Atheistic Materialism Automatically Disqualifies Free Will [Archive] - Page 3

Cobpyth

08-31-13, 10:34 PM

Ok I see the point. It certainly would be easier for me to have this kind of discussion in French, but i'll try to respond in the best English I can.

I never said that there is no supernatural entitys, but I don't believe in any religions. The entity could be anything from a flying banana to a yellow coffee maker we just don't know. And the reason why religion has been so put over is because that in the middle age they needed power and they got that power by the church. But you made me think a lot I never asked myself the question of what brain is. I hope I can be understood because I don't know if all my sentence make sens

I think that basically what you are saying is that there might be something supernatural, but that you don't believe in any widely recognized religion, because nobody can actually know anything for sure and that the religions of the present are merely descendants of imposed beliefs of earlier ages, where they were used as a tool to control the people. Am I right?

I agree with you on that. One can wonder how certain religions became so big and how they originated, but it's all pretty much explicable in a believable/reasonable way.

I don't call myself religious or atheist, because, just like you, I haven't found something that really satisfies me or that I truly believe in. I probably never will. I seem to sympathize more with the thought that there actually is 'something', but I can't say I'm a true believer.

I do have the hope that there is something more than what science and pure observation teaches us. Otherwise nothing has any real purpose or meaning. Everything would just be pointless and I don't feel that we are created for pointlessness, although it sometimes seems like we are.

Yoda

08-31-13, 10:41 PM

I don't think the "religion as control" narrative jibes very well with history. It certainly doesn't explain its initial growth, when it was heavily decentralized and nobody in power really benefitted from it. To the contrary, historically it's been a huge threat to those in power. From the perspective of fascist regimes (like the GDR, for example), the church has been notoriously hard to control. Which makes sense: it's difficult to intimidate people who believe they serve a King above all earthly kings. Logically, people who think this life is all there is that have far more direct incentive to preserve it at all costs. But to the religious, there are always things worse than death.

This can be abused in other ways, of course, but it's not very conducive to control.

Pussy Galore

08-31-13, 10:53 PM

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 10:57 PM

I think that basically what you are saying is that there might be something supernatural, but that you don't believe in any widely recognized religion, because nobody can actually know anything for sure and that the religions of the present are merely descendants of imposed beliefs of earlier ages, where they were used as a tool to control the people. Am I right?

I agree with you on that. One can wonder how certain religions became so big and how they originated, but it's all pretty much explicable in a believable/reasonable way.

I don't call myself religious or atheist, because, just like you, I haven't found something that really satisfies me or that I truly believe in. I probably never will. I seem to sympathize more with the thought that there actually is 'something', but I can't say I'm a true believer.

I do have the hope that there is something more than what science and pure observation teaches us. Otherwise nothing has any real purpose or meaning. Everything would just be pointless and I don't feel that we are created for pointlessness, although it sometimes seems like we are.

If you wanna be atheistic about it all, the point of life is TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS IT. And that THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

The problem, I think, with religion, isn't mainly the belief system of it -- it's the fact that people get it ingrained in their heads TO EXPECT what religion tells them to be true. Religion sentimentalizes everything. A person is not merely a HUMAN being, with faults and human characteristics. A person becomes A TEST. A person is deemed A SOUL and something to be tested. It turns life into school. It makes life nothing but a big study night for some kind of ridiculous exam that doesn't make any sense.

This creates, I believe, ENORMOUS PRESSURE and PROBLEMS. I totally believe religion -- which may not be totally a bad thing for some people -- messed me up and confused me about life. I am not from a major religious family, and yet, I AM. I grew up with religion but not in a strict way. Someone like Yoda seems to have grown up with it in a strict way, hence why he's so deep into it.

If you don't put pressure on yourself to wish for something more after death, and DEEP MEANING behind everything, you're free to just take life as it is. I believe we don't even have free will, so to me now, life is basically a conveyor belt ride in a sense. But that doesn't mean you have to despair and cry about it. You can just take life for what it is. You have a unique life. Think of having A UNIQUE LIFE instead of just being a unique person. Your purpose is in living that life. You can't do anything about it.

People need to just enjoy life more. I mean, seriously -- people worry too much about what God thinks and what would happen if they die and found God and got judged.

Let's think the other way -- let's give the religious people a thought -- WHAT IF THEY DIE and, right before being shut off permanently, a little woman comes into a room you find yourself in and she goes, "Hi :D. I see that you just died. Well, there's not an afterlife or a God. I just wanted to let you know that. I'm gonna shut off your life right now and you'll then cease to exist and forget everything that happened in your life - like it never happened. Okay? :) Bye!"

Imagine that's the case -- it's kinda depressing, yeah -- but WHAT IF IT'S TRUE? Think of what life could have been like had you always known that. There's two areas -- a place of nothingness, and a place of FULLNESS. You are in the full now. THE FULL IS FULL OF THINGS YOU CAN DO. Versus not doing. And it doesn't have to have serious meaning to it. You're a human being. Go be a human being. This is a wild kingdom. Be responsible and have a good, long life. Then die, like the rest of us.

Cobpyth

08-31-13, 11:02 PM

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:05 PM

Cobpyth yes that was what I meant and I agree with all you said except for the fact that I personally hope there isn't any kind of entity because I don't think that a single entity can succesfully manage that many things, but it's possible that it's true ...
Well, no human entity can. But if there is a being capable of creating everything, I see no reason to assume it shares our mental limitations.

Yoda allright that's possible, but you have to admit that the religion abused his power and went to far. I'll give you an exemple. In the french canadian litterature all the text that were written before the 1900's were religion related and most of them involved a man who didn't go to church and was finally either changed into a werewolf or killed by Lucifer. The only people who could write were so brainwashed that they had to write about the power of the religion.
Sure, religion can be (and has been) abused. There's no system, true or false, right or wrong, dumb or wise, that evil people can't manipulate to their own ends in some way. Unfortunately, the penchant for abuse is so common that we can't use it as a way to measure something's validity, because everything is susceptible to it.

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:06 PM

People need to just enjoy life more. I mean, seriously -- people worry too much about what God thinks and what would happen if they die and found God and got judged.
Who is this advice supposed to benefit? If something thinks God isn't real, then they're already not worrying about it. And if they think God is real, it'd be ridiculous not to think about what God thought.

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 11:10 PM

Who is this advice supposed to benefit? If something thinks God isn't real, then they're already not worrying about it. And if they think God is real, it'd be ridiculous not to think about what God thought.

*I BELIEVE* that most likely there's nothing after death. At least, nothing as described by Christianity. I warn everybody about what I believe. I warn you and all of your fellow religious followers. The advice is for your benefit. If you don't wanna take it, that's fine, but too bad.

Mmmm Donuts

08-31-13, 11:10 PM

Pussy brings up some great points.

Wow, that's a lot of fun to say!

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:10 PM

@Yoda:

Well the initial growth can be explained by use of many examples. We just have to look at the very fast distribution of communism in the early 20th century for instance. I probably shouldn't compare religions with political ideologies, but they are both a certain idea or a belief in a purpose that instigate masses of people.

An idea or a belief can grow very fast under the right circumstances, even if it's not at all logical.
Christianity for instance, can be seen as an initial opposition to the earlier established Judaism and roman polytheism that later became the standard and prevailed because the political authorities of that time assumed the religion and preserved it because it was a handy tool to condone their own actions 'in the name of Christianity'.

I'm not saying what I'm saying is necessarily true, but it is plausible for me and therefore a fast and gigantic initial growth of an idea or belief doesn't prove for me that there lies any 'truth' in the concept.
Oh, I'm not talking about speed, I'm talking about its purpose and appeal. Obviously at a certain point it can be perverted and used as a means of control (like anything), but that doesn't explain its initial, organic rise. So "control" doesn't work as an explanation as to why it enjoys the popularity it does.

I think most skeptics would have to concede that, even if it's false, it's popular because it appeals to things fundamental to human nature, and not because the Powers That Be imposed it on people. It takes root in too many places where it's discouraged (to extreme lengths) for that to be true.

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:12 PM

*I BELIEVE* that most likely there's nothing after death. At least, nothing as described by Christianity. I warn everybody about what I believe. I warn you and all of your fellow religious followers. The advice is for your benefit. If you don't wanna take it, that's fine, but too bad.
Well, it's not really advice for us, either, because it just supposes that what we believe is false. But if we believed that, we wouldn't need the advice, so it's a catch-22. The only thing that could potentially be of use is an argument (assuming you're right) that convinces us otherwise. But telling people to care less about what God thinks doesn't help anyone, no matter what they believe. It's either unpersuasive on one side or unnecessary on the other.

Cobpyth

08-31-13, 11:13 PM

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 11:15 PM

Well, it's not really advice for us, either, because it just supposes that what we believe is false. But if we believed that, we wouldn't need the advice, so it's a catch-22. The only thing that could potentially be of use is an argument (assuming you're right) that convinces us otherwise. But telling people to care less about what God thinks doesn't help anyone, no matter what they believe. It's either unpersuasive on one side or unnecessary on the other.

It's not unnecessary and I wasn't trying to be very persuasive with logical examples of why God doesn't exist and why there's no afterlife, etc. Take what I'm saying and go do your own research. Take my enthusiasm and passion and let it inspire you to seek further wisdom. I'm not a bank of arguments. I'm a billboard meant to arouse.

Pussy Galore

08-31-13, 11:16 PM

Well, no human entity can. But if there is a being capable of creating everything, I see no reason to assume it shares our mental limitations.
Yes, but what I meant is that where this limitless being draw the line between right and wrong? How can an entity even though it's beyond human imagination can do the right things for the whole planet?

Sure, religion can be (and has been) abused. There's no system, true or false, right or wrong, dumb or wise, that evil people can't manipulate to their own ends in some way. Unfortunately, the penchant for abuse is so common that we can't use it as a way to measure something's validity, because everything is susceptible to it.

But these people manipulated what religion is so the religion known today is not the same than the one who was praised 200 years ago. So it's a little stupid to me that people still believe in a religion that has been modified by men. There's no supernatural aspect about it anymore.

Mmmm Donuts

08-31-13, 11:16 PM

I'm not a bank of arguments. I'm a billboard meant to arouse.

That's an awesome quote...

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:16 PM

Also, this needs to be replied to:

Someone like Yoda seems to have grown up with it in a strict way, hence why he's so deep into it.
I don't know what this is supposed to be based in, exactly. I wouldn't say I had a strict religious upbringing, but more importantly, I can't think of how you could possibly know this, unless you think this is true of every religious person who readily defends their beliefs.

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 11:21 PM

@Sexy:

I am not a descendant of a religious family. My parents are pretty much careless about the whole concept. I never heard them think about it out loud.

I am still baptized as a Christian though, but that's merely tradition here. It doesn't really mean that much.

I just wanted to respond that I, MYSELF, ME, am not and never will be satisfied with the thought of life just being life as we see it.

Wrong, perhaps.

You don't know for certain that you never will be satisfied with the thought that life is just as we see it. You absolutely could change your mind and feelings about all of this. I know because I did. I'm an example of such a person. You might someday be, too. You might not be, but you could be such an example. It can be done.

Your so called free lifestyle without any hope of something more just doesn't interest me.

Why, though? What holds you back?

I'm also not the kind of person that is afraid of being judged at the gates of heaven or anything like that. That is not a concept that I believe in or am even interested in.

And what made you be that way? Why can you be that way but not another way? Why can you be that way and not think the way I think?

It's the idea of mortality that makes me feel sad and bad about everything and everyone or perhaps I should say indifferent. Everything seems so extremely shallow if everything ends and nothing lasts. It just doesn't seem like something I would want to be part of or it doesn't seem like something that makes any sense. Perhaps things just don't make any sense, but well, I refuse to give up that last sparkling of hope.

Well, that's all it could be -- a last sparkling of hope.

If it's true that everything ends and nothing lasts, why do you have to take that as extremely shallow? Why can't it just be how life is? Why can't it just be NORMAL and GOOD? You think it's bad, but why can't it be good? Why can't life just be good for what it is?

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:22 PM

Yes, but what I meant is that where this limitless being draw the line between right and wrong? How can an entity even though it's beyond human imagination can do the right things for the whole planet?
But again, you're talking about God as if He's subject to human limitations. There is simply no reason to even suspect this, let alone believe it, especially if we're already posting a wildly more powerful being that created everything.

But these people manipulated what religion is so the religion known today is not the same than the one who was praised 200 years ago. So it's a little stupid to me that people still believe in a religion that has been modified by men. There's no supernatural aspect about it anymore.
What exactly is this claim based on? We have far, far older source texts than that.

Yoda

08-31-13, 11:24 PM

Why can't it just be how life is? Why can't it just be NORMAL and GOOD? You think it's bad, but why can't it be good? Why can't life just be good for what it is?
Because good loses all meaning at that point. All you can possibly say about the materialistic world you're positing is that there are some things in it which you happen to prefer. It would be, at most, a purely animal reaction.

And I'm not sure I understand what you're really asking when you say "why can't it be BLANK?" Where did he say it wouldn't be? He's simply talking about whether or not he hopes it is, and what kind of implications follow.

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 11:28 PM

I don't know what this is supposed to be based in, exactly. I wouldn't say I had a strict religious upbringing, but more importantly, I can't think of how you could possibly know this, unless you think this is true of every religious person who readily defends their beliefs.

I'm not saying that you were raised in an environment where Austruck was basically Carrie White's mother or anything like that, but, I just think that -- knowing what I know about you, and knowing that at least your mom is religious, too -- I believe you had a more solid, grounded religious upbringing than someone like me and other people. Did you not attend church regularly? Did you not spend time studying the Bible and such? I'm sure your family life, as well as friends, kept you in line. I'm not saying it's bad, just that I believe you experienced life as such and it's why you are how you are. If I didn't know much about you, I wouldn't have immediately guessed this.

Pussy Galore

08-31-13, 11:38 PM

Yeah it's true. Humans can't imagine what they haven't see so we just don't know. I admit, but the idea that humanity is controlled by only one entity kind of freaks me out.

It's not a claim it's more an assumption. Humans refer to churches as what religion is. So they don't believe in a supernatural entity, but in a human creation. I'll give an exemple. Many years ago homosexuality was a big thing in society and religion was a big part of it. Now that homosexuality is accepted in society religion does the same and there is even churches where homosexual can go. So I can understand if someone believes in an entity, but believing in religion is not that at all

Sexy Celebrity

08-31-13, 11:40 PM

Because good loses all meaning at that point. All you can possibly say about the materialistic world you're positing is that there are some things in it which you happen to prefer. It would be, at most, a purely animal reaction.

Well, we are animals.

And, I mean, life can absolutely be bad. You can absolutely be born into a bad life and understandably hope for more. Religion probably came about because of this. It's an act of the imagination. Someone had a bad life so they imagined God would save them and give them respect.

But you can absolutely have a great life, too. And life can be wonderful just enjoying the great things about it. Isn't life good having the people you have in it right now? Isn't it good that you have all that you have? Think if you didn't. You probably believe God gave you all of those things. Even if he really did, you can still interpret it as you were just lucky and you managed to get all the good things you enjoy.

And I'm not sure I understand what you're really asking when you say "why can't it be BLANK?" Where did he say it wouldn't be? He's simply talking about whether or not he hopes it is, and what kind of implications follow.

Because from what he's saying, he sounds like he believes life is miserable and bad without God and without an afterlife and without a meaning to life. From what I'm getting, to him, life without meaning is ugly and wrong and shallow. Life without purpose -- for everyone and everything -- is bad in his eyes. It's his perspective on life and it's all because of what's been ingrained in him by religious and spiritual viewpoints. He sees life without meaning as dark and empty and depressing. It's distressing. It's something to cry over. It's something to be afraid of. It wrecks your image of, not only life, but of yourself. 'Cause to hope for meaning is to hope that you are important and necessary in this world. And not just an object that got here. It's very bad for your ego.

Yoda

09-01-13, 01:32 PM

I'm not saying that you were raised in an environment where Austruck was basically Carrie White's mother or anything like that, but, I just think that -- knowing what I know about you, and knowing that at least your mom is religious, too -- I believe you had a more solid, grounded religious upbringing than someone like me and other people. Did you not attend church regularly? Did you not spend time studying the Bible and such? I'm sure your family life, as well as friends, kept you in line. I'm not saying it's bad, just that I believe you experienced life as such and it's why you are how you are. If I didn't know much about you, I wouldn't have immediately guessed this.
I think there's a pretty big difference between saying I had a more religious upbringing than someone else (in this case, you), and saying it was a "strict" religious upbringing, which implies a good deal more. I was taught to think seriously about these things from a young age, but that meant also being given anti-theistic books to read and being constantly encouraged to ask as many questions as I wanted (which ended up being a lot) about it.

To answer your question, though, my Bible study growing up was quite sporadic, in fact. That's something I'm a little ashamed of, truth be told, but it's one of many ways in which my upbringing didn't resemble what probably comes into people's minds when they think of a "strict" religious upbringing.

I wouldn't even mention this except I think you've suggested this before. I think you have a view of my religion that's pretty far afield from what it actually is and how it developed.

But you can absolutely have a great life, too. And life can be wonderful just enjoying the great things about it. Isn't life good having the people you have in it right now? Isn't it good that you have all that you have? Think if you didn't. You probably believe God gave you all of those things. Even if he really did, you can still interpret it as you were just lucky and you managed to get all the good things you enjoy.
But that, too, would be an animal reaction. The problem with a life devoid of real meaning is that statements like "can't you just do good?" or "can't life just be good?" lose their meaning, too. You want the word good to have some kind of significance beyond what it can logically have in that scenario. All the talk about finding happiness in a materialist universe is nothing more than satisfying animal impulses. Can that make you happy? In a very superficial sense, I guess, but it sure takes the power out of those words. And this, frankly, is something that happens in lots of these arguments, where atheists or materialists will use words because they feel like they have weight even while espousing a worldview that robs them of it. It's like a trick, except often they themselves don't seem to realize it.

Because from what he's saying, he sounds like he believes life is miserable and bad without God and without an afterlife and without a meaning to life. From what I'm getting, to him, life without meaning is ugly and wrong and shallow. Life without purpose -- for everyone and everything -- is bad in his eyes. It's his perspective on life and it's all because of what's been ingrained in him by religious and spiritual viewpoints. He sees life without meaning as dark and empty and depressing. It's distressing. It's something to cry over. It's something to be afraid of. It wrecks your image of, not only life, but of yourself.
You're sure getting a lot of psychoanalysis out of the relatively few details he's shared. I don't think he said life is miserable, though, he simply said it's meaningless in a materialist universe, and that's correct. And that's not an unimportant point, because to accept that you have to also accept that all your notions of meaning, morality, the importance of love and kindness and all sorts of other beautiful things (and beauty, too!) are all myths. Are all tricks of the mind designed to get you to procreate and survive. That's not a very happy thought, and I think it takes a relatively clear-headed skeptic to acknowledge that. It could be true, anyway, but that's the implication of the belief, and people who believe it should be able to look it in the eyes.

'Cause to hope for meaning is to hope that you are important and necessary in this world. And not just an object that got here. It's very bad for your ego.
Last I checked it was pretty rare to find someone whose ego wasn't big enough. Generally, the problem with people is the opposite. And I include myself in that. We do not lack for self-esteem, so I'm generally a lot more sympathetic to the worldviews which encourage humility, which is a far rarer (and more valuable) commodity. Frankly, even an atheist ought to be able to see the value of worship, in this sense.

Yoda

09-01-13, 01:34 PM

Yeah it's true. Humans can't imagine what they haven't see so we just don't know. I admit, but the idea that humanity is controlled by only one entity kind of freaks me out.
Well, I can't argue with that kind of gut level reaction. But logically, yeah, what we can imagine and what might be out there are always two different things. It seems reasonable to assume any being capable of creating the Universe would be beyond us in other ways, too.

It's not a claim it's more an assumption. Humans refer to churches as what religion is. So they don't believe in a supernatural entity, but in a human creation.
I don't think this is true at all. Religious people do believe in (and worship) a supernatural entity, and when they do this formally with others they call it church. I'm sure some people can, over time, come to confuse the church for the God it's supposed to serve, but this certainly isn't the norm. I think it would be difficult to talk to Christians much at all, and hear how often they cite The Bible rather than Their Church, and believe that most (or even many) of them confuse their God with their religion.

I'll give an exemple. Many years ago homosexuality was a big thing in society and religion was a big part of it. Now that homosexuality is accepted in society religion does the same and there is even churches where homosexual can go. So I can understand if someone believes in an entity, but believing in religion is not that at all
I think the language barrier is making this difficult to discuss, unfortunately, because I can't quite see what you mean by this example or how it relates to the subject at hand.

Frightened Inmate No. 2

09-01-13, 01:50 PM

this is still going on, huh?

Cobpyth

09-01-13, 03:10 PM

Because from what he's saying, he sounds like he believes life is miserable and bad without God and without an afterlife and without a meaning to life. From what I'm getting, to him, life without meaning is ugly and wrong and shallow. Life without purpose -- for everyone and everything -- is bad in his eyes. It's his perspective on life and it's all because of what's been ingrained in him by religious and spiritual viewpoints. He sees life without meaning as dark and empty and depressing. It's distressing. It's something to cry over. It's something to be afraid of. It wrecks your image of, not only life, but of yourself. 'Cause to hope for meaning is to hope that you are important and necessary in this world. And not just an object that got here. It's very bad for your ego.

I never said something about life being 'bad' or 'wrong' without a purpose. I did say life would be extremely dissatisfying for me if indeed this observable materialistic world that is merely built out of atoms and tactile matter is ALL there is.

Again, I didn't have a strict religious education (just to a very small degree), so there are no thoughts 'ingrained' in me or anything like that. It's purely ME, a soon to be 20 year old male human, who can't possibly grasp the point of everything if there is nothing besides what I perceive with my sense organs.

You can say that there doesn't have to be a point, but why do we bother living at all then?

"How did all this originate? Why did everything start? Why are people here? Why do we have these thoughts about the supernatural and why are we dissatisfied with the purely demonstrable?"

There are so many questions and happenings that need 'meaning' to be significant. There needs to be something that solves these questions, otherwise there is just no truth in this universe. In that kind of universe I don't even exist. I would merely be a pile of atoms.

Sorry, but I just can't see myself in that picture.

Yoda

09-01-13, 03:13 PM

this is still going on, huh?
Sort of. Most of the conversation isn't about the initial premise, and when it is, it's usually based on a misunderstanding of what that premise is, usually after having only read the first post.

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 05:42 PM

I think there's a pretty big difference between saying I had a more religious upbringing than someone else (in this case, you), and saying it was a "strict" religious upbringing, which implies a good deal more. I was taught to think seriously about these things from a young age, but that meant also being given anti-theistic books to read and being constantly encouraged to ask as many questions as I wanted (which ended up being a lot) about it.

Didn't I read somewhere that your mother grew up in an atheist family and she was basically atheist herself and she did some studying on her own and this led to her becoming religious? Sorry if I'm wrong, but that's in my database. I think I read her saying that in the Shoutbox one day.

So, if you had done all of this reading and felt atheist after reading everything, you could have been an atheist and your family would have been okay with that?

I still suspect a psychological link to your beliefs and to your family's beliefs. As in, while it might not have felt heavy duty strict, it could have been... let's say, passively strict. You were very comfortable with the freedom of exploring these things that you felt no need to go against what the other members of your family believed.

To answer your question, though, my Bible study growing up was quite sporadic, in fact. That's something I'm a little ashamed of, truth be told, but it's one of many ways in which my upbringing didn't resemble what probably comes into people's minds when they think of a "strict" religious upbringing.

I wouldn't even mention this except I think you've suggested this before. I think you have a view of my religion that's pretty far afield from what it actually is and how it developed.

First of all, you're too hung up on the fact that I used the word "strict." Which is something I've seen you do before -- you get hung up on words, you get hung up on the language. Planet News is this way, too, and it's really not important. All I mean by it is that, in some way, religious thinking was solid in your life. It was layed on thick. It was heavy in some way, even if it was miniscule. It's like seeing a beautiful woman only once and becoming obsessed about her for years and years, so that it becomes a big part of who you are later in life. You're saying to me right now that you wish you had done more Bible study when you were younger. All I mean is religion was a big force in your life. My painting and my vision of your life growing up was not thought of completely, was not explored thoroughly and given full expression, but I meant "strict" in that it was heavy in some sense. Not that you grew up with monks and occasionally visited the nuns and Whoopi Goldberg for dance night, like Honeykid did.

But that, too, would be an animal reaction. The problem with a life devoid of real meaning is that statements like "can't you just do good?" or "can't life just be good?" lose their meaning, too. You want the word good to have some kind of significance beyond what it can logically have in that scenario. All the talk about finding happiness in a materialist universe is nothing more than satisfying animal impulses. Can that make you happy? In a very superficial sense, I guess, but it sure takes the power out of those words. And this, frankly, is something that happens in lots of these arguments, where atheists or materialists will use words because they feel like they have weight even while espousing a worldview that robs them of it. It's like a trick, except often they themselves don't seem to realize it.

Again, the word obsession.

So much of what we do is, I believe, animal impulses. Even the desire to do good can be an animal impulse to sustain yourself, make friends, be liked, find a mate, etc. Or just be happy with how you're living.

I think that what's going on here -- with maybe Cobpyth and with you and many others -- is you have such an issue with the animal aspect of being human. We are advanced creatures and we need to take care of ourselves until we die. That can happen in a lot of ways. There are many paths to seeking things that are good in your life. Those paths may not all be good for everyone, and sometimes they rightfully should be labeled bad, but what's good for you can be good for you. Sam Harris and many others think religion is absolutely bad, but it's absolutely good for you.

I believe we don't truly have free will. Sam Harris has convinced me of this. How am I supposed to find much use for supernatural things if I don't even have any true control over my own natural life? What good is it to die and cross over to another plane of existence if, in this life, I didn't have any real control over my existence here? I'm absolutely convinced that I'm basically just running on automatic -- that my mind is basically something running by itself, just like my heart and my lungs and my spleen and my pancreas and all the other organs in my body are. My mind is just picking up information, just like my lungs are just picking up air and my organs are picking up nutrients every time I give my body some food full of them. I'm just an animal, Yoda, and you are, too. My mind searches for things to be happy about so that it will be motivated and continue on with helping my body get through this life. Religion is your way you motivate yourself through life. But I don't believe it's really the truth about who I am and what I'm doing here. I believe we aren't in control of our minds. It's just running things the way it has to run them. I am just a game in progress. I'm no different than the MoFo Song Tournament.

You're sure getting a lot of psychoanalysis out of the relatively few details he's shared. I don't think he said life is miserable, though, he simply said it's meaningless in a materialist universe, and that's correct. And that's not an unimportant point, because to accept that you have to also accept that all your notions of meaning, morality, the importance of love and kindness and all sorts of other beautiful things (and beauty, too!) are all myths. Are all tricks of the mind designed to get you to procreate and survive. That's not a very happy thought, and I think it takes a relatively clear-headed skeptic to acknowledge that. It could be true, anyway, but that's the implication of the belief, and people who believe it should be able to look it in the eyes.

Trust me -- I have looked it in the eyes. I've been doing just that for the past few months. Before, these thoughts were just possibilities. Learning about not having free will, though, has progressed me to other areas. I've thought deeply about this, and believe me, my thoughts have been a lot more darker and scarier than what you're saying.

I do think life is basically about procreating and surviving. Look around. That's what people are doing. The people living in your neighborhood are f**king and trying to live. Everyone's huddled in their little houses, doing the nasty and taking care of themselves. Religion is merely just for funzies. A television program to keep you entertained. "Imagine if we could all be together forever...." Such a strong, sentimental belief in family will get you interested in buying a house, collecting a wife, creating kids, staying together, living forever. But then look at all the failures, too. People just get tired of the illusion. They are driven to move on. Fathers leave their families because their instinct is to procreate even more. Gay men fail to stay together or stay committed because what's the point in getting off with just one person all the time when there's a sea of flesh out there to explore and taste?

As horrible as it might sound to you, we are creatures of the night. Let's powder puff the face of ugliness and call it beautiful and SEXY.

Last I checked it was pretty rare to find someone whose ego wasn't big enough. Generally, the problem with people is the opposite. And I include myself in that. We do not lack for self-esteem, so I'm generally a lot more sympathetic to the worldviews which encourage humility, which is a far rarer (and more valuable) commodity. Frankly, even an atheist ought to be able to see the value of worship, in this sense.

I'm not calling for extreme egomania in everybody at all. We absolutely should see ourselves as smaller and not as important as we might think we are. On the other hand, we don't have to all be nuns and Mother Teresa, either. If you want to enjoy life, enjoy life.

mark f

09-01-13, 05:53 PM

Getting really old.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MAJMZJOdKJg/To35XZ8wlPI/AAAAAAAAArg/HxINchhp7T0/s1600/dr+phil.jpg

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 05:56 PM

Getting really old.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MAJMZJOdKJg/To35XZ8wlPI/AAAAAAAAArg/HxINchhp7T0/s1600/dr+phil.jpg

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11156&stc=1&d=1378068894

Go to this movie forum, then.

mark f

09-01-13, 06:33 PM

http://31.media.tumblr.com/c414857e9cba1c163c48e782b32db2e4/tumblr_mremua1AUv1r1ndyso1_500.gif

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 06:38 PM

Sorry.

mark f

09-01-13, 06:39 PM

OK. I get the humor. I hope you do. :)

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 07:06 PM

I never said something about life being 'bad' or 'wrong' without a purpose. I did say life would be extremely dissatisfying for me if indeed this observable materialistic world that is merely built out of atoms and tactile matter is ALL there is.

Again, I didn't have a strict religious education (just to a very small degree), so there are no thoughts 'ingrained' in me or anything like that. It's purely ME, a soon to be 20 year old male human, who can't possibly grasp the point of everything if there is nothing besides what I perceive with my sense organs.

You can say that there doesn't have to be a point, but why do we bother living at all then?

"How did all this originate? Why did everything start? Why are people here? Why do we have these thoughts about the supernatural and why are we dissatisfied with the purely demonstrable?"

There are so many questions and happenings that need 'meaning' to be significant. There needs to be something that solves these questions, otherwise there is just no truth in this universe. In that kind of universe I don't even exist. I would merely be a pile of atoms.

Sorry, but I just can't see myself in that picture.

At your age, I couldn't see myself in that picture, either. Boy, do I wish I was a soon to be 20 year old instead of a soon to be 30 year old.

See, I'm reaching a point where I'm okay with being a pile of atoms. If everyone else is, so what? We all know we're gonna die. So what if death is just really the end?

In order to really get to this point -- to see life like this and be okay with it -- your mind has to be built for it. So, in that regard, I do understand the need for arguments to persuade a person.

I don't know if I can persuade you, though. I know from experience how hard it is to change someone's mind, because I've been you where it was hard to change your mind. Sometimes at certain times in your life... you just can't accept a worldview like this. Sometimes you can and the worldview makes everything dark and dreary, though. You know it, but you'd rather not go near it. Sometimes, though... sometimes you know it and you're not afraid of it. And I think I'm getting there. I've gotten there more than ever. I used to not like it at all. I used to fight against it. But I've changed and I've had more input put inside my head. If I ever change my mind again, though... well, that will be what happens.

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 08:20 PM

Sam Harris HAS DOUBLED HIS OFFER!!!!!

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1

Grand Prize: $20,000
Minor Prize: $2,000

MovieFan31

09-01-13, 09:01 PM

Mmmm Donuts

09-01-13, 09:11 PM

No idea. I wish everyone could be happy with choosing their own paths in life and the afterlife, but even I admit that other people's opinions can cause myself to want to argue.

planet news

09-01-13, 09:24 PM

sam harris is a piece of ****

Cobpyth

09-01-13, 09:37 PM

At your age, I couldn't see myself in that picture, either. Boy, do I wish I was a soon to be 20 year old instead of a soon to be 30 year old.

See, I'm reaching a point where I'm okay with being a pile of atoms. If everyone else is, so what? We all know we're gonna die. So what if death is just really the end?

In order to really get to this point -- to see life like this and be okay with it -- your mind has to be built for it. So, in that regard, I do understand the need for arguments to persuade a person.

I don't know if I can persuade you, though. I know from experience how hard it is to change someone's mind, because I've been you where it was hard to change your mind. Sometimes at certain times in your life... you just can't accept a worldview like this. Sometimes you can and the worldview makes everything dark and dreary, though. You know it, but you'd rather not go near it. Sometimes, though... sometimes you know it and you're not afraid of it. And I think I'm getting there. I've gotten there more than ever. I used to not like it at all. I used to fight against it. But I've changed and I've had more input put inside my head. If I ever change my mind again, though... well, that will be what happens.

Do you believe in humanity then? Are there any values in life? I mean, if we are all just a bunch of atoms according to you and NOTHING more, why aren't we just objects? What makes us more than wood, for instance?

I know that question sounds ridiculous, but for you every life is just an illusion created by certain actions and reactions in a brain. Why is that worth anything more than for instance a spinning mill or a computer or anything like that? What makes your life more than that?

I know that I'm exceeding the limits of the conversation here, but my main question to you is: What do you really get out of life according to your theory? What gives it value? Is human life only special because the reactions between the atoms are more complex than for example in a stone?

I think you're looking at everything from a way too technical side. You act like what you're saying is factual, while it's not. Maybe it would be more logical to sell everything as a fact if science could solve every question we have about life and existence, but it obviously can't, up to this day. It doesn't even show us how the universe originated. Yes, there is the big bang, but still there has to be something before that. Something can not just start existing out of nothing. This all suggests that there has to be something we clearly don't know about or that we can't even grab with our limited ability of understanding during our life on earth.

I'm not saying science has no meaning, of course! I'm just assuming that it's not that irrational to believe that there is something outside of it aswell.

Can you honestly say that all your questions are answered by your theory?

Sexy Celebrity

09-01-13, 10:15 PM

Do you believe in humanity then? Are there any values in life? I mean, if we are all just a bunch of atoms according to you and NOTHING more, why aren't we just objects? What makes us more than wood, for instance?

I know that question sounds ridiculous, but for you every life is just an illusion created by certain actions and reactions in a brain. Why is that worth anything more than for instance a spinning mill or a computer or anything like that? What makes your life more than that?

I know that I'm exceeding the limits of the conversation here, but my main question to you is: What do you really get out of life according to your theory? What gives it value? Is human life only special because the reactions between the atoms are more complex than for example of a stone?

I think you're looking at everything from a way too technical side. You act like what you're saying is factual, while it's not. Maybe it would be more logical to sell everything as a fact if science could solve every question we have about life and existence, but it obviously can't, up to this day. It doesn't even show us how the universe originated. Yes, there is the big bang, but still there has to be something before that. Something can not just start existing out of nothing. This all suggests that there has to be something we clearly don't know about or that we can't even grab with our limited ability of understanding during our life on earth.

I'm not saying science has no meaning, of course! I'm just assuming that it's not that irrational to believe that there is something outside of it aswell.

Can you honestly say that all your questions are answered by your theory?

It's absolutely spellbinding to think of our vast universe and question the nature of existence and how we got here and what our purpose in being here is, etc.

It brings to mind all sorts of ideas about life and what it means. As human beings, conscious of our existence, feeling like we have free will and all that (when I say we don't) it absolutely does seem like there must be something more to it. If not, then I don't think we'd have spent a vast amount of time and energy thinking about these things.

I remember fondly my days of believing in all sorts of divine things. In fact, those days have not really completely stopped. I'm still partial to the idea of spiritualism and meaning to life and even maybe a higher level of intelligence -- a higher being, perhaps -- something that guides us along in life and looks out for us. I think that may actually exist in nature. I think that some force like that may be at work in the world, which is why I say the supernatural may really just be natural.

I'll even say that I am open to the idea of life after death, but I don't know how it works or why. I do fear, though, that thinking too much about it might lead me astray and lead me towards the wrong answers and the wrong truth. But, I mean, I haven't died. I haven't seen the truth if there's something there to see.

All I know is... life IS special. Life absolutely should be thought of as special. I'm sure there are plenty of darker minded people who would think otherwise, but I'm actually not one of them.

Religion can be rather dark sometimes to people who just wanna enjoy life for what it is and not be bothered by, you know, ideas of going to Hell for your sins and whatnot. I don't go for that stuff at all. If we have no free will, then God would be sick for sending people to Hell. It would mean God has no free will, too. He would truly be a tyrant and Hell would be everywhere and everything, in my opinion.

It's ridiculous to think of yourself as not being different than wood or a computer. Obviously, you're not supporting a house. You're not sitting in Best Buy waiting for someone to buy you. You're not letting someone read Movie Forums. You are a human being. You're a magnificent creature. You're an intelligent animal on a planet in outer space.

Maybe the universe has a meaning for us that we are not aware of. Maybe you wouldn't even like the meaning if you knew what it was. The thing is, you're here, and I say you no have free will, so you're here and you're gonna live out your life in a certain way and there's nothing you can do about it. Accept it and move on. Or don't accept it and do something else. I don't care. I say whatever happens, happens. You can be happy or you can be sad and miserable and depressed. Take your pick.

Mmmm Donuts

09-01-13, 10:26 PM

The way I look at it is this: live for the moments of this life.

I don't make any decision by pondering "hmm, will this get me closer to the gates of Heaven when I die?" I do everything based on the physical world that I'm living in right now, as well as based on my morals.

If you do think about the afterlife and what happens there, good on you, I have no complaints with you. That's just my opinion on the whole thing. I guess we'll never know who's right in the end, until later of course :D.

Yoda

09-01-13, 10:53 PM

Why must everything be labelled by people? Can't people just be satisfied that some like myself are non-religious and leave it at that?

And what would happen if I completely disregard the label which I fall under? Who would jump down my throat?
We use "labels" to describe things. Calling someone "tall" is a label that describes their physical appearance. "Atheist" and "Christian" are labels that describe someone's beliefs. Even "non-religious" is a label, though you seem to have no issue with it. So I have no idea what you're complaining about. As is becoming the norm, you seem to just be thinking out loud without much regard for how coherent it is.

Yoda

09-01-13, 11:03 PM

The way I look at it is this: live for the moments of this life.
What does this mean?

I don't make any decision by pondering "hmm, will this get me closer to the gates of Heaven when I die?"
Neither do Christians. We're not trying to rack up some Karmic High Score for the express purpose of salvation.

I do everything based on the physical world that I'm living in right now, as well as based on my morals.
If we dig into what your morals are, I'm almost certain they'll prove to be incompatible with doing things only "based on the physical world." If you're a reasonably moral person you almost certainly do things that you have no reasonable expectation will benefit you directly.

Also, virtually everybody does things based on their morals, so it doesn't really explain much to say that. The question is where your morals come from and why you abide by them. Without that, it's a circular explanation.

If you do think about the afterlife and what happens there, good on you, I have no complaints with you. That's just my opinion on the whole thing. I guess we'll never know who's right in the end, until later of course :D.
I appreciate the conciliatory tone here, and I'm not trying to go after you with these questions, but I'm not sure what you're saying here fits with the rest of the post, where you make Christians sound like spiritual mercenaries.

Yoda

09-01-13, 11:07 PM

By the by, it's worth pointing out that this thread isn't supposed to be a catch-all for any religiously-themed thoughts. We have a bunch of those already that people are free to resurrect. :) But this thread is for a specific idea about materialism and determinism.

planet news

09-01-13, 11:11 PM

it's about determinism. it's definitely not about materialism. it basically has nothing to say about god and even less about existing religions.

Cobpyth

09-01-13, 11:18 PM

it's about determinism. it's definitely not about materialism. it basically has nothing to say about god and even less about existing religions.

Well, the fact that this topic is about atheists automatically disqualifying free will, it is inevitable that God or at least 'the ungraspable' comes in the picture for the sake of giving alternative scenarios in which there is something like free will.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion or a thread.

Yoda

09-01-13, 11:18 PM

Yes, it is about materialism, unless you're going to deny me the right to define my terms before making a philosophical argument. Which would be especially weird given that my definition of the term is concordant with almost everyone else's, anyway.

And while it has nothing to say about God directly (which I'm pretty sure I've already said numerous times), it has plenty to say about the possible implications of rejecting God.

planet news

09-01-13, 11:42 PM

it's not really because people don't know what they're talking about usually. sorry, but it's true.

everyday life tells us something about cause and effect. it also tells us something about randomness and the exceptions to causes, but no one is warranted to say the story of determinism is true. and until you can show that, this business with the argument (which the vast majority of time in this thread is spent in) is nonsense.

it's more or less on the level of arguing about Walt's inner motives. it's a fiction. in the end, there are no inner thoughts.

no you're not allowed to define your own terms because those are elements in the argument that make it function. you're dead in the water before you even begin. you're arguing about nothing. determinism as a picture of the world we live in is definitely false and you have no reason to believe it either.

i said this to you last months ago. the same thing. as long as you keep this thread up and i feel interested in responding, i'm gonna keep repeating this.

Yoda

09-01-13, 11:54 PM

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 12:09 AM

Free will doesn't exist because your choices are not freely made. What you say or do or think next is not made under any conscious control. You cannot choose what you feel like you're choosing. Choice is an illusion. Write down a bunch of stuff and notice how weird it is that you picked that stuff to write instead of something else. Think of a movie - any movie - pick one - keep it in mind - and then ask yourself, "Why didn't I pick some other movie?" Cause you know lots of movies, but you picked just that one.

The feeling of choice is an illusion. People like Planet News just don't wanna fail at their arguments, but the fact is you're not in control of yourself. Unconscious processes in your brain are.

planet news

09-02-13, 12:25 AM

And as long as you keep repeating it, I'm gonna keep pointing out that you're failing to recognize that these arguments apply to people who already hold certain beliefs. They're often already empiricists, for example, and already grant the thing you're disputing. The argument applies to them given the other things they believe. Nothing is refuted by questioning the premises both they and I share (and which I acknowledge they and I have to share for the argument to be valid) from the get-go about causality and/or empiricism.that's just what i mean

you want to play in your pretend world. also, you use the word "empiricist" and the philosophical meaning basically makes any thought like determinism impossible, but this won't even come up.

if you want to play with people in your pretend world and argue about nothing, then keep going like it means something. you seem to enjoy it and others do as well. but if you want to actually see why you're wrong and think a little harder about what it is you're actually saying, then you've got to put all the things you've said in this thread on major hold.

you can get anyone to agree with whatever thing you say and get any arguments from it. there's no real name for that really. it's just some kind of general symbolic exchange. you can argue all you want with people about how a warp core works, and i'm sure that's fun. but if you want those arguments to be able the world, then you're doing philosophy.

also people might assent to your statements, but that's because you force them into them. if i were to ask them question what they really experience, they might say something different. and to really get at the heart of what that is is thinking philosophically. you can get anyone to agree with you in the moment if you phrase things a certain way. you're just a con man then. and really that's what i see with these arguments. they don't contain curiosity or an exploratory attitude. they aren't even necessarily confident. they're just manipulative into a place you've mapped out for yourself many times.

i honestly can't believe you're not dead bored of saying it over and over again. leads me to believe it's just the act of arguing that you enjoy. the very act of steering people in line with what you want them to say. the lack of openness to the slightest possibility of an escape is what leads me to think that. it might be something, but it isn't philosophy, and it doesn't have a content other than your social interaction with the people you're arguing with (not totally pointless but from the point of view of thought, yeah).

(yes, i want to provoke you into some real thinking)

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 12:29 AM

The only person I feel is manipulative around here is you, Planet News. Yoda's pretty damn confident.

planet news

09-02-13, 12:35 AM

Nothing wrong with manipulating someone into the right place intellectually. But it shouldn't be just about exercising that kind of power over someone. If you're gonna make an argument, it just is a manipulation of someone's words and thoughts into a different place than they originally meant. It's only malicious when the goal of that is not Truth.

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 12:36 AM

Well, you have no Truth. Goodbye.

planet news

09-02-13, 12:41 AM

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 01:15 AM

It would be fabulous to do a movie commentary with you, Planet. I'd definitely be interested. I'm sure you wouldn't, but I might enjoy it and I'm sure others would like reading it.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:17 AM

The fact that you feel there's some deeper contradiction at play might be a worthwhile thing to explore, but you purport to be finding a flaw in the argument when you're really questioning some fundamental premise underneath it. If you were really about trying to provoke "deeper thinking," this is a highly disingenuous (and you should realize by now, highly ineffective) way of going about it. And you should be able to acknowledge the value of exposing inconsistent thinking, even if you think there's some larger error underneath. You don't have to believe in standardized testing to talk about whether or not someone got a math problem wrong.

And if I really had a "lack of openness to the slightest possibility of an escape," then I certainly wouldn't have probed the idea and indulged it for literally hours as we exchanged messages about it. I've made a good faith effort to understand what you mean, even as you made your meaning needlessly opaque. I've assumed this opacity was unintentional, but given how callously you're tossing around accusations of motive, I wonder if I've been too charitable.

I don't think these arguments are pretend, because I don't agree with you about materialism. And it's not for lack of exposure to your argument, either. I think your attempt to undermine materialism ultimately undermines all knowledge and reason. I'm pretty sure I've said this to you, and if you came back with a meaningful response, I don't recall it offhand.

But hey, I'm more than willing to keep listening and keep talking about it, provided you make the distinction between this argument and that one clear. And provided you not respond to the frustration of not being understood (or agreed with) by questioning motives, which I've really given you no reason to do, and which clearly isn't going to lead the discussion anywhere fruitful. If you actually think I'm uninterested in argument for the purposes of Truth, that's a shame, but you shouldn't waste your time on such people.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:21 AM

It would be fabulous to do a movie commentary with you, Planet. I'd definitely be interested. I'm sure you wouldn't, but I might enjoy it and I'm sure others would like reading it.
This is kind of what I was thinking when I said it would be great to have a commentary with two people where one loves the movie and the other hates it. I think people who disagree would make for a very interesting commentary.

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 01:27 AM

This is kind of what I was thinking when I said it would be great to have a commentary with two people where one loves the movie and the other hates it. I think people who disagree would make for a very interesting commentary.

Who said it would be a movie where one hated it and one loved it? We are just, like, enemies on this site now, I suppose. That's the draw. It would be two bitchy queens watching a movie together.

planet news

09-02-13, 02:02 AM

but you purport to be finding a flaw in the argument when you're really questioning some fundamental premise underneath it.when i read this i literally threw my hands up in the air with great violence. so i'm gonna make a big deal about this.

what the hell is this? what the hell is this supposed to be? i'm not making this a paragraph in order to get you to take a second longer than normal.

!!! (for emphasis)

what the hell is that even supposed to mean?

!!!

like you said it one time and i explained it. my whole last post explained it. and then your reply begins with this thing.

it has two parts. check it:

1) purport to be finding a flaw in the argument

and

2) you're really questioning some fundamental premise underneath it

what the actual f*ck, dood? !

!!!

...

F*CK.

Every time I tried to write something i just thought, "f*ck."

F*CK.

that is a flaw in the argument buddy. an argument with false premises is gonna be false no matter what happens... there's no truth in there anywhere...

Mmmm Donuts

09-02-13, 02:15 AM

Man, this thread is entertaining!

planet news

09-02-13, 02:18 AM

i mean you just don't get this do you?

you're arguing about warp cores. every time i come in here, it irks me to know end to see you arguing about warp cores and calling it "materialism" or "atheism." when will someone stop the charade and point out that no matter how detailed your fanon is, warp cores don't exist.

yeah, it should be traumatic to you if this is truly your confusion. this should be a traumatic moment in your habits of reasoning if this is really the mistake you're making, and, yeah, you will not want to accept that right away. there ain't anything wrong with that attitude. i'm sure you're offended. but at least at this moment, i am completely convinced that the point above i just made you cannot understand or that you cannot understand how it is /exactly/ what you have been doing. i am NOT messing with you. either you are deeply confused or I am, but there isn't any funny business here, at least from me.

planet news

09-02-13, 02:22 AM

also, dammit, i know i'm being rude and stuff, but i've said tons of times how i respect your attitude greatly. it's been over a year now, and from all the people i've met since then both online and off, that respect still hasn't changed. it's a rare thing and i don't take it for granted. still, i know this more or less crosses into some kind of personal attack, but since it's motivated by the fate of an argument and not any personal grudge, i hope you can understand my tone.

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 04:47 AM

i don't think you even understand what it means to think through a thought. i wonder if you've ever even done it. all you seem to like to do is get emotionally attached to things like they were people. anything intelligible you might say during this time is easily overshadowed by the haphazard way you go about interacting with the slightest rebuttal. you are so out of line of any conception of thinking, i wouldn't even know where to begin. to convince you takes some kind of emotional moment in your life or something...

If anything, you're talking about yourself.

You're the one who thinks emotionally, not me. I was able to comprehend and understand and accept all that Sam Harris was saying about the non-existence of free will even though it's a hard pill to swallow. I can deal with the facts and the analysis and the truth, while you whine and cry and shake the baby rattle and hold onto your sloppy manner of communication and closet full of philosophical emptiness and invalid ideas. You're seeking approval and acceptance through nonsense. I remain unphased by your attempts at intelligence and wisdom because nothing you do or say merits any kind of honor or fascination. You are a monkey with a bad brain. You spittle the same froth again and again and again and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise that you're onto something right. Your addiction to yourself is wasteful and tragic. You have never shown any evolution or transcendence. You're noise. You're like a traveling zoo.

MovieFan31

09-02-13, 11:43 AM

Man, this thread is entertaining!

In the end, every post is ******** because we are what we are and that's it. Meaningless waste of forum space.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:20 PM

In the end, every post is ******** because we are what we are and that's it. Meaningless waste of forum space.
This is silly. "We are what we are" applies to all disagreements, so by that logic every disagreement you've ever engaged in is also a waste, which you're apparently just realizing now, in this particular thread. Also, your replies are only contributing to this apparent "waste," so there's really nothing about this post that makes sense.

MovieFan31

09-02-13, 01:34 PM

In the end, this topic just goes round and round. Forcing every possible notion down people's throats, hoping they will change to fit YOUR viewpoint.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:34 PM

when i read this i literally threw my hands up in the air with great violence. so i'm gonna make a big deal about this.
that is a flaw in the argument buddy. an argument with false premises is gonna be false no matter what happens... there's no truth in there anywhere...
The key word is "underneath." Obviously when an argument's premise is flawed, the conclusion will be flawed. But by "underneath" I mean that you're questioning a premise underneath all those in the argument. Like I'm arguing with someone about how far away a tree is, and then you saying "no, it's not 50 feet, because we're all in The Matrix so it's not really a tree." Even if that's true, it's relation to the argument is almost incidental, because you're questioning something far more basic about the nature of reality.

you're arguing about warp cores. every time i come in here, it irks me to know end to see you arguing about warp cores and calling it "materialism" or "atheism." when will someone stop the charade and point out that no matter how detailed your fanon is, warp cores don't exist.

yeah, it should be traumatic to you if this is truly your confusion. this should be a traumatic moment in your habits of reasoning if this is really the mistake you're making, and, yeah, you will not want to accept that right away. there ain't anything wrong with that attitude. i'm sure you're offended. but at least at this moment, i am completely convinced that the point above i just made you cannot understand or that you cannot understand how it is /exactly/ what you have been doing. i am NOT messing with you. either you are deeply confused or I am, but there isn't any funny business here, at least from me.
Well, I don't know if you're confused when you question the possibility of materialism, but I think you definitely are when you gauge how much I understand about the above, because you're selling me on something I already agree with. I agree with the idea that, if materialism isn't even possible (for example), then the discussion I'm having is like a game: theoretical, matching wits just for the sake of matching them, yadda yadda yadda. I get that, even though you keep saying it as if that's the roadblock.

The roadblock is the claim itself. So that's what we should be talking about! But it should be segregated from this discussion somewhat, because it's not a claim most people agree with and it's valuable to expose inconsistent thinking even if you think both they and I are harboring some larger delusion about reality.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:36 PM

In the end, this topic just goes round and round. Forcing every possible notion down people's throats, hoping they will change to fit YOUR viewpoint.
Uh, yeah, of course I'm hoping they change their minds. All arguments involve hoping people change their minds. That includes your last few posts, misguided though they may be, which are either a) pointless or b) doing the same thing you're talking about now.

Kindly contribute to the discussion or refrain from polluting it. Thanks.

MovieFan31

09-02-13, 01:38 PM

Uh, yeah, of course I'm hoping they change their minds. All arguments involve hoping people change their minds. That includes your last few posts, misguided though they may be, which are either a) pointless or b) doing the same thing you're talking about now.

Kindly contribute to the discussion or refrain from polluting it. Thanks.

So, you want me to believe the same things you believe in?

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:41 PM

That's an odd question. By definition everything we believe we believe to be true, yeah? So to not want people to agree is to either a) not really believe it or b) not want people to believe the truth. However, I want it to happen through genuine reason and persuasion, not through force.

The real point, though, is that you're trying to make wanting to convince someone of something sound sinister, which is both weird and self-contradictory.

Yoda

09-02-13, 01:54 PM

...and he asked me to ban him. Okay then. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

planet news

09-02-13, 04:20 PM

you still don't get it. will this help? who knows...

i know you don't btw, because that reply you just gave me i've gotten, i want to say, at least four or five times. something something most people's beliefs. something something the argument itself.

/that's/ not some kind of aspect that you're highlighting. /that's/ just what is wrong in the first place. and it's part of a whole critique i have now against your entire way of doing things. (and why not, too? because you've hardly, if at all, budged an inch on anything since i've met you.) it's been slowly building over time, but more and more i get the sense that you are, all things considered, more interested in debate than truth. you are interested in debate as a sport essentially.

and really, you are interested in sports, so it's not out of left field, and it's not some kind of general insult. it's specific to you as a person. you seem to have an interest in sport-like things involving reasoning in general. you are interested in fantasy leagues, which is more or less about numbers. making oscar picks is also a bit of a sport, because it's just a matter of thinking about what will happen. also, in the breaking bad thread you seem to constantly want to anticipate what will happen by deducing consequences from prior events, trends, so forth. that has an element of sport to it as well. these are in fact things i am not in the least bit interested in, so you can see right now there is a difference in personalities. there is this element of a game in it for you always.

and not to trivialize games either, since arguments hardly even qualify, since they are basically always one sided if they are to function. that is to say, it involves the skills of one person to write the rules he wants, set up the premises he likes, and then gently guide the other person, through a logic or other means, to a conclusion he wants. nevertheless, the act of debate is clearly sportive.

we may get a person to assent to our premises, but they are just there for you to complete your circuit. the other person may agree, for the time being, because you phrase it in a way that sounds plausible to them, but since you put the emphasis on your argument, they have not time to question the completeness of any of the premises or the plausibility of the picture in which you ask them to, for the time being, live.

what you resist me for is this idea that i want to play a different game than you've gotten used to playing. but for me, philosophy is not a series of well-practiced debates. the moment where a debate occurs and succeeds is vanishing. it arrives and it passes away immediately. everything is questioned. and most of all, MOST OF ALL, the premises and underlying assumptions, and THE METHOD as well. these are all basic commonplaces in philosophical thinking as well as in day to day conversations of daily life. "Maybe you're thinking about this all wrong."

Your repeated response seems to be "Yes, but let's just think about it this way instead." Why your way and not my way? If you can't justify that, then you're arguing about nothing.

Yoda

09-02-13, 05:36 PM

If you actually wanted to debate for the sake of Truth, I'm not sure why you'd be so anxious to engage in psychoanalysis as opposed to simply making your case. You seem to have made up your mind that I've got some psychological block that stops me from "getting" this, which is technically possible but more than a little self-serving. There are simpler, less flattering explanations for not being understood, I think.

But if you think it's necessary for us to deconstruct one another, here's my take: you're bored with these conclusions whether they're True or not, and you only get excited by paradigm-shifting, game-changing, flip-the-whole-thing-on-its-head theories. Virtually every argument I've ever had with you conforms to this.

And notice that each of the "sport" examples you listed also happen to be things conducive to building a close-knit, vibrant community. That said, I have plenty of thoughts on my competitive streak and the ways it influences how (and why) I argue, but I'm not sure I see the point. I've given it plenty of thought in the past, but if you're convinced this is what I'm doing why wouldn't you just dismiss my answer as another layer of the game? You keep talking about having a discussion (:up:) while simultaneously poisoning any idea that it could happen in good faith (:down:).

By the way, this...

Your repeated response seems to be "Yes, but let's just think about it this way instead." Why your way and not my way? If you can't justify that, then you're arguing about nothing.
...is totally perplexing. I have not been telling you "let's think about it this way." What I've said is "be clearer about what it is you're disputing." But for whatever reason, you seem to hear the same resistance no matter what's actually said. My last post specifically invited you to make your case, cautioning only that you should distinguish between an issue with an argument and an issue that encompasses the argument, but somehow you managed to read it as a straight refusal to consider anything. Why, I have no idea, but your responses seem to have less and less to do with what they're responding to.

Sexy Celebrity

09-02-13, 06:45 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11162&stc=1&d=1378157360

Stephen Hawking on Free Will (from his book, The Grand Design):

Since people live in the universe and interact with the other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well. Many, however, while accepting that scientific determinism governs physical processes, would make an exception for human behavior because they believe we have free will. Descartes, for instance, in order to preserve the idea of free will, asserted that the human mind was something different from the physical world and did not follow its laws. In his view a person consists of two ingredients, a body and a soul. Bodies are nothing but ordinary machines, but the soul is not subject to scientific law. Descartes was very interested in anatomy and physiology and regarded a tiny organ in the center of the brain, called the pineal gland, as the principal seat of the soul. That gland, he believed, was the place where all our thoughts are formed, the wellspring of our free will.

Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans -- a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, "That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there," yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.

While conceding that human behavior is indeed determined by the laws of nature, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the outcome is determined in such a complicated way and with so many variables as to make it impossible in practice to predict. For that one would need a knowledge of the initial state of each of the thousand trillion trillion molecules in the human body and to solve something like that number of equations. That would take a few billion years, which would be a bit late to duck when the person opposite aimed a blow.

Because it is so impractical to use the underlying physical laws to predict human behavior, we adopt what is called an effective theory. In physics, an effective theory is a framework create to model certain observed phenomena without describing in detail all of the underlying processes. For example, we cannot solve exactly the equations governing the gravitational interactions of every atom in a person's body with every atom in the earth. But for all practical purposes the gravitational force between a person and the earth can be described in terms of just a few numbers such as the person's total mass. Similarly, we cannot solve the equations governing the behavior of complex atoms and molecules, but we have developed an effective theory called chemistry that provides an adequate explanation of how atoms and molecules behave in chemical reactions without accounting for every detail of the interactions. In the case of people, since we cannot solve the equations that determine our behavior, we use the effective theory that people have free will. The study of our will, and of the behavior that arises from it, is the science of psychology. Economics is also an effective theory, based on the notion of free will plus the assumption that people evaluate their possible alternative courses of action and choose the best. That effective theory is only moderately successful in predicting behavior because, as we all know, decisions are often not rational or are based on a defective analysis of the consequences of the choice. That is why the world is in such a mess.

Mmmm Donuts

09-02-13, 06:49 PM

What an attractive man, Sexy. You'll surely gain the support of teenage girls everywhere with a poster head like that!

planet news

09-02-13, 06:50 PM

first of all, there's a huge difference between talking about your motivations (sports) and your psychology. and there's a huger difference between talking about your psychology and psychoanalysis.

i don't need to know what's going on in your head to understand motivations, which are essentially reasons. a reason can just be on its own. it's fully in the realm of everyday life.

i've tried to explain before, but there isn't any problem asking the reasons for why you're arguing. there just isn't. and your response is always something something the argument itself. there's no such thing as the argument itself. an argument in and of itself is some words. what connects it to reality is what we want it to think about reality. not what we want it to think about warp cores.

also, i'm not responding, because i see no avenue to. you're so steeped in this stuff, it's not possible to get any other answer out of you. even when i tried last time, there was a constant shift back to this stuff. it's like a magnet.

i know it's insulting to you to say it's just a game, but i believe that. it's not disingenuous. i mean... this is where nothing i've tried to say for the past, like, year has gotten through to you. you think everything is somehow ******** if it's not "the argument itself," because you read somewhere that "ad hominem" was a good way to repel personal attacks. but in fact, there are plenty of good reasons to encounter another person on the level of their motives. if you want to talk about the argument in itself, then that's closer to it.

lastly, any real philosophical difference is characterized by "paradigm-shifting, game-changing, flip-the-whole-thing-on-its-head theories." That is just the realm of philosophy and of Truth. Between two views there are not contingent differences but necessary ones. That is what makes it of interest on that level. If things are to be necessary differences, the entire picture has to change. The fact that you don't understand this basically tells me that you don't really care about the philosophical process but just about arguing. Philosophy isn't a sport. It takes effort to think about things. The speed at which we are now conversing and which you converse is effortless, and I imagine you write a response the moment you read it.

It's a complete critique of your attitude I'm doing now. Not even your views. I haven't even talked about your views. I can wonder why they're stagnated, and why you prefer to dwell on these things.

Why do you want to argue only with people that will lose to you in way in which you will certainly win? How could that possibly have anything to do with Truth? How is that not nearly the definition of sport?

Yoda

09-02-13, 07:46 PM

i've tried to explain before, but there isn't any problem asking the reasons for why you're arguing. there just isn't.
What the what? I'm going to reference this later.

and your response is always something something the argument itself. there's no such thing as the argument itself. an argument in and of itself is some words. what connects it to reality is what we want it to think about reality. not what we want it to think about warp cores.
What connects it to reality is the objective Reason it references. You know, the conceptual standard we both must agree on in order to reason with one another meaningfully. The standard that stops your reply from being just "some words," too.

i know it's insulting to you to say it's just a game, but i believe that. it's not disingenuous. i mean... this is where nothing i've tried to say for the past, like, year has gotten through to you. you think everything is somehow ******** if it's not "the argument itself," because you read somewhere that "ad hominem" was a good way to repel personal attacks. but in fact, there are plenty of good reasons to encounter another person on the level of their motives. if you want to talk about the argument in itself, then that's closer to it.
Why do you keep repeating my position back to me differently than what I've said? My position is that you can't counter an argument by talking about someone's motives. Somehow, when you summarize this, you say there's "nothing wrong with asking" about their motives, or that there are "plenty of good reasons" to ask about them. Neither of which I've ever disagreed with.

There are, indeed, plenty of circumstances in which it might be useful to examine someone's motives. This is very obvious, and I've positive I've said as much before. The question is whether or not they tell you anything about the truth or falsity of some other statement. So why are you offering platitudes about it not being "wrong to ask" or how there are "good reasons" to do so?

Philosophy isn't a sport. It takes effort to think about things. The speed at which we are now conversing and which you converse is effortless, and I imagine you write a response the moment you read it.
Well, you very often imagine incorrectly, and even when I do reply immediately I invariably stop and re-read and revise substantially (for example, I started this reply almost an hour ago and it's changed quite a bit already). I can elaborate more on the many, many counterexamples to this, but I'm not really getting the vibe that you're open to hearing that.

Why do you want to argue only with people that will lose to you in way in which you will certainly win?
I don't grant the premise of the question; it's demonstrably false. I've invited all sorts of arguments from you on topics I know very little about and have had no expectation I can "win," certainly not with any confidence.

How could that possibly have anything to do with Truth? How is that not nearly the definition of sport?
Simple: because I think it's actually true. It would be sport if I didn't care whether or not it was true and just enjoyed making things seem true or false to "win."

At this point almost everything you're saying seems to presuppose that I already agree with you. It's all in the "why would you do X?" vein when we've been ostensibly arguing about whether or not I do X.

Yoda

09-02-13, 08:10 PM

And here's your standard "if you don't want to reply point by point, here's what matters most" follow-up: do you want to argue about the nature of knowledge and materialism and all that? Cool, let's try to do it again. Do you think your theory is so bean-freaking to me that I can't possibly get my head around it? Sorry to hear that (and I hereby register my skepticism that this is the case), but if that's true, then we're done here, yeah? I'm the only one taking the time to sit down and really listen to what you're saying, so there's no conceivable reason for you to interject yourself otherwise. It's not like this is registering with all the materialists who already share my allegedly flawed premise.

So, in short: decide if you want to argue about this, and then proceed accordingly. But I don't think anything is served by jumping into these conversations only to remind me, again, that you question my entire notion of reality.

planet news

09-02-13, 10:53 PM

nah, because it matters in general. it matters if we're gonna keep talking, and it should matter to you as a person.

i never said anything about any views. all i'm talking about it how you conduct yourself. it's totally wrong. and obviously the way you do that affects the things you say, how you respond, the way you take things. it is wrong. and i can see where you'd think it was right, because i wasn't always making this criticism, but now i see that it's totally wrong. and when i say "wrong," i mean, an enemy to philosophy and to truth. it is obviously right if all you want to do is debate another person and win over them.

in fact, none of what you say even begins to make sense. the argument in itself is a senseless statement. there's no such thing. there's no separation between that an motives. i'm not gonna ask you to remember my reasons why at this point, but i'm telling you it's not right.

thinking would be great if you could rely on these easy "fallacies" to "defeat" people. you cannot. the "fallacies" themselves are artificial scenarios, and they are only given weight by the fact that they happen to be named, sometimes in latin.

i can't even begin to talk to you, because you keep acting like whenever I talk about motives it's maybe interesting, but, in the end, it's irrelevant. and you sideline many other things that are necessary for me to even begin. We can play that game once again and go through it again... but i know the result. You'll keep returning to the things you always say. And you'll keep saying something like "but why can't things be my way?" "If we accept these things, how is my argument wrong?" all i can do is throw my hands up.

lastly, it's imposisble to actually talk about this with you without you taking it sorta more personally than necessary too. That's another reason. Cause in your head, you're like "this is ad hominem. I'll take it with a grain of salt. He's just attacking my person because he has nowhere else to go." Well, that's exactly what isn't happening.

Yoda

09-02-13, 11:22 PM

I'm not denying that it matters, I'm denying that what you're doing right now--where every post is a simple repetition of "this is wrong" or "you can't grasp why this is wrong"--has any point. You're not even trying to explain yourself. And if you say you can't, well that's fine, but then why are you continually repeating it? Either I can be reasoned with on this point or not. If I can, try to. If I can't, then I sure won't be reasoned with through you telling me I can't be reasoned with.

By the way, I went back and re-read some of our earlier exchange on this, and you didn't much explain yourself then, either. I'll grant it was much less pointlessly contradictory, in that you seemed to be honestly trying to convey your thoughts, but you were impervious to my requests for clarification. You'd use some phrase or term that hadn't been defined and was fairly mysterious to me, I'd ask you what it meant, and you'd just ignore the question. This happened a lot.

So maybe I can get what you're saying, and maybe not. And maybe what you're saying doesn't make sense. I don't know. But to this point you haven't done near enough to say either way. You have certainly shown an interest in talking about what you believe, but you've shown very little in explaining it, in the way people do when they actually want the other person to understand.

If you decide you wanna do that, I'm interested. Here, via email, Skype, in person, whatever. I'm always interested. But that invitation is contingent on you deigning to explain yourself in a way you haven't really bothered to so far.

planet news

09-03-13, 12:44 AM

Well, I say stuff here or there to give you a smattering.

My overall thesis is this. You have, over the years, gotten used to thinking of arguments in a certain way. My critique of it is the same as a description of it.

You treat arguments like they are small stories. Stories where there are certain characters that must be cast by the beliefs of those you are telling the story to. And once you've cast them into these roles, you will progress with the plot, directing them to the story's inevitable conclusion. The /thrust/ you give to this (from how i've just painted it) trivial situation is that the story's impetus was that of logic. When, in reality, it was simply a logic, namely the particular logic of that story. It is no different than action films, which for the most part have a particular logic. What does that mean? How those stories move from one idea to the next. So really what you are is an experienced story teller. You know how to put your listeners into the minds of the characters. To make them feel as if they are within the story.

Now, having painted that for you, the critique lies in pointing out how what i just said is not an analogy or a metaphor. It is really just a radicalization of the original word "story" to non-typical social contexts. But really in the end I think that is the essence of what you're doing. And, as I keep saying, you can tell any story you want, but when it has something to do with how things are, then it has a chance of being for Truth. Lastly, it is always the things outside the world of the story that decide finally what that story has to do with reality.

Yoda

09-03-13, 11:16 AM

Okay, we have a problem here, and it is this: you refuse to take yes for an answer.

You've said this before, about other logics. I am now--and was then--willing to entertain that notion. I want(ed) to hear more. So I'm not sure why you keep trying to sell me on the mere idea of these things. I invite you to elaborate and explain, and you just go right back to trying to convince me of the possibility.

So, at this point, I worry that one of two things is true. The first is that these "smatterings" are some kind of mental prepwork you think is necessary to prepare me for this radical idea. The second is no real elaboration is forthcoming and you just want to articulate elaborate theories and critiques about how I think. If either of these are the case, please count me out.

Also, at this point I'm really, really tempted to rant about how, by invoking other logics altogether, you're confirming what I've been saying forever about you not objecting to my argument specifically, but to all the arguments that employ the same logic (IE: pretty much every single argument on this site). This is a pretty frustrating thing to hear, because by my recollection you resisted this idea for what now seems like no reason at all. And it's preemptively frustrating to know that by merely pointing this out I'm probably going to prompt another four paragraphs about how my even saying this just goes to show about how my intellectual habits render me incapable of considering any other mode of thought, or whatever. Count me out for that, too, if that's what comes next.

I believe strongly enough in knowledge for its own sake that I'm totally willing to allow you to dissect my thought process, provided you then tell me how you'd like to put those pieces back together, and why. I'm interested in that. If you want to talk about other logics and why we might do well to employ them instead of the one I'm trying to employ now, I'll gladly hear you out and do my best to consider it. But that kinda has to actually start happening. So what's it gonna be?

planet news

09-04-13, 01:24 AM

well, just look at your temptation up there, yeah? that's just what i mean. i know this is an insulting phrase in and of itself, but i just think you still don't get it. and you're gonna keep returning to it because that's your symptom. that's your whole problem. how will i ever change your mind when you've wrapped yourself up in a method that basically prevents any change?

here's one way of putting your problem that i just thought of.

you think the only errors are inconsistencies or contradictions.

you think that, as long as a set of statements is internally consistent, then it "can't be disproved." and whenever anyone tries to leave the logic (your logic, btw) and go to the premises, you reign them back saying, "let's calm down here and look at the argument itself. let's not do anything drastic."

the problem is that achieving internal consistency is the most trivial of operations. that's why i keep returning to the notion of fiction. a warp core doesn't need to make sense in our world. it does in theirs. talk to any mild geek and they will tell you, "but in their timeline, etc." let's return to their rules, their logic, their assumptions. let's play their game.

what is the philosophical import here? there is none. except perhaps to negatively illustrate the point i'm making right now.

in reality, the vast majority of philosophical discussion is not logical. it would be really nice if all our philosophical questions could be clarified by getting all our thoughts in straight logical order, but this is not possible, because most of the interesting ideas compete with each other. they are not just different logical presentations of the same facts. they are substantially different. truly, they differ on their very substance. and, if all that wasn't enough, yes, there are even alternative logical systems.

if i ask you to accept that x = y and that y = z and then conclude that x = z, is there any way you can defeat my argument? maybe, you'd say, if x =/= y or if y =/= z. but let's just look at the argument itself! let's look at my logic! can you see now how it's not exactly a paradigm shift to suggest that maybe x =/= y? it's just about the barest level of any actual disagreement of interest.

---

also, i want to comment on finding contradictions in general. first of all, as i said, a contradiction is a logical result, and it is only salient for conclusions under certain logics in certain situations. second of all, just because you find a contradiction in someone's statements doesn't really matter all that much in the end, either practically or philosophically. the reason is that, even if a person does simply make a logical mistake, even an average thinker will have a much larger picture in their head of what is going on than what they might present to you at the given moment. when looking at fictions, for example, a cynical guy might find it fun to spot errors and contradictions in the plot, but a real fan will construct his own "headcanon" to fill in the gaps, i.e. repair the contradiction. obviously on the level of beliefs, of course we are all fans of our own world-view. so, really, i return to my overall point: that we must be allowed to say, "the picture is all wrong," the picture being what you keep thinking of as "the argument itself." talking about the validity of that (which includes talking about why YOU keep insisting it is important) is not just maybe of interest in an esoteric or playful way (as you keep suggesting); it is basically the only thing that makes such a discussion properly philosophical.

Yoda

09-04-13, 11:45 AM

Did you not read this part?

You've said this before, about other logics. I am now--and was then--willing to entertain that notion. I want(ed) to hear more. So I'm not sure why you keep trying to sell me on the mere idea of these things. I invite you to elaborate and explain, and you just go right back to trying to convince me of the possibility.
Or this?

I believe strongly enough in knowledge for its own sake that I'm totally willing to allow you to dissect my thought process, provided you then tell me how you'd like to put those pieces back together, and why. I'm interested in that. If you want to talk about other logics and why we might do well to employ them instead of the one I'm trying to employ now, I'll gladly hear you out and do my best to consider it. But that kinda has to actually start happening. So what's it gonna be?
Do not take my continued disagreement with you in the "temptation" paragraph as some kind of indication that I'm incapable of considering alternatives. That--not your phrasing--is the part's that insulting, especially given how any mention of it prompts you to launch into a new variation of the same philosophical pitch. I am perfectly capable of thinking your initial responses are inconsistent with what you're saying now and putting that aside to consider whether or not what you say next changes that, or transcends it, or whatever. Please do not use any reference to earlier points in the discussion as proof that you need to repeat this stuff again.

Also, I'll be moving this stuff into its own thread shortly. Which I fear will also be taken as evidence that I don't get it, seeing as how it suggests I think of this discussion as somehow separate from the initial topic, but until you've totally blown my mind on that front the forum rules will still be subject to the same old boring logic.

planet news

09-06-13, 01:22 AM

I hate to say it (really), but I have to -- at least, if you expect me to be honest. That's just what I mean. Of course when I say it, it sounds reasonable to you, because i'm not unreasonable. But it's in your behavior. Just like how everyone likes to think they are a good person until they are really put in a tough situation. It's what you end up doing and saying. You think you're capable, because it's good to be open-minded, but I don't think you actually are capable of letting this go. I think it's become too ingrained in how you think, despite the fact that it's not even really related to anything you might actually believe.

Every time I'll try to argue one of the premises, you'll just stop me, like, "yeah but that's a whole different issue." No it isn't. You should stop. I'm talking about the thing you're talking. It's very weird to act like I'm talking about completely different thing when it's just a counterargument. All I can perceive from that behavior is an unwillingness to consider what you're doing, to think that somehow I'm being purposefully esoteric or something. That's nuts. I'm just making the very minimum move to an opposing position. That's all I'm doing, and you won't budge and inch. Literally and metaphorically you relegate me to a different thread, when it is about the thesis in this thread. I think it's wrong. How is that not something that should go in here? Oh yeah, that's right, because we must all live in your carefully constructed freedomless, deterministic universe. Why isn't this thread just called, "in my model world where free will is impossible, free will is impossible"? Warning: anyone who tries to talk about a different world needs to find another thread.

So you see all the effort I'm putting in now is just to open up a tiny spot right here, so the smallest hint of an actual disagreement can even begin to happen.

planet news

09-06-13, 01:27 AM

I mean, you use the word "atheism" when it's just your model of what atheism might be. At least historically, this is just plain wrong about what most atheists thought anyways. The idea of predestination, of fate, of determinism; this is a religious idea. Part of what I would like to argue is just how totally messed up it is to conflate determinism with atheism. It doesn't work in terms of the consistency of the ideas, and it doesn't pan out in what people actually believed either. When there's nothing like a god around, that's the only time when you are free. When there's a god, you can't do anything. It's very, very hard to think freedom in a universe where there's a god. I mean, I'm literally reversing every point you're making precisely, and it's still not relevant to this topic I guess?? You should really think on what you really consider argument to be.

foster

09-06-13, 01:53 AM

Sexy Celebrity

09-06-13, 02:36 AM

Yoda

09-06-13, 10:35 AM

Every time I'll try to argue one of the premises, you'll just stop me, like, "yeah but that's a whole different issue." No it isn't. You should stop. I'm talking about the thing you're talking. It's very weird to act like I'm talking about completely different thing when it's just a counterargument. All I can perceive from that behavior is an unwillingness to consider what you're doing, to think that somehow I'm being purposefully esoteric or something. That's nuts. I'm just making the very minimum move to an opposing position.
See, this is the problem: you talk about making a "move" or "reversing" what I say, but that seems to mean nothing more than floating the idea. So what you seem to be saying, if your behavior is any indication, is that I should simply accept it (which I haven't) rather than simply be open to persuasion by it (which I have). I don't think you are "arguing premises." Every time I say "go ahead, convince me" you go right back into your spiel, as if I'd rejected the idea out of hand.

Why isn't this thread just called, "in my model world where free will is impossible, free will is impossible"? Warning: anyone who tries to talk about a different world needs to find another thread.
Because free will is also impossible in other people's models, even though they continue to believe in it. This thread exists precisely because it isn't just in "my" model of the universe in which this is relevant. It's pointing out an inconsistency. One you apparently agree with, given how often you talk about how the conclusion is inevitable. But as you can see, even when something is inevitable, lots of people need convincing of it.

I mean, you use the word "atheism" when it's just your model of what atheism might be. At least historically, this is just plain wrong about what most atheists thought anyways. The idea of predestination, of fate, of determinism; this is a religious idea. Part of what I would like to argue is just how totally messed up it is to conflate determinism with atheism. It doesn't work in terms of the consistency of the ideas, and it doesn't pan out in what people actually believed either.
The fact that it doesn't pan out in what people actually believed is the entire point.

Yoda

09-06-13, 10:38 AM

uhh. atheism does not in any way disqualify the randomness of quantum mechanics. sorry but you're really way off base on this one, sounds like the kind of thoughts i had when i was 15 in high school
It disqualifies choice. Randomness is incompatible with choice. QED.

We've been over the quantum mechanics stuff like five times in this thread already. I don't expect everyone to read the whole thing, but when you only read the first post of such a long thread the odds of you posting an already-addressed argument are pretty high. Though, frankly, you don't need to have read any other posts to see that quantum mechanics doesn't provide an out here, anyway.

Cobpyth

09-06-13, 11:06 AM

I mean, you use the word "atheism" when it's just your model of what atheism might be. At least historically, this is just plain wrong about what most atheists thought anyways.

Atheism means the disbelief in any higher supernatural force (deities) besides the (scientifically) observable. That's not a personal model, but a definition of the term.

The idea of predestination, of fate, of determinism; this is a religious idea. Part of what I would like to argue is just how totally messed up it is to conflate determinism with atheism. It doesn't work in terms of the consistency of the ideas, and it doesn't pan out in what people actually believed either.

It's not messed up. It's just logical.
Atheism disqualifies something higher than the scientifical 'ego' (a higher being besides the physical) and therefore they automatically say that we are totally subject to the scientific reactions in our brain, which of course means that we have no control over our behavior and therefore no free will.

When there's nothing like a god around, that's the only time when you are free. When there's a god, you can't do anything. It's very, very hard to think freedom in a universe where there's a god. I mean, I'm literally reversing every point you're making precisely, and it's still not relevant to this topic I guess?? You should really think on what you really consider argument to be.

I'm not sure how you see 'God'. Why would the existence of a 'God' mean that we can't do anything?

uhh. atheism does not in any way disqualify the randomness of quantum mechanics. sorry but you're really way off base on this one, sounds like the kind of thoughts i had when i was 15 in high school

You're way off base by not understanding the topic. Randomness does not equal free will.

planet news

09-06-13, 01:34 PM

See, this is the problem: you talk about making a "move" or "reversing" what I say, but that seems to mean nothing more than floating the idea. So what you seem to be saying, if your behavior is any indication, is that I should simply accept it (which I haven't) rather than simply be open to persuasion by it (which I have). I don't think you are "arguing premises." Every time I say "go ahead, convince me" you go right back into your spiel, as if I'd rejected the idea out of hand.you don't just say that though.

you say it here. and you said it back there. but then, to me, you negate the whole thing in the follow up. like you basically deny that anything other than your argument has any importance because "most people" believe the picture you present. that's false really. maybe the guy off the street who more or less hasn't thought about the issue (not a bad thing in general, but here it is) you can guide into accepting that, but they might be just as willing to accept my presentation. now, maybe in recent years "atheism" has meant scientism, but this is at best a vulgar re-appropriation of naive Enlightenment attitudes, themselves (to generalize) drawing the authority of modern science to the decree of order by God. There is just no way to characterize that view of modern science (from which determinism comes from) without placing God in that same picture.

lastly, speaking of why I keep qualifying things that might be insults, part of the reason i'm doing this is because i have been insulted in the past by your dismissals. it's very disheartening to type out what, to me, is basically the exactly right kind of reply to seeming "worries" you have about atheism and get those replies dismissed as some kind of non-sequitur. It's stuff that's catered to where you are specifically and addressed to you, and then it's thrown away (maybe to another thread). so if you want to think about my motivations, it's so I don't get hurt again! i just want some breathing room to be heard and heard by you. what other pleasures is there for a philosopher than to have a chance at convincing someone?

planet news

09-06-13, 01:44 PM

Atheism means the disbelief in any higher supernatural force (deities) besides the (scientifically) observable. That's not a personal model, but a definition of the term.no it isn't. 1) atheism doesn't have to depend just on what sciences say as the alternative. 2) what sciences say is not determinism anyways.

Atheism disqualifies something higher than the scientifical 'ego' (a higher being besides the physical) and therefore they automatically say that we are totally subject to the scientific reactions in our brain, which of course means that we have no control over our behavior and therefore no free will.no. 1) again, atheism doesn't have a particular view about science. 2) "scientific reactions" is a strange term, but if you mean what the sciences that take the nervous system to be their domain (neuroscience, neurochemistry, etc. have to say about the brain, then none of them will claim that they fully understand the connection between conscious experience and the brain. and frankly, it is a horizon that more or less cannot be breached by the modern style of scientific storytelling.

I'm not sure how you see 'God'. Why would the existence of a 'God' mean that we can't do anything?Any god worthy of the name has some knowledge or control over the state of things that is very vast. The more that god can know, the less we are free from that knowing, and really from him. It is the idea of predestination, something which has never fully been freed from the religious consciousness. "Doesn't God know I'm going to sin right now?"

On the other hand, atheism rejects any such overarching position to being. Being can unfold without that kind of direction or order. In other words, we are truly free.

===

I'm keeping the replies short, because from experience, I know that this branching, multireply thing isn't the way to talk about things (start sh*t), but maybe you can get a gist.

Cobpyth

09-06-13, 06:52 PM

no it isn't. 1) atheism doesn't have to depend just on what sciences say as the alternative. 2) what sciences say is not determinism anyways.

Implicitly it is very dependable on science, because it's the only field in the area of existentialism they consider to be not untrue.

no. 1) again, atheism doesn't have a particular view about science. 2) "scientific reactions" is a strange term, but if you mean what the sciences that take the nervous system to be their domain (neuroscience, neurochemistry, etc. have to say about the brain, then none of them will claim that they fully understand the connection between conscious experience and the brain. and frankly, it is a horizon that more or less cannot be breached by the modern style of scientific storytelling.

Well, atheism may not have a particular view about science, but it assumes that science is the only truth, as it abnegates any form of a higher being. So I would say atheism does have a view about science, however not explicitly.

There may not be a discovered connection, but the fact is that IF there is nothing higher than the physical and everything could be explained by the brain, there is no way that there is a real SELF, as anything that we do or think would then just be the result of the random or predeterminable (I'll leave that discussion in the middle, as I personally wouldn't even care anymore at the hypothetical point that I would know that this is actually everything) events inside our nervous system. This automatically would conclude that there is no REAL free will, but merely an illusion, as there wouldn't even be something like self control then.

Any god worthy of the name has some knowledge or control over the state of things that is very vast. The more that god can know, the less we are free from that knowing, and really from him. It is the idea of predestination, something which has never fully been freed from the religious consciousness. "Doesn't God know I'm going to sin right now?"

On the other hand, atheism rejects any such overarching position to being. Being can unfold without that kind of direction or order. In other words, we are truly free.

Well, I myself don't know what a God figure would be like or look like, but you have a point that some people are repressed by their beliefs.
Believing in a higher form, however, does not automatically conclude that you feel repressed by it. If you believe in a God that is based on punishment, then yes, I would say that there is repression, but many people see it differently and consider "God" as a path that you can freely follow, a sort of guidance, as the reason why we are here and as 'the one' that will (perhaps) guide our 'selves' (call it souls if you want) to another place/dimension after our physical death.

Anyway, you are taking the discussion to an alternate direction with your argument as we weren't speaking about freedom from externalities but about the highest inner meaning of free will, namely having complete self control over our own actions and being.

The point of this whole thread is that there HAS to be something like a soul (a higher self than just the brains) for there to be something like an inner free will.
The reason why some people are calling your arguments irrelevant is because your allegations aren't opposing that very statement per se. Your arguments are not on the level of the main assumption of this thread.

planet news

09-06-13, 07:40 PM

Implicitly it is very dependable on science, because it's the only field in the area of existentialism they consider to be not untrue.It is not limited to that "field," though the philosophical goals of that view make it much closer to a bare version of atheism, and that is what we should be talking about. Existentialism at least tries to think of the consequences of atheism without bringing in a lot of unnecessary baggage. It is by no means the only view that accomplishes this thinking. Most philosophical atheisms are going to think similar things about science, as well as most atheistic scientists. Of course you can inflate atheism to include all kinds of alternative "beliefs" that people on the street happen to have, but what we should be talking about is a bare atheism, because in the end, the argument Yoda tries to make is for a god.

(What I want to do once and for all is to quash this entire thread. Not because I am malevolent, flippant, or I hold a grudge, but because the "results" within it simply don't function philosophically. The premises are all false (like the things you're saying), and the focus of the argument has shifted to something about the "logic" when that is absolutely trivial.)

Well, atheism may not have a particular view about science, but it assumes that science is the only truth, as it abnegates any form of a higher being. So I would say atheism does have a view about science, however not explicitly.1) atheism does not assume anything about science. 2) atheism certainly does not assume truth. 3) atheism does not assume The One ("only") either. God is the source of The One, which is the name for order. by negating a higher being than the being that is simply apparent, you negate all kinds of order, including the idea of The One Truth. This is absolutely not controversial what I'm saying.

for the most part, atheism has a view about science that is the same as its view about any other human practice. Talk to any engineer and you will find this.

There may not be a discovered connection, but the fact is that IF there is nothing higher than the physical and everything could be explained by the brain, there is no way that there is a real SELF, as anything that we do or think would then just be the result of the random or predeterminable (I'll leave that discussion in the middle, as I personally wouldn't even care anymore at the hypothetical point that I would know that this is actually everything) events inside our nervous system. This automatically would conclude that there is no REAL free will, but merely an illusion, as there wouldn't even be something like self control then.nope on all fronts

why? because since i've already severed science and atheism (you must do this), there is no reason to then reimpose its category of physical (it belongs to a science always) onto pure being (the simple what-is without anything higher). what do i mean? well, why would you assume that there is a connection when to us, clearly, there is a gap? you would only do so if you had a view of science where there was a God-like authority that clamped down on all of being. this no longer exists. being is allowed to be much more diverse. it is possible for domains to coexist. especially if they are just a result of human activity.

Well, I myself don't know what a God figure would be like or look like, but you have a point that some people are repressed by their beliefs.
Believing in a higher form, however, does not automatically conclude that you feel repressed by it. If you believe in a God that is based on punishment, then yes, I would say that there is repression, but many people see it differently and consider "God" as a path that you can freely follow, a sort of guidance, as the reason why we are here and as 'the one' that will (perhaps) guide our 'selves' (call it souls if you want) to another place/dimension after our physical death.it doesn't matter if there's punishment. it's just about what God is. when you think of a God in the abstract regardless of any existing religion, then he possesses authority over being. that's his role and that's why we worship him or respect him or whatever. it is quite simple to notice that the more authority a god has, the less those under him (ordinary beings like ourselves) have unto themselves. it is also simple to notice how without such authority, there is no reason for ourselves to be one way or another. that is either by our choices or the way we construe our natures.

religious texts are the ones with the static taxonomies of nature. how it is and how is should be and how it works. take one look at daily experience (life) and the sciences, and you will see that nothing is even close to being that clear. there is no science which has ever had that kind of authority as a source of knowledge, and there will be no such science. whatever it's form, it's not in the sciences' nature to be that way.

Anyway, you are taking the discussion to an alternate direction with your argument as we weren't speaking about freedom from externalities but about the highest inner meaning of free will, namely having complete self control over our own actions and being.it is the same discussion. don't make the Yoda move where you beg the question for your own view.

if you don't understand how it is the same discussion than ask about it, but don't just assume your own view.

The point of this whole thread is that there HAS to be something like a soul (a higher self than just the brains) for there to be something like an inner free will.Yoda is making a claim about atheism. As I've said, there's nothing in atheism that claims we are just brains. And so if there isn't that claim, there is no problem with the existence of something roughly corresponding to the soul (certainly there is something like that), and still you needn't have a God. In fact it is a God that prevents that idea.

The reason why some people are calling your arguments irrelevant is because your allegations aren't opposing that very statement per se. Your arguments are not on the level of the main assumption of this thread.if you bother to read what i wrote (not asking you to, just reporting what's there), you'll understand the last page has been about how that "objection" to my arguments is just assuming your view to be right.

anyways i don't want to continue this reply format. if you have something to say, you should just write it all up in a paragraph. you're the one who's getting distracted, not me.

Deadite

09-06-13, 08:03 PM

Mechanism versus mysticism...

Sexy Celebrity

09-06-13, 08:21 PM

Mechanism wins.

Deadite

09-06-13, 08:40 PM

Perhaps it does. Or only seems to, from a limited perspective.

Sexy Celebrity

09-06-13, 08:42 PM

Hey, if you wanna know the truth, go kill yourself.

Deadite

09-06-13, 08:43 PM

Been there, done that. :)

planet news

09-06-13, 09:49 PM

these are some terms i would partition down this line to give a sense of how our familiar ideas naturally align themselves. it's all pretty intuitive.

atheism.......theism
immanent......transcendent
change.........stasis
disorder........order
many............one
decision........duty
choice..........fate

Cobpyth

09-06-13, 10:52 PM

I just want to point out that I consider myself an agnost, so I'm not making all these 'arguments' to glorify the existence of a God. Even if it ever seems like I am, that is probably just me trying to rationalize my 'hope'. I don't know anything about the existence of a higher being, but the principle of this thread however just seems very logical and plausible to me.

The real reason why I visit this topic is because I'm interested in the discussion about what 'a human being' actually is. Deadlite was right on with his "Mechanism versus mysticism".
I'm less interested in defining certain boxes of people, which Planet News is oddly trying to turn this discussion in. From the relevant parts (to me) of your post, I understand that you believe in something like a 'soul', which runs parallel with my hopes and my attempts at substantiating these.

Sexy Celebrity

09-06-13, 11:22 PM

Trust me, people, there is no free will.

planet news

09-06-13, 11:59 PM

I'm less interested in defining certain boxes of people, which Planet News is oddly trying to turn this discussion in. From the relevant parts (to me) of your post, I understand that you believe in something like a 'soul', which runs parallel with my hopes and my attempts at substantiating these.it's not odd at all. it's about atheists. and it's about what they supposedly believe. it's about what you believe and what i believe. some people believe different things than others. it's not wrong to divide those people into categories based on their beliefs, which are different.

as for the distinction, it's just something tossed out there and doesn't reflect on anything I said. for me, mechanism is a type of mysticism, because it places the authority of mechanism out of reach of mechanism. if you believe the world is locked down (mechanism), then something locks that down, and it's not accessible to us (mysticism). as i've been saying, scientific authority requires a God.

i'm going by the most relevant uses of those words also. i take it if you require a more precise meaning, you should present one instead of just tossing out some words.

and your last sentence about the soul is unreadable.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 12:05 AM

Yoda

09-07-13, 12:18 AM

you don't just say that though.

you say it here. and you said it back there. but then, to me, you negate the whole thing in the follow up. like you basically deny that anything other than your argument has any importance because "most people" believe the picture you present.
Boy, I don't think I've done anything like this at all. I've never denied your argument may have importance; I've denied that it has specific relevance to this one specific argument. Which seems undeniably true. You're questioning my entire mode of thinking (which is apparently why it's so difficult for me to wrap my head around it, right?), not this one application of it. I even said this! I asked you, straight-up, if that's what you were doing, and you denied it for what now seems like no reason at all.

And when did I suggest anything you say is invalidated simply because most people believe otherwise? I don't recall saying this, or thinking this, and it doesn't even sound like me. I'm starting to get the impression that you're attributing quite a few opinions to me that I haven't actually stated.

lastly, speaking of why I keep qualifying things that might be insults, part of the reason i'm doing this is because i have been insulted in the past by your dismissals. it's very disheartening to type out what, to me, is basically the exactly right kind of reply to seeming "worries" you have about atheism and get those replies dismissed as some kind of non-sequitur. It's stuff that's catered to where you are specifically and addressed to you, and then it's thrown away (maybe to another thread). so if you want to think about my motivations, it's so I don't get hurt again! i just want some breathing room to be heard and heard by you. what other pleasures is there for a philosopher than to have a chance at convincing someone?
Well, look, first thing's first: any dismissal you feel is totally unintentional, and I'm sorry for it. That's not my intent. I take you at your word when you say you're not trying to be insulting, and I hope you can do the same for me.

That said, I don't believe, if you read my responses, that I've ever really dismissed what you're trying to say. At most, I've taken issue with it's application to a specific question. And I've done this simply because it was presented as a critique of a specific argument, when it's really a critique of an entire way of thinking, of which this argument is only a single instantiation. There is zero reason for you to take this distinction to mean that I'm secretly dismissing your position out of hand, especially given the hours I've already spent attempting to understand it.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "breathing room." A couple of posts ago I said it seemed like you wanted me to simply accept what you were saying, even if only for the sake of argument. Is that what you mean? If so, I see no reason not to make this plain.

Yoda

09-07-13, 12:48 AM

Cobpyth

09-07-13, 12:49 AM

Yoda

09-07-13, 12:55 AM

Yeah, don't worry, he'll just keep saying that every so often, for reasons I can't even begin to guess any more.

planet news

09-07-13, 01:03 AM

There may be a God, but that does not mean it's a God taught by something like Christianity that says you're going to Heaven or Hell and there's an afterlife and all that. It would be some kind of God -- or a force of nature -- that is harder to imagine than that.i'm not sure if this is in protest to what I'm saying, but it's not because I'm pretty uninterested in talking about existing religions except for what they have to say about social (political) thought. and i've been careful to be abstract about what i mean by god. It's not entirely unrelated to how he's presented in religions, in that the existing religions with a powerful god sort of orbit around the abstract concept, but it's not something that can be argued about solely by using a particular religion.

but basically you're right.

in general, we can say, as i have been careful to, that God is a transcendent being (beyond us somehow) that grants a stability to our plane of being. we can phrase that as created. but guaranteed is maybe better. god might be thing that passes into being or passes in and out of being. nevertheless it's clear that It has some level of control. that is the only way we can make sense of any natural (existing) religious notion or abstract notion. God, wherever presented, no matter how abstract, grants a stability to the universe and poses itself as the source of authority and power.

in a godless universe, then, power is much more diffuse, might have a variety of sources, and is most likely dependent on humanity or more generally the subject (which I would use instead of soul).

all this to me suggests more freedom. like i said, it's not a difficult thought and it is far more consistent with the history of thinking about such things.

Yoda

09-07-13, 01:12 AM

planet news

09-07-13, 01:12 AM

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "breathing room." A couple of posts ago I said it seemed like you wanted me to simply accept what you were saying, even if only for the sake of argument. Is that what you mean? If so, I see no reason not to make this plain.I mean don't act like I'm talking about a different thing.

I just thought of an analogy (this one is an analogy). It's like if you were arguing with will -- you're a Republican and he's a Democrat (if you forgot) -- and whenever will says something from his point of view, you go "well, let's just put this in another thread because it's not really what we're talking about." In fact, the whole issue with the Rep/Dem divide is that your points of view are in fact irreconcilable on every front, but even with this deep perceptual trauma, you still continue to talk with him as if you both live in the same country, and really that's the minimum amount of respect I ask for.

what i have to say has consequences for what you say here and what you think in general. It just does. If we both exist in the same sort of place, then it does. But if you want to call the world your deterministic universe, then maybe I'm not a part of that, but you have to see that this is your segregation, not mine.

really, regarding you and will, nothing has convinced me more that it IS hopeless for either of you to talk to one another. Not so here. It is more hopeless that you two understand each other in that domain (mainstream government) than you and I here.

planet news

09-07-13, 01:19 AM

Well, at least now you're saying it suggests more freedom. You usually use much stronger language about how it "means" freedom or "allows for it" or "creates" it, or something else that implies a direction connection between the two rather than a rough (maybe) possibility.The complete story direct and logical, but from what I just said there, it's only a suggestion.

Also, I'm not sure why it's at all relevant that determinism has, historically, be associated with religion more than atheism.Because it's not a coincidence?!? History is partially contingent, but the history of thought involves people much smarter than ourselves talking about the same issues we are, and that is just a record of what they thought?!?

Don't start this logical fallacy thing again. Basically every time you're gonna use one I'm gonna shoot it down. We live in a very rich world where just about any statement you make is intertwined with countless others. If you want to think about the logic of what we say, almost everything is a biconditional (implication both ways), because we think about worlds as a whole.

Yoda

09-07-13, 01:20 AM

I mean don't act like I'm talking about a different thing.
You're critiquing an entire mode of thought, and not this specific example of it. Do you disagree with that? If not, then what is your objection to me pointing it out, and how do you come to treat it as an outright dismissal of what you're saying?

planet news

09-07-13, 01:26 AM

don't get confused. the entire mode of thought i'm critiquing is your attitude towards arguments. trying to make the weight of the argument on the logic and consistency of IT rather than the premises. that's been your style for as long as i can remember. anyone who throws the word logic around a lot acts the same way. in reality, logic does nothing. logic only matters when you're REALLY trying to figure out consequences. and you're going from one thing to another and have no idea what's coming. like in math.

but when you have an argument that's about a picture of the world, the logic is of no concern.

what i haven't even talked to you about (since a few months ago) is what you actually are arguing here. it's more of your attitude and behavior towards things i've said.

Cobpyth

09-07-13, 01:27 AM

it's not odd at all. it's about atheists. and it's about what they supposedly believe. it's about what you believe and what i believe. some people believe different things than others. it's not wrong to divide those people into categories based on their beliefs, which are different.

for me, mechanism is a type of mysticism, because it places the authority of mechanism out of reach of mechanism. if you believe the world is locked down (mechanism), then something locks that down, and it's not accessible to us (mysticism). as i've been saying, scientific authority requires a God.

It's not wrong to put people in boxes. It's just odd to suddenly make the definition of those boxes the core of the discussion.

Also I can't exactly see which idea you are trying to argue against. What do you believe yourself and which of my earlier statements about mechanism versus mysticism and their connection with free will do you consider to be impossible to coexist with your own ideas?

You're saying that mechanism always implies mysticism and stuff like that, so it makes me think that you're only opposing to the idea of there not being free will, because for you there is always, inevitably a 'higher ego' in every scenario possible. You're twisting the main idea of mechanism, which is that everything, including humans, is just 'a matter of atoms' and NOTHING more than that. They deny something like a 'soul', for instance.

The point that is being made, is that people who are NOT believing in anything higher automatically disqualify free will. It means that, according to them we are just like very complex computers so to speak and that we are programmed to do certain things in certain situations, without 'us' really having a choice.

So do you agree with the fact that everyone who rejects any form of 'more than this' is indeed consequentially a denier of free will or do you think that even without this supernatural being there could STILL be something like real inner mental freedom?

Yoda

09-07-13, 01:32 AM

It's also not a coincidence that atheists overwhelmingly disbelieve in souls, or the supernatural in general. Yet just a few posts ago you were quibbling with Cob about that very thing. Whatever nuance you're using to justify those kinds of distinctions while you find mine so dismissive, it's invisible to me.

planet news

09-07-13, 01:34 AM

It's not wrong to put people in boxes. It's just odd to suddenly make the definition of those boxes the core of the discussion.no it isn't. at least not this one. views are held by people. if they're not held by people it doesn't even make sense. it's definitely not wrong at all to talk about the difference, so don't think that; it'll get you nowhere.

Also I can't exactly see which idea you are trying to argue against. What do you believe yourself and which of my earlier statements about mechanism versus mysticism and their connection with free will do you consider to be untrue?it's not versus. they're on the same side. if you can't understand that, then you don't understand me. i don't expect you to really understand anything i say fully, because i'm not writing well, but i'm just telling you where i'm at so YOU don't box ME into anything I'm not by accident (habit).

You're saying that mechanism always implies mysticism and stuff like that, so it makes me think that you're only opposing to the idea of there not being free will, because for you there is always, inevitably a 'higher ego' in every scenario possible. You're twisting the main idea of mechanism, which is that everything, including humans, is just 'a matter of atoms' and NOTHING more than that. They deny something like a 'soul', for instance.

The point that is being made, is that people who are NOT believing in anything higher automatically disqualify free will. It means that, according to them we are just like very complex computers so to speak and that we are programmed to do certain things in certain situations, without 'us' really having a choice.

So do you agree with the fact that everyone who rejects any form of 'more' is indeed logically consequential a recusant towards free will or do you think that even without this supernatural being there could STILL be something like real inner mental freedom?what i'm saying is, based on what you just wrote

that the level that you think is "the soul" is ALREADY immanent to a godless reality. To differentiate it, we can call it the subject. The subject is a fully atheistic idea and it is where free will happens. it is not "higher." rather it is a necessary part of the most banal level of being (where we are), the only level of being that an Atheist claims there is.

Yoda

09-07-13, 01:38 AM

it's more of your attitude and behavior towards things i've said.
Yeah, this is what I've suspected. You're handling me. You've decided I need to be psychologically prepped to hear what you're saying if I'm going to really consider it. You might remember I floated this idea before, and you weirdly refused to confirm it. Just like when I asked, very early on, whether or not you were disagreeing with my argument specifically or critiquing an entire mode of that of which this argument is only one example. You denied that that was the case.

So now we have repeated examples of you deliberately obfuscating your meaning when asked about it point blank. Why?

Cobpyth

09-07-13, 01:39 AM

that the level that you think is "the soul" is ALREADY immanent to a godless reality. To differentiate it, we can call it the subject. The subject is a fully atheistic idea and it is where free will happens. it is not "higher." rather it is a necessary part of the most banal level of being (where we are), the only level of being that an Atheist claims there is.

If it is immanent to this godless reality, in what form does this 'subject' exist then?

planet news

09-07-13, 01:46 AM

Yeah, this is what I've suspected. You're handling me. You've decided I need to be psychologically prepped to hear what you're saying if I'm going to really consider it. You might remember I floated this idea before, and you weirdly refused to confirm it. Just like when I asked, very early on, whether or not you were disagreeing with my argument specifically or critiquing an entire mode of that of which this argument is only one example. You denied that that was the case.

So now we have repeated examples of you deliberately obfuscating your meaning when asked about it point blank. Why?no dude.

i'm not gonna try to find proof, but it is in this thread. i was gung ho about this before and i just replied to certainly stuff you said and wrote random paragraphs in here, but you just said something like "i'm not sure what this is suppposed to be."

So i know for a fact how this stuff comes off to you and many of the things you've tried to characterize it as: basically things that are premised on ideas that render the discussion pointless. No...

cause you say there's not free will for atheists and i'm giving maybe the only cogent explanation I've ever heard or understood for how there really strongly is free will

That's just what you should want. is what i'm saying.

dispelling the question is saying something like "well free will doesn't matter because it's not an important question, etc." I never once said that.

planet news

09-07-13, 01:53 AM

If it is immanent to this godless reality, in what form does this 'subject' exist then?for me, the subject is like a property of godless reality (what i'd like to call "pure being" -- god would be something like "ultra-being" -- it's pure because it's just what is apparent to us in experience [not science]). subjects are basically stitched into the fabric of the most basic level of what-is. that is what i would say, poetically. and i would say the reasons for believing in this "property" of pure being is in what we experience as denizens of that place (this place, every place).

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 01:53 AM

I'm not sure what the word "imagine" is doing here, seeing as how the entire premise of Christianity is that it is revealed via Scripture. In theology this is called Revelation: the idea that we know God only because He has decided to make Himself known. Frankly, if it were made up, it would probably be a lot simpler. It has lots of twists and turns you'd never guess, which both Lewis and Chesterton cited as among the reasons they found it compelling.

The idea of God as some kind of vague "force of nature" is, on the other hand, exactly the sort of thing you might imagine. It's clean and simple.

So, what are you saying? I should read the Bible and discover these twists and twists?

Yeah, don't worry, he'll just keep saying that every so often, for reasons I can't even begin to guess any more.

That there's no free will? You don't have to make any guesses. I say it because it is my truth about life now. You all don't believe it... and you haven't been convinced of it, even though I've tried to convince you. Nor is what you're saying about your beliefs convincing me. I have two options -- I could just ignore this thread entirely, which is something I'm thinking of doing now. Or, I could just chant, "there is no free will, there is no free, there is no free will," over and over again. Kinda like with Rodent and Young Guns, only for a different reason.

i'm not sure if this is in protest to what I'm saying, but it's not because I'm pretty uninterested in talking about existing religions except for what they have to say about social (political) thought. and i've been careful to be abstract about what i mean by god. It's not entirely unrelated to how he's presented in religions, in that the existing religions with a powerful god sort of orbit around the abstract concept, but it's not something that can be argued about solely by using a particular religion.

but basically you're right.

in general, we can say, as i have been careful to, that God is a transcendent being (beyond us somehow) that grants a stability to our plane of being. we can phrase that as created. but guaranteed is maybe better. god might be thing that passes into being or passes in and out of being. nevertheless it's clear that It has some level of control. that is the only way we can make sense of any natural (existing) religious notion or abstract notion. God, wherever presented, no matter how abstract, grants a stability to the universe and poses itself as the source of authority and power.

in a godless universe, then, power is much more diffuse, might have a variety of sources, and is most likely dependent on humanity or more generally the subject (which I would use instead of soul).

all this to me suggests more freedom. like i said, it's not a difficult thought and it is far more consistent with the history of thinking about such things.

I just don't think we're free. God or no God, I just think that the idea of people not having free will is correct. It is how I understand life now. As strange as it may be. As hard as it may be, because it is hard -- it's a totally new concept for me to actually just feel like it's really real and not just something to speculate about, as I did before.

planet news

09-07-13, 01:58 AM

i said a long time ago stuff about holes. do any of you remember this? it is a bit of a metaphor certainly.

but a godless reality inherently has holes. and those holes are inhabited by subjects that use those holes to puncture the place in which they are in and thereby bring about change (a real choice).

the only step to get to there is to examine our human experience and see how these things are apparent in that experience. it is to cast away preconceived narratives of how the world works to look at more basic modes of what humanity has actually gone through.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 02:01 AM

I think I've tried to convince people here a lot of times about why there's no free will. But maybe it's just not that convincing to you. It was convincing to me, though.

I think I've done that more than just popping in here to chant, "There is no free will." True, I did have it as my signature once, though. But I mean... damn, the idea, the truth, was really, really that amazing to me. It just is! Life changing. I couldn't help getting a little carried away with it. If Jesus is really amazing to you, why aren't you more enthusiastic about it? I mean, if I came to believe that there really was a Jesus Christ, I might go around preaching His word around here all the time rather insanely myself. I'd be a Jesus freak!

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 02:03 AM

planet news

09-07-13, 02:05 AM

it's not hard to think you're not your own man. you know i have to set my alarm for an hour before whenever i have to wake to get up just to give my will a chance to be mine. it is obviously distorted by the fact that my body is under the weight of sleep.

what is hard is to think other situations in which you are more of a pure subject. when your choice could go either way, and each way has equal consequences to you. it would be really poor to say that even those kinds of choices are basically meaningless in terms of the commitment of your will. and i refuse to say that, but not for religious reasons. i think the reasons are right there in reality.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 02:25 AM

I don't think your will is even truly "yours" even after the alarm clock goes off and you start wearing off that weight of sleep. I think your brain has been conditioned to just get up and get going. Part of the routine. You get up because it's a habit for you to. Then you go on and do your other habits until you wind up back in bed and asleep again.

planet news

09-07-13, 02:33 AM

yes but the situations i'm talking about are those that are not habitual. i agree with you about habit too.

but not everything we do is habitual. not sure when the last time this happened to me was, but sometimes you find yourself in a real situation where choice is important and no norms or habits can guide you. that is the kind of hole i am talking about in reality. in the banal reality of day to day life such holes emerge from time to time. and we, as subjects, can seize them and change the world, or we can not live up to our potential and fall back into some kind of habit. do you not think such moments exist? i wonder if in your life you have already experienced many of these or at least encountered them.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 02:40 AM

It sounds too spiritual. I think I know what you're talking about and why it could feel like such holes are real and exist. I would say I had one recently, in fact, maybe.

Things like that might actually give off a strong impression that our choices really do matter -- but I mean, I'm not arguing against that they don't. I'm just saying we can't help our choices. Not that you shouldn't act carelessly -- but if you do, you couldn't help it. I mean, what if you make the wrong choice when you encounter one of these holes? Should you really feel awful about doing it? You might, but then that might change your habits and make you react differently the next time.

I just think it's an illusion. I think you should train yourself to see it as an illusion. Learn from any mistakes you make, but if you don't change the world when one of your holes opens up, maybe you will the next time there's a hole.

planet news

09-07-13, 04:44 AM

i mean obviously i know you at least well enough to try to appeal to you in a different way and it looks like it got through a tad since you have some personal experiences (more than me, certainly) to draw from but... you must still see that "it sounds too spiritual" is not an argument, and, what's worse, these kinds of vague impressions are exactly false here.

why? because i'm the first to acknowledge it "sounds spiritual," because i'm well aware that it's trying to draw out the dimension of ourselves that is more than our body, what i want to name "the subject," but which is perhaps at least analogous to the soul or spirit in those systems. nevertheless, it remains firmly materialist for rigorous reasons (which i have not given [recently]), not vague ones that "sound" this way or that. obviously the subject is born in one way or another out of our bodies. there is no way anyone can deny that there is some very strong link between our bodies and our conscious experience. now, that is what makes it materialist. what gives it free will is to say that material itself has "holes." finally, any spiritual feelings you get from "holes" needs to be checked against the fact that "holes" are a metaphor in something like the mode of poetry to convey an intuition.

still, all in all, it should be obvious to you that how something vaguely sounds isn't a good way to evaluate ideas; especially here, since I'm switching the alliances on many categories that you guys have got used to using.

things like the soul (subject) and free will (decision) are things i'd like to bring back into my realm. if i wanted to talk strategically, i'd say that atheists like Nietzsche (who, whether you know it or not, you follow) already conceded too much to theists. what they argue for is a radical reinterpretation of human experience to "make the best" of an unfree existence. i think their solutions are brilliant and not worthless philosophically (or practically for living), but really the move fails to jump on the (now obvious) possibility of these "holes."

Nietzsche and his descendants will help you live better as that part of yourself that is merely a body, that is at the whim of bodily needs, social habits, unconscious desires, etc. but he will not help you make that choice when you are faced with a hole. and so where I place you is on that side. it is certainly a large aspect of who and what we are, but it is not everything. there is an exception to that, a gap. and our freedom lies in that gap.

finally, the move is to argue that these gaps are essential to reality and that it is already apparent there as well. for now, i merely posit them as the formal solution to the problem at hand, but there are also several arguments specifically for why they should be accepted for what they are.

As you said, you kind of know what i'm talking about already, but because of your Nietzschian tendencies, you're willing to dismiss them as an illusion. This dismissal is a mistake. The mistake, basically.

Deadite

09-07-13, 04:52 AM

You can lead a horse to "free will is an illusion" but you can't make him drink. :drevil:

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 05:06 AM

Well, I have been saying all along that I do think there's still some kind of spiritual dimension to life even without free will. I believe in things like synchronicities and stuff like that. That's one thing I've had a hard time getting rid of believing in -- even after going this far with, like, atheism/agnosticism and no free will and all that. These feelings of something and still believing in things like synchronicities remains with me. I haven't been able to shed that. Of course, you never know, I possibly might some day...

But I do find what you're saying intriguing. At least right now in this moment it is to me.

I just don't know how to grapple with life and spirituality mixed in with no free will.

I mean, UNLESS, unless Sam Harris is wrong, of course, somehow. But from the way he explains it, the no free will thing certainly sounds very convincing. His other arguments... because he's real big on anti-religion and all that -- they haven't taken hold of me yet. I mean, I was never into these atheists like Richard Dawkins and all that before. They annoyed me. I knew hardcore atheists and some of them just annoyed the hell out of me. And I know there are others who find them annoying, and I think that's good, but Sam Harris -- because of what he said about free will -- that's what opened me up to him.

Even if he's wrong about God, there is still something very intriguing about what he's saying about free will.

planet news

09-07-13, 05:20 AM

Whatever it is I might mean by the "spiritual feel" of my ideas, it probably won't have anything to do with synchronicities except in a totally abstract sense that I wouldn't even bother developing -- at least right now. That seems to me to be pure mysticism. For one, it's from Jung, whose views on that are very clear. However, I do think a lot of what we consider "spiritual" can be brought back to the atheist side with this move I want to make. A lot of big things like "the soul" and "free will" and "truth," but also maybe some smaller things as well. I wouldn't make synchronicities my primary avenue for developing that, but maybe, for you personally, I could think of some way to use it as an explanatory device.

===

Well, for one, I basically think Sam Harris is a bad guy. Pretty much all 'round. Furthermore, his arguments are not at all new. He might be the one putting it provocatively in a commercial format, and he has the name that is connected with the New Atheism "movement" (all terrible, bad guys), but he is by no means the first to make such claims. I mean, more or less, Yoda has been making those same claims from a different angle in here for more than ten years.

What I will allow Sam Harris is that he is roughly on the side of Nietzsche who I basically use as a coordinate for two major orientations of atheism. And you can tell that because at some point he talks about prison reform -- albeit, in a very vulgar way -- which was also a primary concern of Foucault (another Nietzschian) with arguments very roughly corresponding to the ones the latter makes.

And so, in that case -- and really I am being really, really generous by making that comparison -- it's not so much that your guy Harris is WRONG, but that he's incomplete, and that he smooths over the bits he misses by copy-pasting in what he got RIGHT. He fails to comprehend the exceptions to his project, and those exceptions are key. A general rule, really... in philosophy, the exceptions are the most important.

Lastly, I might feel like I'm too cool for them now, but at one point I was really into New Atheism, and it played at least a cursory role in getting me interested in philosophy in the first place. So, don't accuse me of just being biased against these people, because I more or less worked through them and got all that I could get from them. This is where I am at now.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 07:44 AM

I see... well, I don't think Sam Harris is a bad guy. I just started reading his first book, The End of Faith. But besides that, I still have no problems -- and even not really any doubts -- in regards to what he says about free will. Of these people - the new atheists - I suspect he's got something that the others don't have. Have you read anything by Sam Harris?

My suspicion is that things like synchronicities, religion, mysticism, spirituality, etc. -- plays a purpose in this world in making things happen. In making people behave in certain ways and doing certain things. Touched by the gift of religious thinking, faith or sign from the Gods can make people act in ways they wouldn't act otherwise. I suspect it all plays with the minds of human beings to make them fulfill some sort of larger order in regards to nature's own purposes, whatever it all may be. Religion and God may not be true or real, but the fantasy of it propels people to act in certain ways that are beneficial and necessary to life and society on this planet. The idea is thus like water -- necessary for life to happen. Anti-religion crusaders are thus like people who are trying to dry up the water and why they can be seen as bad. Yet, I think they also serve a purpose in our world because I think that the truth about what is really going on -- as dark and nihilistic as it may be -- may also be beneficial and necessary at this time in human evolution.

So, when I experience a synchronicity -- and I believe I have -- a diehard atheist can say I'm deluded for thinking I saw such a thing -- but I really believe I did, and that belief is necessary because it propels me to do the next thing that I have been designed to do in the world. Such an example is no different, though, than a suicide bomber killing a hundred people. Sam Harris would say it's evil and wrong and must be stopped -- and I agree with him -- BUT, Sam Harris is not, what I feel, something in nature that just makes possibilities happen. To me, that thing I'm talking about here could be seen as "God" because what I feel is that "God" is a name for basically the mechanic behind the mechanics. Everything is mechanical, but all designed to run a certain way. Even the horrors in the world are happening for a reason. Thus why I don't sob uncontrollably every time someone dies or why I can make jokes about Roger Ebert's face immediately upon his death -- how horrible of me! Yet, HELLO? Earth to humans everywhere. People are dying all the time. It's a natural process. Yeah, I understand all the sentimentality, and maybe I'm being rude, but in my rudeness, I'm saying -- face facts. He's just a man who died and we never personally met him. He was going to die. It had to happen. Maybe there's a different way to respond to it than just the boring, typical tears of sympathy. Afterall, the human experience is a horrific one. At any moment, a suicide bomber could be sneaking up beside you. We live in a random nightmare, moment by moment. You never know what's gonna happen next.

Being happy and spiritual and joyous has its place, but darkness is absolutely there, too, and it might as well be accepted and known about. Hence why I roll my eyes every time someone cries about bullying or thinks humanity needs to instantly turn into a utopia of goodness and love and happiness. It's like, wake up and smell the coffee, life is a madhouse. I wouldn't get so depressing and dreary and just say, "life sucks, get used to it" like many other people do, because I don't believe in a message like that -- life doesn't suck for everyone or all the time -- but life is a madhouse. At any moment, something crazy can jump out at ya. Like me here on these forums.

Anyway... whew, that was a lot and I feel off track... but yes, as of now, I'm not feeling much about whatever you guys are thinking about. I would say that the idea of holes works for you. Christianity works for Yoda. My madness works for me. And that we each are basically destined to do whatever it is we're doing. Just as the sun and the water on this planet make it possible for us to exist. It's being spiritual in a deterministic universe.

I don't really think there's going to be more after death. I think reincarnation might be possible, though. It is another mystical thing I kinda have feelings toward. You are born once -- why not twice or more? If it can be so random that someone could spontanously live once, why not more than once? Perhaps this is evidence for a soul, but it wouldn't have to be. Of course, it could also be just an idea to play with human life and make things happen, like I was talking about.

Deep down, the nature of existence could be weirder than any of us know. We all could have it all wrong. That sounds like a cop out, but still I think it could be totally valid.

I do think it's true, though, that free will isn't real. That it's an illusion. I think that one day it is going to perhaps be ... maybe a common scientific fact. Might take a long time for this -- hundreds of years or more -- but I do think that it's true and that it will one day happen. Now, of course, I could be wrong and tomorrow there's a paper explaining why it's wrong and Sam Harris is forced to go public and state how wrong he is -- that is always possible to me. But I judge now that that won't happen. I predict that more and more people will accept the idea of no free will. I think those of you who don't believe it will look like fools someday to future societies. Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, which talked about the history of scientific breakthroughs and how societies always had a HARD time adjusting to new ideas, convinces me of this. So, I think Sam Harris is right about this no free will business. That much I'm willing to bet on.

What interests me, though -- and why I'm so open to discuss this with you now -- is what else this could mean about life and its mysteries. To me, the thing about not having free will -- that was a mystery to me until recently. Now it feels revealed. And I do consider myself someone who is always interested in knowing more. So, if there's some way to combine atheism with spiritual stuff, I'm all ears. Or whatever. But I just think that -- the bottom line is there's no free will. And that the feeling of choice is an illusion.

Yoda

09-07-13, 11:42 AM

no dude.

i'm not gonna try to find proof, but it is in this thread. i was gung ho about this before and i just replied to certainly stuff you said and wrote random paragraphs in here, but you just said something like "i'm not sure what this is suppposed to be."

So i know for a fact how this stuff comes off to you and many of the things you've tried to characterize it as: basically things that are premised on ideas that render the discussion pointless. No...

cause you say there's not free will for atheists and i'm giving maybe the only cogent explanation I've ever heard or understood for how there really strongly is free will

That's just what you should want. is what i'm saying.

dispelling the question is saying something like "well free will doesn't matter because it's not an important question, etc." I never once said that.
"No dude" to which part? You were gung ho about what before? You could be a lot clearer if you made a cursory effort to do so. Fewer pronouns would be a nice start, since you insist on replying to things in large chunks.

Yoda

09-07-13, 11:43 AM

So, what are you saying? I should read the Bible and discover these twists and twists?
Well, sure, you should read the Bible, but regardless I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to characterize Christianity as something easily imagined. It's lots of things, but it ain't that.

That there's no free will? You don't have to make any guesses. I say it because it is my truth about life now. You all don't believe it... and you haven't been convinced of it, even though I've tried to convince you.
Well, to be fair, only occasionally have you really tried to convince people. The rest of the time you've just repeated your stance. Look at how many of your replies contain phrases like "I just don't think X is true" or "I really just think X." These posts give us a deeper picture of your beliefs, and that's well and good I think, but that doesn't really compel anyone to reexamine their own.

Nor is what you're saying about your beliefs convincing me.
Aye, but I'm also not dropping into the thread every page or two to say "Jesus Christ is still your personal Savior" regardless of what everyone else is talking about at the time.

Deadite

09-07-13, 11:56 AM

Christianity and free will, BFF! :highfive:

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 03:31 PM

Yoda, you've already replied to me using those same answers. I see the original post is gone -- did you lose it and you're just putting it up again? I could swear you already did that last night.

planet news

09-07-13, 06:22 PM

"No dude" to which part? You were gung ho about what before? You could be a lot clearer if you made a cursory effort to do so. Fewer pronouns would be a nice start, since you insist on replying to things in large chunks.No dude.

The whole part.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 06:55 PM

Here's something to believe in:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11284&stc=1&d=1378590890

Barbecue Chicken Pizza with Onions

planet news

09-07-13, 07:22 PM

I see... well, I don't think Sam Harris is a bad guy. I just started reading his first book, The End of Faith. But besides that, I still have no problems -- and even not really any doubts -- in regards to what he says about free will. Of these people - the new atheists - I suspect he's got something that the others don't have. Have you read anything by Sam Harris?I read his first two books, which includes the one you're reading. I doubt I could bring myself to read his later ones without throwing up.

I said it to you a long time ago, but you should read Nietzsche instead. He's more of a canonical figure. He's pretty much respected by any serious thinker, so citing him gives you some historical oomph. His works have great literary as well as philosophical value. He writes in a way that is, how can I say, more like how you think about things than the vast majority of philosophy. Finally, he has a long legacy of people he's inspired and influenced, which paves a path for further reading. If you were on a desert island with a book from Harris of Nietzsche, you'd take the latter surely.

===

As for your other stuff, first of all, I think the whole New Atheist critique of religion is simply false. It's not really about beliefs. Now, it's simple and easy to think that we act the way we do because of what we say we believe, but that is definitely false if you just take a moment and think about it. For example, people who say they believe in the Christian God are sinning all the time, but somehow justify that like it's totally normal. For me, this is not belief, because they act just like me or you, but they say they believe in something just to sound a certain way to certain people.

On the other hand, you have people who really believe in their religion and alter their whole lives to fit it in. They will appear as social freaks who cannot participate in a huge amount of what we consider normal behavior. They live very controlled lives that are essentially alien to society at large. That, I'd say, is more on the side of an actual belief.

However, how this gets complicated is when you realize that there are people who, because of society (not belief), act in alien ways, but that, again, only say it's because of their religion.

So you have a clear separation between 1) the things you actually do (what I would say are your real beliefs) and 2) things you say you believe. I would be very careful in each case about making claims about where either of those come from. But one thing I know for sure is, you cannot just believe when someone says, "I did x action because of y belief." That is certainly false in almost every case. And the reason is largely stuff you've mentioned. We are more or less conditioned by our habits picked up from the environment in which we are raised.

With the suicide bombers, one has to be clear about just why they did what they did. Is it because they, as people, wanted to be remembered by living people? That is definitely a social goal. It has nothing to do with religion. Why? Because basically you can say that just about everyone wants to be remembered by others after they're gone. Could it be maybe financial? For example, in drug gangs, sometimes members are required to "take a charge" for some other member, and their families are compensated? Again, this has nothing to do with belief.

When it has to do with belief alone, it is when the person has essentially no other motivations to do what they do except that belief (or at least equal motivations from either side), and that is very, very rare for someone to make the choice for the belief rather than the things you can hold in your hand.

What I really want to say is that, when someone actually does action x because of belief y, that is an example of what I mean by freedom. And, once again, this is a very special kind of action.

===

Finally, what we are doing now, talking about ideas and beliefs... It is a social practice. I am interested in arguments to produce a real, honest belief. Something I can latch onto and live by. But this discussion here... it's just tossing out some hypotheticals and playing with them. You say you don't believe in free will, and you can suck yourself down into a dark hole of thought trying to find the bottom of that belief, but the moment you come out, you have to play in the world with the rest of us. You don't really act any differently now than you did before your belief. Just like the guy who goes to church every Sunday but does the same sh*t everyone else does throughout the week.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 07:50 PM

Finally, what we are doing now, talking about ideas and beliefs... It is a social practice. I am interested in arguments to produce a real, honest belief. Something I can latch onto and live by. But this discussion here... it's just tossing out some hypotheticals and playing with them. You say you don't believe in free will, and you can suck yourself down into a dark hole of thought trying to find the bottom of that belief, but the moment you come out, you have to play in the world with the rest of us. You don't really act any differently now than you did before your belief. Just like the guy who goes to church every Sunday but does the same sh*t everyone else does throughout the week.

I might get to the rest of what you said later, but for now, I just wanna say -- this no free will business isn't merely just a belief system. I mean, yes, I believe it to be true, but I think it's a fact of life. One that can be proven. Apparently, according to neuroscience, it's true, but I don't think it's been officially made true or something. Like, maybe there still needs to be stuff done to completely prove the case. But I do think it can be proved. To me, this is a fact about the body - a fact of life.

Believing in free will is more like believing in a religion to me now, because I don't think that's true. Since it's not true, then people are believing in a fiction, and to me that's like believing in religion. Yes, the area of us not having any free will is complicated -- it seems like we do have it. As Stephen Hawking says, it's so complicated that we have built an "effective theory" around it -- that theory is free will. It's a system saying we are free, but that system only exists because it's hard to determine what our every move will be. However, just because we have that system doesn't mean absolute free will is true -- the system is an illusion, the truth is that we're not really free.

When I start thinking about Snow White for some random reason, I had no choice but to think about Snow White, unless I move on to another thought, and then that thought isn't a choice, either. Why did I just mention Snow White just now? I have no idea. Psychology might be able to figure out why Snow White popped into my head, but I cannot consciously figure it out. I just suddenly started thinking of Snow White. It just POPPED in there. *hits side of head to indicate brain* My brain is making the calculations that lead me to do and say and think things -- I am not. It's pretty hard to believe, I know, but I'm pretty damn sure it's true. To think otherwise is to just believe in superstitions. If you believe in those superstitions, you will. And I come from years of believing in them. And I actually have changed and feel so much better now actually coming to terms with this no free will thing. It's made me think of myself differently. Sure, I go out there and join the land of the living and society and act like same old me most of the time, but it would take a lot of work to completely change me because my brain has had years and years of developing habits and interests that make me ME. In twenty years, though, I'm sure I'll be different in ways and same in some others.

planet news

09-07-13, 07:59 PM

so yeah this is why talking to you kinda isn't rewarding at all...

you're just rambling. i spent some time on your last reply to narrow it down, but it's too much wasted effort to do it each time and not even get a decent response...

just saying, dude. it's not fun. arguing should be like moving forward with each reply towards some conclusion. with you it's like you're a sandpit and i'm throwing all kinds of rope and stuff down into it but it just gets sucked in.

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 08:16 PM

so yeah this is why talking to you kinda isn't rewarding at all...

No, talking to you isn't rewarding at all. Because frankly, I don't agree with you and every time I try to explain why to you, you just shrug me off and insult me like typical you. You can't even let me just naturally communicate with you. You always have to get huffy, even if things start going well. You're very predictable to me this way and I always never really want to speak with you because I know where it leads. You have an "I must win" attitude with your arguments that don't win me over and when you don't win me over, you shake the baby rattle and cry and scream and insult.

you're just rambling.

As do you.

i spent some time on your last reply to narrow it down, but it's too much wasted effort to do it each time and not even get a decent response...

Well, I just wasn't feeling your response right then. I only responded with what I felt like I had to say.

just saying, dude. it's not fun. arguing should be like moving forward with each reply towards some conclusion. with you it's like you're a sandpit and i'm throwing all kinds of rope and stuff down into it but it just gets sucked in.

Yeah, you're throwing rope down expecting me to grab onto your ideas and opinions and I'm refusing to be lifted up. I'd rather stay down in my sandpit where I feel convinced by good reason. You think I enjoy talking with someone who says they feel like throwing up when they read Sam Harris? No, I don't.

planet news

09-07-13, 08:25 PM

it's like clockwork. now you're doing your short response thing

Sexy Celebrity

09-07-13, 08:31 PM

Exactly. Clockwork. No free will.

Deadite

09-07-13, 08:51 PM

Member 1: "I believe X."
Member 2: "Here's an alternative view."
Member 1: "I believe X."
Member 2: "FUUUUUUUUUUU"

Yoda

09-07-13, 09:27 PM

No dude.

The whole part.
Yeah, that's not helpful, and also not possible, seeing as how I said at least one thing which isn't even possible to disagree with.

My position is relatively simple: there's nothing wrong with me noting the distinction between you disputing the argument in this thread and and disputing the general mode of thought which it's based on. The latter encompasses the former, but it's not about it specifically. This is a fair and relevant distinction and there's nothing particularly dismissive about suggesting a discussion about the very underpinnings of the logic we try to employ might actually be a different topic, because it's breadth otherwise would make it about every topic.

More importantly, whether you agree with this or not, and even if it irks you or you think it bodes poorly for what I might say if we actually discuss the issue further, it doesn't actually "negate" my willingness to hear you out. It just doesn't. You're assuming that based on my "attitude," but it's not a fact, and I happen to know--being me and all--that it isn't true.

So, like I said before, you really just need to decide if you're going to believe this and try to have a conversation, or not. If you already think the above somehow prevents us from doing that, sorry to hear it, but if that's the case then there's no point in going over the same ground.

planet news

09-07-13, 10:05 PM

no dude.

an argument is like this right?

p1
p2
p3
____
c

where "____" stands for some logical structure connecting p1, p2, p3, which produces c.

then I say, "but p1 and p2" are false.

then you say, "pls don't change the conversation. we're talking about when p1 and p2 is true. make a new thread if you want to talk about if they're false."

---

as you can see, it's not a difference between disputing the argument and disputing the general mode at all. it's simply disputing the argument. disputing the premises of an argument is disputing the argument.

disputing the general mode would be something like, "p1, p2, and p3 are all true, and your logic is appropriate here too, but all that aside, c is not meaningful to the question at hand."

there is a kind of move like that which says, "even if we don't have free will, it doesn't matter, because what we really mean by freedom is how we relate to our actions within our determination." and if you can remember back far enough, at one point I tried to make this point regarding Deleuze. that basically the question of free will is not interesting and that it has nothing to do with what we consider freedom.

that's not what i'm doing here.

Yoda

09-08-13, 08:12 PM

You're not just saying "p1 and p2 are false." You don't stop there, because if I ask why they're false, you offer an entirely new manner of thinking that I have to accept in order to agree that they're false. You're saying "here's a new way of determining truth or falsity under which p1 and p2 would be false." So that's the argument: should I accept this new way of thinking? And that is a different question than whether or not p1 and p2 are false, even though it will influence that question once decided.

Sexy Celebrity

09-09-13, 02:43 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMwjCv2wqAA

This time it's Susan Blackmore, not Sam Harris.

planet news

09-09-13, 09:59 AM

You're not just saying "p1 and p2 are false." You don't stop there, because if I ask why they're false, you offer an entirely new manner of thinking that I have to accept in order to agree that they're false."Entirely new manner" is poetry. The moment something is even slightly different, it is possible to say that it is entirely new, because you can never again then draw an equality. At least, the possibility for this exaggeration arises.

When you thought p1 and p2 were true, this was entirely different than when I said p1 and p2 were false, because the false is entirely different from the true. It really is that simple.

You're saying "here's a new way of determining truth or falsity under which p1 and p2 would be false."If p1 and p2 are actually false in reality, but were assumed to be true in your picture (they were the premises, after all), then certainly the way the truth of p1 and p2 relates to your picture is different than the way the truth of p1 and p2 relates to reality. What is "new" is that p1 and p2 are no longer thought of as true.

Again, more trivialities that you are exaggerating in an attempt to make the simplest kind of disagreement sound unreasonable. It only sounds unreasonable because you have been arguing the same thing for over 10 years, and that is a long time to think something and then be asked to let it go. When you refuse to play with p1 and p2, taking for granted this entire time they are certainly true, and discuss only the logic, then of course not taking them for granted now is somewhat of a shock. So, it is exaggerated to you, but it isn't to someone who is able to look at statements without a personal bias of that type (habit).

And that is a different question than whether or not p1 and p2 are false, even though it will influence that question once decided.p1 and p2 are the premises. They are statements (trying to be) about reality. They will be compared with other statements about reality that we both accept as fact. This will definitely "influence" whether or not p1 and p2 are true or false, but really they determine it through the logic of the argument.

In the end, there is no way you will be able to argue, with me or with anyone else, that questioning the premises of an argument is not the most basic move to resist the conclusion of that argument. You can exaggerate that act as much as you like -- "spoon-bendy" -- but, when laid bare, the structure of the argument cannot be insulated by your affinity for or familiarity with the premises. The premises you happened to start with need to be given the same weight as any premises you might encounter in the eyes of truth.

Yoda

09-11-13, 02:03 PM

When you thought p1 and p2 were true, this was entirely different than when I said p1 and p2 were false, because the false is entirely different from the true. It really is that simple.

If p1 and p2 are actually false in reality, but were assumed to be true in your picture (they were the premises, after all), then certainly the way the truth of p1 and p2 relates to your picture is different than the way the truth of p1 and p2 relates to reality. What is "new" is that p1 and p2 are no longer thought of as true.
This is correct...once I've accepted the new way of thinking that means they are no longer true. You try to make this seem like a single, straight move, but when you do you skip over the part where I accept this new way of thinking, even though that's a different claim than simply declaring p1 and p2 false. Their falsity results from it. But you're treating them as one. As I suggested before, you're asking me to treat this new premise as a given, and to jump directly to its conclusions.

p1 and p2 are the premises. They are statements (trying to be) about reality. They will be compared with other statements about reality that we both accept as fact. This will definitely "influence" whether or not p1 and p2 are true or false, but really they determine it through the logic of the argument.

In the end, there is no way you will be able to argue, with me or with anyone else, that questioning the premises of an argument is not the most basic move to resist the conclusion of that argument. You can exaggerate that act as much as you like -- "spoon-bendy" -- but, when laid bare, the structure of the argument cannot be insulated by your affinity for or familiarity with the premises. The premises you happened to start with need to be given the same weight as any premises you might encounter in the eyes of truth.
But I don't "argue that questioning the premises of an argument is not a way to resist its conclusion." I argue that you're advancing a different premise which leads to questioning those premises, and therefore that is the premise you're actually questioning, and that's why I suggest that it's a different argument. p1 and p2 are downstream of that question.

You are not saying "p1 and p2 are false." You're saying "X is true, and if you accept it, it then follows that p1 and p2 are false." So X is the argument. A different argument. And there's nothing dismissive or rude about pointing this out; it's an important distinction.

And if you merely want me to uncritically accept this for the sake of argument, just so we can explore the potential ramifications, then just say that.

Deadite

09-11-13, 02:06 PM

I don't even what you two are arguing about anymore...

TONGO

09-17-13, 10:14 PM

To believe in no Higher Power of any sort necessitates that you also believe there is no such thing as Free Will, and that the choices you make each day were inevitably going to be made that way. As such, to be an Atheist you must logically concede that everything had to happen exactly the way it did, and that any choice anyone thinks they have is an illusion.

That is all. :)

Hm. You are assuming that fate is an actual thing then. So an atheist has no chance of altering his fate, the only way to alter his or her fate would be thru God, and that I dont believe.

To alter ones fate would mean doing something large, and out of character. To say that someone hundreds of pounds overweight cant ever lose that weight unless thru God. Many recovered addicts would agree with you as a higher power delivers them from a horrid outcome in 12 step programs. Violent people with violent upbringings would never have the chance to change their ways?

Ever hear the story of "that guy" who smokes 3 packs a day for 35 years, just decided to stop, and never smoked again. Many a high school fat boy has gone to the gym and worked off their weight. Church doesnt do it. Criminals, murderers, etc... have been horrified by their own actions and changed their ways. These things have all occured with no belief in a higher power.

Having said all that i do believe in God, and believe he helps those that dont have a clue about him. Depending on that persons actions, history, and mental makeup. Probably other things to I'd have no clue about. Everyones story is similar yet different. There is no absolute broad stroke of truth to life because life is too complex. Interesting stuff.

The Gunslinger45

09-17-13, 10:22 PM

This thread is over a decade old? WTF?

ezetuw

09-17-13, 10:42 PM

This thread is over a decade old? WTF?
Hehe, well it's one of those discussions where no one will ever back off, so...

Sexy Celebrity

09-17-13, 10:46 PM

You Probably Have No Free Will, But Don't Worry About It (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/you-probably-have-no-free-will-but-dont.html)

Anybody who believes in reductionism and that the standard model of particle physics is correct to excellent precision must come to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. Alas, denial of this conclusion is widely spread, documented in many attempts to redefine “free will” so that it can somehow be accommodated in our theories. I find it quite amusing to watch otherwise sensible physicists trying to wriggle out of the consequences of their own theories. We previously discussed Sean Carroll’s attempt (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2011/09/predetermined-lunch-and-moral.html), and now Carlo Rovelli has offered his thoughts on free will in the context of modern physics in a recent Edge essay (http://www.edge.org/conversation/free-will-determinism-quantum-theory-and-statistical-fluctuations-a-physicists-take).

Free will can only exist if there are different possible futures and you are able to influence which one becomes reality. This necessitates to begin with that there are different possible futures. In a deterministic theory, like all our classical theories, this just isn’t the case - there’s only one future, period. The realization that classically the future is fully determined by the presence goes back at least to Laplace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon) and it’s still as true today as it was then.

Quantum mechanics in the standard interpretation has an indeterministic element that is a popular hiding place for free will. But quantum mechanical indeterminism is fundamentally random (as opposed to random by lack of knowledge). It doesn’t matter how you define “you” (in the simplest case, think of a subsystem of the universe), “you” won’t be able to influence the future because nothing can. Quantum indeterminism is not influenced by anything, and what kind of decision making is that?

Another popular hiding place for free will is chaos. Yes, many systems in nature are chaotic and possibly the human mind has chaotic elements to it. In chaotic systems, even smallest mistakes in knowledge about the present will lead to large errors in the future. These systems rapidly become unpredictable because in practice measurement always contains small mistakes and uncertainties. But in principle chaos is entirely deterministic. There’s still only one future. It’s just that chaotic behavior spoils predictability in practice.

That brings us to what seems to me like the most common free will mirage, the argument that it is difficult if not impossible to make predictions about human behavior. Free will, in this interpretation, is that nobody, possibly not even you yourself, can tell in advance what you will do. That sounds good but is intellectually deeply unsatisfactory.

To begin with, it isn’t at all clear that it’s impossible to predict human behavior, it’s just presently not possible. Since ten thousand years ago people couldn’t predict lunar eclipses, this would mean the moon must have had free will back then. And who or what makes the prediction anyway? If no human can predict your behavior, but a computer cluster of an advanced alien civilization could, would you have free will? Would it disappear if the computer is switched on?

And be that as it may, these distractions don’t change anything about the fact that “you” didn’t have any influence on what happens in the future whether or not somebody else knew what you’ll do. Your brain is still but a machine acting on input to produce output. The evaluation of different courses of action can plausibly be interpreted as “making a choice,” but there’s no freedom to the result. This internal computation that evaluates the results of actions might be impossible to predict indeed, but this is clearly an illusion of freedom.

To add another buzzword, it also doesn’t help to refer to free will as an “emergent property”. Free will almost certainly is an emergent property, unless you want to argue that elementary particles also have free will. But emergent properties of deterministic systems still behave deterministically. In principle, you could do without the “emergent” variables and use the fundamental ones, describing eg the human brain in terms of the standard model. It’s just not very practical. So appealing to emergence doesn’t help, it just adds a layer of confusion.

Rovelli in his essay now offers a new free will argument that is interesting.

First he argues that free will can be executed when external contraints on choice are absent. He doesn’t explain what he means with “external constraints” though and I’m left somewhat confused about this. Is for example, alcohol intoxication a constraint that’s “external” to your decision making unit? Is your DNA an external constraint? Is a past event that induced stress trauma an external constraint? Be that as it may, this part of Rovelli’s argument is a rephrasing of the idea that free will means it isn’t possible to predict what course of action a person will take from exclusively external observation. As we’ve seen above, this still doesn’t mean there are different future options for you to choose from, it just means prediction is difficult.

Then Rovelli alludes to the above mentioned idea that free will is “emergent”, but he does so with a new twist. He argues that “mental states” are macroscopic and can be realized by many different microscopic arrangements. If one just uses the information in the mental states - which is what you might experience as “yourself” - then the outcome of your decisions might not be fully determined. Indeed, that might be so. But it’s like saying if you describe a forest as a lot of trees and disregard the details, then you’ll fail to predict an impending pest infection. Which brings us to the question whether forests have free will. And once again, failure to predict by disregarding part of the degrees of freedom in the initial state doesn’t open any future options.

In summary, according to our best present theories of nature humans don’t have free will in the sense explained above, which in my opinion is the only sensible meaning of the phrase. Now you could dismiss this and claim there must be something about nature then that these theories don’t correctly describe and that’s where free will hides. But that’s like claiming god hides there. It might be possible to construct theories of nature that allow for free will, as I suggested here (http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0720), but we presently have absolutely zero evidence that this is how nature works. For all we know, there just is no free will.

But don’t worry.

People are afraid of the absence of free will not because it’s an actual threat to well-being, but because it’s a thought alien to our self-perception. Most people experience the process of evaluating possible courses of action not as a computation, but as making a decision. This raises the fear that if they don’t have free will they can no longer make decisions. Of course that’s wrong.

To begin with, if there’s no free will, there has never been free will, and if you’ve had a pleasant and happy life so far there is really no reason why this should change. But besides this, you still make your decisions. In fact, you cannot not make decisions. Do you want to try?

And the often raised concern about moral hazard is plainly a red herring. There’s this idea that if people had no free will “they” could not be made responsible for their decisions. Scare quotes because this suggests there are two different parts of a person, one making a decision and the other one, blameless, not being able to affect that decision. People who commit crimes cause pain to other people, therefore we take actions to prevent and deter crime, for which we identify individuals who behave problematically and devise suitable reactions. But the problem is their behavior and that needs to be addressed regardless of whether “they” have a freedom in their decision.

I believe that instead of making life miserable accepting the absence of free will will improve our self-perception and with it mutual understanding and personal well-being. This acceptance lays a basis for curiosity about how the brain operates and what part of decision making is conscious. It raises awareness of the information that we receive and its effect on our thoughts and resulting actions. Accepting the absence of free will doesn’t change how you think, it changes how you think about how you think.

Yoda

09-17-13, 10:50 PM

To alter ones fate would mean doing something large, and out of character. To say that someone hundreds of pounds overweight cant ever lose that weight unless thru God.
This is not what I'm saying (though if it were, I'm pretty sure you'd find more "I changed my life" stories relating to religion than anything else, anyway). This is about determinism. I posted a bite-sized version of the argument here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=902541).

Yoda

09-17-13, 10:51 PM

Hehe, well it's one of those discussions where no one will ever back off, so...
There's some of that, but it's mainly that people keep stumbling upon the thread and replying after only reading the first post. There's some head-butting, totally, but there's also a ton of repetition wherein we have the whole argument over again when someone new finds it.

ashdoc

10-05-13, 03:20 PM

Deadite

10-05-13, 07:47 PM

I suspect freedom by its very nature must be relative. Everything we can do, will do, and ever did is limited by laws... of physics, chemistry, ect.

It's not that there's no choice but rather that choice itself imposes limits. Absolute freedom is impossible, a non sequitur. Choice without limits and consequences is not choice at all. It would be completely meaningless. That would be the illusion of free will...

Instead, a "middle ground" of relative freedom where choice does matter because it both imposes its effects and is imposed upon by a higher order of logical existence that subsumes possibilities, where cause and effect are eternally and continually in communication, unified, that is the one and only true home if not the very birth place of "free will" as more than a mere conceptual toy.

Pronstar

10-06-13, 05:29 AM

This thread is over a decade old? WTF?
This thread is a hundred decades old.

Cobpyth

10-06-13, 08:53 AM

what you say does not go for atheism but it certainly goes for hinduism---my religion .

hinduism believes in the philosophy of karma---that is , what you do and what happens to you has already been decided beforehand and you cannot change your destiny ( karma ) .

This thread isn't really about determinism as such. It's about the lack of an individual steering wheel of the ship that is 'you' if you don't believe that there is anything 'more' to yourself than just brains. This would automatically imply that we don't really have control over ourselves and that we're just working as a result of the algorithms that take place inside our heads.
We would all be like rudderless ships at sea, without having any control of where we're going.

thank god i dont believe in this and i am an atheist :D

Good one.

Sexy Celebrity

10-06-13, 09:15 AM

This thread isn't really about determinism as such. It's about the lack of an individual steering wheel of the ship that is 'you' if you don't believe that there is anything 'more' to yourself than just brains. This would automatically imply that we don't really have control over ourselves and that we're just working as a result of the algorithms that take place inside our heads. We would all be like rudderless ships at sea.

I wouldn't say we're rudderless ships, though. I also wouldn't say that we're without a steering wheel. It's just both of those things have to be built into our mind. Automatically, I believe everyone's got them, but everyone's steering wheel is different. Some are stronger than others, some are weaker. We have steering wheels and we have drivers, but those things develop and enhance themselves as we go along through life and pick up things. If you pick up the wrong things, you don't enhance as well. Ultimately, yes, there's no deep control in how it all turns out, for where we drive is out of our control at the most basic level, but there is a sense of control -- an illusion -- going on in our minds, even if we're not really in control of that.

I'm "controlling" what I'm doing now -- and yet I'm also not. I have an algorithm of control. But that's not free will because I cannot control what I'll think or say or do next.

You can't ever really experience free will because at the basic level, you're not in control of your mind. You can FEEL like you have control of it, but it's mainly because you identify with your mind. Your mind is also something that you develop throughout life. Though you cannot really control how it develops. But your mind -- which you are ultimately not in control of -- can "steer" in whatever direction it's been developed to go.

When I tell you to think of a fruit, your mind "steers" to the fruit database of your mind and selects a fruit. "I'm thinking of an apple," you might say. Someone else might say, "I'm thinking of Sexy Celebrity." You "steer" but you have no control over what you drive to and select. Why didn't I steer over to plums just a moment ago? Plums didn't come to my mind. Apples and myself came to mind. I steered over to another fruit example and came up with plums, but all those actions I just took -- including steering over to the fruit database again to select another fruit -- did not require any free will. They just happened. I had no control over it.

I honestly can't believe more people don't accept this. I think the only reason people have such a hard time with it is probably because of religion and how it's made us view ourselves. Culture has grown around religion and this has influenced how we see ourselves as human beings. But if we were born into a world where religious beliefs about what we are as humans didn't come into play -- the idea that we have souls, the idea that we have free will -- I'm sure people could easily accept this no free thing as truth.

It's crazy to me that even atheists can still believe in free will. Miss Vicky is an atheist and I said to her, "Look, lady, you really ought to not believe in free will," but she stubbornly persists in believing it. I wonder what it would take to change the algorithms in her mind. I have much work to do to her!

Sexy Celebrity

10-06-13, 09:56 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11454&stc=1&d=1381063504

Now here is a picture of a mouth biting into a red hot chili pepper.

Can you feel the heat? I can.

Would you say I had free will in deciding to post this random picture?

True, it crosses my mind that I could post this or I could not post this... I could delete this post and just forget about it.

Why am I gonna post this if I do? Why a mouth with a chili pepper? Why did I even want to do this?

I have no idea.

I could come up with a reasonable explanation, but really, this all happened accidentally. Or, actually, I should say it was determined, but it was determined at a level that's so hard to understand and figure out how it could be determined. But it absolutely was determined in some way.

I have no free will in posting this picture of a woman's mouth biting into a red hot chili pepper. Enjoy.

Now try it -- post something random. Try to figure out why you posted whatever you did over everything else you could have possibly posted.

Here -- I'll do it again:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11455&stc=1&d=1381064036

Sigourney Weaver wearing headphones.

Why am I posting such randomness?

Is this really being done out of my own free will???

One more -- I cannot stop:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11456&stc=1&d=1381064142

Bags of cereal.

I'm posting bags of cereal!

Sexy Celebrity

10-06-13, 10:05 AM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=11457&stc=1&d=1381064527

Yoda created MovieForums.com.

Why?

Explain all you want, but why didn't Yoda create a totally different website? Something not about movies, perhaps. Why did he even make this site at all?

Did he really make this site out of his own free will?

What if MovieForums.com never happened? It very well could have never been. But it's here. Deal with it.

evillemachine

10-14-13, 08:53 PM

Yoda

10-14-13, 08:56 PM

I suspect you may be the latest in a very long line of people who's replied to express disagreement after only reading the first post. ;)

This is an argument about materialistic determinism. Here's a summary of that argument, which may not be entirely evident in the first post:

...if all things are physical matter, and all physical matter is bound by physical laws to react in certain ways, this would include the matter in your brain, giving it no more actual choice about anything than a rock has when you drop it. Hence, determinism.
If you would like to take issue with that thinking, specifically, have at it.

McConnaughay

10-14-13, 09:09 PM

I don't know if I believe that everything is predetermined, but I know for a fact that everyone is an *******. Especially me. But mostly you. Yes, you.

evillemachine

10-15-13, 07:34 AM

I suspect you may be the latest in a very long line of people who's replied to express disagreement after only reading the first post. ;)

This is an argument about materialistic determinism. Here's a summary of that argument, which may not be entirely evident in the first post:

If you would like to take issue with that thinking, specifically, have at it.

No, I don't take issue with another's opinion, that's what individual freedom of thought is all about and must be respected. I'm not very good at arguing so I'd make a weak verbal foe, I'm afraid.

Mesmerized

04-06-14, 06:27 AM

Deadite

04-06-14, 10:35 AM

I suspect you may be the latest in a very long line of people who's replied to express disagreement after only reading the first post. ;)

This is an argument about materialistic determinism. Here's a summary of that argument, which may not be entirely evident in the first post:

If you would like to take issue with that thinking, specifically, have at it.

If you take the implications gleaned from quantum mechanics at all seriously, then there are sophisticated arguments to be had about non-deterministic aspects of reality, whether innate to and/or emergent from "material" or due to some deeper paradoxical features of reality such as entanglement, uncertainty and de facto recursivity of causality.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 05:18 AM

...if all things are physical matter, and all physical matter is bound by physical laws to react in certain ways, this would include the matter in your brain, giving it no more actual choice about anything than a rock has when you drop it. Hence, determinism.

Being an atheist does not mean that one takes only 'physical matter' into account and disqualifies all other possible explanations (minus spirituality) in order to explain our will. The brain is such a highly complex organ that it's not possible to automatically conclude that its functions are subject to only physical laws. However, a theist is certain of free will because his doctrine cannot allow for the lack of it in order to work. As I said before, without choice he cannot be rewarded or punished for his actions. Unless of course he concedes that his divine being is not omnibenevolent, or else he has to question omniscience, but no religion to my knowledge can accept either.

Hence theism automatically implies free will while atheism need not necessarily imply or disqualify free will.

Great thread, btw. :) I had never given much thought about religion and it's impact on free will - always saw them as separate studies.

mlaturno

04-09-14, 05:23 AM

Yoda

04-09-14, 09:16 AM

If you take the implications gleaned from quantum mechanics at all seriously, then there are sophisticated arguments to be had about non-deterministic aspects of reality, whether innate to and/or emergent from "material" or due to some deeper paradoxical features of reality such as entanglement, uncertainty and de facto recursivity of causality.
I don't know that I do take those implications too seriously, but for anyone who does, it doesn't really change the conclusion, because "non-deterministic" isn't the same thing as "allows for choice." It just swaps determinism for randomness (again, as far as we can tell), and both make choice impossible.

Cobpyth

04-09-14, 09:20 AM

:facepalm:

isn't yoda supposed to be wise?

I suspect you may be the latest in a very long line of people who's replied to express disagreement after only reading the first post. ;)

This is an argument about materialistic determinism. Here's a summary of that argument, which may not be entirely evident in the first post:

...if all things are physical matter, and all physical matter is bound by physical laws to react in certain ways, this would include the matter in your brain, giving it no more actual choice about anything than a rock has when you drop it. Hence, determinism.

If you would like to take issue with that thinking, specifically, have at it.

...

Yoda

04-09-14, 09:27 AM

Being an atheist does not mean that one takes only 'physical matter' into account and disqualifies all other possible explanations (minus spirituality) in order to explain our will. The brain is such a highly complex organ that it's not possible to automatically conclude that its functions are subject to only physical laws.
First off, I should note that by "atheism," I'm really talking about materialism, but here's so much overlap between the two terms that I've only had to point this out a handful of times throughout the thread.

Second, whether or not they have to "automatically conclude" it, it's the only conclusion they have any evidence for. So if they fancy themselves any kind of empiricist--and again, there's almost total overlap there--there's really no serious basis for arbitrarily excluding just the brain.

However, a theist is certain of free will because his doctrine cannot allow for the lack of it in order to work. As I said before, without choice he cannot be rewarded or punished for his actions. Unless of course he concedes that his divine being is not omnibenevolent, or else he has to question omniscience, but no religion to my knowledge can accept either.
This isn't quite true--many religions (and even subsets of Christianity, like Calvinism) do, and have corresponding explanations. We can get into these if you like, but I thought it important to point out that this is far from settled even among theists.

Great thread, btw. :) I had never given much thought about religion and it's impact on free will - always saw them as separate studies.
Glad you like it. And yeah, that's pretty much why I created it. The two are very intertwined but are usually treated separately.

Yoda

04-09-14, 09:27 AM

Heh, Cob beat me to it--that's exactly what I was going to quote.

Justify thy erroneous facepalm, sir, by making an argument of some kind.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 10:20 AM

First off, I should note that by "atheism," I'm really talking about materialism, but here's so much overlap between the two terms that I've only had to point this out a handful of times throughout the thread.

Second, whether or not they have to "automatically conclude" it, it's the only conclusion they have any evidence for. So if they fancy themselves any kind of empiricist--and again, there's almost total overlap there--there's really no serious basis for arbitrarily excluding just the brain.

It's rather peculiar that the behaviour of almost all objects in the known universe can be predicted by natural laws. But once we start analysing the animal brain, no empirical data could fully account for its behaviour. Deduction cannot be used to explain everything; though it may seem only fair to draw comparisons between the brain and the rock or to any known material. Until there is substantial evidence to prove that materialism holds true even for thoughts, feelings, etc., its a priori logical fallacy.

This isn't quite true--many religions (and even subsets of Christianity, like Calvinism) do, and have corresponding explanations. We can get into these if you like, but I thought it important to point out that this is far from settled even among theists.

Well, I'm curious to know these "explanations". That your fate is already predetermined before you're born, that your free will is just an illusion, so much for an all-loving god. Does this make god deterministic as well? Haha.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 10:37 AM

To avoid future confusion, this thread ought to be retitled "Materialism automatically disqualifies free will."

Yoda

04-09-14, 10:38 AM

It's rather peculiar that the behaviour of almost all objects in the known universe can be predicted by natural laws. But once we start analysing the animal brain, no empirical data could fully account for its behaviour. Deduction cannot be used to explain everything; though it may seem only fair to draw comparisons between the brain and the rock or to any known material. Until there is substantial evidence to prove that materialism holds true even for thoughts, feelings, etc., its a priori logical fallacy.
This is all well and good, but it's at odds with a core atheistic argument: that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the idea that the little space between our ears is exempt from all the other observable physical laws of the universe is extraordinary indeed. Belief requires evidence, not just an absence of disproof.

We can probably construct a person who is technically an atheist but still has some way to believe in the possibility of free will, but such a person would need to have an impossibly high standard of evidence that it would preclude them from believing much of anything.

Well, I'm curious to know these "explanations". That your fate is already predetermined before you're born, that your free will is just an illusion, so much for an all-loving god. Does this make god deterministic as well? Haha.
Lots of people think so, yeah! The crazy thing about this topic is that you can get fervernt agreement and disagreement from both sides.

Anyway, one such explanation is that it's meaningless to talk about cause and effect to a Being outside of time, and that there isn't therefore any contradiction between choice and determinism. This is pretty much impossible to conceive, but it's impossible to conceive in the way a third dimension would be impossible to conceive to a Flatlander.

I don't know if I believe this, but I can't find fault with it.

Yoda

04-09-14, 10:39 AM

To avoid future confusion, this thread ought to be retitled "Materialism automatically disqualifies free will."
Feels weird to rename it after like a decade, but yeah, I suppose so.

Then again, it can be useful to spot which people just read the first post and reply immediately. :laugh: Which is a disconcertingly large number.

EDIT: worth noting, though, that I said "Higher Power of any sort" in the initial post.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 11:04 AM

This is all well and good, but it's at odds with a core atheistic argument: that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the idea that the little space between our ears is exempt from all the other observable physical laws of the universe is extraordinary indeed. Belief requires evidence, not just an absence of disproof.

Perhaps the "extraordinary claims" aren't so extraordinary afterall once we consider the a posteriori evidence of emotions, thoughts, which are exclusive and unpredictable and vastly different from the observation of basic physical laws. In fact, physical laws/biological laws are not adequate to explain everything. Nobody knows what quantum mechanics really is, what dark energy which constitutes 70% of the universe really is, or what that 10-watt operating object in our skulls is. The atheist himself is fully aware of this.

Lots of people think so, yeah! The crazy thing about this topic is that you can get fervernt agreement and disagreement from both sides.

Anyway, one such explanation is that it's meaningless to talk about cause and effect to a Being outside of time, and that there isn't therefore any contradiction between choice and determinism. This is pretty much impossible to conceive, but it's impossible to conceive in the way a third dimension would be impossible to conceive to a Flatlander.

I don't know if I believe this, but I can't find fault with it.

Yes I'm not disagreeing with you that there are differing opinions. It's my personal believe that a theist must believe in free will. I thought it's in their doctrine that a god with free will created the universe and imparted free will onto his creations. If there's no free will, we also have to be open to the possibility that a deterministic God "deterministically" created deterministic creatures. This is not what the major religions say. Unless it's a deistic believe or "god" but then it's just as reducible to nothing at all.

:)

bluedeed

04-09-14, 12:46 PM

Quantum Mechanics is the 20th century's most confusing religion

Yoda

04-09-14, 01:12 PM

Perhaps the "extraordinary claims" aren't so extraordinary afterall once we consider the a posteriori evidence of emotions, thoughts, which are exclusive and unpredictable and vastly different from the observation of basic physical laws.
If feelings can be a rational basis for belief, then what grounds does the atheist have for disagreeing with the theist? Suddenly there's no daylight between the atheist's belief and the person who coverts because they had an emotional experience in a Church.

In fact, physical laws/biological laws are not adequate to explain everything. Nobody knows what quantum mechanics really is, what dark energy which constitutes 70% of the universe really is, or what that 10-watt operating object in our skulls is. The atheist himself is fully aware of this.
Well, if the atheist is you, then yes. :) But I don't know how much company you have in that regard.

I think the issue with what you're saying here is not that it's wrong--to the contrary, I find it refreshingly humble and it's what I think real skepticism should look like--but that it seems to apply to everything. If we can believe in the existence of things based only on the fact that we're not sure they're false, or that they we might discover they're true later, then skeptics will have to eat that Flying Spaghetti Monster they keep trying to serve me. ;)

Yes I'm not disagreeing with you that there are differing opinions. It's my personal believe that a theist must believe in free will. I thought it's in their doctrine that a god with free will created the universe and imparted free will onto his creations. If there's no free will, we also have to be open to the possibility that a deterministic God "deterministically" created deterministic creatures. This is not what the major religions say. Unless it's a deistic believe or "god" but then it's just as reducible to nothing at all.
Hmmm, I'd have to ask where they say this, and which doctrines you're thinking of, then. It's certainly a common belief, but it's not a universal one. There's a lot of theogological writing and thought on all sides of the issue.

But before you do, please note the distinction between "we're deterministic creatures" (which is what you said above and is, indeed, widely rejected) and "there's not necessarily a contradiction between free will and omniscience" (which is what I'm saying, and which is debated).

kkl10

04-09-14, 04:34 PM

Very interesting topic. :)

To avoid future confusion, this thread ought to be retitled "Materialism automatically disqualifies free will."

I would agree. Confusion didn't contribute much constructive discussion from the few pages I've glanced.

But even then one might not be able to logically imply that Materialism automatically disqualifies Free Will. Because the nature of "matter" itself is not even fully understood (agreed upon) and quantum mechanics just made the concept even more elusive.

People ought to agree on a proper definition of "Materialism" before starting a debate but that could also prove to be impossible. Assuming a definition which implies determinism logically renders Free Will to an impossibility, but some would find that too convinient. :p

I'm Agnostic with more inclination towards Atheism, I am skeptical towards Deities, "Free Will" and "Self" (by Occar's razor and Logic in some degree or another). Nothing more than just a skeptical really, but I fancy these discussions.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 04:36 PM

I think this thread should be called "There's No Free Will, You're An Idiot For Believing Otherwise" but that's just me.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 08:15 PM

i'll say this, i agree that people may often be prone to believing they have more control than they really do. but to say definitively say there is no choice/free will, is to me, sorta a pseudo-elaborate way to say you've given up & aren't taking responsibility for your choices anymore

That's an attitude you could have about not having free will. But it has nothing to do with the reality of not having free will, which would be a fact of life, which I say it is, because everything we do is determined on an unconscious level in our brain before we're conscious of it. It is simply a fact of nature, a function of our brain, that proves that we do not have free will.

Anything else is non-scientific and going into the realms of philosophy/religion, which probes into the idea of having a soul and all that. The brain has been shown to make up our mind before "we" know what our brain has decided on. It's mysterious how the brain does this, but so is all of life. My case is that free will doesn't work/doesn't have any truth to it because we DO live in a deterministic universe. The brain determines our "choices" and actions for us unconsciously and it feels like a conscious choice. WE are a product of our brain. Your identity and everything that your brain knows and can make you do/think is up there in your brain, and we have no power over what it's really going to do next, what it's going to churn out. We can only guess and make predictions based on observation, based on study. Psychology is a form of this kind of guesswork, a study into the chaos of our minds, which we don't have control over. But so is neuroscience and everything else that involves studying the brain.

Cobpyth

04-09-14, 08:37 PM

where is this proven

It isn't.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 08:50 PM

where is this proven

There have been studies demonstrating it and if you search the web, you can find videos and articles about it. I suppose the scientific community at large hasn't all come out and declared it proven, but they are starting to, and I imagine that once it takes more hold, there will of course be lots of protests to it, just as there is now with evolution and everything.

To me, now, it's obvious. The brain is responsible for everything. People with damaged brains can only perform in ways their damaged brains can perform. We are the same, even though we have healthy brains -- we will just perform better.

Your thoughts come to you automatically. You do not decide on what pops in your head. Similarly, you also don't decide on what to say or do. Same rule applies to them as to the other thoughts in your head that just pop in there. Suddenly thinking about your mom or a song or a movie you'd like to go see? Suddenly thinking about stopping by the grocery store and buying a steak for dinner? It's all popping in your head automatically. Everything is happening without any control being directed by you, even if you feel like you are directing the control. I can suddenly make myself start thinking about horses, but why am I thinking about horses? Why was I not at that moment thinking about cars or buses or roller skates or afros on black women? Where did all of that come from? Not from "me." From my brain. From the unconscious control my brain has over "me."

kkl10

04-09-14, 09:01 PM

but to definitively say there is no choice/free will, is to me, sorta a pseudo-elaborate way to say you've given up & aren't taking responsibility for your choices anymore

I don't think that's a fair assumption, if you read the previous page of this thread you will find some explanation towards SC view that there's no Free Will, it's simply the result of a reducionist materialism reasoning, it has nothing to do with "Bah! I'm not responsible for whatever I do, pffft" sort of attitude.

The thing is, just because a reducionistic or deterministic paradigma scratches off Free Will, it doesn't necessarily mean that Free Will doesn't actually exist.

Because what reason do we have to assume the Universe is actually governed by a reducionist logic? How do we know that the Universe is only determined by Logic as we know (conceive) it? How do we know that the Universe is just "matter"?
We don't know, because there's a lot about the Universe that is still a complete mystery and cannot be explained by any Theory or Logic...

It only makes sense to believe in what we know as a fact. But most people believe in what they want to believe... they are not satisfied with just the facts. So believing in no Free Will is just as much of a fallacious assumption as believing in Free Will, even if it's the only logical way to see it.

EDIT: Ohps, I failed to see the replies before mine, lol. Apologize if my reply is pointless now...

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 09:14 PM

Because what reason do we have to assume the Universe is actually governed by a reducionist logic? How do we know that the Universe is only determined by Logic as we know (conceive) it? How do we know that the Universe is just "matter"?
We don't know, because there's a lot about the Universe that is still a complete mystery and cannot be explained by any Theory or Logic...
EDIT: Ohps, I failed to see the replies before mine, lol. Apologize if my reply is pointless now...

Even if there's more to the universe, or more to US, like a soul or whatever, the fact is that we're not really in charge of ourselves and our actions, thoughts, whatever. Anything that might be operating behind the scenes still doesn't give us free will. What if we have a soul and it's making the decisions for us? What if it's causing us to have random thoughts in our head, leading us to certain actions and everything else, etc.?

You still have no idea - AND NO CONTROL - of it doing that. A ghost in the machine is not connected to us. Is not giving us free will.

Similarly, even if the universe is designed in some super mysterious way that we don't understand fully yet, what we do know doesn't make room for free will. The logic is that free will does not exist. That's a fact, I say. It exists in the known universe. Just as if I took a gun and blew your brains out, you would be dead. You would be dead in this world. Even if you do live after death in another realm, you are dead in this world and can't come back. There's no mystery there. Some facts are just facts and there's nothing more to them.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 09:46 PM

why is your brain not you?

It just means that the idea of yourself is merely a construct -- what you identify as "yourself" is essentially a program, or a feeling. Like... I don't know who you are. Let's call you Nostromo. You identify yourself as Nostromo.

Nostromo is not in charge of what Nostromo does, because there is no free will. When you do something, when you say something, when you feel a certain way about anything... I'm sure you think, "Well, that's just me. That's Nostromo. I did that." You have a personal feeling with yourself. Nostromo is you, a person responsible for whatever Nostromo does.

But really, Nostromo is just a way to identify you. Really you are just a human creature with a brain that's operating as it wants to operate. "Nostromo" isn't a free person in charge here. Nostromo is the prisoner of Nostromo's brain.

Your brain IS you. It is completely you. But, see, you're not separate from your brain. That, I think, is how most people who don't understand this/don't know this feel. I know I felt it before I knew all this. People think they are MORE than their brain. Especially if you believe in souls, but even if you don't. People think they can control what they do. Control how they are.

The only thing that happens is... you can be trained. You can be trained to be different. To change or whatever. There's no free will in being trained, but it does happen. As I've said before, we're changing all the time. The littlest things can change us. Our brains are constantly being affected by stimuli, changing us and forming us.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 10:08 PM

It's not that you can't change, but the fact that you kept changing your opinion too much wasn't your fault.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 10:38 PM

but to definitively say there is no choice/free will, is to me, sorta a pseudo-elaborate way to say you've given up & aren't taking responsibility for your choices anymore

Does knowing that you have no free will mean that you're no longer responsible for your actions? NO.

The morality of our actions does not end with the possession of the "will", it ends with the consequence they have on others. If my "free will" infringes or denies the "free will" of others, then the action cannot be justified. Consequently if free will is an illusion, the body cannot abscond from the choices it makes on other bodies.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 11:00 PM

where is this proven

Brain scans reveal that there is a delay between conscious action and brain activity. This phenomenon has already been shown in various neuroscientific experiments. The results show that individuals respond approximately 500ms after a binary decision has been made by the brain. The impications are obvious - by the time we’re conscious (meaning fully aware) of having made a “choice”, that choice has already been made for us.

*EDIT* I just found that they are called the "Libet Experiments" conducted in the 80s, named after Benjamin Libet.

Sexy Celebrity

04-09-14, 11:21 PM

I don't believe that. The brain's conditioning can change. That's not what I've been saying.

Tyler1

04-09-14, 11:23 PM

conditioned? are you serious? this thread is about free choice and nothing to do with conditioning. your argument does not make any sense.

VFN

04-09-14, 11:35 PM

If it were conclusively proven that there's no free will, would that make things easier when I can't decide what I want for dinner?

kkl10

04-10-14, 06:02 AM

You still have no idea - AND NO CONTROL - of it doing that. A ghost in the machine is not connected to us. Is not giving us free will.

Similarly, even if the universe is designed in some super mysterious way that we don't understand fully yet, what we do know doesn't make room for free will. The logic is that free will does not exist. That's a fact, I say.

This is the fallacy right there. Working logically only with the little we know doesn't ensure any truth.

Grabbing your previous paragraphs, yes it's indeed true that we cannot consciously control nor dissect the source of our actions and thoughts, but this doesn't necessarily mean there's no Free Will. There might still be Free Will in this body but I'm just not conscious of it. In fact, I could argue that the only way to have Free Will is to not be fully aware nor to have control over the unconscious brain processes that preceed an action because otherwise one's decision making would be constrained by our own intellectual logic limitations. Sounds strange doesn't it?

I think we ought to agree on a proper definition of Free Will before further debate. :)
Or at least agree on what the decision making process has to be unconstrained from for it to be "Free".

Sexy Celebrity

04-10-14, 11:07 AM

This is the fallacy right there. Working logically only with the little we know doesn't ensure any truth.

Grabbing your previous paragraphs, yes it's indeed true that we cannot consciously control nor dissect the source of our actions and thoughts, but this doesn't necessarily mean there's no Free Will. There might still be Free Will in this body but I'm just not conscious of it. In fact, I could argue that the only way to have Free Will is to not be fully aware nor to have control over the unconscious brain processes that preceed an action because otherwise one's decision making would be constrained by our own intellectual logic limitations. Sounds strange doesn't it?

I think we ought to agree on a proper definition of Free Will before further debate. :)
Or at least agree on what the decision making process has to be unconstrained from for it to be "Free".

Well, to not be conscious of the fact that you don't have free will is simply ... to not know it! Which is how I used to be before I became convinced that free will doesn't exist.

That is not the miracle proof of free will, though. I could not be conscious of the fact that we live on a planet in outer space, and that outer space is incredibly dark and incredibly vast -- I'm sure I existed this way at a year old, maybe two years old. But not knowing the truth -- or lying to yourself -- is not to key to something being true. It doesn't change facts.

Nostromo87

04-10-14, 11:38 AM

here's the thing tho, if you can't actually prove that there is no Free Will, your ideology is no better than any of the religions... that claim to be true, but aren't proven

until this is actually proven this whole 'There is No Free Will' thing is just another religion/cult

and you, Sexy Celebrity, are a follower of it. no different than a Christian is a follower of Christianity, a Muslim to Islam, a Hindu to Hinduism, etc.

Powdered Water

04-10-14, 04:48 PM

Ah, but you can change your mind within your own destiny.

Love is a strange thing because in it's process, in order to know true love, you must always think back about decisions you made in the relationship with some regret. You then must decide what changes to make. This enables you to move on to the next one with a greater promise of success. Or strengthen the one you already have. Love is the higher power, and we all believe in it, even if we don't call it God.

This is going to be the best post in this thread. I say it should be closed. What else can be added to this?

Tyler1

04-10-14, 05:14 PM

80% of this thread consists of random people spewing their projectile vomit, but the essence of the thread - subject itself - still fuels the ongoing debate between philosophers and scientists to this day, and the common folk would do better if they actually dedicate more time to research into the subject.

Deadite

04-10-14, 05:49 PM

Let's not get elitist. People are free to add their thoughts as they see fit. ;)

Anyway I do find SC's ad nauseaming irksome but besides his style he is adding some interesting stuff. I'm probably uncommon in that I enjoy these kinds of philosophical problems, but I can see how some folks get heated and disturbed by the ideas they read. I myself care more about the structure of an argument than its content and I dislike it when I sense any browbeating.

I was thinking about Harris though earlier, and it occurred to me that it's a bit absurd how we judge and debate free will within systems we had no say in, with language and concepts we were taught, all ultimately within a universe which itself has determined the range of our freedom if not our individual choices. In a way, it makes you wonder if all of life's development could be a struggle toward increasing self-determination and if there is any absolute limit to that. Life always seems to be about finding ways to thrive and overcome and perhaps striving for ever-greater complexity, self-definition, and mastery of limits imposed by environment all could be indicative of at least a tendency toward free will, if not free will per se.

Deadite

04-10-14, 06:16 PM

I don't know that I do take those implications too seriously, but for anyone who does, it doesn't really change the conclusion, because "non-deterministic" isn't the same thing as "allows for choice." It just swaps determinism for randomness (again, as far as we can tell), and both make choice impossible.

Well, there are those who do take those implications seriously but fair enough if you don't. I'd just like to add that I think the term randomness may be somewhat misleading here, just as the original thread title was somewhat misleading. I don't think we can immediately conclude what non-determinacy allows (hence implications) for nor should we automatically equate that with absolute randomness in the sense of spontaneous non sequiturs "ruling" everything. I try to be careful not to lump reality into extremes that fit my previous conceptions since it is always entirely possible that what I'm trying to understand may require understanding on its own terms, not shoehorning into established compartments although those may be useful to some extent in reaching understanding (hopefully!)

Deadite

04-10-14, 06:22 PM

You can think philosophically all you want. You can twiddle your thumbs and sit back on a lazy day and THINK AND THINK AND THINK AND THINK AND THINK!

You can think out your ass and beyond the limits -- IT WON'T CHANGE A THING.

Laws are laws. Laws of nature are laws. Free will is not a law of nature. There is no free will in nature.

You shove some good points down our throats as usual, SC. I guess it comes down to a personal decision whether to accept the evidence so far with finality as fact or to keep an open mind about it. :)

Nostromo87

04-10-14, 06:22 PM

Where's the proof that we have free will?

Everyone asks for the proof that there's no free will. Where the hell is the scientific proof that we have it?

the burden of proof lies on you, bc you are the one declaring this grande universal truth that 'There is No Free Will'

saying it's true and that science 'is proving it' isn't proof. 'just go research some articles & watch some videos online.' it's vague

interestingly, SexyC may have more in common with the devout & outspoken Christan, or the devout & outspoken Muslim, or the devout & outspoken Hindu than he cares to consider

he's so sure his belief system is the best one. he can't fathom a universe where there is free will. so he is outspoken 'spreading the gospel' of his beliefs. it's no different than what the devout members of a religion/cult do to 'spread the word'

and the common thread is that all these different groups are CERTAIN their beliefs are the right ones

Deadite

04-10-14, 06:39 PM

Sam Harris and Science shall smite you for your heresy.

Yoda

04-10-14, 07:39 PM

This isn't a philosophical problem, though.

I'm adament that thinking philosophically about the "oh, so complicated problem of free will" is not how to go about this.

It is a SCIENTIFIC issue. It is as scientific as learning about nature and the cosmos and our human bodies and the study of animals and the sky and trees and everything else!
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role science plays in this discussion. You see the research that says a choice is evident in the brain slightly before the person is conscious of making it, which ends the debate for you. This isn't terribly unreasonable by itself. What is unreasonable is assuming this decision itself is scientific.

Science can (possibly) tell us if the beginnings of a choice come before our full awareness of it. But it can't tell us if that's a good way to define choice to begin with. It can't tell us if not being immediately conscious of a choice is the same thing as not making it. It can't tell us if lower consciousness choices are the same thing as unconscious choices. These are questions of definition and philosophy, not science. Suggesting they have scientific answers is like saying you can prove how warm it has to be to quality as "hot."

Also, the more I read about the specific experiments, the more obvious it seems that they have other potential interpretations. They are not half as conclusive as you seem to be suggesting. They are certainly consistent with the claims you're making, but they are not inconsistent with all of the alternatives.

But really, even if you disagree with all of this, it should be obvious that telling people they're wrong over and over--yes, even with those persuasive capital letters--isn't going to do anything. And you shouldn't expect it to.

Deadite

04-10-14, 08:39 PM

You guys think you're being funny voluntarily but really you have no choice. :(

Sexy Celebrity

04-10-14, 11:01 PM

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the role science plays in this discussion. You see the research that says a choice is evident in the brain slightly before the person is conscious of making it, which ends the debate for you. This isn't terribly unreasonable by itself. What is unreasonable is assuming this decision itself is scientific.

Science can (possibly) tell us if the beginnings of a choice come before our full awareness of it. But it can't tell us if that's a good way to define choice to begin with. It can't tell us if not being immediately conscious of a choice is the same thing as not making it. It can't tell us if lower consciousness choices are the same thing as unconscious choices. These are questions of definition and philosophy, not science. Suggesting they have scientific answers is like saying you can prove how warm it has to be to quality as "hot."

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, especially in regards to "lower consciousness choices" and unconscious choices.

Also, the more I read about the specific experiments, the more obvious it seems that they have other potential interpretations. They are not half as conclusive as you seem to be suggesting. They are certainly consistent with the claims you're making, but they are not inconsistent with all of the alternatives.

Well, I don't know what the alternatives or where you're coming with this exactly is.

But really, even if you disagree with all of this, it should be obvious that telling people they're wrong over and over--yes, even with those persuasive capital letters--isn't going to do anything. And you shouldn't expect it to.

Why not? It certainly could. That's where you and I differ on opinions. I absolutely think that maybe one of these days my screaming might influence people, if it isn't already.

Deadite

04-11-14, 12:47 AM

We have no choice but to deny the truth and SC has no choice but to repeat himself. Forever. There is no way out of this tangent universe time loop, no Jake Jillyboy to take a jet engine to the face and save us all. :(

Doom.

Doom.

Forever. :(

Sexy Celebrity

04-11-14, 01:31 AM

I really do think that it's just not easy for you guys to accept the idea that there's no free will because of the makeup of your mind. I can see myself not believing it all really either years ago. Maybe. If I did, I would have attached a more spiritual/religious/God thing to it, I'm sure. I kinda do now, even.

I've actually been open to this possibility before I discovered Sam Harris and before I read his Free Will book. It was an internet search I made on this subject that led to me finding all of this stuff last year, anyway. In fact, it was around this time last year. But BEFORE that happened, I really wasn't convinced of it like I am now. That book and reading what other people said about this changed everything. I did suspect that we were basically under the control of our brain, genes, etc. But I didn't really realize... how much so. It never really dawned on me that everything I was thinking and everything I was doing was really being created first and foremost by my brain, without my control of it. I should have figured that out, though.

It makes total sense to me. We are just evolving creatures, changing and adapting every day. You learn something new -- it's added to the web of your self. It's like a patchwork quilt -- you just keep adding patches and patches and patches that add on to the total you. All I can possibly do depends on what patches I have. A year from now, I'll have new patches. I and everyone else constantly evolves. If you don't have a certain patch yet, that's not available to you. You can't consciously know something until it's patched onto you. And it's really random in regards to how you end up patched. Because you're never in control at all. Something you do comes from another patch of yourself. So, if you guys can't accept that there's free will, it's because you haven't been patched yet to accept it as the truth. I cannot control if you'll be patched or not and neither can you. If it happens, it happens.

Mesmerized

04-11-14, 02:40 AM

1731 "Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1731.htm

Ðèstîñy

04-11-14, 06:56 AM

"Luther argued that although human beings could will, they could only will evil. Anything good that appeared to come from humanity actually came from God; the human creature is merely an agent of divine providence."

Thanks guys! Now I am seriously confused about my religion.

Seriously!

Mesmerized

05-09-14, 01:49 PM

I disagree with Luther. I believe man can will good as well as evil. Free will is given to us so that we may love God freely. He doesn't force us to do anything.

"And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment." ~ John 5:29

"Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good." ~ Romans 12:21

"Turn away from evil and do good: seek after peace and pursue it." ~ Psalms 34:14

"Glory to God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good will." ~ Luke 2:14

Deadite

05-09-14, 02:36 PM

Damn you, atheism! Give me back my freeeeeeedoooooooooom!!!!!

Deadite

05-09-14, 02:39 PM