Comparative Religion: Godmen

Kann

Ahnimus wrote:

Determinism works quite well for identifying our motivations for our behavior.

Free-will doesn't.

As far as philosophy goes there is no reconciliation of free-will.

As James Jeans said in the quote I posted.

"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate." - Sir James Jeans (Physics and Philosophy; 1943)

Not much keeps the notion of free-will afloat. Mainly pride, greed, envy, shame, and religion.

There is also the argument from morality. But if you knew that there was some cause for a crime, would you feel it's moral to imprison the individual for life, or execute them?

This has been the problem throughout history. Witches burned, homosexuals and pedophiles lobotomized or hung, etc...

It's only recently that we've come to acheive understanding of various social disabilities like pervasive developement disorder (E.g. autism). Prior to these deterministic explanations we've consistently attributed cause to free-will. It's really an atrocious theory when you view it in this perspective.

I don't read nearly enough philosophy but saying Descartes and Kant weren't advocates of free will seem ridiculous. On the other hand I have no idea who is James Jean so he may well know things I don't. But for all I know it is just another interpretation.
What I don't understand either is what you make of free will. Or more exactly what I consider free will to be : I know our behaviors are explainable by causes (hormonal levels, brain dysfunctions etc.) and some of our actions are made outside the scope of free will. I can't say free will accounts for everything I do, I don't chose to have a beating heart, I don't chose to digest and to evacuate the consequences, I don't chose most of my urges.
Free will to me is the capacity we have to reflect on our selves and evolving our way of life, not choosing my sexual preferences. Is that free will?
As for reponsibility in multiple cases the accused is deemed irresponsible of his acts, that doesn't mean everyone is actually irresponsible. If tomorrow I go and steal a few hundred thousand euros because I feel my life sucks I cannot see how I can't be held responsible for that. Your other examples of homosexuality/witch hunting etc. do not describe a modern society in which the separation between state and church is effective. Do not confuse free will and religion, a free will society does not need to pick on homosexuals - a religious one will use the argument of free will to do that but it isn't the fault of free will.

Ahnimus

Take a look at the thread on Joshua and Eva Mauldin. Or any thread that pops up where an atrocious act has been commited. The board members display a sense of moral blame, not responsibility, but moral blame. With statements like "Sick fuckers" "If I had a bat.." and this is very very common.

As with almost all of these cases, they were mentally unhealthy. It should be assumed by now that is almost always the case. Similarly, with teenagers who murder their parents, there is almost always a situation of physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse.

People would find causes if they looked, but they don't. They are satisfied with free-will.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Take a look at the thread on Joshua and Eva Mauldin. Or any thread that pops up where an atrocious act has been commited. The board members display a sense of moral blame, not responsibility, but moral blame. With statements like "Sick fuckers" "If I had a bat.." and this is very very common.

As with almost all of these cases, they were mentally unhealthy. It should be assumed by now that is almost always the case. Similarly, with teenagers who murder their parents, there is almost always a situation of physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse.

People would find causes if they looked, but they don't. They are satisfied with free-will.

I agree with you here completely. And I also believe in free-will, so in my mind, this issue is independent of free-will. It's completely dependent on where the emotional evolution of humans happens to be at this time.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree with you here completely. And I also believe in free-will, so in my mind, this issue is independent of free-will. It's completely dependent on where the emotional evolution of humans happens to be at this time.

It has a lot more to do with knowledge than anything else. Ignorant people attribute cause to free-will.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It has a lot more to do with knowledge than anything else. Ignorant people attribute cause to free-will.

I agree with this. This is why imo, it is important for people like you and I to not also contribute to this by falsely attributing "free-will" as the cause. We need to demystify it and focus in on what is real--where the actual causes are.

You and I get this cause thing. Very few people do. We have the 'Truth'. Do we want to give our power away by adapting our arguments so that they work with the arguments of ignorance? If we do adapt and argue against ignorance, we are choosing to be responsive to ignorance. I choose not to respond to ignorance. I rather choose to construct arguments based on what is true. I choose not to use my awareness to give falsehood and illusion power. I would love to see you with me on this, however you interpret actual cause, and to see you be the creator of arguments of truth, not a reacter to ignorance.

Ahnimus

I am reacting to ignorance. I just happen to sound like Voltaire when I do it.

I guess my model wasn't made that way Angelica.

Well all I got is my tongue an esophagus and two lungs, skeletal system plus muscle tissue and I'm done

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I am reacting to ignorance. I just happen to sound like Voltaire when I do it.

I guess my model wasn't made that way Angelica.

Well all I got is my tongue an esophagus and two lungs, skeletal system plus muscle tissue and I'm done

I realize you are you. That includes that when you learn something, you will incorporate it into your being, which is always a process.

The difference between being individuated and being tied into the "tribal" mind set is that we create a buffer between our responses to anything. We introduce awareness in the moment. By doing so, we can choose our responses, rather than reacting based on emotions beneath the conscious surface.

If you intellectually understand that by reacting to ignorance, you are perpetuating the cycle, as opposed to responding with truth, there is no choice. It's determined that you choose truth.

What this looks like is that you focus on what is logical to create. And therefore one must let go of creating more dissonance. Reacting to ignorance and allowing ignorance to lead is not logical. When we change our thoughts we must then tranform our emotional responses that include the blame you also dislike. We consciously integrate those emotions back into the entire system, in service of truth or the actual over-riding vision of what is logical. This is challenging, but the entire system IS truth, so if you align with it, it will support you. The challenging part is that it's painful to own one's own conflicts, within. It's much easier to react and try to "give them away".

angelica

One more thing...I want to be clear. I have consciously used my awareness for the past few years on message boards to deconstruct illusory ideas that others have and perpetuate. I do not do it in reaction. I have done it to create awareness. I'm moving into new methods now. However deconstruction is very valid, and even healthy, as long as one adheres to the even playing field. If one does not, one will air their own conflicts and dirty laundry and obscure the value of the truths one is revealing. I personally prefer to own my own conflicts and deal with them personally so that the truths stand even more clearly as IS. And so I don't look petty and foolish.

Ahnimus

Did you by any chance edit your post where you said that you wished I would react to ignorance?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Did you by any chance edit your post where you said that you wished I would react to ignorance?

The last one I edited, was about putting the comma in the last sentence for clarity. I wish you would respond to ignorance by inplementing a buffer that enables you to adhere to the logic of creating an argument constructively in service of the truth.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The last one I edited, was about putting the comma in the last sentence for clarity. I wish you would respond to ignorance by inplementing a buffer that enables you to adhere to the logic of creating an argument constructively in service of the truth.

Haha, this war has been fought for over 2500 years by individuals more intuitive than me. I'm doing my part just knowing the best theories of truth and actioning them. It's not as if my arguments don't have effect, just none that are willing to say anything publicly. Save, Scubascott, who at one point said that my statements about biology and so on are accurate. I can't remember the exact context.

You know, people are much more receptive to the idea of determinism on philosophical and skeptic forums. This is mostly a waste of time. But it does no good to talk about determinism on skepticforum.com since almost everyone just agrees with me.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Haha, this war has been fought for over 2500 years by individuals more intuitive than me. I'm doing my part just knowing the best theories of truth and actioning them. It's not as if my arguments don't have effect, just none that are willing to say anything publicly. Save, Scubascott, who at one point said that my statements about biology and so on are accurate. I can't remember the exact context.

You know, people are much more receptive to the idea of determinism on philosophical and skeptic forums. This is mostly a waste of time. But it does no good to talk about determinism on skepticforum.com since almost everyone just agrees with me.

The great humans who have furthered the causes of determinism have done so because they have aligned with their power which garnered them such a public voice. They have learned to be responsible with their arguments and their beliefs.

Those who are tangled with the tribal mindset do not differentiate themselves from the masses in terms of acquiring the power to influence on a large scale.

I said before in this thread that when you speak truth it always influences me.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

Everything appears deterministic up to the largest and smallest scales, which we don't understand very well.

It's like saying that we will never know that there is a flying spaghetti monster. It does not mean there is a flying spaghetti monster, it just means we don't know if there is.

Likewise, we don't know if there is a truly random thing, we haven't been able to study something enough, to know it well enough to know that it is truly indeterminant.

The best working theory is based on what we do know.

You didn't address my radioactive decay comment. Such things as radioactive decay, the generation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the uncertainty principle and the paths of electrons are all examples of randomness and spontaneousness. If all events cannot be known or predicted then hard determinism can not hold. Soft determinism may be another matter depending on how soft one makes it. Most things in the universe are caused and predictable but there is always some randomness where only the laws of chance prevail.

On electrons, Richard Feynman said that we can only know that an electron left point A and arrived at point B. We cannot ever know how it got there, which path that it took. The summation of all possible paths, the sum of its history, resembles a probability curve. It is not a probability curve but a very close approximation and scientist use these curves in place of sums of histories because they are much easier to calculate.

I noticed that you are using 'we' when you state your opinion and perspective on the issue. I want to note again, ahnimus, that scientists are NOT in agreement about this. This is not an accepted 'fact' in the science community and to suggest as much only shows how far removed you are from that community. Sure, many have their opinions, but that is all it is at this point.

There are many physicists today that feel Quantum Physics shows us that hard determinism cannot be true. Randomness, chance and spontaneousness exists in the universe. If there are uncaused, random events then cause and effect do not always happen in single events and thus there are things that are unknown and unknowable. Both of these principles break the necessary chain of knowable and predictable cause and effect for hard determinism to be true.

Ahnimus

That's actually false Baraka.

Excluding Roger Penrose, Bernard Baars and Stuart Hameroff. There aren't many people advocating free-will.

The best molecular biologist in history, Francis Crick, states quite clearly in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis quantum mechanics has nothing to do with will. It's not possible. Likewise, Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine has similarly stated in refutation of "What the BLEEP are we smoking?" "In order for something to be quantum it must be on the order of magnitude of planck's constant. The ions, potassium and sodium in the chemical synapses of neurons are 3 times too large to be quantum events."

Even the wikipedia article on free-will states:
"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will."

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

That's actually false Baraka.

Excluding Roger Penrose, Bernard Baars and Stuart Hameroff. There aren't many people advocating free-will.

The best molecular biologist in history, Francis Crick, states quite clearly in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis quantum mechanics has nothing to do with will. It's not possible. Likewise, Michael Shermer of skeptic magazine has similarly stated in refutation of "What the BLEEP are we smoking?" "In order for something to be quantum it must be on the order of magnitude of planck's constant. The ions, potassium and sodium in the chemical synapses of neurons are 3 times too large to be quantum events."

Even the wikipedia article on free-will states:
"Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claiming to posses such free will."

What is false, ahnimus? The notion that determinism is NOT a scientifically proven fact? Just because you can't 'prove' free will does NOT mean 'hard determinism' is fact and visa versa. My point was to show you that hard determinism is NOT accepted as fact, only speculation. So to claim others as ignorant because they do not share your opinion is weak and laughable and it only shows how lacking you are when it comes to the sciences. Did you read the articles I posted for you and what are your opinions on causality?

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

What is false, ahnimus? The notion that determinism is NOT a scientifically proven fact? Just because you can't 'prove' free will does NOT mean 'hard determinism' is fact and visa versa. My point was to show you that hard determinism is NOT accepted as fact, only speculation. So to claim others as ignorant because they do not share your opinion is weak and laughable and it only shows how lacking you are when it comes to the sciences. Did you read the articles I posted for you and what are your opinions on causality?

I wasn't proving hard determinism as true. I think you missed a few of my posts.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Einstein was upset that people quoted him as evidence of the Christian God. Likewise, he would be upset that we quote him as evidence for our views.

How very interesting that you say this, Ahnimus--are you talking about yourself, here? This is what Einstein actually says on the subject:

"There are people who say there is no God but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I wasn't proving hard determinism as true. I think you missed a few of my posts.

I'm sure that is true, as this thread is looooooooong. All I ask is for you to refrain from calling those that do not subscribe to your theories ignorant or on drugs or insane, etc. You present valid points, but those types of comments cancel out any point you were trying to make. Keep in mind, although there are good arguments for your stance, it is NOT accepted as fact in the scientific community. Scientists hold all kind of opinions and theories about things, but opinions do not hold water in science, only those things that have been proven by the scientific method. In other words, you can't parade hard determinism around as scientific fact, then call others ignorant for not believing in it.

Anyway, I was really looking forward to discussing causality with you, specifically how it is defined in the papers for which I provided links.

angelica

"The fanatical athiests are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres" ~ Albert Einstein

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

How very interesting that you say this, Ahnimus--are you talking about yourself, here? This is what Einstein actually says on the subject:

"There are people who say there is no God but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." ~ Albert Einstein

And I've never quoted Einstein as saying there is no God.

What I've said is that Einstein did not believe in the Christian God, he believed in Spinoza's God which is quite different. A little bit of reading on the dude says as much.

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings” - Albert Einstein