Free Will and Also Science Disproving God

[Deleted member 619]

You are seriously an idiot.

While you just do it for fun, eh? Fucikng moron.

A natural law is a causal ragularity in the universe.

Bzzzzzzzzzz. Closer, but still wrong. Try to extract your mouth from Aristotle's penis long enough to drop the 'causal' bollocks and you might actually learn something.

The natural Laws in our theories are conjectured laws that we think correspond with actual Natural Laws of the universe.

Wrong again, because there is no distinction between our formulations and the operations of the universe. The universe doesn't operate according to laws. It just behaves the way it does, because its constituents have certain properties. We observe it, then we describe what we observe. Natural laws are our descriptions of the behaviour we observe, specifically of the relationships between certain observed consequences.

The point of all of this is that science is metaphysically agnostic. It makes one single assumption that could be described as metaphysical in any way, namely that solipsism is false but, beyond that, it has no stake in metaphysics. It is, and must remain, ontology free.

Metaphysics is for idiots for whom being wrong doesn't matter, because nobody gives a shit what they have to say.

 

[Xenophanes]

I already gave you this on p2.

You mean this?

I can demonstrate it by saying that someone can order from a menu.

Which I already demolished with this:

Fuck me, a 12 year-old who's just read Sophie's World has a more sophisticated grasp of the relevant concepts than this. Someone can order from a menu with or without free will, including in a deterministic world. This objection is fucking stupid.

That example from page 2? Got anything that isn't the product of no thought whatsoever?

You can test it. That is why there are many tests in neuroscience and psychology trying to do this very thing. some of the set-ups are faulty and require critcism to refine them.

Still waiting for a valid test.

The problem is, is that if free-will did exist, that would actually be a demonstration of it. And I guess you don't get why, the demonstration undetermines the theory. This is the problem with all induction. demonstration, in the form of support, can never be given, because an infinite amount of theories can be invoked to explain the evidence. It is a demonstration of both free-will and not free-will. But there is an asymmetry, between supporting instances and counter-supprotive ones. This is called the Popper asymmetry, that is why free-will is falsfiable, but its negation is not.

 

[Deleted member 619]

No, not that. Comment on Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:13 pm

Okay, this is a test that can be done. If a person is given a choice between several actions and a limited to do it in, but he gets to choose whether or not he makes the action or not within the alloted time. If a scientist can determine whether he is going to do an action and if so which one, and at what time within the time alotted, precisely, free-will then be shown to be false. And the belief in free-will an illusion.

Sorry, but adding complexity doesn't address the issue. Moreover, there are other potential explanations for observing what the scientist observes than free will being false. Finally, this is an inductively reasoned outcome, which means you're committing the stolen concept fallacy, because 'induction is false'.

Still waiting for a valid test.

 

[Xenophanes]

You are seriously an idiot.

While you just do it for fun, eh? Fucikng moron.

A natural law is a causal ragularity in the universe.

Bzzzzzzzzzz. Closer, but still wrong. Try to extract your mouth from Aristotle's penis long enough to drop the 'causal' bollocks and you might actually learn something.

The natural Laws in our theories are conjectured laws that we think correspond with actual Natural Laws of the universe.

Wrong again, because there is no distinction between our formulations and the operations of the universe. The universe doesn't operate according to laws. It just behaves the way it does, because its constituents have certain properties. We observe it, then we describe what we observe. Natural laws are our descriptions of the behaviour we observe, specifically of the relationships between certain observed consequences.

The point of all of this is that science is metaphysically agnostic. It makes one single assumption that could be described as metaphysical in any way, namely that solipsism is false but, beyond that, it has no stake in metaphysics. It is, and must remain, ontology free.

Metaphysics is for idiots for whom being wrong doesn't matter, because nobody gives a shit what they have to say.

There is a difference between our observations and the operations of the universe. Are you claiming that humans are infallible? Observation is theory leaden, you cannot observe without knowing before hand what it is you are looking for.

If I ask you go out and observe, and do nothing else. You would not get very far without having some kind of assumptions etc. The descriptive mode of science is a mode, but it is secondary to the critical engagement of scientists in trying to get at the truth,

 

[Deleted member 619]

The problem is, is that if free-will did exist, that would actually be a demonstration of it.

No, the real problem, which you're far too stupid to see, is that if free will didn't exist, the outcome would be exactly the same. There is no way to distinguish from this experiment whether or not free will exists or merely the illusion of it.

And I guess you don't get why, the demonstration undetermines the theory. This is the problem with all induction. demonstration, in the form of support, can never be given, because an infinite amount of theories can be invoked to explain the evidence.

Correct, which is why we have such principles as empirical adequacy and falsification. I guess your love of knowledge degree didn't cover shit like that, though.

It is a demonstration of both free-will and not free-will. But there is an asymmetry, between supporting instances and counter-supprotive ones. This is called the Popper asymmetry, that is why free-will is falsfiable, but its negation is not.

Yet you've failed to provide a valid test to potentially falsify it. Moreover, reliance on a mere asymmetry can only give an inductive conclusion, and induction is false, apparently.

Seriously, I've argued with creationists who had a better grasp of logic.

 

[Xenophanes]

No, not that. Comment on Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:13 pm

Okay, this is a test that can be done. If a person is given a choice between several actions and a limited to do it in, but he gets to choose whether or not he makes the action or not within the alloted time. If a scientist can determine whether he is going to do an action and if so which one, and at what time within the time alotted, precisely, free-will then be shown to be false. And the belief in free-will an illusion.

Sorry, but adding complexity doesn't address the issue. Moreover, there are other potential explanations for observing what the scientist observes than free will being false. Finally, this is an inductively reasoned outcome, which means you're committing the stolen concept fallacy, because 'induction is false'.

Still waiting for a valid test.

It was not induction, it is modus tollens.

If people have free-will, then scientists will not be able to predict the outcome of the test, the scientists predicted the outcome of the test

People do not have free will.

P->Q
~Q
~P

Give me other explanations for the scientist predicting it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well, it's been fun, but I have things to do, and you're much too entrenched in navel-gazing ideas about the operation of science to have an interesting discussion with. I'll leave you to your idiocy.

 

[Xenophanes]

The problem is, is that if free-will did exist, that would actually be a demonstration of it.

No, the real problem, which you're far too stupid to see, is that if free will didn't exist, the outcome would be exactly the same. There is no way to distinguish from this experiment whether or not free will exists or merely the illusion of it.

And I guess you don't get why, the demonstration undetermines the theory. This is the problem with all induction. demonstration, in the form of support, can never be given, because an infinite amount of theories can be invoked to explain the evidence.

Correct, which is why we have such principles as empirical adequacy and falsification. I guess your love of knowledge degree didn't cover shit like that, though.

It is a demonstration of both free-will and not free-will. But there is an asymmetry, between supporting instances and counter-supprotive ones. This is called the Popper asymmetry, that is why free-will is falsfiable, but its negation is not.

Yet you've failed to provide a valid test to potentially falsify it. Moreover, reliance on a mere asymmetry can only give an inductive conclusion, and induction is false, apparently.

Seriously, I've argued with creationists who had a better grasp of logic.

Your judgement is pretty bad, I would not be suprised if you were a closet creationist.

 

[Xenophanes]

Well, it's been fun, but I have things to do, and you're much too entrenched in navel-gazing ideas about the operation of science to have an interesting discussion with. I'll leave you to your idiocy.

When hackenslash, who appears to be a randian, needs to go away and think for a bit longer, he exists with insults. I should have guessed you were a randian. The attitude is appaling.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It was not induction, it is modus tollens.

Actually, you're right. I was a bit quick off the mark.

Give me other explanations for the scientist predicting it.

In a deterministic universe, the prediction could have been predetermined to maintain the illusion (god's pretty big on free will, apparently, because it gets him off the hook for all sorts of heinous shit).

 

[Deleted member 619]

When hackenslash, who appears to be a randian, needs to go away and think for a bit longer, he exists with insults. I should have guessed you were a randian. The attitude is appaling.

Interesting. You call insulting possibly the only post in which I didn't actually insult you.

Dunno what a randian is, but I don't respond well to labels.

 

[Xenophanes]

Greetings,

"The mound cannot choose it, no. But the mound does not have a central nervouse system and the ability to deal with abstractions, both of which give human's an evolutionary advantage. You can deny calling it an ability to choose or free-will if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that human's ability to abstract and have forethought gives them an ability to have novel behaviour in many circumstances and to anticipate. One of them is language, it hardly ever happens that someone utters the same sentence as another. "

My analogy represents a human as the sum of determinants - including those we've inherited throughout evolution.

Notice I put "determinants" in quotes, that is because, if something plays a role in an outcome, and it is one of the "determinants" then it plays a role, and if human behaviour can be explained by conciouse choice, which it can, because we can only do certain behaviours that other animals cannot, then that plays a role, so human choice plays a role. The problem is that we are not talking about determinants in the strict sense, in fact there are limits, and the actual outcome is limited in many ways, one of the ways is human concious choice.

Our ability to abstract is based on pattern-recognition, which we evolved to make sense of the world around us.

There's no "ghost in the machine".

I am not arguing for a ghost in the machine, that is your assumption. I am arguing that human's ability to abstract plays a role in their behavioral outcomes, do not call it free will if you want. But our concious ability to abstract plays a role in the outcome.

I was not saying that mind is governed by quantum mechanics, higher level analysis smooths out quantum indeteriminacy. But I am not just talking about quantum indeterminacy. I am talking about the fact that we cannot predict the future even at that level. The future is open, I offered many arguments for this not just "quantum indeterminacy".

We may not be able to predict the future with any guarantee but that does not mean we have free-will to "choose" - we're still the sum of our individual determinants.

I deny that there are determinants, there are limits, that is all. Nothing "determines" anything; That is why I am an indeterminst. Concious choice is a deselection from the potenial outcomes, and even this deselection does not determine behaviour, because humans make mistakes in their assesment and they come up against limits.

That's why claiming "God did it!" is a unwarranted assumption: a catch-all explanation and a explanation that's consistent with all the evidence are not the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

It is not unwarranted, it is unfalsifiable. This more probable thing is an inductive assumption, you have to first give an argument for induction, that does not blatantly contravene its existence.

I would like to add that if induction was true, then god would be maximally proven. If all data is consistent with god then god is the most likely things to be true. This is why popper said that we should look for unlikley things, because the more unlikely it is, the more it can conflict with in the word and so the more testable it is. and the more insight it will give us. When we get evidence that "supports" a theory we do not learn anything new. The outcome was already in our theory.

 

[Xenophanes]

It was not induction, it is modus tollens.

Actually, you're right. I was a bit quick off the mark.

Give me other explanations for the scientist predicting it.

In a deterministic universe, the prediction could have been predetermined to maintain the illusion (god's pretty big on free will, apparently, because it gets him off the hook for all sorts of heinous shit).

Then free-will still does not exists. You missed that...really?

I think I have to add more. Firstly if the outcome is that he scientists never can falsify free-will in that sense. We still would not say that free-will has been proven, that would be an inductive assumption. We merely say, it is still a candidate for the truth. and keep testing it against other theories.

God is unfalsifiable, we can just ignore it as a scientific hypothesis. It might be the case, but we will never know either way. So it is either saying nothing or something very trivial.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Then free-will still does not exists. You missed that...really?

See, I told you I was a fucking moron. :lol:

That's what I get for posting drunk.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Incidentally, I'd meant to add that several iterations of multiverse hypothesis provide an explanation whereby a person could have free will and still have their decision accurately predicted. I concede the specific point, though, because I can't be bothered going over all that ground.

 

[Xenophanes]

Incidentally, I'd meant to add that several iterations of multiverse hypothesis provide an explanation whereby a person could have free will and still have their decision accurately predicted. I concede the specific point, though, because I can't be bothered going over all that ground.

in the version of it propouned by David Deutsch, you would not be able to predict the outcome.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Can you link me to it?

 

[Dustnite]

There is a difference between our observations and the operations of the universe. Are you claiming that humans are infallible? Observation is theory leaden, you cannot observe without knowing before hand what it is you are looking for.

If I ask you go out and observe, and do nothing else. You would not get very far without having some kind of assumptions etc. The descriptive mode of science is a mode, but it is secondary to the critical engagement of scientists in trying to get at the truth,

I'm still confused on what point you're trying to make here. The "laws" of physics that we have are merely a model on a described behavior that we observe in nature. Some of those laws break down in certain situations. Are you arguing for some type of hard solipism that we can't really know anything about nature or are you arguing to say that the scientific method is broken.

You observe a behavior in nature, you apply a hypothesis to explain that behavior, you make an experiement that predicts a conclusion and you then see if that prediction matches the conclusion. The theory is not applied before this process....

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

My analogy represents a human as the sum of determinants - including those we've inherited throughout evolution.

Notice I put "determinants" in quotes, that is because, if something plays a role in an outcome, and it is one of the "determinants" then it plays a role, and if human behaviour can be explained by conciouse choice, which it can, because we can only do certain behaviours that other animals cannot, then that plays a role, so human choice plays a role. The problem is that we are not talking about determinants in the strict sense, in fact there are limits, and the actual outcome is limited in many ways, one of the ways is human concious choice.

We're not the only animal that can abstract.

There are a plethora of examples of problem-solving in the animal kingdom - a most recent one being the discovery of chimps making/using spears for hunting.

Of course, birds have been known to use/make tools for some time.

And these are only a couple of examples.

Abstraction is not that unique to humans.

I disagree that any behaviour, human or not, can be explained by conscious choice since choice is an illusion.

Our ability to abstract is based on pattern-recognition, which we evolved to make sense of the world around us.

There's no "ghost in the machine".

I am not arguing for a ghost in the machine, that is your assumption. I am arguing that human's ability to abstract plays a role in their behavioral outcomes, do not call it free will if you want. But our concious ability to abstract plays a role in the outcome.

As I said, I don't agree that we have a conscious ability to choose.

We may not be able to predict the future with any guarantee but that does not mean we have free-will to "choose" - we're still the sum of our individual determinants.

I deny that there are determinants, there are limits, that is all. Nothing "determines" anything; That is why I am an indeterminst. Concious choice is a deselection from the potenial outcomes, and even this deselection does not determine behaviour, because humans make mistakes in their assesment and they come up against limits.

I'd be interested in seeing how you show that we have conscious choice versus the evidence of the Libet experiments.

That's why claiming "God did it!" is a unwarranted assumption: a catch-all explanation and a explanation that's consistent with all the evidence are not the same thing.

Kindest regards,

James

It is not unwarranted, it is unfalsifiable. This more probable thing is an inductive assumption, you have to first give an argument for induction, that does not blatantly contravene its existence.

That particular example happens to be both: given that there's no evidence for god(s), it is an unwarranted assumption - the fact that it's also unfalsifiable makes it even more so.

Dustnite has nicely made the point, I think, regarding induction.

I would like to add that if induction was true, then god would be maximally proven. If all data is consistent with god then god is the most likely things to be true. This is why popper said that we should look for unlikley things, because the more unlikely it is, the more it can conflict with in the word and so the more testable it is. and the more insight it will give us. When we get evidence that "supports" a theory we do not learn anything new. The outcome was already in our theory.

This is, as hackenslash has noted before, where the Principle of Ockham enters to prune the less-likely "magic" explanation(s) from the field of more-likely possible down-to-earth explanations.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[prycejosh]

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?

god gave us free will so that we can make our own choices to what we want in life. which i think is fair of god to do. if we were brainwashed then it wouldnt be fair on us. god is glorified for what he does in the lives of millions and shows us he loves us and wants dispite how much we dont want him shows us just how much we loves us. he wants us to spend eternity with him in his house. just imagne the highest of high asking you to live with him isnt that good.