You have to be able to describe what it is you mean by free-will. The philosophical definition in dispute in this article is not a complex causal system. Free-will is a contra-causal system, it has no causes, it spontaneously pops into existence with the parameters and attributes it wants to have without anything determining what it wants. It can't determine what it wants, because then it would already have attributes that gave rise to what it wants. The paradox is that free-will cannot be caused or determined by anything, including it's self.
You are the one insisting that free will must be something of that magnitude. I cannot speak for the others here, but to me, free will doesn't have to mean anything more than adding a random element which would mean that the world is not entirely predetermined and fixed in stone forever and ever. Free will don't have to contradict causality by definition. Furthermore, the causality you claim, implicitly states that we know all the causes, or at least where all causes can come from. Which is a pretty bold statement. It is not reduced to simply determinism = cause and effect and free will = no cause and no effect. Free will may be nothing more than focus of attention, or us focusing on some influences more than others.
Hard determinism is an equally untenable position as the complete free will (which btw is not what I'm advocating here). Determinism then requires that everything happens in the only way it possibly could, and everything that comes later was determined precisely and irrevocably at the beginning of time. To claim it demands that we know everything, or enough of it to make no difference.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I agree, Dan, about definitions of free-will. It's been obvious for awhile that Ahnimus' free-will and my own are like apples and oranges in comparison. I'm also willing to say that, imo, Ahnimus' version and the religious version are apples and oranges, as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Hard determinism is an equally untenable position as the complete free will (which btw is not what I'm advocating here). Determinism then requires that everything happens in the only way it possibly could, and everything that comes later was determined precisely and irrevocably at the beginning of time. To claim it demands that we know everything, or enough of it to make no difference.
Peace
Dan
Yeah, it makes me think of things like radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons which are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then how can hard determinism hold?
Seems to me since randomness and chance are known to exist in nature then hard determinism, a relic of classical physics, can't hold as every event can't be known or predicted as required by hard determinism.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yeah, it makes me think of things like radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons which are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then how can hard determinism hold?
Seems to me since randomness and chance are known to exist in nature then hard determinism, a relic of classical physics, can't hold as every event can't be known or predicted as required by hard determinism.
Murray Gell-Mann (a particle physicist) coined the term Quantum-Flapdoodle to describe that interpretation of quantum indeterminacy.
In Freedom Evolves by a compatibalist Daniel C. Dennet, he lays out exactly why any pseudo-randomness or true randomness has absolutely no bearing on whether or not our will's are free.
Regardless if the universe is purely deterministic, human beings will never be able to predict all futures, it is beyond our scope to know the state of the entire universe. In order to predict the future, we'd have to be the universe, and we are not. That in no way means that determinism is not true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?
Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Did you get the joke about, "there are three kinds of people in this world..." ?
My instincts tell me you did.
I'm just wondering.
Yea, I thought it was pretty funny. It's not the first time I've heard it though.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are the one insisting that free will must be something of that magnitude. I cannot speak for the others here, but to me, free will doesn't have to mean anything more than adding a random element which would mean that the world is not entirely predetermined and fixed in stone forever and ever. Free will don't have to contradict causality by definition. Furthermore, the causality you claim, implicitly states that we know all the causes, or at least where all causes can come from. Which is a pretty bold statement. It is not reduced to simply determinism = cause and effect and free will = no cause and no effect. Free will may be nothing more than focus of attention, or us focusing on some influences more than others.
Hard determinism is an equally untenable position as the complete free will (which btw is not what I'm advocating here). Determinism then requires that everything happens in the only way it possibly could, and everything that comes later was determined precisely and irrevocably at the beginning of time. To claim it demands that we know everything, or enough of it to make no difference.
Peace
Dan
Even if you add a random element as Kane suggests. You are not the randomizer, the randomizer is an external factor to your deliberation. Your deliberation as a contained system, with or without truly random variables behaves the same. By your definition of Free-will, a computer chess program has freedom of the will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?
Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.
You have this thing that some people can see what others cannot. The illusion. The trickery. As someone who advocates science education, do you not see the shortcoming of your thinking?
There are three kinds of people in the world.
Those that can count. And those that can't count.
You have this thing that some people can see what others cannot. The illusion. The trickery. As someone who advocates science education, do you not see the shortcoming of your thinking?
There are three kinds of people in the world.
Those that can count. And those that can't count.
No, I see the shallowness of compatibalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely absurd and people like Kane who claim to be libertarian, repeatedly display compatibalism. Compatibalists tend to make the case against free-will then try to slip it in with complexity, along the lines of the unpredictable. A coin-toss is unpredictable, but it's as much determined by antecedent variables as is the whether. The problem of seeing this lies in the sophistication of the observer. 1,000 years ago a coin-toss may have been considered a truly random event alongside quantum indeterminacy. If you could travel back in time with a 52" plasma screen people would shit their pants and persecute you as a warlock. The current case of quantum understanding is no different.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Quantum Events are doubtfully random. Because macro objects could not exist in a world constructed of truly random particles. A table could exist for no longer than a nano-second without being randomly changed into something else. It seems rather unlikely that a billion billion atoms would randomly form a table in every second of their existence. The key to understanding quantum indeterminacy is in probabilities. Probabilities necessarily follow from a deterministic system.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, I see the shallowness of compatibalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely absurd and people like Kane who claim to be libertarian, repeatedly display compatibalism. Compatibalists tend to make the case against free-will then try to slip it in with complexity, along the lines of the unpredictable. A coin-toss is unpredictable, but it's as much determined by antecedent variables as is the whether. The problem of seeing this lies in the sophistication of the observer. 1,000 years ago a coin-toss may have been considered a truly random event alongside quantum indeterminacy. If you could travel back in time with a 52" plasma screen people would shit their pants and persecute you as a warlock. The current case of quantum understanding is no different.
So, if I could somehow magically transport Ben Franklin out of the 18th century into my home, and sit him in front of this computer, Ben Franklin would consider me warlock?
So, if I could somehow magically transport Ben Franklin out of the 18th century into my home, and sit him in front of this computer, Ben Franklin would consider me warlock?
I don't think so.
Ben Franklin. Probably not. But you must consider sophistication. I said 1,000 years ago. But yet, you could grab Democritus from 550 B.C.E. and he wouldn't call you a warlock either. Because these are fairly sophisticated people with decent understandings of the universe and the possibilities of it. Unsophisticated people from any era, including our own, might had they no understanding of it. When David Blaine turns on a lightbulb with his hands, they believe it's magic. When in reality, it's a prop lightbulb. There never has been any magic, but people of all ages have imagined there is. Free-will is just one of those magics.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ben Franklin. Probably not. But you must consider sophistication. I said 1,000 years ago. But yet, you could grab Democritus from 550 B.C.E. and he wouldn't call you a warlock either. Because these are fairly sophisticated people with decent understandings of the universe and the possibilities of it. Unsophisticated people from any era, including our own, might had they no understanding of it. When David Blaine turns on a lightbulb with his hands, they believe it's magic. When in reality, it's a prop lightbulb. There never has been any magic, but people of all ages have imagined there is. Free-will is just one of those magics.
You're giving too much credence to human evolution. It is really an imperceptible phenomenon. I know you watched zeitgeist. How do you consider our ancestors to be intellectually inferior when they were able record and communicate the movement of the stars over thousands of years? Long before the bible was written.
You're giving too much credence to human evolution. It is really an imperceptible phenomenon. I know you watched zeitgeist. How do you consider our ancestors to be intellectually inferior when they were able record and communicate the movement of the stars over thousands of years? Long before the bible was written.
Within the context of my post "sophisticated" means learned or wise, not intelligent. I've no doubt that humans of 5,000 years ago were equally as capable as we are today, but through the natural evolution of our understanding of the universe - many thanks to them for their contribution - we are more capable of understanding things which they have no foundation for. In Democritus' time, few people could even fathom the theory of atoms. As it was a-tom literally means unsplittable which is incorrect by our modern understanding of particle physics. But only a handful of people really grasped what the concept was. Today, it's common understanding.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Within the context of my post "sophisticated" means learned or wise, not intelligent. I've no doubt that humans of 5,000 years ago were equally as capable as we are today, but through the natural evolution of our understanding of the universe - many thanks to them for their contribution - we are more capable of understanding things which they have no foundation for. In Democritus' time, few people could even fathom the theory of atoms. As it was a-tom literally means unsplittable which is incorrect by our modern understanding of particle physics. But only a handful of people really grasped what the concept was. Today, it's common understanding.
But, who is "few people"?
Goddamn, Ahnimus. You're coming across as extrememly elitist. You are coming across as a "privileged, secret information" type, and it doesn't fool me. It's like, to you, there are ape-humans, then there are the thinkers. I know you are a thinker, but so is everyone else whether you like it or not.
I agree, Dan, about definitions of free-will. It's been obvious for awhile that Ahnimus' free-will and my own are like apples and oranges in comparison. I'm also willing to say that, imo, Ahnimus' version and the religious version are apples and oranges, as well.
They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or you don't understand the term.
I'm on my fifth book on the subject now and they all talk about exactly the same thing. If it was a simple misunderstanding of the term, this wouldn't be a 5,000 year old debate.
The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Goddamn, Ahnimus. You're coming across as extrememly elitist. You are coming across as a "privileged, secret information" type, and it doesn't fool me. It's like, to you, there are ape-humans, then there are the thinkers. I know you are a thinker, but so is everyone else whether you like it or not.
Democritus and Leucippus to name a couple of the top of my head.
I'm not an elitist, but you appear to be coming into the debate cold, without any sophisticated understanding of the central thesis of free-will and the implications of having it or not. I've spent on average about 4 hours a day (probably more) over the last year, studying this subject. You can't expect to spend 5 minutes on it and prove me wrong. I can tell, there is a major void in understanding this subject. No one here really seems to grasp the ideas. They are too quick to pass it off as incorrect than to actually give it some serious open-minded thought. My guess is, because it's an unsettling idea that free-will is not true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or you don't understand the term.
I'm on my fifth book on the subject now and they all talk about exactly the same thing. If it was a simple misunderstanding of the term, this wouldn't be a 5,000 year old debate.
The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
To be honest, I'm very fond of the book I'm reading, even though it's in opposition (in-part) with my views. I disagree with the pivotal idea of the book, but I agree with many of the details. I'm not reciting a holy book to you, I'm primarily giving my thoughts unless I find them hard to articulate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Democritus and Leucippus to name a couple of the top of my head.
I'm not an elitist, but you appear to be coming into the debate cold, without any sophisticated understanding of the central thesis of free-will and the implications of having it or not. I've spent on average about 4 hours a day (probably more) over the last year, studying this subject. You can't expect to spend 5 minutes on it and prove me wrong. I can tell, there is a major void in understanding this subject. No one here really seems to grasp the ideas. They are too quick to pass it off as incorrect than to actually give it some serious open-minded thought. My guess is, because it's an unsettling idea that free-will is not true.
You don't know your own ignorance. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Right or wrong.
I KNOW WHO I AM.
I don't have to study 4 hours a day on two simple words for weeks on end. Why do you?
You don't know your own ignorance. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Right or wrong.
I KNOW WHO I AM.
I don't have to study 4 hours a day on two simple words for weeks on end. Why do you?
Do you see the difference?
Yes, you are taking for granted your introspection.
For many many years the earth was believed to be flat, because it appeared that way, but when it was finally disproven, the earth appeared to be round. When I look at the horizon, I see a curve and wonder how anyone could imagine it was flat, but it's because I know what to look for.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, you are taking for granted your introspection.
For many many years the earth was believed to be flat, because it appeared that way, but when it was finally disproven, the earth appeared to be round. When I look at the horizon, I see a curve and wonder how anyone could imagine it was flat, but it's because I know what to look for.
The earth was not believed to be flat. That's a fucking myth.
The earth was not believed to be flat. That's a fucking myth.
I don't even know where to begin with you.
How about, grade 6, in high-school. I think you can learn that part of history there.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Dude, you're a thinker, but you can't out think a thinker.
Personally. You seem like an antagonist comedian. Like those people who pick on minor errors in speech or deliberately take things the wrong way for their own amusement. I don't intend to out-think you, because I doubt your taking this discussion seriously.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Personally. You seem like an antagonist comedian. Like those people who pick on minor errors in speech or deliberately take things the wrong way for their own amusement. I don't intend to out-think you, because I doubt your taking this discussion seriously.
What's to take seriously?
You?
I mean, I think you're an alright guy and all, but ...well...you have a way of coming across as authoritative that I find humorous. Yeah.
I appreciate your dedication to education, but you are not an educator so much as you are a preacher. And that doesn't make for good education.
Comments
Hard determinism is an equally untenable position as the complete free will (which btw is not what I'm advocating here). Determinism then requires that everything happens in the only way it possibly could, and everything that comes later was determined precisely and irrevocably at the beginning of time. To claim it demands that we know everything, or enough of it to make no difference.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah, it makes me think of things like radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons which are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then how can hard determinism hold?
Seems to me since randomness and chance are known to exist in nature then hard determinism, a relic of classical physics, can't hold as every event can't be known or predicted as required by hard determinism.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
This was a good piece. Thanks for sharing. I haven't seen anything bad from TED.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I have to ask.
Did you get the joke about, "there are three kinds of people in this world..." ?
My instincts tell me you did.
I'm just wondering.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Murray Gell-Mann (a particle physicist) coined the term Quantum-Flapdoodle to describe that interpretation of quantum indeterminacy.
In Freedom Evolves by a compatibalist Daniel C. Dennet, he lays out exactly why any pseudo-randomness or true randomness has absolutely no bearing on whether or not our will's are free.
Regardless if the universe is purely deterministic, human beings will never be able to predict all futures, it is beyond our scope to know the state of the entire universe. In order to predict the future, we'd have to be the universe, and we are not. That in no way means that determinism is not true.
Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.
By Michael Shermer
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0006F4CB-F090-11BE-AD0683414B7F0000
Yea, I thought it was pretty funny. It's not the first time I've heard it though.
Even if you add a random element as Kane suggests. You are not the randomizer, the randomizer is an external factor to your deliberation. Your deliberation as a contained system, with or without truly random variables behaves the same. By your definition of Free-will, a computer chess program has freedom of the will.
You have this thing that some people can see what others cannot. The illusion. The trickery. As someone who advocates science education, do you not see the shortcoming of your thinking?
There are three kinds of people in the world.
Those that can count. And those that can't count.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't think you get it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No, I see the shallowness of compatibalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely absurd and people like Kane who claim to be libertarian, repeatedly display compatibalism. Compatibalists tend to make the case against free-will then try to slip it in with complexity, along the lines of the unpredictable. A coin-toss is unpredictable, but it's as much determined by antecedent variables as is the whether. The problem of seeing this lies in the sophistication of the observer. 1,000 years ago a coin-toss may have been considered a truly random event alongside quantum indeterminacy. If you could travel back in time with a 52" plasma screen people would shit their pants and persecute you as a warlock. The current case of quantum understanding is no different.
So, if I could somehow magically transport Ben Franklin out of the 18th century into my home, and sit him in front of this computer, Ben Franklin would consider me warlock?
I don't think so.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ben Franklin. Probably not. But you must consider sophistication. I said 1,000 years ago. But yet, you could grab Democritus from 550 B.C.E. and he wouldn't call you a warlock either. Because these are fairly sophisticated people with decent understandings of the universe and the possibilities of it. Unsophisticated people from any era, including our own, might had they no understanding of it. When David Blaine turns on a lightbulb with his hands, they believe it's magic. When in reality, it's a prop lightbulb. There never has been any magic, but people of all ages have imagined there is. Free-will is just one of those magics.
You're giving too much credence to human evolution. It is really an imperceptible phenomenon. I know you watched zeitgeist. How do you consider our ancestors to be intellectually inferior when they were able record and communicate the movement of the stars over thousands of years? Long before the bible was written.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Within the context of my post "sophisticated" means learned or wise, not intelligent. I've no doubt that humans of 5,000 years ago were equally as capable as we are today, but through the natural evolution of our understanding of the universe - many thanks to them for their contribution - we are more capable of understanding things which they have no foundation for. In Democritus' time, few people could even fathom the theory of atoms. As it was a-tom literally means unsplittable which is incorrect by our modern understanding of particle physics. But only a handful of people really grasped what the concept was. Today, it's common understanding.
But, who is "few people"?
Goddamn, Ahnimus. You're coming across as extrememly elitist. You are coming across as a "privileged, secret information" type, and it doesn't fool me. It's like, to you, there are ape-humans, then there are the thinkers. I know you are a thinker, but so is everyone else whether you like it or not.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or
I'm on my fifth book on the subject now and they all talk about exactly the same thing. If it was a simple misunderstanding of the term, this wouldn't be a 5,000 year old debate.
The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-will
Democritus and Leucippus to name a couple of the top of my head.
I'm not an elitist, but you appear to be coming into the debate cold, without any sophisticated understanding of the central thesis of free-will and the implications of having it or not. I've spent on average about 4 hours a day (probably more) over the last year, studying this subject. You can't expect to spend 5 minutes on it and prove me wrong. I can tell, there is a major void in understanding this subject. No one here really seems to grasp the ideas. They are too quick to pass it off as incorrect than to actually give it some serious open-minded thought. My guess is, because it's an unsettling idea that free-will is not true.
The Book says it all, huh?
Where have I heard that before?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Which book?
To be honest, I'm very fond of the book I'm reading, even though it's in opposition (in-part) with my views. I disagree with the pivotal idea of the book, but I agree with many of the details. I'm not reciting a holy book to you, I'm primarily giving my thoughts unless I find them hard to articulate.
You don't know your own ignorance. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Right or wrong.
I KNOW WHO I AM.
I don't have to study 4 hours a day on two simple words for weeks on end. Why do you?
Do you see the difference?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes, you are taking for granted your introspection.
For many many years the earth was believed to be flat, because it appeared that way, but when it was finally disproven, the earth appeared to be round. When I look at the horizon, I see a curve and wonder how anyone could imagine it was flat, but it's because I know what to look for.
The earth was not believed to be flat. That's a fucking myth.
I don't even know where to begin with you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
How about, grade 6, in high-school. I think you can learn that part of history there.
You believe that?
Too bad.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Dude, you're a thinker, but you can't out think a thinker.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Personally. You seem like an antagonist comedian. Like those people who pick on minor errors in speech or deliberately take things the wrong way for their own amusement. I don't intend to out-think you, because I doubt your taking this discussion seriously.
What's to take seriously?
You?
I mean, I think you're an alright guy and all, but ...well...you have a way of coming across as authoritative that I find humorous. Yeah.
I appreciate your dedication to education, but you are not an educator so much as you are a preacher. And that doesn't make for good education.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.