Mind over Matter

[Brian-M]

"Undue external influence"
What is undue here?

It's a fuzzy line. Putting a chip in someone's head that allows you to alter their behavior by remote control would definitely be undue external influence. Slipping someone drugs without their consent in a deliberate attempt to alter their judgment or self control would generally mean their actions due to the altered state of mind were not necessarily a product of free will, although some would disagree. Using threat of violence to make someone do something might count as undue external influence, but there would be many who would disagree (arguing that the victim has the option of allowing themselves to be injured or killed instead of complying).

It tends to be shades of grey, not a clear-cut line.

There is only laws of nature below the level you are thinking.
On the surface it gives you the illusion of free will but when you dig deeper it disappears.
Do robot have free will?

On the surface a television gives you the illusion of images and motion, but when you look closer there's just a bunch of dots. Of course, the fact that it's made up of a bunch of dots doesn't mean that it isn't displaying images and motion.

Same principle with the laws of nature and thought.

Do electron have free will?
If your answer is no then we don't have free will either.

Free will requires an informed decision-making process, which in turn requires some degree of understanding and comprehension. Electrons don't have these processes and attributes, but we do. So the case of an electron not having free will doesn't apply to humans.

Just because human brain is more complex than robot brain doesn't make one have free will and other one not. Both follows strict laws of nature, rule based machine.

A robot brain would basically be a computer. I've already stated that there are circumstances that a computer (and therefore a robot brain) could be said to have free will.

You're arguing against strawmen here.

When majority of people understand that god doesn't exist then eventually the world will be a better place to live.
Same is true when people realizes, and digest that we have no free will whatsoever, not even an iota. Without free will the world will be a far far better place.

I don't see how. If you remove the concept of free will, then nobody is a murderer, because nobody can kill someone of their own free will. Think about the effect that removing the concept of free will would have on the judicial system. Either murderers would get off scott free, or lack of free will would have to be removed as an excuse, and therefore things like involuntary manslaughter or accidental death would have to be regarded as no different from premeditated murder.

The same would also apply for other crimes too. This would make the world a worse-off place, not a better place.

It is relatively easy to give up god but it is very hard to give up free will.
Two third of the atheists believe in some kind of free will.
I called them half-baked, baby atheists.

Why? They don't believe in God, and I've also explained repeatedly that definitions of free will that do not require any form of supernatural explanation exist. Why would you call someone a half-baked baby atheist due to their personal opinion on a philosophical point of view that has nothing to do with a belief in God?

Like most of your arguments, this makes no sense at all.

BTW, NO free will based deterrent is far superior than punishment based legal system. We should apply restitution not retribution.

Both a strawman argument, and a fallacy of false dichotomy. Nobody is arguing that a "free-will based deterrent is far superior than punishment based legal system". In fact, most "free-will based deterrents" are also punishment based.

Your statement that we should apply restitution not retribution is a total non-sequiter. How does this opinion apply to the topic being discussed?

In the world of Free Will there exist: Punishment, revenge, and retribution
IN the world of No free will there is only deterrent and restitution

I don't agree with this conclusion, nor do I see any rational basis, from the statements made in your posts, for you to arrive at it.

Perhaps you should spend more time explaining the nature of your assumptions and the details of your chain of reasoning instead of just throwing out unsupported bare assertions.

Your arguments aren't making much sense, and responding to them is getting very tiresome.

Everyone should ask themselves:
Can non-material awareness/thought/Free-Will exert force on matter?

I think it's already been very well established that the general consensus on this thread is that the answer is a big fat no, except to the extent that the matter in which awareness/thought/free-will arises can affect matter. Why are you bringing it up again?

 

[timf1234]

Please read the Q5 in the link below.
You can browse through other ideas to understand why idea of "Free Will" is the last unnecessary hold up of half-baked, baby atheists' weak mind.

http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm

 

[timf1234]

Again timf1234, causal is not predetermined.

Brownian motion will effect the structure of future systems whether you like it or not, start the universe again and it will not end up the same, the Brownian motion in molecular clouds will determine that with HIP at all. And therefore chaos theory does matter a whole lot, stars may or may not form and that impacts all sorts of other features, all based upon Brownian motion, which is probabilistic and not QM, it is happening in molecules that are too large for much quantum weirdness. The unpredictability of Brownian motion is NOT directly related to QM although it is dependant upon it. (Just as biophysics is not directly related to QM but dependant upon it.)

It does not matter at all if you know the exact state of the universe, Brownian motion is probabilistic and random and it effects macroscopic items. So start the universe again and some molecular clouds, especially those that involve the plasma effects, are going to turn out completely differently. I am assuming that large amounts of the early universe, which determine the nature of the later universe will be controlled by QM, especially the stuff before the theoretical photon epoch . Nucleosynthesis will occur almost randomly in many ways.

So even without Brownian motion the large cosmological structures of the universe will vary tremendously.

Look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
almost all of the early universe will be dominated by QM effects and they are apparently probabilistic and random. Even after the decoupling and cooling to the point of hydrogen atoms becoming non-ionized there will be lots of QM and Brownian motion.


So even if;
1. We knew all the rules
2. The exact state of the universe
3. Had vast computing power

It doesn't matter, QM is probabalistic and likely to remain so, Brownian motion is probablistic and will likely remain so, the universe is causal but NOT predetermined. If large gross cosmological structures are based upon probability, that means there is no predeterminism.

That is my obvious and not so subtle point.

David,

Are you telling me that even in the absence of HUP/QM, using CAE (Cause and Effect) only, if the universe is roll back from to few year in the past, let say year 2000 AD, then roll forward again, without changing any laws of nature then due to Brownian motion universe will end up in a different state than today, in 2010 AD at this moment?

I disagree.
I say, in the absence of HUP the universe will end up in the same state.

FYI, Brownian Motion (BM), Chaos Theory (CT) is too macroscopic compared to the laws of nature I am talking about. BM and CT probabilistic method is due to our technological inadequacy, whereas QM's uncertainty is in principle.
BM and CT's probabilistic methodology is an engineering method, a workaround for our lack of knowledge. HUP is a completely different story.

 

[Dancing David]

David,

Are you telling me that even in the absence of HUP/QM, using CAE (Cause and Effect) only, if the universe is roll back from to few year in the past, let say year 2000 AD, then roll forward again, without changing any laws of nature then due to Brownian motion universe will end up in a different state than today, in 2010 AD at this moment?

I disagree.
I say, in the absence of HUP the universe will end up in the same state.

FYI, Brownian Motion (BM), Chaos Theory (CT) is too macroscopic compared to the laws of nature I am talking about. BM and CT probabilistic method is due to our technological inadequacy, whereas QM's uncertainty is in principle.
BM and CT's probabilistic methodology is an engineering method, a workaround for our lack of knowledge. HUP is a completely different story.

Wow tim1234, change the goal posts much?

You can not remove QM from the universe, what place are you where you can just say "I don't like the way reality behaves, I will pretend it is something different." Maybe the Philosophy forum? QM is a model for the way the particles behave, you might want to say you have a better model than QM, but you can't just make it go away. It describes an essential behavior of reality.

You are silly if you think that Brownian motion will not effect the way reality behaves.




You keep assuming that there is some basic theory or understanding that would allow for determinism in Brownian motion, what if it is random?

Chaos theory is not random and it is totally determined in its models.

However sensitive dependance on initial conditions is a real thing. And Brownian motion would effect it, so ocean currents would turn out differently, as would weather.

Chaos theory is not, nor is Brownian motion an engineering work around chaos theory is exactly deterministic. You aren't even using the terminology correctly here. The model of of Brownian motion is a theory, not a word around.

You should really take this to the R&P forum. Your preconceptions dominate you thinking, so I suppose you will use more 'baby atheist' to prove the points you have no evidence for.

 

[timf1234]

Chaos theory is not, nor is Brownian motion an engineering work around chaos theory is exactly deterministic.

OK, if Chaos theory and Brownian motion is deterministic then there is no free will because we do not control the uncertainty introduced by HUP.
Back to square one. there is no Free Will

 

[Dancing David]

tim1234, perhaps you need to learn to read more carefully.

Neither is an engineering work around. Chaos theory is deterministic.

Do you actually know any physics or neurology? The universe in not predetermined, which was your specious claim.

If you started to study rather than pontificate, you would already know you can not control HIP, it is part and parcel of QM. You are silly to even suggest otherwise.

Free will may or may not be an illusion, hard to say.

But you are wrong, the universe in causal and determininistic in the physics sense, it is NOT determined or predetermined in the philosophy sense.

You need to learn your physics from physics sources, not the Dancing Woo Masters or other philosophy.

 

[timf1234]

tim1234, perhaps you need to learn to read more carefully.

Neither is an engineering work around. Chaos theory is deterministic.

Do you actually know any physics or neurology? The universe in not predetermined, which was your specious claim.

If you started to study rather than pontificate, you would already know you can not control HIP, it is part and parcel of QM. You are silly to even suggest otherwise.

Free will may or may not be an illusion, hard to say.

But you are wrong, the universe in causal and deterministic in the physics sense, it is NOT determined or predetermined in the philosophy sense.

You need to learn your physics from physics sources, not the Dancing Woo Masters or other philosophy.

I never said that the Universe is deterministic.
I said in the absence of HUP the Universe is deterministic.
Yes, I agree that, we do not control HUP. That is why I said, even with the HUP roles in the universe to make it unpredictable, we do not have Free Will.

We can't have free will because we neither control HUP or nor the rules of the universe.

Your problem is not lack of knowledge or data about science or neuroscience but the lack of practice in logic processing. Unfortunately, your neural network got bad connections. I feel sorry for you. But you are not alone in this. Overwhelming majority of the world population do believe in Free Will.
Overwhelming majority of the word population also believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Like you they never dig deeper.

 

[Complexity]

Everyone should ask themselves:
Can non-material awareness/thought/Free-Will exert force on matter?

The answer is: No

The reason: There is no such thing as non-material awareness/thought/free-will.

 

[timf1234]

The answer is: No

The reason: There is no such thing as non-material awareness/thought/free-will.

If Awareness/thought/Free Will are material objects then their future is governed by the followings:
1) Previous state of the Universe and the laws of nature
2) HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
Neither of those two are controlled by us. Therefore, we have No Free Will.
OR
If you want to redefine Free Will in such a way to fit the logic then you will have to say that robots, computers and even an electron have free will.

 

[Brian-M]

I said in the absence of HUP the Universe is deterministic.

So... you're saying that atomic decay is either deterministic, or based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?[/derail]

And without the uncertainty principle, wouldn't all electrons simply fall into the nucleus of the atom, making matter as we know it physically impossible?[/secondary derail]

ETA: I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just posting what popped into my head all of a sudden while reading that sentence.

 

[timf1234]

So... you're saying that atomic decay is either deterministic, or based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Due to HUP the exact timing of decay of a single radioactive element is unpredictable.
Even without HUP Atomic decay can still occur. But then the exact timing would be predictable.

And without the uncertainty principle, wouldn't all electrons simply fall into the nucleus of the atom, making matter as we know it physically impossible?

Where did you get that from?
You must be kidding.

ETA: I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm just posting what popped into my head all of a sudden while reading that sentence.

Fair enough. I don't mind.

HUP states that every fundamental measurements, length, time, mass etc. has its smallest quanta. For example, smallest possible time is 10e-43 seconds. HUP says we can't measure more accurately than the smallest available quanta. That's all.

HUP has nothing to do with the stability of non-radioactive atom. If you think otherwise, then please educate me.

The only reason I brought up HUP is that Free Will (who believes in Free Will) attempt to use HUP to prove Free Will exist. In the absence of HUP my job to show there is NO Free Will is a lot easier.

All theists, new age mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific religions, mystics, or what have you, love to use HUP to show their faith on supernatural thing is justified. They try to show that science is not perfect (doesn't know everything) therefore, their faith is justified.

 

[Dancing David]

I never said that the Universe is deterministic.

I said in reference to your incorrect use of the word predetermined. Do you deny that?

I said in the absence of HUP the Universe is deterministic.

And that is where you are wrong.
Convection on the sun will influence the weather on earth , so weather would not be deterministic. In the sense of teh start over and same result.
Convection in the earth's atmosphere, the same.
Brownian motion, the same.

So you are wrong, still.

The universe is determinsistic in the science sense but not in the philosophy sense.

Yes, I agree that, we do not control HUP. That is why I said, even with the HUP roles in the universe to make it unpredictable, we do not have Free Will.

We can't have free will because we neither control HUP or nor the rules of the universe.

No you assume we don't have free will, I took a More Neutral Tone, because I am not a Man On A Mission.

Your problem is not lack of knowledge or data about science or neuroscience but the lack of practice in logic processing. Unfortunately, your neural network got bad connections. I feel sorry for you. But you are not alone in this. Overwhelming majority of the world population do believe in Free Will.

For someone who touts logic, you seem to have overgeneralized and made a straw argument all in one.

Overwhelming majority of the word population also believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Like you they never dig deeper.

I see you are reflecting your own ego problems.

ETA:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6064991&postcount=53

 

[timf1234]

I said in reference to your incorrect use of the word predetermined. Do you deny that?

Yes. I deny that.
I repeat, in the absence of HUP the universe is predetermined.

Convection on the sun will influence the weather on earth , so weather would not be deterministic.

Complete nonsense.
[Sun's convection doesn't reach the Earth. You should have said, Sun's radiation will reach to Earth. Once the heat reaches the Earth's atmosphere then yes, it is convection.
But even radiation, why would it be any different from the first time the universe was rolled in the first place. Nothing will change since the big-bang, no matter how many time you roll the universe.]
In the absence of Quantum Mechanic's Uncertainty the weather is 100% deterministic.
Whether we can predict the weather or not is a different story.

Ut1 = exact state of the universe at time t1
Ut2 = exact state of the universe at time t2
t2 > t1
In the absence of HUP, using Ut1 and the laws of nature Ut2 is deterministic
Therefore, there is no free will.

So you are wrong, still.
The universe is deterministic in the science sense but not in the philosophy sense.

Anything, including philosophy that defies reason, logic, and science is a fairy tale for kids and half-baked baby atheists.

No you assume we don't have free will, I took a More Neutral Tone, because I am not a Man On A Mission.
For someone who touts logic, you seem to have overgeneralized and made a straw argument all in one.

Man on a mission or not, show me the flaw in the logic.
I showed you flaw in your reasoning, logic, and science.
Where is the over-generalization? Show me.

I see you are reflecting your own ego problems.

Ego or not, what you should be concerned with is the logic of the argument, the reason behind it, and the science.

 

[Complexity]

If Awareness/thought/Free Will are material objects then their future is governed by the followings:
1) Previous state of the Universe and the laws of nature
2) HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
Neither of those two are controlled by us. Therefore, we have No Free Will.
OR
If you want to redefine Free Will in such a way to fit the logic then you will have to say that robots, computers and even an electron have free will.

We have no free will.

None, whatsoever.

It is an illusion.

 

[Brian-M]

Due to HUP the exact timing of decay of a single radioactive element is unpredictable.
Even without HUP Atomic decay can still occur. But then the exact timing would be predictable.

I was going to argue against this, but doing some research on Wikipedia, it does seem that without the uncertainty principle (and therefore without the resulting confounding factors such as vacuum fluctuations) radioactive decay might be deterministic, although not necessarily predictable.

And without the uncertainty principle, wouldn't all electrons simply fall into the nucleus of the atom, making matter as we know it physically impossible?

Where did you get that from?
You must be kidding.

From physics. And no, I'm not kidding.

Think of a hydrogen atom. One electron, one proton, each being drawn together by the electromagnetic force. The electron can't simply be orbiting, because electrons would be constantly being knocked out of their orbit and end up stuck to the proton. But this doesn't happen. So what keeps the electron and proton apart?

The answer came from Pauli, Dirac and other physicists working on quantum theory in the 1910s and 1920s. Ultimately it involved a change in the way we think of particles. Instead of being a dot of mass, we think now of electrons being a fuzzy cloud spread over the entire atom (and even further.) The cloud represents the probablity of finding an electron at any particular point. So the electron doesn't orbit the nucleus at all but is in some sense distributed throughout the atom at every moment. Heisenberg figured out that the more you squash the electron cloud into a small space the less you know how fast it is travelling. Working with this image of the electron, it is impossible to find the electron in the nucleus permanently - you would know its speed and its position exactly. So it would violate quantum laws of physics.

Source: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae688.cfm

So, if an electron were to fall into an atom, it's both it's position and velocity would be known, violating the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle prevents this from happening.

Slight aside...

Convection on the sun will influence the weather on earth , so weather would not be deterministic.

Complete nonsense.
[Sun's convection doesn't reach the Earth. You should have said, Sun's radiation will reach to Earth. Once the heat reaches the Earth's atmosphere then yes, it is convection.

Convection on the sun causes affects the radiation we receive from the sun. (Sunspots, for example, are known to have an effect on weather.) So Dancing David was correct to say that convection on the sun will influence the whether on earth, although the mechanism is indirect.

But I agree with your point on this, without quantum uncertainty convection on the sun would be deterministic (albeit chaotic, in a mathematical sense of the word, and therefore unpredictable).

 

[timf1234]

We have no free will.

None, whatsoever.

It is an illusion.

If you are serious about what you wrote above then I am pleasantly surprised.

Let me ask you few consequential questions.
1. What percentage of atheists believe in some kind of Free Will?
2. I believe that a higher percentage of atheists than the general public are more rational and capable of processing more complex logic. Given this fact, why do you think most atheists still believe in Free Will, even after showing them the logic?
3. If you do not believe we have Free Will then how do you tackle the societal issues in the absence of Free Will? Issues like Crime and Punishment, morality, right and wrong, personal responsibility etc.
4. BTW, Majority of neuroscientists also believe in Free Will. Isn't it amazing? What it is so? CC (Cognitive Consonance)/CD (Cognitive Dissonance) can completely short circuit neural network rational circuitry?

 

[Mirrorglass]

If you are serious about what you wrote above then I am pleasantly surprised.

Let me ask you few consequential questions.
1. What percentage of atheists believe in some kind of Free Will?
2. I believe that a higher percentage of atheists than the general public are more rational and capable of processing more complex logic. Given this fact, why do you think most atheists still believe in Free Will, even after showing them the logic?
3. If you do not believe we have Free Will then how do you tackle the societal issues in the absence of Free Will? Issues like Crime and Punishment, morality, right and wrong, personal responsibility etc.
4. BTW, Majority of neuroscientists also believe in Free Will. Isn't it amazing? What it is so? CC (Cognitive Consonance)/CD (Cognitive Dissonance) can completely short circuit neural network rational circuitry?

I've always found a pragmatic approach to the 'problem' of free will serves me quite well. It's quite possible that free will is an illusion, sure. So what? Should I care? And if I free will is an illusion anyway, could I care?

It's ridiculous to claim that the absence of free will would do anything to concepts such as right and wrong. If a criminal has no choice but to break the law, then the society also has no choice but to punish them. Free will is like an undetectable, impotent god; an universe with it is indistinguishable from one without it. In other words, the concept, as it is used here, is completely irrelevant in any and all discussions.

 

[Complexity]

If you are serious about what you wrote above then I am pleasantly surprised.

Let me ask you few consequential questions.
1. What percentage of atheists believe in some kind of Free Will?
2. I believe that a higher percentage of atheists than the general public are more rational and capable of processing more complex logic. Given this fact, why do you think most atheists still believe in Free Will, even after showing them the logic?
3. If you do not believe we have Free Will then how do you tackle the societal issues in the absence of Free Will? Issues like Crime and Punishment, morality, right and wrong, personal responsibility etc.
4. BTW, Majority of neuroscientists also believe in Free Will. Isn't it amazing? What it is so? CC (Cognitive Consonance)/CD (Cognitive Dissonance) can completely short circuit neural network rational circuitry?

I am most serious about what I wrote.

To 1: I have no idea and couldn't care less. Popularity of ideas is irrelevant.

To 2: Your beliefs are of no interest to me. People believe in free will because it comforts them, or because they received this notion and haven't examined it carefully, or because they think badly.

To 3: I don't. My influence on society is negligible and I try not to waste my time fighting windmills that don't satisfy my whimsy or piss me off sufficiently.

To 4: If you are correct (and I have no reason to believe that you'll start being so now), they are wrong.

By the way, your pathological use of acronyms is tacky. Stop it.

 

[erlando]

I don't get it. Why is this discussion relevant? Free will or not, as I understand the posts until now one way or another it's a fundamental property of the universe we live in. I.e. there's absolutely ZILCH anyone can do to change it.

I guess I just don't get why some have an obsession with pointless philosophy.

 

[Ririon]

I guess I just don't get why some have an obsession with pointless philosophy.

This happens when people post philosophy threads in the science forum.