Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Free Will - does it exist?

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:30    As there seem to be one or two interested in the questions: What is free will? Is free will real or illusory? What bearing does free will have on the validity of intelligent design? It seems to make sense to have a separate thread.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:34    Thank you, Alan. Also, we've branched out into can it be reconciled with predestination in a religious sense. edit to change Allen to Alan. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:35    Okay, so I've just moved a highlighter across my desk from one spot to another simply because I have free will, or I think I do. There was no motivation or utility to it..unless I wanted to feel good about my free will? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,12:48    Wikipedia qualifies free will to the 'rational' agent's freedom to choose. But if it's got to be 'rational', how free is it? I guess everybody would concede that humans - like all other life forms - have quite limited degrees of freedom per their actions. A plant just can't pack up and move when the neighborhood turns ugly. And all our choices are shaped strongly by our experiences, our circumstances, our knowledge, our range of options, and our abilities. Sum of histories sort of thing... I've occasionally considered that there may be only one really free choice available to humans - the choice not to exist. And even that choice is predicated on conditions and circumstance, and isn't generally considered 'rational' at all.

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:20    If you haven't done it already read Daniel Dennett on free will - particularly Freedom Evolves. He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:26    Quote (Mark Frank @ Feb. 18 2010,13:20) If you haven't done it already read Daniel Dennett on free will - particularly Freedom Evolves. He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices. But who chooses our desires?   I do have Dennett on my list to read, but after trying to slog through Consciousness (Understood? - I forget) - it was way beyond my present understanding, and I kept getting caught by 'qualia' and the like.  Still have it, and mean to go back once I can follow the evidence and arguments better. My problem is that every definition of Free Will that I have heard tends to be inadequate in one way or another, and the usefulness of the term is debatable for me.  I don't think we have what most people think of as free will, but I do agree that we have apparent free will, and (have to?) act as if we did.  I'm not sure it matters, although the debates can be fun. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:37    Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 18 2010,13:26) Quote (Mark Frank @ Feb. 18 2010,13:20) If you haven't done it already read Daniel Dennett on free will - particularly Freedom Evolves. He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices. But who chooses our desires?   I do have Dennett on my list to read, but after trying to slog through Consciousness (Understood? - I forget) - it was way beyond my present understanding, and I kept getting caught by 'qualia' and the like.  Still have it, and mean to go back once I can follow the evidence and arguments better. My problem is that every definition of Free Will that I have heard tends to be inadequate in one way or another, and the usefulness of the term is debatable for me.  I don't think we have what most people think of as free will, but I do agree that we have apparent free will, and (have to?) act as if we did.  I'm not sure it matters, although the debates can be fun. That's exactly where the supernatural diverges. The desires are, if you will, part of your "soul." They can be modified via non-natural means (in theory) such as divine intervention or answered prayer or what have you. Without that, you desires are just chemical reactions, and we are back to the differential equation. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:53    Mark Frank: Quote He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices. I'll have to look up compatablism to get a feel for it. But I'm not the least bit convinced we choose according to our desires, since too many of us choose undesirable options in our lives. For example, say your teenage daughter is pregnant, it's late for abortion by the time she decides you need to know. Boyfriend's long gone. There's a number of options for you, some relatively worse (or just meaner) than others based on the situation and your adopted 'morality' and ethics and relationship with said daughter. After careful consideration, you offer to raise the child (and continue to support daughter) even though you thought you were done raising kids, you absolutely don't want more (and got that fixed long ago to make sure), you'll be retirement age when the kid gets out of school (meaning your savings for retirement will be nil by the time he's on his own). The choice isn't one you wanted to make. Nothing you decide will be particularly desirable. There are other options that would allow you to continue living your life as you'd planned to live it - desired to. You'll be giving up hopes and dreams (a lot of self-interest) that you'll ever have any extra cash to do anything for yourself. And maybe you don't even particularly like kids. But you make your choice, offer it as an option for someone else's choice (daughter) and then you have to live with it despite whatever it costs you on the self-interest and desires end. Now, it could turn out that the child is the light of your life, and ends up rich and famous and takes great care of you in your old age. Or he could grow up to be a loser and you'll never be free of either him or his mom due to setting up a dependency cycle they won't or can't escape. However it turns out, how is that choice not 'free' even though it did require consideration of multiple factors and future considerations?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:54    So free will = "the ability to make a choice that was not predetermined, coerced by an external agent, or random" "Pre-determined" simply smuggles in the supernatural as part of the definition, I'd say. Ditto for "coerced by an external agent". For actions like choosing to move a highlighter across a table, there is no way that I can imagine that an external agent or predetermination would be able to cause that without supernatural abilities. So two of the three options condense into one, and we have a typical dichotomy - deity or random. A false dichotomy, per usual. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,13:54    MidwifeToad writes: Quote Quote If the natural world is all there is, then what causes a given choice? It can only be the laws of physics. I will repeat myself, moving one step closer to my own definition of insanity. Choices are probabilistic. Makes no difference if they are quantum events or merely analog computations resulting from neuronal firing rates. There is no reason to posit a ghost in the machine. The machine itself weighs the consequences of decisions. What makes "will" so fascinating is that behavior is based on a prediction of the future, something that can be known only probabilistically. Again, it isn't necessary to posit a ghost making the prediction. The prediction is embodied in the state of the predictor. Animals anticipate consequences, not as effectively as humans, but they nevertheless anticipate. which lead me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:10    Quote One of the book's central concepts is that as the human brain has grown, it has built upon earlier, more primitive brain structures, and that these are the "ghost in the machine" of the title. Koestler's theory is that at times these structures can overpower higher logical functions, and are responsible for hate, anger and other such destructive impulses. Computers have higher logical functions, but not much will. (I will step aside on this if we have any AI wizards in residence.) Logic can serve the primitive brain structures, but the "I-ness" in in the alligator brain. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:11    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 18 2010,13:53) Mark Frank:   Quote He is a compatabilist and I think he is pretty much right.  We choose according to our desires which is quite compatible with our desires causing our choices. I'll have to look up compatablism to get a feel for it. But I'm not the least bit convinced we choose according to our desires, since too many of us choose undesirable options in our lives. For example, say your teenage daughter is pregnant, it's late for abortion by the time she decides you need to know. Boyfriend's long gone. There's a number of options for you, some relatively worse (or just meaner) than others based on the situation and your adopted 'morality' and ethics and relationship with said daughter. After careful consideration, you offer to raise the child (and continue to support daughter) even though you thought you were done raising kids, you absolutely don't want more (and got that fixed long ago to make sure), you'll be retirement age when the kid gets out of school (meaning your savings for retirement will be nil by the time he's on his own). The choice isn't one you wanted to make. Nothing you decide will be particularly desirable. There are other options that would allow you to continue living your life as you'd planned to live it - desired to. You'll be giving up hopes and dreams (a lot of self-interest) that you'll ever have any extra cash to do anything for yourself. And maybe you don't even particularly like kids. But you make your choice, offer it as an option for someone else's choice (daughter) and then you have to live with it despite whatever it costs you on the self-interest and desires end. Now, it could turn out that the child is the light of your life, and ends up rich and famous and takes great care of you in your old age. Or he could grow up to be a loser and you'll never be free of either him or his mom due to setting up a dependency cycle they won't or can't escape. However it turns out, how is that choice not 'free' even though it did require consideration of multiple factors and future considerations? It is exactly the choice you want to make most, all things considered. Simplify it down to two choices. A) You can choice to raise the child, with all the attendant responsibilities and problems but with the prospect of a brighter future for the child, or B) You can choose not to, have lots more money and freedom, but possibly a great deal of remorse and guilt. If you chose A it is because, all things considered, you want A more than B. At least at that moment. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:14    Quote It is exactly the choice you want to make most, all things considered. Simplify it down to two choices. So free will is real? Who disagrees?

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:17    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 18 2010,13:54) So free will = "the ability to make a choice that was not predetermined, coerced by an external agent, or random" "Pre-determined" simply smuggles in the supernatural as part of the definition, I'd say. Ditto for "coerced by an external agent". For actions like choosing to move a highlighter across a table, there is no way that I can imagine that an external agent or predetermination would be able to cause that without supernatural abilities. So two of the three options condense into one, and we have a typical dichotomy - deity or random. A false dichotomy, per usual. Exactly how does "not predetermined" or "not coerced" smuggle in a deity? And why do you need the snarky "false dichotomy, per usual?" To me, "not predetermined" and "not coerced" are generic features of free-will. I'm assuming instead of just charging "false dichotomy!" you'll provide an alternative definition free will and its mechanism? I'm willing to listen. Or did I miss it? -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:21    Joy Quote I'll have to look up compatablism to get a feel for it. But I'm not the least bit convinced we choose according to our desires, since too many of us choose undesirable options in our lives. Desires is too simple a word.  I was struggling to be brief.  Let us say we choose among the external options available to us based on our desires, needs and other motivations (e.g. parental instinct, sense of duty).  But all these things can be quite physical and be causes of our eventual choice as well as reasons for our choice.  They are just two ways of describing the same thing. Suppose confronted with a choice (make it trivial - what to do for dinner) you spend a long time exercising your free will - debating options - determined that you will choose and not just be the plaything of the universe. Finally you choose. But suppose once you have made your choice a superpsychiatrist reveals that he predicted (based on his knowledge of your brain state) exactly that you would spend a long time debating options and then make that choice.  Does that mean your choice was not actually a free one? Why?  What was the missing element that prevented it being free?  We already can predict people's free choices with quite a lot of accuracy.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:21    Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 18 2010,14:14) Quote It is exactly the choice you want to make most, all things considered. Simplify it down to two choices. So free will is real? Who disagrees? Well, Cornell biologist William Provine for one. Any many others. But if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you just can't say "free will exists". You have to postulate how it works, and (I think) why people should be morally culpable for their choices. Provine, in my opinion is simply being honest. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:24    Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,09:21) Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 18 2010,14:14)   Quote It is exactly the choice you want to make most, all things considered. Simplify it down to two choices. So free will is real? Who disagrees? Well, Cornell biologist William Provine for one. Any many others. But if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you just can't say "free will exists". You have to postulate how it works, and (I think) why people should be morally culpable for their choices. Provine, in my opinion is simply being honest. linky for Provine?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:27    Quote But if you don't believe in the supernatural, then you just can't say "free will exists". Well, I don't "believe" in the supernatural (Qualification available on request) and I do say free will exists. I suspect we need definitions.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:37    Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 18 2010,14:17) Exactly how does "not predetermined" or "not coerced" smuggle in a deity? If you don't see how it smuggles in a supernatural explanation, please tell me how moving a highlighter across a desk, or taking a sip of coffee (like I did just now) can be accomplished by predetermination or coercion that does not involve a supernatural explanation. I'll be waiting. Quote And why do you need the snarky "false dichotomy, per usual?" Because I was hopeful that this discussion would not require the invocation of a deity, and I was disappointed. So I snarked. Mea culpa. Quote To me, "not predetermined" and "not coerced" are generic features of free-will. I'm assuming instead of just charging "false dichotomy!" you'll provide an alternative definition free will and its mechanism? I'm willing to listen. Or did I miss it? Free will is a theological construction invoked to explain behaviors which have a perfectly acceptable natural explanation. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:40    dheddle:     Quote If you chose A it is because, all things considered, you want A more than B. At least at that moment. Want? ...WANT? There is no "want" here. There is a situation that exists in reality, for which a decision must be made. In my example, it's not even the FINAL decision - it's just a decision from one interested party to offer as option to the one who actually must decide. No less a choice for the one who makes it, of course, but hardly predicated on wants or desires. In such a case the most prominent want/desire would be for the daughter not to be pregnant. And I'm pretty sure a lot of real-life decisions for abortion are indeed predicated on that desire. In which case the parents' half-assed decision (that costs them no more than the procedure) is still an offered option. Let's instead apply the situational example to an individual woman's constitutionally recognized right to free choice of who comes to or from her body. Can be a happily married woman with children already (as in one situation I know of). The availability of birth control and abortion has allowed this choice to women, the question of how 'free' the choice is still pertains. Of course one must consider all pertinent past, present and possible future conditions in making such a choice. Those will differ among individuals quite widely. A parent who offers another option for a teenager is just an outlier in the overall issue. In the case of the situation alluded to above, she chose abortion. She was well-situated, she loved kids and was a great Mom, hubby well employed and only somewhat unhealthy (diabetic), obviously not unable. She was taking birth control - another choice she'd already made factoring into her choice of what to do. Six months after the abortion her husband died of sudden stroke (mid-30s). As friend/counselor I got to listen to her regrets - 'free' choices can be regretful, the future considerations when making them often don't turn out to be reality. [my counsel was that she should be glad she wasn't nine months along or nursing a newborn during the funeral.] Is the choice - for all the reasons it was made - any less 'free' if it turns out badly? Any more 'free' if it turns out well? Who gets to decide? ...or is the concept of "free" just a sociopolitical construct? And if so, how does that impact the so-called justice system?

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,14:51    Though it just might be that... freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. §;o)

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,15:05    Mark Frank: Quote Suppose confronted with a choice (make it trivial - what to do for dinner) you spend a long time exercising your free will - debating options - determined that you will choose and not just be the plaything of the universe. Finally you choose. But suppose once you have made your choice a superpsychiatrist reveals that he predicted (based on his knowledge of your brain state) exactly that you would spend a long time debating options and then make that choice. Oh, I've seen such things get much more complicated. Let's say you debate on what's for dinner - NOT based purely on what ingredients you've got on hand, store's only a block away - and decide to spent a lot of time and energy on fancy veggie lasagne. Maybe even because that's the LAST thing your family expects tonight for dinner, you want to surprise them. Then it's done, smells delicious, and... nobody decides to eat it, including you. Spur of the moment, you're just not hungry (but make yourself a sandwich instead), whatever. The Superpsychiatrist might have been able to predict veggie lasagne, but did he predict nobody eating it?

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,15:07    From Dr. Provine Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. Free Will The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will. Without free will, moral responsibility seems impossible. But I will argue that moral responsibility is actually based upon the lack of free will. Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth. Using free will as an excuse, we condone a vicious attitude of revenge toward anyone who does wrong in our society. Most of the movies in a video store are based upon getting even with some nasty person. This attitude leads to a gross ly expensive and hopeless systems of punishment in America , though much the same attitude can be found in most countries around the world. Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled. Devout Christians also believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation. Agreement here is possible between atheism and religion. Meaning in Life How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction and "cares" as much for the HIV virus as for humans. Nothing could be more uncaring than the entire process of organic evolution. Life has been on earth for about 3.6 billion years. In less that one billion more years our sun will turn into a red giant. All life on earth will be burnt to a crisp. Other cosmic processes absolutely guarantee the extinction of all life anywhere in the universe. When all life is extinguished, no memory whatsoever will be left that life ever existed. Yet our lives are filled with meaning. Proximate meaning is more important than ultimate. Even if we die, we can have deeply meaningful lives. Meaning in life is shared. We cannot have even proximate meaning except in the context of culture. This is true for religious people as for agnostics or atheists. No group can cut out the others. Evolution in the classroom Evolution is of interest to all. 50% of Americans believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years. Most other Americans who do believe in evolution think that God guided it. But a small group of powerful naturalist evolutionists have taken control of our schools. They want to stifle discussion of evolution in the classroom by everyone according to his or her beliefs Discussion may then change minds. Evolutionists are their own worst enemies by preventing free discussion of all views in the biology classroom. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,15:46    David, citing Provine: Quote Evolutionists are their own worst enemies by preventing free discussion of all views in the biology classroom. Semi-Wow. Thanks for the link. Seems to me like "free discussion" would allow students to ask pointed questions, and require response from teachers. Which would come colored with that teacher's personal views. Since "most" Americans who believe evolution occurred believe that God guided it, what would such questions and responses amount to in, say, a required high school biology course that includes evolution? 1. "Most" teachers of biology in high school aren't biologists (one I know of is a track coach, majored in phys-ed). Wouldn't this allow him/her to take a stand that would come with implied State approval, on a metaphysical question? Thus uncork that vial of deadly influence taped to his/her leg? 2. What 'scientific' issue do the "small group of powerful naturalist evolutionists" have with what any member of the public cares to believe about ultimate/final causation? i.e., the metaphysical question? 3. Wouldn't "free discussion" of all [metaphysical] views in the biology classroom dent the limited time allowed for indoctrinating the required test answers into students heads, thus possibly harming the standing (for accreditation and funding) of both teacher and school?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,15:51    Excuse me for belaboring my quantum quackery but I suggest if there is such a thing as "free will" it is non-deterministic and non-random. After all the fancy semantic exercises are finished, unless there is an appeal to the supernatural, quantum uncertainty and/or some true random source the bottom line is “free will” is a complicated algorithmic system that gives an appearance of free will, similar to an AI using a random number generator for an illusion of unpredictability. My bias is towards a presumption Free Will is based on macro expressions of quantum effects.  Even if God is behind it all, he/she/it would have complete control through the manipulation of Quantum Mechanics.  I will leave it to the theologians to explain how and why an omniscient, omnipotent God granted man the ability to act outside his/her/its direct control. While I suspect most people wouldn’t consider a random source the key to Free Will, it could give that appearance.  Most things could be logical and deterministic but every now and then a random neuron fires and the next thing you know we move a highlighter or make veggie lasagna. But back to one of Alan’s main questions, yes, I believe this is a main issue in the ID/evolution debate.  People want to believe they are special.  They want to believe they have Free Will.  They will use that Free Will to reject uncomfortable evidence and readily accept an alternative that is consistent with feeling special.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,16:04    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 18 2010,15:51) Excuse me for belaboring my quantum quackery but I suggest if there is such a thing as "free will" it is non-deterministic and non-random. After all the fancy semantic exercises are finished, unless there is an appeal to the supernatural, quantum uncertainty and/or some true random source the bottom line is “free will” is a complicated algorithmic system that gives an appearance of free will, similar to an AI using a random number generator for an illusion of unpredictability. My bias is towards a presumption Free Will is based on macro expressions of quantum effects.  Even if God is behind it all, he/she/it would have complete control through the manipulation of Quantum Mechanics.  I will leave it to the theologians to explain how and why an omniscient, omnipotent God granted man the ability to act outside his/her/its direct control. While I suspect most people wouldn’t consider a random source the key to Free Will, it could give that appearance.  Most things could be logical and deterministic but every now and then a random neuron fires and the next thing you know we move a highlighter or make veggie lasagna. But back to one of Alan’s main questions, yes, I believe this is a main issue in the ID/evolution debate.  People want to believe they are special.  They want to believe they have Free Will.  They will use that Free Will to reject uncomfortable evidence and readily accept an alternative that is consistent with feeling special. I don't see what free will has to do with the ID debate--except that it exposes their lie that ID has nothing to do with religion. That is, as theists they tend to line up on the "real free will" as opposed to "apparent free will" side. After all, a designer-who-could-be-anybody-no-really-he-doesn't-have-to-be-god-I'm-not-kidding-trust-me could design us as automatons, could he not? So why should, in theory, the free will question have anything to do with ID? -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,16:13    TP: Quote My bias is towards a presumption Free Will is based on macro expressions of quantum effects.  Even if God is behind it all, he/she/it would have complete control through the manipulation of Quantum Mechanics.  I will leave it to the theologians to explain how and why an omniscient, omnipotent God granted man the ability to act outside his/her/its direct control. LOL!!! Oh, my! I would rather posit that actual freedom of choice would EXCLUDE a god/godling from controlling any possible quantum computational capabilities in those PCCs! I mean, if God's controlling our 'free will' it surely ain't free. The "why" question is of course theological, if you believe in a god that allows free will. Maybe he/she/it/they wanted to occasionally be surprised by his/her/its/their creation, eh?

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,19:02    Haven't had a chance to read all of the postings yet, but I had to print this because it seems to appropriate to the discussion: (From The Princess Bride)     Quote Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead. Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You've made your decision then? Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I? Man in Black: Australia. Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're just stalling now. Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work. Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS! Man in Black: Then make your choice. Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be? Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets] Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything. Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours. Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink ] Man in Black: You guessed wrong. Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha... Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly,his smile frozen on his face and falls to the right out of camera dead] Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned. Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. I've spent the last few years trying to build up an immunity to tard.  Hasn't worked so far.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,19:59    "Free will" begs other questions, not the least of which being that "will" of any kind has a meaning amenable to being pinned down. I wonder whether "willing" is to motor action as qualia are to sensory information: in essence, the sense of willing is the "qualia" of motor action. So in addition to stirring up problems vis determinism, willing is also intimately tied to the problem of consciousness.   (Why anyone thinks that dualist ontologies solve any of these problems is beyond me.) [one eeeny weeeny edit] -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

jswilkins Posts: 50 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2010,22:46    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 19 2010,10:02) Haven't had a chance to read all of the postings yet, but I had to print this because it seems to appropriate to the discussion: (From The Princess Bride)       Quote ... Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned. Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. I've spent the last few years trying to build up an immunity to tard.  Hasn't worked so far. Sure it has. You can read it and retain functioning brain cells. That looks like an immunity to iocane^W tard to me. But I'm from Australia, and as we know... -------------- Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard