Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scudbuster

A Universe Not Made For Us

862 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Horta
On 11/9/2019 at 6:21 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Consciousness, free will, and non-determinism, cannot be coded into a machine.

True, but if the claim is that humans have "free will", there is nothing to back that claim either. The only sense in which we might have "free will" has nothing to do with what most people think of as free will. Humans are biological machines where outcomes are dictated by the principles of nature. The same as any other physical system. There is no "magic" (which is what free will requires). The only way "non determinism" could affect such outcomes would make them random, which has no possibility of being willed in any sense, let alone being "free".

There is nothing about humanity which requires free will as an explanation (as opposed to the delusion of having free will). No scientific understanding of our universe allows for it. No coherent logic can arrive at it. No (scientific) observation has ever discerned it. On the contrary, all of these things point to the opposite.

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
12 hours ago, Horta said:

True, but if the claim is that humans have "free will", there is nothing to back that claim either. The only sense in which we might have "free will" has nothing to do with what most people think of as free will. Humans are biological machines where outcomes are dictated by the principles of nature. The same as any other physical system. There is no "magic" (which is what free will requires). The only way "non determinism" could affect such outcomes would make them random, which has no possibility of being willed in any sense, let alone being "free".

There is nothing about humanity which requires free will as an explanation (as opposed to the delusion of having free will). No scientific understanding of our universe allows for it. No coherent logic can arrive at it. No (scientific) observation has ever discerned it. On the contrary, all of these things point to the opposite.

You dont know what you are talking about.

Lets put a robot in a room and give it a computer program that tells it to press a button when a red light comes on. The red light comes on, it presses the button, it is not capable of any other action because its only capable of deterministic behaviour.

Lets put a human in a room and tell them to press a button when a red light comes on. After 15 minutes of doing it our human gets bored and says no more. They are not constrained by a deterministic computer program, they made their own mind up instead. Thats free will.

Lets take a robot and re-run the experiment but this time include a random number generator in the programming. That programming tells it not to press the button every time the random number is an odd number. At first it appears that the robot is displaying free will or non-deterministic behaviour. Then when the IT specialist tells us the algorithm we can predict the coming sequence of numbers and realise there is nothing probabilistic going on at all.

Lets take a human and re-rum the experiment telling them to randomly decided if they will or wont press the button when the red light comes on. We can note down a sequence of 100 outcomes, create an algorithm we like, but it wont predict the coming sequence of numbers. Humans can behaviour non-deterministically.

No one knows how, or why, and thats because we dont have the technological means to investigate mind, how it arises, or what is going on inside our heads between vast numbers of neurons. Non-determinism or probabilistic behaviour is central to Quantum Theory and is proven. It is theorised this behaviour is going on in tubes of neurons across the surface of our brains allowing free will and non-deterministic behaviour to arise. But its still a theory.

All we currently have are surveys, CAT scans, lobotomies, and electrodes, to investigate the mind with. None allow us to answer the crucial questions of what consciousness is, where it comes from, and how it arises. Therefore (and because free will can be demonstrated in humans as above) any scientist claiming a human is just a biological robot needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I bet 2000 years ago there was a similar type of biased scientist arguing that humans were made out of earth, air, fire, and water. Human civilization is just out of nappies, most of our current physics will get thrown out over the coming centuries, so snap yourself out of being locked into the current schools of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Therefore (and because free will can be demonstrated in humans as above) any scientist claiming a human is just a biological robot needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Free will wasn't demonstrated by your above scenario though, it was just noting that the algorithm that humans go through isn't as simple as that as your hypothetical robot.  As Horta mentioned, we need to show something more than that because of Quantum Theory some things are non-deterministic, because in order to have free will we need to be able to control or 'will' that indeterminism into something, which since it's random I don't think we can.  

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Lets take a robot and re-run the experiment but this time include a random number generator in the programming. That programming tells it not to press the button every time the random number is an odd number. At first it appears that the robot is displaying free will or non-deterministic behaviour. Then when the IT specialist tells us the algorithm we can predict the coming sequence of numbers and realise there is nothing probabilistic going on at all.

Lets take a human and re-rum the experiment telling them to randomly decided if they will or wont press the button when the red light comes on. We can note down a sequence of 100 outcomes, create an algorithm we like, but it wont predict the coming sequence of numbers.

I'm not following this comparison.  In neither scenario can you 'predict' the coming sequence of numbers since you've defined them as random. 

What you would be able to do theoretically is if you had the robot record all the random numbers it generated and compare them to the button pushes we would see that that is what is driving the button pushes.  In the human experiment, we could take a human and have it first think 'randomly' of a number, record it, and push the button accordingly based on it being odd or not.  Sure, a human has more 'choice' to disregard these rules and press the button when the number is even, but we're then just saying that the human is making decisions deterministically by what it wants most to do.  I'm not of the impression that what we want is controlled by our will, most/all of my desires seem to come in part from my unconscious or subconscious mind, so we're just behaving deterministically also, just with a different driver for the behavior.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
14 hours ago, Horta said:

There is no "magic" (which is what free will requires).

There is nothing about humanity which requires free will as an explanation (as opposed to the delusion of having free will). No scientific understanding of our universe allows for it. No coherent logic can arrive at it. No (scientific) observation has ever discerned it. On the contrary, all of these things point to the opposite.

Can't free will simply be the ability to think and choose?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
14 minutes ago, lightly said:

Can't free will simply be the ability to think and choose?   

You are debating people who have reduced their minds down to being computer software running on a pc lol.

They dont have the education to know we arent machines, they are trapped in a pre-19th century worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
23 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

You are debating people who have reduced their minds down to being computer software running on a pc lol.

They dont have the education to know we arent machines, they are trapped in a pre-19th century worldview.

What education is that?  Did they discover free will somewhere in the 19th Century?  To me, this just follows from the point you just made and I agree with, "No one knows how, or why, and thats because we dont have the technological means to investigate mind, how it arises, or what is going on inside our heads between vast numbers of neurons".  If no one knows this information, why are you saying we have free will, shouldn't we need to investigate 'the mind' before concluding that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
11 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What education is that?  Did they discover free will somewhere in the 19th Century?  To me, this just follows from the point you just made and I agree with, "No one knows how, or why, and thats because we dont have the technological means to investigate mind, how it arises, or what is going on inside our heads between vast numbers of neurons".  If no one knows this information, why are you saying we have free will, shouldn't we need to investigate 'the mind' before concluding that?

Wouldn't this also apply to not having free will as well. Consciousness is still a mystery. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Wouldn't this also apply to not having free will as well.

Sure. The difference to me is that a lot of people, I think myself included, think that lots if not most lifeforms don't have free will.  I don't think think bacteria and insects have free will, I think they are behaving deterministically based on inputs to their senses and their nervous systems (if that's the correct name for what they possess).  Things like dogs and cats I'm not sure about, but I seem to be able to explain most of their behavior also as possibly just being driven by their deterministic needs.

Most things that occur in the macro-world we live in seem deterministic.  We can predict with mind-blowing accuracy what will happen if we send a spacecraft to different places in our solar system by using the gravitational forces of other planets to sling-shot and steer it to a precise location.  That is a lot of determinism, and if quantum indeterminism is really bubbling up to our macro world to make things indeterminate, it seems to be very limited.  So to me the idea that we possess something in our brain that results in something undetermined going on is not what I would expect from the way everything else appears to work.

Not that we would ever know, about the only evidence we have for free will is that it seems to our conscious minds that we're making free choices, and the only way I can think to ever test that is to be able to rewind time repeatedly to a specific decision point and see if anyone's decision ever changes.  Besides the fun part is still intact from my view: whether we ultimately do or do not have free will, it sure seems like we do, so I'm not sure how important whether we actually do or not actually is.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

From where I'm standing humans are chaotic animals with the occasional pack mentality. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Sure. The difference to me is that a lot of people, I think myself included, think that lots if not most lifeforms don't have free will.  

Not that we would ever know, about the only evidence we have for free will is that it seems to our conscious minds that we're making free choices, and the only way I can think to ever test that is to be able to rewind time repeatedly to a specific decision point and see if anyone's decision ever changes.  Besides the fun part is still intact from my view: whether we ultimately do or do not have free will, it sure seems like we do, so I'm not sure how important whether we actually do or not actually is.

Interesting post L. G.   Yup,  sponges probably don't have free will....as you say, most of life just Reacts to it's environment?.. 

As for decisions....isn't that the beauty of free will?   I could have had soup for lunch, but I freely willed up a PBJ sandwich instead.

.but    .   I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so maybe I don't fully understand the concept of " free will"?   I always thought it was simple enough...  but,   I dunno for sure if it's simple.  .... or I am.  :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
31 minutes ago, lightly said:

Interesting post L. G.   Yup,  sponges probably don't have free will....as you say, most of life just Reacts to it's environment?.. 

As for decisions....isn't that the beauty of free will?   I could have had soup for lunch, but I freely willed up a PBJ sandwich instead.

.but    .   I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, so maybe I don't fully understand the concept of " free will"?   I always thought it was simple enough...  but,   I dunno for sure if it's simple.  .... or I am.  :lol: 

Ha, I don't think it's about 'brightness' or simpleness as you say, it's just a tough topic to think about.  There's quite a few definitions, and according to some of those definitions I also agree we have 'free will', but the definition that I'm not sure we possess is the ability to make any other decision other than the one we choose.  I analogize it to a pool/billiards table.  Once the cue ball is struck it theoretically will only take one course, ricochet off bumpers at precise angles, hit other balls, etc; we may not be able to predict exactly the path it will take, but the path it takes is not indeterminate.  Despite what it's tempting to do with this analogy, we are not the cue stick and shooter, we are the cue ball; our direction was determined not by our consciousness, we made a decision that was as inevitable as the direction of the ball on the pool table.  We get the extra bonus of being conscious of other alternatives before a decision is made, but I'm not sure the end choice was something we consciously did.

I have trouble getting around the following logic: we always do what we want to do most.  You thought about having soup for lunch but you wanted PBJ more.  There may be all kinds of complexities behind that, not just what your taste buds want more but also how easy your selections will be to make, memories of how you last felt after having PBJ or soup, etc.  But ultimately you chose what you wanted to most (it's a bit circular, but if the choice you made wasn't what you wanted most, why would you have then chosen it?).  This then results in something indeterminate for me because I don't seem to make conscious decisions of what I want, I just seem to desire things.  When faced with a lunch decision I usually go with 'what sounds good', but that's not my conscious mind deciding that a cheeseburger is what sounds good to me, it's the other way around, I more discover with my conscious mind that a cheeseburger sounds best.  I never decided or willed myself to the belief that a cheeseburger sounds the best to me at the moment, it just did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, I don't think it's about 'brightness' or simpleness as you say, it's just a tough topic to think about.  There's quite a few definitions, and according to some of those definitions I also agree we have 'free will', but the definition that I'm not sure we possess is the ability to make any other decision other than the one we choose.  I analogize it to a pool/billiards table.  Once the cue ball is struck it theoretically will only take one course, ricochet off bumpers at precise angles, hit other balls, etc; we may not be able to predict exactly the path it will take, but the path it takes is not indeterminate.  Despite what it's tempting to do with this analogy, we are not the cue stick and shooter, we are the cue ball; our direction was determined not by our consciousness, we made a decision that was as inevitable as the direction of the ball on the pool table.  We get the extra bonus of being conscious of other alternatives before a decision is made, but I'm not sure the end choice was something we consciously did.

I have trouble getting around the following logic: we always do what we want to do most.  You thought about having soup for lunch but you wanted PBJ more.  There may be all kinds of complexities behind that, not just what your taste buds want more but also how easy your selections will be to make, memories of how you last felt after having PBJ or soup, etc.  But ultimately you chose what you wanted to most (it's a bit circular, but if the choice you made wasn't what you wanted most, why would you have then chosen it?).  This then results in somethings indeterminate for me because I don't seem to make conscious decisions of what I want, I just seem to desire things.  When faced with a lunch decision I usually go with 'what sounds good', but that's not my conscious mind deciding that a cheeseburger is what sounds good to me, it's the other way around, I more discover with my conscious mind that a cheeseburger sounds best.  I never decided or willed myself to the belief that a cheeseburger sounds the best to me at the moment, it just did.

Well, all seriousness aside,   any decision making is hopefully done ,before , the cue ball is struck?

 

and   ...because I discovered I was out of soup?  ;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/13/2019 at 11:39 PM, RabidMongoose said:

You dont know what you are talking about.

Lets put a robot in a room and give it a computer program that tells it to press a button when a red light comes on. The red light comes on, it presses the button, it is not capable of any other action because its only capable of deterministic behaviour.

Lets put a human in a room and tell them to press a button when a red light comes on. After 15 minutes of doing it our human gets bored and says no more. They are not constrained by a deterministic computer program, they made their own mind up instead. Thats free will.

Good lord that's superficial lol. That's nearly as simplistic as some of the watered down efforts of philosophers recently to rescue free will, motivated by the belief that society will crumble if they tell them it's nonsense lol.

All it demonstrates is that machines are better at carrying out a simple "on/off" type of activity faithfully because humans get bored easy. Unlike your simple machine (basically performing the function of a single switch lol), humans have many billions of switches (neurons) that can be configured many ways and altered by many different chemicals. Though the boredom itself is still the result of a physical causal chain that they would know little to nothing about, nor have control over. The idea that they could will themselves to work through the boredom if they wanted, would still only illustrate the end result of a prior causal chain.

What should be demonstrated is that volition itself and conscious choice are truly "free" as in, not the end result of (an immutable) causal chain. Free will requires the following.

That given the exact same state of the universe and including exactly the same brain states, that they could have done otherwise. There is no reason to believe this is possible, and no logic or evidence supports it. Nor has it ever. It's acceptance is based on an almost religious type of faith. It requires matter in one particular state (the brain) to behave differently to all other matter in the universe (that we have observed) and in a way where the principles of physics and chemistry are causally irrelevant. It requires the brain and it's states to be a causa sui (it's own cause) or a causa non causa (a cause without cause). It's nonsense.

The only way a different outcome could happen is via randomness, which means it can never be willed (freely or otherwise)... or it wouldn't be random.

So this is what you need to demonstrate, and unsurprisingly no one has managed it yet. Conversely, there are some reasonably compelling experiments that show free will doesn't exist (at least in the scope of the experiment).

As a noted philosopher once remarked...all intuition supports free will, yet all evidence and logic is against it.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 11/14/2019 at 1:09 AM, lightly said:

Can't free will simply be the ability to think and choose?   

If you're happy with that, yes.

That means we are little more than sophisticated, biological smart phones though (which is what we are anyway IMO, biological machines). Do you realise how much data and how many choices the computers in your car make and how they communicate, while driving to the shop ? It's mind boggling (compared to us), not to mention the "self learning" programmes they incorporate so that they can make better "decisions" based on the data as they become acquainted with your driving style and conditions.

Generally people think of "free will" in a way where they (the conscious part) have control over their volition and have conscious choices, in ways that are non causally determined. This is extremely unlikely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 hour ago, Horta said:

Good lord that's superficial lol. That's nearly as simplistic as some of the watered down efforts of philosophers recently to rescue free will, motivated by the belief that society will crumble if they tell them it's nonsense lol.

All it demonstrates is that machines are better at carrying out a simple "on/off" type of activity faithfully because humans get bored easy. Unlike your simple machine (basically performing the function of a single switch lol), humans have many billions of switches (neurons) that can be configured many ways and altered by many different chemicals. Though the boredom itself is still the result of a physical causal chain that they would know little to nothing about, nor have control over. The idea that they could will themselves to work through the boredom if they wanted, would still only illustrate the end result of a prior causal chain.

What should be demonstrated is that volition itself and conscious choice are truly "free" as in, not the end result of (an immutable) causal chain. Free will requires the following.

That given the exact same state of the universe and including exactly the same brain states, that they could have done otherwise. There is no reason to believe this is possible, and no logic or evidence supports it. Nor has it ever. It's acceptance is based on an almost religious type of faith. It requires matter in one particular state (the brain) to behave differently to all other matter in the universe (that we have observed) and in a way where the principles of physics and chemistry are causally irrelevant. It requires the brain and it's states to be a causa sui (it's own cause) or a causa non causa (a cause without cause). It's nonsense.

The only way a different outcome could happen is via randomness, which means it can never be willed (freely or otherwise)... or it wouldn't be random.

So this is what you need to demonstrate, and unsurprisingly no one has managed it yet. Conversely, there are some reasonably compelling experiments that show free will doesn't exist (at least in the scope of the experiment).

As a noted philosopher once remarked...all intuition supports free will, yet all evidence and logic is against it.

Well I decided on as simple an explanation as I could but I notice it still failed to get the message across to you. A robot is not conscious, it is a machine executing lines of computer code written carefully in as great an attempt as possible to mimic human consciousness. Mimicry is not the same as actuality.

Robots cannot operate non-deterministically, they are only capable of deterministic actions derived from deterministic computer code. Even random number generators arent actually random, they work off deterministic algorithms.

The school of thought that we live in a Newtonian universe where everything behaves mechanistically and deterministically was proven wrong over a century ago. Amongst the uneducated, and the biased, the view persists that a human being is just a complicated biological robot. This is the school of thought where people actually still believe that the scientific method applies to human beings.

Just over a century ago physicists investigating how atomic particles worked discovered non-deterministic behaviour in them. In essence, they work off probabilities not deterministic mechanics. It means that in our universe there are things which arent predestined or predetermined. Both being prerequisites for a universe in where there is no free will.

Scientists dont know how brain neurons work, or how consciousness and free will can arise from them. Like I said all we have are surveys, CAT scans, lobotomies, drugs, and electrodes, to investigate the nature of mind which are in no way adequate enough to do the job. We are no where close to developing the technology we would need to investigate the mind, we are centuries out from it.

There are theories with supporting evidence (that cannot yet be tested due to our lack of technology) that the tubes of neurons existing across the surface of the brain (the grey matter rather than the white stuff) have quantum effects going on in them. In English, there is non-deterministic behaviour in them which means human behaviour isn't predestined or predetermined. Thats free will.

Lets pick on maths now for those who insist we live in a deterministic universe. How do you calculate the area of a circle? When using that formula note how pie and your answer are irrational numbers. That means your answer for the area of a circle is always incompatible with the true area of a circle.

This is because area comes in precise building blocks called planck units, so all answers for the area of a circle with infinite decimal places (thats all of them) are in fact wrong. Going further as space, time, and matter, are all made out of building blocks all answers that maths produces with irrational numbers as answers (and that is most calculations) are wrong. Rounding up to 3 decimal places (as an example) might hide the fact that mathematics is incompatible with our universe, but if the maths is wrong then its wrong.

The current way of doing physics in our civilization misleads people into thinking that maths accurately describes reality and can accurately predict the outcome of experiments. It cannot. And as such we have no shortage of unintelligent fools insisting that deterministic mathematical calculations describe reality and how human beings work.

Its that mistake underpinning why you think you are nothing more than a complicated biological robot.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well I decided on as simple an explanation as I could but I notice it still failed to get the message across to you. A robot is not conscious, it is a machine executing lines of computer code written carefully in as great an attempt as possible to mimic human consciousness. Mimicry is not the same as actuality.

Well then, it should be easy for you to define consciousness, demonstrate that we have it (what you describe) and explain how it changes anything regarding "free will". That would be better that simply stating opinions as if they are facts.

You seem to be unaware of the experimentally derived ideas that have been gaining weight in neurosecience, as to what the (usually) poorly defined concept of consciousness actually does.

To give you a little help, "consciousness" (whatever definition) is derived from the physical processes of the brain and is therefore also the result of a physical causal chain. Yes, this has been observed many times and in fact is our most basic observation. We can actually alter consciousness by altering this causal chain. Unless you can find some "magical consciousness dust" in amongst this process somewhere, you're going to need a little more than claiming "consciousness" and thinking it does anything for your argument, simply because you are in possession of a belief that it does. 

Your argument is as bad as the religious ones that claim "god is real 'cause the bible says so".

Quote

The school of thought that we live in a Newtonian universe where everything behaves mechanistically and deterministically was proven wrong over a century ago. Amongst the uneducated, and the biased, the view persists that a human being is just a complicated biological robot. This is the school of thought where people actually still believe that the scientific method applies to human beings.

Which also has nothing to do with free will. It is also irrelevant (quantum effects) at the scale of the brain. If it weren't it would only offer an element of randomness (as in - non predictable). It would be interesting to hear how an outcome that is non predictable can be willed into existence? Oxymoron much? Strangely you don't seem to understand what (genuine) randomness is, and how something derived this way would make free will (or any type of "will") an impossibility :rolleyes:.

It would also be interesting to hear what your doctor does when you go there, if not practice a "science"? Call for the local faith healer? 

Edited by Horta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

There are theories with supporting evidence (that cannot yet be tested due to our lack of technology) that the tubes of neurons existing across the surface of the brain (the grey matter rather than the white stuff) have quantum effects going on in them. In English, there is non-deterministic behaviour in them which means human behaviour isn't predestined or predetermined. Thats free will.

No there aren't. There is a claim/hypothesis from Penrose and Hameroff to this effect, that has shown to be very unconvincing to the relevant fields of science. It has been labelled a "fairy dust" explanation and Penrose himself has said it is little more than a belief. This (ahem) "theory" also says nothing about free will, it is designed to show that "consciousness" can exist outside of the physical body via quantum effects. It also verges (some would say a little too closely) on pseudo science, in that they arrived at an idea and then look only for whatever will support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

In English, there is non-deterministic behaviour in them which means human behaviour isn't predestined or predetermined. Thats free will.

That really is ridiculous. That would mean that radioactive decay is analogous to free will lol.

Who said anything about human behaviour being "predestined" or "predetermined"? I'm saying it has physical causes (that people are almost entirely unaware of). This is demonstrably a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
3 minutes ago, Horta said:

That really is ridiculous. That would mean that radioactive decay is analogous to free will lol.

Who said anything about human behaviour being "predestined" or "predetermined"? I'm saying it has physical causes (that people are almost entirely unaware of). This is demonstrably a fact.

You are so straight jacketed into your flawed worldview whats the point in even debating with you?

And you haven't even thought through what you have wrote there. You are arguing that mind has physical causes but that there is no predestination or predetermination? Thats logically flawed. If a the mind has physical causes I can predict what it will do in a given situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
16 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

And you haven't even thought through what you have wrote there. You are arguing that mind has physical causes but that there is no predestination or predetermination? Thats logically flawed. If a the mind has physical causes I can predict what it will do in a given situation.

No, I'm not arguing that. As we don't really know if randomness plays part in the larger macro universe yet (let alone the quantum world). I  have never mentioned anything about "predestination" or "predetermination" except when quoting you. I can only gather you find these terms relevant. You seem to think free will hinges on them. It doesn't.

I can certainly predict with a high level of accuracy that you are going to disagree with everything I say in this situation, based on your firm yet entirely unevidenced belief. I doubt you could predict the weather this accurately. Is it magic too?

 

Quote

You are so straight jacketed into your flawed worldview whats the point in even debating with you?

Other people call these flaws... facts, science and logic/reason lol. They can be very inconvenient flaws for magical explanations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
42 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

 

It seems we have three different types of processes and outcomes from which to extract our "free will". One is physically determined and is what the macro universe is generally observed as (and which rules out "free will", because the will is determined by prior physical causes). One leads to fundamentally unpredictable results (thus "free will" would be an impossibility). Or we can have a combination of those two processes, both of which rule out "free will".

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
2 hours ago, Horta said:

It seems we have three different types of processes and outcomes from which to extract our "free will". One is physically determined and is what the macro universe is generally observed as (and which rules out "free will", because the will is determined by prior physical causes). One leads to fundamentally unpredictable results (thus "free will" would be an impossibility). Or we can have a combination of those two processes, both of which rule out "free will".

I will start by setting out a rather unusual position before presenting my arguments for it.

My stance is that real objects behave non-deterministically where as non-existent objects behave deterministically. We know that atomic particles are real objects and laboratory experiments show that they behave non-deterministically. We also know that these real objects (atomic particles) are microscopic in size.

Now, if we think about it really carefully we would realise that there are no macroscopic objects which exist in our universe. Lets take a car as an example. A car is not a real object, its an idea about what a vast collection of real objects (its atomic particles) arranged in a particular way represents.

So determinism describes how an idea like a car works, not the real objects that our idea is based upon.

If we go back to the deterministic mathematics this is at the heart of why algebraic formulae cannot accurately describe how something works or make accurate predictions. Deterministic mathematics isn't describing real objects, but ideas. Therefore upon closer scrutiny we begin to see all the cracks in it with irrational numbers being incompatible in a universe made from fundamental building blocks of space, time, and matter. Its not the only problem with deterministic mathematics, I know of a further three.

On the question of consciousness then as human beings we behave non-deterministically (also called free will) where we can behave probabilistically or choose to follow a set of instructions. Robots dont get to decide for themselves, they have to obey deterministic computer code.

So to conclude:

1. Determinism isn't real because it doesnt apply to real objects. It only applies to ideas.

2. If our conscious minds are real objects they must behave non-deterministically.

3. If our conscious minds are ideas (an idea about a group of atoms) they must behave deterministically.

So focusing on our own minds is it possible for us to mentally get our heads around an irrational quantity? By an irrational quantity I mean one that could only ever be described using an irrational number. The answer is of course no, not matter how hard we try we cannot.

Please note I choose quantity because cognitively speaking we can only understand things in quantities or units. As such its pervasive throughout our whole conscious experience.

Therefore I argue that our minds are real instead of being ideas. I argue for free will, for a non-deterministic model of consciousness, and I go further and say consciousness itself must be a fundamental property of the universe along with the smallest undividable building blocks of space, time, and matter.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
6 hours ago, Horta said:

If you're happy with that, yes.

Generally people think of "free will" in a way where they (the conscious part) have control over their volition and have conscious choices, in ways that are non causally determined. This is extremely unlikely to happen.

 

Volition   1. A concious choice.  2. The power of choosing ;  the will.   

       ...  I made a concious choice to respond ... I don't understand why it should be all complexiacated beyond that.  :P

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

If you don't believe in free will, might as well just believe in god. As everything in our lives is predetermined and we literally do not matter. As we are only NPC's in a game that god made. Nothing in our lives is real, none of our emotions have any validity, nothing matters especially our live. I didn't choose to write this. It was prewritten in the book of my life. I'm just an actor following a script I can't read ahead in. 

Might as well shoot me now and get to the ending. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

If you don't believe in free will, might as well just believe in god. As everything in our lives is predetermined and we literally do not matter. As we are only NPC's in a game that god made. Nothing in our lives is real, none of our emotions have any validity, nothing matters especially our live. I didn't choose to write this. It was prewritten in the book of my life. I'm just an actor following a script I can't read ahead in. 

Might as well shoot me now and get to the ending. 

Your emotions have been eradicated, your conversion is complete, you have now been robotified!

Welcome onboard cyberman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.