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
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:27 pm

Law and social mores, ethics and etiquette assume that free will drives most human conduct. People who are pre-demonized before being born know that saintly conduct is never enough when one is poor or black or whatever status the hierarchy puts down.

If we could predict consequences, good or bad, freedom would make more sense. As it is, punitive law is activated and funded to control dark and poor people. Recognition and other rewards are reserved for the white elite.

This difference in consequences makes conduct and choice far less relevant, except that the white herd may be heading toward the same circumstances that were used to rationalize and justify racial, ethnic, religious and gender bias, while good behavior (like the dramatic reduction in actual crime and violence) is swelling the ranks of the exceptional members of otherwise reviled social groups.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
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 Jul 23, 2016 12:23 am

CarmelaBear wrote: Law and social mores, ethics and etiquette assume that free will drives most human conduct. People who are pre-demonized before being born know that saintly conduct is never enough when one is poor or black or whatever status the hierarchy puts down.

I would say the retributive aspects of our justice system rely on free will. And perhaps ethics. But things like law assume that cause and effect have some role to play.
CarmelaBear wrote:If we could predict consequences, good or bad, freedom would make more sense. As it is, punitive law is activated and funded to control dark and poor people. Recognition and other rewards are reserved for the white elite.
But we predict all the time. It is the complexity of what we are trying to predict and perhaps some fundamental uncertainties that make our predictions more of probability than a dead cert.
CarmelaBear wrote:This difference in consequences makes conduct and choice far less relevant, except that the white herd may be heading toward the same circumstances that were used to rationalize and justify racial, ethnic, religious and gender bias, while good behavior (like the dramatic reduction in actual crime and violence) is swelling the ranks of the exceptional members of otherwise reviled social groups.
I am not sure why free will is shrouded political socioeconomics for you. Certainly these things are a constraint, but the problem of constraint lies at every level of our lives.
"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 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 1:51 pm

Roncooper wrote:Dr. Hossenfelder's 2014 blog was still open for comments, so I left a note listing my concerns. I tried to be diplomatic. The site said my post was under review.

Hopefully she will have some excellent comments.
She replied but I think the reply will be unsatisfying

http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2014/01 ... -will.html
at the bottom of the page
"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 » Wed Jul 27, 2016 5:11 pm

She gives a standard materialistic response. If a machine can't detect it, it doesn't exist.This ignores the fact that machines have limitations.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:04 pm

I replied and had some fun with it.

This free will argument is a religious argument. The conclusions follow from a persons religious beliefs about the nature of reality.

I still believe that the most reasonable approach is the scientific approach of accepting human reality and then trying to develop a world view that accommodates human experience.

In my opinion, in the broader context of human society applying materialism and determinism to humanity is part of the problem we are in today.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
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 Jul 29, 2016 3:38 pm

Here is Ron's response to Sabine:
[email protected] wrote:It can support either argument. It depends on the interpretation. A materialist would conclude if something cannot be detected by a scientific instrument, then it does not exist. An experimentalist would conclude that this merely demonstrates that the instrumentation has limits.
This of course is a straw man argument.

Materialists do not claim their instruments can detect everything. But then stuff that seems to pass as immaterial like love and honour and hate and fear certainly do exist. And materialists will have no problems talking to these in material terms.

But then materialists don't assume there is some immaterial aspect that are required to make these things possible.

and
[email protected] wrote:Machines cannot detect meaning, honor, love, beauty, and all of the qualities. This merely shows the limits of our technology. When we develop AI and living detectors they will be able to detect these things.
So Ron make up your mind ... Is it just our machines can't detect these supposedly immaterial by definition or is it they don't have the sophistication yet?

No one is saying these things don't exist ... just that they are not what they seem.

ps what is your definition of religion that you are using here?
"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 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:09 pm

Ok Rom she said there is no empirical evidence therefore it does not exist. Don't twist things. My answer was to her statement.

I have stated my definition of religion on a number of occasions. A person's religion is there image of reality and the actions that they take as a result of that image.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
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 Jul 30, 2016 3:54 pm

Roncooper wrote:Ok Rom she said there is no empirical evidence therefore it does not exist. Don't twist things. My answer was to her statement.
Her actual words were:
Bee wrote: There is ample experimental evidence that atoms is [sic] stable. There is zero experimental evidence that free will exists. Your "comparison" just supports my point
She does not mention "empirical". Now if experimental and empirical are synonymous for you fair enough. Either way, if we have no evidence for what she sees as free will, I have a hard time seeing a good argument for assuming its existence. I don't assume unicorns exist just because they exist as some pattern in my brain.

The therefore in your statement I think is open to interpretation.

Regarding twisting words ... did I not reply directly to the words that you wrote.

As for your definition of religion, for me, it just about includes all of human existence.
"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 Jul 30, 2016 5:22 pm

You are correct I wrote the wrong word.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Locked