Free Will

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:02 am

romansh wrote:
Andreas wrote:lol.. I always fall in the trap of explaining more than i should.

The quote of Nietzsche i posted applies to everyone..

Cya
Are you turning into one of monsters Nietzsche is talking about?
Arent we all? It would feel good to believe otherwise... :lol:

On a more serious note, the quote is supposed to raise awareness not to blame anyone.

Cya again!
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:51 am

Andreas,

A person can believe in something, and fight against something, without necessarily accepting the CONCEPT of good and evil.

I think that's what Rom meant. It is true in my case also.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:21 pm

Yeah but what always gets me Nandu is that these concepts can have both positive and negative attributes. Just see what happened with Nietzsche. Hitler adopted his philosophy and used it for genocide. On the other hand not seeing the other as evil does bring some respect and a more honest approach.

So how much is too much?
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:24 pm

I don't want to have pain and suffering ( I understand might not be able to avoid it). Inflicting pain and suffering on others seems to bounce back. So I try and avoid inflicting such things.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:54 am

Ron wrote:For the cause and effect argument to eliminate free will there would have to be a conservation law for cause and effect, and there isn't one. It's a nice theory, but I cannot imagine an experiment to prove that cause and effect are conserved, especially since the experiment would involve people.
There is no conservation of Gibbs Free Energy and entropy for that matter. But the conservation laws that are buried deep in these concepts don't give these descriptions much freedom either.

So I disagree with the statement to eliminate free will there have to conservation laws for such activities.

The physical world is conserved and is winding down so to speak. To claim in some way that human activity is not conserved you are claiming a non physical aspect to our lives. Such things are difficult to point to.
Last edited by romansh on Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
zoe
Associate
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:00 am
Location: In route

Post by zoe » Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:40 am

There is a new fundamental theory of physics that’s called constructor theory, and was proposed by David Deutsch who pioneered the theory of the universe of quantum computer. David and I are working this theory together. The fundamental idea in this theory is that we formulate all laws of physics in terms of what tasks are possible, what are impossible, and why. In this theory we have an exact physical characterization of an object that has those properties, and we call that knowledge. Note that knowledge here means knowledge without knowing the subject, as in the theory of knowledge of the philosopher, Karl Popper.

We’ve just come to the conclusion that the fact that extinction is possible means that knowledge can be instantiated in our physical world. In fact, extinction is the very process by which that knowledge is disabled in its ability to remain instantiated in physical systems because there are problems that it cannot solve. With any luck that bit of knowledge can be replaced with a better one. CHIARA MARLETTO
This seems to have some interesting implications for ideas such as free will and religion among others.

More here http://edge.org/memberbio/chiara_marletto
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:02 pm

I think this quote from Chiara is telling:

It’s an interesting insight from constructor theory that the only way knowledge can be created under these laws of physics is by a non directed process of trial and error correction steps. This is true of both natural selection and of the knowledge-creating process that occurs in people’s minds.

People quite often cite creativity as an argument for free will ... Chiara's view agrees with my personal observation that creativity and novelty are certainly not actually directed but more a function of my antecedents.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:49 am

Zoe posted
knowledge here means knowledge without knowing the subject
I love this. It is the perfect theory. To have knowledge without knowledge is to ignore reality all together. Boy, I can't wait to jump on that bandwagon.

Rom posted
The physical world is conserved and is winding down so to speak. To claim in some way that human activity is not conserved you are claiming a non physical aspect to our lives. Such things are difficult to point to.
I would like to point to the fact that Schrodinger's equation contains imaginary numbers.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:25 pm

Roncooper wrote: Rom posted
The physical world is conserved and is winding down so to speak. To claim in some way that human activity is not conserved you are claiming a non physical aspect to our lives. Such things are difficult to point to.
I would like to point to the fact that Schrodinger's equation contains imaginary numbers.
I am having trouble seeing the relevance here Ron. That our descriptions of reality use the square root of minus one, somehow means that a particular aspect of lives is or is not conserved demonstrates that we might have free will. Or are you suggesting quantum phenomenon are not physical?

Your original comment was that to eliminate free will there would have to be a conservation law for cause and effect, and there isn't one. to me seems plain wrong. Imaginary numbers notwithstanding.

If you mean that some aspect of imaginary numbers in Schrodinger's equation give rise to the possibility of free will I am all to happy to discuss the (your) supporting arguments. ;)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:35 pm

Just a comment on Popper's knowing without knowing
from wiki ...
  1. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.

    Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:37 pm

Rom,

You first. Please explain in detail how Gibbs Free energy eliminates free will.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:49 pm

Roncooper wrote:Rom,

You first. Please explain in detail how Gibbs Free energy eliminates free will.
delta G = delta G° - RT ln ([products]/[reactants])

I can't think of a single choice I make via brain chemistry that is somehow not described by this equation.

And note I asked for your arguments and not proof á la Karl Popper.

As far as I understand quantum mechanics is in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.

Your turn
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:17 pm

Rom, Zoe,
I found an excellent statement of the materialist view.
According to the general postulate of psychology just referred to, there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process as its condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only know the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see the liver determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way; we get the atheist form of mind. So all of our raptures and our dryness, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs, they are equally organically founded, be they of religious or non-religious content.

William James
So it seems when we argue we are really talking about our different liver function.
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:20 pm

Rom wrote
delta G = delta G° - RT ln ([products]/[reactants])
I still don't see how this proves there is no free will. I have a theory that each decision I make burns 267 calories.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:25 pm

Roncooper wrote:Rom, Zoe,
I found an excellent statement of the materialist view.
According to the general postulate of psychology just referred to, there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process as its condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only know the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see the liver determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way; we get the atheist form of mind. So all of our raptures and our dryness, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs, they are equally organically founded, be they of religious or non-religious content.

William James
So it seems when we argue we are really talking about our different liver function.
James was a full blown libertarian, who saw the supposed randomness our lives as evidence for free will. James was an intelligent and thoughtful thinker, but I do disagree with his view on free will.

Where I do agree with him is his view of compatibilism ... as a quagmire of evasion

So your liver does not have free will and yet watery grey matter does?

It is still your turn Ron.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Locked