exactly, you can figure out a range of possible behaviors of a system, but cannot determine it because of the element of randomness... This is the same as my perspective on free will, it's mostly determined, but ultimately ends in a choice.

You havn't showed how it ends in a choice, or how that choice wasn't determined by causality and the laws of nature.

Well, it also shows that intention has an influence on reality (that's influence, not stronger), in the same way your free will is expressed through intention to make a decision that defies the "default" causal action that one might take in a given circumstance.

Again, it's telekenisis, a whole different discussion.

It's not quite cause- effect when dealing with free will, it's action-internalization- interpretation- reaction.

Since we accept that there is a difference from living matter and inanimate matter, shouldn't it be reasonable to say that, unlike the inanimate material that follows much more deterministic rules, that, in small, but potentially significant ways, free will allows certain decisions to act against would is the most likely outcomes.

The only difference is that living mater is doing a kind of dance, taking in oxygen and energy and reproducing itself.

The whole action-internalization-interpretation-reaction is all done in the brain, which is a physical action, 100% caused by the laws of nature. What makes the brain fundementally different from all other matter?

It isn't reasonable to say that there is a difference between inanimate material and animate material, anymore than there is a fundemnetal difference from iron used in a complicated machine and iron used in a hammer.
 
I suspect at the root the reasonable definitions are compatible.

Free-will is a self-evident truth that follows from a functional consciousness. To attempt to claim it's illusory is absurd, and ultimately is a contradiction if you want to go back through definitions.
Determinism is simply the acknowledgement that the universe operates on cause-effect at the fundamental level.

Reconciling the two would require a near complete understanding and modeling of not just the physical brain, but consciousness. We're not there yet. Claiming you KNOW it's false, before we're there, when all other evidence is such that both are true, is absurd.
 
I suspect at the root the reasonable definitions are compatible.

Free-will is a self-evident truth that follows from a functional consciousness. To attempt to claim it's illusory is absurd, and ultimately is a contradiction if you want to go back through definitions.
Determinism is simply the acknowledgement that the universe operates on cause-effect at the fundamental level.

Reconciling the two would require a near complete understanding and modeling of not just the physical brain, but consciousness. We're not there yet. Claiming you KNOW it's false, before we're there, when all other evidence is such that both are true, is absurd.

I may not have been expressing it properly, but this does sum up what I've been talking about.

There's really three possibilities;

- strong determinism: where everything is predeterminable cause-effect

- weak determinism : (what im pushing) where much of life is predetermined through upbringing genetics, conditioning, etc, but that there is ultimately a final "choice" that can be made to defy the "default" reaction.

- strong self-determination: where very little of life is determined but it's mostly a matter of free will.

I don't see either of the two extremes as being viable possibilities because it requires ignoring elements of science among other factors.
 
I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.

By my cosmology, we have a perfect illusion of free will. A function of the "lenses" of time/space on participating souls. Experiencing events linearly instead of simultaneously. Knowing what was going to happen next would spoil the experience/lesson.
 
By my cosmology, we have a perfect illusion of free will. A function of the "lenses" of time/space on participating souls. Experiencing events linearly instead of simultaneously. Knowing what was going to happen next would spoil the experience/lesson.

I have heard that argument before, the concept that your soul "signs on" to life from the bodies perspective, because of lessons that could be learned...

I also know that reincarnation is pretty much a necessity... And the process of being born and starting from scratch with irreversible mistakes, would be the best way for an "immortal soul" to learn its lessons...

That leans the issue towards determinism if it were true in concept...
 
I have heard that argument before, the concept that your soul "signs on" to life from the bodies perspective, because of lessons that could be learned...

I also know that reincarnation is pretty much a necessity... And the process of being born and starting from scratch with irreversible mistakes, would be the best way for an "immortal soul" to learn its lessons...

That leans the issue towards determinism if it were true in concept...

Yeah. But a perfect illusion of free will for those participating in spacetime lives.

Richard Bach put it best. He used the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You can hold the film in its can and know everything about it. But until you play it and watch it you can't really experience it.
 
Which would render such saving pointless. Without the ability to choose to be save, then you really aren't saved.

Unless the point is to experience being saved. Or the belief in salvation.
 
I recently had a discussion with a fellow atheist about Sam Harris' book Free Will and I was taken aback by just how hostile my colleague was to the idea that Free Will might be an illusion. I have come to believe that we do live in a deterministic universe and it seems to me the the benefits of thinking this way far out weigh the feelings of desperation my friend so afraid of.

With this in mind I am curious how others feel about this subject.
I welcome people of all creeds to chime in.

If you are an atheist, is this an idea that you have concerned yourself with? Do you find evidence in support of Free Will?

If you are a believer of some shade, do you feel that the loss of free will threatens your belief system or is there some way to reconcile the two? Remember I am asking a hypothetical here, if you suddenly found out beyond any shadow of a doubt that free will is an illusion would you still maintain your faith? On that note is free will something you take on faith?


For anyone, if society as a whole were to adopt this philosophy what benefits do you think we would enjoy? What negative consequences? (ie how would it impact our daily lives? Our system of laws?)

I am not attempting to start a religious debate here, I hope we can talk about free will on its own terms.


Freewill is an illusion. All choices have limitations therefore we cannot always act freely and even when we do act, is the commencement of action free?
 
I suspect at the root the reasonable definitions are compatible.

Free-will is a self-evident truth that follows from a functional consciousness. To attempt to claim it's illusory is absurd, and ultimately is a contradiction if you want to go back through definitions.
Determinism is simply the acknowledgement that the universe operates on cause-effect at the fundamental level.

Reconciling the two would require a near complete understanding and modeling of not just the physical brain, but consciousness. We're not there yet. Claiming you KNOW it's false, before we're there, when all other evidence is such that both are true, is absurd.
There is zero evidence that free will is exists. Every test inexorably brings us closer to confirming a deterministic universe. If you have something claiming otherwise I would love to see it, though.
 
There is zero evidence that free will is exists. Every test inexorably brings us closer to confirming a deterministic universe. If you have something claiming otherwise I would love to see it, though.

Like which tests are you referring to?
 
From a Biblical viewpoint, people have free will to do what they want on earth, subject to earthly authorities (conquerors, jail, etc.), and subject to God's occasional intervention in the affairs of man. After death, they are judged and sent to either heaven or hell.
 
Back
Top Bottom