Question about free will and determinism

[totoro]

can i know what is the problem with free will and determinism because i saw a lot of people in PF aguing/discussing about it. and what is the problem with 'mind and brain'?
can someone please explain it to me.

thank you

 

[maximus]

i can't really say much about free will, but determinism (which is the belief that if you know the state of the universe at anyone time you can know everything that will ever happen) was proved impossible by Q.M. and its Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Royce]

Aside from Maximus over stating the case, nothing is proved, he is right about the universe being indeterminate and why. Stephen Hawking said In "The Universe in a Nutshell" that by useing Feynman's sumover histories method, however the uncertaintiy is cut in half. So now I guess the universe is only semi-inderterminate

As for mind and brain, some of us think the the mind is completely within and a function our brain and its electrochemical activity.

Others of us are not sure about that and think the mind is more than just electrochemical activity of a cellular organ; that the mind may include or be included in spirit, heart and/or soul.

Some speculate our minds are part of or receptor for a greater mind or consciousness that may be the universe itself or God/creator.

Needless to say it has yet to be resolved or agreed upon. I don't think that it ever will be or can be.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
As for mind and brain, some of us think the the mind is completely within and a function our brain and its electrochemical activity.

Others of us are not sure about that and think the mind is more than just electrochemical activity of a cellular organ; that the mind may include or be included in spirit, heart and/or soul.

Some speculate our minds are part of or receptor for a greater mind or consciousness that may be the universe itself or God/creator.

i wonder royce, which one do you believe to be true?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by totoro
can i know what is the problem with free will and determinism because i saw a lot of people in PF aguing/discussing about it. and what is the problem with 'mind and brain'?
can someone please explain it to me.

thank you

Once again it sounds like the two sides of the brain. One equals the "objective observer" = "determinism." The other equals the "subjective participant" = "free will." In which case both aspects come together to creat "the whole."

As for the brain and the mind, the brain is the physical aspect of the mind, which is the effect of the brain -- "consciousness."

 

[Royce]

I really honestly don't know. I feel or sense that there is more to our minds than just our brains but our brains have so much capacity as I pointed out in the beginning of my thread Mind and Brain(?) that it is certainly possible that that is all there is to Mind.
I believe in a God/Creator, that we are all part of him, including all that is the universe and that we all are interconnected via him, the spirit. And, that he, God, has not stopped creating nor, once got it going, abandonded us or the universe; that there is pupose and meaning to existence and the universe. But, is this what I sense as being the part of our minds that is beyound our physical brains?
I don't know.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by maximus
i can't really say much about free will, but determinism (which is the belief that if you know the state of the universe at anyone time you can know everything that will ever happen) was proved impossible by Q.M. and its Uncertainty Principle.

maximus, isn't it merely proved that we can't ever possibly know the exact state of a system? Nothing about the system's own determinism?

System's own determinism is put to hard test in situations when there are more that one possible outcomes of given interaction while there exists no deciding factor for any of the outcomes.

Sort of example could be two perfect pins in contact with their tips in force equilibrium. Its very unstable state and there are very many ways how this unstable balance could resolve. But if the causes for 'slip' from unstable state to stable all cancel out, such state would continue until at least some infinitesimal difference in balance appears. Then, extremely small fluctuations of force have capacity to displace extremely vast amounts of energy that would continue to influence zillions of other such unstable balances.
This is a realm where free will could reside - weak conceptual influence onto unstable balance of states. Its limited free will in mostly deterministic system, which seems apparently to be the case.

Quantum soup seems prone to face such unstable states for short periods of time until blown away by external influence, and although brain is mostly deterministic machine, during those very short periods of time its conceptual wishes may have influence and become the deciding factor. Given tremendous amount of quantums involved and slowness of brain, its more like statistical trend rather than instant impact. But still, this sort of free will could make wonders, upto a point of influencing outcome of experiments.

 

[Mentat]

totoro, the problem with free will and determinism is that they are both equally unprovable and equally unflasfiable.

Free will is unfalsfiable because any attempt you make to disprove it, could be what you have freely chosen to do, and would thus further validate the belief in Free Will.

Free will is unprovable, because any attempt you make to prove Free Will could be what you were predestined to do, and would thus further validate the belief in determinism.

Use the same reasoning about Determinism (which is the idea that all of the future is predestined).

Side Note: While maximus is correct that current Science invalidates Determinism, Philosophy is not dependent on Scientific findings, as Science is but one branch of Philosophy. So, while those of us (including me) who believe in Science do not believe in determinism, those of us who wish to be truly open-minded to the full scope of Philosophy cannot choose between them.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by wimms
maximus, isn't it merely proved that we can't ever possibly know the exact state of a system? Nothing about the system's own determinism?

no, i think it is possible (theoretically, of course) to know the entire state of a system at one time, if you froze time and looked at every particle in the universe, but from there you cannot make accurate predictions because of the Uncertainty PRinciple.

 

[AndersHermansson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again it sounds like the two sides of the brain. One equals the "objective observer" = "determinism." The other equals the "subjective participant" = "free will." In which case both aspects come together to creat "the whole."

As for the brain and the mind, the brain is the physical aspect of the mind, which is the effect of the brain -- "consciousness."

Well if half the brain is ruled by indeterminism there is no way for us to control it, and we can say that we're stuck at having no "free-will".

Besides. The only alternative is randomness. And that's not very flattering.

 

[I, Brian]

Isn't the uncertainty principle invoked because observation is an intrusive thing?

However...

...hang on. I've got to think about that now. :)

 

[Dissident Dan]

wimms was astute in asking those questions. There is a difference in our ability to know something, and its existence in the first place. The uncertainty principle, from what I've read, comes from the fact that you alter things in observing them. The uncertainty principle, in its purest form, it seems, is a limit on the ability to gain knowledge, on the certainty of our knowledge of the state of things, not on the certainty of the state of things.

I don't know what some Chinese man in China is doing...I don't know which way he's going, but that doesn't mean that he is not definitely doing anything, and that does not mean that he does not have a definite velocity (in respect to the Earth), just because I don't and can't know. Just the same, just because no one can know a particle's position and velocity, doesn't mean that the world is indeterministic.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by maximus
no, i think it is possible (theoretically, of course) to know the entire state of a system at one time, if you froze time and looked at every particle in the universe, but from there you cannot make accurate predictions because of the Uncertainty PRinciple.

maximus, you have to clarify your point now. I wasn't completely sure, but now that others also say same thing: HUP states only about uncertainty of knowledge about the system.
If behaviour of system itself were handicapped by HUP, we'd have to see macroscopic evidence aswell. For eg. I can't imagine conservation laws as absolute then.

Still, even if HUP isn't inherent property of universe, this doesn't mean that universe is completely determined. It would be determined if there was only one way to go from begin to end. But amount of possible ways increases with entropy. Like byte of 8 bits can encode only one of 256 values, there are 256 values it can encode. There are unimaginable number of legal ways for universe to evolve, and the way it goes isn't necessarily predetermined by previous states. Even if it is 'in principle', its so vastly uncomprehendable that for any imaginable practical purposes its indetermined.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by maximus
no, i think it is possible (theoretically, of course) to know the entire state of a system at one time, if you froze time and looked at every particle in the universe, but from there you cannot make accurate predictions because of the Uncertainty PRinciple.

You could not observe things without time. Observance is an interaction. Interaction requires time.

Originally posted by Mentat
Side Note: While maximus is correct that current Science invalidates Determinism, Philosophy is not dependent on Scientific findings, as Science is but one branch of Philosophy. So, while those of us (including me) who believe in Science do not believe in determinism, those of us who wish to be truly open-minded to the full scope of Philosophy cannot choose between them.

I think that you're misunderstanding scientific knowlegde. HUP is about our ability to know things, not the things we are trying to know.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
You could not observe things without time. Observance is an interaction. Interaction requires time.

you are right, of course. we are most certainly unable to know the complete state of a system at anyone time, what i mean is that even if we did (theoretically, i assure) we still could not then make acurate predictions about the future becuase of probobility and HUP.

 

[Dark Wing]

I thought the most basic problem about free will / determinism was the disscussion on weather they were compatable or not. If they are, then both may be here, if not then which one (or is there another possibility not thought of yet?)

I believe that they can be compatable.

If you take it down to a knowledge argument, the only way one can know every possible state of the future is if you are omniscient.

In order for one to be omniscient, one only has to know all possible states of the future, not neccesarily which of these states will be actualised.

but even if it is not possible for a human to know every possible state in the future, and there is no God, can it be said that the world is on some level determined?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by maximus
you are right, of course. we are most certainly unable to know the complete state of a system at anyone time, what i mean is that even if we did (theoretically, i assure) we still could not then make acurate predictions about the future becuase of probobility and HUP.

wait, if we somehow knew the state, then WHY we'd need to use probability to predict? I thought we use probabilities BECAUSE we can't know exact state.
HUP only states that you have to 'trade position for momentum', and you can't have both, measured. But if you knew both, then we have conservation of momentum at least and thus can track the state. We don't know yet how momentum is exactly 'changed into position', but if we knew, what else would be the cause of inability to predict the future?
Some component of interaction then must behave acausally in principle? If so, then why conservation laws?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I think that you're misunderstanding scientific knowlegde. HUP is about our ability to know things, not the things we are trying to know.

The Uncertainty principle has nothing to do with knowledge. If a rock exchanges energy with a particle it alters it - and yet the rock doesn't "know" anything more than it did before having "observed". "Observation", in Quantum Mechanics, is merely the exchanging of energy between physical objects (so the person in China would be doing something certain, unless he were in a vacuum, with no other physical objects at all to determine his state (though really, this is just a faulty analogy, as every one of his particles is "observing" the other)).


P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am. My glasses are broken and I'm seeing double (not to mention the pounding headache that almost kept me from the PFs for the second day in a row).

 

[I, Brian]

"Observation", in Quantum Mechanics, is merely the exchanging of energy between physical objects

Observation is about collecting information. And the very act of collecting information means affecting the very system you are trying to define.

Therefore the Uncertainly Principle apparently has everything everything to do with knowledge. Of course, it requires a sentient observer in the first place to make sense of that information.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by I, Brian
Observation is about collecting information. And the very act of collecting information means affecting the very system you are trying to define.

Therefore the Uncertainly Principle apparently has everything everything to do with knowledge. Of course, it requires a sentient observer in the first place to make sense of that information.

See Tiberius' post on Clarification of QM for my rebuttal to this.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
The Uncertainty principle has nothing to do with knowledge. If a rock exchanges energy with a particle it alters it - and yet the rock doesn't "know" anything more than it did before having "observed". "Observation", in Quantum Mechanics, is merely the exchanging of energy between physical objects (so the person in China would be doing something certain, unless he were in a vacuum, with no other physical objects at all to determine his state (though really, this is just a faulty analogy, as every one of his particles is "observing" the other)).


P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am.

You're very clear ...and it's appreciated.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
I thought the most basic problem about free will / determinism was the disscussion on weather they were compatable or not. If they are, then both may be here, if not then which one (or is there another possibility not thought of yet?)

I believe that they can be compatable.

If you take it down to a knowledge argument, the only way one can know every possible state of the future is if you are omniscient.

In order for one to be omniscient, one only has to know all possible states of the future, not neccesarily which of these states will be actualised.

but even if it is not possible for a human to know every possible state in the future, and there is no God, can it be said that the world is on some level determined?

At the risk of boring myself immensely...let me venture into this discussion with my own (highly denigrated) view of things:

Let us say, for the sake of argument (which is what we're living for ...apparently!) that the Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity...yadda, yadda, yadda.

And It has a "life cycle" of sorts, that is...from Primal Singularity to Big Bang, expansion, contraction, Big Crunch, Primal Singularity, another Big Bang, and so on ad infinitum (quite literally).

In my view such an Entity would be "about" HAVING A NEW EXPERIENCE -- a real COMPLEX one, which would include the lives of us and everything else!

If having a novel Experience were indeed the intention of this Entity (during every "incarnation")...would It really "want" to have everything PRE-DETERMINED?

I think not.

How BORING would that be...to have "A Plan" that Everything was "walking through"? Probably even MORE boring than me repeating this proposition to myself a thousand times!

So I think -- with all due respect to Einstein -- that it is a CRAP SHOOT!


I know that we're certainly shooting enough of it.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
If having a novel Experience were indeed the intention of this Entity (during every "incarnation")...would It really "want" to have everything PRE-DETERMINED?

I think not.

How BORING would that be...to have "A Plan" that Everything was "walking through"? Probably even MORE boring than me repeating this proposition to myself a thousand times!

venturing even further off topic...: how could the universe be bored? and how does this tie into the conversations about wisdom in the 'how old are you?' thread? isn't experience the greater teacher?

IMO, we should start a new thread devoted to sorting out this conscious universe thing. most everybody that I've seen posting in this forum thinks that such a being exists, and i need convincing. that is, of course, if you don't mind repeating yourself even more M. Gaspar.

 

[Zantra]

To bring it back on topic(I hope)...

I've not fully read the details of free will vs determinism, nor how the uncertainty principal affects them, but here's how I see it.

Free will contradicts determinism. Because of free will you cannot possibly predict the future, only see all possible permutations, but free will prevents you from knowing which of those permutations will transpire. Then you you go into probability, but Free will counteracts that. There is still a degree of error allowed, and thus through free will, determinism becomes impossible.

So what then did I miss?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
Venturing even further off topic...: how could the Universe (my caps; a little respect, pls.)be bored? and how does this tie into the conversations about wisdom in the 'how old are you?' thread? isn't experience the greater teacher?

First off, I have not been participating on the "How Old Are You?" thread...but no matter how old a person -- or a Universe -- is, I would think that havings one's whole "life" be known and predetermined would be EXCURCIATING BORING...like walking through a long-running play!

So I will say again: there is NO PLAN.

IMO, we should start a new thread devoted to sorting out this conscious universe thing.

Yo! There is such a thread already: "A Conscious Universe". If you'll go there you'll see that I've just given up!

If you want to resurrect it, that's your business...but I'm telling you that its attracting materialists like FLIES!

... most everybody that I've seen posting in this forum thinks that such a Being exists...

OK, now I know you're toying with me! NOBODY buys the proposition that the Universe is conscious...well, almost nobody.

...and I need convincing. that is, of course, if you don't mind repeating yourself even more M. Gaspar.

Just go there an scroll up. I offer NO EVIDENCE, so don't look for any.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Dark Wing
I thought the most basic problem about free will / determinism was the disscussion on weather they were compatable or not. If they are, then both may be here, if not then which one (or is there another possibility not thought of yet?)

I believe that they can be compatable.

If you take it down to a knowledge argument, the only way one can know every possible state of the future is if you are omniscient.

In order for one to be omniscient, one only has to know all possible states of the future, not neccesarily which of these states will be actualised.

but even if it is not possible for a human to know every possible state in the future, and there is no God, can it be said that the world is on some level determined?

No. I don't think so. IMO -- given my paradigm that has the Universe "re-cycling" Itself over and over again (twixt Big Bangs and Big Crunches) -- I see the Universe as metaphorically "shuffling the deck" with each incarnation of Itself.

Thus while the forces, processes and ingredients might be same in each incarnation, how they "come together again" would be different. Also -- retaining the "shuffling the deck" anology -- one could say that INTENTION is the "wild card" in the deck!

And where is this "intention" coming from?

Well, first there would be the Primary Intention of the Universe which, IMO, is the "simply" have a real complex and novel EXPERIENCE.

Then, as sub-systems accrete on the physical (as well as non-physical "planes"...i.e., consciousness and spirit)...these sub-systems (like you and me and stars and bugs) would have "intentions" of their own. These intentions would be driven by the unspoken question: What's needed next?

Then, intention ACTS UPON the lynchpin of randomness to bring certain things into being, and not others...our of the vast "Sea of Potentialities".

I know I've mixed my metaphors but good...buy you can sort it out and get my point, which is this:

While there may be "forces in play" via prior or collective intentions that make things seem like they're pre-determined, in the aggregate there is only possibilities and the unforeseen ways intention will act upon randomness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
To bring it back on topic(I hope)...

I've not fully read the details of free will vs determinism, nor how the uncertainty principal affects them, but here's how I see it.

Free will contradicts determinism. Because of free will you cannot possibly predict the future, only see all possible permutations, but free will prevents you from knowing which of those permutations will transpire. Then you you go into probability, but Free will counteracts that. There is still a degree of error allowed, and thus through free will, determinism becomes impossible.

So what then did I miss?

What if it was your destiny to post as you did...? I'm not saying that you should believe in predestination (I don't, currently), but I am showing the impossibility of disproving determinism.

Now, the connection the Uncertainty principle is valid, but irrelevant to a Philosophical discussion of free will and determinism.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
What if it was your destiny to post as you did...? I'm not saying that you should believe in predestination (I don't, currently), but I am showing the impossibility of disproving determinism.

Now, the connection the Uncertainty principle is valid, but irrelevant to a Philosophical discussion of free will and determinism.

Asking me to prove that I wasn't predestined to post here is like asking me to prove God doesn't exist. It's simple. I made a conscious choice to post here. Maybe if I'd felt like it, I could have not posted. I'm not a believe in predestiny either.

And one more thing. If you support derterminism, you're also supporting the fact that we in fact do not have free will. That we're only led to believe we're making conscious choices when in fact we're doing what the fates have already planned out for us.. scary thought...

If you saw Devil's Advocate, it's like Keanu Reeves at the end, where he is asked to create the anti-christ, and instead he kills himself to prevent it.. "free will, right ?" Even if determinism allowed you to read minds, you can't predict someone changing their mind.. it's a fickle thing...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by maximus
i can't really say much about free will, but determinism (which is the belief that if you know the state of the universe at anyone time you can know everything that will ever happen) was proved impossible by Q.M. and its Uncertainty Principle.

I don't think the HUP absolutly disreguards determinism. If God exists, he could have made the universe and determined everything and also made the HUP.
God knows everything even if we can't?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dave
If God exists, he could have made the universe and determined everything and also made the HUP.
God knows everything even if we can't?

scientifically this is impossible, as it would violate almost every theory about the nature of the universe and mathamatics. but speculatively, a god outside of the universe could.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by maximus
scientifically this is impossible, as it would violate almost every theory about the nature of the universe and mathamatics

Not if God created those theories to smake it seem impossible...

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dave
Not if God created those theories to smake it seem impossible...

but why would he do that? it'd only throw us off from the path of the truth!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by maximus
but why would he do that? it'd only throw us off from the path of the truth!

Well that's the good think about God, you can make him do anything you want :)

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Dave
Well that's the good think about God, you can make him do anything you want :)

Which leads to the whole faulty premise of religion: There are so many takes on him, what he can do, and his reasoning, that about the only thing everyone agrees on is that he's good and omnipotent. Hell I could say God was elvis and you couldn't prove me wrong. In fact there's a few million elvis fans that would back me up. The contradictions in religion are infinite, but since that's not what this topic is about, I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: ok well maybe one glaring contradiction to tide me over.. hehehe

Ok there are a multitude of religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim,Juddaism, etc. Though they all have commonalities, They vastly differ. Even the difference between sects in a religions, such as Catholicism vs Baptism has fundamental differences in beliefs.

So how do you reconcile these differences in faith? Do you just say "mine belief is the right one, and all those other religions are false?" Or do you claim that there is truth in all of them? Certainly Islam and Christianity can't be reconciled with each other, as in one faith, Jesus plays only a minor role as a disciple, and the other he's a prophet.

Just curious on that.. Maybe someone could pose a response to this ?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Asking me to prove that I wasn't predestined to post here is like asking me to prove God doesn't exist. It's simple. I made a conscious choice to post here. Maybe if I'd felt like it, I could have not posted.

LOL! That's the point. Don't you see?! You think that, "if you'd felt like it", you could have chosen differently than you did, but that's just because you believe you have free will. You can never prove this (as I've already shown), but you do believe it.

And one more thing. If you support derterminism, you're also supporting the fact that we in fact do not have free will. That we're only led to believe we're making conscious choices when in fact we're doing what the fates have already planned out for us.. scary thought...

Yeah, but I don't support determinism unless someone thinks they can disprove it .

If you saw Devil's Advocate, it's like Keanu Reeves at the end, where he is asked to create the anti-christ, and instead he kills himself to prevent it.. "free will, right ?" Even if determinism allowed you to read minds, you can't predict someone changing their mind.. it's a fickle thing...

No, no, no, determinism doesn't allow you to read people's minds, it allows you to control everything that they will do in the future (or, at least, to know everything that they will do in the future). The majority of (if not all of) humanity believes, within themselves, that they have some choice in what they do; that "if they'd felt like it" they could have "chosen" otherwise. However, this cannot be proven, any more than it can be proven that they don't have a choice.

Any attempt you make to prove one, could just further validate the other. It is a sad state, but I don't see any way out of it (though I guess it's possible, in principle, for someone to find a way out).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dave
I don't think the HUP absolutly disreguards determinism. If God exists, he could have made the universe and determined everything and also made the HUP.
God knows everything even if we can't?

Be careful not to religiously side-track this thread. I'd hate to lose it to the Religion sub-forum, where I can't participate.

But, while we're discussing it, you should recognize that, while God (or "the gods" or whatever other form of deity(ies) you believe in) could have made the HUP, He can nonetheless only know probabilities, because He would have made it indeterminate.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Which leads to the whole faulty premise of religion: There are so many takes on him, what he can do, and his reasoning, that about the only thing everyone agrees on is that he's good and omnipotent. Hell I could say God was elvis and you couldn't prove me wrong. In fact there's a few million elvis fans that would back me up. The contradictions in religion are infinite, but since that's not what this topic is about, I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: ok well maybe one glaring contradiction to tide me over.. hehehe

Ok there are a multitude of religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim,Juddaism, etc. Though they all have commonalities, They vastly differ. Even the difference between sects in a religions, such as Catholicism vs Baptism has fundamental differences in beliefs.

So how do you reconcile these differences in faith? Do you just say "mine belief is the right one, and all those other religions are false?" Or do you claim that there is truth in all of them? Certainly Islam and Christianity can't be reconciled with each other, as in one faith, Jesus plays only a minor role as a disciple, and the other he's a prophet.

Just curious on that.. Maybe someone could pose a response to this ?

I'm sorry, but this has definitely gotten too religious, and I think that many Christians would be insulted on reading these kinds of posts (thought they must frequent the sub-forum, from what I've heard). Could we just drop the religious discussion, and get back on-topic, please?

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
LOL! That's the point. Don't you see?! You think that, "if you'd felt like it", you could have chosen differently than you did, but that's just because you believe you have free will. You can never prove this (as I've already shown), but you do believe it.

Talk about straining credibility! And then I could say: I just want you to think that you think that I think I have free will.

[QOUTE]Yeah, but I don't support determinism unless someone thinks they can disprove it.[/QOUTE]

Free will is like breathing, we just have it. Proof isn't necessary, free will is inferred.

[QOUTE]No, no, no, determinism doesn't allow you to read people's minds, it allows you to control everything that they will do in the future (or, at least, to know everything that they will do in the future). The majority of (if not all of) humanity believes, within themselves, that they have some choice in what they do; that "if they'd felt like it" they could have "chosen" otherwise. However, this cannot be proven, any more than it can be proven that they don't have a choice.

Any attempt you make to prove one, could just further validate the other. It is a sad state, but I don't see any way out of it (though I guess it's possible, in principle, for someone to find a way out).

If you go based on logic, then you can't disprove free will. Saying that our actions are predetermined is contradictory to everything we know about ourselves. Any attempt to prove that we're being "controlled" reeks of mysticism.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra



If you go based on logic, then you can't disprove free will. Saying that our actions are predetermined is contradictory to everything we know about ourselves. Any attempt to prove that we're being "controlled" reeks of mysticism.

Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

 

[Izzle]

Originally posted by Mentat
Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

Exactly. He doesn't know what he's talkin about.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
Pfft! It goes against "everything we know about ourselves"?! Puh-lease!

Humans, for the most part, have a tendency toward spirituality, and the appeal to something higher than themselves. Does that mean that you are going to accept that there must be a God, since to say otherwise goes against our natural tendency?

The scientists in the days of Darwin rejected his theory, because it went against everything they knew about themselves.

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to show you that Science and progressive knowledge continues on, whether the majority of humans like it or not.

Hey I thought we were keeping religion out of this?
Anyhow, that was a poor way to phrase it, so I'll rephrase.It's generally accepted that free will is inherent in human nature, so the burden of proof actually lies on you my man And actually, I agree with you about progressiveness, I just don't see determinism as a progressive theory. It's funny you should mention God, because that's all determinism is, masked by a scientific premise. You can predict the future if you know all the variables invo lved? For the universe that WOULD require nearly omnipotence. So it's really an argument for God controlling our actions. Again, I refuse to accept that I'm not in control of my own fate. If you can, prove that I'm not, using logic.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, but this has definitely gotten too religious, and I think that many Christians would be insulted on reading these kinds of posts (thought they must frequent the sub-forum, from what I've heard). Could we just drop the religious discussion, and get back on-topic, please?

I don't see where anything I've said is offensive. I'm simply questioning how the different religions relate to each other.

But you're right, this is going too religious.. so back on topic we go!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Hey I thought we were keeping religion out of this?
Anyhow, that was a poor way to phrase it, so I'll rephrase.It's generally accepted that free will is inherent in human nature, so the burden of proof actually lies on you my man And actually, I agree with you about progressiveness, I just don't see determinism as a progressive theory. It's funny you should mention God, because that's all determinism is, masked by a scientific premise. You can predict the future if you know all the variables invo lved? For the universe that WOULD require nearly omnipotence. So it's really an argument for God controlling our actions. Again, I refuse to accept that I'm not in control of my own fate. If you can, prove that I'm not, using logic.

I already told you, by it's very nature, the debate is irresolvable. You cannot prove that you are predestined, and you cannot prove that you are not.[/color] I already explained why, but I'm just restating the conclusion. Therefore, it would be of absolutely no merit for me to attempt to convince you that you are predestined, and it would be to absolutely no effect for me to try to convince someone else that we have free will.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Mentat
I already told you, by it's very nature, the debate is irresolvable. You cannot prove that you are predestined, and you cannot prove that you are not.[/color] I already explained why, but I'm just restating the conclusion. Therefore, it would be of absolutely no merit for me to attempt to convince you that you are predestined, and it would be to absolutely no effect for me to try to convince someone else that we have free will.

You're right Mentat, it's not a resolvable issue, and I guess it's at a standstill. Ahh well.. such is life.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
You're right Mentat, it's not a resolvable issue, and I guess it's at a standstill. Ahh well.. such is life.

Yeah, kind of like Wuliheron's take on the "paradox of existence": it won't affect our lives at all, if it is resolved, or if it can never be resolved, so complacent acceptance is the only intelligent course.