|
Post by ostravan on Apr 19, 2009 4:45:08 GMT -5
To put it in a nutshell: Open Bible = Closed Mind A man is accepted into the church for his belief and is cast out for his knowledge.
Fundie: One who believes in the Bible. Atheist: One who understands the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 13:33:50 GMT -5
Are humans nothing more then a complex function that takes input->output? That is the real debate here. Debates on free will are often just semantics and I am glad we got past that. To put it in a nutshell: Open Bible = Closed Mind A man is accepted into the church for his belief and is cast out for his knowledge. Fundie: One who believes in the Bible. Atheist: One who understands the Bible. Are you sure you are posting in the right thread? 0_o
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 19, 2009 14:51:36 GMT -5
No, I believe my consciousness and my intelligence, so to speak, are essentially the same thing. That's what I meant in my first paragraph. I define free will as when your actions are cause your consciousness. Your definition is slightly narrower, requiring that these actions are caused ONLY by your consciousness. Right now we are just arguing semantics. Free will discussions are often about semantics, annoyingly enough. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't know what free will is supposed to be, I can only argue against someone who provides a definition. My position is, in general, either A) free will doesn't exist, if you define it as a violation of natural laws. B) it's something that arises from any complex enough decision making system, so depending on your value of "complex enough" a coin you flip, a toaster, a brain, or an AI could have free will. In any case, there's no reason to assume it's human-exclusive. C) If you define at having more than one possible outcome, than maybe quantum randomness might be free will. It all depends on the definition you are using. nuitarihw: Sorry I misunderstood what you were arguing for.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 19, 2009 23:10:43 GMT -5
B) it's something that arises from any complex enough decision making system, so depending on your value of "complex enough" a coin you flip, a toaster, a brain, or an AI could have free will. In any case, there's no reason to assume it's human-exclusive. C) If you define at having more than one possible outcome, than maybe quantum randomness might be free will. I am going to use my definition of free will as simply being an experience. B. is a perfectly reasonable theory. C. Taken literally doesn't say anything about free will at all. If you define cats as cube-like objects, then maybe boxes might really be cats in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 20, 2009 17:16:23 GMT -5
Taken literally doesn't say anything about free will at all. If you define cats as cube-like objects, then maybe boxes might really be cats in disguise. Not my definition, just one I've seen elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 21, 2009 1:24:07 GMT -5
I was just thinking more this today, and a simple answer came to me.
"There is no free will. It violates the laws of thermodynamics, just like free energy."
I realize that sounds like silly answer since "free" is used differently in each. But if you think about it, theres some truth to it. Will is a type of information, right? And like energy, information can't come from nothing. So if will must come from something, it's not "free" in either sense, is it?
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Apr 22, 2009 1:45:43 GMT -5
I voted no because I think that everything we do is determined by natural instincts and past experiences. When our brains are working out what to do in a given situation it creates the illusion that we are making a decision, when all thats really happening is out brain comparing the event to any previous things (and checking what the natural instincts for the response are). If someone knew our entire genetic makeup and life history they could predict any decision we make.
However, I think that the illusion of free will is so strong that it is irrelevant whether or not it really exists. I'm sure there is a better way to explain this, if I find it I'll edit this or something.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 22, 2009 14:57:03 GMT -5
This is becoming very thinky. Quick, someone say something dirty.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on Apr 22, 2009 15:51:42 GMT -5
Does he, or does he just act out his psychopathic compulsions?
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 22, 2009 18:16:46 GMT -5
I voted no because I think that everything we do is determined by natural instincts and past experiences. When our brains are working out what to do in a given situation it creates the illusion that we are making a decision, when all thats really happening is out brain comparing the event to any previous things (and checking what the natural instincts for the response are). If someone knew our entire genetic makeup and life history they could predict any decision we make. However, I think that the illusion of free will is so strong that it is irrelevant whether or not it really exists. I'm sure there is a better way to explain this, if I find it I'll edit this or something. Subjective experience definition of free will ≠ Free will as defined as breaking the laws of nature.
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Apr 22, 2009 19:30:35 GMT -5
I voted no because I think that everything we do is determined by natural instincts and past experiences. When our brains are working out what to do in a given situation it creates the illusion that we are making a decision, when all thats really happening is out brain comparing the event to any previous things (and checking what the natural instincts for the response are). If someone knew our entire genetic makeup and life history they could predict any decision we make. However, I think that the illusion of free will is so strong that it is irrelevant whether or not it really exists. I'm sure there is a better way to explain this, if I find it I'll edit this or something. Subjective experience definition of free will ≠ Free will as defined as breaking the laws of nature. What I meant was that the illusion is so strong that we might as well assume it is real, because whether or not it exists we will act as though it does. For example; if something that looked like a bullet came toward you, you would try to avoid it, even if it was actually an illusion, so whether or not it is an illusion becomes irrelevant.
|
|