Free Will and Also Science Disproving God

[Collecemall]

A couple of video's from Prager University. New to me. Maybe you've run across them. What are your thoughts? Are these the typical creationist vomit or is there more to these?

 

[tuxbox]

The topics of those two videos are why I consider myself a Deist, however, I'm starting to doubt the design argument. I believe we have free will, but that is due to evolution and may not have anything to do with a Creator.

*Edited for grammar*

 

[Deleted member 619]

Pretty sure we don't have anything that could reasonably be described as free will. We have the illusion of choice, certainly, but I doubt anything beyond that.

 

[tuxbox]

Pretty sure we don't have anything that could reasonably be described as free will. We have the illusion of choice, certainly, but I doubt anything beyond that.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Manipulation does not mean we do not have free will. Also, there is no way that everyone in that experiment answered the same way. 100% is unheard of in that type of study.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Manipulation does not mean we do not have free will. Also, there is no way that everyone in that experiment answered the same way. 100% is unheard of in that type of study.

The point is that our decisions are influenced by a massive range of factors we aren't even aware of. In what sense could our will, then, be described as 'free'?

The real question is whether we have will. If we do, it definitely isn't free, which is what that study demonstrates. Nothing to do with manipulation. That's just the set-up, and bear in mind that they've only identified a tiny range of influential factors.

We don't have free will, however you slice it.

 

[tuxbox]

The point is that our decisions are influenced by a massive range of factors we aren't even aware of. In what sense could our will, then, be described as 'free'?

Science isn't even aware of the factors that goes on in our mind. They have no idea where our thoughts come from or how we have thoughts. Sure they can hook you up to machines and tell where the thoughts are coming from but that is about it.

The real question is whether we have will. If we do, it definitely isn't free, which is what that study demonstrates. Nothing to do with manipulation. That's just the set-up, and bear in mind that they've only identified a tiny range of influential factors.

We don't have free will, however you slice it.

So I have no choice but to type on this keyboard?

 

[Inferno]

I think the question of "free will" (ignoring for a second if that exists or not) is one we can't yet answer. We don't yet have a good explanation of how the brain works, let alone a complete one. Someone will surely bring up Quantum Dynamics and the Kopenhagen interpretation, so that brings us another problem: QD is basically still in its infancy, there's a lot still to consider.

So sure, we might ask "is there free will" but the answer we must reasonably give is "we simply don't know yet".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Science isn't even aware of the factors that goes on in our mind.

Absolutely untrue. There are entire fields of science dedicated to what goes on in our minds, and technologies that can functionally read it.

They have no idea where our thoughts come from

Begs the question that they 'come from' anywhere.

or how we have thoughts.

Absolutely untrue. Some of the fine detail is missing, but the broad-strokes picture is fairly solid.

Sure they can hook you up to machines and tell where the thoughts are coming from but that is about it.

That contradicts what you just said.

So I have no choice but to type on this keyboard?

That would be will, not free will. That said, this is an open question, and will almost certainly remain so, because it's an ontological question. If the universe is deterministic, then you definitely didn't have any choice, not just in whether you typed, but in what you typed.

Now, Bell Inequalities seem to rule out determinism, at least at the quantum scale, but some measure of determinism can be retained, and if the universe is deterministic, or if, for example, the B Theory of time is correct, then there is no will, free or otherwise.

These are ontological issues, and nothing to do with science.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So sure, we might ask "is there free will" but the answer we must reasonably give is "we simply don't know yet".

To a degree, yes, but that word 'free' is in there. It means 'unconstrained'. I*f our decisions are constrained by factors we aren't even aware of, as is categorically demonstrated in the study above, then the answer is a resounding 'no'. The question, then, is whether we have will at all.

The problem is that the term 'free will' is taken to mean having any choice, when it's considerably more nuanced than that. The term should be stricken from the collective consciousness, not least because as much bollocks is spoken about free will as about god.

My eyes glaze over when I see the term because, like Deepity Chakra talking about 'quantum', it's a sure sign that nonsensical waffle dressed up as deep thought is about to follow. It's one of those things that gives you insight into what cognitive scientists must feel like when people start wibbling about consciousness as if it's something magical.

 

[Mugnuts]

Watch all the Sapolsky lectures on YouTube. Ever since someone posted the underpinnings one, I've been listening to them at work. So insightful.

 

[tuxbox]

Absolutely untrue. There are entire fields of science dedicated to what goes on in our minds, and technologies that can functionally read it.

When I say mind, I'm not talking about the brain. So if there are technologies that can read my mind and determine what I want for breakfast, then that is news to me.

Begs the question that they 'come from' anywhere.

The fact that we have thoughts should be evidence that they are coming from somewhere, and that somewhere is the mind. (not the brain)

Absolutely untrue. Some of the fine detail is missing, but the broad-strokes picture is fairly solid.

Again, news to me. I'll have to do some research on that.

That contradicts what you just said.

lmfao Indeed it does.

That would be will, not free will. That said, this is an open question, and will almost certainly remain so, because it's an ontological question. If the universe is deterministic, then you definitely didn't have any choice, not just in whether you typed, but in what you typed.

Now, Bell Inequalities seem to rule out determinism, at least at the quantum scale, but some measure of determinism can be retained, and if the universe is deterministic, or if, for example, the B Theory of time is correct, then there is no will, free or otherwise.

These are ontological issues, and nothing to do with science.

So we may be tied to fate? If so, that fucking sucks!

 

[tuxbox]

So sure, we might ask "is there free will" but the answer we must reasonably give is "we simply don't know yet".

To a degree, yes, but that word 'free' is in there. It means 'unconstrained'. I*f our decisions are constrained by factors we aren't even aware of, as is categorically demonstrated in the study above, then the answer is a resounding 'no'. The question, then, is whether we have will at all.

The problem is that the term 'free will' is taken to mean having any choice, when it's considerably more nuanced than that. The term should be stricken from the collective consciousness, not least because as much bollocks is spoken about free will as about god.

My eyes glaze over when I see the term because, like Deepity Chakra talking about 'quantum', it's a sure sign that nonsensical waffle dressed up as deep thought is about to follow. It's one of those things that gives you insight into what cognitive scientists must feel like when people start wibbling about consciousness as if it's something magical.

:lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

When I say mind, I'm not talking about the brain.

Mind is the behaviour of the brain.

So if there are technologies that can read my mind and determine what I want for breakfast, then that is news to me.

It's not that sophisticated yet, but it can tell, for example, that you're thinking about food.

The fact that we have thoughts should be evidence that they are coming from somewhere,

The logic here is deeply flawed. We have a universe, so it must come from somewhere.

and that somewhere is the mind. (not the brain)

Again, mind is the behaviour of brain. There's no mystery here. There are details and lots of open questions, but nothing actually mysterious about mind. We can tell that mind is just the behaviour of the brain because of how much cognitive function is impaired after serious brain trauma, or after ingestion of certain chemicals.

Really, the only mystery is why people think that mind and consciousness are worthy targets of wibble. I guess the answer is that it's one of the few areas of science still in its infancy, and thus an area with lots of gaps into which to plug gods and magic

So we may be tied to fate? If so, that fucking sucks!

It's not beyond the realm of possibility. I doubt it myself, but the simple answer is that we don't know. What we do know is that it won't make a blind bit of difference to anybody either way, because you still have the illusion, and no way of telling the difference. That's the beauty, and the utter uselessness, of ontology.

 

[Xenophanes]

It's not beyond the realm of possibility. I doubt it myself, but the simple answer is that we don't know. What we do know is that it won't make a blind bit of difference to anybody either way, because you still have the illusion, and no way of telling the difference. That's the beauty, and the utter uselessness, of ontology.

There is a difference. Determinism has been shown to be false. I do not think that our behaviour is determined; the universe itself is open, i.e you cannot predict, even if you have all the information about the universe you could have up to this point, the future. This has not to do with human fallibility it is to do with the fact that the universe is not overdetermined by its laws. This means that if the universe is not overdetermined by its laws there is "wiggle room" for species (such as ourselves) to exploit; and animals evolve to exploit this "wiggle room". Dennett argued much the same thing. One of the things humans evolved to to do was to exploit abstractions that allow us to think through our actions and decide about them, this gave us an evolutionary advantage, the advantage of shaping our enivronment to suit our needs.

For an argument about abstractions being real read chapter 5 of Deutche's Book, "the reality of abstractions"

Why would we need an illusion of free-will? It seems like if there was no free-will, there would not be any point in the illusion.

Is it just an accident that we have this illusion?

this is not meant as a criticism, just mainly asking you for an explanation of what seems a gross adding to nature that defies occams razor,

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There is a difference. Determinism has been shown to be false. I do not think that our behaviour is determined; the universe itself is open, i.e you cannot predict, even if you have all the information about the universe you could have up to this point, the future. This has not to do with human fallibility it is to do with the fact that the universe is not overdetermined by its laws. This means that if the universe is not overdetermined by its laws there is "wiggle room" for species (such as ourselves) to exploit; and animals evolve to exploit this "wiggle room". Dennett argued much the same thing. One of the things humans evolved to to do was to exploit abstractions that allow us to think through our actions and decide about them, this gave us an evolutionary advantage, the advantage of shaping our enivronment to suit our needs.

For an argument about abstractions being real read chapter 5 of Deutche's Book, "the reality of abstractions"

Why would we need an illusion of free-will? It seems like if there was no free-will, there would not be any point in the illusion.

Is it just an accident that we have this illusion?

this is not meant as a criticism, just mainly asking you for an explanation of what seems a gross adding to nature that defies occams razor,

Really?!

I trust you're not confusing physical determinism with genetic determinism?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

Greetings,

There is a difference. Determinism has been shown to be false. I do not think that our behaviour is determined; the universe itself is open, i.e you cannot predict, even if you have all the information about the universe you could have up to this point, the future. This has not to do with human fallibility it is to do with the fact that the universe is not overdetermined by its laws. This means that if the universe is not overdetermined by its laws there is "wiggle room" for species (such as ourselves) to exploit; and animals evolve to exploit this "wiggle room". Dennett argued much the same thing. One of the things humans evolved to to do was to exploit abstractions that allow us to think through our actions and decide about them, this gave us an evolutionary advantage, the advantage of shaping our enivronment to suit our needs.

For an argument about abstractions being real read chapter 5 of Deutche's Book, "the reality of abstractions"

Why would we need an illusion of free-will? It seems like if there was no free-will, there would not be any point in the illusion.

Is it just an accident that we have this illusion?

this is not meant as a criticism, just mainly asking you for an explanation of what seems a gross adding to nature that defies occams razor,

Really?!

I trust you're not confusing physical determinism with genetic determinism?

Kindest regards,

James

Genetic determinism does not over determine behaviour, it creates dispositions towards certain behaviour; situationally humans can decide, to not carry out particular behaviours, if given alternatives. I am not confusing thr two. If physical determinism is false it could still be true that genetic determinism is true (which it is to a limited extent) but gentic determinism is only about what behaviours we have, through evolution, evolved to have a disposition towards carrying out, but humans do not have their behavour gentically determined as in we will definitely carry behaviour x in scenario y. Many behaviours by humans are novel, and not determined genetically, although our physical bodies and physical environments might limit what actions we can carry out, but this is to do with physics and in part genetics. If we have a choice between behaviours, it requires 1) that physical determinism is false and 2) that we have evolved to be able to exploit our environments.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Why would we need an illusion of free-will?

What the holy fuck does need have to do with the price of fish in Katmandu?

this is not meant as a criticism, just mainly asking you for an explanation of what seems a gross adding to nature that defies occams razor,

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't understand Occam's Razor or what it's for.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Xenophanes said:
There is a difference. Determinism has been shown to be false. I do not think that our behaviour is determined; the universe itself is open, i.e you cannot predict, even if you have all the information about the universe you could have up to this point, the future. This has not to do with human fallibility it is to do with the fact that the universe is not overdetermined by its laws. This means that if the universe is not overdetermined by its laws there is "wiggle room" for species (such as ourselves) to exploit; and animals evolve to exploit this "wiggle room". Dennett argued much the same thing. One of the things humans evolved to to do was to exploit abstractions that allow us to think through our actions and decide about them, this gave us an evolutionary advantage, the advantage of shaping our enivronment to suit our needs.

For an argument about abstractions being real read chapter 5 of Deutche's Book, "the reality of abstractions"

Why would we need an illusion of free-will? It seems like if there was no free-will, there would not be any point in the illusion.

Is it just an accident that we have this illusion?

this is not meant as a criticism, just mainly asking you for an explanation of what seems a gross adding to nature that defies occams razor,

Really?!

I trust you're not confusing physical determinism with genetic determinism?

Kindest regards,

James

Genetic determinism does not over determine behaviour, it creates dispositions towards certain behaviour; situationally humans can decide, to not carry out particular behaviours, if given alternatives. I am not confusing thr two. If physical determinism is false it could still be true that genetic determinism is true (which it is to a limited extent) but gentic determinism is only about what behaviours we have, through evolution, evolved to have a disposition towards carrying out, but humans do not have their behavour gentically determined as in we will definitely carry behaviour x in scenario y. Many behaviours by humans are novel, and not determined genetically, although our physical bodies and physical environments might limit what actions we can carry out, but this is to do with physics and in part genetics. If we have a choice between behaviours, it requires 1) that physical determinism is false and 2) that we have evolved to be able to exploit our environments.

I'm not quite sure what your position is on free will but I infer it's, what Coyne and others refer to as, compatibilism.

The claim that quantum effects somehow invalidates determinism does not mean that we have free will: random =/= free.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

The claim that quantum effects somehow invalidates determinism does not mean that we have free will: random =/= free.

Kindest regards,

James

Quantum indertminacy is not randomness. This is mistaking The probability of an event with epistemic probability. Epistemic probability is fallacious. The former type of probability can be either a fequency type or a propensity type, I think the propensity type stands up to criticisms that the frequency type does not.

Determinacy means that all events are determined by the previous event. I think that laws do not determine, but forbid a set of events, this means they have a limit on what events can occur. Each event that can occur in any given situation is called a propensity. One of the "determinants" of events is choices concious beings make, who themselves have propensities towards many (even novel), but limited behaviours, one of the propensities is towards abstraction, which allows them to have an evolutionary advantage, because then they can anticipate and act on their anticipations.

I am sorry hackenslash, I am not now digressing into a discussion of occams razor, my question was meant in earnest, you do not want to answer, it fair enough. But it seems irrelevent to me.

 

[Deleted member 619]

One of the "determinants" of events is choices concious beings make.

Can you actually demonstrate that there are such things as conscious choices?

Didn't fucking think so.

Meanwhile, if you want to impress anybody here, you'll have to do a fuck of a lot better than merely assert that something is a failure of Occam's Razor, not least when the thing that's supposed to be a failure is my stating that something you insist is real is actually illusory. What are the additional entities or assumptions in my suggestion?

If I had such a shitty understanding of what Occam's Razor was about, I'd fucking run away from me too, not least because I really do understand what it is and what it's for.