Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Free will is only a real issue if you think it betokens something else as Alan B does. Otherwise we just assume it since I don't think we can avoid doing so. Not believing in free will is a sort of moebius strip of logic, since if you don't have it, you have no choice in the position.


It's a valid intellectual question, and I have had enough discussions with Leonard to knowledge he does believe it. I think this is inconsistent with his other positions which seem to allow for nothing non deterministic or random, but, in the end, both he and I act as if it were true.

I find the question of, if we do have it, can it allow us to choose what we believe, more significant but then maybe I have no choice in that.

In the end it's a distraction, you might as well accept it and ask what do we do next, but to use it as a crutch for arguments about gods or whatever just seems to pile Pelion upon Ossa.

[torridon]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.  But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

It is the perception, or feeling, that we have free-will, that is an illusion.  Fact is, we are biological beings, do we face up to that fact, or do we entertain illusions about ourselves ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.  But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

It is the perception, or feeling, that we have free-will, that is an illusion.  Fact is, we are biological beings, do we face up to that fact, or do we entertain illusions about ourselves ?

High sounding, Scientific words waved shamanically at a philosophical question.......reductionist twaddle of the most arse-clenching kind.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

But you do believe that we possess freewill, for me it is a question I struggle with, Einstein calls it a delusion.

Gonnagle.

Yes, we've been over it many times. For me, the fact that I can choose how to behave is enough for me. The law of the land is for the greater good (so they tell us), and I can either respect it, or break it and accept the consequences. The choice is mine.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Delusion, illusion!! And I was quite happy in my ignorance of the whole subject until old Almost Sensible sent my two remaining brain cells firing on the topic 

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.

They can conclude whatever they like, but I believe that evolution produced free will (the ability to choose between options) as a survival strategy.

 

But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

I know it pleases you to believe that, but see above. 

[floo]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

I agree.

[Nearly Sane]

I find it very sad that you have to deny posessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

I agree.

Though conceptually it us inconsistent and illogical to argue for the scientific process and argue that anything like the free will that Leonard asserts exists

[torridon]

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.  But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

It is the perception, or feeling, that we have free-will, that is an illusion.  Fact is, we are biological beings, do we face up to that fact, or do we entertain illusions about ourselves ?

High sounding, Scientific words waved shamanically at a philosophical question.......reductionist twaddle of the most arse-clenching kind.

For all practical, day to day purposes, it's fair enough to run with the notion that we are free agents.  At best, a messageboard like this could be a space where people who are interested can explore issues around what it means to be a human in greater depth; understanding the free will issue is something that cuts to the heart of the matter

[Nearly Sane]

How is asking a question 'reductionist twaddle'? Why does Vlad feel the need to continually misrepresent people?

[Shaker]

Well, it's not as though he's got anything else to offer, has he? Only the constant repetition of his personal hobbyhorses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I find it even sadder that you don't realise that free will is not a 'gift', any more than being able to see is. They are both abilities produced by the natural process of evolution.

But if what constitutes "you" is composed only of basic elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) then you are entirely driven by the deterministic behaviour of these elements as defined by the rules of science.  Everything will be pre determined and there is no room for free will events to be induced, unless there is something which exists outside the deterministic rules of science to induce them.  This is why some eminent scientists have had to conclude that free will is an illusion.  But the truth is that every human being perceives the fact that they do have free will.  If free will exists, the source of free will can't be defined in material science.

It is the perception, or feeling, that we have free-will, that is an illusion.  Fact is, we are biological beings, do we face up to that fact, or do we entertain illusions about ourselves ?

High sounding, Scientific words waved shamanically at a philosophical question.......reductionist twaddle of the most arse-clenching kind.

For all practical, day to day purposes, it's fair enough to run with the notion that we are free agents.  At best, a messageboard like this could be a space where people who are interested can explore issues around what it means to be a human in greater depth; understanding the free will issue is something that cuts to the heart of the matter

First of all....To describe people as mere collection of atoms is a deliberate philosophical choice to be reductionist.
Secondly, Free will is an illusion? an illusion of what? by that I mean we use the term illusion when say, we get the illusion of a face........but faces exist. What then do you possibly mean by the '' illusion of free will'' if free will does NOT exist?

[Maeght]

The trouble with just accepting we have free will to avoid the discussion is that the property then gets used to support other arguments - such as the existence of a soul.

[Maeght]

Secondly, Free will is an illusion? an illusion of what? by that I mean we use the term illusion when say, we get the illusion of a face........but faces exist. What then do you possibly mean by the '' illusion of free will'' if free will does NOT exist?

It means you think your choices are free but they are not doesn't it?

[ippy]

Surly you're not a creationist as well as the rest of your blinkered thinking?

It's survival, those that look to their children, love or other methods of caring, are more likely to have their children survive they then pass on this tendency on and then then on etc, so loving your children and other methods of caring, keeps more of the gene stock going, all with this tendency to love and care; it's called evolution Alan.

The ones that don't care are are the ones that have children that are less likely to survive etc, you must know about evolution, even if it doesn't fit in with your line of thought, that's it crudely without having to write a thesis, how it works.

ippy

I find it very sad that you have to deny possessing your most fundamental gift of free will in order to comply with the limited reality defined by the human deductions of science.

So you're saying not in so many words, no matter how much evidence presented to you no matter how good and established it is, you're going to shake your head probably uttering something like noooooo then going back to your sad little workshop manual and say well it says here in the bible.

And you're telling people like me we are sad, I know who's got their head buried in the sand and they're nowhere to be seen around here; things have to make sense it's you taking things in without any credible back up and then asserting, not me.

Why don't you run along, commune with Zeus, talk to the fairies and feed the Unicorn, it would do and make as much sense as the absolute bunkum you keep espousing here on this thread.

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

P.S. Wiggy is a highly intelligent, in fact I would say learned, and engaging chap with whom it's always a pleasure to converse (I do like and enjoy just how critical he is of lazy thinking, sloppy arguments and bad ideas he is these days - more so than I remember him of yore) but I don't think he sets himself up as any kind of expert or authority on science and reality and would no doubt be most amused at the suggestion

I whole-heartedly agree with that.

[torridon]

For all practical, day to day purposes, it's fair enough to run with the notion that we are free agents.  At best, a messageboard like this could be a space where people who are interested can explore issues around what it means to be a human in greater depth; understanding the free will issue is something that cuts to the heart of the matter

First of all....To describe people as mere collection of atoms is a deliberate philosophical choice to be reductionist.

I'm not sure that is fair; its not like I woke up one morning and decided to be a reductionist. But we can form an understanding based on the best knowledge that science and history can provide and we do have the benefit of three hundred years of research behind us, the upshot of which, is that there is matter and there is energy, the two being transmutable, and all 'stuff' is derived from that.  If you want to claim there is some other, immaterial, stuff out there not spotted yet by research then that is a position requiring substantial justification, and I find it a bit cheap to label people with perjorative terms like 'reductionist', or 'materialist' merely for taking a conservative approach to knowledge.

Secondly, Free will is an illusion? an illusion of what? by that I mean we use the term illusion when say, we get the illusion of a face........but faces exist. What then do you possibly mean by the '' illusion of free will'' if free will does NOT exist?

The illusory part is simply that our choices feel free, whereas a straight reading of basic biology, never mind neuroscience, suggests our choices must be overwhelmingly predeterminate, ultimately, in principle.

[Alan Burns]

And you're telling people like me we are sad, I know who's got their head buried in the sand and they're nowhere to be seen around here; things have to make sense it's you taking things in without any credible back up and then asserting, not me.

The sadness I feel is that people who try to limit their perception of reality to what can be discovered by human scientific investigation are in fact missing what life is all about.  Human scientific discovery does not define the whole of reality, and to assume it does is in itself a "head in the sand" attitude.

[ekim]

The opposing view might be that it helps prevent a 'head in the clouds' attitude.

[torridon]

And you're telling people like me we are sad, I know who's got their head buried in the sand and they're nowhere to be seen around here; things have to make sense it's you taking things in without any credible back up and then asserting, not me.

The sadness I feel is that people who try to limit their perception of reality to what can be discovered by human scientific investigation are in fact missing what life is all about.  Human scientific discovery does not define the whole of reality, and to assume it does is in itself a "head in the sand" attitude.

If there are things not yet discovered by science, and I fully assume there are, it is wise to wait and see what research does turn up; if we base our beliefs on what is at least fairly well established, then we will not go so far wrong.  This is a cautious approach; the alternative is to be highly speculative, and speculation is usually wrong.

[BashfulAnthony]

Well, it's not as tho
 :)ugh he's got anything else to offer, has he? Only the constant repetition of his personal hobbyhorses.

       So, like you, and the other atheists here:  constant repetition, amounting to obsession.

[Alan Burns]

The opposing view might be that it helps prevent a 'head in the clouds' attitude.

Given the choice, I think I would rather keep my head in the clouds rather than in the sand.

[Alan Burns]

If there are things not yet discovered by science, and I fully assume there are, it is wise to wait and see what research does turn up; if we base our beliefs on what is at least fairly well established, then we will not go so far wrong.  This is a cautious approach; the alternative is to be highly speculative, and speculation is usually wrong.

People who accuse Christians of using the "God of gaps" approach to justify their faith do not realise that the gaps may in fact be huge unbreachable voids which will never be filled with scientific discovery.

I do not subscribe to these voids being filled by human speculation, but by God's revelation.

[Rhiannon]

The opposing view might be that it helps prevent a 'head in the clouds' attitude.

Given the choice, I think I would rather keep my head in the clouds rather than in the sand.

In practice there is probably little difference.

[Nearly Sane]

If there are things not yet discovered by science, and I fully assume there are, it is wise to wait and see what research does turn up; if we base our beliefs on what is at least fairly well established, then we will not go so far wrong.  This is a cautious approach; the alternative is to be highly speculative, and speculation is usually wrong.

People who accuse Christians of using the "God of gaps" approach to justify their faith do not realise that the gaps may in fact be huge unbreachable voids which will never be filled with scientific discovery.

I do not subscribe to these voids being filled by human speculation, but by God's revelation.

That's nice, how other than your incredulity do you want to show this?

There may be tons of things we may never know or understand but filling them in with anything other than a buggered if I know, without some other method than woo god, is not even wrong.