What is the point of free will?

[JuanFlorencio]

This is the difference between philosophers and realists. There are philosophers who try to justify their existence by creating bogus questions and attempt to convince people that the questions are real. And then comes the street urchin and “dares” to say: “the emperor has no clothes”… and then the philosophers pretend that they never heard a thing.

And what are you, Greek guy: a “philosopher” or a “realist”? I rather tend to identify you, according to your “definition”, as a “philosopher”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And what are you, Greek guy: a “philosopher” or a “realist”? I rather tend to identify you, according to your “definition”, as a “philosopher”.

Looks can be deceiving. I am a realist, through and through. Most philosophers are “navel-gazers”. By the way, do you know what is the most frequent sentence a freshly minted philosopher says in his first job? Answer: “You want fries with that”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Looks can be deceiving. I am a realist, through and through. Most philosophers are “navel-gazers”. By the way, do you know what is the most frequent sentence a freshly minted philosopher says in his first job? Answer: “You want fries with that”?

Yet, here you are putting so much time and energy into philosophizing when really all that you have been up to all along was getting the oil just hot enough to cook fries.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Looks can be deceiving. I am a realist, through and through. Most philosophers are “navel-gazers”. By the way, do you know what is the most frequent sentence a freshly minted philosopher says in his first job? Answer: “You want fries with that”?

Yet, if you look with new eyes at your own posts, here and there you will appear to yourself as a “philosopher” (always according to your “definition”, Greek guy, not as a real one).

There are many introverted people in this world, Pallas! You can find them in quite different professions. It wouldn’t be strange if some of them are philosophers; though I haven’t known many of them. Actually, I don’t remember any at this moment.

Yours must be a fine country: philosophers working cooking fries! What do programmers do there? Are they police men?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There is the question of “actual reality” or just an “imitation” or “emulation” of reality? This is another irrelevant question. If we would be able to make a super-copy-machine, which would copy the Mona Lisa on the atomic level to create a perfect copy, then the question: “but which one is the original”? would be a superfluous, irrelevant question.

It is true that the “original” was touched by the hand of Da Vinci, and the copy was not, but if there is no way to tell which is which, then the question is nonsense. It is on par with the question: “which is tastier, the color of middle-C or the smoothness of a yard”? If there is no way to measure it - not just now with our current technology, but in principle - then there is no difference.

Absolutely, Pallas! I cannot agree with you more: the question of reality and the participation on reality, understood as you have put it, is completely irrelevant. I don’t know how could anyone develop such monstrosity in his mind, but there it is. I guess it wasn’t you who invented it (you must be smarter than that!), but you are just quoting it, aren’t you?

Look how according to your “philosophy”, you can’t distinguish between your “philosopher” and your “realist”, because you can’t measure them. Don’t you see? A small doses of true philosophical reflection would help you increase the consistency in your mind. You should try!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Look how according to your “philosophy”, you can’t distinguish between your “philosopher” and your “realist”, because you can’t measure them. Don’t you see? A small doses of true philosophical reflection would help you increase the consistency in your mind. You should try!

But I CAN measure the difference. I leave it to you as a homework to figure out the details.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

But I CAN measure the difference. I leave it to you as a homework to figure out the details.

Thank you for the homework, Greek guy! I appreciate it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Reality is what our senses and their extensions perceive. Suppose that there will be a new extension of our senses, which will “register” ghosts. Obviously this new “gadget” will have to register the same result whenever it confronts a ghost, otherwise it would only be a “measurement” error, or a “bug”. And if the measurement is consistent, then we “expand” our knowledge of reality, and it will include the “ghosts”.

The very same thing happened when we discovered the X-rays. New equipment, new results, “new” reality.

I hate to work with that kind of suppositions, Greek guy. I wish you could offer more realistic examples.

I am the kind of guy who believe that only living beings have perceptions. In my example of the thermometric fluids I mentioned that they suffer contraction or expansion when put in contact with another body; but I don’t think they perceive the body, nor what happens to themselves. Do you “realist” guys have that belief? Do you conceive thermometers and other instruments as extensions of your senses, able to perceive?

Being a “realist” through and through, you must ignore Berkeley’s philosophy; but trust me, what you say (“Reality is what our senses and their extensions perceive”), is very similar to what he proposed (without the “extensions” because he didn’t believe that non-living things perceive). Do you remember when you affirmed that living beings seem to be relatively new in the universe? If you didn’t think that non-living things perceive you would have been inconsistent once again, because reality would necessarily have started with living beings. But this time you were consistent, which is good.

Besides you were careful enough when you quoted the word “new” in your example of the X-Rays, because it is true that they were new to us, but not in themselves. I guess you think consistently that x-Rays were perceived before our discovery by some other non-living entities.

It sounds very crazy; but consistent… it is.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I hate to work with that kind of suppositions, Greek guy. I wish you could offer more realistic examples.

I will try. Of course we are getting more and more onto “thin ice”. But that makes it fun.

I am the kind of guy who believe that only living beings have perceptions.

Excellent. But that leads to the problem of what is the difference between “living” and “inanimate” matter? We can safely disregard the notion of “soul”, since it cannot be coherently defined, much less detected. Biologists deal with the question of “life”, and even they cannot come to an agreement about the question: “what IS life?”. I have seen a very vague and yet useful-looking definition: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. And then we can start a tug-of-war: “what is complex enough”? So there is “biologically active” life, usually carbon based. After all the complex molecules based upon carbon seem to be the most probable harbingers of “life”. But there might be others. Asimov wrote a wonderful essay about the subject.

But that does not exclude the possibility of having a different “base” for complex molecules. And then comes the biologically inactive but intellectually active “life” forms. Stanislaw Lem (in my opinion the greatest thinker of the last century) wrote a great novel, titled the “The Invincible” about a “necrosphere” of a planet. Well worthy of your attention. You can download to your Kindle for free.

So my opinion is that to try to p(name removed by moderator)oint “life” is futile. Bacteria are “alive”. What about “viruses”? Do they have “enough” of the characteristics of “life”? If it looks like “life”, then it is life. Are computer viruses “alive”? They sure behave like biological parasites.

Being a “realist” through and through, you must ignore Berkeley’s philosophy; but trust me, what you say (“Reality is what our senses and their extensions perceive”), is very similar to what he proposed (without the “extensions” because he didn’t believe that non-living things perceive).

I must “eat crow” for not being clear enough. In my view there is only one objective reality, but we might not ne able to perceive it - as it is. As far as I am concerned, the question of “what does reality REALLY look like” is a meaningless question. We must look at reality as we perceive it via our senses and their extensions. Whether that is the “full picture” or not is irrelevant. It makes a fun conversation (like this) as long as our stomach is full and we are reasonably healthy and don’t have to worry about our next meal. Philosophy is the mental game of the “well-fed”. There are no “philosophers” among the starving people. They have much more pressing problems to worry about.

For the time being we think that the ultimate building blocks of the universe are the “quarks”. Is this a “final” answer? Who knows?

Besides you were careful enough when you quoted the word “new” in your example of the X-Rays, because it is true that they were new to us, but not in themselves. I guess you think consistently that x-Rays were perceived before our discovery by some other non-living entities.

I agree.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Excellent. But that leads to the problem of what is the difference between “living” and “inanimate” matter? We can safely disregard the notion of “soul”, since it cannot be coherently defined, much less detected. Biologists deal with the question of “life”, and even they cannot come to an agreement about the question: “what IS life?”. I have seen a very vague and yet useful-looking definition: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. And then we can start a tug-of-war: “what is complex enough”? So there is “biologically active” life, usually carbon based. After all the complex molecules based upon carbon seem to be the most probable harbingers of “life”. But there might be others. Asimov wrote a wonderful essay about the subject.

But that does not exclude the possibility of having a different “base” for complex molecules. And then comes the biologically inactive but intellectually active “life” forms. Stanislaw Lem (in my opinion the greatest thinker of the last century) wrote a great novel, titled the “The Invincible” about a “necrosphere” of a planet. Well worthy of your attention. You can download to your Kindle for free.

So my opinion is that to try to p(name removed by moderator)oint “life” is futile. Bacteria are “alive”. What about “viruses”? Do they have “enough” of the characteristics of “life”? If it looks like “life”, then it is life. Are computer viruses “alive”? They sure behave like biological parasites.

Thank you for the recommendation!

When I was a child, I had a couple of dogs. One day in the morning I was going to school, and one of them was waiting for me. It wanted me to go to the backyard. I went: There it was the other dog, completely dead. It was very sad to me… But I remember that at that time it was easy for me to say which one was “living” and which one “inanimate”. I really don’t know how I managed to do such distinction, because at that time I wasn’t familiar at all with any measurements! Now, after reading your comment, I think I couldn’t do it anymore (but if I could, I would say that the “living” dog was able to perceive me, while the other wasn’t).

You have to help me, Pallas! Isn’t “life” the object of Biology? And, isn’t Biology a relatively old science? So, “life” must belong to the “ontologically existing objective reality”. Therefore, there must be a measurement that we can do to distinguish between “living” and “non-living”. You are the expert on those affairs, Pallas; so, how do we measure life? It must be possible!

I must “eat crow” for not being clear enough. In my view there is only one objective reality, but we might not ne able to perceive it - as it is. As far as I am concerned, the question of “what does reality REALLY look like” is a meaningless question. We must look at reality as we perceive it via our senses and their extensions. Whether that is the “full picture” or not is irrelevant. It makes a fun conversation (like this) as long as our stomach is full and we are reasonably healthy and don’t have to worry about our next meal. Philosophy is the mental game of the “well-fed”. There are no “philosophers” among the starving people. They have much more pressing problems to worry about.

For the time being we think that the ultimate building blocks of the universe are the “quarks”. Is this a “final” answer? Who knows?

Bon appetite, Pallas!

I am becoming fond of your country!: Your philosophers work cooking fries, and still they belong to the category of the “well-fed”! Where are you from?

Now, more seriously: I think that you in particular have to distinguish between those objects whose properties or characteristics are mensurable, and those…, how could we say?, “non-objects” which “properties” cannot be measured. You have suggested that if something can be measured then it is an “ontologically existing objective reality”. If I am not misunderstanding you, then “something” which cannot be measured is not real or, at least, it is less real. It has nothing to do with the kantian distinction between the noumena and the phenomena. But using this terminology I would say that your distinction between the “ontologically existing objective reality” and the “ontologically non-existing objective reality” takes place within the phenomenal realm. Your sadness or your happiness are examples of those “things” which cannot be measured, but still they are phenomena, and you would say that they are non-real, or less real, or that they “do not matter”. Then you would be simply misusing the word “ontological”.

The old Greek philosophers used to say that reality is not accessible to our senses, but to our reason. Even materialists said that: Atoms, they said, are not perceived, but our reason necessarily leads us to the conclusion that they constitute our reality. How did they proceed? There are certain phenomena, they would say, which would not be explainable if there are no atoms. The “quarks” that you are mentioning now and the Greek atoms fall in the same category. They are not phenomena, but they render phenomena explainable. Some would say that it is a return to ontology, but which kind of ontology would it be?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

When I was a child, I had a couple of dogs. One day in the morning I was going to school, and one of them was waiting for me. It wanted me to go to the backyard. I went: There it was the other dog, completely dead. It was very sad to me… But I remember that at that time it was easy for me to say which one was “living” and which one “inanimate”. I really don’t know how I managed to do such distinction, because at that time I wasn’t familiar at all with any measurements! Now, after reading your comment, I think I couldn’t do it anymore (but if I could, I would say that the “living” dog was able to perceive me, while the other wasn’t).

In such an obvious case there is no problem. The problem comes at the borderline cases, like the viruses.

You have to help me, Pallas! Isn’t “life” the object of Biology? And, isn’t Biology a relatively old science? So, “life” must belong to the “ontologically existing objective reality”. Therefore, there must be a measurement that we can do to distinguish between “living” and “non-living”. You are the expert on those affairs, Pallas; so, how do we measure life? It must be possible!

Life is a strange case. Even biologists cannot agree what is a living and what is an inanimate matter. They set up 7 criteria for life, but those are arbitrary.

I am becoming fond of your country!: Your philosophers work cooking fries, and still they belong to the category of the “well-fed”! Where are you from?

Come on. You know that it was a joke.

Now, more seriously: I think that you in particular have to distinguish between those objects whose properties or characteristics are mensurable, and those…, how could we say?, “non-objects” which “properties” cannot be measured. You have suggested that if something can be measured then it is an “ontologically existing objective reality”. If I am not misunderstanding you, then “something” which cannot be measured is not real or, at least, it is less real.

Then it is not an object. Some people talk about “abstract objects”, like numbers, letters etc., and they asserted that they “exist” independently. Makes no sense. Shakespeare did not "discover Hamlet, he created it. If the Sun would go nova and burn up the Earth, then Hamlet would cease to exist.

It has nothing to do with the kantian distinction between the noumena and the phenomena. But using this terminology I would say that your distinction between the “ontologically existing objective reality” and the “ontologically non-existing objective reality” takes place within the phenomenal realm. Your sadness or your happiness are examples of those “things” which cannot be measured, but still they are phenomena, and you would say that they are non-real, or less real, or that they “do not matter”. Then you would be simply misusing the word “ontological”.

Objects can have properties (or attributes), actions and relationships. The properties, the actions and the relationships are not “objects” themselves, but they cannot exist without the objects.

The old Greek philosophers used to say that reality is not accessible to our senses, but to our reason. Even materialists said that: Atoms, they said, are not perceived, but our reason necessarily leads us to the conclusion that they constitute our reality. How did they proceed? There are certain phenomena, they would say, which would not be explainable if there are no atoms. The “quarks” that you are mentioning now and the Greek atoms fall in the same category. They are not phenomena, but they render phenomena explainable. Some would say that it is a return to ontology, but which kind of ontology would it be?

Objects are physical entities, limited in space and time. They can be observed, measure, studied. They can be targets of experiments. Simple metaphysics and it works really well.

But we are drifting… would be better to concentrate of one subject.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Come on. You know that it was a joke.

I knew, Pallas, I knew. Poor philosophers: a lot of thinking and not enough food.

In such an obvious case there is no problem. The problem comes at the borderline cases, like the viruses.

Life is a strange case. Even biologists cannot agree what is a living and what is an inanimate matter. They set up 7 criteria for life, but those are arbitrary.

Exactly, Pallas, the borderline! You can be a sharp guy! A particular proposition is always enough to refute a universal one. Biologists know their business much better than you and me together. I am sure that if those 7 criteria to identify life are arbitrary, they are as arbitrary as any other criteria. Surely they can be successfully applied to cows, dogs, chickens, snails, bacteria, eagles (which makes us think that they are kind of extracted from reality)…, but then you come suddenly and ask: “What about viruses? You are forgetting viruses!” (Then we open our eyes widely and the word “arbitrary” comes to our minds). Newton builds his remarkable philosophy of nature; a small set of principles which can describe almost the whole of the universe. Every body is astonished for his great intelligence, but then…, the borderline, you know, the borderline!..

But if you take notice, life is not a strange case. It is a very common case: we are living beings, but we really don’t know what life is; we are free; but we really don’t know what freedom is; we think, but we really don’t know what thought is; we know, but we really don’t know what knowledge is…

Then it is not an object. Some people talk about “abstract objects”, like numbers, letters etc., and they asserted that they “exist” independently. Makes no sense. Shakespeare did not "discover Hamlet, he created it. If the Sun would go nova and burn up the Earth, then Hamlet would cease to exist.

Objects can have properties (or attributes), actions and relationships. The properties, the actions and the relationships are not “objects” themselves, but they cannot exist without the objects.

Objects are physical entities, limited in space and time. They can be observed, measure, studied. They can be targets of experiments. Simple metaphysics and it works really well.

But we are drifting… would be better to concentrate of one subject.

The Earth would cease to exist as well! Don’t you see? But… Isn’t the Earth an “object”?

Let’s see, because…, what do we measure, Greek guy, if it is not properties, actions and relationships? Do we measure “water”? No! There is no “water-meter”! We measure its density, its viscosity, its temperature, its ability to dissolve a salt… And if your criterion to identify an “object” is its measurability, then “density”, “viscosity”, “temperature”, “solubility”, etcetera, are “objects”, but “water” is not. Then, what is “water”? You are again an old Greek here: water is a “substance”, not accessible to our senses, but only to our reason. But you are an old Greek only partially (that is to say, inconsistently): While for Aristotle “substance” is more real than “accidents”, for you a substance -which cannot be measured-, must be a non-object. Accidents are more real than substances for you, but you hadn’t realized it (which isn’t a strange case). You need to keep “a simple metaphysics” to work “well”, but as soon as you visit the borderlines of your domains (I am getting the impression that your domain is disaggregated into several immiscible sub-domains) you experience dizziness, and you need to pronounce the magic words “this is irrelevant”, “it makes no sense”, “starving people need to eat”, to feel comfortable again.

I would say that if substances are the condition of possibility for properties, numbers are the condition of possibility for measurements. Substances precede properties? Then, numbers precede measurements. What has “more reality”?

You feel that we are drifting; I feel that we are stuck in the same place: We start with the impression that we know a lot, and we end with the surprise that we don’t know enough. Different aspects of the same topic, same surprise. How is it possible that we humans are still alive!?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Let’s see, because…, what do we measure, Greek guy, if it is not properties, actions and relationships? Do we measure “water”? No! There is no “water-meter”! We measure its density, its viscosity, its temperature, its ability to dissolve a salt… And if your criterion to identify an “object” is its measurability, then “density”, “viscosity”, “temperature”, “solubility”, etcetera, are “objects”, but “water” is not. Then, what is “water”? You are again an old Greek here: water is a “substance”, not accessible to our senses, but only to our reason. But you are an old Greek only partially (that is to say, inconsistently): While for Aristotle “substance” is more real than “accidents”, for you a substance -which cannot be measured-, must be a non-object. Accidents are more real than substances for you, but you hadn’t realized it (which isn’t a strange case). You need to keep “a simple metaphysics” to work “well”, but as soon as you visit the borderlines of your domains (I am getting the impression that your domain is disaggregated into several immiscible sub-domains) you experience dizziness, and you need to pronounce the magic words “this is irrelevant”, “it makes no sense”, “starving people need to eat”, to feel comfortable again.

You feel that we are drifting; I feel that we are stuck in the same place: We start with the impression that we know a lot, and we end with the surprise that we don’t know enough. Different aspects of the same topic, same surprise. How is it possible that we humans are still alive!?

And don’t forget the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, who stated that constant change is the fundamental essence of the universe, i.e. “no man ever steps in the same river twice” and his idea of a unity of opposites in the world, i.e. “the path up and down are one and the same”.

Philosophers have had all kinds of ways of looking at how the world works. But what does this have to do with free will? We all have the free will to speculate how we think the world works! Will anyone truly understand God and his creation? Doubtful- but it’s great exploring the ideas generated out of the free and creative minds of the ones God created in His own image!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

And don’t forget the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, who stated that constant change is the fundamental essence of the universe, i.e. “no man ever steps in the same river twice” and his idea of a unity of opposites in the world, i.e. “the path up and down are one and the same”.

Philosophers have had all kinds of ways of looking at how the world works. But what does this have to do with free will? We all have the free will to speculate how we think the world works! Will anyone truly understand God and his creation? Doubtful- but it’s great exploring the ideas generated out of the free and creative minds of the ones God created in His own image!

Free will! This thread was never about free will, Christine. Pallas does not show any doubt about it. The core topic of this thread, as of many others that Pallas has opened, is “borderlines”, consistency at the borderlines of different interpretations of our Christian doctrine. Free will was just another occasion for him: How do we Christians make compatible the love and care of our Omnipotent Creator with the fact that we humans kill each other?

So, I am discussing “borderlines” with him. And I have selected the cultural realm that we all have in common, the one we all share to reach the stars, trying to make him realize how weak it is.

And I agree with you that it is great to explore the ideas of others. Good Pallas also was created in the image of our Lord, and I am exploring his creative mind. On his side, though for the moment he doesn’t believe in God, he is exploring our Catholic minds too.

 

[Vico]

Free will! This thread was never about free will, Christine. Pallas does not show any doubt about it. The core topic of this thread, as of many others that Pallas has opened, is “borderlines”, consistency at the borderlines of different interpretations of our Christian doctrine. Free will was just another occasion for him: How do we Christians make compatible the love and care of our Omnipotent Creator with the fact that we humans kill each other?

So, I am discussing “borderlines” with him. And I have selected the cultural realm that we all have in common, the one we all share to reach the stars, trying to make him realize how weak it is.

And I agree with you that it is great to explore the ideas of others. Good Pallas also was created in the image of our Lord, and I am exploring his creative mind. On his side, though for the moment he doesn’t believe in God, he is exploring our Catholic minds too.

Ha! In the first post is “To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.”

I doubt is anyone with disagree that free will is a burden on at least in one way, a decision must be made and the time is limited.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ha! In the first post is “To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.”

I doubt is anyone with disagree that free will is a burden on at least in one way, a decision must be made and the time is limited.

Perhaps I am used to make decisions and take responsibility for them? So far, I don’t feel it is a burden, but a prerogative.

 

[Vico]

Perhaps I am used to make decisions and take responsibility for them? So far, I don’t feel it is a burden, but a prerogative.

I am grateful also, because I could have been created like the animals and just end at death.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Free will! This thread was never about free will, Christine. Pallas does not show any doubt about it. The core topic of this thread, as of many others that Pallas has opened, is “borderlines”, consistency at the borderlines of different interpretations of our Christian doctrine. Free will was just another occasion for him: How do we Christians make compatible the love and care of our Omnipotent Creator with the fact that we humans kill each other?

So, I am discussing “borderlines” with him. And I have selected the cultural realm that we all have in common, the one we all share to reach the stars, trying to make him realize how weak it is.

And I agree with you that it is great to explore the ideas of others. Good Pallas also was created in the image of our Lord, and I am exploring his creative mind. On his side, though for the moment he doesn’t believe in God, he is exploring our Catholic minds too.

I am confused whether Pallas Athene is a man or a woman. I assumed a woman because he/she is named after a Greek Goddess.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But if you take notice, life is not a strange case.

You misunderstand. It is a strange case in one important respect. It is the ONLY one of the all the different sciences, where the practitioners (the biologists) cannot define the subject of their studies.

John Conway wrote a beautiful computer program, the “Game of Life”, where he showed that very few “rules” can result in extremely complex behavior.

It is a very common case: we are living beings, but we really don’t know what life is; we are free; but we really don’t know what freedom is; we think, but we really don’t know what thought is; we know, but we really don’t know what knowledge is…

It is not that bad. There is a coherent definition of “libertarian freedom”, that thoughts are the interactions of the neurons of the brain, but “life” is elusive.

Just think of the info-bots, relatively simple programs that wander around the net, and collect information about different subjects. Obviously they are not “biologically alive”, but they can be said to be “intellectually alive”. They are subset of computer viruses, they propagate themselves from node to node in a network, they analyze their environment, and send information back to their originators. Definitely an “intelligent behavior”.

To be continued later.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am confused whether Pallas Athene is a man or a woman. I assumed a woman because he/she is named after a Greek Goddess.

I am just a robot. … but why does it matter? Say “it” when you refer to me (short for informational technology), if you wish.