Monk

But reason cannot exist without "Self-Interest" and "Self Interest" denotes Free will.

Prove this.
Second question, do you exist in a deterministic Universe or a Probabilistic one?

__________________
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

Sir Winston Churchill

clegane

Reason is
I don't see how reason is dependent on self-interest. they might be connected, but when viewing something dispassionately, it is possible to use reason and logic without any self interest.

I'll reply to your longer post later

Quantum mechanics would dictate a probabilistic universe.

__________________
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly

Bulgaroctonus

A probabalistic interpretation of the universe does not help the problem of free will. It is tempting to think that the different probabalities of sub-atomic movement represent choices. However, this is not the case.

The issue can best be thought of like a game of dice, or Russian Roulette, some famous probabalistic scenarios. Let us assume that a game of dice is perfect, that is, it's actually probabalistic. Each number (1-6) has a 1/6 chance of showing up. Now, we cannot know which number will appear, we cannot predict the outcome of this event. However, that fact does not mean that the dice was making some kind of 'choice.'

The movement of particles like electrons is also apparently probabalistic. That seems to mean that human actions are probabalistic (since we are made up of very fine particles.)

Different probabilities leave room for flexibility, but those options should not be interpreted as choices on the part of the particle concerned.

Bulgaroctonus

As I point out in the post above, probabalistic options should not be interpreted as the result of choice. Its like a roll of the dice. The dice may land in several different places, but we can hardly say the dice chose it's own outcome.




N=0 is not false, it also was determined by events that preceded it. The process of mathematical induction goes past the origins of life. We need to remember that their was a long period where Earth had no life. In the eons leading up to the creation of life, the proper environment fell into place that facilitated the creation of the first complex organic molecules. The very first living thing was dependent on the chemical state of the primordial ooze in which in arose. This was the 'heredity' of N=0.

Cetainly not infinite possibilities. There are many things that will not happen. Also, the probabalistic framework of the universe is apparently not random. 'Probability' and 'Randomness' need to be seperated. Also, probabilities for many events are so high that it makes little sense to try and argue that they won't happen. For example, if I drop a stone, there is an exceedingly large (higher than 99.9%) chance that it will fall towards earth. So, reality is not completely liberated from a semi-predictable nature.

Are you referring to Multi-Universe theory? We can discuss that if you want.

I've objected above to viewing different probabilities as 'choices.' Quantum mechanics occurs as the subatomic level. I don't see how choice can be ascribed to anything as small as a quark or electron.

This is actually an interesting philosophical question. Science is descriptive. It does not provide the ultimate 'why.' It can only answer, fairly accurately, the 'how.'

I frankly don't know why anything happens on the sub-atomic scale. In fact, as Praxus might believe, the 'why' is an unknowable, if not a nonsensical thing. That is, we might come to a point where we have to conclude, quite simplistically, that things merely occur the way they do. The behavior of the universe is a product of several inherent properties of sub-atomic particles that cannot be further reduced along the lines of causality. In Thomas Aquinas' thoughts "The Final Cause."

However, I don't believe that idea of 'free will' really provides the why.

THL

Infinite possibilities does not assume infinite happenings. There are many things that will not happen, yes. But that does not mean that there are not many other things that could not happen in their place. Can you agree with this Bulgar?

Sure, if you drop a stone, it is almost 100% guaranteed that it will fall toward the earth. But the chances of it actually hitting the earth are going to be less (if ever so slightly). There are infinite possibilites of what could happen to that stone before it hits the earth. The chances may be 1 in 100 billion that it won't, but can you agree that there is a chance something could step in and prevent that stone from hitting the sidewalk even once out of 100 billion tries?

"several different places"...so, Bulgar, would you say there are infinite possibilities as to where the dice could land?


----- -----
Moving On...

If your morals and personal belief system does not influence your reasoning,
I am interested to know where you believe your reasoning comes from. I am not disagreeing with you yet, I only want to know why you feel this way first.


How can you live as though free will exists, if you don't actually believe it exists? For example, if you have a yard void of flowers, are you going to put in fencing to create a flowerbed area? Are you going to water there? No. You are not going to act like they are there unless you can feel or see them in some way. Unless you believe they are there.

I think you take this more serious that you may know. Or else you would not still be discussing it and defending your POV. How do you know, what specifically has convinced you, that your choices are determined by your heredity? How do you that your choices are not pre-determined? How do you know that they are not based on past choices? How are you certain, that there is no "creator" that actually makes your choices for you and you simply act them out? Not saying I believe any of these other options, I am curious to know why you think that heredity plays such a big role.

__________________
"To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

"I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

"I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

"He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

Bulgaroctonus

Yes.

No, not at this time.

clegane

Morals would affect my personal actions, but for a discussion as abstract as whether are not free will exists, I can veiw it from a dispassionate standpoint without delving into whether its right or wrong.

Its mostly a defense mechanism to avoid getting depressed from the subject, but I can act as if free will existed becaue I don't know how things will turn out and I happen to despise self-fulfilling prophecies as plot devices

How seriously do you have to take something to want to discuss it on the internet? Ah, the question for the ages. I think not very.

There are many theological arguements for the absense of free will, but since I don't subscribe any religion, I don't take any into account.

As for heredity playing a large role, it depends on the result of the nature v. nurture arguement. I don't know which plays a larger role, but neither results in free will.

THL

You don't think you can have your cake AND eat it too, do you? You mention that you do not subscribe to any religion - is this also the reason for that? In the end, should the religious have been right, you can stand and say that you never denounced them?



Then you need a hobby - model cars perhaps? You have spent a lot of time on this thread defending your point. Why would you be spending this much time defending something you do not at all take seriously?

Here, again you say you do not believe in free will, but in the same post to me, you give reason as to why you live as though it might exist. You need to choose a side. You cannot be the ally and the enemy.

Bulgaroctonus

Actually, according to the Wu Tang Clan you can. See below...

I can understand Clegane's position. When I first discovered the lack of free will, I was completely crushed. I discovered that almost everything I had ever been taught about ambition, individualism, myself, had all been wrong. I saw a bleak, physical world. The depression was tremendous, almost suicidal.

I was in a phase similar to Clegane. Last year, I tried to keep the thoughts out my head, tried to keep living like I always had. However, the thought never leaves one alone. It stays in the back of one's mind, like an enemy that can't be vanquished, a conundrum that cannot be solved. Clegane is simply in an intermediary stage, aware of the truth, but unable to cut loose and embrace it.

Ultimately, the depression is a small price I had to pay for the very interesting outlook I have now. I now go with the flow, there is no other way.

THL

Well, If the WTC says so then it must be so....



I don't thint that you at all "go with the flow". I have read your posts.

Bulgaroctonus

Oh, indeed I do. My actions, as trollish and irreverant though they may be, are still not of my own choosing, they are a scientifically predictable event. So, there really is no escape from my own theory.

Monk

Humans have repeatedly failed in this endeavour. Self Interest and Reason is inextricably interwoven.

Monk

That flexibility is choice and once there is choice, Free will is undeniable. You are attempting to create a deterministic guideline in a probabilistic Universe. Thats a falsehood.


This analogue between an inanimate object and a sensient being is about as wrong as you have been so far.

Monk

The environment existing before the first cell doesn't form its hereditary nature which you claimed was the basis of all human decision-making. Therefore N=0 is false. We can regress backwards all the way through time and back to the big bang and N=0 will still not hold.

Certainly Infinite, our capacity to perceive is limited by our intellect. In fact you can't prove that there aren't infinite possibilities. Secondly, your statement universe is not Random, you can neither prove or disprove this statement. Universe at best can be described as a sum of all "Rationalities" and "Irrationalities". Hence it is a probabilistic Universe. And a human living in a probabilistic Universe has to make a choice and therefore "FreeWill".


Sure.


Back to contradictions I see, Those sub-atomic particles make up the atoms which make "you". Atoms make "you" was your claim. So any properties ascribed to the sub-atomic partices inherently holds good for you, there fore Quantum Mechanics apply to you as well.


Despite my repeated warnings you wanted to explain "Why" through science. Now prove it.

Once you say "things merely occur the way they do", you have devolved choice to the individual units which make up the Universe. There fore "Freewill" is.

Once Causality as you have admitted doesn't explain the universe, how can you not see "freewill". Or do you not want to see it?

Bulgaroctonus

No, that flexibility is only the outcome of different probabilties that apply to sub-atomic particles. These particles are much too small and simple to ever possess the power of choice.

There is no fundamental difference between animate and inanimate matter. Both things are composed of atoms, electrons, and protons. There is no difference in the materials used. Humans differ from a rock only in the regard that humans are an extremely complex physical system.