Several questions

[warpspeedpetey]

Who can predict?

anyone that knows the starting state of the system. it is not necessary that anyone does in fact know the starting state of the system, it matters only that the system is deterministic. that things can be no different than they are. each state of the system is entirely dependent on the previous state of the system.

How do you figure? Seems to be some serious leaps here. Explain yourself carefully.

ok.

there are billions of people on earth, making trillions of apparently free will decisions every hour of everyday and they have done so for the thousands of years of recorded human history.

now if we live in a deterministic universe, then every state of the system is dependent on the previous state of the system, and nothing can be other than it is, because all states of the system ultimately depend on the starting state of the system. including these ‘illusory’ free will decisions.

therefore, all these free will events must necessarily be accounted for in the starting state of the system, unfolding as the system progresses, but ultimately determined by the starting state of the system.

so if free will is illusory, it is very strong evidence of design.

so it would seem the most parsimonious, economical answer is that we do have unrestricted free will.

the alternative is that we are just acting out a script, written into the starting state of the system. it gets even more ludicrous if we say that the script is simply random and results in the coherency of the system we know as the universe.

No, I’m certainly not saying that.

ok, fair enough then.

 

[Think_About_It]

anyone that knows the starting state of the system. it is not necessary that anyone does in fact know the starting state of the system, it matters only that the system is deterministic. that things can be no different than they are. each state of the system is entirely dependent on the previous state of the system.

ok.

there are billions of people on earth, making trillions of apparently free will decisions every hour of everyday and they have done so for the thousands of years of recorded human history.

now if we live in a deterministic universe, then every state of the system is dependent on the previous state of the system, and nothing can be other than it is, because all states of the system ultimately depend on the starting state of the system. including these ‘illusory’ free will decisions.

therefore, all these free will events must necessarily be accounted for in the starting state of the system, unfolding as the system progresses, but ultimately determined by the starting state of the system.

Agreed (up to this point)

so if free will is illusory, it is very strong evidence of design.

Not seeing the connection, Pete. How do you figure this is evidence for design?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Agreed (up to this point)

Not seeing the connection, Pete. How do you figure this is evidence for design?

the way that i think it (the free will is an illusion argument) implies design, is specifically in the fact that all free will events must be accounted for at the starting state of the system.

so the starting state of the universe, like a “script”, was either written to produce this exact “play” causing us to have trillions of illusory free will events per hour, or a “script” just formed randomly causing the illusion of all these free will events. which is even more unlikely.

in either case, the more parsimonious answer seems to be that we simply have free will.

 

[Think_About_It]

the way that i think it (the free will is an illusion argument) implies design, is specifically in the fact that all free will events must be accounted for at the starting state of the system.

What do you mean “free will events.” Why “accounted for”?

so the starting state of the universe, like a “script”, was either written to produce this exact “play” causing us to have trillions of illusory free will events per hour, or a “script” just formed randomly causing the illusion of all these free will events. which is even more unlikely.

Hmm. I wouldn’t venture a guess as far as that. “Written” implies a writer; I don’t think I could ever suppose that, based soley on the fact that there is something rather than nothing. It’s really beyond my investigative powers (and anyones, if you ask me).

in either case, the more parsimonious answer seems to be that we simply have free will.

Parsimony really has nothing to do with it. The degree to which our behaviour is predictable is the degree to which we don’t have free will, but rather our actions are caused by other things. Furthermore, the only reason we can’t predict everything isn’t because everything is random, but for the simple matter that we don’t have the cognitive faculties to do so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean “free will events.” Why “accounted for”?

a ‘free will event’ in this context, is either making or seeming to make a free will decision.

“accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed , must be present in the starting state of the system.

Hmm. I wouldn’t venture a guess as far as that. “Written” implies a writer; I don’t think I could ever suppose that, based soley on the fact that there is something rather than nothing. It’s really beyond my investigative powers (and anyones, if you ask me).

if it were written, that would indeed imply a writer, and that is the problem im trying to point out. people arguing that free will is an illusion, are inadvertantly making a strong implication of design.

however, i dont agree that it is beyond investigatory powers. the history of science and mathematics shows there is very little beyond our investigatory powers, our limit only seems to be what our state of knowledge is at any given time. that limit constantly changes so when people talk about things violating some part of our scientific understanding as though that makes them somehow more implausible, what they really mean is that it violates our current understanding of science.

a reasonable man allows that our current understanding of science isnt any more complete than it was a few centuries ago and therefore isnt a good standard of what is possible or impossible… remember, everytime we fire up a particle accelerator, we fundamentally change our understanding of the nature of the universe. at any time we could have a complete sea change in our understanding of reality.

Parsimony really has nothing to do with it.

when i say parsimonious, im talking about Ockhams Razor

Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.

the simplest explanation isnt that free will is an illusion, for the reasons i specified, but rather that we simply have free will.

The degree to which our behaviour is predictable is the degree to which we don’t have free will, but rather our actions are caused by other things.

our behavior is predictable to others because we assume others have rational motivations, similar to ours, if they dont, we call those people crazy. they are unpredictable, and that usually unnerves other people.

yet if we think about it, we realize that free will is not restricted by what may be the rational choice in any situation, but that there is no restriction on free will at all.

suppose someone was trying to shoot me. i could be reasonable, and duck, i could be brave and charge my assailant, or i could be irrational and and plan a birthday party amid the gunfire.

as long as i am willing to accept the consequence for my free will action, then there are no restrictions on my free will.

suppose i were strapped down under the same conditions. the ontological status of my free will doesnt change when i am prevented from carryingout a duck, charge or party planning. i can still make those decisions, i just cant enact them. it may make free will a moot point, but it doesnt make free will disappear.

Furthermore, the only reason we can’t predict everything isn’t because everything is random, but for the simple matter that we don’t have the cognitive faculties to do so.

i dont think everything is random either.

 

[Think_About_It]

if it were written, that would indeed imply a writer, and that is the problem im trying to point out. people arguing that free will is an illusion, are inadvertantly making a strong implication of design.

That things happen - free will events as you’ve termed them for some reason - isn’t outright evidence that those events are scripted, as by an author.

however, i dont agree that it is beyond investigatory powers. the history of science and mathematics shows there is very little beyond our investigatory powers, our limit only seems to be what our state of knowledge is at any given time. that limit constantly changes so when people talk about things violating some part of our scientific understanding as though that makes them somehow more implausible, what they really mean is that it violates our current understanding of science.

Whatsoever the case may be. For all intents and purposes, I have no reason to make that leap, given current scientific understanding.

a reasonable man allows that our current understanding of science isnt any more complete than it was a few centuries ago and therefore isnt a good standard of what is possible or impossible… remember, everytime we fire up a particle accelerator, we fundamentally change our understanding of the nature of the universe. at any time we could have a complete sea change in our understanding of reality.

I agree. Which is why I’m not going to plug a creator in there, because there’s no way to confirm it. I’m not saying science doesn’t know so I’m disconfirming something. I’m saying there’s no current understanding that would lead me to believe an author was behind the events that are happening right now.

when i say parsimonious, im talking about Ockhams Razor

the simplest explanation isnt that free will is an illusion, for the reasons i specified, but rather that we simply have free will.

Free will being an illusion might only be evidence of design if you thought for some arbitrary reason that there was a designer; there’s no logical connection supporting that idea though.

our behavior is predictable to others because we assume others have rational motivations, similar to ours, if they dont, we call those people crazy. they are unpredictable, and that usually unnerves other people.

I don’t understand the need for this kind of framing. It’ as simple as this: behaviour is predictable because, when we know the variables, we can predict behaviour.

yet if we think about it, we realize that free will is not restricted by what may be the rational choice in any situation, but that there is no restriction on free will at all.

What you’re trying to establish is that behaviour can be predictable (rational) and free at the same time. There’s no reason to suppose that this is the case though. It’s more likely that if you can predict something, it was caused (something causes people to act time and again in a predictable way, and so on).

suppose someone was trying to shoot me. i could be reasonable, and duck, i could be brave and charge my assailant, or i could be irrational and and plan a birthday party amid the gunfire.

I’ll agree with you about this: all of those options would have been available to you in that situation, but based on your biology (what is your overall temperment? Are you scared of gunfire? Are you physiologically invigorated by action?) and the environment (What kind of experiences have shaped the ways you act? What was going on in your life when the event took place? Have you learned that it’s important to be a hero?), you would definitely only have chosen one of those actions. If you learned the kinds of behaviours that would lead to you planning a party during a rain of bullets, you would probably act accordingly, but you can only act based on what you are (biology) and what you know (environment). To say you have free will in the matter would be to ignor the fact that in that time, and in that place, and with what you’ve learned, and with what you are, you would only ever choose one of those options. If you chose another, it would be evidence not of free will, but that you are someone different, or someone who learned differently. Whatever the case, you didn’t ask to be placed into your biological frame or the environment that taught you.

as long as i am willing to accept the consequence for my free will action, then there are no restrictions on my free will.

That willingness, too, is determined. Nothing about you is outside the system - outside the physical laws that were present when what made you up began. The particles were in motion since the beginning of time (not of your doing), and just because you can experience it doesn’t mean you have a say in the matter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That things happen - free will events as you’ve termed them for some reason - isn’t outright evidence that those events are scripted, as by an author.

i call them free will events because that is what we are refering to, you refered to them as being illusory. i am refering to the same thing you are.

and your right, there may not be an author, but then you are left with an even less satisfying position, namely that the script had no author and all these free will events are illusory and happening with such coherency for no reason at all.

which violates the PSR (principle of sufficient reason)

Whatsoever the case may be. For all intents and purposes, I have no reason to make that leap, given current scientific understanding.

thats because scientism, the idea that scientific understanding is the only method of seeking the truth, is a self refuting idea. a false logical contradiction. as demonstrated here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Scientism

Scientism
The statement “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically”, is claimed to be self-refuting insofar as it cannot be proven scientifically; the same goes for essentially similar views like “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true”.[29] (This kind of issue was a serious problem for logical positivism).

scientism is a faith, even worse it is a faith in an idea that is self refuting.

I agree. Which is why I’m not going to plug a creator in there, because there’s no way to confirm it. I’m not saying science doesn’t know so I’m disconfirming something. I’m saying there’s no current understanding that would lead me to believe an author was behind the events that are happening right now.

the idea of confirmation that you are refering to is also a logical contradiction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles

Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified[31]

the appropriate test for truth is logic, not these self refuting ideas. they are false becasue they are logical contradictions

what we are trying to point out to you, is that the mode of thinking you are currently accepting as truth, or a standard by which truth can be measured, is false.

Free will being an illusion might only be evidence of design if you thought for some arbitrary reason that there was a designer; there’s no logical connection supporting that idea though.

we dont need to assume a designer first, as i just have, we can point that ‘illusory free will’ implies one pretty strongly.

I don’t understand the need for this kind of framing. It’ as simple as this: behaviour is predictable because, when we know the variables, we can predict behaviour.

your assuming that you can know all the variables. you cant, unless you assume they are all phyical in nature, whcih as i just demonstrated form free will, you cant.

after all, free will isnt compatible with either possible state of the universe.

What you’re trying to establish is that behaviour can be predictable (rational) and free at the same time. There’s no reason to suppose that this is the case though. It’s more likely that if you can predict something, it was caused (something causes people to act time and again in a predictable way, and so on).

I’ll agree with you about this: all of those options would have been available to you in that situation,… Whatever the case, you didn’t ask to be placed into your biological frame or the environment that taught you.

if people were deterministic systems themselves, sure. but then we are back to the implications outlined above. it is either a universe designed from the first state, or its completly random, and somehow the illusory free will is completely coherent anyway .

as though you were recieving random static on your TV, but it was actually showing you the olympics. surely that would get your attention, no?

point being that people arent simply deterministic robots. unless they were designed that way…

not something most atheists would agree with.

That willingness, too, is determined.

sure it could be.

Nothing about you is outside the system - outside the physical laws that were present when what made you up began.

this is what we disagree on, for me, our free will shows that we are not deteministic in nature. we actually have free will. the opposite argument, the one we just discussed still implies a designer.

either way, we wind up implying a designer. the only out is to make a ridiculous claim about random causes for the coherent interaction of peoples free will and the universe.

The particles were in motion since the beginning of time (not of your doing), and just because you can experience it doesn’t mean you have a say in the matter.

there is no such thing as time, but that aside, if the universe is closed and deterministic you would be right, and still wind up implying a designer.

so if free will is an illusion or not, it implies a designer.

unless you care to bit ethe bulloet and call it random. but i think its clear that is the least palateble option for either of us.

 

[Think_About_It]

You’re all over the place, man. One rambling thought to another. I don’t think you’ve adequately supported your theory that illosory free will supports a designer. Show it to me in a logical philosophical sequence please; you’re not being straightforward.

 

[tonyrey]

1. If all our conclusions were caused by physical processes they would be far more likely to be incorrect because there are innumerable incorrect conclusions but only one correct conclusion.

Randomness is irrelevant. Physical processes are not designed to find answers and work out conclusions to many different questions and problems. Chemical reactions have no insight into, or understanding of, what they are doing. Biological organisms are not aware of their functions. Their activity is programmed and dictated by their needs. If we are just biological organisms we are not programmed to look for the answers to philosophical, moral, political, scientific or personal questions. So it is very unlikely we shall find the correct answers or reach the correct conclusions…

I’m not saying things happen by chance, I’m saying they happen within a certain probability. I’m not certain what you mean by one correct conclusion either; to what are you referring?

To any argument or question which is not related to our biological environment.

1. The success of science demonstrates that most of our conclusions are in fact correct.

I’m not sure about how this has to do with free will.

It demonstrates the extreme improbability that all our thoughts are** caused **by physical processes.

1. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that all our conclusions are caused by physical processes.

It’s only unlikely if events (or conclusions as you’ve oddly termed them) happened at chance value - if the world was random. That is the opposite of what I’m arguing. The world is, in fact, so ordered, that we can no better escape its

physical laws than plants can (the physical order of things - the physical laws - affecting both our body and mind in ways that are out of our control).

The inability to escape physical laws does not entail understanding of those laws. In fact all physical organisms - from the amoeba to the ape - function according to those laws without understanding them. Our brain does not even know or understand what it is doing or why it is doing it. It is a biocomputer which operates mechanistically with no purpose of its own. It is programmed by events to ensure that the organism to which it belongs functions correctly in order to survive. There is no other reason for its existence - according to the physicalist. So why should it have the power of reason, insight, self-determination and self-sacrifice? Why should a biological organism be regarded as a person with moral responsibility and a right to life if it is no more than a cog in the machine of nature?

 

[Think_About_It]

Randomness is irrelevant. Physical processes are not designed to find answers and work out conclusions to many different questions and problems.

How do you figure? Our bodies are conglomerates of physical processes, and our endevour to work out conclusions is contingent on the wellness of those physical processes (e.g., the brain, our nervous system)

Chemical reactions have no insight into, or understanding of, what they are doing. Biological organisms are not aware of their functions. Their activity is programmed and dictated by their needs. If we are just biological organisms we are not programmed to look for the answers to philosophical, moral, political, scientific or personal questions.

Sure we are. Our curiosity about the world, about values, and about ourselves have survival value. It is not simply our base desires that help us survive; it’s our cognitive faculties as well.

It demonstrates the extreme improbability that all our thoughts are** caused **by physical processes.

Hmm. Our thoughts are caused by physical processes though. If you go into any imaging hardware, the rays will show activity in varying parts of the brain when you think about certain things - usually to greater or lesser degrees. That activity is synaptic firings - physical processes. If those processes are inhibited in some way (by, say, a hammer to the head), you will surely stop thinking.

The inability to escape physical laws does not entail understanding of those laws. In fact all physical organisms - from the amoeba to the ape - function according to those laws without understanding them. Our brain does not even know or understand what it is doing or why it is doing it. It is a biocomputer which operates mechanistically with no purpose of its own. It is programmed by events to ensure that the organism to which it belongs functions correctly in order to survive. There is no other reason for its existence - according to the physicalist.

Well no, humans (remarkeably) do understand the laws by which they function. Our brain is the only organ that is aware of itself (it’s a trippy thing, really). Debatable whether this trait is present in apes (metacognition is a highly adaptive process: when we can think about our thinking, we can learn to do it better, thus improving our chances for survival). When you say that we have no other reason to exist than to survive, I don’t know where you aim to go with this. To the physicalist, the reason is less impressive or important than the fact of the matter. Otherwise, our reason for being here is quite subjective. I would imagine to enjoy ourselves, if we can at all; if we should be so fortunate.

So why should it have the power of reason, insight, self-determination and self-sacrifice?

Why not? As I have said, even these higher-level cognitive functions help us to survive (and indeed it works! We outlive most mammals by a long shot)

Why should a biological organism be regarded as a person with moral responsibility and a right to life if it is no more than a cog in the machine of nature?

Only because we rather fancy the idea (+ survival - that’s key).

You’re arguing against the perceived meaninglessness of the physicalist agenda. It’s only petty and meaningless if you see it that way. I don’t. I know one day my body will expire, and the elements that make up my body will decompose and disperse into the earth from which I sprang. I’m just happy to’ve experienced it

 

[edwest2]

It’s a healthy bit to ponder, free will. If you believe in it, you have to wonder at what point you acquired it. When you were a baby you would sleep, cry, and eat whenever the inclination occured. There was assuredly no free will in it. As you got older, the repertoire of possible things you could do expanded (you could play with a toy, run back and forth through the hallway) - all things you did because you learned that some events are more enjoyable than others, or at least more acceptable. What we do is based on the interaction between what we learn and how our biology reacts to that. That a potential number of things could happen, which we perceive either during or later to be choice, is not evidence of free will. Whatever the option it is you go with (out of a multitude of options), it will be decided based on what you’ve learned (environement) via your capacity to learn it (biology). You might think of a mentally challenged person - absolutely no free will to speak of; they act completetly on whim, like the child. You are on that same continuum. Just because our mental capacities are advanced doesn’t mean we don’t act exactly according to nature - it’s just hard for us to see it sometimes because human behaviour is so variable. Nevertheless, we are physical matter set in motion, like every other living thing.

“physical matter set in motion”? So my great etc. Grandfather was a rock?


Ed

 

[Think_About_It]

“physical matter set in motion”? So my great etc. Grandfather was a rock?


Ed

Essentially - and I mean that in the truest sense of the word

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re all over the place, man. One rambling thought to another. I don’t think you’ve adequately supported your theory that illosory free will supports a designer. Show it to me in a logical philosophical sequence please; you’re not being straightforward.

ok, then.

here is your argument as i understand it, in a nut shell.

P1. the universe is a deterministic system.

therefore

C1. all free will events must necessarily be predetermined

here is my contention given your conclusion

P1. all free will events must be accounted for in the starting state of a deterministic system

therefore

C1. the starting state of the system must be designed to create all predetermined free will events

C1 implies a designer.

not an argument well suited to syllogism, inelegant and stilted, but about as simple as i can make it.

 

[Think_About_It]

here is my contention given your conclusion

P1. all free will events must be accounted for in the starting state of a deterministic system ("“accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed , must be present in the starting state of the system." - WSP)

Your argument is that there must be a cause for the beginning of these events (which you assume to be a Creator) to prove that there is, in fact, a creator. Your argument is as simple as:

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

not an argument well suited to syllogism, inelegant and stilted, but about as simple as i can make it.

It’s worse than that. The conclusion is non sequitur. (1. There’s a cause 2. It was God). There’s a huge gap between your one meager premise and the conclusion. This is not good philosophy, Pete.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your argument is that there must be a cause for the beginning of these events

it does not matter where along the trajectory of a deterministic system you care to say the start of the system is, or even if there is a literal start to the system. every free will event, must be accounted for in every state of the system prior to the event. if there is a literal beginning, then great, if there is not, that is fine also.

(which you assume to be a Creator) to prove that there is, in fact, a creator. Your argument is as simple as:

i never assumed a Creator, or trying to prove there is a Creator at all, im only talking about the implication of design when people claim that free will is illusory. that does imply a designer, unless someone wants to bite the bullet and claim its random. there is no proof here because there is an alternative, its only an implication inherent to the “free will is illusory” argument.

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.

i never said that.

C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

i never said that.

It’s worse than that. The conclusion is non sequitur. (1. There’s a cause 2. It was God). There’s a huge gap between your one meager premise and the conclusion. This is not good philosophy, Pete.

no it isnt, but then that wasnt my argument, thats a classic straw man. you made up an argument and then knocked it down without adressing the argument i actually made.

im merely pointing out that your previous contention that “free will is illusory” inadvertantly implies that there is a design to the system, that accounts for the coherency of all these free will events.

 

[tonyrey]

Physical processes are not designed to find answers and work out conclusions to many different questions and problems.

You are assuming that we are “our bodies”! Why use the possessive if there are only bodies?

If we are just biological organisms we are not programmed to look for the answers to philosophical, moral, political, scientific or personal questions.

Sure we are. Our curiosity about the world, about values, and about ourselves have survival value.

Curiosity killed the cat! Do you really believe our intellectual development has occurred **solely **on account of its survival value? How do you explain the fact that we are now more likely to destroy not only ourselves but all other life on this planet?

It is not simply our base desires that help us survive; it’s our cognitive faculties as well.

How do you explain the fact that our cognitive faculties are not restricted to our immediate environment but include the power of abstraction and the formulation of universal principles? Are they necessary for physical survival? The result of a fortunate accident? Or a more adequate explanation?

It demonstrates the extreme improbability that all our thoughts are caused by physical processes…

Hmm. Our thoughts are caused by physical processes though. If you go into any imaging hardware, the rays will show activity in varying parts of the brain when you think about certain things - usually to greater or lesser degrees. That activity is synaptic firings - physical processes. If those processes are inhibited in some way (by, say, a hammer to the head), you will surely stop thinking.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that we are prevented from expressing our thoughts. It does not mean that thoughts are caused by the brain…

Well no, humans (remarkably) do understand the laws by which they function. Our brain is the only organ that is aware of itself (it’s a trippy thing, really).

How do you **know **this? Or is it just your opinion?

Debatable whether this trait is present in apes (metacognition is a highly adaptive process: when we can think about our thinking, we can learn to do it better, thus improving our chances for survival).

You have not explained how the ability to think about our thinking originated. It seems a fantastic feat for a lump of tissue which shows no sign of being aware of itself!

When you say that we have no other reason to exist than to survive, I don’t know where you aim to go with this.

I am simply pointing out the implications of your explanation of human knowledge…

To the physicalist, the reason is less impressive or important than the fact of the matter.

Understandably, because you regard irrational processes as more fundamental than rational beings. Reasons are less important for you than physical causes, yet you don’t rely on physical causes to make your important decisions!

Otherwise, our reason for being here is quite subjective. I would imagine to enjoy ourselves, if we can at all; if we should be so fortunate.

How can that reason be subjective when it is based on our capacity for enjoyment?

So why should it have the power of reason, insight, self-determination and self-sacrifice?

Why not? As I have said, even these higher-level cognitive functions help us to survive (and indeed it works! We outlive most mammals by a long shot).
But monocells have outlived every other form of life and survived far longer than human beings - with every prospect of continuing to do so. Complexity is a disadvantage for survival. Organisms need not have become more complex if they existed solely to survive…

Why should a biological organism be regarded as a person with moral responsibility and a right to life if it is no more than a cog in the machine of nature?

Only because we rather fancy the idea (+ survival - that’s key).
In other words you explain it away as** fantasy** and wishful thinking even though it is the basis of every legal system throughout the world! The onus is on you to produce evidence for your opinion…

You’re arguing against the perceived meaninglessness of the physicalist agenda. It’s only petty and meaningless if you see it that way.

You are attempting to impose meaning on that which is meaningless - which is an absurd enterprise. You may deceive yourself but no one else… How has meaning emerged from that which is meaningless?

I don’t. I know one day my body will expire, and the elements that make up my body will decompose and disperse into the earth from which I sprang. I’m just happy to’ve experienced it.

It is not the value of life that is being disputed but your rejection of it as an objective fact. On the one hand you implicitly dismiss it by rejecting the right to life.(Why should a person’s life be valuable if he or she has no right to it?) On the other you obviously value life because you are happy to experience it. Is your evaluation arbitrary?

Otherwise, our reason for being here is quite subjective. I would imagine to enjoy ourselves, if we can at all; if we should be so fortunate.

You reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason! We exist in order to enjoy ourselves but enjoyment is not an arbitrary figment of the imagination and it is not confined to one person. It is an incontestable fact about all advanced forms of life.

 

[Think_About_It]

i never said that.

I can’t have a discussion about something your denying saying. I shouldn’t have to spell it all out for you. Go back and read what you say you meant by “accounted for” and read your argument that comes after. It’s completely incoherent.

 

[crazzeto]

Long story short, I’m a troubled theist who has come face to face with some of the bigger, philosophical complexities of faith, and I have a lot of very intelligent, atheist friends. Some of their objections have shaken me to the core, and, I’ll admit it, I’m scared of where the truth might lead me. I have been told by my priest that doubts are normal, but, I can’t help but feel as though I’d be lying to myself and to God if I didn’t pursue the truth, wherever it leads me. So, please, I beg you, help me combat the onslaught of atheism in my life. I apologize if I’m packing too much into 1 post, but, its kind of urgent and I couldn’t really find any topics that sufficiently dealth with the topics I’m wondering about.

1. I often wondered what would happen if we put Christian monks who arerelatively skilled in prayer under mental examination. Well, it turns out that we have and there is nothing special going on. All that happened was increased activity in the frontal lobe, decreased awareness in the orientation-sector of the brain. The same thing happened with Buddhist monks. There was no mental difference in the cognitive effects of Buddhist and Christian meditation. What bugs me is this; if all spiritual experience can be explained away scientifically and psychologically, where does the soul fit in? If human consciousness can be explained in purely material terms, where, I ask you, does God come into play?

I’m curious, what exactly is it you’re expecting? That we can measure ones soul? One’s gift of graces from God? These are something we can not measure, and frankly it’s something that I don’t think science is interested in persuing.

With out a further explanation here, I’m not sure what else to say.

1. Going along with the first point, if the human mind is nothing more than a random cluster of chemical reactions and neural tissue, is there free will? My friends have all denied the existence of free will based on the fact that we are compelled by the synapses occurring in our brain to act as we do. We really have no choice in the matter, and we are merely under the illusion of control. Many philosophers seem to agree with this. My friends claim to have the backing of science on this point. Are they wrong? If so, on what scientific and philosophical grounds can I refute their argument?

Well first of all, he claims he has evidence but has he produced it? I think free will can be proved this way, through the temptations we face every day. We’re all tempted to do things, sometimes seemingly inocuous other times horrifically terrible. We fight those temptations, some times we lose the first time, learn our lesson and move on.

Your freind might say here, “see, this proves we’re just being conditioned”.

Other’s however, not only “don’t learn their lesson”, but actually learn the wrong lessons. Instead of avoiding a behaviour which had a negative consequence, they seek it out. They’re choosing evil.

1. I’ve been hearing alot about quantum theory and how it eliminates the neccessity of God for a functioning universe. For those of you who know this kind of stuff, is this true? Has quantum theory shoved God out of the picture?

new sciences always make this claim, but when you dig beneath the surface what you find is a lot of guess work supporting it. Back in the day, scientists though there was a hidden planet vulcan between mercury and venus, which explained the orbits of the planets. Later we found this not to be the case.

Today we’re finding the universe doesn’t quite conform to what we expect from a big bang, so we’ve invented dark matter to explain that.

1. A good refutation of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” would be appreciated, though, not as neccessary or urgent as the other points.

Thank you in advance to all of you who respond.

I would start with Mere Christianity

and also

Life After Death: The Evidence

 

[Think_About_It]

You are assuming that we are “our bodies”! Why use the possessive if there are only bodies?

tradition

Curiosity killed the cat!

conventional “wisdom”…

Do you really believe our intellectual development has occurred **solely **on account of its survival value? How do you explain the fact that we are now more likely to destroy not only ourselves but all other life on this planet?

complacency, lack of understanding

How do you explain the fact that our cognitive faculties are not restricted to our immediate environment but include the power of abstraction and the formulation of universal principles? Are they necessary for physical survival?

Sure they are. Our abstracting and drawing on universal principles (through scientific endevours) have increased our life span greatly. That’s survival… .

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that we are prevented from expressing our thoughts. It does not mean that thoughts are caused by the brain…

The thoughts occur within the brain, they are caused by both biology and environment. If not the brain, where are the thoughts taking place?

How do you **know **this? Or is it just your opinion?
You have not explained how the ability to think about our thinking originated. It seems a fantastic feat for a lump of tissue which shows no sign of being aware of itself!

You have a brain, and you think with it - that’s awareness. Your hand is not aware of itself, nor is your kidney aware of itself. And thinking about thinking is adaptive as well. If we can think about the ways to improve our thinking, we can achieve higher level abstractions and come to know better universal principles, which I’ve demonstrated, lead to greater survival

Understandably, because you regard irrational processes as more fundamental than rational beings. Reasons are less important for you than physical causes, yet you don’t rely on physical causes to make your important decisions!

Not sure what you’re trying to say in the first part. I make important life decisions based on logic. I can’t base decisions on the fact that things happen physically. You’re grasping at straws here

How can that reason be subjective when it is based on our capacity for enjoyment?

Again, you’ll have to explain what you mean.

But monocells have outlived every other form of life and survived far longer than human beings - with every prospect of continuing to do so. Complexity is a disadvantage for survival. Organisms need not have become more complex if they existed solely to survive…

Other organisms have adapted differently. it’s those cognitive traits we call complex that help us survive; it’s not as if complexity itself were a benifit

In other words you explain it away as** fantasy** and wishful thinking even though it is the basis of every legal system throughout the world! The onus is on you to produce evidence for your opinion…

The legal system is based on ideas of justice, all of which have their invention at humanity’s fingertips (as we have discussed). I said we value it because people fancy the idea and you rebut by telling me “but it is the basis of the legal system!” (in other words, it’s what people fancy for justice). You haven’t said anything differnt than I have, in this regard, you just think there should be another cause for that fancy whereas I do not.

How has meaning emerged from that which is meaningless?

What do you mean by “meaning emerged,”?

It is not the value of life that is being disputed but your rejection of it as an objective fact. On the one hand you implicitly dismiss it by rejecting the right to life.(Why should a person’s life be valuable if he or she has no right to it?)

I don’t think I have rejected rights to live. We value life as well as rights to safeguard it. There’s no contradiction here. We only value rights to a life because we value life. Do I think we have any intrinsic right to live? I can’t see how that could be demonstrated…

On the other you obviously value life because you are happy to experience it. Is your evaluation arbitrary?

No.

You reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason! We exist in order to enjoy ourselves but enjoyment is not an arbitrary figment of the imagination and it is not confined to one person. It is an incontestable fact about all advanced forms of life.

So what are you getting at? You’ve always got this lead up without a conclusion.

You’re more outrage than argument; you search for gaps in scientific understanding to insert a higher power or supernatural explanation. This isn’t an effective argumentative strategy nor is it persuasive. Your lack of understanding about why things are the way they are isn’t a good jumping off point for reasonable faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can’t have a discussion about something your denying saying. I shouldn’t have to spell it all out for you. Go back and read what you say you meant by “accounted for” and read your argument that comes after. It’s completely incoherent.

this is what i said

“accounted for” in this context means that the causal factors that ultimately result in these free will events being expressed , must be present in the starting state of the system.

you claimed, that i said this

P1: Events in a deterministic system have a cause in order to begin.
C1: Therefore, a Designer is that cause.

you can plainly see that i did not say that.

further. the argument you call “incoherent” follows.

you said.

Hmm. I wouldn’t venture a guess as far as that. “Written” implies a writer; I don’t think I could ever suppose that, based soley on the fact that there is something rather than nothing. It’s really beyond my investigative powers (and anyones, if you ask me).

to which i replied

if it were written, that would indeed imply a writer, and that is the problem im trying to point out. people arguing that free will is an illusion, are inadvertantly making a strong implication of design.

however, i dont agree that it is beyond investigatory powers. the history of science and mathematics shows there is very little beyond our investigatory powers, our limit only seems to be what our state of knowledge is at any given time. that limit constantly changes so when people talk about things violating some part of our scientific understanding as though that makes them somehow more implausible, what they really mean is that it violates our current understanding of science.

a reasonable man allows that our current understanding of science isnt any more complete than it was a few centuries ago and therefore isnt a good standard of what is possible or impossible… remember, everytime we fire up a particle accelerator, we fundamentally change our understanding of the nature of the universe. at any time we could have a complete sea change in our understanding of reality.

this of course, is an exposition of the epistemological problems with the statement you had made.

you also said

The degree to which our behaviour is predictable is the degree to which we don’t have free will, but rather our actions are caused by other things.

to which i replied

our behavior is predictable to others because we assume others have rational motivations, similar to ours, if they dont, we call those people crazy. they are unpredictable, and that usually unnerves other people.

yet if we think about it, we realize that free will is not restricted by what may be the rational choice in any situation, but that there is no restriction on free will at all.

suppose someone was trying to shoot me. i could be reasonable, and duck, i could be brave and charge my assailant, or i could be irrational and and plan a birthday party amid the gunfire.

as long as i am willing to accept the consequence for my free will action, then there are no restrictions on my free will.

suppose i were strapped down under the same conditions. the ontological status of my free will doesnt change when i am prevented from carryingout a duck, charge or party planning. i can still make those decisions, i just cant enact them. it may make free will a moot point, but it doesnt make free will disappear.

this is an exposition on the problems commonly associated with a deterministic view of free will and drawing from it some sense of predictability. pre empting the most common objections

it is not incoherent.

as i have shown that you are wrong, i did not say those things that you mentioned. can you please respond to the argument in post #34?