Free-Will

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'll add these from dictionary.com:



Synonyms 1, 2. practical, firsthand, pragmatic.

Antonyms 1, 2. secondhand, theoretical.

Apparently, secondhand or theoretical is the opposite of empirical (antonym), firsthand, as in my firsthand experience, is synonymous with empirical.

Ok, quantify the experiment and present it to me in a format that is comprehensive and reproducible. I would like to do a scientific analysis and have it reviewed by the scientific community. If you are correct then we have negated everything we know about the universe and our place in it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." --Albert Einstein.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken". --Albert Einstein

I didn't see anything about fantasy in those quotes. I understand what Einstein is saying in a completely different manner. As I understand it, he is recognizing the value of philosophy and such as a gateway, but realizes that sometimes these percepts can become seemingly unbreakable over time.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, quantify the experiment and present it to me in a format that is comprehensive and reproducible. I would like to do a scientific analysis and have it reviewed by the scientific community. If you are correct then we have negated everything we know about the universe and our place in it.

We haven't negated anything. Science is not all of the universe. The science you are talking about explains the physical aspects of the universe. Science springs from philosophy. Science does not replace philosophy. Science is a means of assessing and uncovering natural laws and attributes of life. Science is not natural law. Science is not life. Science is perfectly well and good in it's place in the universe.

A science that dominates and overtakes aspects of life outside it's grasp is not science but instead is scientism.

No matter what argument you use to back scientism and to back up dominating what science does not have dominion over--such as life, itself--your argument is automatically invalid, because natural law will be against you.

Ahnimus

Science can explain everything, except your dream world. Think about it.

Binaural

Ahnimus wrote:

I mean, if you guys have any faith in science.

Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, basically stimulating neurons non-invasively by a magnet, scientists can control what you do and you believe you made the choice.

At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.

Ahnimus

Binaural wrote:

At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.

From wikipedia:

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.

They all basically mean the same thing. Free-will as in the ability to control our choices outside of deterministic reality.

Ahnimus

Binaural wrote:

At best these experiments show that under certain circumstances, scentists can override free will. What they have done is not disprove it. Also, I find the problem with this thread is that for there to be a debate of any substance we first have to agree on what free will is.

Also, the thing is. To debate this issue you really have to look deep. For example, because scientists can over-ride or interfere with free-will by stimulating the brain, implies that free-will is a function of the brain, not the function of anything else.

Binaural

Ahnimus wrote:

"Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." -- Albert Einstein

"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking

"There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." - Clarence Darrow

"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin

"The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism, so they are freed from their own shame and guilt, they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born." -- Peter Gill

"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach

"Whether or not we have personality disturbances, whether or not we have the ability to overcome deficiencies of early environment, is like the answer to the question whether or not we shall be struck down by a dread disease: "it's all a matter of luck." It is important to keep this in mind, for people almost always forget it, with consequences in human intolerance and unnecessary suffering that are incalculable." -- John Hospers

"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky

"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." -- Bertrand Russell

"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner

"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner

"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity." - Baruch Spinoza

"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire

The real irony of all this, is science leading to God. Steven Hawkings one of the foremost physicists says in A Brief History of Time Pg. 127 "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us"

That's a pretty good argument. But, it doesn't explain what God is.

You have no scientific support, what you have is the support of scientists. Two completely different things.

Ahnimus

Binaural wrote:

You have no scientific support, what you have is the support of scientists. Two completely different things.

Ok, well here is a place to start. I can help explain any of these things further, or let you know how it pertains to the issue.

Here are some links to many of the scientific theories and philosophical views.
Basic behavior of organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

Hebbian Theory: Synaptic Plasticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory

Cellular Automata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Automaton

Cellular Automata: Rule 30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30

Benjamin Libet: Implications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...7s_experiments

Synapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Love: Chemical Basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis

Physics: Destiny Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_theory

Free-Wll: Science and Free-Will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-wi..._and_free_will

More are available upon request.

Binaural

Ahnimus wrote:

Also, the thing is. To debate this issue you really have to look deep. For example, because scientists can over-ride or interfere with free-will by stimulating the brain, implies that free-will is a function of the brain, not the function of anything else.

No it implies that the brain is the medium through which free will manifests itself. For example if I smash up my teleivision right now it does not prove that the signal is no longer working it merely proves that the medium through which the signal actualizes itself is not working.

Binaural

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well here is a place to start. I can help explain any of these things further, or let you know how it pertains to the issue.

Here are some links to many of the scientific theories and philosophical views.
Basic behavior of organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

Hebbian Theory: Synaptic Plasticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory

Cellular Automata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Automaton

Cellular Automata: Rule 30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30

Benjamin Libet: Implications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...7s_experiments

Synapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Love: Chemical Basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis

Physics: Destiny Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_theory

Free-Wll: Science and Free-Will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-wi..._and_free_will

More are available upon request.

These should be enough cheers. I'll leaf through them at some point today.

Ahnimus

I also recommend these

Information-processing in psychology, refers to the way the brain processes information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing

Jean Piaget, a well respected developmental psychologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

Ahnimus

There is one regarding the ecological-systems viewpoint on behavioral development, but I can't find a source :(

David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Pscyhology" is how I learned about it.

It's pretty basic though, it just means that everyone is subjected to a different variety of ecosystem and this weighs on their development.

Ahnimus

B.F Skinner, a very well respected psychologist.
(You may have read his quotes in the post above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

Psychology: Behaviorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

I would point out the absence of the study of free-will. All approaches to psychology, either subjective or objective disregard free-will. Psychology is typically considered the subjective approach to studying the mind, contrary to what Angelica has taught. Although Psychology has undergone some major changes to validate it.

Binaural

Ahnimus wrote:

I also recommend these

Information-processing in psychology, refers to the way the brain processes information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_processing

Jean Piaget, a well respected developmental psychologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

Thanks.
This is difficult. To argue from a scientific perspective is not really possible, there is simply not enough information and research on this matter, what I have seen has seemed to be a stepping stone to further understanding rather that descisive evidence. From a philosophical perspective is again difficult, manily because I would prefer to kepp 'GOD' out of the equation because it's inclusion tends to cause anyone tlaking to deviate.
The reason I found your early examples of the wrist movement to be weak was simply that I do not see the body and conciousness to be synonyms. I can't decide that I am never going to take a piss again, but I can decide what book I'm going to read. I believe that conciousness, free will, has to exist within a biological housing and and that two have to have a connection, using the example of the book, what good is it if I decide to read a book but cannot make myself pick it up and turn the pages. The result of this connection is that the two become to be seen as synonyms, which they are not. I cannot explain how free will came about, it's causality, I am merely stating that logic tells me that it exists in some form.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Science can explain everything, except your dream world. Think about it.

I think it's that attitude that brings you head-on with angelica, and for that matter me. And I am a scientist of sorts. Well social sciences, but we use scientific methodology and statistics, which often are the center-pieces of science. And the key thing about science in my experience, is also knowing what you can or can't know based on scientific enquiry. What you can uncover and what you can't.

You posit that determinism is scientifically proved and sound and unproblematic. This is far from the case. True, some scientists have posited that the universe may be run on deterministic rules. And to some degree they may be right. But at least when they are applying their laws, they have to view the world as deterministic. Law = determinism. If you find a law, in order to use it, you must base it on determinism. That doesn't mean that the law is true, or is detailed enough.

And what angelica is on about, which I support, is about what is not physical (the way we think of it anyway), what is not rational and what is not scientific. And there are lots of things that are neither of these. With your statement here, you clearly state that you will refuse to consider anything of the sort. For your purposes science = reality. Frankly, that's your loss. And what angelica was about when quoting Einstein on the earthly origins of science, and how the structures that are seen to explain and order something often are in the way in discovering new things. Science is man-made. It is not given special insight, nor is it automatically true even if due process is followed. Science is about repeating things and writing down the results to enable prediction. And although it is a good method for many things, one must have in mind it's limitations. For instance things that cannot be repeated can never be scientific. Doesn't mean they never can happen. Science can be used to determine various mechanics and causations in the world, true. But that does not mean that because science can't find them, they aren't there... Science is about what we can be sure of. But there are a lot of things that are on the outside of what we can be sure of. Think of science as a small circle inside a larger circle that's reality and everything in it. Science is part of reality, it is not equal to it.

But if you refuse to go any way in acknowledging or accepting such a view, then the debate is really mute. If you cannot accept that there are or at least may be things that are beyond science, scientific enquiry or even logic, well I guess that's that.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

Binaural wrote:

Thanks.
This is difficult. To argue from a scientific perspective is not really possible, there is simply not enough information and research on this matter, what I have seen has seemed to be a stepping stone to further understanding rather that descisive evidence. From a philosophical perspective is again difficult, manily because I would prefer to kepp 'GOD' out of the equation because it's inclusion tends to cause anyone tlaking to deviate.
The reason I found your early examples of the wrist movement to be weak was simply that I do not see the body and conciousness to be synonyms. I can't decide that I am never going to take a piss again, but I can decide what book I'm going to read. I believe that conciousness, free will, has to exist within a biological housing and and that two have to have a connection, using the example of the book, what good is it if I decide to read a book but cannot make myself pick it up and turn the pages. The result of this connection is that the two become to be seen as synonyms, which they are not. I cannot explain how free will came about, it's causality, I am merely stating that logic tells me that it exists in some form.

This link was busted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#The_implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments

See the thing is, you are saying it is causally bound. The only argument against determinism is that it isn't causally bound.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

I think it's that attitude that brings you head-on with angelica, and for that matter me. And I am a scientist of sorts. Well social sciences, but we use scientific methodology and statistics, which often are the center-pieces of science. And the key thing about science in my experience, is also knowing what you can or can't know based on scientific enquiry. What you can uncover and what you can't.

You posit that determinism is scientifically proved and sound and unproblematic. This is far from the case. True, some scientists have posited that the universe may be run on deterministic rules. And to some degree they may be right. But at least when they are applying their laws, they have to view the world as deterministic. Law = determinism. If you find a law, in order to use it, you must base it on determinism. That doesn't mean that the law is true, or is detailed enough.

And what angelica is on about, which I support, is about what is not physical (the way we think of it anyway), what is not rational and what is not scientific. And there are lots of things that are neither of these. With your statement here, you clearly state that you will refuse to consider anything of the sort. For your purposes science = reality. Frankly, that's your loss. And what angelica was about when quoting Einstein on the earthly origins of science, and how the structures that are seen to explain and order something often are in the way in discovering new things. Science is man-made. It is not given special insight, nor is it automatically true even if due process is followed. Science is about repeating things and writing down the results to enable prediction. And although it is a good method for many things, one must have in mind it's limitations. For instance things that cannot be repeated can never be scientific. Doesn't mean they never can happen. Science can be used to determine various mechanics and causations in the world, true. But that does not mean that because science can't find them, they aren't there... Science is about what we can be sure of. But there are a lot of things that are on the outside of what we can be sure of. Think of science as a small circle inside a larger circle that's reality and everything in it. Science is part of reality, it is not equal to it.

But if you refuse to go any way in acknowledging or accepting such a view, then the debate is really mute. If you cannot accept that there are or at least may be things that are beyond science, scientific enquiry or even logic, well I guess that's that.

Peace
Dan

Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety. That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.

Yea, Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will. However, from the moment of birth the human being begins to determine causality. We are attuned to the causal structure or the universe. After all we are a part of it. As a social scientist, I would think that would be understood. Or perhaps I don't know what a social scientist is. This can be clear from even minor studies of human development, or simply by observing children. It's true how the brain develops in developmental biology, a child has trillions more neurons than an adult and is highly plastic. This is the stage for determining most of reality. If part of the brain is knocked out at this point, other neurons will take over the job. This is not true for adults and many of those neurons, dendrites and white matter fails to survive into adulthood as they serve no purpose. Right from the start, both biologically and psychologically speaking, the human being determines cause and effect.

I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?

Ahnimus

I meant to mention as well Dan, that science has lead society to better understanding. Most of how we live today is cause of science. We do not banish the parapolegic or decapitate the schizophrenic anymore. We do not view people as witches, warlocks and demons. This is because of what science has taught us about ourselves.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety. That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.

Yea, Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will. However, from the moment of birth the human being begins to determine causality. We are attuned to the causal structure or the universe. After all we are a part of it. As a social scientist, I would think that would be understood. Or perhaps I don't know what a social scientist is. This can be clear from even minor studies of human development, or simply by observing children. It's true how the brain develops in developmental biology, a child has trillions more neurons than an adult and is highly plastic. This is the stage for determining most of reality. If part of the brain is knocked out at this point, other neurons will take over the job. This is not true for adults and many of those neurons, dendrites and white matter fails to survive into adulthood as they serve no purpose. Right from the start, both biologically and psychologically speaking, the human being determines cause and effect.

I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?

And I do follow some of the way on it, like Angelica. I just dont accept it in its entirety. Firstly because for us to verify it, we must have complete knowledge of it. And we dont have complete knowledge of anything. We are now on about the parts of psychology I never got a liking for, for various reasons. Put simply, it is about what neurotransmitters cause which moods and behaviour and so on. However, I always felt the causality of it was pretty unclear. OK, serotonin is associated with this and that. But what prompts the release of serotonin? Do you feel what you feel because of serotonin, or is serotonin released when you feel that way? And even if you can reproduce some of the effect with a pill, that does not mean 100% certainty that the chemical always comes first, and the mind is ever re-acting. Same way the experiment at the outset shows that one can fool people's will into believing they willed it. Does not mean that they never will something, or that the stimulus always comes first. Although it does raise questions.

Besides, does your argument here read then as we have free will as little toddlers, but once our brains are "stiffened" we are deterministic?

And also, deterministic states that it is completely certain that something will happen. Not reasonably sure or pretty sure. One thing is that habits, learned mind sets and so on has a huge influence on what a person thinks or does. But knowing the mindset and habits should then enable you to be completely sure how this person will act in every situation. Meaning everyone will always act predictably. I dont accept that for so many reasons, and angelica is onto many of them. (She also says it better than I could have)

And as I read it now, what you say about "from birth we determine causality" etc. Well, we are born into a system. A man-made system and a man-made way of seeing things. We are not born into objectivity. We all are subjectivities. 2+2=4 is true in a certain system of mathematics and logic constructed by men. In reality or other systems 2+2 may hold no meaning at all. That our brain is trained to determine cause and effect a certain way, does not mean it is true, objectively, outside our heads. Maybe our way of thinking automatically excludes much of reality.

I'm just saying you put too much into science and its results. And there's no reason to blow off philosophy or any transcendent view as "hippy talk". There are a lot of things we dont know. And just because you can put together a perspective from bits and pieces of science (who in its nature is biased towards determinism by its quest for laws) to make a certain picture, does not mean you have the full picture. The smaller circle is not the bigger circle...

Peace
Dan