What is an act of God?

[Sarkus]

How do you come to this conclusion?

I assume it's not from the quantum level elaboration because at that level humans don't exist (as far as I can tell) and so free will (human trait) can't exist.

However, humans exist at a higher level; free will has to be analysed at a level above the quantum level at which you can begin to define a human.

You may as well say only quantum phenomena exist and you don't.

So why then do you take free will to be an illusion and essentially non-existent?

Everything we do, everything we say, is a result of the things we experience and the genetics we are born with.
Those things combine to lead us to the person we are at any given time - your personality.
Your personality will react to stimuli in the way that is defined by their genetics and their experiences.
Do you choose the Red pill or the Blue pill? Whichever you choose is a direct result of your personality that is a result of everything you have experienced and your genetics.
Hence I come to the conclusion that there is no freewill - just an illusion of it.

But for almost everyone (myself included) this illusion is sufficient.
And I guess if it looks like freewill, feels like freewill and smells like freewill...

Ultimately I guess it also depends upon your definition of freewill.

 

[Jenyar]

Everything we do, everything we say, is a result of the things we experience and the genetics we are born with.

"One important issue is the difference between the public perception of genetic function and laboratory truth. It pertains to the growing popular image of the gene as the all-determining factor in the human condition, and begins with the thought that if we could only find the gene for a certain disease, then we could find the cure by simply manipulating this gene. The logic then continues: Why stop with diseases? Do genes also determine behavior? If so, should we blame persons for their anti-social behavior, or judge them as victims of their genetic makeup? Should we try to alter the genes of individuals or groups with aberrant or unacceptable behavior?

This line of thinking belongs to what can be called the ‘gene myth,’ namely, a widespread cultural thought form that says, “it’s all in the genes.” The gene myth is deterministic in two senses. The first is puppet determinism, wherein we assume the DNA acts like a puppeteer and we dance on genetic strings like a puppet. ...

-- The Gene myth​

 

[Sarkus]

Jenyar, I think you have misconstrued my words somewhat.
I do not assign to genetics the personality/behaviour of the person. Rather this is very much the sum of experiences.
But genetics does determine the starting block upon which those experiences must fit within the physical brain-mass.

Furthermore, much of what we experience is a direct result of our genetics - our physical make-up - how attractive or ugly we are, how short or tall etc - they all affect our experiences.

So to exclude genetics from the equation entirely is, in my view, wrong, as is to blame personality predominantly on genetics, which you seem to suggest I was indicating.

Which I wasn't.

 

[Jenyar]

Alright, I was just making sure. But the implications of what you said are still deterministic, which is why you are forced to come to the concluion that free will must be an illusion.

There's a good place to test this: self-control. If you have no free will, you will not be able to resist prompts from either genetic or experiential sources. Your reaction to these stimuli will be defined, determined. However, if you can exert self-control, you show that you are able to bring both those factors "under control", however briefly.

 

[Sarkus]

I know this is well off topic ("Act of God") but what the heck.

Exerting self-control is not evidence of freewill, IMHO.
It is just another choice - and all choices are made by your personality.
Your personality is the sum of everything you are - and is all cause and effect - the cause being the experience, the effect being your personality.
Choices seemingly made by you are merely an output, already determined by your personality at the point of making the choice.

Whenever you make a choice, always ask "why did I pick that one".
There is always a reason - whether your conscious knows it or not.
This reason is the cause. The choice is the effect.

In this way, the more you know of someone's personality, the more you can predict what they will do and what they will choose.
Often they will surprise you, even if you know them well, but that is only because we can never know someone absolutely.

But again I say that this is purely my definition of freewill.
I fully accept the illusion of freewill that everyone claims to have - myself included - and I am very happy with my illusion - and live with it when I make choices. But I also accept that whenever I make a choice it is because of who I am up to that point, and is therefore not a free choice, and is not freewill.

And I believe that it IS purely deterministic - but for someone to be able to determine the outcome of the choice they must have all the knowledge of the individual, and be able to make a choice as though they were that person with none of their own personality mixed in to change the "causes" - as these would affect the "effect".
So basically it is another useless realm of determinism, but it does exist, IMHO.

I guess that to be a truly "free" choice then it must be a choice made free of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics).

Ah, semantics. Don't you just love it!

 

[Jenyar]

In such a universe there would be no "you" to interact with ("dance by") the information impulses - the "strings" - of the past. You would only be pulled, without being able to "pull back". Self-control is a way of pulling back on the strings that tug at your options. Your very rejection of the notion of free will as "illusion" is such a tug in the opposite direction, which is why you find it so appealing, I would imagine. In a truly deterministic universe, something as pervasive and all-persistant as freedom of will would be imperceptable. Just like the arrow of time, there would be no going back, not even the option (yes, because the word cannot exist at that level) of going back. You would not even have any thoughts or fantasies to the contrary, since there is no contrary, no notion of an alternative.

PS. You're mostly talking about consistency and causality, not real determinism. You'll notice that if you substitute 'illusion' with 'reality' in your model, it makes little difference, so in a sense you are simply giving reality a different name, "illusion". And you're not the first to do this. The only problem is that it borrows a word from a realm where differences are perceptible, and applying it to a realm where no "difference" is supposed to exist in the first place.

 

[water]

Okay, I don't believe we have freewill.
I believe we have an illusion of freewill only - but for all intent and purpose this illusion suffices, and is called freewill.

Again, I do not think, until you get to the quantum level, that there is anything called "odds" - as everything is deterministic - based on the past.
However, because we can never tap into that determinism to absolutely know the future we rely on odds - the odds being created by that element of past conditions that we do not know.
If we knew ALL the conditions at one moment (or within the range that would be affected during the timescale - i.e. tc) we could state the future of that area 100% accurately.
But we can't - so we have probability to cover up the gaps in the knowledge.

For example, if you rolled a perfect die (i.e. perfectly balanced) on a perfectly smooth table, and you know ALL the motions, positions etc of the die when it is in mid air, then you can state how it will land.
But we can't know all that.
We actually know next-to-buggerall about its starting positions/motions etc and therefore can only predict that it will land on one of its six faces, each face having an equal chance.

When it comes to people, there was a chance, due to the interactions in your brain developed from genetics and past experiences, that you wouldn't have typed anything, or if you did that you mispelt the words.
It is all a matter of probability - because we can not know everything about the universe in
There is no freewill.
In my view every action you do is deterministic - and we use "odds" and "probability" to cover up our lack of knowledge.

This question may not seem directly related to what you have said, but bear with me: Do you believe there is an objective reality?

"Luck", or lack of is, just a matter of perception.

Sure. But for one, one gets emotional about it, and for two, one develops a certain ethical attitude towards it. This is where it gets interesting for me.

* * *

How do you come to this conclusion?

I assume it's not from the quantum level elaboration because at that level humans don't exist (as far as I can tell) and so free will (human trait) can't exist.

However, humans exist at a higher level; free will has to be analysed at a level above the quantum level at which you can begin to define a human.

You may as well say only quantum phenomena exist and you don't.

My thoughts exactly!

While we can come up with many scientific theories about how the world and the human body works, all this knowledge is useless per se. There is an ethical position to be taken towards these phenomena and theories. Instead, we often see "fatalistic scientific reductionism" -- claiming, for example, that love is "a bunch of chemicals". Sure, but what have we said with that? What does it mean? If I call something to be "a bunch of chemicals", does mean that the phenomena is robbed of all ethical value, and also has no right to have one, and those who give it an ethical value are "irrational"?


* * *

Everything we do, everything we say, is a result of the things we experience and the genetics we are born with.
Those things combine to lead us to the person we are at any given time - your personality.
Your personality will react to stimuli in the way that is defined by their genetics and their experiences.
Do you choose the Red pill or the Blue pill? Whichever you choose is a direct result of your personality that is a result of everything you have experienced and your genetics.
Hence I come to the conclusion that there is no freewill - just an illusion of it.

And? What does this imply -- if free will is merely an illusion?
Is then there no personal responsibility, and the law system should be abolished?
If there is no personal responsibility, what does this mean for our conception of identity? Who painted the picture, who is to take credit for it?

If free will is an illusion, then so is the self. But how then can a self that considers itself to be an illusion, say about something else that it is an illusion ...

This line of thought is, in my view, an infinite regress. It is a possible path, but eventually pointless. It ends with intellectual nihilism -- but look, all nihilists still live as if life is absolute; this renders them empirically inconsistent.

Jenyar, I think you have misconstrued my words somewhat.
I do not assign to genetics the personality/behaviour of the person. Rather this is very much the sum of experiences.
But genetics does determine the starting block upon which those experiences must fit within the physical brain-mass.

Furthermore, much of what we experience is a direct result of our genetics - our physical make-up - how attractive or ugly we are, how short or tall etc - they all affect our experiences.

So to exclude genetics from the equation entirely is, in my view, wrong, as is to blame personality predominantly on genetics, which you seem to suggest I was indicating.

Which I wasn't.

Sure genes play an important role, and I agree with what you've said. But the problem of evaluation and ethics remains. What is a man's life worth? What is right, what is wrong?
Science cannot determine that -- even though many who use science to "disprove God" are attempting to do exactly this: "It's all chemicals, there is no inherent worth or meaning to it."


* * *

Alright, I was just making sure. But the implications of what you said are still deterministic, which is why you are forced to come to the concluion that free will must be an illusion.

There's a good place to test this: self-control. If you have no free will, you will not be able to resist prompts from either genetic or experiential sources. Your reaction to these stimuli will be defined, determined. However, if you can exert self-control, you show that you are able to bring both those factors "under control", however briefly.

No no no -- you have not completed your deterministic thinking in this yet.
See Sarkus' post.

This line of thinking leads to the conclusion that we do not exist, only chemicals and chemical reactions do.


* * *

I know this is well off topic ("Act of God") but what the heck.

No, it's not off topic at all! In order to figure what an act of God is, it is also advisable to figure out what an act of man is -- free will comes to play.

Exerting self-control is not evidence of freewill, IMHO.
It is just another choice - and all choices are made by your personality.
Your personality is the sum of everything you are - and is all cause and effect - the cause being the experience, the effect being your personality.
Choices seemingly made by you are merely an output, already determined by your personality at the point of making the choice.

Who are you? Who or what is "you" in this? There is your "personality" -- but what is "you"?

(SouthStar, are you watching?)

But again I say that this is purely my definition of freewill.
I fully accept the illusion of freewill that everyone claims to have - myself included - and I am very happy with my illusion - and live with it when I make choices. But I also accept that whenever I make a choice it is because of who I am up to that point, and is therefore not a free choice, and is not freewill.

And I believe that it IS purely deterministic - but for someone to be able to determine the outcome of the choice they must have all the knowledge of the individual, and be able to make a choice as though they were that person with none of their own personality mixed in to change the "causes" - as these would affect the "effect".
So basically it is another useless realm of determinism, but it does exist, IMHO.

I guess that to be a truly "free" choice then it must be a choice made free of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics).

This is a very deterministic conception of what "free" would be.

For one thing, it is not possible to make a choice "free of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics)" -- without all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics), choice is impossible to make; or it is a random action we are not aware of ourselves, ie. it may happen, but we do not know about it (as soon as we would know of it, this would mean that past knowledge is at work).

So in order to make a free choice, per you, the demand is that the self exists and can think and make choices independently of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics). Such a demand is nonsensical.

 

[Sarkus]

This question may not seem directly related to what you have said, but bear with me: Do you believe there is an objective reality?

What do you mean by "objective reality"?
Yes.

Sure. But for one, one gets emotional about it, and for two, one develops a certain ethical attitude towards it. This is where it gets interesting for me.

But to me this is just a matter of perception of the experience.
The interpretation / emotion and subsequent effects are irrelevant to the actual event which was ascribed "lucky".

Instead, we often see "fatalistic scientific reductionism" -- claiming, for example, that love is "a bunch of chemicals". Sure, but what have we said with that? What does it mean? If I call something to be "a bunch of chemicals", does mean that the phenomena is robbed of all ethical value, and also has no right to have one, and those who give it an ethical value are "irrational"?

Just because science can reduce things to chemicals etc does not, and should not, remove one from the experience of it.
We all know that Rollercoasters use centrifugal force, gravity etc to create a buzz for the pundit, but that shouldn't detract from enjoying it.
If it does then that person has removed an important part of their life.
To understand the effect of something does NOT mean we should give up experiencing the effect.

But then take phobias.
Science - or a basic understanding of the thing that one is phobic about - can certainly help people overcome that fear - and reduce the emotional feel attached to it.
But it doesn't have to be that way.

And? What does this imply -- if free will is merely an illusion?
Is then there no personal responsibility, and the law system should be abolished?

Implies nothing - it is merely a way of looking at the universe.
Everyone acts in accordance with their personality - whether you think free-will is an illusion or not. By saying that it is deterministic will not, and can not, change the way the universe works.

If there is no personal responsibility, what does this mean for our conception of identity? Who painted the picture, who is to take credit for it?

It won't change it - due to the existence of the illusion of freewill. And as I have stated all along, this illusion satisfies everyone as to the existence of freewill. It is a matter of how far you want to go back and determine cause and effect, I guess.

If free will is an illusion, then so is the self. But how then can a self that considers itself to be an illusion, say about something else that it is an illusion ...

We are self aware. Self is the personality. This doesn't change. It is just a matter of the road your personality takes you down, and whether you think you can alter the course or not.
If you alter the course, ask yourself if it was your freewill that made you do it, or your personality up to that point that led to it.

This line of thought is, in my view, an infinite regress. It is a possible path, but eventually pointless.

I won't disagree with that.
It's an intellectual exercise - a stand-point, I guess. It doesn't change the way I live my life, happy with the illusion of free-will and acting as though it is free-will.

But the problem of evaluation and ethics remains. What is a man's life worth? What is right, what is wrong?
Science cannot determine that -- even though many who use science to "disprove God" are attempting to do exactly this: "It's all chemicals, there is no inherent worth or meaning to it."

I think that the question of ethics may one day be answered...
If we manage to get a computer, an artificial intelligence, to be truly sentient and self-aware, with only the same programming that we, as humans, are born with in our DNA (if that is possible to find out - which is debatable, I freely admit) then we can do much to assess what it truly means to be human.
But I guess until that point we will never know.

This line of thinking leads to the conclusion that we do not exist, only chemicals and chemical reactions do.

This is a completely different question, isn't it.
I hold to the idea that we are nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions, but that doesn't preclude the idea of self-awareness.

What will religious people do when the first computers become self-aware, when it becomes proven that self-awareness can be just a matter of chemicals and chemical reactions? It would be interesting to find out?

Who are you? Who or what is "you" in this? There is your "personality" -- but what is "you"?

I am unique.
I am self-aware.
I am the sum of my experiences and my genetics.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

What more (or less) are you?

This is a very deterministic conception of what "free" would be.

Yes. It is.

For one thing, it is not possible to make a choice "free of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics)" -- without all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics), choice is impossible to make;

Agreed - hence what we see as "free-will", as I define it, is an illusion.

or it is a random action we are not aware of ourselves, ie. it may happen, but we do not know about it (as soon as we would know of it, this would mean that past knowledge is at work).

So in order to make a free choice, per you, the demand is that the self exists and can think and make choices independently of all knowledge of the past (e.g. experience and genetics). Such a demand is nonsensical.

Again I don't argue that this is most likely semantics.
My definition of "free-will" starts with the idea that the universe is deterministic. This view of the universe precludes the idea "free-will" - and hence "free-will is an illusion".
If you are not of the determinstic persuasion then your definition of free-will will most likely start where I consider it to be illusion.
Where I see the illusion (because it can be nothing else, per my thought processes above) you see what you consider to be the real thing.

Neither viewpoints will change the way we act, the way we react, the way we make our choices or the actual choices we make.
Both will seem to be identical.
It is just a matter of viewpoint.
Objective reality will continue regardless.

 

[MarcAC]

I know this is well off topic ("Act of God") but what the heck.

I absolutely disagree. If we have free will then we must consider that there is no single "act of God" in certain human contexts where free will applies.

My definition of "free-will" starts with the idea that the universe is deterministic. This view of the universe precludes the idea "free-will" - and hence "free-will is an illusion".

This doesn't seem to be a definition. What then is your "idea" of free will? Free will may be interwoven with the elements of the deterministic fabric. Your view still doesn't follow in my opinion - in such a case you may say "you" are an illusion - as water indicated.

I am unique.
I am self-aware.
I am the sum of my experiences and my genetics.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

All an illusion, because the superstrings and wavefunctions precede you. Then what is determinism? An illusion? Heck, every damned thing is an illusion. What is an illusion? Nothing makes sense with such a view (essential Nihilism as water stated). I'd have to start using Wes Morris' words here.

Both will seem to be identical.
It is just a matter of viewpoint.
Objective reality will continue regardless.

What is objective reality? An illusion within an illusion. The question of which matches it more closely remains. The least that can be said is that objective reality must be consistent, and make sense. In your view illusions are reality.

 

[Sarkus]

I absolutely disagree. If we have free will then we must consider that there is no single "act of God" in certain human contexts where free will applies.

Good stuff. Then let's continue

Your view still doesn't follow in my opinion - in such a case you may say "you" are an illusion - as water indicated.

Why does it follow that the concept of "you" is an illusion.
It's certainly an abstract concept in that you can't bottle it, you can't touch it etc, but it's not an illusion. Please explain why you would think that this follows from my view of free-will?

All an illusion, because the superstrings and wavefunctions precede you.

Just because things precede doesn't negate the idea of "you".
A pile of bricks precede a wall. Does this mean the brick-wall doesn't exist, or is an illusion?
How does the concept of freewill being an illusion mean that the brick wall is also an illusion?

Then what is determinism? An illusion?

Determinism simply states that every event has a cause.
Free-will, as you look at it, tries to create an effect (a decision) with no cause.
I merely see that every choice we appear to make is generated by a cause (the sum of our past experiences etc).
And, quantum-randomness aside (which merely introduces probabilities of outcomes), the same inputs will result in the same outputs.

In your view illusions are reality.

No - I see your "reality" as illusion.
You are the ones that view illusions as reality.

What I see as an illusion and what others see as reality is just a matter of perspective from your starting point. They work in the same ways, do the same things etc.

 

[Jenyar]

Sarkus,

You first have to prove that indeterminism is a neccesary condition for free will, given the existence of quantum randomness (fundamental uncertainty). What you are displaying is an absolute belief in causes, so it would be interesting to hear whether you think the universe is caused or uncaused?

 

[Sarkus]

You first have to prove that indeterminism is a neccesary condition for free will, given the existence of quantum randomness (fundamental uncertainty).

Quantom randomness doesn't introduce anything other than statistical probabilities of effect based on a given set of causes.
Randomness does not equate to freewill in any way. (I'm not sure whether or not you are implying that it does, but I feel it needs to be said.)

Fundamental uncertainty merely results in a statistical probability associated with a variety of effects.
So for the same set of causes there will be different effects.
BUT, and this is important, there is no freewill associated with the probability. A person, or a thing, can not CHOOSE which of the possible outcomes will occur. It just will occur. It will be either A, or B, or C. There is no choice in the outcome. It will be whichever it will be.

What you are displaying is an absolute belief in causes, so it would be interesting to hear whether you think the universe is caused or uncaused?

I've thought about this before - in trying to establish for myself what, if anything, I could possibly define as "God".
It's certainly nothing that can interact with this Universe - such as with miracles, "Acts of God" etc.
But there is always the question of "What is outside our universe?" or "What created our Universe?"
Determinism would seem to require a cause - or at least self-causation if such a thing is plausible (although this sounds an "odd" idea that I don't know too much about - i.e. none!).
I don't think I have yet come to any conclusion that fully satisfies me, although I guess I am heavily leaning toward the "caused".

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

I agree with Sarkus, theists like Jenyar always put up the same type of argument over and over again. But never answer anything that is targeted at them. Their greatest weapon is just in creating doubts. But they must know by now that careting doubts in science is of no use when their side remains controversial.

 

[Jenyar]

I agree with Sarkus, theists like Jenyar always put up the same type of argument over and over again. But never answer anything that is targeted at them. Their greatest weapon is just in creating doubts. But they must know by now that careting doubts in science is of no use when their side remains controversial.

That's because the difference between premises are very simple at this level: either God (having ultimate freedom, being outside of nature and uncaused by definition) created the universe, and determined that our freedom could emulate His - or the universe has a blindly deterministic cause: in effect "causing" itself. When talking about determinism, our initial inputs make all the difference.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Jenyar, easiest thing to created a doubt in god is that different people have different beliefs about god. So when you use the word god you need to define by what you mean by it. The same doesnt occur for scientific laws which are only constants in this universe. And you theists keep on changing your arguments. I would be interested to know what type of arguements people would have used 100 years ago.(It would be totally different.)

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Religion is all about belief. Makes you ignorant and only encourages obidience. People that ask questions are condemned.

 

[Jenyar]

The same doesnt occur for scientific laws which are only constants in this universe

These laws have gone through the same process of "getting to know". They are just as constant as God, and just as partially known. For instance, Newtonian physics are called "universal laws" even though they fizzle when they enter the realm of quantum physics. And Quantum physics are similarly called "universal", even though they break down beyond the Planck constant (i.e. at the time of the Big Bang). So scientists are left with the same claim as theists: that the universe sprung (or was created) from nothing, where "nothing" could be called "chaos" or a "fluctuating quantum vacuum". Therefore, that God was not involved is "all about belief".

 

[MarcAC]

Please explain why you would think that this follows from my view of free-will?

O.k... now I see your line of reasoning. You clearly then think that every application of the term "free" within this universe is paradoxically applied (persoanlly can't accept that)? So be it; though I will forever disagree with your definition of free; you simply define it such that it can't exist or exist only as an illusion as you acknowledged.

Your view does seem "rock solid", but a theist or "spiritualist" may introduce the concept of soul/spirit as expressed through ones conscience (not scientifically proven but yet to be disproven and may never be). Neuroscientists have not yet unravelled all the secrets of the conscious. That may introduce a measure of freedom from the deterministic elements of the universe (may be a deterministic element in itself).

As a sidenote, some (not sure of #s) scientists do accept the "indeterminate" nature of the universe at the qunatum level. In which case it would appear that it remains indeterminate until it is observed by us (Double Slit Expt). Yet it appears deterministic at the "macroscopic" level. Such an interpretation may have theistic as well as anthropic implications.​

I do, however, hold (with others on this thread) that if you consistently applied your reasoning you would then advocate practically everything excepting the "indivisible" as an illusion. Such a view, of course, is not tenable; thus (apparently) your position.

 

[water]

What do you mean by "objective reality"?
Yes.

I am referring to "objective reality" as that which is the "das Ding an sich"; that which we have no direct access to; that which we have only a subjective idea of, and are separated from it by an "observational distance".

Sure. But for one, one gets emotional about it, and for two, one develops a certain ethical attitude towards it. This is where it gets interesting for me.

But to me this is just a matter of perception of the experience.
The interpretation / emotion and subsequent effects are irrelevant to the actual event which was ascribed "lucky".

Sure, this would then be clinging on to the objective reality of the event, to which we have no direct access to and to which our experience of it does not make a difference (or so it seems).

Our interpretation of the event may be irrelevant to the event itself, of course.

But our interpretation of the event IS relevant to *us*.

If we do not cling on to our interpretations of events, we may eventually get lost in the environment.

This may not seem so obvious when it comes to survival in the modern society, where so much of life is institutionalized and formalized, that we merely need to follow already existing patterns we can see other people displaying.
But think of having to survive in the wilderness. Think of "irregular" life situations -- losing your job, your spouse leaving, facing an illness. Even though also for such events, patterns of coping exist, we do find them to be a major challenge. Unless you interpret such an event in a way that is meaningful and beneficient for you (and this means applying certain ethical principles -- and they are not a matter of fact), you will be dimisnihed, or may even perish.

Just because science can reduce things to chemicals etc does not, and should not, remove one from the experience of it.

We all know that Rollercoasters use centrifugal force, gravity etc to create a buzz for the pundit, but that shouldn't detract from enjoying it.
If it does then that person has removed an important part of their life.

But this does happen, people become nihilists.
Ever wondered how come?

But then take phobias.
Science - or a basic understanding of the thing that one is phobic about - can certainly help people overcome that fear - and reduce the emotional feel attached to it.

An objective curiosity usually has a cleansing effect.

I don't think it is about "reducing the emotional feel to it" -- but that when a phobia is explained and understood by the one having it, that somehow undoes the "emotional feel to it".
We don't have emotionas just like that, for no reason.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Funny you should say this!

Implies nothing - it is merely a way of looking at the universe.
Everyone acts in accordance with their personality - whether you think free-will is an illusion or not. By saying that it is deterministic will not, and can not, change the way the universe works.

It may not change the way the universe works, of course not, I don't know why anyone would think so -- but it surely can change how human society works.

Declare free will to be an illusion, and the law system collapses!

And as I have stated all along, this illusion satisfies everyone as to the existence of freewill.
/.../
We are self aware. Self is the personality. This doesn't change. It is just a matter of the road your personality takes you down, and whether you think you can alter the course or not.
If you alter the course, ask yourself if it was your freewill that made you do it, or your personality up to that point that led to it.

This may be so, for sure -- but what do such explanation help us? What can we do with them? What have we said by them?

It is like when we say that most likely, everyone has a slightly different, subjective understanding of what a word means. And? What can we do with this realization? How do we apply it? How is it sanctioned?

This line of thought is, in my view, an infinite regress. It is a possible path, but eventually pointless.

I won't disagree with that.
It's an intellectual exercise - a stand-point, I guess. It doesn't change the way I live my life, happy with the illusion of free-will and acting as though it is free-will.

I disagree. Of course, from your standpoint, it seems to not "change the way you live your life".
But I think that a position like yours leads to a dissolution of personality.

I think that the question of ethics may one day be answered...
If we manage to get a computer, an artificial intelligence, to be truly sentient and self-aware, with only the same programming that we, as humans, are born with in our DNA (if that is possible to find out - which is debatable, I freely admit) then we can do much to assess what it truly means to be human.
But I guess until that point we will never know.

Why turn to computers? Why make a robot to asses what it "truly means to be human"?
To me, this is nothing but a relegation of responsibility.

It's the caricature of man's quest for absolutes: Instead of living them on a daily basis (in form of commitment), man lives them vicariously through his scientific pursuits.

This is a completely different question, isn't it.
I hold to the idea that we are nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions, but that doesn't preclude the idea of self-awareness.

And?
What does this imply that "we are nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions"?

Also, claiming that "we are nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions" is cognitivistic reductionsim. Denying that being human is also defined by ethical and emotive criteria.

To quote you,

Just because science can reduce things to chemicals etc does not, and should not, remove one from the experience of it.
We all know that Rollercoasters use centrifugal force, gravity etc to create a buzz for the pundit, but that shouldn't detract from enjoying it.
If it does then that person has removed an important part of their life.
To understand the effect of something does NOT mean we should give up experiencing the effect.

If we are merely chemicals and chemical reactions, then WHO is it that experiences their effects?

Where is you in these chemicals and chemical reactions?

What will religious people do when the first computers become self-aware, when it becomes proven that self-awareness can be just a matter of chemicals and chemical reactions? It would be interesting to find out?

And?
As long as you believe in the dichotomy of objective reality vs. subjective reality, and the observational distance -- and that thus, objective reality cannot be known directly or for sure, all your problems and questions remain.
Claim, on the other hand, to know objective reality, and you have tresspassed against your other premise -- that there is a subjective reality.

I am unique.
I am self-aware.
I am the sum of my experiences and my genetics.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

A statement of faith. You've got no way to prove this. And if you attempt to prove it via science, know that any scientific theory is valid ONLY UNTIL further research shows otherwise.

What more (or less) are you?

Nothing "more", nothing "less", but ALSO something ELSE.

To define is to limit. Once something is limited, it is easy to miss it.

Again I don't argue that this is most likely semantics.

No no no.
Nothing is just "semantics". The thing is that you are operating with a vastly different theory than me, even though we may be using the same terms.
The way those terms are interrelated in your theory is very different from the way they are interrelated in mine.

Calling this "semantics" is a total misnomer, a belitteling of the actual differences.

My definition of "free-will" starts with the idea that the universe is deterministic. This view of the universe precludes the idea "free-will" - and hence "free-will is an illusion".
If you are not of the determinstic persuasion then your definition of free-will will most likely start where I consider it to be illusion.

Not at all. Lately, I have been attempting a theory of free will that has nothing in any way to do with the notion of determinism.

Classically, free will is conceptualized in regards to determinism (of one kind or another), and eventually this line of thought leads to the conclusion that free will means being able to do whatever you want. It peaks in the idea that if you want to move mountains, but you find yourself unable to, then you have no free will.

I find this conceptualization to be particularly ungratifying, it is like taking wind out of your own sails. From the motivational aspect, such a conceptualization is extremely bad -- it eventually makes you feel completely powerless and helpless.

My experience of seeing what people can do is that of not feeling completely powerless and helpless.
We may not be able to do just anything, but we are able to do many things. It is now a matter of how to conceptualize this domain where we are able to do things. To say "free will is an illusion" leads down to "we can't do anything"; but people do do things, hence that conceptualization clashes with observation of reality.

Neither viewpoints will change the way we act, the way we react, the way we make our choices or the actual choices we make.

The way I think about my free will DOES change the way I act and make my choices!

If I think myself powerless, if I think that my free will is an illusion, I will forever doubt my actions, in advance and in return. This will, in time, discourage me to take new actions.

It is just a matter of viewpoint.

And this makes all the difference.

Objective reality will continue regardless.

And?

A pile of bricks precede a wall. Does this mean the brick-wall doesn't exist, or is an illusion?
How does the concept of freewill being an illusion mean that the brick wall is also an illusion?

In that case, what happens is that you can't tell the bricks from the wall, nor the wall from the bricks.
Problem remains.

Determinism simply states that every event has a cause.

Boy, have you got a thing coming!

Causality issues. As science neatly discovered, causality is a matter of what relationships we ascribe to phenomena. What these relationships are, is a matter of an ongoing research, and these relationships change as theories change, and new ones come.

To say that objective reality is guided by rules of causality is an unprovable statement of faith.

No - I see your "reality" as illusion.
You are the ones that view illusions as reality.

Let's see then, the stages of reality:

objective reality -- OR
subjective reality -- SR
illusion -- IL

We are two camps here: Sarkus playing for camp FWI, and me, Jenyar and MarcAC (or correct me, the two of you) playing for camp FWR.

The relations between understanding of terms is such:

P1: Camp FWI sees OR, and everything else is an IL.

P2: Camp FWR sees SR; OR is supposed; IL is a special kind of SR that assumes to be OR.

My problem with P1 is that it claims to know OR -- for this one must do in order to declare something to be an IL. But to claim to know OR is to deny observational distance.

Quantom randomness doesn't introduce anything other than statistical probabilities of effect based on a given set of causes.
Randomness does not equate to freewill in any way. (I'm not sure whether or not you are implying that it does, but I feel it needs to be said.)

Fundamental uncertainty merely results in a statistical probability associated with a variety of effects.
So for the same set of causes there will be different effects.
BUT, and this is important, there is no freewill associated with the probability.

I think it is nonsensical to speak about the concept of free will on that level.

It's like talking about cells, and saying how there are no organs associated with them. Of course there aren't.

A person, or a thing, can not CHOOSE which of the possible outcomes will occur. It just will occur. It will be either A, or B, or C. There is no choice in the outcome. It will be whichever it will be.

With this, you deny our sense for causality!

Our sense for causality works exactly by this principle: If x, then y. If I let go of the stone, the stone will fall. If I let go of the stone, the stone will fall. If I don't let go of the stone, the stone will remain in my hand.
This is causality as humans know it.
We don't operate by any other kind of causality.

It is an ex post knowledge, of course. And this is what needs to be looked into.
If anything, free will has to do with our knowledge of the way we can affect things. You can write this off as an illusion, but if I would really consider myself an illusion, this would stop me from being.

If we would believe that "A person, or a thing, can not CHOOSE which of the possible outcomes will occur. It just will occur. It will be either A, or B, or C. There is no choice in the outcome. It will be whichever it will be.", and (try to!) act on it, we could not.

I've thought about this before - in trying to establish for myself what, if anything, I could possibly define as "God".
It's certainly nothing that can interact with this Universe - such as with miracles, "Acts of God" etc.

Why not? Explain why God could not interact with this Universe.


* * *

Religion is all about belief. Makes you ignorant and only encourages obidience. People that ask questions are condemned.

Condemned by whom? By people, or by God?


* * *

I apologize for the lengthy post, but the issue is getting more and more interesting!

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Water, Jenyar; just so you know, your arguments do not affect people's thinking in any way. Our ideologies are formed, unless your argument possesses a true rationale, there is no point arguing.