free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not interested in word-games that focus on whether free will is free or even if it is will.   I take free will to be only a name or label for our faculty to make choices.  The advantage of that is that it avoids getting bogged down in pointless semantics and turns the study of free will into a scientific study of a brain process.  I think we can get an understanding of free will by studying organisms of increasing omplexity and learning how they choose between optional strategies.  I expect that when we have done that, there will be no deep mystery about human free will.
So do you believe when a spider decides to eat one fly first and another fly second, they are exercising "free-will"?
#92
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If debate was wrong in all cases, why would the church have ever held ecumenical councils to begin with?


There is a right type of debate, and a wrong type of debate.

The type of debate you are having with me is certainly an evil debate, because the intent is not to find truth, but to simply kill, steal, and destroy.


I do not respect your wicked appeals to my faith, which you don't understand and truly revile. You have no real interest in what I believe, and your worldview calls for the death of my religion.






#93
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Aside from a blanket assertion that I've equivocated on the word "rational' I have not seen a refutation of my argument.

Topic's author
#94
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
So do you believe when a spider decides to eat one fly first and another fly second, they are exercising "free-will"?
Spider brains have about half a million neurones, so they are much smaller and simplerthan mammalian or human brains.  presumably it would be much easier to map brain activity and behaiour in a spider than a human.   Perhaps it would be possible to discover exactly what goes on in a spider's brain when faced with and making a choice.   I'd be surprised if anything 'anti-deterministic' was going on, but the experiment has not been done so we can't know that.

A major imponderable is whether spiders have 'subjective experience'.   Even if we understand the mechanics of spider choice, would we know what it is like for a spider to choose - do spiders think they have free will?  I have no idea (I doubt it!), but may be studying simpler brains than we have is the way to learn.


#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
If debate was wrong in all cases, why would the church have ever held ecumenical councils to begin with?
You tell me. You are the one who claimed debate is "unchristian" not I. 

#96
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Aside from a blanket assertion that I've equivocated on the word "rational' I have not seen a refutation of my argument.
What specifically are you arguing here? That there is no such thing as rational? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

#97
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Under determinism, all of our beliefs would be predetermined by chemical reactions and we would have zero control or influence over anything we think or do. 

I'll stop there. Agree or disagree?

#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You mean we would lack freewill? That would seem to logically follow.
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I'd be surprised if anything 'anti-deterministic' was going on,
Me too.
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Under determinism, all of our beliefs would be predetermined by chemical reactions and we would have zero control or influence over anything we think or do. 
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
#101
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I actuallly did in that post you are replying to, but this is really just your way of dodging the subject of this topic, not an attempt by you to be educated.

I find your facetiousness offensive. The type of debate that is unchristian is the type of debate you engage in. Self righteousness over the truth's righteousness.


You don't want to engage me because your magic has no power over me, and engaging with me exposes your sophistry.
#102
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You mean the post were you misrepresent me and call me evil? Yeah I pretty much ignored that part.
#103
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Lets talk about eachother instead of free will. That seems to be what you really want.


Or maybe that isn't the right choice of words, wanting, that is. After all, if we have no free will as you seem to believe, it was determined before you were even born that you would be compelled into doing what you do. You are after all, little more than a manifestation of the weather.

#104
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I understand that it would be a misrepresentation to call you evil, because evil itself is a meaningless term, as everything has been determined. Who can be blamed for anything?

In fact, your charge of me misrepresenting your position is in itself meaningless, because I am only expressing what I was determined to represent.

Don't blame me, blame reality as it is 

#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Want is the right word. Choose is the wrong word. I'm not sure that is what I want but this is an important distinction. You can be compelled to recognize reason. You can have cause to want something but neither is necessarily a choice.

This does not just apply to you and I however. I find the idea of a god with freewill to be logically incoherent as well.

That out of the way what about us did you want to discuss?

#106
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If determinism is true, you can only be compelled to accept reason, or anything for that matter.

It is no strange thing that the very one who existed before time and thus outside time gave us the freedom of choice without determining the choices we make, also knows everything that happens in time.

It is not necessary that God determines what we do to be able to know what we are going to do. 






#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
If any being knows what we will do, whether that being determined what we will do or not, then we cannot have freewill. Omniscience and freewill are mutually exclusive.
#108
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Omniscience and free willl are only mutually exclusive to a being that is bound by time, not a being that exists before time, outside of time.
#109
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?
#110
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Fallaneze
If you deny free will, things are not accepted out of reason, but out of necessity!

#111
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Omniscience and free willl are only mutually exclusive to a being that is bound by time, not a being that exists before time, outside of time.
In order to exist a being needs space to exist in and time to exist during. Unless you can demonstrate that as false yoir claims of a being outside of time and space are nonsensical 

#112
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?
If this is directed at me then I disagree. You can be compelled to accept reason and no freewill is necessary.

#113
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin

In order to exist a created being needs space to exist in and time to exist during. 

Fixed.


But God does exist in space and time as well as outside it. That is part of the mystery of the incarnation. After all, to become incarnate in creation God had to take the form of creation.





#114
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
(1) If determinism is true, mindless processes beyond our control determine which beliefs we accept.

(2) These mindless processes are not rational.

(C) Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true.

Please me whether you disagree with (1) and/or (2).


#115
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Fallacy of special pleading. 
#116
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The Ultimate Reality by essence is Singularity. It is therefore not a fallacy to say that all created realities are contingent, but The Ultimate Reality by essence is not contingent. The Ultimate Reality is, after all, not created. 

#117
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Circular reasoning and special pleading. 
#118
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree with your conclusion (C). In fact I would say that I have no choice but to accept that position as rational. You do not decide what is rational. You merely recognize it as rational. 
#119
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The Ultimate Reality cannot be a fallacy, wizard, no matter how pretentious you are about being rational.

The Ultimate Reality cannot be subject to time, because then time would be a reality over The Ultimate Reality. If there is a reality over The Ultimate Reality, it does not fulfil the essence of what it is to be The Ultimate Reality. That being the case, you are simply looking at a conception of God, and calling this conception God. God is not a conception. God is not a created being.


The Truth is not a fallacy. Time only exists as it does in Truth, only so much as The Truth is in it. Time does not exist before The Truth. Time exists because of The Truth.





#120
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I said you are using fallacies not that reality is a fallacy. Do try to keep up.