Sorry, but I can make no sense of what you are saying. You seem to be saying that free will could give rise to causality and/ or vice versa.
Why did we get free will?
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
Sorry, but I can make no sense of what you are saying. You seem to be saying that free will could give rise to causality and/ or vice versa.
So you are about to make vegetable soup and , at a given point in time, you choose the ingredients. Having made and eaten your soup, you seem to believe that, in theory, if you returned to that instant, you could choose different vegetables. What warrant have you for believing this ?
Be aware that if you could run the film backwards as it were, making different choices would mean your behaviour is chaotic.
You are making a common mistake by arguing in a circle. You take for granted that which you have to prove, i.e., that we have free will.
I almost never view my life from the aspect of quantum physics, but it seems logical to me that if I accept that the state of the universe at time T is exactly determined, via cause and effect, by the state of the universe at time T-1, then this does not cease to be the case at a greater than microscopic level. How, after all, could this come about? Could geology at a continental level, for example, defy the lower level laws of physics?
Deterministically, how we happen to look at things is an irrelevance. If I throw a dice, I apparently have a chance of one-in-six of getting a six. But in fact, the outcome, though unpredictable, has been determined since the start of the universe. The same applies to the thoughts that go through my head, including the illusion that I have free will. Certainly, choice is exercised within the mechanism of the conscious mind, but Nature has already determined what that choice will be. Conscious thoughts are governed by the laws of quantum physics -- even if psychology operates at a conveniently higher level.
You seem to think that physics theories (!) are the most relevant explanations of how things are.
On the grounds of what should these theories be given such credence?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What religion(s) or religious text(s) have inspired you to conclude this? (I know you quote the Bhagavad Gita alot, is it some form of Hinduism along with this text?)
You don't have to answer this.
It {free will} could be the cause {exist}, if one postulates free will comes form an immaterial source or agent - such as a "soul," but if your nerves control your thoughts (or ANY material agent, such as radio or sound waves focused on your skull, etc.) then note these material agents are ALL acting in accord with the natural laws (unless you postulate that on occasions matter is not governed by the natural laws. -I.e. POSTULATE MIRACLES.)
IMHO neither of these postulates has any supporting evidence, but that is not proof that they can not exist.
Just be logically honest. - I.e. admit that either miracles must occur for free will to exist OR some non-material agent gives you free will. One or the other* is needed to escape from the control of the nature laws.
Perhaps the following will help you to see this is the case:
Humans are very complex organisms with introspection as to their reasons for their actions. - Often even when some reason is "understood," it is not fully correct or complete. Humans universally explain some of their actions a "free choices" between alternatives, but studies with electrodes contacting the brain show that in the simple case examined, the subject's brain makes the choice well before (up to a second) before the subject is consciously aware of making any choice.
For example, which of two buttons to push is already reflected in the electrical activity in the "pre-motor cortex," before the conscious choice is made. Clearly consciousness is only INFORMED about the choice, not making it.
This was first demonstrated ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO by Dr. Libbet (Lippet ? not sure now, but last year much better data showing 1 second earlier decision data was obtained by MRI experiments - even the pre-motor cortex is not the first to know! Decision appears to be made in frontal cortex). People under going brain surgery are usually fully conscious with local anasesia only of scalp. The surgeon is constantly talking with them to be sure they do not sue him later if he cuts out parts of brain that leave a serious cognitive or speech defect, etc. -
In the old days prior to cutting, the part of brain** to be cut out was cooled, but now I think quick decay anasesia is used prior to resection.) To tell exactly when the subject THINKS he made the conscious decision, the subject watches a clock with a fast sweep second hand. Soon after the "conscious decision" the subject reports where the clock's sweep second hand was when he consciously decided to push button "A" instead of bottom "B." The decision was already made and quite evident in the electrical active earlier. I.e. the doctor or his assistant knows which button will be chosen before the subject does.
SUMMARY:
This irrefutable evidence shows that your brain makes choices and then informs your consciousness about the choice already made and then you THINK you chose.
--------------------
*There may be one possible other escape from the control of natural laws over your every thought and action: For it see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed.
But the price is high: You are only non-material information in a simulation.
------
**Parts of brain are often removed for intractable focal epilepsy - still the only treatment today. In extreme case, even half of the brain is remove in young children and amazingly theY grow up with no easily (casually) observed defects.
Last edited by a moderator:
The words 'natural laws' don't mean much (you might as well use the word 'miracle') because scientists don't know what they are or why they are the way they are. According to ancient teachings everything in life is alive and what we call natural laws are habits of nature.
Material things cannot cause anything because everything that is material must be caused by something else ad "infinitum" (ie. God/self/soul).
Certain regions of the brain are activated before we make a voluntary action. But what does the activating?
That is precisely what I do not believe -- as I thought my opening sentence might have indicated. The point is that at the most microscopic level of matter, we apply the word "physics" to our study of nature. If at this level, nature operates on a deterministic (cause and effect) basis, then this principle is transmitted to every more "macro" level of science. The principles of geology are in accord with the principles of quantum physics, but it would not be very "relevant" (or useful, at any rate) to try to conduct a study of rock formations as an exercise in quantum mechanics.
Do you agree that in the scaling up of our study from the most microscopic level to a continental scale, all the lower level laws (whether or not exactly understood and correctly formulated by scientists) of physics and chemistry are obeyed at the higher level?
I used term “natural laws" instead of "laws of physics" because I agree that scientist do not know all the natural laws, and probably there are still some slight errors in those laws of physics we think correct and certainly some parts of them that are "understood" needs slight modifications to extend (as Einstein extended Newton's laws).
My point has nothing to do with the extent of man's understanding of the natural laws, so I disagree with your post’s comments that this is important. Science only assumes that the material universe, and everything in it, follows these only partially known natural laws, not that the laws of physic must be followed.
Interestingly, at least to me, this assumption is also LOGICALLY ESSENTIAL for anyone who believes in a God who can work miracles.
That is because a “Miracle” IS Some VIOLATION OF THE NATURAL LAWS. If the universe were only chaos - not governed by any set of regular natural laws, then God could not work any miracles - Anything God caused would be indistinguishable from chaos, if the universe were not regular - governed by some set of regular natural laws!
In this sense quantum physics events are a challenge to God. There is no possibility of a miracle in the quantum world! - Everything possible is already only “probabilistic.” - No miraculous violation of rule is possible as individual events do not follow regular rules.* Here it is as if God does ALWAYS throw dice to select the outcome.
---------------------
*Eistein’s “hidden variable” have not been shown to be false, but if they do exist, then other things most consider more essential to a universe one can believe in cannot also be true.
That could be so, or not. I know the general scientific consesus is that it is so.
Again, it remains why physics theories should be taken to be the most relevant explanations of how things are. What would be accomplished by that? What benefit would it serve? What desire would be satisfied by taking physics theories to be the most relevant explanations of how things are?
Can you suggest some viable alternatives ?
Myles, we both know by now that the only option you find "viable" is your option.
In your vocabulary, "viable" pretty much means "in accord with Myles' ideas of how things should be". So anything that is in discord with your ideas of how things should be, is "not viable", according to you.
Sure.
But the question is whether all choices that we make are made this way.
What you describe above is basically an aspect of how karma works; it pertains to the material world.
According to some religious traditions, the material world is not all there is.
i thought i'd covered cause and effect with "my more atheist stance is that every choice we make is based on thought processes. that's not free will, we're slaves to our own brain. "
i agree that god's done a shit job. i enjoy my life, i just don't like how he's done things.
This reply is a cop out!
How about an honest reply. Ignore the word "viable" if you want.
Two questions for you, a comment with third question related to
Q2: Again I define a miracle as a violation of the natural laws that scientist postulate/ believe control ALL material changes, nerve discharges included. - Is that your definition of a miracle also? And again, please note that the accepted "laws of physics" are not identical with the partially un-known "natural laws."
To believe in Karma being effective on matter, you must be rejecting the concept that the material universe, human brain included, is controlled solely by natural laws.
Q3: Is that your POV? -(or have I misunderstood? -if so, please try to state more clearly so I CAN UNDERSTAND.)
Q1: Are you thus stating that non-material "karma" modifies the discharges of nerves in the brain, causing them NOT to be coverned by the natural laws, which science attempts to understand? I.e. thought, choices etc. proceeds under the influence of continuous miracles? (Only one question , stated twice to be clear.)
Q2: Again I define a miracle as a violation of the natural laws that scientist postulate/ believe control ALL material changes, nerve discharges included. - Is that your definition of a miracle also? And again, please note that the accepted "laws of physics" are not identical with the partially un-known "natural laws."
To believe in Karma being effective on matter, you must be rejecting the concept that the material universe, human brain included, is controlled solely by natural laws.
Q3: Is that your POV? -(or have I misunderstood? -if so, please try to state more clearly so I CAN UNDERSTAND.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately, it is not really a cop-out. Myles and I go back a long time. As many people know, conversations with Myles are not rarely simply battles of will, as nothing else will do.
Thanks for the interest.
The alternatives to giving traditional Western science the upper hand in explaining "how things really are", can of course be found in the various religious traditions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism ...) and the various areligious and semi-religious philosophies and worldviews that have emerged over time (from Existentialism to Dianetics etc.). It is a fact that people can and do live in accord with these traditions, worldviews, philosophies (or whatever we wish to call them).
However, whether these traditions, worldviews, philosophies are considered viable, is another matter. Any understanding of "viable" is inevitably embedded in one such tradition, worldview, philosophy. Which is why it seems impossible to come up with objective criteria for what would be "viable" and what would not. I think eventually, each individual person will have to determine for themselves what is viable for them, and what is not.
Of course, people might have much in common in this regard (e.g. it is viable for most people to breathe air; or to hold that people are basically good), but I suspect this commonality is not obligatory (e.g. some people have to breathe purified air because they have a weakened immune system or severe allergies; for someone in a severely abusive situation, believing that their abuser is "basically good" might not be viable).