Freewill

[John 6:29]

Anyone who believes in freewill, can you explain to me why you believe in freewill. Despite the I-Make-Choice-And-My-Choices-Have-Consequences argument. If you believe in a Higher Power, explain it philosophically or theologically (referencing theologians or philosophers). If you are agnostic, explain your best theory. If you are atheist, explain it scientifically (with a respectable scientist -- if possible). I'm not wishing to debate, though I may challenge your stance. I am simply doing this to learn and to reconcile why people believe in freewill, when to me, it is apparent it does not exist.

[Xujhan]

First, please use your labels with more precision. Agnosticism (in the sense you mean it) is a subset of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and most atheists are agnostics.

Second, I don't know why you're asking for a scientific answer to what is primarily a philosophical question. You'd as well ask for a mathematical explanation of imagery in the works of Robert Frost.

Now an answer to your question: yes, we have free will, if not in the sense that comes most naturally to mind. It's true that we are material creatures with physical brains that respond to stimuli as dictated by physical laws. Just like a mathematical function; for any given set of inputs there is only one possible output. In theory, with perfect understanding of the working of someone's brain it would be possible to predict their actions. However, this doesn't preclude the existence of free will. Just because it's possible to know that we will deny some choices doesn't imply that we haven't chosen others.

Take, for example, my girlfriend. Were you to offer her a steak, I can guarantee that I could predict how she would answer. If you made her the offer a hundred times, I would correctly predict her answer one hundrerd times. Now, it should seem silly to say that just because I happen to know she's vegetarian, I've somehow lessened her free will. Now think about it in the general case: our choices may be determined by the inner workings of our brains, but the inner workings of our brains are us.

In fact, consider what the opposite position implies. If our decisions are not determined by the working of our brains, what are they determined by? Whatever it would be, it could not be something that is a part of us, and so would seem to really not be our free will at all. As such, I would say that the position normally thought of as denying free will actually constitutes free will, while the position normally thought of a advocating free will is actually incoherent.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

First, please use your labels with more precision. Agnosticism (in the sense you mean it) is a subset of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and most atheists are agnostics.

Though the majority of agnostics are atheists, I've known some that are borderline, and some I know are leaning towards deism. So, I disagree with your assessment. I also believe atheists to be more dogmatic about their opinion, as a deist could be agnostic as well, which does not make them an atheist. Thus, logically, your statement doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Second, I don't know why you're asking for a scientific answer to what is primarily a philosophical question. You'd as well ask for a mathematical explanation of imagery in the works of Robert Frost.

No. It is a scientific answer because psychology, biology, socioeconomic, and society all play a part to this answer.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Now an answer to your question: yes, we have free will, if not in the sense that comes most naturally to mind. It's true that we are material creatures with physical brains that respond to stimuli as dictated by physical laws. Just like a mathematical function; for any given set of inputs there is only one possible output. In theory, with perfect understanding of the working of someone's brain it would be possible to predict their actions. However, this doesn't preclude the existence of free will. Just because it's possible to know that we will deny some choices doesn't imply that we haven't chosen others.

Take, for example, my girlfriend. Were you to offer her a steak, I can guarantee that I could predict how she would answer. If you made her the offer a hundred times, I would correctly predict her answer one hundrerd times. Now, it should seem silly to say that just because I happen to know she's vegetarian, I've somehow lessened her free will. Now think about it in the general case: our choices may be determined by the inner workings of our brains, but the inner workings of our brains are us.

In fact, consider what the opposite position implies. If our decisions are not determined by the working of our brains, what are they determined by? Whatever it would be, it could not be something that is a part of us, and so would seem to really not be our free will at all. As such, I would say that the position normally thought of as denying free will actually constitutes free will, while the position normally thought of a advocating free will is actually incoherent.

Respond to the rest later. Though I am quite surprised by your answer, tbh.

[BDF]

I believe in free will from a scientific perspective. The more intelligent a life form is, the more free will it has. Narrowing it down to people... some are more intelligent, some are less. Those who are less intelligent, frequently end up getting "pulled along" by the system, maybe they have a choice, but it never even occurs to them that they do... simply because they aren't intelligent enough (for whatever reasons). More intelligent people will make their own choices and figure out what they want from life a lot easier.

I narrowed my example down to people, but in my opinion it applies to everything. More intelligent life to me generally speaking means more concious control over your actions (more choice... & more free will), and less instinctual/impulsive reactions. Less intelligent life means the opposite, more instinctual/impulsive reactions, which are more common of animals (which are generally regarded less intelligent).

So in summary, to me free will doesn't either exist or not for living things. It exists on a scale in direct relationship with intelligence. If you were to find a dog with an IQ of 140 (to put it simply and rather crudely), I'm prepared to say it has more free will than most people do (average intelligence of people is 100 IQ). IQ is not the best measure for intelligence in this context, but it is the most widely known, which is why I use it.

No references. This belief is almost entirely created by me. I only say almost, because there are always some external factors that influence you, that you might not even be aware of. I'm not aware of any, but don't deny that there might be some.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Though the majority of agnostics are atheists, I've known some that are borderline, and some I know are leaning towards deism. So, I disagree with your assessment. I also believe atheists to be more dogmatic about their opinion, as a deist could be agnostic as well, which does not make them an atheist. Thus, logically, your statement doesn't work.

Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of any supreme being or deity.

Agnosticism: a belief that answers to questions regarding the metaphysical are unknown and unknowable.

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between atheism and theism; it's a subset of both. The reason I say that "all agnostics are atheists" is because the position correctly called agnostic theism (or deism) is still coloquially included in theism. The position commonly called agnosticism - "we do not or cannot know whether there are gods" - is a form of atheism. In fact it is by far the most common form; the 'dogmatic' position you're thinking of is gnostic atheism, or the assertion that we know that there are definitey no gods. In my experience, gnostic atheists are few and far between. In all my travels I've only met one, and I'm still convinced he was only trolling.

So if you're drawing a line between atheists and theists, it doesn't make sense to also ask agnostics as a seperate category. It would be akin to asking one thing of men, another of women, and then a third of redheads. In fact it generally makes little sense to lump all agnostics as one group at all, unless you're debating the philosophical definition of knowledge.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

No. It is a scientific answer because psychology, biology, socioeconomic, and society all play a part to this answer.

A person's opinion on the question may include all those things, but the actual truth of the matter doesn't, unless you're somehow suggesting that rich people have free will and poor people do not. Nevertheless, if you feel that the question involves all those thing, why would you only demand such an answer of atheists?

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Respond to the rest later. Though I am quite surprised by your answer, tbh.

I get that a lot. I once argued with a room full of philosophy students that it is possible to know something that is false, so I'm used to advocating minority opinions.

[Anthropomorphic]

I don't want to dive too deep into this debate/discussion, but I just have a question, more of an perspective than real explanation of my views.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is no God or other higher power (essentially, atheism). Do humans still have absolute free will, after considering all environmental, social, and other outside factors on their lives? With so many subconscious and unconscious factors and decisions, how do you determine when a choice is truly based in one's own instinct or ideals, versus conditioning or learned behavior from outside influences?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

I don't want to dive too deep into this debate/discussion, but I just have a question, more of an perspective than real explanation of my views.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is no God or other higher power (essentially, atheism). Do humans still have absolute free will, after considering all environmental, social, and other outside factors on their lives? With so many subconscious and unconscious factors and decisions, how do you determine when a choice is truly based in one's own instinct or ideals, versus conditioning or learned behavior from outside influences?

You don't. Those learned behaviours and social conditionings are as much a part of you as your instincts and ideals. Every part of your brain that works toward making a given decision is part of you, and part of what defines you as an individual. A decision influenced by your experiences is more "you" than a decision made only on the grounds of your ideology would be.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of any supreme being or deity.

Agnosticism: a belief that answers to questions regarding the metaphysical are unknown and unknowable.

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between atheism and theism; it's a subset of both. The reason I say that "all agnostics are atheists" is because the position correctly called agnostic theism (or deism) is still coloquially included in theism. The position commonly called agnosticism - "we do not or cannot know whether there are gods" - is a form of atheism. In fact it is by far the most common form; the 'dogmatic' position you're thinking of is gnostic atheism, or the assertion that we know that there are definitey no gods. In my experience, gnostic atheists are few and far between. In all my travels I've only met one, and I'm still convinced he was only trolling.

So if you're drawing a line between atheists and theists, it doesn't make sense to also ask agnostics as a seperate category. It would be akin to asking one thing of men, another of women, and then a third of redheads. In fact it generally makes little sense to lump all agnostics as one group at all, unless you're debating the philosophical definition of knowledge.

There appears to be something of a contradiction going on here. In order to be an atheist, one must reasonably have concluded on the balance of probabilities that God does not exist - otherwise, one would have no logical basis for holding that position. Same applies for a theist. Agnosticism according to its traditional definition does not even attempt to pass judgement in the first place, so I do not see how it can be applied to either position - I feel it is more a misuse of the term in the context of philosophy of religion. If used in the context of epistemology then the description you give above is valid for both theism and atheism; however, if used in its religion-specific context - that is to say, claims about the existence or otherwise of God cannot be verified - it cannot fit either position as both imply at least some level of belief that the claim holds some truth value. To illustrate:

Atheist = On the balance of probabilities (c.51%) or greater, God does not exist.
Theist = On the balance of probabilities (c.51%) or greater, God exists.
Agnostic = The balance of probabilities is not met for either claim.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well as it's quite late here, but basically what I'm trying to say is that I believe saying "all agnostics are atheists" is to apply the wrong definition of agnostic to the situation. There is more than one in the context of religion, and while one fits your argument the other does not. Similar issues befall Dawkins' argument on this, which I believe is where you draw yours from.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

There appears to be something of a contradiction going on here. In order to be an atheist, one must reasonably have concluded on the balance of probabilities that God does not exist - otherwise, one would have no logical basis for holding that position. Same applies for a theist. Agnosticism according to its traditional definition does not even attempt to pass judgement in the first place, so I do not see how it can be applied to either position - I feel it is more a misuse of the term in the context of philosophy of religion. If used in the context of epistemology then the description you give above is valid for both theism and atheism; however, if used in its religion-specific context - that is to say, claims about the existence or otherwise of God cannot be verified - it cannot fit either position as both imply at least some level of belief that the claim holds some truth value. To illustrate:

Atheist = On the balance of probabilities (c.51%) or greater, God does not exist.
Theist = On the balance of probabilities (c.51%) or greater, God exists.
Agnostic = The balance of probabilities is not met for either claim.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well as it's quite late here, but basically what I'm trying to say is that I believe saying "all agnostics are atheists" is to apply the wrong definition of agnostic to the situation. There is more than one in the context of religion, and while one fits your argument the other does not. Similar issues befall Dawkins' argument on this, which I believe is where you draw yours from.

That's a misapplication of probability measure, as well as a misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism is not the claim that god does not exist, nor even the claim that god probably doesn't exist. It is simply a disbelief of the claim that god does exist, generally on the grounds of lack of evidence. It's the religious equivalent to the null hypothesis. Someone who does not believe in god simply by virtue of never having considered the question would still be an atheist. The 'religious definition' of agnosticism you give, which seems to me just to be the application of general agnosticism to the question of religoin, still qualifies as atheism.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of any supreme being or deity.

Agnosticism: a belief that answers to questions regarding the metaphysical are unknown and unknowable.

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between atheism and theism; it's a subset of both. The reason I say that "all agnostics are atheists" is because the position correctly called agnostic theism (or deism) is still coloquially included in theism. The position commonly called agnosticism - "we do not or cannot know whether there are gods" - is a form of atheism. In fact it is by far the most common form; the 'dogmatic' position you're thinking of is gnostic atheism, or the assertion that we know that there are definitey no gods. In my experience, gnostic atheists are few and far between. In all my travels I've only met one, and I'm still convinced he was only trolling.

S: (n) agnostic (a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist))

Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=agnostic

Originally Posted by Xujhan

So if you're drawing a line between atheists and theists, it doesn't make sense to also ask agnostics as a seperate category. It would be akin to asking one thing of men, another of women, and then a third of redheads. In fact it generally makes little sense to lump all agnostics as one group at all, unless you're debating the philosophical definition of knowledge.

No, it would be similar to asking one thing of men, another thing of women, and another thing of those who don't know what they are. A person can use their best judgment to determine what category they fall into. I don't need to babysit them and give 8 different options when three is sufficient to determine where you fall into. You had no difficulty, did you? And I'm sure no one else who reads this will.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A person's opinion on the question may include all those things, but the actual truth of the matter doesn't, unless you're somehow suggesting that rich people have free will and poor people do not. Nevertheless, if you feel that the question involves all those thing, why would you only demand such an answer of atheists?

Because an atheist has no other true philosophy governing them. That is, a Muslim can say, "Well, in such a such a passage it state we have freewill." An agnostic can provide a philosophical view for their stance, especially if they are leaning towards a deist or theistic view. And by all means, an atheist can provide the same, but ultimately governing an atheistic view is science, so why not ask for science from them?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I get that a lot. I once argued with a room full of philosophy students that it is possible to know something that is false, so I'm used to advocating minority opinions.

Ohhh man. I bet that was fun. No sarcasm.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That's a misapplication of probability measure, as well as a misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism is not the claim that god does not exist, nor even the claim that god probably doesn't exist. It is simply a disbelief of the claim that god does exist, generally on the grounds of lack of evidence. It's the religious equivalent to the null hypothesis. Someone who does not believe in god simply by virtue of never having considered the question would still be an atheist. The 'religious definition' of agnosticism you give, which seems to me just to be the application of general agnosticism to the question of religoin, still qualifies as atheism.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Originally Posted by Britannica Online Encyclopedia - Atheism

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.(Underlining added)

Source

That makes it quite clear that there is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, and that while one may hold either position while also holding elements of the other they are not as interchangeable as you are making out. As for the claim of misapplying probability measure, you are assuming that atheism is the null hypothesis in the question when that claim itself is not substantiated. You can certainly argue that atheism from a linguistic perspective should be the null hypothesis, but as with agnosticism the meaning behind the word no longer matches its construction. Atheism as traditionally defined requires the rejection of belief in God, not merely a pre-existing absence, as in order to reject something one must at least consider it in the first place. While broader definitions do exist such as the one you allude to, they are not widely accepted. You are trying to present atheism as a catch-all category in a way I believe a number of agnostics I know would object to, and certainly historical agnostics such as Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin. As such, both the atheist and theist positions are distinct arguments which - were we to take a legal analogy - may form claim and counterclaim but would not be automatically validated were the other position rejected. By your logic, someone who does not agree with or rejects atheist arguments is automatically a theist, even if they do not agree with theist arguments either, and that is not something I believe you would advocate. There is a real difference between epistemological agnosticism and religious agnosticism; however badly I may be explaining it, it is not something I am inventing for the sake of argument.

I'm away for the next few days so will respond to any replies when I'm back.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Because an atheist has no other true philosophy governing them. That is, a Muslim can say, "Well, in such a such a passage it state we have freewill." An agnostic can provide a philosophical view for their stance, especially if they are leaning towards a deist or theistic view. And by all means, an atheist can provide the same, but ultimately governing an atheistic view is science, so why not ask for science from them?

There's a over-generalization here. Not all atheists use science as their philosophy and science is not the required philosophy for atheists. For example, an atheist need not provide a scientific answer to support their belief in no deity. Science and theism often focus on answering different questions and are not mutually exclusive. That said, I don't consider socioeconomics and sociology to be on the same level of science as biology and psychology (certain fields), yet you're lumping them all together.

This also brings up an issue for agnostic atheism because according to you, they'd have to provide a scientific and non-scientific philosophy.

Anyway, I'll entertain your idea that all atheists are governed by science by giving a somewhat scientific answer, however, I'm ignoring all aspects of socioeconomics. From evolutionary biological and psychological standpoints, as humans developed greater capacity for abstract reasoning, imagining, questioning and thinking, they can be more aware of their surroundings. If one is more aware and able to think in more advanced ways, they have the ability to do as they see fit. Those who are less able at such thinking and environmental awareness still have freewill but they may not know what to do so they may follow more than lead. On the other hand, they may trot on in ignorance of everything else, taking their separate path.

However, those with greater intelligence may be naturally selected for, giving rise to a more intelligent population of species. In contrast, the less intelligent ones are not favoured, rather they're being challenged. It'd be too simplistic to say they'd dwindle away while the intelligent ones survive.

Introducing intelligence to evolution is a big mis-mash though because intelligence in humans doesn't have a universally agreed upon definition with method of analysis. In non-humans, IQ tests don't apply, so saying "intelligence" is not a great word. There are many papers and researchers saying plants have intelligence by showing how structures of the plant are proportional in function to neurons in the animal body and in the brain. Lastly, intelligence for evolutionary survival doesn't quite matter because the organism does not necessarily need/can have a sophisticated brain.

If you compare the volume of frontal lobe across animals, humans have 37.7% +/-0.9% while macaques have 30.6% +/-1.5% and chimpanzees have 35.4% +/-1.9%. The neural structures differ but they're all based on what is good for survival at the present time given all the restrictions. Overall, a macaque isn't as smart as a human but it doesn't matter because it doesn't need to be. For this reason, the evolutionary biological explanation cant explain concepts of philosophical freewill.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

S: (n) agnostic (a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist))

Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=agnostic

Yes, that's an atheistic viewpoint. This is what I'm trying to say.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

No, it would be similar to asking one thing of men, another thing of women, and another thing of those who don't know what they are. A person can use their best judgment to determine what category they fall into. I don't need to babysit them and give 8 different options when three is sufficient to determine where you fall into. You had no difficulty, did you? And I'm sure no one else who reads this will.

If that's the distinction you wished to make, you should have asked for theists, atheists/nontheists, and people who are undecided. Agnosticism isn't simply an undecided or middle-of-the-road viewpoint.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Because an atheist has no other true philosophy governing them. That is, a Muslim can say, "Well, in such a such a passage it state we have freewill." An agnostic can provide a philosophical view for their stance, especially if they are leaning towards a deist or theistic view. And by all means, an atheist can provide the same, but ultimately governing an atheistic view is science, so why not ask for science from them?

That's wildly presumptuous of you, and really demonstrates a lack of understanding of what atheists are like. Saying that science governs atheism in the same sense that the Quran governs Islam is wrong to the point of being incoherent. Even as an atheist who places a very high value in scientific pursuit I wouldn't at all say that it governs me any more than it governs you.

Originally Posted by dr2005

By your logic, someone who does not agree with or rejects atheist arguments is automatically a theist.

That you think so indicates that you are rather mistaken about what my logic is, and given that I hope you'll forgive me for declining to get into yet another argument of semantics with you, particularly one that isn't actually related to the topic. I do believe you are correct that the meanings I use are not widely understood (outside of atheist circles that is), which I feel is a small part of the reason that atheists as a group are so widely misunderstood and mistrusted in the US. That is why I do my best to make this point clear.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Yes, that's an atheistic viewpoint. This is what I'm trying to say.

S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist

The two definitions aren't the same. An agnostic does not know, but that does not mean that an agnostic is not leaning towards deism, theism, or atheism in their agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If that's the distinction you wished to make, you should have asked for theists, atheists/nontheists, and people who are undecided. Agnosticism isn't simply an undecided or middle-of-the-road viewpoint.

See above definition in last post. You're wrong, at least according to Princeton. And shockingly, even Richard Dawkins who describes agnostics as fools bordering the fence that are too afraid to take a stance. Paraphrased version, of course :P (See Preface to The God Delusion if you wondering where I am getting this).

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That's wildly presumptuous of you, and really demonstrates a lack of understanding of what atheists are like. Saying that science governs atheism in the same sense that the Quran governs Islam is wrong to the point of being incoherent. Even as an atheist who places a very high value in scientific pursuit I wouldn't at all say that it governs me any more than it governs you.

Not really, because the Quran does govern Islam. The Quaran is the road map to Islam, as is the Bible to Christianity, as is science to Atheism. I am not saying this removes all philosophies from Atheism, but simply that the Atheist is more empirical that the other options. I don't disagree that I am bound by science in the same way you are, else-wise we'd be getting into relativism, but that you do not have a so-called "road map" as a religion does. That is, in the same manner that miracles can defy science, if God exists, there must be a scientific explanation for miracles that have occurred, if God does not exist. Relating this to freewill: If God exists, it's possible for freewill to exist -- though we might not understand how, but if He doesn't exist, then the explanation to freewill must logically come through science. Granted, you could provide a philosophy for it, but ultimately, I don't think it would suffice in the long haul.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That you think so indicates that you are rather mistaken about what my logic is, and given that I hope you'll forgive me for declining to get into yet another argument of semantics with you, particularly one that isn't actually related to the topic. I do believe you are correct that the meanings I use are not widely understood (outside of atheist circles that is), which I feel is a small part of the reason that atheists as a group are so widely misunderstood and mistrusted in the US. That is why I do my best to make this point clear.

I believe I understand what you are saying. That is, an atheist is not someone who dogmatically believes there is no God, just that there is no reasonable proof to believe in Him. I understand that you do not completely remove the possibility of a God, just that it is unlikely for Him to exist, thus (sorry if I'm wrong) you consider yourself an atheist.

I understand what you're saying, but we have to go with the general understanding of these topics with the majority of people. I believe you've gotten on my case by re-working definitions to a Christian perspective, but now you are admitting to doing the same? I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking your stance, it's not my intent. But I do believe it is quite hypocritical. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

That said, I don't consider socioeconomics and sociology to be on the same level of science as biology and psychology (certain fields), yet you're lumping them all together.

I don't either, but I believe that sociology and socioeconomic status on individuals do effect our choices. Hence why I lumped them.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

This also brings up an issue for agnostic atheism because according to you, they'd have to provide a scientific and non-scientific philosophy.

As I fore-mentioned (not in my original post), feel free to post a philosophy on it. But I do not believe a sole philosophy can't really hold any grounds in an argument of freewill, unless it be extremely persuasive. I believe the difference, though it may seem unfair, is that a deist or theist can over come natural causes (scientific explanations) with their deity, an atheist cannot. They can certainly admit it is something that cannot be proven yet, or that it may require forces not known to man, but they cannot claim it to be overruled by a deity. E.G. I used to struggle with the idea of Christ walking on water during a storm. I couldn't picture it. I questioned it forever, because I thought it was absurd. How can someone walk on stormy water? I mean, I don't know if you live near an ocean, but I used to live in California. I went to the beach all the time. I knew what it looked like at hectic times, and picturing someone walking on that just seemed stupid to me. Yet it seemed stupid because I was looking for a natural explanation for something that I believe to be supernatural. Of course, I'm sure, others have other explanations, but this is just a simple example of why I ask these things.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

I don't either, but I believe that sociology and socioeconomic status on individuals do effect our choices. Hence why I lumped them.

But they apply to not only atheists and that is the issue. You mentioned them as science pertaining solely to atheists.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

As I fore-mentioned (not in my original post), feel free to post a philosophy on it. But I do not believe a sole philosophy can't really hold any grounds in an argument of freewill, unless it be extremely persuasive. I believe the difference, though it may seem unfair, is that a deist or theist can over come natural causes (scientific explanations) with their deity, an atheist cannot. They can certainly admit it is something that cannot be proven yet, or that it may require forces not known to man, but they cannot claim it to be overruled by a deity. E.G. I used to struggle with the idea of Christ walking on water during a storm. I couldn't picture it. I questioned it forever, because I thought it was absurd. How can someone walk on stormy water? I mean, I don't know if you live near an ocean, but I used to live in California. I went to the beach all the time. I knew what it looked like at hectic times, and picturing someone walking on that just seemed stupid to me. Yet it seemed stupid because I was looking for a natural explanation for something that I believe to be supernatural. Of course, I'm sure, others have other explanations, but this is just a simple example of why I ask these things.

I live near a very large lake (i.e. 10-12 minute walk from my house straight to the lake) and I've seen it be hellish for some boats out there. I'm sure it's less hellish than some areas near California.

There's an issue though with your statement of "They can certainly admit it is something that cannot be proven yet, or that it may require forces not known to man, but they cannot claim it to be overruled by a deity". The problem is it's not related to science because science does not attempt to prove/disprove anything. The concept of science does not allow this to occur. Something may be due to forces we don't yet know of, that's quite possible but these forces must in some way, be able to be investigated upon. If we have scientific data on something similar, we may be able to draw possible parallels and analogies but for freewill, there isn't anything I can think of that's very similar. As a result, we can say something uses mechanisms we don't know about yet (keyword is yet).

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

As I fore-mentioned (not in my original post), feel free to post a philosophy on it. But I do not believe a sole philosophy can't really hold any grounds in an argument of freewill, unless it be extremely persuasive. I believe the difference, though it may seem unfair, is that a deist or theist can over come natural causes (scientific explanations) with their deity, an atheist cannot. They can certainly admit it is something that cannot be proven yet, or that it may require forces not known to man, but they cannot claim it to be overruled by a deity. E.G. I used to struggle with the idea of Christ walking on water during a storm. I couldn't picture it. I questioned it forever, because I thought it was absurd. How can someone walk on stormy water? I mean, I don't know if you live near an ocean, but I used to live in California. I went to the beach all the time. I knew what it looked like at hectic times, and picturing someone walking on that just seemed stupid to me. Yet it seemed stupid because I was looking for a natural explanation for something that I believe to be supernatural. Of course, I'm sure, others have other explanations, but this is just a simple example of why I ask these things.

The only significant difference between "I don't know" and "God did it" is that one is honest ignorance, while the other is dishonest. An atheist could very well claim "The Flying Spaghetti Monster gives us free will," but I think you'll agree that it would be unconvincing. But given that you presumably are unconvinced by the argument for free will I gave above, I'd like to hear your objections to it.

[kgo446]

God has a plan for us, and he has given us great things to do, BUT, he also gave us the gift of freewill - which means we CAN go against God and sin.
We can't blame God for everything, he gave us the gift of freewill.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The only significant difference between "I don't know" and "God did it" is that one is honest ignorance, while the other is dishonest. An atheist could very well claim "The Flying Spaghetti Monster gives us free will," but I think you'll agree that it would be unconvincing. But given that you presumably are unconvinced by the argument for free will I gave above, I'd like to hear your objections to it.

Well, I think it depends. I believe honest ignorance would be insisting that you are 100% sure God did it. A.k.a. the people who "just know," without any reasoning behind it. An atheist could claim the flying spaghetti monster (fsm) gives us freewill. I'm not here to necessarily debate the existence of the fsm, or of God, or not God. I'm here to listen to reasons.

For example, if God exists, freewill can exist because He is God. Though I cannot really object to this, I would say it's logically inconsistent. If God is sovereign, and omniscient, then freewill cannot co-exist. It may appear that it does, but logically I would say it cannot. Though, I'd imagine someone saying, "Well, you can't fit God in a box. You can't limit what He can and can't do." No, but I could argue that God placed Himself in a box to reveal Himself to mankind and responds to things logically that we understand them. I'd then ask for proof texts from the Bible that state we have freewill, which they won't find any (yet, ironically, most 'Christians' believe in freewill).

And without God, to simplify everything because I don't have much time... I believe that with all the influences on our minds through psychology, biology, and as mentioned, where we are socially, in our economic status, peer pressures, etc. that though our actions may seem free, they actually weren't. They weren't untainted by various influences. Which, you could say, "Well, they're just influences, they didn't force you to do anything." I disagree with that, which I'll explain later. However, I'd also argue that if we were given another life in same circumstances, we'd make the exact same decision, even if it seemed "free" it was already determined. By what? I don't know. But it wasn't free because in any other life we'd always make the same exact decision, so before we were even born, we were essentially destined to make that decision apart from any will because it was going to happen (our birth, our life, etc.) all apart from our will. But I believe things like psychology, a biology, can generally, account for every decision we make in time. So, if we can know what decisions we will make, if we have that knowledge, then are our decisions even free? If I know no matter what happens, at 2 PM, I will drink a Dr. Pepper, is that decision free? I don't think so.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by kgo446

God has a plan for us, and he has given us great things to do, BUT, he also gave us the gift of freewill - which means we CAN go against God and sin.
We can't blame God for everything, he gave us the gift of freewill.

Supporting argument, please?

Originally Posted by mewithYou

And without God, to simplify everything because I don't have much time... I believe that with all the influences on our minds through psychology, biology, and as mentioned, where we are socially, in our economic status, peer pressures, etc. that though our actions may seem free, they actually weren't. They weren't untainted by various influences. Which, you could say, "Well, they're just influences, they didn't force you to do anything." I disagree with that, which I'll explain later. However, I'd also argue that if we were given another life in same circumstances, we'd make the exact same decision, even if it seemed "free" it was already determined. By what? I don't know. But it wasn't free because in any other life we'd always make the same exact decision, so before we were even born, we were essentially destined to make that decision apart from any will because it was going to happen (our birth, our life, etc.) all apart from our will. But I believe things like psychology, a biology, can generally, account for every decision we make in time. So, if we can know what decisions we will make, if we have that knowledge, then are our decisions even free? If I know no matter what happens, at 2 PM, I will drink a Dr. Pepper, is that decision free? I don't think so.

So far I approximately agree with what you're saying, albeit not necessarily with your conclusion. It's true that with enough information you could accurately predict any person's actions in any given situation. The argument I gave earlier is essentially a response to this one: that those influences you list are us in every meaningful sense, and that without them there would be no "self" to make decisions in the first place. What would your response to that be?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Well, I think it depends. I believe honest ignorance would be insisting that you are 100% sure God did it. A.k.a. the people who "just know," without any reasoning behind it.

I suppose an example would be the ramblings of kgo446, in his/her post. Thank you kgo446 for making an example of yourself.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

And without God, to simplify everything because I don't have much time... I believe that with all the influences on our minds through psychology, biology, and as mentioned, where we are socially, in our economic status, peer pressures, etc. that though our actions may seem free, they actually weren't. They weren't untainted by various influences. Which, you could say, "Well, they're just influences, they didn't force you to do anything." I disagree with that, which I'll explain later. However, I'd also argue that if we were given another life in same circumstances, we'd make the exact same decision, even if it seemed "free" it was already determined. By what? I don't know. But it wasn't free because in any other life we'd always make the same exact decision, so before we were even born, we were essentially destined to make that decision apart from any will because it was going to happen (our birth, our life, etc.) all apart from our will.

It's problematic that you say you don't know how any of this could occur yet are convinced it is correct. I'm not going to start challenging whether it is correct or not but without any explanations, it doesn't hold up to any line of questioning. You don't have to give detailed explanations, rather suggest a general way for it to occur. You mentioned biology, so genetics would come into play but they don't completely determine how someone will act. Before we were born, we have certain influences as to which behaviours we'd do and some possible reasoning as to why. However, these influences are for simple behaviours, not for complex behaviours. If you're going in the area of neuroscience, it's a grey area because plenty is still not known at all, in fact there aren't any strong ideas for how certain things occur.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

But I believe things like psychology, a biology, can generally, account for every decision we make in time. So, if we can know what decisions we will make, if we have that knowledge, then are our decisions even free? If I know no matter what happens, at 2 PM, I will drink a Dr. Pepper, is that decision free? I don't think so.

This is all in hind-sight, we don't know what we'll do ahead of time in such precise detail. I know that when I have a test I'll study for it but that's fairly common knowledge. I won't know what my answer to question #3 will be because I don't know what question #3 is. Our decisions are bound in the social environment we're in, so to say we know what we'll do ahead of time also means we'll know what others will do and how everything else will behave.

Your example isn't a free decision but such decisions are hind-sight and we don't have such knowledge until it happens. So I'm not understanding why you're focusing in hind-sight and saying what if we know something will occur because it just does not happen at all.

[John 6:29]

I wish someone would post some Bible verses about freewill... I'd be interested in people's interpretations of such verses. I find most Christians just end up choosing to believe in freewill because it makes them more comfortable with God if they chose Him, not Him choosing them...

lol, Nick...

Well, I understand what you're saying, I may elaborate on what I said, however, you are viewing what I am saying is hindsight. I'm not necessarily looking at hindsight, but rather the reality of a possible theory. That is, that with biology and psychology we can guesstimate what decision we will make. I mean, you, I'm sure, know that we make predictions with a hypothesis based on factual information. The more and more we gain support for these facts, the more probable our hypothesis is true. Thus, as science advances, it may very well be possible to predict our actions.

Now, I know that is theoretical and not yet possible. But the implications show that things are headed this direction, and I believe, to be very likely. Yet even if we remove hindsight, I know I am going to choose to post this thread. Could I cancel it? Yeah. But I know I'm not going to. Do I have the choice to cancel it? I suppose if you call it a choice, yes. But I'm certain that psychologically through various chemical reactions, genes, and what have you, I am determined to post this without any decision on my part, though it very much feels like a decision to myself. I can say with certainty, that even if this was another lifetime, I'd still post this. Given a thousand lifetimes, I'd post it a thousand times. I don't believe this is necessarily a free choice to post it. Even if I remove God. I suppose we can say I was destined to post it. I was going to post this before I was even born. And now, it is going to be hindsight, because I am going to post it right now. Again, I can't prove, or disprove that this is a choice. But I believe theoretically, it was already determined in me before I "chose" to do it, and this was determined for me thousands, millions, billions, however many years of genealogy are before me. The first person or being that evolved of my family line all started my decision making years ago.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

So far I approximately agree with what you're saying, albeit not necessarily with your conclusion. It's true that with enough information you could accurately predict any person's actions in any given situation. The argument I gave earlier is essentially a response to this one: that those influences you list are us in every meaningful sense, and that without them there would be no "self" to make decisions in the first place. What would your response to that be?

I'm surprised we agree on anything, even if not the conclusion.

Let me think about this.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Well, I understand what you're saying, I may elaborate on what I said, however, you are viewing what I am saying is hindsight. I'm not necessarily looking at hindsight, but rather the reality of a possible theory. That is, that with biology and psychology we can guesstimate what decision we will make. I mean, you, I'm sure, know that we make predictions with a hypothesis based on factual information. The more and more we gain support for these facts, the more probable our hypothesis is true. Thus, as science advances, it may very well be possible to predict our actions.

In some respects, this already has been developed but it's not to any significant accuracy. Risk assessment protocols are given to many criminals upon entry and prior to parole hearings to indicate the chances of them doing a certain action. However, they're not very accurate. We have other predictions that are more accurate but more vague, such as biological evolutionary ones. We can predict certain actions of others to a very high accuracy but they're not voluntary ones. To accurately predict one's actions, we need to know how they rationalize, their views on various topics, etc... . Another problem is testing this. In the most simple experiment, there's the experimental group (group whose actions are going to be predicted) and control group. Problem is, how do we measure the control group's actions? This is not as problematic when it's to very basic situations but when it's to predicting actions in very complicated situations, you've reached another problem: the binding problem. Essentially this is how do we collect all the sensory inputs (well more than 7 senses) into one conscious moment? It's difficult for another reason: we consciously and unconsciously filter sensory information but not all to the same degree. There's limitless individual variability.

If you're going to predict behaviours based on actions at the cellular and microbiological level (where tons of neuroscience research is currently at), you'll drive yourself insane.

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Now, I know that is theoretical and not yet possible. But the implications show that things are headed this direction, and I believe, to be very likely.

What implications?

Originally Posted by mewithYou

Yet even if we remove hindsight, I know I am going to choose to post this thread. Could I cancel it? Yeah. But I know I'm not going to. Do I have the choice to cancel it? I suppose if you call it a choice, yes. But I'm certain that psychologically through various chemical reactions, genes, and what have you, I am determined to post this without any decision on my part, though it very much feels like a decision to myself. I can say with certainty, that even if this was another lifetime, I'd still post this. Given a thousand lifetimes, I'd post it a thousand times. I don't believe this is necessarily a free choice to post it.

I'm interested in this idea that you're saying but I'm not seeing any suggestions as to how it can occur. Nothing biological determines such actions in the way you're describing it. When you say "I was going to post this before I was even born" is over the edge of ridiculous and unsupported babble. I cant help but feel that you think genes and genetics 100% determine one's actions, which is not the case at all.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That you think so indicates that you are rather mistaken about what my logic is, and given that I hope you'll forgive me for declining to get into yet another argument of semantics with you, particularly one that isn't actually related to the topic. I do believe you are correct that the meanings I use are not widely understood (outside of atheist circles that is), which I feel is a small part of the reason that atheists as a group are so widely misunderstood and mistrusted in the US. That is why I do my best to make this point clear.

I must confess I find that response somewhat bemusing (not the declining part which I respect fully, I should add) - I had hoped the very fact that I said "that is not something I believe you would advocate" would indicate I did not genuinely think that was the view you take or how you sought to apply said logic. What I was alluding to is the fact that if you discount agnosticism as a standalone position in religious debate, then by logical extension you take out both strong and weak agnosticism - and weak agnosticism covers the "undecided/don't know" position you refer to in your subsequent posts. That leaves only theism and atheism as the remaining positions, as you have unintentionally removed the undecided option by correcting what you feel is a misapplication of terminology, and therefore the obvious logical hiccup I describe. That follows logically from the use of the term and how weak agnosticism is currently defined. I would agree that it is a clumsy use of the term, but that is how it currently stands and thus care is required when making sweeping statements about terms like agnosticism. By claiming it as solely a subset of atheism as you do in your original post it causes all manner of problems for no real gain and confuses the issue further. However, as you quite rightly point out this is getting off topic.

Anyway, onto the free will argument proper...I'm not sure if there is much philosophical or theological support for my particular take on the question (I'll do my best to find some later), but I feel that free will is not irreconcilable with the concept of a higher power or God based on a take on quantum theory. The particular bit I'm alluding to is the parallel universes notion which suggests that there may be a near-infinite number of different universes where subtle variations exist compared with our own and thus develop accordingly. (That's a very layman's explanation, I hasten to add, and I'm sure someone with greater specific knowledge could explain it far better than I) Based on this, I believe that at any given time we are exposed to countless opportunities which can determine the direction in which our lives subsequently go. They could be as simple as buying a coffee on the way to the train, deciding whether to stop at a pedestrian crossing or chance it, or bigger decisions such as career or education choices. All of these choices could potentially lead in any number of different directions and have consequences which means a life where A happens rather than B will be fundamentally different to a life where B happens. However, if a God or higher power exists they would do so outside of all universes or possible variants of an individual's life, and so would be unaffected by these specific choices and therefore be able to possess knowledge of all the possible choices. It is still down to the individual to make the particular choices, but all the possible outcomes are known regardless.

I've just come back today so I'm not sure how well that reads, but I'm happy to clarify anything that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Anyway, onto the free will argument proper...I'm not sure if there is much philosophical or theological support for my particular take on the question (I'll do my best to find some later), but I feel that free will is not irreconcilable with the concept of a higher power or God based on a take on quantum theory. The particular bit I'm alluding to is the parallel universes notion which suggests that there may be a near-infinite number of different universes where subtle variations exist compared with our own and thus develop accordingly. (That's a very layman's explanation, I hasten to add, and I'm sure someone with greater specific knowledge could explain it far better than I) Based on this, I believe that at any given time we are exposed to countless opportunities which can determine the direction in which our lives subsequently go. They could be as simple as buying a coffee on the way to the train, deciding whether to stop at a pedestrian crossing or chance it, or bigger decisions such as career or education choices. All of these choices could potentially lead in any number of different directions and have consequences which means a life where A happens rather than B will be fundamentally different to a life where B happens. However, if a God or higher power exists they would do so outside of all universes or possible variants of an individual's life, and so would be unaffected by these specific choices and therefore be able to possess knowledge of all the possible choices. It is still down to the individual to make the particular choices, but all the possible outcomes are known regardless.

If you're actively making all possible choices at all times, then how does that constitute actually making any choices? Which universe you 'end up' in wouldn't be a result of choice but rather simply a trick of perspective.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If you're actively making all possible choices at all times, then how does that constitute actually making any choices? Which universe you 'end up' in wouldn't be a result of choice but rather simply a trick of perspective.

You are still making only the particular set of choices you make over the course of your life, and those choices would make your particular life and experiences distinct from any other version of your life be that theoretical or in a parallel universe (I'm pretty hazy about how realistic a prospect such universes are viewed as being; it's well beyond my level of understanding so I was hedging my bets by referring to both in my earlier post and again in this one). My point was more that the choices exist in such a way that they can be known by an external higher power or God without interfering with an individual's exercise of free will. The best analogy I can think of is like playing a role-playing game such as those created by BioWare or similar companies, but having an official game guide alongside as well which one of your friends is reading. You make choices as you go along with certain preset consequences, but as your friend is reading the guide (which sets out all possible options and consequences in the game) they already know what the consequences are before you make the choice and can see where it will end up. It doesn't affect your ability to choose, however, and the choices remain available even with their prior knowledge of them. That is more or less the line of thought I was proposing. It's still not a perfect explanation but hopefully that clarifies it a bit more.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

You are still making only the particular set of choices you make over the course of your life, and those choices would make your particular life and experiences distinct from any other version of your life be that theoretical or in a parallel universe (I'm pretty hazy about how realistic a prospect such universes are viewed as being; it's well beyond my level of understanding so I was hedging my bets by referring to both in my earlier post and again in this one). My point was more that the choices exist in such a way that they can be known by an external higher power or God without interfering with an individual's exercise of free will. The best analogy I can think of is like playing a role-playing game such as those created by BioWare or similar companies, but having an official game guide alongside as well which one of your friends is reading. You make choices as you go along with certain preset consequences, but as your friend is reading the guide (which sets out all possible options and consequences in the game) they already know what the consequences are before you make the choice and can see where it will end up. It doesn't affect your ability to choose, however, and the choices remain available even with their prior knowledge of them. That is more or less the line of thought I was proposing. It's still not a perfect explanation but hopefully that clarifies it a bit more.

I do see what you're trying to argue, but it seems inherently self-contradictory and still doesn't actually address the primary objection to free will (that being that our actions are determined by physical laws at the atomic level). If there is only one "real" universe, as you seem to be implying, then those actions should still be predictable with enough information. There would only still be one real choice you could make; atoms can't choose to react to physical laws in multiple ways, after all. If the multiple universes are equally real, then yuo, or versions of you, are making all possible choices (but still according to those physical laws), and you have no choice as to which version of 'you' you end up becoming. I don't think adding an infinite number of universes to the equation actually solves anything.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I do see what you're trying to argue, but it seems inherently self-contradictory and still doesn't actually address the primary objection to free will (that being that our actions are determined by physical laws at the atomic level). If there is only one "real" universe, as you seem to be implying, then those actions should still be predictable with enough information. There would only still be one real choice you could make; atoms can't choose to react to physical laws in multiple ways, after all. If the multiple universes are equally real, then yuo, or versions of you, are making all possible choices (but still according to those physical laws), and you have no choice as to which version of 'you' you end up becoming. I don't think adding an infinite number of universes to the equation actually solves anything.

I will admit to being uncertain as to where the "inherent self-contradiction" arises, and would be grateful for some clarification on this if only to help me understand the objection better. I suspect I may be viewing it from a slightly different angle so a bit of guidance would be gratefully received. Regarding your other point on determinism via physical laws, that is correct insofar as the biomechanical processes which form our cognitive structures are concerned, but that does not mean the outcomes of the operation of such structures is necessarily predictable or uniform. Chaos theory makes that clear and can happen even within deterministic structures. On a more general note, it does sound as though you are suggesting there is only one possible course of action permitted by such physical laws, and that there can be no variation from that, which doesn't sound right and I'm sure isn't what you're arguing for bearing in mind the observable variations between individual persons in response to stimuli, particularly where mental health is concerned. Then again, I may be completely missing the point you're trying to make which wouldn't be the first time to be fair...

[Kate*]

I believe in God and freewill, although my beliefs don't coincide with any one religion.

I believe in what I call bounded freewill, God has an ultimate plan for our lives, but we can go about it in different ways. So our choices help guide our lives, but we will eventually end up where we are supposed to.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I will admit to being uncertain as to where the "inherent self-contradiction" arises, and would be grateful for some clarification on this if only to help me understand the objection better. I suspect I may be viewing it from a slightly different angle so a bit of guidance would be gratefully received. Regarding your other point on determinism via physical laws, that is correct insofar as the biomechanical processes which form our cognitive structures are concerned, but that does not mean the outcomes of the operation of such structures is necessarily predictable or uniform. Chaos theory makes that clear and can happen even within deterministic structures. On a more general note, it does sound as though you are suggesting there is only one possible course of action permitted by such physical laws, and that there can be no variation from that, which doesn't sound right and I'm sure isn't what you're arguing for bearing in mind the observable variations between individual persons in response to stimuli, particularly where mental health is concerned. Then again, I may be completely missing the point you're trying to make which wouldn't be the first time to be fair...

Chaos theory doesn't really rescure free will, it just changes the problem. Instead of there being only one possible outcome - and therefore no ability to choose - there are multiple outcomes but they're determined by randomness on an atomic level; that's hardly free will either. Consciousness exists on a macroscopic level, so merely having multiple possible outcomes at the microscopic level as a result of randomness doesn't actually affect free will. I don't see where you got the point about mental health from. People respond to stimuli differently because their brain chemistries are different (among other reasons). I think that's clear enough.

The contradiction in your multiple-universes argument is in the role that the universes are playing. If the other universes don't really exist, then it's no different than the state we're in now: you only ever actually make a single decision, and that decision is determined at the atomic and moleculars levels which you are powerless to countermand. If the other universes are as real as ours, and there's a "branch" every time a person makes a decision, then at any point in time you are actively making all possible decisions, and instead you're powerless to change that. After the choice is made each version of you could look back and feel that they've made a decision, but that would only be a trick of perspective. "You", as in all beings that are psychologically continuous with you, still had no ability to consciously end up anywhere but where they did.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Chaos theory doesn't really rescure free will, it just changes the problem. Instead of there being only one possible outcome - and therefore no ability to choose - there are multiple outcomes but they're determined by randomness on an atomic level; that's hardly free will either.

Chaos theory is not invoking randomness - something being unpredictable is not the same as it being random. Reduction to randomness is therefore not correct.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Consciousness exists on a macroscopic level, so merely having multiple possible outcomes at the microscopic level as a result of randomness doesn't actually affect free will.

This does raise a point I was curious about - if consciousness is on a macroscopic level, which I would agree that it is, what relevance is the application of physical laws on the microscopic level that you allude to in your initial post?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I don't see where you got the point about mental health from. People respond to stimuli differently because their brain chemistries are different (among other reasons). I think that's clear enough.

The point was linked more to the above - namely, that if all that determines our behaviour and actions is the application of physical laws on the atomic level then the variations which arise in mental health among other areas should not be possible. If the principles at the atomic level are as overarching in this capacity as you make out then there would be similar uniformity of response. The fact that there is not would suggest that the particular principles guiding atomic structure and behaviour are more passive at the macroscopic level - they are evidently still in operation, but I would query whether they are as single-mindedly deterministic as you originally suggest. Observing the world around us, I would instead suggest there's quite a lot of room for variation outside of the fundamentals.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The contradiction in your multiple-universes argument is in the role that the universes are playing. If the other universes don't really exist, then it's no different than the state we're in now: you only ever actually make a single decision, and that decision is determined at the atomic and moleculars levels which you are powerless to countermand. If the other universes are as real as ours, and there's a "branch" every time a person makes a decision, then at any point in time you are actively making all possible decisions, and instead you're powerless to change that. After the choice is made each version of you could look back and feel that they've made a decision, but that would only be a trick of perspective. "You", as in all beings that are psychologically continuous with you, still had no ability to consciously end up anywhere but where they did.

Bear in mind that in my original post I was solely focused on the "reconciling free will with a higher power or God" problem, and you will hopefully recognise that the reference to parallel universes was to explain where I got the idea from and not an attempt to argue that free will is justified by the possible existence of parallel universes. Hence why I refer to it so fleetingly in the remainder of my posts, and specifically state in my second post on this point that I was "hedging my bets" by referring to both potential situations where a comparable life may arise. I do not honestly have the slightest clue whether parallel universes do or indeed can exist, and for the purposes of this debate I fear it is taking us down an intriguing but utterly irrelevant tangent. With the above in mind, the remaining points seem to boil down to the physical laws providing only one possible course of action in any circumstance, which again I feel is not an accurate reflection of the world around us.

I should add at this juncture that I would agree that our physical state and the laws of nature do have a limiting role insofar as how we execute free will; however, I would dispute that we are irredeemable slaves to our physical state and the laws of nature insofar as the operation of our conscious mind is concerned. People's control over impulses and learned behaviour over instinct would point to a certain degree of malleability.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Chaos theory is not invoking randomness - something being unpredictable is not the same as it being random. Reduction to randomness is therefore not correct.

If you didn't mean randomness then you actually haven't addressed the problem at all. The problem is with determinism, not predictability. Predictability is typically just used to illustrate the point.

Originally Posted by dr2005

This does raise a point I was curious about - if consciousness is on a macroscopic level, which I would agree that it is, what relevance is the application of physical laws on the microscopic level that you allude to in your initial post?

The fact that such laws are deterministic. The action of physical laws at a microscopic level determines the state of affairs at a macroscopic level. The argument agaisnt free will is that our actions are ultimately determined by those physical laws, and not actually by us. We are no more able to choose our actions than a rock suspended in midair is able to choose to ignore gravity.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The point was linked more to the above - namely, that if all that determines our behaviour and actions is the application of physical laws on the atomic level then the variations which arise in mental health among other areas should not be possible. If the principles at the atomic level are as overarching in this capacity as you make out then there would be similar uniformity of response. The fact that there is not would suggest that the particular principles guiding atomic structure and behaviour are more passive at the macroscopic level - they are evidently still in operation, but I would query whether they are as single-mindedly deterministic as you originally suggest. Observing the world around us, I would instead suggest there's quite a lot of room for variation outside of the fundamentals.

On this I'm afraid I can only say that you're completely wrong. I don't mean that to be an insult, but given the context the argument just doesn't make any sense. The argument against free will doesn't suggest anything remotely like "all people should behave similarly". Consider mathematics: if you take two completely unrelated functions and feed them the same input, you certainly don't expect to see the same output. It's possible that you would, but you definitely wouldn't expect it. If you feed the same input to the same function twice though, you would get the same result both times. You're talking about the former case; the argument agaisnt free will is talking about the latter. The two are very different. Similarly, everyone's brain is different; even if you did feed two brains completely identical input (itself close to impossible), the fact that the brains themselves are different means that even though the same physical laws are operating you still wouldn't expect to see the same reaction.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I should add at this juncture that I would agree that our physical state and the laws of nature do have a limiting role insofar as how we execute free will; however, I would dispute that we are irredeemable slaves to our physical state and the laws of nature insofar as the operation of our conscious mind is concerned. People's control over impulses and learned behaviour over instinct would point to a certain degree of malleability.

No, they don't. That control is the behavioral manifestation of physical changes in a person's brain, which are the result of chemical and electrical impulses. That brains change over time isn't demonstration that physical laws aren't deterministic, any more than the fact that the sun (or anything else) changes over time is.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dr2005

This does raise a point I was curious about - if consciousness is on a macroscopic level, which I would agree that it is, what relevance is the application of physical laws on the microscopic level that you allude to in your initial post?

Without microscopic you don't have macroscopic. For example, in the brain there are numerous receptors and a confusing plethora of molecular neurobiology. To have the output macro behaviour, you must have those micro levels working, otherwise the person is impaired to some degree or dead.

The same is in biological evolution. For a macro change to happen, such as new species, you need micro level changes to occur. These can be at a superficial level from changing external structure to genetic alterations and conservations. The best example is for a snake and a reptile. If you alter some of the Hox genes at the apical ectodermal ridge, you may have limited or no limbs grow (particularly arms). In humans, this can result in phocomelia, whereby the person has hands and feet but no arms nor legs. You can have the opposite, acheiropody, where there are legs and arms but no feet nor hands (although many don't develop past the elbow).

In terms of free-will, if one is to do such complex thinking that Xuhjan and yourself are, you're heavily using the frontal and prefrontal lobes of the brain (as well as other areas). If you didn't have these or they were damaged, you aren't going to do complex thinking and one can argue you will lose some free will or recognition of it.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The point was linked more to the above - namely, that if all that determines our behaviour and actions is the application of physical laws on the atomic level then the variations which arise in mental health among other areas should not be possible. If the principles at the atomic level are as overarching in this capacity as you make out then there would be similar uniformity of response. The fact that there is not would suggest that the particular principles guiding atomic structure and behaviour are more passive at the macroscopic level - they are evidently still in operation, but I would query whether they are as single-mindedly deterministic as you originally suggest. Observing the world around us, I would instead suggest there's quite a lot of room for variation outside of the fundamentals.

It's more at the cellular and molecular levels than atomic levels but even so, you're forgetting that things don't act in isolation. At an incredibly simplistic view, suppose 1 atom says "fuck it, I'm doing my shit" and screws around. That atom on its own may not do much but it will affect the next one and the next and the next, until there's quickly a load of variation amongst these select atoms. Of course, this is ignoring the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Gedanken experiment.

At the molecular level, things are linked, either directly via physical connections, indirectly or through gaps. Many neurons are linked by gaps (synapses) but some can be linked physically (integrins). For example, if there's alterations in magnesium or simply calcium, the brain is going to be damaged beyond belief as will the rest of the body. Randomness does occur in a way but it's partially controlled randomness in the brain.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Similarly, everyone's brain is different; even if you did feed two brains completely identical input (itself close to impossible), the fact that the brains themselves are different means that even though the same physical laws are operating you still wouldn't expect to see the same reaction.

It's not impossible to have the same input, it's done quite often in labs. There are surgical techniques where you can extract the live brain (usually of a mouse or rat), take a slice of it (often at the hippocampus), keep it alive in chambers with artificial cerebrospinal fluid and nutrients, then stimulate it with electrodes. You will have the same input, unless there is damage. The slice will remain alive unless you go crazy and zap it too much it'll give out eventually.

Likewise, in living animals, you can have the same input although it's harder so it's usually done with experimental drugs, such as oxidopamine, which is injected directly into the brain through the skull. After its effects have taken place, then the input processing will be identical. Depending how far you go with the treatment, the effects can be reversed but eventually it gets to a point where it's useless to try to reverse because there's so much damage. Generally though, it's stopped before the animal kills itself. So I'm afraid to say, you're wrong on that. You are correct people's brains are not all the same but that doesn't necessarily mean they will function differently and produce the same output behaviour.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

It's not impossible to have the same input, it's done quite often in labs. There are surgical techniques where you can extract the live brain (usually of a mouse or rat), take a slice of it (often at the hippocampus), keep it alive in chambers with artificial cerebrospinal fluid and nutrients, then stimulate it with electrodes. You will have the same input, unless there is damage. The slice will remain alive unless you go crazy and zap it too much it'll give out eventually.

Likewise, in living animals, you can have the same input although it's harder so it's usually done with experimental drugs, such as oxidopamine, which is injected directly into the brain through the skull. After its effects have taken place, then the input processing will be identical. Depending how far you go with the treatment, the effects can be reversed but eventually it gets to a point where it's useless to try to reverse because there's so much damage. Generally though, it's stopped before the animal kills itself. So I'm afraid to say, you're wrong on that. You are correct people's brains are not all the same but that doesn't necessarily mean they will function differently and produce the same output behaviour.

By identical I meant literally identical. It's conceivable that even a microscopic difference - a few more molecules here or there - could change an outcome. I don't think our tests are generally done to that level of precision in biology, though it's possible that in future they would be. And I did acknowledge that two different people might respond similarly to similar stimuli, but just because we know that the stimuli are similar doesn't mean we're justified in expecting that the outcomes would be as well; we'd have to know a lot more about the people in question to judge with any degree of accuracy.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

By identical I meant literally identical. It's conceivable that even a microscopic difference - a few more molecules here or there - could change an outcome. I don't think our tests are generally done to that level of precision in biology, though it's possible that in future they would be. And I did acknowledge that two different people might respond similarly to similar stimuli, but just because we know that the stimuli are similar doesn't mean we're justified in expecting that the outcomes would be as well

The stimuli can be identical, not just similar. And yes, I understand you mean literally identical. Although this all comes down to not what you are testing but how you are testing it. Depending how you're testing, a few more molecules here or there won't make a single difference. This is more at the macro/behavioural level. At the molecular level, then you will see the differences.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

we'd have to know a lot more about the people in question to judge with any degree of accuracy.

The testing has control in the variability as best as possible. For example, if I'm to test how NMDA receptors in the hippocampus (area of the brain for long-term memory formation and recollection), only certain things in your life matter to me, such as your history of drugs, mental illness and general illness. Beyond that I don't care because it's not relevant to me. So knowing more about the people has to be in a relevant way, otherwise the excess details don't matter. For example, let's suppose you are a chronic alcoholic. That is useful to me but I don't care what you drank or excess details as to when and how you drank because it's not relevant at all.

However, before better personal information is collected, we need to try and understand more of the topic overall. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the NMDA receptor but if not, it's a very very well-known receptor both for its function and how it works.

[dr2005]

Fletcher: I was hoping to post a response this weekend, but unfortunately I've been caught up in application forms and other things so it's had to go on the back burner for the moment. I'm hoping to have a post ready over the next couple of days once it all calms down again, but apologies in the meantime for the delay and will make sure it's a comprehensive response to compensate.

[dr2005]

Well that certainly took longer than I expected. Not sure it's going to be remotely worth the wait but hey.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If you didn't mean randomness then you actually haven't addressed the problem at all. The problem is with determinism, not predictability. Predictability is typically just used to illustrate the point.

With all due respect, I feel you are completely missing the point, and I fear this is because you are conflating scientific determinism (cause-and-effect) with philosophical determinism. The concepts are related, but they are not interchangeable and it is something of a misstep to argue that they are. Philosophical determinism holds that as our actions are predetermined by past causes or events, subsequent behaviour is therefore dictated by them and is predictable such that the course of action which ensues is the only one which could have done. In contrast, there is nothing within scientific determinism which requires predictability or only one course of action - hence the reference to chaos theory. Merging the two definitions as you have done is of no benefit to knowledge or clarity.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The fact that such laws are deterministic. The action of physical laws at a microscopic level determines the state of affairs at a macroscopic level. The argument agaisnt free will is that our actions are ultimately determined by those physical laws, and not actually by us. We are no more able to choose our actions than a rock suspended in midair is able to choose to ignore gravity.

I should point out that if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the laws are not deterministic and your entire argument falls flat on its face. Leaving that aside, the standard argument against free will makes no reference to the physical laws whatsoever - it refers to determinism as a philosophical concept, not a scientific one, and the transplantation of the scientific in place of the philosophical is entirely your construction. It requires a standard of proof that you have so far not advanced. Your depiction of scientific cause-and-effect as an absolute, overarching predetermining force over all events is certainly not compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation (which admittedly has its flaws but is broadly accepted at present). The gravity comparison is also somewhat flippant and missing the point - leaving aside the obvious issue of a rock not having any choice-making capacity at all, what I was referring to was how an individual chooses to act in the fact of restrictions, not breaching the restrictions themselves. For example, I am short-sighted and have been from an early age which means I cannot enter certain professions and undertake certain activities. What I choose to do outside of that and how I correct that issue, however, is within my capacity for choice - I can wear glasses or contact lenses or go for laser eye surgery, and likewise any other profession is open to me should other factors align. The fact that the physical laws acting upon my genetic code have determined my eyes are too large to focus at the correct point does not mean I have to act in a certain way in response to that.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

On this I'm afraid I can only say that you're completely wrong. I don't mean that to be an insult, but given the context the argument just doesn't make any sense. The argument against free will doesn't suggest anything remotely like "all people should behave similarly". Consider mathematics: if you take two completely unrelated functions and feed them the same input, you certainly don't expect to see the same output. It's possible that you would, but you definitely wouldn't expect it. If you feed the same input to the same function twice though, you would get the same result both times. You're talking about the former case; the argument agaisnt free will is talking about the latter. The two are very different.

Your analogy is with respect somewhat flawed, as two individuals' brains are not "completely unrelated". Given the minute level of genetic variation between individuals, and in particular the linear structure that the brain between individuals which allows - among other things - physiological comparison and transferable brain surgery processes, it is less a case of "completely unrelated" functions as functions with a digit or decimal place changed (assuming, of course, you are using real numbers). The point I was trying to make was that you can quite easily conceive situations where people who are very similar will be placed in the same situation and have completely different responses to it with no outward explanation as to why.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Similarly, everyone's brain is different; even if you did feed two brains completely identical input (itself close to impossible), the fact that the brains themselves are different means that even though the same physical laws are operating you still wouldn't expect to see the same reaction.

That is not what I was getting at in the first place. There will of course be differences owing to variations in the individual brains themselves (although as I point out above they are not as drastic as you appear to be implying), yet on the whole you would expect them to respond in broadly similar fashion. That is not a guaranteed outcome, and that is the issue I raise with portraying the laws as being a guiding force over decisions rather than a restrictive force.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

No, they don't. That control is the behavioral manifestation of physical changes in a person's brain, which are the result of chemical and electrical impulses. That brains change over time isn't demonstration that physical laws aren't deterministic, any more than the fact that the sun (or anything else) changes over time is.

It has nothing to do with demonstrating that the laws are not deterministic - which I have already acknowledged but will repeat again - so much as demonstrating that the mere fact that they are deterministic from a scientific perspective does not translate to philosophical determinism. That is what you are implying and it is something for which you have provided very little evidence beyond your own assertions - you are in effect begging the question with regard to that particular claim. As such, if we are to accept the claim that scientific and philosophical determinism are one and the same you are going to have to start providing some evidence for that.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Without microscopic you don't have macroscopic. For example, in the brain there are numerous receptors and a confusing plethora of molecular neurobiology. To have the output macro behaviour, you must have those micro levels working, otherwise the person is impaired to some degree or dead.

I would humbly submit that I am aware of this, as I am of the later point you make about things not acting in isolation. I acknowledge this by saying "they (the laws governing the microscopic level) are evidently still in operation". I appreciate that your detailed scientific knowledge is much greater than mine, and am grateful for filling in the gaps in my knowledge, but would ask that you bear in mind I have a grasp of the basics at least. Rest assured however that where my knowledge falls down I do appreciate being pointed in the right direction, as is the case for any discipline.