scepticus Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Free will in what context? From the law? free will in the sense that that you (an accumulation of molecules) have the ability to take an action that is not wholly determined by all the molecules and radiation particles that bang into you in the instant (define this notion of 'instant') before you take a given decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 One might start by asking what is the difference between free will and determinism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 free will doesn't exist. Seriously, you sound like someone telling me that God created the World in 7 days and because I can't disprove that it must be true. You are keen to tell us what doesn't exist , bogbrush. Now tell us what does exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 One might start by asking what is the difference between free will and determinism? It's like the difference between the Tooth Fairy and Santa. Both are bullsh1t ideas dreamt up by people to make sense of stuff; they aren't the same but their difference is irrelevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) You are keen to tell us what doesn't exist , bogbrush. Now tell us what does exist. Energy, matter, although even those two are interchangeable. Edited January 3, 2011 by bogbrush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 free will in the sense that that you (an accumulation of molecules) have the ability to take an action that is not wholly determined by all the molecules and radiation particles that bang into you in the instant (define this notion of 'instant') before you take a given decision. As you have introduced the physical world into this, I would ask you first to say if you think the "you" in the above sentence is limited to physical properties as you seem to suggest. What of basic concepts like Spinoza's substance? What are "you"? Is your mind the same as your body? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 free will doesn't exist. The bit you're missing is that we aren't alive in any sense worth considering. It's just complexity that looks like something mystical. I suggest you use that as your signature: it deserves a wider audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 There is not such thing so how can it be experienced? It's just complexity. that's a statement of belief. You have no proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I suggest you use that as your signature: it deserves a wider audience. To that quote you use I would ask bogbrush what then would be alive in a meaningful sense? He knows what is not, but what would be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 that's a statement of belief. You have no proof. There's no proof of anything beyond it and my assertion only requires facts that are commonly known. I'd say that puts me on the side of rationaility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 To that quote you use I would ask bogbrush what then would be alive in a meaningful sense? He knows what is not, but what would be? There is no life. It's a con, a misinterpretation of complexity. Seriously, all there is is matter, energy and a lot of time allowed for some very complicated stuff to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 There's no proof of anything beyond it and my assertion only requires facts that are commonly known. I'd say that puts me on the side of rationaility. no, you assert a position and hold that it will be proved within 30 years or so. that is no different to me suggesting that the messiah will return to judge all men by 2012. I don't hold that my position on the real existence of free will is anything more than a belief based on what I understand about facts and science. I think its time you admitted that your position has an equivalent level of uncertainty. It may surprise you to know that there are explanations of free will that are consistent with modern physics, although they lack sufficient empirical proof, as do the competing positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 all there is is matter, energy and a lot of time allowed for some very complicated stuff to develop. And there your philosophy crashed and burned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And there your philosophy crashed and burned. Please say how, I'm always keen to learn (it's built into my patterns). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 no, you assert a position and hold that it will be proved within 30 years or so. that is no different to me suggesting that the messiah will return to judge all men by 2012. I don't hold that my position on the real existence of free will is anything more than a belief based on what I understand about facts and science. I think its time you admitted that your position has an equivalent level of uncertainty. It may surprise you to know that there are explanations of free will that are consistent with modern physics, although they lack sufficient empirical proof, as do the competing positions. I'm not surprised assertions of free will lack any proof. That should be telling you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 There is no life. It's a con, a misinterpretation of complexity. Seriously, all there is is matter, energy and a lot of time allowed for some very complicated stuff to develop. the nature of time is a feedback loop from matter and energy. In a universe of all energy (the entropic end state ) there cannot be any notion of time, according to general relativity, as I pointed out earlier. if the nature of time affects the evolution of matter and the evolution of matter affects the evolution of time then there is no determinism to be found here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) There is no life. It's a con, a misinterpretation of complexity. Seriously, all there is is matter, energy and a lot of time allowed for some very complicated stuff to develop. A "con" implies deliebrate deception, so I presume you mean it's a misunderstanding. And who says that matter and energy do not constitute "life"? You would aruge then that the sun is alive. Put another way, you say there is no life, but you must know what life is to know it is not. What then is life? You say above you are on the "side of rationality", but basic rationalism demands that you must know what something is to know what it is not. If I go to a party and say it is not fun, I must know what fun is and is not. You must therefore know what life is. What is it, if none of "this" is life? Edited January 3, 2011 by Tecumseh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scepticus Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm not surprised assertions of free will lack any proof. That should be telling you something. I'm not surprised denials of free will lack any proof. That should be telling you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Please say how, I'm always keen to learn (it's built into my patterns). Not as keen as I am. Tell me, what are dreams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 A "con" implies deliebrate deception, so I presume you mean it's a misunderstanding. And who says that matter and energy do not constitute "life"? You would aruge then that the sun is alive. Put another way, you say there is no life, but you must know what life is to know it is not. What then is life? You say above you are on the "side of rationality", but basic rationalism demands that you must know what something is to know what it is not. If I go to a party and say it is not fun, I must know what fun is and is not. You must therefore know what life is. What is it, if none of "this" is life? I'm using words as shorthand for complicated thoughts, so there's some laziness in my statement which you've correctly picked up on. Of course "con" is a misnomer and your correction is right. It's just a misunderstanding. "Life" is just another of those words that have no useful meaning, like "God", or "fate" or any of that stuff that implies there's something going on beyond simple chemistry. I say there is no life but in doing so I'm simply reacrting to the thing other people mean by "life" - the word to me has no useful value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Not as keen as I am. Tell me, what are dreams? Eletrochemical effects. You know they can be induced with intense magnetic fields? Simple cause and effect. Are you going to tell me where the crash/burn hapened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I'm not surprised denials of free will lack any proof. That should be telling you something. People used these arguments centuries ago against people saying there was no Satan with a horned head and pointy tail. I still can't prove he isn't there, holding a trident toasting naughty people for eternity. Come on, you're the one saying something exists so let's see the proof. Edited January 3, 2011 by bogbrush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Relaxation Suite Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm using words as shorthand for complicated thoughts, so there's some laziness in my statement which you've correctly picked up on. Of course "con" is a misnomer and your correction is right. It's just a misunderstanding. "Life" is just another of those words that have no useful meaning, like "God", or "fate" or any of that stuff that implies there's something going on beyond simple chemistry. I say there is no life but in doing so I'm simply reacrting to the thing other people mean by "life" - the word to me has no useful value. Are you familiar with the arguments made by the British empiricists and their work on the theory of language and meaning? It seems to me that having dismissed everything as non-existent you probably don't want or in fact don't need to know about anything that might exist, including ideas. Let me ask, do ideas exist in your analysis of the universe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora's box Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Eletrochemical effects. You know they can be induced with intense magnetic fields? Simple cause and effect. Are you going to tell me where the crash/burn hapened? Oh, I just thought your comment that 'some very complicated stuff happened' lacked a certain intellectual rigour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Are you familiar with the arguments made by the British empiricists and their work on the theory of language and meaning? It seems to me that having dismissed everything as non-existent you probably don't want or in fact don't need to know about anything that might exist, including ideas. Let me ask, do ideas exist in your analysis of the universe? I don't dismiss everything as non-existent; I accept that what we perceive all around us in terms of matter and energy is here, at least in the forms that we can perceive. The only bits I deny are those man-made concepts used to fill in gaps, like "God", "Soul", "Life", "Will" and the like. Ideas are extremely useful because they are part of the sensory and interpretive apparatus that has evolved to assist in acquiring resources and copying. As a shorthand for that process, I'm very happy to acknowledge the existence of "ideas". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.