Free Will and determinism and...

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Mind giving me a brief synopsis of how "metaphysics" work again OAO? Since you must be so well versed in its mechanics seeing as how you expect Seth to factor them in.

I don't have to, since that would be irrelevant to the point.

[Sethomas]

Metaphysics are irrrelevant. Bravo! Now shut the fuck up.

[Preechr]

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

Metaphysics are irrrelevant.

No, how it works is irrelevant to the point I was making.

[kellychaos]

Can there be a comprimise? Determinism in the broad sense with free will left to fill in the details without necessarily changing the end result?

[CaptainBubba]

Free will doesn't mean anything, so no.

If by free will you mean the ability to defy god than its simply a fictional construct of our abstract reasoning with regards to a deity. To me that means it doesn't mean anything. There are no gaps in detail with determinism. Its very simple.

[Preechr]

Predetermined events need not exist.

I am using "God" in the most abstract sense possible. Whether or not you're deterministic or not, you probably believe your actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something. Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

That being said, I believe there is a purpose and therefore a will behind our existence. We have the ability to thwart that will with our own decisions. Were we to act as that will intended, we would be serving that will, which is of higher order than our own, so our actions would be of that will.

The only time we can be said to be expressing our "free" will is when we are doing that which is not serving our purpose in existence. When we defy God. When we act as God intended, we are serving, not defying God, and then our actions are of God not of us.

[kellychaos]

Accepting that premise would free will then be evil ... the Devil's work?

[Preechr]

Man... That's a weird question. Not that it's weird itself, but I'm not sure how to start talking about a Devil in this context. I think there is no evil but in the actions of man, and so if your concept of the Devil is the source of all evil, then yes.

Is it, however, evil for us to have free will? No. We would be irrelevant any other way. Thus, evil serves the eventual good? Only if we learn the value of good by doing bad.

[kellychaos]

I meant evil in the sense that it foils (in your terms, has a negative value) the intended purpose you discussed. Wouldn't these misteps of free will, then, send back "the plan" a few milli-clicks?

[Preechr]

Well, to skip to the end, I believe we are here to accept the plan as the only way to exist, but by our own choice. The purpose of life is to be happy, and if you want to call it serving God or following the plan or whatever, then that is the path to being happy. Excercising free will is the path to unhappiness, but it's not all as dreary as that. Living life right is it's own reward and all that...

As I said, existence would be pointless without free will, so the length of existence is related to our reliance on doing things wrong.

[Brandon]

The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

That kind of rests on the assumption that "complex" life has some sort of intrinsic value, though. In the "eyes" of the universe, we're no different than other masses of quarks. We just happen to be a more elaborate random occurrence than others.

We arose as a result of the "perfect" order of this planet, rather than the planet being perfectly ordered for us. It took a lot of trial and error in the evolutionary process for us to reach this state.

[kellychaos]

Why would we be a separate entity whose ordering did not follow the ordering of the planet and whose ordering is distinct from the planet? We are just as much a part of the evolution of the planet as the planet itself. If we end, the planet will not necessarily end. If the planet ends, we will end.

Note slipped under a door: we're not all THAT important.

[Sethomas]

OAO: The quintessence of metaphysical study is theology. God is the defining facet of theology. So, you're dumb.

Everyone should be coeternalists. That is all.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Note slipped under a door: we're not all THAT important.

That's one way of looking at it. Scientific fallacies always rest on assumptions, and I sometimes wonder if one day we'll look back on the science we've rested on the idea that we're insignificant and laugh.

The popular assumption that we're "not alone" in the universe is just one possiblity on an equal footing as it's alternatives until actual proof exists. Psychologically, the popular assumption could be considered to be as popular as it is because believing this way makes us feel very safe. It's nice to be just a speck who's actions mean nothing in the universal view.

What if the alternative were true. What if the entire universe had to exist just to support the tiny little part of it that allows our existence? What if our individual actions really do matter? What if we are necessary to the cosmos? What if we are it's purpose?

In science, all alternatives are equal until undisputable proof has been accumulated that proves beyond any doubt that one scenario explains ALL the observed data. You may have a gut reaction that tells you my scenario is wrong, but it's possible that's a product of all the psychological protections you've constructed to help you feel better about your existence.

I like my way better.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Whether or not you're deterministic or not, you probably believe your actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value.

No. "Meaning" and "value" are abstract human concepts and eman nothing in the context of this coversation.

The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

You are just making stuff up.

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something.

Again, you are simply saying things you wish to be true then going "because its so".

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

This reasoning makes no logical sense. I will steal an idea from Voltaire is you don't mind to illustrate the ridiculousness of what you've just said. Pants fit perfectly around my legs. Thusly I can conclude that legs were formed by god to fit into pants.

That being said, I believe there is a purpose and therefore a will behind our existence. We have the ability to thwart that will with our own decisions. Were we to act as that will intended, we would be serving that will, which is of higher order than our own, so our actions would be of that will.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You've completely ignored everything we've been arguing about or it is simply way past your level of understanding. Sorry if I sound mean but this is so awfully ignorant in the context of our argument that it might make me a bit harsh. You just sound like someone who is so deeply dependent upon religious doctrine that engaging in a conversation about this is pointless because you do not even bother to let your mind digest ideas different than what you currently believe.

The only time we can be said to be expressing our "free" will is when we are doing that which is not serving our purpose in existence. When we defy God. When we act as God intended, we are serving, not defying God, and then our actions are of God not of us.

Religion is a baseless science and is unarguable. I dont argue with religion because its like arguing that an invisble pink dragon that exists beyond all my senses lives in your garage. Pointless.


Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

[pjalne]

Originally Posted by Preechr

In science, all alternatives are equal until undisputable proof has been accumulated that proves beyond any doubt that one scenario explains ALL the observed data.

Not really. In science, nothing can really be proven, it can just be presented as so likely that it would be counterproductive (and sometimes downright stupid) not to assume it is correct. Like the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Which IS a theory. It's just so well documented only nuts would dispute it.

And all alternatives aren't equal. In a crime case, you might be innocent until proven guilty, but in science, your notions are worthless until you are able to present an alternative model that can explain a phenomenon more coherently than the currently leading theory.

EDIT:

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

[Preechr]

Man... That's a lot to which to reply...

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

No. "Meaning" and "value" are abstract human concepts and eman nothing in the context of this coversation.

The context of this conversation is a discussion of free will vs. determinism. It is a discussion of decisions and where the responsibility for those decisions lie. Most of my input in this thread has been simple logic, mixed with a little speculation. Meaning and value are very important ethical considerations, and a discussion of responsibilty for decisions is nothing if not one including ethics.

Originally Posted by Preechr

The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

You are just making stuff up.

Speculation based on the grounds of the prior point. Arguable, but not invalid.

Originally Posted by Preechr

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Again, you are simply saying things you wish to be true then going "because its so".

To be fair, I'll give you a link to an article that attempts to disprove something called the Kalam argument. It's just more simple logic.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rzo/kalam.html

In short, if I bang on a table, I am the cause of that sound. It simply did not exist before I caused it. There is much, much more to be said using that simple example. It's an entire discussion in and of itself, and it's just some idiot banging on a table.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

I will steal an idea from Voltaire is you don't mind to illustrate the ridiculousness of what you've just said. Pants fit perfectly around my legs. Thusly I can conclude that legs were formed by god to fit into pants.

If God made your pants, not some guy, then you might have a point.

In the spirit of being a victim of i-mockery and not one of it's regulars, I'm gonna move on.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You've completely ignored everything we've been arguing about or it is simply way past your level of understanding. Sorry if I sound mean but this is so awfully ignorant in the context of our argument that it might make me a bit harsh. You just sound like someone who is so deeply dependent upon religious doctrine that engaging in a conversation about this is pointless because you do not even bother to let your mind digest ideas different than what you currently believe.

You know nothing of my personal religious beliefs or my religious background, so I'm gonna write that off to speculation of your own, to which you are as allowed as I am.

I'm not, however, going to make the same mistake as you have and speculate on your life and your motivations for saying what you do.

Sorry if that's not mean enough.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Religion is a baseless science and is unarguable. I dont argue with religion because its like arguing that an invisble pink dragon that exists beyond all my senses lives in your garage. Pointless.

That was funny. I don't argue with religion, either. I don't even argue religion with people. I think it's great for those that need it, and that it probably serves society well in general... at least maybe better than it's absence would.

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

That's as valid an opinion as any other. I hope it serves you well.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by pjalne

In science, nothing can really be proven, it can just be presented as so likely that it would be counterproductive (and sometimes downright stupid) not to assume it is correct. Like the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Which IS a theory. It's just so well documented only nuts would dispute it.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why scientists make distinction between scientific laws and theories. I'm equally sure science is not based on assumptions. Scientific research, maybe.

Maybe you're more up to date on science than am I. Either way, my comment is unaffected by your addition.

Originally Posted by pjalne

And all alternatives aren't equal. In a crime case, you might be innocent until proven guilty, but in science, your notions are worthless until you are able to present an alternative model that can explain a phenomenon more coherently than the currently leading theory.

It's bad science to fail to question any theory because of a popular assumption. That's always been the case. In the absence of irrefutable proof, all alternative theories should be considered. All I'm doing is describing one alternative and considering the possible bias behind the popularity of the "currently leading theory."

Originally Posted by pjalne

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

I was addressing the idea that all events are random. I don't like that concept any more than you do, but for different reasons.

I don't like Darwinian evolution, either, but that's an entirely different discussion...

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why scientists make distinction between scientific laws and theories. I'm equally sure science is not based on assumptions. Scientific research, maybe.

The distinction between law and theory is very subtle, and even a law is subject to being disproven, in light of some evidence that would presumably shock the entire scientific community. Make sure you are not confusing theory and hypothesis, though, as the disctinction between those is very clear.

Why are we talking about the scientific method?

[Preechr]

CaptainBubba, I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm not going to accept your label of my comments as invalid just because you say it's so.

I'm no more of a real preacher than you are a captain (unless you really are...) Please note the points where I used words like "God" conditionally. The main belief of my own I've tried to express here is that I believe we are able to think of ourselves as more than just anomalies or abcesses in nature. I believe human existence is important because we can look around and see that all things are important, even if we don't currently understand how it all works together.

Factor our inherent importance in with our unique capabilities within nature, and I simply doubt the idea that the products of those capabilities, our actions, are irrelevant to nature. We can argue whether nature has a cause and or purpose, but argument implies, at least if it is to be constructive, logical progressions. I've tried to remain constructive.

If you want to attack my logic, go right ahead. Keep in mind that your possibly too quick discounting of my posts might be allowing me to "talk over your head," but more because you're not hearing what's said in your hurry to disregard it rather than some inability that I don't think you have to understand what's being discussed.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Why are we talking about the scientific method?

You know, I'm not really sure.

Not my strong point. I turn wrenches for a living.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by Preechr

CaptainBubba, I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm not going to accept your label of my comments as invalid just because you say it's so.

I'm no more of a real preacher than you are a captain (unless you really are...) Please note the points where I used words like "God" conditionally. The main belief of my own I've tried to express here is that I believe we are able to think of ourselves as more than just anomalies or abcesses in nature. I believe human existence is important because we can look around and see that all things are important, even if we don't currently understand how it all works together.

Factor our inherent importance in with our unique capabilities within nature, and I simply doubt the idea that the products of those capabilities, our actions, are irrelevant to nature. We can argue whether nature has a cause and or purpose, but argument implies, at least if it is to be constructive, logical progressions. I've tried to remain constructive.

If you want to attack my logic, go right ahead. Keep in mind that your possibly too quick discounting of my posts might be allowing me to "talk over your head," but more because you're not hearing what's said in your hurry to disregard it rather than some inability that I don't think you have to understand what's being discussed.

Importance is a human notion. It is a term we use to describe things which we must divert attention to for us to further ourselves. In the context you use it it could only make sense if one assumes there is a more powerful version of a human who is responsible for our creation which only raises the same questions we have in regards to that entity. The results are the same.

Again I'm sorry If I sounded insulting. Its simply that your argument seems more of one arguing in the existence of a god and not for or against determinism or free will. By all means there could be a god given determinism. In fact god would have to be deterministic as well. Your definition of free will would in fact, in a stunning move of irony, fit into determinism. All things are autonomous.

To explain why this is so take the following example. I create a computer program. I am its creator and god. I give it the "choice" between x = 1 and x=2. where given condition 1 x = 1 and given condition 2 x = 2. Although the program has two options it will choose only one and can choose only one. It is autonomous. Adding in complexity merely complicates the program but does not make it magically or unexplainable. Just complex.

Merely not fully grasping every element of the enormously complex program of existance doesnt mean it transcends logic. Merely that it transcends our ability to fully know it.

[Rosenstern]

I'm willing to say that preechr is one of the better sort of religious people. There may be no arguing with some some his views, but that's all well and good as long as he stays away from real science. He's no Pat Robertson, and that makes him decent in my book.