Free Will and Also Science Disproving God

[surreptitious57]

The real question is whether we have will

Well we certainly do not have absolute free will since there are physical and psychological and moral and legal restrictions
prohibiting that. But neither are we slaves to determinism either. So the answer lies somewhere in between. An interesting
philosophical question would be : if free will is an illusion but one does not know it can ignorance of that actually make one
free ? For is it what one thinks is true as opposed to what is actually true that determines free will ? Technically the answer
would be no. But if an illusion is so powerful it is automatically assumed to be true then how would one know the difference

 

[Deleted member 619]

We wouldn't, which is entirely my point. Whether or not we have will is entirely untestable and unfalsifiable. It's what you would call a philosophical question, by which I mean a question which we have no means to answer because, as you know, philosophy isn't in the business of answering questions, despite what the fuckwit navel-gazing morons would have you believe.

 

[Xenophanes]

Xenophanes, you agree that the conventional philosophical position is that theories need to be supported by evidence yet claim that this is actually untrue. On what basis?

Because induction leads to an infinite regrees, as shown by Hume, Popper, Peirce, Bunge, Miller. All types of justification lead to munchausen's trillema. The reason scientists do not want to give up induction (or support by evidence) is because they think it gives them a way to seperate (demarcate) science from metaphysics. Which it does not.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Because induction leads to an infinite regrees [sic]

Even supposing this is true (it isn't; Hume was wrong (shock, horror)), what's the problem with infinite regress?

Which it does not.

Science is already separated from metaphysics, by virtue of only dealing with observations.

Of course, being a navel-gazer who thinks philosophy renders conclusions, you won't grasp any of this. Your education in philosophy, like that of others, doesn't actually deal with philosophy, it's an exercise in book-keeping or, as Whitehead put it (since you morons love quotations so much), footnotes to Plato.

One day, probably just before you shuffle off this mortal coil, you'll probably figure out what philosophy is really for, and why your education was a complete waste of time, even assuming your degree isn't as fictitious as your understanding is.

 

[Xenophanes]

"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. "

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".

Anyway classical physics is false and does not "govern" anything. The theory is an approximation, does not mean that the universe has two sets of laws, it just has one.


Yet again people thinking that you have to have a warranted assumption in order for it to be true. Cause, gravity, observation, reality, natural selection. all are unwarranted, but guess what. They explain more of the data than other theories and they are falsifiable, does not matter that they are unwarranted. Instead of saying it is unwarranted, can you offer criticism. Your claim that it is an unwarranted assumption is another unwarranted assumption.

 

[Xenophanes]

Because induction leads to an infinite regrees [sic]

Even supposing this is true (it isn't; Hume was wrong (shock, horror)), what's the problem with infinite regress?

Which it does not.

Science is already separated from metaphysics, by virtue of only dealing with observations.

Of course, being a navel-gazer who thinks philosophy renders conclusions, you won't grasp any of this. Your education in philosophy, like that of others, doesn't actually deal with philosophy, it's an exercise in book-keeping or, as Whitehead put it (since you morons love quotations so much), footnotes to Plato.

One day, probably just before you shuffle off this mortal coil, you'll probably figure out what philosophy is really for, and why your education was a complete waste of time, even assuming your degree isn't as fictitious as your understanding is.

It does not only deal with observations, it deals with laws and universals. and many other unobservable things. What counts as an observation is itself an assumption that does not have observational back-up.

Hume was not wrong, every attempt to show him to be wrong has failed. Bertrand Russel, and David Miller have made this very explicit. If we only get knowledge by induction, how did we get induction. The usual claim is we are born with it. but that begs the question. If we are born with induction why not other types of knowledge?

An infinite regress says that we are not explaining what we set out to explain.

First you deny, then you say well, even if so what's wrong with it?

seriously...?

 

[Deleted member 619]

It does not only deal with observations, it deals with laws

What are natural laws, genius?

[If we only get knowledge by induction, how did we get induction.

Who the fuck said we only get knowledge by induction? You really do fucking suck at this, don't you? Science itself isn't limited to induction, as you well know.

The usual claim is we are born with it. but that begs the question. If we are born with induction why not other types of knowledge?

Beautiful category error. Induction isn't a type of knowledge, it's a means to the acquisition of knowledge, as is deduction. Seriously, if this is your A game, you aren't remotely ready to discuss the difficult stuff, let alone this rudimentary and uninteresting sidebar.

 

[Xenophanes]

It does not only deal with observations, it deals with laws

What are natural laws, genius?

[If we only get knowledge by induction, how did we get induction.

Who the fuck said we only get knowledge by induction? You really do fucking suck at this, don't you? Science itself isn't limited to induction, as you well know.

The usual claim is we are born with it. but that begs the question. If we are born with induction why not other types of knowledge?

Beautiful category error. Induction isn't a type of knowledge, it's a means to the acquisition of knowledge, as is deduction. Seriously, if this is your A game, you aren't remotely ready to discuss the difficult stuff, let alone this rudimentary and uninteresting sidebar.

We did not get the hypothesis of curved space-time through observation, einstein made some very interesting conjectures. The only observation happened when Eddington tested it.

Science is not limited to induction, because induction is false. So you admit that you can have metaphysical knowledge and moral knowledge? It is not a catagory error. Induction might be a means to aquire knowledge, but it is a type of knowledge itself. Are you mad? The claimed knowledge is that if you get enough instances of something you can then infer that all instances in the domain have the same quality. Just calling something a catagory error when you have no idea what you are talking, does not stop you from looking stupid.

If the image have in my head of how to get somewhere is a means to getting there, that does not mean that what I have in my head is not a type of knowledge. You need to be more explicit on why induction is not a type of knowledge. Furthermore, induction relies on several assumptions, one of them is that most of the regularities we think we percieve are true regularities, which is clearly false, that is why you end up with confirmation bias, and people having lots and lots of false beliefs. If this assumption is not made, then you have to say that actually we concjecture about what it is in the environment we should look for, which is theoretical; this eliminates induction, because we are already assuming the regularity.

 

[Xenophanes]

It does not only deal with observations, it deals with laws

What are natural laws, genius?

[If we only get knowledge by induction, how did we get induction.

Who the fuck said we only get knowledge by induction? You really do fucking suck at this, don't you? Science itself isn't limited to induction, as you well know.

The usual claim is we are born with it. but that begs the question. If we are born with induction why not other types of knowledge?

Beautiful category error. Induction isn't a type of knowledge, it's a means to the acquisition of knowledge, as is deduction. Seriously, if this is your A game, you aren't remotely ready to discuss the difficult stuff, let alone this rudimentary and uninteresting sidebar.

Natural Laws aren't observed; we invoke them to explain observations.

 

[Xenophanes]

We wouldn't, which is entirely my point. Whether or not we have will is entirely untestable and unfalsifiable. It's what you would call a philosophical question, by which I mean a question which we have no means to answer because, as you know, philosophy isn't in the business of answering questions, despite what the fuckwit navel-gazing morons would have you believe.

But the conjecture that we have free-will can be falsified.

 

[Deleted member 619]

We did not get the hypothesis of curved space-time through observation, einstein made some very interesting conjectures. The only observation happened when Eddington tested it.

You think you're in a position to tell me about the history of general relativity, genius?

As it happens, I'm more than merely conversant with said history. What Einstein did observe, and what motivated the formulation of general relativity, was that Newton's model failed in the face of special relativity (and gave incorrect solutions for the precession of Mercury's orbit).

Science is not limited to induction, because induction is false.

How can induction be fucking false, you moron, when it isn't a fucking truth-claim? Care to explain that, Mr Fictitious-degree? Or were you absent the day they taught about truth-claims in your love-of-truth degree?

So you admit that you can have metaphysical knowledge and moral knowledge?

What did I fucking say about putting words in my mouth? Can you point to where I said you can have metaphysical knowledge or moral knowledge?

Metaphysics is useless bollocks, in its entirety. As for morality, if you claim there are moral truths, you don't know what morality is.

It is not a catagory error. Induction might be a means to aquire knowledge, but it is a type of knowledge itself.

No it fucking isn't. It's a process. It isn't a type of knowledge. All of which is irrelevant to your asinine claim that I suggested that induction is the only means to knowledge.

The claimed knowledge is that if you get enough instances of something you can then infer that all instances in the domain have the same quality.

Wrong! Here you've erected an absolute statement that bears no resemblance to how real scientists actually operate under the rubric of inductive reasoning. We observe consistency. On the basis of that observed consistency, we expect a continuation of consistency, remaining always open to the idea that said consistency may one day not continue. History has taught us this lesson nicely, and we didn't need Hume to teach it, although we recognise that6 he formalised it beautifully.

The problem of induction is not a hindrance to science, it's science's great strength.

It also isn't a fucking truth-claim, and that's why you commit a category error, because it isn't truth-apt. It's a procedure for reasoning from observations to principles. It's also the process that provided you with the technology to show the world how fucking ignorant you really are.

Just calling something a catagory error when you have no idea what you are talking, does not stop you from looking stupid.[/quote]

 

[Deleted member 619]

Natural Laws aren't observed; we invoke them to explain observations.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Wrong answer.

Like another go?

 

[Xenophanes]

Natural Laws aren't observed; we invoke them to explain observations.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Wrong answer.

Like another go?

Would you like to offer criticism? We percieve regularities. Unless you think that all regularities are laws then you will have real problems dealing with the fact that we can observe laws.

 

[Deleted member 619]

But the conjecture that we have free-will can be falsified.

By what means? You can't even test it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Would you like to offer criticism?

I did. It was the wrong answer.

Oh, and remember, I'll decide what constitutes appropriate criticism.

Now, about natural laws; what are they?

 

[Xenophanes]

But the conjecture that we have free-will can be falsified.

By what means? You can't even test it.

I already gave you this on p2. 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.

 

[Xenophanes]

Would you like to offer criticism?

I did. It was the wrong answer.

Oh, and remember, I'll decide what constitutes appropriate criticism.

Now, about natural laws; what are they?

You are seriously an idiot.

A natural law is a causal ragularity in the universe.

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

 

[Deleted member 619]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Dragan Glas]

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.

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 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.

Anyway classical physics is false and does not "govern" anything. The theory is an approximation, does not mean that the universe has two sets of laws, it just has one.

I think Sean Carroll's lecture might clear up what applies and what doesn't...



The part that's relevant to the above is between 34:05-46:57 - particularly towards the end - but it's well worth watching in toto:

Yet again people thinking that you have to have a warranted assumption in order for it to be true. Cause, gravity, observation, reality, natural selection. all are unwarranted, but guess what. They explain more of the data than other theories and they are falsifiable, does not matter that they are unwarranted. Instead of saying it is unwarranted, can you offer criticism. Your claim that it is an unwarranted assumption is another unwarranted assumption.

They are warranted based on the fact that they explain more of the data than less probable explanations - that's the point.

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