patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is which description of free will is more relevant to what we experience on a daily basis.

Use a new term. The term free will is already taken by a concept hundreds of thousands of years old.

You could call this a cat.

But can you see how it would be confusing and counter-productive to do so?

If you want to define a new concept, assign it a new word. Why deliberately mislead your audience? Why make conversations about your new idea needlessly difficult?

Heraclitusstudent says

It's clear I call freewill the capacity for choice we experience on a daily basis.

And volcanoes, rocks, viruses, lizards, and gears meet that definition.

Also, why call that free will when it's deliberately confusing and people are going to think you mean something completely different?

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

There is nothing magical about neurons.

No one is arguing that.

You are making the argument that somehow decision making by neural networks is materially different than that made by digital gates, gears, genetic code, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, or electrodynamics. That seems damn magical.

Heraclitusstudent says

We can debate endlessly on which definition is the right one.

The question is meaningless. There is no such thing as a right definition or a wrong definition. It's the meaning of statements that are either true or false.

The age old concept of free will is incorrect. People believe in it because they are evolved to believe in agents of will and to attribute morality to will. That doesn't mean the actual universe has ever implemented free will. It hasn't.

[stupid comment limit]

As for the concept you presented, ill-defined and ill-named as it is, that concept also doesn't hold water as you make an artificial distinction between some physical processes and others. Again, I ask you...

Dan8267 says

Do amebas? If so, then show me the distinction between viruses, which you say don't, and amebas which you say do.

If not, then do earthworms? If so, then show me the distinction between amebas, which you say don't, and earthworms which you say do.

If not, then do flies? If so, then show me the distinction between earthworms, which you say don't, and flies which you say do.

If not, then do lizards? If so, then show me the distinction between flies, which you say don't, and lizards which you say do.

If not, then do dogs? If so, then show me the distinction between lizards, which you say don't, and dogs which you say do.

If not, then do monkeys? If so, then show me the distinction between dogs, which you say don't, and monkeys which you say do.

If not, then do chimps? If so, then show me the distinction between monkeys, which you say don't, and chimps which you say do.

If not, then do humans? If so, then show me the distinction between chimps, which you say don't, and humans which you say do.

If not, then you concede this argument.

These are questions you cannot answer. Anywhere you draw that line will be arbitrary and will cause contradictions. The real answer is that there is no magic line separating any of the above. We are all just atoms doing what atoms do. And quite frankly, if you appreciate atoms and what they do as much as you should, that's plenty spectacular enough. The natural world is beautiful enough as it is. It does not need any supernatural garnishments.

www.youtube.com/embed/LtT6Xkk-kzk

www.youtube.com/embed/VaMjhwFE1Zw

Dan8267 says

I mean to demonstrate that the concept people have been clinging onto for the past 200,000 years is wrong. That is what is important.

Okay. But it's not like this is original or that it's a break through. Many great thinkers have said what you are saying, and many great thinkers have disputed it. I'll admit it's an interesting question. I'll also admit that I have trouble with it.

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ? Doesn't believing that we have no free will in some cases allow one to rationalize immoral or unethical behavior ?

See Hume and "compatilism."

marcus says

But it's not like this is original or that it's a break through. Many great thinkers have said what you are saying, and many great thinkers have disputed it.

I didn't claim to have been the first to say free will does not exist. In fact this thread started with me posting Sam Harris's talk about the subject. I found it interesting and compelling and shared it. When Harris's statements were challenged, I defended them appropriately.

Also, it does not matter how great the thinkers were who advocated the idea of free will. They are still wrong. That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

marcus says

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ?

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it". This was discussed in the videos above. The use of punishment by our legal system should only be for deterrent and rehabilitation, if that, and not to inflict suffering on the wicket.

marcus says

Doesn't believing that we have no free will in some cases allow one to rationalize immoral or unethical behavior ?

No.

Dan8267 says

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it".

I understood Sam Harris' point here, but it's obviously true that one need not totally reject the idea of free will to have understanding of the many preconditions,external and internal causes of bad behavior that should decrease the the idea that one "deserves" punishment as opposed to taking them off the streets to protect the public. WE can view criminals with WAY more understanding of the causes of their behavior without saying free will does not exist.

Even if your argument here held up (which it doesn't), it would be supposing that how society views and treats criminals is the only good versus evil question we confront.

Dan8267 says

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Nobody has yet proven it. Hey - maybe you could become the most famous philosopher of the 21st century !!

If you reject Hume, how about Kant ?

https://philosophicalruminations.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/kant-on-free-will-and-determinism/

marcus says

it's obviously true that one need not totally reject the idea of free will to have understanding of the many preconditions,external and internal causes of bad behavior

Wrong. In order to understand the universe and everything that happens in it, you must understand natural laws, which leave no room for free will humbug.

If you want to understand how life works, you have to understand the mechanisms of atoms and cells, and you must reject that there is a "life force" that is breathed into inanimate objects to make them living. If you want to understand how sophisticated decision engines like human beings work, you must reject that there is a "free will" that is breathed into inanimate objects to make them capable of choice in a way materially different from apes, monkeys, flies, amoebas, bacteria, viruses, and rocks.

marcus says

Even if your argument here held up(which it doesn't),

Exactly what argument of mine does not hold up and why?

marcus says

Dan8267 says

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Nobody has yet proven it.

A fact that is not yet proven is still a fact, not an opinion. Why do some people have such difficulty grasping this concept?

The statement "I have a marble in my pocket" is either true or false regardless of whether or not you know the answer. The statement "pistachio ice cream tastes good" is an opinion, neither true nor false, regardless of whether or not you know if I like that flavor. Your knowledge does not affect whether a statement is a fact, a falsehood, or an opinion.

marcus says

Hey - maybe you could become the most famous philosopher of the 21st century !!

Who cares? I don't. I care about the truth, not who figures it out or who presents it. The messenger is irrelevant. I've been telling you that for like 8 years now.

marcus says

If you reject Hume, how about Kant ?

I took a test to determine which philosophers were aligned with my beliefs. Here are the results. 100% agreement with Kant before reading any of his stuff.

1. Immanuel Kant (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (99%)
3. John Stuart Mill (84%)
4. Ayn Rand (73%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (71%)
6. Prescriptivism (64%)
7. Spinoza (60%)
8. Stoics (58%)
9. Epicureans (49%)
10. Aquinas (46%)
11. David Hume (38%)
12. Nietzsche (38%)
13. Aristotle (37%)
14. Plato (34%)
15. Ockham (32%)
16. St. Augustine (29%)
17. Thomas Hobbes (25%)
18. Nel Noddings (24%)
19. Cynics (5%)

Despite a high Ayn Rand score, I disagree with most of her "morality", agreeing only with the idea of objective reality and rationality.

This universe is much too complex for anybody to deduce much at all.

If you aren't aware of certain information, your entire theories can be pretty far off.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Even if your argument here held up(which it doesn't),

Exactly what argument of mine does not hold up and why?

Dan8267 says

marcus says

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ?

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it". This was discussed in the videos above. The use of punishment by our legal system should only be for deterrent and rehabilitation, if that, and not to inflict suffering on the wicket.

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions. The 2 primary ways this argument fails are:

1) This is only one example of "evil" that can be attributed to believing in free will. It's easy to come up with compelling arguments as to the moral benefits of people taking responsibility for their actions (i.e. believing that they have free will)

2) IT was wrong anyway. Because people "judging" the criminal could learn that most or sometimes even all of the reasons for the criminals behavior are not his fault, without rejecting free will in an absolute way.

931e says

This universe is much too complex for anybody to deduce much at all.

Empirically false. Science works. The proof is modern life. Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

Feigning ignorance is not humility, and it is not a virtue. One must know what one does know to learn what one does not know.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions.

By the way, FortWayne is a perfect example of this. How could you even doubt that some people believe that "evildoers" should suffer for their crimes? You've argued with Fort Douchebag. You know what he believes.

"Empirically false. Science works. The proof is modern life. Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

Feigning ignorance is not humility, and it is not a virtue. One must know what one does know to learn what one does not know."

You seem to be quite bold in your confidence in your understanding of what "science" has and can accomplish. I like it but its definitely unfounded.

Nobody knows the origin of life or how it all began. Nobody knows why we hallucinate every night as we sleep. Some of these things science cannot and will never prove in a scientific manner.

Dan8267 says

How could you even doubt that some people believe that "evildoers" should suffer for their crimes?

How could you possibly think I might possibly doubt that.

Are you not capable of trying to understand what the other person is saying?

marcus says

How could you possibly think I might possibly doubt that.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions. The 2 primary ways this argument fails are:

Sure sounds like you are arguing that the believe in free will doesn't have significant bad consequences.

marcus says

Are you not capable of trying to understand what the other person is saying?

Depends on how articulate they are. My interpretation of what you said was very reasonable. If it's not what you meant, then write more clearly and to the point.

Dan8267 says

Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

931e says

You seem to be quite bold in your confidence in your understanding of what "science" has and can accomplish. I like it but its definitely unfounded.

One of the advantages of living in the Information Age is that all of mankind's knowledge is at your fingertips including historical knowledge.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html

https://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/we-have-doubled-the-human-life-span/19067

www.youtube.com/embed/0OtFSDKrq88

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

931e says

You seem to be quite bold in your confidence in your understanding of what "science" has and can accomplish. I like it but its definitely unfounded.

One of the advantages of living in the Information Age is that all of mankind's knowledge is at your fingertips including historical knowledge.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html

https://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/we-have-doubled-the-human-life-sp...

What field of science was utilized to develop the big bang theory?

931e says

Nobody knows the origin of life or how it all began.

www.youtube.com/embed/PqPGOhXoprU

www.youtube.com/embed/CJ5jh33OiOA

www.youtube.com/embed/jfq5-i8xoIU

Or if you don't have the attention span to learn the details, here's the executive summary.

www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg

In any case, even questions that remain unanswered do not detract from the success of science. The honest man simply says, we don't know yet, but we're working on it. Nature does not give up its secrets easily, but if you want to understand nature, science is not only the best way, it is the only way.

Dan8267 says

Depends on how articulate they are. My interpretation of what you said was very reasonable. If it's not what you meant, then write more clearly and to the point.

Really ? Not to worry, I'm not going to continue. But this was clear, and already a clarification of what should have been clear in comment 99.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions. The 2 primary ways this argument fails are:

1) This is only one example of "evil" that can be attributed to believing in free will. It's easy to come up with compelling arguments as to the moral benefits of people taking responsibility for their actions (i.e. believing that they have free will)

2) IT was wrong anyway. Because people "judging" the criminal could learn that most or sometimes even all of the reasons for the criminals behavior are not their fault, without rejecting free will in an absolute way.

Dan8267 says

The honest man simply says, we don't know yet

True.

I like the theory but its simply that... a theory. There is no replicable evidence in the hard traditional scientific sense to support the theory.

Meaning we cannot replicate the creation of the galaxxy and everything in it to provide hard evidence our calculations are correct.

I find it perplexing that we can feel so confident of a theory that is based on an occurrence that took place over 5 billion years ago and billions of miles away. Yet somehow we cannot solve health complications that take place within our own bodies.

Billions of dollars in research & 100s of thousands of the brightest scientists trying to crack cancer but we see similar results to the 1980s still today.

When I look at the whole picture I just feel conpletely silly believing the big bang theory wholeheartedly based on our inability to effectively solve problems much closer to home.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

931e says

You seem to be quite bold in your confidence in your understanding of what "science" has and can accomplish. I like it but its definitely unfounded.

One of the advantages of living in the Information Age is that all of mankind's knowledge is at your fingertips including historical knowledge.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11.html

https://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/we-have-doubled-the-human-life-span/19067...

What field of study developed the big bang theory?

931e says

What field of science was utilized to develop the big bang theory?

Several, most prominently astronomy. What does that have to do with this discussion? And why are you asking me? Do I look like Google?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Origin_of_the_Big_Bang_model

The basis of the Big Bang premise, that the universe had a beginning, was speculated upon for hundreds of years with early astronomers, such as Johannes Kepler, arguing the universe was finite in age. Edgar Allen Poe in 1848 wrote that the Universe was cyclic in nature, expanding and contracting from a single primordial state.[5] Poe also believed that time and space were one, nearly 100 years before Albert Einstein would prove it so. In 1927 Belgian physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model of the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae with Edwin Hubble providing the observational evidence of redshifting galaxies in 1929. Einstein, having deliberately implied that there was a Big Bang in his theory of general relativity, proved that the mathematical evidence pointed towards a starting point of time and space. It was Georges Lemaître who was intelligent enough to notice Einstein's implication, and so it was Lemaître who had officially announced the Big Bang model. At the time, however, it was not called "the Big Bang". Lemaître called it his fireworks theory because he envisioned an explosive beginning. The term "Big Bang" did not come about until years later, when it was coined by Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the steady state model and used the term "Big Bang," alleged to be in a derogatory sense.

Dan8267 says

931e says

What field of science was utilized to develop the big bang theory?

Several, most prominently astronomy. What does that have to do with this discussion? And why are you asking me? Do I look like Google?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Origin_of_the_Big_Bang_model

The basis of the Big Bang premise, that the universe had a beginning, was speculated upon for hundreds of years with early astronomers, such as Johannes Kepler, arguing the universe was finite in age. Edgar Allen Poe in 1848 wrote that the Universe was cyclic in nature, expanding and contracting from a single primordial state.[5] Poe also believed that time and space were one, nearly 100 years before Albert Einstein would prove it so. In 1927 Belgian physicist and Catholic priest Georges...

You eat it up pretty good... hook, line, AND sinker

9dc9 says

You eat it up pretty good... hook, line, AND sinker

Honey, if you think you are successfully trolling, you are even more pathetic than you already look. You have upset no one and accomplished nothing. However, if it is your intent to disrupt this thread, then permaban bitch.

Dan8267 says

9dc9 says

You eat it up pretty good... hook, line, AND sinker

Honey, if you think you are successfully trolling, you are even more pathetic than you already look. You have upset no one and accomplished nothing. However, if it is your intent to disrupt this thread, then permaban bitch.

Not trolling... just stating that it sure seems like you believe everything published by mainstream science.

That seems like a limited but common perpsective. No need to get emotional with the name calling buddy ;)

Registering an new account after being banned is trolling. @Patrick, you need to bring back delete for trolling.

Oh, and troll, you still have failed to invoke emotion other than pity.

Dan8267 says

The age old concept of free will is incorrect. People believe in it because they are evolved to believe in agents of will and to attribute morality to will. That doesn't mean the actual universe has ever implemented free will. It hasn't.

Again your empty claim that you know exactly what people mean.
But it is an incontrovertible fact that people make choices about what to do and therefore have agency in this world.
As far as morality: given that they make choices based on parameters like "how much attention should I pay to other people", "How ok is it to make other people suffer", and given that they can change these parameters, we are socially totally justified to assign blame to people who set these parameters to the wrong values.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Do amebas? If so, then show me the distinction between viruses, which you say don't, and amebas which you say do.

If not, then do earthworms? If so, then show me the distinction between amebas, which you say don't, and earthworms which you say do.

If not, then do flies? If so, then show me the distinction between earthworms, which you say don't, and flies which you say do.

If not, then do lizards? If so, then show me the distinction between flies, which you say don't, and lizards which you say do.

If not, then do dogs? If so, then show me the distinction between lizards, which you say don't, and dogs which you say do.

If not, then do monkeys? If so, then show me the distinction between dogs, which you say don't, and monkeys which you say do.

If not, then do chimps? If so, then show me the distinction between monkeys, ...

I can totally answer these questions: the ability to make a choice (repeating for the 15th time for Dan) requires to hold a sufficiently powerful knowledge representation of the world and how it works, so as to project alternatives, pick one and execute it.

Amebas do not have a nervous system, so they are excluded.
Worms and flies probably do not have a good representation of the world including alternatives. They are mostly reacting to stimuli.
Lizards have probably a very simply representation that offer them some limited choices, so have a limited amount of freewill.
All other animals you mentioned have freewill in, probably to various degrees.

Volcanoes definitively do NOT have free will according to my definition.
Computers can have it.
Humans definitively DO have it, according to my definition.

Dan8267 says

You are making the argument that somehow decision making by neural networks is materially different than that made by digital gates, gears, genetic code, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, or electrodynamics. That seems damn magical.

Magical to you because you are unable to acknowledge the simple difference between a machine that makes a choice and a machine that doesn't.
It's a simple enough difference of function. A shovel doesn't make a choice. A chess program makes choices about what move to make.

A machine that constantly makes choices about what to do in the world around it has freewill (my def).

Heraclitusstudent says

Amebas do not have a nervous system, so they are excluded.

Computers don't have a nervous system, and you said they can have free will. This contradicts the above statement.

Heraclitusstudent says

Lizards have probably a very simply representation that offer them some limited choices, so have a limited amount of freewill.

Oh, so now free will is free-ish will. That's clearly not what all people talking about free will for thousands of years meant.

I think you are confusing the concept of free will with the concept of consciousness. They are very different things. Consciousness can be throttled. Nature allows that. Nature doesn't allow for free will as doing so requires breaking causality.

All you are really trying to argue is that we should stop calling free will by that name and instead call conscious decision making free will. Again, this is disingenuous. I have no problem that conscious decision making engines use their world-view in their decision making. That has nothing to do with the subject of free will. Get another term for that.

[stupid comment limit]

Heraclitusstudent says

Magical to you because you are unable to acknowledge the simple difference between a machine that makes a choice and a machine that doesn't.

It's a simple enough difference of function. A shovel doesn't make a choice. A chess program makes choices about what move to make.

A chess program's choices are still deterministic. It has no more ability to deviate from pre-ordained results than a shovel has. A chess program is following instructions that are literally executed by digital circuitry, which does not have free will, and the atoms in those circuits are obeying the exact same laws of electrodynamics as the shovel. The chess program's decision to move the queen when the heuristic of state B has a greater value than it does with state A is every bit as mechanical as the shovel's decision to crack when the force applied by the resistance of snow is greater than the electric force holding the atoms of iron or plastic together. It is literally the exact same force at work and the exact same laws of nature.

A computer is a very sophisticated object, but it ultimately is blindly following the laws of physics no different from a shovel or a human.

Heraclitusstudent says

A machine that constantly makes choices about what to do in the world around it has freewill (my def).

I don't care what you're definition is. If you define free will as a smelly asshole, lots of people and animals have free will. That does not change the fact that the concept people have talked about for the past few thousand years using the term free will is inherently flawed. This thread is about that concept, not about the term free will. If you want to repurpose the term to refer to something completely different, open another thread. I'm not going to argue arbitrary nomenclature with you. It's the concept that is important, not what arbitrary series of letters you use to name it.