Free will is a myth

[Mariner]

Originally posted by moz
it is a difference in absolute meaning if you havent naively(though still possibly correctly) already written yourself off as a being in a moral vacuum, a world without a god.

without addressing the subject of god the conclusion that there is no free will negates all morality.


as for "newtonian physics", everything we've observed and everything we know about a single particle has only led us to believe that it follows set laws governing it's behavior, that it never does something for no reason, and that under a net force (i use the term broadly here; i might substitute "given circumstance") it will set off in a given direction. my argument has nothing to do with how small of a particle theyve found so far or the probability in our detecting a given outcome without knowledge of every factor, but rests in the simple and hardly groundless assumption that there are laws governing physical behavior on any scale that can be reduced to a point of railroading. The fact that there is no finite particle or that on a certain level the laws are not the same as they are when a ball bumps into another only decreases our chances, or eliminates the chance altogether, of predicting an event.

there is nothing between the six walls of my room, which contain my "free" brain, and there is nothing in the universe that does not follow tracks set by physical laws and given conditions.

alright, i'll concede then that there's an absolute difference in meaning between our two beliefs. you are way beyond the type of purely semantic fate vs. free will argument that most people get stuck in, i commend you for that. i'm also glad to run into someone else who believes in absolutes and insoluble physical laws; it's all too rare. i still don't see any solid grounds on which to base the belief in the mutual exclusivity between an absolute universe and the agency of sentient beings.

you think a person's life is the sum of all the long single tracks of that person's particles, winding through time with the long single tracks of every other person and their particles.

i think you're right when it comes to everything except human beings. i believe they are unique collections of particles in that they are partially privy to take advantage of switches in the universe's rail system. these switches do not defy the laws of the universe, they are simply a part of the laws that our perceptional abilities only partially grasp and our analytic abilities only now barely have contact with.

[moz]

Originally posted by patrick
hardly

i knew youd respond to that post

[GlasgowKiss]

Anyone else have serious issues with the theory of Quantum Physics? I convinced a physicist that it was wrong when i was a little inebriated once. And i cant remember how i did it.

[mistle]

Originally posted by moz


i declare this thread a victory for ME

edit: sorry. i can't read

[Mariner]

Originally posted by GlasgowKiss
Anyone else have serious issues with the theory of Quantum Physics? I convinced a physicist that it was wrong when i was a little inebriated once. And i cant remember how i did it.

it's as valid as our early theories about the lives of dinosaurs

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally posted by Mariner


it's as valid as our early theories about the lives of dinosaurs

you're as valid as our early theories about the lives of dinosaurs

[moz]

Originally posted by Mariner


alright, i'll concede then that there's an absolute difference in meaning between our two beliefs. you are way beyond the type of purely semantic fate vs. free will argument that most people get stuck in, i commend you for that. i'm also glad to run into someone else who believes in absolutes and insoluble physical laws; it's all too rare. i still don't see any solid grounds on which to base the belief in the mutual exclusivity between an absolute universe and the agency of sentient beings.

you think a person's life is the sum of all the long single tracks of that person's particles, winding through time with the long single tracks of every other person and their particles.

i think you're right when it comes to everything except human beings. i believe they are unique collections of particles in that they are partially privy to take advantage of switches in the universe's rail system. these switches do not defy the laws of the universe, they are simply a part of the laws that our perceptional abilities only partially grasp and our analytic abilities only now barely have contact with.

the part where you break away from the view of humans as just another lot of animals gets pretty vague. i see no switches or reason to believe in such switches. why would a human being have super-physical powers and forces behind it that a dog would not have? we are a product of evolution it is said and besides a dog makes decisions as well. they say a dog will not pause forever between two bowls of meat, but it is like saying an enormous boulder will not halt and remain balanced when dropped on a thin edge directly below its center of mass. the dog does not pause simply because the trillions of particles do not form a condition of balance just as you will never find a real boulder that will balance perfectly on a tiny point, though the latter would be much more likely. there is still the possibility, in my opinion, of the right combination of those trillions of particles that would cause a living breathing normal dog to pause forever between the two bowls until death.


there can be no randomness. it is a conviction i hold firmly. i admit your wording of the switch issue provides for the first objection or two that might come up had it been worded differently, but it simply does not hold up. where are these switches and how are they thrown one way or the other? one only has to analyze all that went into the occurance of an event in history to see that it was by no means random or undetermined. why did the man eat the bowl of chili? because he smelled it and was hungry. that is a wrong, incomplete explanation of what happened. when every factor is taken into account, however, there was no point at which he could have not eaten the chili.

[Mariner]

Originally posted by moz


the part where you break away from the view of humans as just another lot of animals gets pretty vague. i see no switches or reason to believe in such switches. why would a human being have super-physical powers and forces behind it that a dog would not have? we are a product of evolution

exactly. if we are a product of evolution, why shouldn't the possibility exist that humans are farther along when it comes to independent agency than dogs? what's impossible about humans being better machines? no, humans don't have super-physical "powers". perhaps, though, our brains are constructed so well that we can sometimes manage to have as much influence over ourselves as the rest of the universe.

there can be no randomness. it is a conviction i hold firmly. i admit your wording of the switch issue provides for the first objection or two that might come up had it been worded differently, but it simply does not hold up. where are these switches and how are they thrown one way or the other? one only has to analyze all that went into the occurance of an event in history to see that it was by no means random or undetermined.

i agree in no "randomness" in the conventional sense of the word. i do not believe, however, that the nonexistence of randomness precludes the reality of multiple possibilities, not one set singular track.

[Fathoms (unadored)]

my throwaway thread was hit!!!!11

Originally posted by Mariner


exactly. if we are a product of evolution, why shouldn't the possibility exist that humans are farther along when it comes to independent agency than dogs? what's impossible about humans being better machines? no, humans don't have super-physical "powers". perhaps, though, our brains are constructed so well that we can sometimes manage to have as much influence over ourselves as the rest of the universe.

The human brain is part of the that universe though! It's the crescendo of evolutions song. Essentially predestination theory leads to the conclusion that self is an illusion. Any agency or metaphysical aspect of human consciousness is still very much part of reality. And we have to assume that nothing our minds could do violates any reality's set laws. Every aspect of the mind is simply the logical extension of where evolution would lead. .

[Mariner]

Originally posted by Fathoms (unadored)


And we have to assume that nothing our minds could do violates any reality's set laws.

Exactly. But what says that free will is not included in those laws?

[Isle]

fuck you all. bolly's gonna claim your soul in 2007 and you can't do shit about it