Science and free will

[yy2bggggs]

How it is possible that the will can both be free (not determined) and non-random.

We're going in circles. For will to be free (not determined), it must be such that I can't be blamed for it--ergo, not will at all. Not determined necessarily implies that I don't determine it.

What I'm essentially looking for is a reasonable way out of compatibilism.

 

[Belz...]

Err...don't you see a problem here?

If it wasn't a matter of belief then you wouldn't have said "they SEEM....", you'd have said "they ARE...."

No, UE. You simply do not understand the nature of skepticism. I cannot say for sure, and THEREFORE I say "seem". Only belief makes you say "are" in such cases.

No. If that is the case then everything in physical reality is caused by something, but not all causes have to be physical, and non-physical causes don't have to be caused by anything at all.

Why do you think "uncaused" means not physical ?

No. I mean it's not an event at all. It's ONLY a cause.

UE, it would really help if you understood the following point:

If the act of will is not an event (I suppose you simply mean here that it is itself uncaused), then its existence is not determined by any previous event/state. You DO realise, of course, that this means that it is completely indistinguishable from a random occurence, right ?

No, I don't agree with that, not least because it is riddled with weasel words like "either random or indistinguishable from randomness" (which confuses epistemology, ontology and pragmatism) and "for all intents and purposes"

"Weasel words" ?

(which only applies to your own intents and purposes, not mine.)

You have a big problem understanding objectivism, don't you ?

It is not random, because it is an intentional act of will.

Intent presupposes determination. You can't WANT to do something unless you know about the something and its context. And you yourself said the act is not a decision. Intent presupposed a decision. You're simply continuing to contradict yourself.

The act of will is a metaphysically foundational component of the system.

Which violates the laws of logic.

You keep saying that it doesn't matter whether you are a materialist or not. If so, why can't you accept "intentional will" as a component part of the system? Answer: because you can't make sense of how something can be intended unless it was caused by something else.

That has nothing to do with materialism. You are very confused.

Why can't you make sense of this? Because you can't make sense of the "intended" part.

_I_ can't make sense of it ? Hell, you don't even understand that intent requires factors.

My response to you is this: consult your own subjective experiences.

I don't think so. I'll go with objective reality, thank you.

Do you understand the difference between thinking and willing?

Nope. Enlighten me.

Do you understand what it would be like to be the suicidal jumper at the moment he jumps?

Unnecessary. All I have to understand is what it is like to be at the grocery store and pick one of two different brands of cookies.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We're going in circles. For will to be free (not determined), it must be such that I can't be blamed for it. Not determined necessarily implies that I don't determine it.

Which "I" are you talking about, your mind or the agent of free will?

 

[paximperium]

(1) You have know way of knowing whether those experiences were real or delusions.

Actually we do. Science and empiricism does wonders at showing how flawed your thought process are and how capable people are at deluding themselves.

(2) It's none of your business what other people choose to believe about their own religious experiences.

Actually we do. If and when your nonsense start to effect your actions and decisions such as you believing and expousing apolegetic philosophy that supports woo, we get to tell you that your beliefs are nonsensical and harmful.

Now if you shut up and don't act on any of it, then we won't have a problem. But we know you won't and so you'll keep doing things like write books that support stupidity and nonsense.

Human beings have certain fundamenal human rights. One of those rights is freedom of to believe in the legitimacy of their own religious experiences.

And we have the right to call it nonsensical garbage.

 

[Belz...]

I'm afraid we aren't going to be able to rely on other people's definitions of "random", of which there are many. You can't get rid of free will by defining it out of existence any more than you can get rid of the mind-body problem by defining it out of existence.

Of course you can. If you can define the world without free will, why would you bother positing its existence ?

 

[Belz...]

No they can't. Neuroscience studies the neural correlates of headaches, not headaches.

How are those different ?

I'm always one hundred percent positive that I am actually experiencing everything which I am actually experiencing. What I later interpret the causes of those experiences to be is another matter.

It was a mirage, UE. You weren't seeing water AT ALL. Your perception was WRONG.

Please read this book:

UE, you've been here long enough to know that evading questions like this reflects badly on you.

OK, you are the cause of an act of your will, obviously.

I thought you said it was UNcaused.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually we do. Science and empiricism does wonders at showing how flawed your thought process are and how capable people are at deluding themselves.

You do not. You cannot use science to prove that all religious experiences are delusions. The only way you can reach the conclusion that all religious experiences are delusions is because you made a metaphysical assumption that determinism/materialism is true.

Actually we do. If and when your nonsense start to effect your actions and decisions such as you believing and expousing apolegetic philosophy that supports woo, we get to tell you that your beliefs are nonsensical and harmful.

My beliefs harm nobody.

You have NO RIGHT to go around telling people that their beliefs are harmful just because you don't happen to agree with them. Teaching YEC in science classrooms is harmful. Murdering abortion doctors is harmful. Believing you've had a mystical experience harms nobody.

Now if you shut up and don't act on any of it, then we won't have a problem. But we know you won't and so you'll keep doing things like write books that support stupidity and nonsense.

And we have the right to call it nonsensical garbage.

You have a right to say that YOUR OPINION is that it is nonsensical garbage. If you try to go further and say it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that is it nonsensical garbage then you are bang out of order. This is about human rights and freedom of religious belief. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to try to impose your own metaphysical beliefs on other people. NONE. It's scientistic fascism.

 

[Belz...]

You are not in a position to tell other people that they should doubt their own religious experiences.

UE. Slow down. You don't need to go that fast. You can take all the time you need to actually READ what people say. Here. Let me help:

I'm simply suggesting that this is what you should do. And yes, even about your own experiences. In fact, especially about your own experiences.

(1) You have know way of knowing whether those experiences were real or delusions.

Exactly. Which is why I'm suggesting that you determine that by using objective evidence. Thanks.

(2) It's none of your business what other people choose to believe about their own religious experiences.

True. Which is why I'm only suggesting it.

What's your beef with my post, again ?

Human beings have certain fundamenal human rights. One of those rights is freedom of to believe in the legitimacy of their own religious experiences.

Yes, yes. Humans have a right to be stupid, too. It doesn't mean I can't suggest that someone stop being so. (not refering to you, here)

 

[Belz...]

Which "I" are you talking about, your mind or the agent of free will?

Agent ? Isn't free will uncaused ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly. Which is why I'm suggesting that you determine that by using objective evidence. Thanks.

Not possible. There is no objective evidence which can be used to determine whether or not my experience was real, because there is no scientific test which would have a different outcome dependent on whether or not it was real.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Which "I" are you talking about, your mind or the agent of free will?

Any cogent "I" (see edited addition to previous reply).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Agent ? Isn't free will uncaused ?

The agent is uncaused. It is an uncaused cause.

Perhaps people would like to restate whatever point it is that they think I have not addressed?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We're going in circles. For will to be free (not determined), it must be such that I can't be blamed for it--ergo, not will at all. Not determined necessarily implies that I don't determine it.

What I'm essentially looking for is a reasonable way out of compatibilism.

What has compatibilism got to do with it? Compatibilist free will has nothing to do with metaphysics. It's a claim about human society and ethics. Compatibilist free will is simply not what we are talking about. It has no bearing on this debate.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Any cogent "I" (see edited addition to previous reply).

That answer doesn't mean anything. It is of critical importance what you mean by "I". Do you mean your mind/body or the agent of free will (your subjective "I")?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So you're always one hundred per cent positive that everything that you experience could never, ever, be a false perception say like for example witnessing a mirage, in which you are one hundred per cent positive you're seeing water, only to later realize you weren't?

Of course it is possible to see something which looks like water but actually turned out be a mirage. It does not follow that I can be mistaken about whether or not I have a headache, and it also does not follow that all paranormal or mystical phenomena could be delusions/illusions. It would depend on the precise nature of those phenomena.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you are 100% sure you're seeing water (meaning, if you were asked at the moment if you "think" you're seeing water, you would answer "No. I don't think I'm seeing water. I know I'm seeing it. It's real, drinkable water), only to later find out as you walk further that you were wrong, that it wasn't actually water, that it was nothing but a mirage, even though at the previous moment you "knew" what you were seeing water. Do you in other words accept that perception is erroneous and leads to false beliefs, no matter how convincing they are? That believing that things are real because "you are one hundred per cent that what you're perceiving is real" is a dishonest approach based on wishful thinking?

No, I don't accept that. It depends on the precise nature of what you are percieving. Just because we can make mistakes in many situations it does not follow that this applies to all situations. To take the example of the mirage, if you actually arrive at the supposed mirage, find that it is a lake and go swimming in it then you can be fairly certain it wasn't a mirage.

 

[paximperium]

You do not. You cannot use science to prove that all religious experiences are delusions. The only way you can reach the conclusion that all religious experiences are delusions is because you made a metaphysical assumption that determinism/materialism is true.

Yes. Because my "metaphysics" works and yours does not. It is useless.

My beliefs harm nobody.

I actually believes it harms you since I think it has led to you wasting your life away in persuit of nonsense but that's your own decision to make.

Believing you've had a mystical experience harms nobody.

Really? You mean you haven't wasted your time and effort in believing in your mystical experiences instead of actually spending your time doing something useful? You mean you haven't been advocating a belief system that leads to anti-science and New Age fantasy beliefs?

You have a right to say that YOUR OPINION is that it is nonsensical garbage. If you try to go further and say it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that is it nonsensical garbage then you are bang out of order.

No. It is scientific fact mystical beliefs are often times hallucinations or delusions.

No evidence to the contrary except for "because I say so."

This is about human rights and freedom of religious belief. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to try to impose your own metaphysical beliefs on other people. NONE.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. Reality will just chug along without you and science will keep chipping away at your silly beliefs as you retreat into the little gaps of ignorance.

It's scientistic fascism.

You say this as it is if you had a choice? Reality is not a democracy.

 

[yy2bggggs]

What has compatibilism got to do with it? Compatibilist free will has nothing to do with metaphysics. It's a claim about human society and ethics.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of compatibilism, which I described earlier.

I think your confusion begins with the assumption that compatibilists are talking about a completely different sort of thing. They are not. Compatibilists are talking about your ability to do things at all--that's the same thing incompatibilists are talking about. What I'm giving you is essentially the basic, boiled down compatibilist argument--if I do, I cause.

Compatibilist free will is simply not what we are talking about.

There is no "other sort" of free will. A compatibilist isn't merely talking about some other kind of thing using the same word--rather, compatibilists are to be contrasted with incompatibilists--compatibilists are specifically denying incompatibilism.

Uncaused will is incompatibilism. That is exactly what we are talking about.

FYI, associations you may have heard or read with ethics are something else... free will is oft associated with ethics. Nevertheless, I'm only speaking poetically when I say "blame" in this thread.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That answer doesn't mean anything. It is of critical importance what you mean by "I".

No no no no! It's of critical importance that you provide such an I that is cogent. It's utterly unimportant which "I" that I select. I'm not pimpin my view, I'm soliciting.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No no no no! It's of critical importance that you provide such an I that is cogent. It's utterly unimportant which "I" that I select. I'm not pimpin my view, I'm soliciting.

Eh?

You asked me "how does the act belong to me?" My answer is that it depends on what you mean by "me." I can't tell you what you mean by "me" or "I".