Do you believe in fate?

[Suezoled]

It seems as if an immaterialists' (and no, not just the ones on this board) view of materialism dictates that, since all functions are on the material level, it is possible to scientifically predict a person's decisions and actions. This would be the same as fate, right? If this is the same as fate, the denial of predictions, or the assertion of free will and random occurance, is not materialistic. Hence, Immaterialism wins out.

However, the results of lab tests, interviews, and other experiments take the median of a result and print that. So, not everything is so easily predicted.

[Suezoled]

When all is said and done, after the cards have fallen, was it fate that things happened, or the result of the variation of median actions?

[roger]

Be careful not to conflate determinism with predictability. For example, chaotic systems are deterministic, yet unpredictable (because they are so sensitive to starting conditions).

Therefore, a person actions could be entirely deterministic, yet unpredictable.

For the record, I see no reason to think we are not constrained by determinism in the 20th century physics sense of the term.

[espritch]

This has always been a problem for me. I like to believe in the notion of free will. However, I also tend to be a materialist. Strict materialism would seem to imply that all choices ultimately proceed from our neural wiring and our past experience and are thus pre-determined.

However, there does appear to be an element of genuine randomness at the sub-atomic level. Moreover, any sufficiently complex system will appear to be essentially random on some level since we cannot know all the initial conditions that may affect the system. It is probably not possible to distinguish free will from fate in any event.

I therefore choose to accept the idea of freewill. Even if freewill doesn’t exist, I was fated to prefer to believe that it does. ;)

[Yahweh]

I dont believe actions are predetermined, I dont believe in fate of any kind.

Its very possible to be a Materialist and believe in Free Will. I think its absurd to believe that humans are in no way controlling their actions.

There are some events that seem to occur outside of determinism (i.e. radioactive decay, or chaos theory Edit to add: Ignore "chaos theory", I thought the initial conditions for a Chaotic System had no cause, allowing it to escape complete determinism... my bad...).

[roger]

Yahwah - chaotic systems are fully deterministic.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by roger
Yahwah - chaotic systems are fully deterministic.
Note: I dont have my proper edumacation in Nonlinear dynamics...

I know my reasoning is wrong somewhere, but how is a chaotic system which is highly sensitive to initial conditions fully deterministic? While in principle, they are deterministic, I would assume the initial conditions are what set them outside of being completely deterministic?


"My mind is like clay, mold me..." - Scientologist's Bumpersticker

Edit to add: Nevermind, I found the answer I was looking for... an "oops, my bad" on my part...

[Thug AMish]

Had a nice debate about this in philosophy, fatalism does have a few consequences I think:
1) If we have no free will, then a perfect omni-blah God doesn't exist. I didn't really care about this, but I made sure all the Christians in the class did :D
2) not having any choices rules out a shrinking-block universe (the 'tree' with all the possible paths to go down) for obvious reasons
3) I also think that if have no choices, it would be possible that a future exists somewhere, which would hint at a moving present (dynamic time I believe). Moving presents bring up some interesting problems.
Anyways, hope everyone can follow that, I'm reading the book "Time and Space" right now, which deals with many time theories. I personally think an element of randomness is vital.

She bodoe ning blah reap de bo! :p

[roger]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Note: I dont have my proper edumacation in Nonlinear dynamics...

I know my reasoning is wrong somewhere, but how is a chaotic system which is highly sensitive to initial conditions fully deterministic? While in principle, they are deterministic, I would assume the initial conditions are what set them outside of being completely deterministic?

x = rx(1-x) is chaotic when put into a feedback loop. (meaning given initial x, solve right hand side. Take output, and feed back into right hand side to get the next value.

That equation is fully deterministic. Yet chaotic.
This page (http://www.geocities.com/moellep/chaos/chaoticjavaapplet.html) shows a nice java applet.

To see how this relates to the real world, think of how we represent numbers in decimal notation. Assume a function whereby the nth position to the right of the decimal point is affected by the nth+1 position. Say, add the 2 together mod 10. So, let's say you can measure the initial condition to 50 decimal places (not really realistic). Big deal, as we don't know what the 51st digit is, so after 50 feedback loops we cannot predict the value of the digit to the left of the decimal point.

Well, go and improve your measurement capability so you can measure to 100 decimal points. Again, big deal, as you do not know what the 101st digit is, and so within a few more iterations, you still cannot predict the value to the left of the decimal point.

In real world scenerios, such as a dripping faucet (which can be modelled very accurately mathmatically), no matter how accurate you measure the first few drips, you cannot predict the times for more than 5-6 drips out.

edited to add: in case it isn't clear, real world chaotic systems are subject to feedback. Take the dripping faucet example. Obviously, when the next drip occurs depends on when the previous drip occured, since the last drip caused the water volume at the faucet to drop to near zero.

[The idea]

Given a deterministic worldview, how does one define what it means for event A to have been the cause of event B?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by espritch
Strict materialism would seem to imply that all choices ultimately proceed from our neural wiring and our past experience and are thus pre-determined.Yes, but flip a coin to decide if you're going to use a condom or not and you might change your life - and many other.

It might be pre-determined that you would flip the coin, but the result of the flip is not.

[roger]

Originally posted by Bjorn
It might be pre-determined that you would flip the coin, but the result of the flip is not. Care to back that up with physics? :)

A better example would be to base the decision on radioactive decay.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by roger
Care to back that up with physics? :)OK, I'll base my decision on the lottery numbers on Saturday night drawing in California. More odd numbers than even - I use the condom.

Whatever the result, do you think that my decision "ultimately proceed from our neural wiring and our past experience and are thus pre-determined"? :confused:

[roger]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Whatever the result, do you think that my decision "ultimately proceed from our neural wiring and our past experience and are thus pre-determined"? :confused: Sure, if we credit that the sentence left out obvious stuff, like inputs into the neural wiring.

Saying the world is deterministic, in 20th century physics, allows for purely random effects like radioactive decay. However, the effects of these occurances are determined. It also allows for non-predictability (for example, nonlinear chaotic systems).

Contrast this to classical determinism, which does not allow for truly random events, nor the non-predictability of deterministic processes.

So many of the arguments on this site hinge on blasting away at some result of assuming classical determinism, whereas those espousing determinism are not using that outdated, disproved definition.

Anyway, my working assumption is that our brains are fully constrained by physics, and that 20th century physics is a reasonably accurate description of how the world works, at least as far as any of it is relevant to how the brain works. I could be wrong, but I've yet to see any reason to think otherwise.

also, FWIW, I am a compatiblist, meaning that I agree that yes, people make choices, decide things based on what is before them, their learning, inclinations, etc, but that those are also emergent behavior based on the deterministic workings of the substrate - neurons, hormones, etc, and occasionally affected by truly random events (gamma ray causing cancer, etc).

You wanna call that free will, or not, I don't care. Human definitions like free will, or consciousness vs unconsciousness, don't tend to map neatly to how the system actually works, and why should they?

[Dorian Gray]

If we are fated to have free will......... what then?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is no practical reason to care whether our lives are determined or we have free will (whatever that is; I dare anyone to define it).

Imagine the following: The first 1,000 decisions that a newborn baby makes are a result of determinism and randomness. Maybe the choices for each decision are determined, while the baby's selection is random. Or the other way round. Now, these decisions result in events that the baby enjoys or dislikes to one degree or another. His reactions to the decisions feed back to his brain, deterministically, to start shaping his personality. His personality then affects future decisions. The feedback becomes stunningly complex very quickly.

Five years later, is there any hope that we could tease out the original 1,000 deterministic/random decisions he made? None whatsoever. So even though he is ultimately a product of deterministic/random processes, there is no way to distinguish those mindless processes from the self-driven decisions made later on.

Now, if it bothers you merely to know that you are a product of such processes, even though there is no way to tell, then you have my sympathies.

~~ Paul

[Max560]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
There is no practical reason to care whether our lives are determined or we have free will (whatever that is; I dare anyone to define it).
~~ Paul

I think much of the debate gets hung up on the mechanics of decicion making rather than on the quality of behavior one displays.

If given a choice between two or more options, can it be demonstrated that I am locked into a specific choice (by fate)? In other words, can it be shown that the path(s) not taken were never available to choose?

I would define free will as the ability to choose any of the available options when given a choice of 2 or more options.

[c4ts]

You can look at any event and blame fate. It's rather pointless.

[roger]

Originally posted by Max560
I would define free will as the ability to choose any of the available options when given a choice of 2 or more options. I agree with what I snipped, but wanted to target this sentence.

This *is* the crux of it. Of course we have the ability to choose. We base choice on likes, weighing of costs/benefits, impulse control, etc. It just happens (so far as we can tell) that those are implemented using deterministic processes.

This is what I was getting at when I wrote that definitions are fuzzy for this. What does it mean to "choose"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's assume that the world operates through determinism and random chance.

To choose means to make a deterministic/random decision based on a multitude of results from past such decisions and on current environmental factors.

Those who champion the idea of free will seem to think there is a third factor operating as we make decisions, the "free" piece. Free from what? If it's not deterministic and it's not random, what is it? Apparently it's my "desires." How did I come to have those desires? Are there laws governing the process? What does it mean to say there are not?

~~ Paul

[Zero]

The way I have always looked at it is like this: it feels like free will, so for practical purposes it is free will. Since there is no way for us to see the future, and no way to predict the exact future of an individual, then free will is what we've got to work with, even if it is really an illusion.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Let's assume that the world operates through determinism and random chance.

To choose means to make a deterministic/random decision based on a multitude of results from past such decisions and on current environmental factors.

Those who champion the idea of free will seem to think there is a third factor operating as we make decisions, the "free" piece. Free from what? If it's not deterministic and it's not random, what is it? Apparently it's my "desires." How did I come to have those desires? Are there laws governing the process? What does it mean to say there are not?

That's the thing.

We act on our desires. You will always do something according to desires. There is no "free-will". Even if you do something sub-consciously.

I would say that the laws of physics control your desires in everyway, hence controlling you. However, this is not to say that those laws are the source of your desires.

The two main arguments that are used on this board to support free-will are:

1. The laws of physics are fundamentally probabilistic (undeterministic). Therefore you have free-will.

The problem here is how does probability enable free-will?
How does the flipping of a coin give you free-will? You're ultimately going to obey the outcome of the coin toss. ie you're fully under the total control of TLOP. Which is exactly what the arguments for free-will try to falsify.

2. I'm conscious, therefore I have free-will.

This argument assumes that consciousness is beyond the total control of TLOP and it relies on argument (1) being True.

[NullPointerException]

You can look at any event and blame <insert religious denomination>... =)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by wraith
How does the flipping of a coin give you free-will? You're ultimately going to obey the outcome of the coin toss. ie you're fully under the total control of TLOP. The flipping of a coin example wasn't ment to argue that we have 'free will'. Free will cannot be found in heads or tails, I'm afraid. :(

It was ment to show that even without 'free will' my life is not pre-determined, the outcome of the coin toss (which I don't control) can change it in a second. :)

[Max560]

Originally posted by roger
I agree with what I snipped, but wanted to target this sentence.

This *is* the crux of it. Of course we have the ability to choose. We base choice on likes, weighing of costs/benefits, impulse control, etc. It just happens (so far as we can tell) that those are implemented using deterministic processes.

This is what I was getting at when I wrote that definitions are fuzzy for this. What does it mean to "choose"?

I would stick with the actual operational view and say that choosing is doing one of the available behaviors in a set of 2 or more behaviors instead of the other behaviors in that set.

Referring to "deterministic processes" to refute the notion of freedom of chioce seems to be a gross oversimplification of how our brains actually work.

Deterministic seems to me to mean that we are supposed to be locked into the tracks of a specific future, with no room for variation, in that we do not actually have the ability to choose anything. I would require proof of this (i.e., given choices A, B, C, being told that you can't actually choose A or C. Then, when trying to choose A or C to refute the claim, finding that you can't).

If this cannot be demonstrated, then what is left is the assertion that one can do anything they want, but they are not really free. In other words it's an assertion that you are a slave to a deterministic process that allows you to do pretty much anything you want, whenever you want, and for whatever reason you want.

[The idea]

Originally posted by The idea
Given a deterministic worldview, how does one define what it means for event A to have been the cause of event B?
Nobody answered that question.
Examine the history of thought. You start with the concepts of events and causes. The idea of determinism doesn't arise until after you have the idea of causation. However, you don't have a concept of causation unless you can consider what would have happened if event A had not occurred.

Suppose I claim that, by combing my hair, I made it possible for electric current to be generated to power your computer yesterday. You would try to defeat my claim by preventing me from combing my hair today and observing that you still have electric current coming into your computer. However, suppose I say that things were different yesterday and that, because I combed my hair yesterday, it is no longer necessary for me to comb my hair. Yesterday's hair combing was a one-time event that now makes it forever possible for electric current to be generated to power your computer.

Of course, that is nonsense, but it is no more nonsensical than the determinist doctrine. You had to have the concept of what would have happened in the absence of event A before you could talk about causation and you had to have the concept of causation before you could formulate the concept of determinism, but now you cut the ground from under yourself by denying that it means anything to talk about what would have happened in the absence of event A. According to determinism, if event A occurred, then it had to be and we cannot consider what would have happened in the absence of event A.

However, in that case, what concept of causation do we have to formulate the concept of determinism?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Max560 said:
If this cannot be demonstrated, then what is left is the assertion that one can do anything they want, but they are not really free. In other words it's an assertion that you are a slave to a deterministic process that allows you to do pretty much anything you want, whenever you want, and for whatever reason you want.
And yet, all those "wants" were determined. But yet, it doesn't feel that way. Pretty nifty, huh?

Idea said:
Given a deterministic worldview, how does one define what it means for event A to have been the cause of event B?
I think the notion of causality becomes more or less meaningless. This is the argument I'm making in the perplexing problem thread. But isn't that an odd thing to say?

~~ Paul

[sorgoth]

Here's how I see it: We DO make decisions, but the reason we chose one thing or another is due to deterministic/random processes.

The people who say that our decisions are pointless, as nothing will be changed by that, are completely wrong, because you know as well as I do that my decision to get up in the morning makes for a very different day than if I had just stayed in bed.

However, the REASON I chose to get up is because of deterministic/random factors.


(Hey, if we could find a way to accurately detect some quantum states, would be have a truly random number generator?)

[Max560]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

And yet, all those "wants" were determined. But yet, it doesn't feel that way. Pretty nifty, huh?

~~ Paul

From a qualitative standpoint, what are the features of a choice which show that it is due to fate rather than free will?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The flipping of a coin example wasn't ment to argue that we have 'free will'. Free will cannot be found in heads or tails, I'm afraid. :(

It was ment to show that even without 'free will' my life is not pre-determined, the outcome of the coin toss (which I don't control) can change it in a second. :)

If you don't believe in Free-will or Fate, what other option/s are there?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The idea
Nobody answered that question.
Examine the history of thought. You start with the concepts of events and causes. The idea of determinism doesn't arise until after you have the idea of causation. However, you don't have a concept of causation unless you can consider what would have happened if event A had not occurred.

Suppose I claim that, by combing my hair, I made it possible for electric current to be generated to power your computer yesterday. You would try to defeat my claim by preventing me from combing my hair today and observing that you still have electric current coming into your computer. However, suppose I say that things were different yesterday and that, because I combed my hair yesterday, it is no longer necessary for me to comb my hair. Yesterday's hair combing was a one-time event that now makes it forever possible for electric current to be generated to power your computer.

Of course, that is nonsense, but it is no more nonsensical than the determinist doctrine. You had to have the concept of what would have happened in the absence of event A before you could talk about causation and you had to have the concept of causation before you could formulate the concept of determinism, but now you cut the ground from under yourself by denying that it means anything to talk about what would have happened in the absence of event A. According to determinism, if event A occurred, then it had to be and we cannot consider what would have happened in the absence of event A.

However, in that case, what concept of causation do we have to formulate the concept of determinism?

Could you clarify?
I do not fully understand what you're asking.

[wraith]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Here's how I see it: We DO make decisions, but the reason we chose one thing or another is due to deterministic/random processes.

The people who say that our decisions are pointless, as nothing will be changed by that, are completely wrong, because you know as well as I do that my decision to get up in the morning makes for a very different day than if I had just stayed in bed.

However, the REASON I chose to get up is because of deterministic/random factors.


(Hey, if we could find a way to accurately detect some quantum states, would be have a truly random number generator?)

When you get out of bed, you have the desire to get out of bed (to get out of bed was the most perceived benefit).

Supporters of free-will say that due to QM, free-will can be obtained. It also appears that due to QM, consciousness is not under the full control of the laws of physics.

From this point of view, free-will is confronted with more problems.

1. Why is consciousness not under the total control of TLOP when everything else in the universe is.

2. If free-will stems from QM and the desire to wake out of bed was random in itself, one's actions are still going to be based on that desire.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Supporters of free-will say that due to QM, free-will can be obtained. It also appears that due to QM, consciousness is not under the full control of the laws of physics.
I dont any other response is more warranted than this:

You have no understanding of QM.

From this point of view, free-will is confronted with more problems.

1. Why is consciousness not under the total control of TLOP when everything else in the universe is.
For the same reason you cant steer a bicycle with the chain and gears: Because the systems involved are not comparable.

To annotate (repeat myself) more clearly: Because the systems involved in the Laws of Physics and the systems involved in Cognition are not comparable.

2. If free-will stems from QM and the desire to wake out of bed was random in itself, one's actions are still going to be based on that desire.
You dont understand QM.

Its clear things such as radioactive decay occur without any cause, that demonstrates that this world isnt entirely deterministic.

Knowing the future affects the past. That is backwards causality, that means the future you know will not occur. The Philosophy of Fatalism is thereby defeated.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
If you don't believe in Free-will or Fate, what other option/s are there?
Epiphenomenalism, Compatibilism, and Divine Will.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Its clear things such as radioactive decay occur without any cause

Any cause, or any known cause?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont any other response is more warranted than this:

You have no understanding of QM.

Coming from a person that has no idea on how to argue that probability leads to free-will....I take no offence.

For the same reason you cant steer a bicycle with the chain and gears: Because the systems involved are not comparable.

To annotate (repeat myself) more clearly: Because the systems involved in the Laws of Physics and the systems involved in Cognition are not comparable.

So you're saying that there is at least one more different set of laws that govern the Universe?

You dont understand QM.

Its clear things such as radioactive decay occur without any cause, that demonstrates that this world isnt entirely deterministic.

Knowing the future affects the past. That is backwards causality, that means the future you know will not occur. The Philosophy of Fatalism is thereby defeated.

Hey sunshine, despite your attempt to grasp Fate, even if the laws of physics where fundamentally probabilistic, you can't even demonstate how free-will is achieved, let alone described.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Epiphenomenalism, Compatibilism, and Divine Will.

Actually I was asking if there was another option regarding the nature of the laws of physics. If not probabilistic or deterministic, what else?

[Fishboot]

Keneke said:
Any cause, or any known cause?

Depends on whether you want to believe that there are hidden mechanics underlying QM. If you don't, then "cause" is an ill-defined word in QM context. I believe it's still a matter undecided enough for the debate of Very Smart People.

I would suggest that immaterialists read a little about both chaos and QM. In tandem they create some very nice places for a God/ghost/telekenetic-goblin of the gaps to reside and make a perfect wreck of the ancient strawman determinism I've seen assaulted around here lately.

[The idea]

Originally posted by wraith
Could you clarify?
I do not fully understand what you're asking.

What part isn't clear? I can rephrase or reorganize what I already wrote or ramble on about it, but to be really helpful I need to know what needs clarification. Had you quoted just one part of my previous message, I would at least have a vague idea of where the problem lies. You quoted it all, so you haven't given me a clue.

If we are going to discuss determinism, then perhaps we could begin by considering what kind of thing it is. Is it a scientific theory that makes predictions? Is there a theoretical possibility that the predictions could fail, so that the theory really does say something about the universe? Or is it a philosophical theory like the theory that the universe just came into existence at noon on January 1st 2004 with records and memories of events that never actually occurred?

Now, whatever determinism is, my suspicion is that it undercuts its own foundation. However, if I formulate a theory and say that it is the theory of determinism, then I might be misrepresenting what determinism is or setting up a straw man. So I ask those who support the idea of determinism to answer some basic questions about determinism.

(1) When you formulate a deterministic picture of reality, do you use some concept of "causation"? Please go ahead and do so or formulate a deterministic picture of reality that doesn't use any concept of causation.

(2) In formulating a concept of "causation", do you use the idea of what would have happened if a particular event had not occurred? (For example, if I stop beating a drum, the Sun still rises or appears, from our point of view, to rise. Suppose I was beating a drum yesterday. You can't modify the past, so how do you prove that yesterday's drum beating didn't cause the Sun to rise yesterday? Okay, you can't prove it, but what do you have good reason to believe?)

(3) If there are no alternative possibilities, then can you talk about what would have happened if a particular event had not occurred? If you can't then how can you talk about causation?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled
When all is said and done, after the cards have fallen, was it fate that things happened, or the result of the variation of median actions? And yet the moment simply "is."

[The idea]

Okay, I'm bumping this thread.

This might be a good general rule: if you require clarification of some part of a message, then you should identify the part of the message that is unclear to you.

Is there any determinist who can answer the following question?
When you formulate a deterministic picture of reality, do you use some concept of "causation"?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The idea
[B]When you formulate a deterministic picture of reality, do you use some concept of "causation"?

Sure.

[The idea]

Originally posted by wraith
Sure.
When you say that event A caused event B, what are you saying?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An excellent question, Idea. If the world is completely deterministic, one thing following on another in a mechanistic, predetermined fashion, then the concept of causality seems superfluous. It's like saying that one line of code in a computer program causes the next line. Makes no sense, really.

Of course, the world is not completely deterministic.

~~ Paul

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by roger

also, FWIW, I am a compatiblist, meaning that I agree that yes, people make choices, decide things based on what is before them, their learning, inclinations, etc, but that those are also emergent behavior based on the deterministic workings of the substrate - neurons, hormones, etc, and occasionally affected by truly random events (gamma ray causing cancer, etc).


That's it! Compatibilism! That is the way I've been trying to express my opinion on the subject (Yes, we make choices, and they affect our lives, but the reason we made that choice is because of genetics/events/randomness.

So, everyone who believes in free will; do you mean free will, in which you mean we make decisions? If so, then I agree with you.

If you mean free will as in there is something outside of physics that helps us choose between paths, then no, I don't agree with you.

[The idea]

Originally posted by sorgoth
If you mean free will as in there is something outside of physics that helps us choose between paths, then no, I don't agree with you.
Isn't there something more fundamental than the method for choosing between paths? Isn't the existence of multiple paths more fundamental?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
Coming from a person that has no idea on how to argue that probability leads to free-will....I take no offence.
Banana banana banana.

So you're saying that there is at least one more different set of laws that govern the Universe?
I think it would be easiest to organize a list that looked something like:

<fieldset><legend>Science which governs the universe</legend>

<fieldset><legend>Exact Science</legend>

<fieldset><legend>Physics</legend>

<fieldset><legend>Mechanical Physics</legend>
Acoustics
Optics
Mechanics
Thermodynamics
Electromagnetism

<fieldset><legend>Modern Extensions of Physics</legend>
Atomic and Nuclear physics
Cryogenics
Solid-state physics
Particle physics
Plasma physics.
</fieldset>

<fieldset><legend>Chemistry</legend>
Organic
Inorganic
Other Chemistry
</fieldset>
</fieldset>
</fieldset>
</fieldset>

<fieldset><legend>Comparative Science</legend>
(which are based on a comprehensive comparison of the range of objects or facts in any branch or department, and which aim to study out and treat of the fundamental laws or systems of relation pervading them)

<fieldset><legend>Psychology</legend>
Behavioral
Clinical
Developmental
</fieldset>

Anatomy
Philology
Psysiology
Linguistics
Geology


<fieldset><legend>Neuroscience</legend>
Cognitive
Neuroanatomy
Neurobiology
</fieldset>


<fieldset><legend>Biology</legend>
Zoology
Virology
Other subsets of Biology
</fieldset>

<fieldset><legend>Medicine</legend>
Medicine-y stuff
</fieldset>

</fieldset>

</fieldset>
I'm sure there is a better way to organize that very incomplete list above.

The systems in cognition are not comparable to the systems in physics.

Physical systems can be represented in terms of mathematics and equations. Cognitive systems are too complicated to be represented as mathematical equations, trying to reduce down cognitive systems to their invidual atomic components is about as meaningful as reducing down the parts of a computer to "plastic and silcon and stuff". When you reduce down cognitive systems to physical systems, you are extremely limited in the number of congitive predictions that can be made.

Hey sunshine, despite your attempt to grasp Fate, even if the laws of physics where fundamentally probabilistic, you can't even demonstate how free-will is achieved, let alone described.
Freewill is described as "Done of one's own accord; voluntary".

Freewill is achieved when an object or organism has certain organic properties or characteristics (example: A complex highly developed nervous system) to make voluntary choices.

Not so hard, was it?

Edit: Formatted nested list of sciences

[The idea]

Originally posted by sorgoth
[...] (Yes, we make choices, and they affect our lives, but the reason we made that choice is because of genetics/events/randomness.
Your apparent loyalty to a theory is impressive. Of course, the term "events" leaves your theory rather vague.

Your theory reminds me of Charlie Chaplin. After hours of tightening nuts with a wrench, he sees a woman who has decorative nuts on her dress. He mechanically runs after her.

Of course, normal adult human beings operate on a conceptual level. We do not behave like the Chaplin character.

[espritch]

Freewill is achieved when an object or organism has certain organic properties or characteristics (example: A complex highly developed nervous system) to make voluntary choices.


Ah. But what does that word 'voluntary' mean? If a worm (a creature with a highly developed nervous system compared to an amoeba), turns left rather than right, did it make a choice or did it just respond to certain stimulus, conditioning, and inate propensiites? If the same worm were in the same situation again, would it turn right instead?

If a Yahweh (a creature with a highly developed nervous system compared to a worm) decided to wear blue tennis shoes rather than black ones on Thursday, could not the same question be asked about his "choice"?

According to quantum theory, we truely cannot accurately predict the behaviour of a single sub-atomic particle. Does this mean sub-atomic particles have free will?

[TwoShanks]

I fail to see how there being a probability of certain paths occurring allows any measure of control over the path (and thereby choice about which path will be taken). Are the free-will advocates suggesting some mechanism by which the brain affects the probability of events? If not, then how do probability or randomness allow you to make a choice?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The idea
When you say that event A caused event B, what are you saying?

A caused B ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Banana banana banana.

ie. you don't have a clue?

I'm sure there is a better way to organize that very incomplete list above.

The systems in cognition are not comparable to the systems in physics.

Physical systems can be represented in terms of mathematics and equations. Cognitive systems are too complicated to be represented as mathematical equations, trying to reduce down cognitive systems to their invidual atomic components is about as meaningful as reducing down the parts of a computer to "plastic and silcon and stuff". When you reduce down cognitive systems to physical systems, you are extremely limited in the number of congitive predictions that can be made.

Again, you're trying to say that the laws governing any sort of science are different in respect to that branch of science.

I only know of one set of laws that govern the universe. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Freewill is described as "Done of one's own accord; voluntary".

Freewill is achieved when an object or organism has certain organic properties or characteristics (example: A complex highly developed nervous system) to make voluntary choices.

Not so hard, was it?

So what do you say about the brain? You are the brain. Brain is made of matter. Matter obeys laws. How does QM give you your free-will? If QM is dictating what matter does, then how are you "choosing" anything?

Saying that you can choose to go "left" or "right" is wishful thinking. How does probability give you "choice" again?

[The idea]

Originally posted by wraith
Matter obeys laws. How does QM give you your free-will? If QM is dictating what matter does, then how are you "choosing" anything?

Step (1)
You begin with concepts drawn from human experience.

The statement "matter obeys laws" relies on metaphors drawn from human experience. People write and enforce laws. Similarly, a person dictates a letter to another person. A person in authority dictates that someone else must do something.

Step (2)
You generalize the concept of "dictating" so that the subject of the verb "dictate" doesn't have to be a person.

Step (3) You repudiate the source of the concept that you are relying upon. You try to conclude that no person ever dictates anything.

Isn't there reason to get suspicious about the procedure that is being applied?

If we want to identify the meaning of "free will" within some model of the universe, first we have to construct a sufficiently rich model of the universe.

At the very minimum, the model will have to allow for organisms that:
(a) experience something like pleasure, joy, pain, or discomfort (or all four).
(b) have some capacity to do things
(c) have some degree of intelligence or at least awareness of how their behavior can affect their experiences.

[wraith]

Originally posted by The idea
Step (1)
You begin with concepts drawn from human experience.

The statement "matter obeys laws" relies on metaphors drawn from human experience. People write and enforce laws. Similarly, a person dictates a letter to another person. A person in authority dictates that someone else must do something.

How would you describe the relation between the laws of nature and matter?

Step (2)
You generalize the concept of "dictating" so that the subject of the verb "dictate" doesn't have to be a person.

Are you saying that you have power beyond the laws of nature?

Step (3) You repudiate the source of the concept that you are relying upon. You try to conclude that no person ever dictates anything.

People can bend to my will.

If we want to identify the meaning of "free will" within some model of the universe, first we have to construct a sufficiently rich model of the universe.

At the very minimum, the model will have to allow for organisms that:
(a) experience something like pleasure, joy, pain, or discomfort (or all four).
(b) have some capacity to do things
(c) have some degree of intelligence or at least awareness of how their behavior can affect their experiences.

What are you saying of free-will?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wraith
ie. you don't have a clue?
Humor, dear kimosabe.

Again, you're trying to say that the laws governing any sort of science are different in respect to that branch of science.
It seems like you are trying to find an out in some interesting twists of semantics.

But, my answer again is: No single branch of science is appropriate to describe all systems. The branch of Darwinian Evolution will probably be useless when it comes to describing the motion of ball travelling through the air.

The Laws which govern one branch of science are not fundamentally different than another branch of science, they are absent from other branches of science. For clarification: The laws which describe Universal Gravitation are absent from branch of science called Psychology, hence Psychology is inappropriate for describing the gravitational attraction of celestrial bodies.

I only know of one set of laws that govern the universe. Are you suggesting otherwise?
From what I understand, that single set of Laws you know of is a lumping together of all science. It seems to be one big label plastered upon all forms of science.

So what do you say about the brain? You are the brain. Brain is made of matter. Matter obeys laws. How does QM give you your free-will? If QM is dictating what matter does, then how are you "choosing" anything?
Who gives a crap about QM when referring to Cognition?

However, I will call you again on the fact that you committing a fallacy of composition. The property found in one atom (i.e. being controlled by the laws of physics) is not present when many atoms are in a group.

Its like saying "I can lift this aluminum can because it is made of very lightweight material, therefore I can lift 1 million aluminum cans because they are made of very lightweight material".

And again, the systems involved cognition are not comparable to the systems involved in Physics. Cognitive Neuroscience and Physics are compatible with one another. I've explained this to you before.

Saying that you can choose to go "left" or "right" is wishful thinking. How does probability give you "choice" again?
1. I dont see how your first statement is connected to your second statement.

2. I dont remember arguing probability gives you choice.

3. Banana banana banana

[wraith]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Humor, dear kimosabe.

Ahh yeah whatever you reckon :rolleyes:

It seems like you are trying to find an out in some interesting twists of semantics.

But, my answer again is: No single branch of science is appropriate to describe all systems. The branch of Darwinian Evolution will probably be useless when it comes to describing the motion of ball travelling through the air.

The Laws which govern one branch of science are not fundamentally different than another branch of science, they are absent from other branches of science. For clarification: The laws which describe Universal Gravitation are absent from branch of science called Psychology, hence Psychology is inappropriate for describing the gravitational attraction of celestrial bodies.

I'm not saying that you should use a branch of science to solve problems from another branch. I'm saying that all the branches come together, governed by the same set of rules.

From what I understand, that single set of Laws you know of is a lumping together of all science. It seems to be one big label plastered upon all forms of science.

Are you saying that all branches of science obey different sets of laws of nature?

Who gives a crap about QM when referring to Cognition?

You're the free-will believer. You're going to have to refer to the laws of nature sometime or later.

However, I will call you again on the fact that you committing a fallacy of composition. The property found in one atom (i.e. being controlled by the laws of physics) is not present when many atoms are in a group.

You have got to be *********** me.

Its like saying "I can lift this aluminum can because it is made of very lightweight material, therefore I can lift 1 million aluminum cans because they are made of very lightweight material".

LOFL!
In no way does this imply the same message to what you said above. You're using the fallacy of composition to say that laws of nature only apply to single atoms?

Get out of town!

And again, the systems involved cognition are not comparable to the systems involved in Physics. Cognitive Neuroscience and Physics are compatible with one another. I've explained this to you before.

Again, I'm not saying that you should use a branch of science to solve problems from another branch. I'm saying that all the branches come together, governed by the same set of rules.

1. I dont see how your first statement is connected to your second statement.

Well how do you desribe choice then, other than "choosing" between available options?

dont remember arguing probability gives you choice.

OK. So what are you saying?

3. Banana banana banana

Hell, I have no inclination to know what you get up to in your spare Time hahaha

[The idea]

Originally posted by The idea
Step (1)
You begin with concepts drawn from human experience.

The statement "matter obeys laws" relies on metaphors drawn from human experience. People write and enforce laws. Similarly, a person dictates a letter to another person. A person in authority dictates that someone else must do something.


Originally posted by wraith
How would you describe the relation between the laws of nature and matter?

I'm not saying that there is a better way to describe the relation between matter and the laws of nature. I am simply saying that we should recognize the kind of description that is being used. Then we should examine the overall structure of the argument.

Originally posted by The idea
Step (2)
You generalize the concept of "dictating" so that the subject of the verb "dictate" doesn't have to be a person.


Originally posted by wraith
Are you saying that you have power beyond the laws of nature?

Maybe step (2) wasn't expressed in clear enough language. Maybe an analogy will help. Consider the verb "open." Before computers existed, anyone could talk about opening a jar or a door or even a physical file folder and people would understand. They would also understand a command like "add". However, they might not know what you meant if you talked about an "open" command that opens a file in the computer's secondary storage system.

Similarly, we begin with dictating as something that people do. We have to generalize to get a concept of dictating that allows a law of nature to be the entity that does the dictating.

I'm wondering if, in addition to commenting on the separate steps (1), (2), and (3), you could comment on what happens when the three steps are combined.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I have a limited vocabulary. I have no word to express the idea of motion. Instead of saying that something moves, I say "it is like a Cheetah or falcon and not like a tree." I learn about Zeno's arguments and I become convinced that motion is impossible, but I can't say that. I say "Nothing is like a Cheetah or a falcon. Everything is like a tree. For example, a Cheetah is not like a Cheetah or a falcon. A Cheetah is like a tree." Now, the question is: shouldn't the language that I use make me pause and look for a mistake in the arguments?

[The idea]

Originally posted by wraith
Brain is made of matter. Matter obeys laws. How does QM give you your free-will? If QM is dictating what matter does, then how are you "choosing" anything?

If QM is dictating what matter does, then QM is controlling all decision-making processes. In particular, all intelligent decisions are made by QM, right?

Keep in mind that the decisions we are considering are not just official decisions. We are talking about any decision made in the process of solving any theoretical problem. For example, when Fermat's Last Theorem was first being proved, every decision about how to proceed was actually being made by QM.

Now, if every application of intelligence is actually the work of QM, then it would seem that all intelligence resides in QM. If all intelligence resides in QM, then how can there be any intelligence left over for any entity other than QM? Conclusion: no human being has any intelligence.

[The idea]

Originally posted by wraith
Matter obeys laws. How does QM give you your free-will? If QM is dictating what matter does, then how are you "choosing" anything?
What does it mean for entity X to dictate the behavior of entity Y?

Someone reads a message into a tape recorder. The tape recorder is housed in the head of a mannequin in such a way that the sound comes out of the mannequin's mouth. A robotic mannequin is programmed to type the same message onto a typewriter. The robotic mannequin has no sound reception capability. It simply performs a series of pre-programmed movements. The "speaking" mannequin and the robotic mannequin are started so that the sound of a given word is produced shortly before the robotic mannequin types that word.

Question for determinists: is the "speaking" mannequin dictating to the robotic mannequin?

Question for determinists: is there a relationship between the concept "X dictates the behavior of Y" and the concept "event A causes event B"?

[The idea]

Does anyone claim to be able to demonstrate, by means of some assumptions, that people do not have free will? If so, then it's time to answer some of the questions in this thread.