Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/05/2007 12:27:02 PM · #351

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Materialism dictates Free Will cannot exist.

You're making that assumption, but there's really no reason a sequence of chance events couldn't lead to free will (see my earlier post). As an example, why did you choose to raise your arm instead of sticking out your tongue or typing a funny word? Was your action an example of free will or was it simply the neurons in your brain rolling a chance selection of that action over another? Deep stuff.

Is it appropriate to put NSFW links into a thread on the bible ? :)
I'm sure its passably innocent, but it seems to be pron to some folk.

01/05/2007 12:27:46 PM · #352

Originally posted by scalvert:

Well, if you want to replace a straight forward "a leads to b leads to c" idea with a chaotic one, you are no further along. Now my actions are not determined, but are chaotic. The important part in my argument is that each person believes that there is control. Not only do they not believe their actions are the result of quantum, chaotic events, but they believe they have control over them.

Of course Gordon, you cannot do BOTH actions at once. That is a logical impossibility. It also leads to the fact that science could never prove Free Will because you could never duplicate an experiment exactly (no matter how powerful you were). However, I'm less concerned with "proof" and more concerned with "perception". You must admit that we perceive we have control over our lives.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 12:28:38.

01/05/2007 12:30:56 PM · #353

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You might have that perception. Most of my experience has been different. I didn't suggest or imply you could do BOTH actions at once, just that you could only ever do one.

01/05/2007 12:33:15 PM · #354

To follow up, the perception of Free Will leads to different conclusions for the Dualist and the Materialist.

The Dualist perceives that he has Free Will. This acts as evidence for the "unseen force" of Dualism. Life goes on because in this worldview Free Will makes sense.

The Materialist perceives that he has Free Will. This acts as contrary evidence to the idea of Materialism. The Materialist must then either reject Materialism (and become a Dualist) or reject Free Will. If he does the latter he is stuck with the realization that he cannot even trust his perception of himself. Solipsism comes crashing down over him and he is left living in a unknown world of untrustable perception.

01/05/2007 12:35:03 PM · #355

Originally posted by Gordon:

You might have that perception. Most of my experience has been different.

I've met atheists who have put on the brave face and made these statements. I've yet to meet one who's life bears out evidence of this belief. So basically, I don't believe you truly feel each and every one of your actions is a predetermined dance of atoms.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/05/2007 12:36:26 PM · #356

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
You might have that perception. Most of my experience has been different.

I've met atheists who have put on the brave face and made these statements. I've yet to meet one who's life bears out evidence of this belief. So basically, I don't believe you truly feel each and every one of your actions is a predetermined dance of atoms.

You seem stuck on this notion that free will requires a belief or disbelief in god, or just feel the need to label everyone, I'm not sure which. FWIW, I've never claimed to be an atheist. But you have no idea of my past experiences that lead me to my opinions and I don't plan on sharing them in a public forum, so it doesn't make much sense to continue down this path.

Actually, flicking through the great and good tome of all knowledge, Wikipedia, I did find this that jives somewhat with my view on the whole free will issue. Sorry for the large quote, but given everyone else is just re-presenting other viewpoints they've picked up from other sources, I figure its quicker than paraphrasing:

The contemporary philosopher Galen Strawson agrees with Locke that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the problem.[4] He argues that the notion of free will leads to an infinite regress and is therefore senseless. According to Strawson, if one is responsible for what one does in a given situation, then one must be responsible for the way one is in certain mental respects. But it is impossible for one to be responsible for the way one is in any respect. This is because in order to be responsible for the way one is in some situation "S", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-1". In order to be responsible for the way one was at "S-1", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-2", and so on. At some point in the chain, there must have been an act of origination of a new causal chain. But this is impossible. Man cannot create himself or his mental states ex nihilo. This argument entails that free will itself is absurd, but not that it is incompatible with determinism. Strawson calls his own view "pessimism".

Or in somewhat my own words, I'm certain that I make plenty of choices all of the time, I just don't believe that me, as the sum of my own experiences, could ever actually take any of the other potential branches presented to me - otherwise, someone else would have made those decisions.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 12:45:56.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/05/2007 12:48:12 PM · #357

Originally posted by scalvert:

You're STILL talking about the likelihood of a series of random events leading to the particular results we see. I've been saying that a series of random events must lead to SOME result, and whatever world we see is it.

A lottery is a series of random events on a much smaller scale. Whatever numbers pop up are simply the ones that did. You can jump up and down all you want to about how unlikely it is that those particular numbers would appear, but SOME numbers had to, and whatever result you see represents the ones that did. If we're looking at the end result of a long series of random events, the long odds only matter if you're claiming that the particular result was predicted or intended.

Fair enough - if there's a big bang, we were bound to come up with a planet somewhere. But I'm not discussing the possibilities of a and old universe coming into existance, I'm taking about the very specific random occurence of events that would lead to this universe with this planet with this arrangement of organic beings. I'll be happy to give you your 'planets are inevitable' point on this because that's not what I was referring to.

Hehe. I can't believe you guys started a free will discussion too.... That's a really hard one because there's really nothing to go on at all logically/scientifically.

- C, ES

01/05/2007 12:53:49 PM · #358

Originally posted by Gordon:

Hawking is quite vocal in being not an atheist.

I could not easily locate a reference. But there is an interesting speech here that he gave last November, distinguishing himself from religious beliefs, on how the theories of the beginning of the universe have developed (and concludes that we are getting closer to the answers, and that the quantum mechanics plus the theory of relativity makes the point moot - there was no "before").

Originally posted by Gordon:

From what I remember the distribution of religious beliefs in scientists with PhDs is just about the same as the general population of whatever country they happen to live in.

Hmm - strange. Dawkins most certainly quotes a study of national academy award winners, phds and non-phds that found a general reduction in religious beliefs among scientists that grew stronger the more qualified the scientist. I will have a look tonight for the reference.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/05/2007 12:56:19 PM · #359

Originally posted by Gordon:

Hawking is quite vocal in being not an atheist. But he doesn't appear to believe in a Christian God either. I think mostly his throwing unseen comment is a dig/joke on Einstein's comment rather than a proof in his belief in God. He seems more of a deist or agnostic in his writings.

If by Christian God, you mean a "personal" God ( that is, one who desires a "personal" relationship ), then you are correct. But he doesn't preclude the existence of a "creator" God.

Originally posted by Gordon:

From what I remember the distribution of religious beliefs in scientists with PhDs is just about the same as the general population of whatever country they happen to live in.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any evidence of the oft-quoted poll by Sigma Xi that supports that claim. The best recent poll is that conducted by Elaine Howard Ecklund at Rice University under a grant from the Templeton Foundation ( ref here)
that shows the numbers to be quite a bit less than the population at large. Granted, the numbers are stated in the negative - that is, those who do NOT believe in God. That being said, 38% of scientists in the natural sciences ( physics, biology, etc. ) do not believe in God, while 31% of scientists in the social sciences ( sociology, psychology, etc. ) do not believe in God. In the general population I believe the number who do not believe in God to be much much lower - around 18-20%.
On the flip side, a survey conducted in 1998 stating the positive side of the question shows that around 40% of scientists believe in a personal God, the same percentage as reported in a similar survey conducted in 1916.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/05/2007 12:57:02 PM · #360

I don't understand this quote. When presented with a situation, that is, a moment in time when you, Gordon, can act ... there is no S-1. What happened at a particular place or time when you were not present (just previous to "it" becoming a situation to you) has nothing to do with your ability to take action (or not) when you become present.

Speaking only of a person ... not speaking of the "evolving life" of a particular situation.

(ps ... this doesn't have much to do with the conversation, I'm just confused)

Originally posted by Gordon:

The contemporary philosopher Galen Strawson agrees with Locke that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the problem.[4] He argues that the notion of free will leads to an infinite regress and is therefore senseless. According to Strawson, if one is responsible for what one does in a given situation, then one must be responsible for the way one is in certain mental respects. But it is impossible for one to be responsible for the way one is in any respect. This is because in order to be responsible for the way one is in some situation "S", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-1". In order to be responsible for the way one was at "S-1", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-2", and so on. At some point in the chain, there must have been an act of origination of a new causal chain. But this is impossible. Man cannot create himself or his mental states ex nihilo. This argument entails that free will itself is absurd, but not that it is incompatible with determinism. Strawson calls his own view "pessimism".

01/05/2007 01:00:44 PM · #361

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Hawking is quite vocal in being not an atheist. But he doesn't appear to believe in a Christian God either. I think mostly his throwing unseen comment is a dig/joke on Einstein's comment rather than a proof in his belief in God. He seems more of a deist or agnostic in his writings.

If by Christian God, you mean a "personal" God ( that is, one who desires a "personal" relationship ), then you are correct. But he doesn't preclude the existence of a "creator" God.

Isn't that what I said ?

01/05/2007 01:04:06 PM · #362

Originally posted by hopper:

My actions are the sum of the experiences that have made me who I am.
When presented with a situation, my response is due to what has gone before. S-1, S-2 etc, tends to be notation for things that happened at prior points.

I'm a product of a relatively strict Scottish protestant upbringing. Pessimism is the only possible outcome.

01/05/2007 01:04:57 PM · #363

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

Once again, you assume that the current state of the universe is somehow intended.

If you assume that there is a single universe (after all, we have no evidence of others), then what are the odds that we came about through the series of events that have taken place? I would say - almost infinitely impossible. However, at the same time, every event that has occurred for the universe to form in its current state was possible and generally probable.

In order for the universe to be just as it is, which steps must god have guided? Surely "none of them" - given that the outcome of every event has been probable or possible without his direction.

So - you have bamboozled yourself by taking the astronomical chances of a sequence turning out just so, and attributing miraculous qualities to it (when - as we have demonstrated, long sequences of probable events still results in an astronomically unlikely specific pattern of events).

I don't blame you for finding this odd: statistics can be highly counterintuitive, but they most certainly *are* demonstrably correct.

edit: sense

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:11:08.

01/05/2007 01:05:18 PM · #364

I agree Gordon. Dualism does not prove God, it only disproves Materialism. Nearly all atheists I know are Materialists.

Sorry to assume you were an atheist.

The quote talking about Galen Strawson is interesting, but I disagree. It seems to try to explain free will in a material sense. What if we are born and develop. At some point, we are given a "soul" (the mysterious connection between the Material and Non-material world). The soul now is able to manifest decisions. It would sorta be like being dropped into a convertible driving down the road. The person being dropped was not responsible for the convertible being at the point it is at, but now is able to change where it is going.

01/05/2007 01:06:08 PM · #365

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I don't blame you for finding this odd: statistics can be highly counterintuitive, but they most certainly *are* demonstrably correct.

Can we really get from Free Will to the Monty Hall problem in two steps ? Really ? That would be swell.

01/05/2007 01:09:06 PM · #366

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I don't blame you for finding this odd: statistics can be highly counterintuitive, but they most certainly *are* demonstrably correct.

Can we really get from Free Will to the Monty Hall problem in two steps ? Really ? That would be swell.

Shhh - I'm just disguising my lack of knowledge about philosophy of free will (and not really understanding its relevance here) by trying to change the subject back.

01/05/2007 01:09:53 PM · #367

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What if we are born and develop. At some point, we are given a "soul" (the mysterious connection between the Material and Non-material world). The soul now is able to manifest decisions. It would sorta be like being dropped into a convertible driving down the road. The person being dropped was not responsible for the convertible being at the point it is at, but now is able to change where it is going.

I don't remember that one from Sunday School or Bible class. As an aside, I think this thread should be moved out of Rant for being far too civilised to date. I've even learned some things. I didn't think that was allowed.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:11:21.

01/05/2007 01:10:32 PM · #368

Hey Charlene, in case you didn't know, you are arguing at least a version of something called the "Anthropic Principle". There are different flavors, but you can wiki it and get and idea of others who have also argued it.

I wouldn't let Shannon tell you planets are inevitable. In the vast majority of recipies for a universe we wind up with nothing but black holes or homogenous energy.

01/05/2007 01:11:16 PM · #369

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What if we are born and develop. At some point, we are given a "soul" (the mysterious connection between the Material and Non-material world). The soul now is able to manifest decisions. It would sorta be like being dropped into a convertible driving down the road. The person being dropped was not responsible for the convertible being at the point it is at, but now is able to change where it is going.

I don't remember that one from Sunday School or Bible class

Heh. What does Sunday School have to do with this? I thought we were not talking about God...

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2007 01:12:08 PM · #370

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Heh. What does Sunday School have to do with this? I thought we were not talking about God...

You're the one that re-introduced the ghost in the machine - in the most literal way.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/05/2007 01:12:34 PM · #371

Part of the problem here is really semantics. There is a difference between "free will" and "free choice". "Will" implies a higher level of consciousness than "choice". And even "choice" is perhaps too loaded a term for reactions at a basic level of life. A microscopic, unicellular life form is in "escape" mode due to a negative stimulus. It has no choice in the mode (stimulus generates response), but one cannot predict with any accuracy the exact direction in which the organism will "choose" to flee. But is that really a "choice"? At what level of consciousness does "choice" manifest itself, and at what level does "choice" become "will"?

R.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/05/2007 01:14:40 PM · #372

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. What does Sunday School have to do with this? I thought we were not talking about God...
You're the one that re-introduced the ghost in the machine - in the most literal way.

Well, I was just trying to explain why I disagree with that wiki paragraph you posted.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/05/2007 01:16:28 PM · #373

That fact that you can recognize that you're pessimistic, coupled with the fact that you believe past experiences have "made you" what you are ... isn't it logical to think that you could choose to make a decision which is NOT pessimistic? And a series of those decisions would then change (or add to) your past experience ... which, in turn, would make you not pessimistic - even though at some point you were pessimistic - you have the ability to change that. You can go against what was previously learned.

I was told at young age that God does not exist. And until I was 20 I believed that. But at some point, I chose against what I was conditioned to believe.

Originally posted by Gordon:

I'm a product of a relatively strict Scottish protestant upbringing. Pessimism is the only possible outcome.

Apple iPhone 5

01/05/2007 01:17:55 PM · #374

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

In order for the universe to be just as it is, which steps must god have guided? Surely "none of them" - given that the outcome of every event has been probable or possible without his direction.

If the conditions are correct at the moment of the big bang (which, for our Universe, the conditions were correct to cause us humans to come along), then the laws of physics will take care of the rest. It was the initial set of rules, right at the moment of the Big Bang, which dictated the probabilities for the following cascade of events.

If you're going to boil a kettle all you do is flick the switch and wait. You don't have to reach in and excite every molecule by hand. (Don't ask me where I'm getting these whacky analogies from today!)

When the basic building blocks were in place, once matter, space, energy and time were able to form, then the universe could have taken any number of directions and ended up with some form of intelligent life. It isn't as if *this* version of the universe is the only one that would have worked.

The creator didn't guide the direction because he either didn't have to, or he didn't want to.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:19:38.