Intelligent Design vs Evolution

everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Been in a debate on a message board. I suck at science, but wanted to see if you guys had any thought into what he has been saying. Below is his comments.

-----------------------

 

I would appreciate feedback on an idea I've had recently.

One of the criticisms of ID is that it isn't falsifiable. In other words, how do you disprove the claim that an object has been designed? Obviously, we can recognize design -- the pyramids, the statues on Easter Island, etc. -- but I'm not certain it's ever been quantified or defined in an exact way.

Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

Local forces are those forces that are "close enough" to affect the phenomenon. Deterministic or probabilistic implies that one can predict with some degree of certainty how those forces will affect the phenomenon. When a phenomenon falls so far out of the realm of deterministic or probabilistic predictions, it is likely designed.

So, in order to falsify a claim of design, one would need to show how local forces could provide a deterministic (or probabilistic) explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Thoughts?

 

------

 

For a moment, let's replace the word "local" with the word "natural", and then revise my original definition for Design.

Design is present where natural forces cannot provide a deterministic or probabilistic explanation for an observed phenomenon.

With this in mind, let's return to our pyramid analogy. Despite not having seen the pyramids being built, we recognize the pyramids are the product of design because natural forces (i.e. wind, rain, sun, etc.) aren't likely to have produced them. In other words, natural forces simply can't provide a sufficient deterministic or probabilistic explanation for the pyramids' existence.

As you probably know, science is about creating models that are capable of predicting (either deterministically or probabilistically)how a certain force will behave. When we model the probable effects of wind, rain, and sun on the natural environment, we don't get the pyramids; therefore, we infer design.

Intelligence is unique in that it never behaves deterministically and seldom probabilistically (i.e. in a manner that we can predict), especially at the individual level. This is why we infer design in phenomenon whose existence cannot be predicted by any model.

This is currently true of the configuration of our universe.

 

Some would argue that there are deterministic forces in the universe we simply haven't seen yet and, once discovered, these forces will be able to provide a sufficient deterministic explanation for the universe's observed configuration. These people would also argue that, by attributing the universe to an intelligent agent, we might "miss out" on these forces.

Others would argue that, by constantly seeking deterministic explanations, we "miss out" on the possibility of an intelligent agent and the philosophical issues it broaches. Consider, for instance, if we were intent on discovering a deterministic explanation for the pyramids. We might "miss out" on the ancient Egyptians and a whole myriad of anthropological finds.

There are arguments to be made on both sides.

 

---------

 

As I've already explained, the fact that we're unable to recreate a particular phenomenon does not negate the possibility of design. For example, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the formula for concrete was lost and not rediscovered for centuries. Yet, man still rightfully inferred that the preponderance of concrete roads throughout Europe was the product of design, even though he couldn't recreate them. A more modern example is SETI, the search for higher order intelligence in the Universe.

Scientists actually have a workable understanding of the process necessary to make a new universe -- that is, the ability to create a singularity. The new supercollider in Europe is capable of reproducing the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

Speaking of the Big Bang, the odds of it creating universe capable of supporting life and other forms of complex matter is exceedingly slim. For instance, if the ratio of electron to protons had deviated from 1 to 10^37, no atoms would've been able to form at any time in the universe. To better understand just how delicate a ratio of 1:10^37 is, consider the following analogy: Cover the entire surface of the United States in dimes and stack them 239,000 miles high (the distance between the earth and the moon). Then, cover a billion more US-sized land masses with the same amount of dimes. Now, throw in one red dime and ask your friend to select a dime at random. The odds of your friends picking the red dime are 1:10^37.

Believe it or not, these ratios become even more delicate once we factor in the cosmological constant. If the energy density of the cosmological constant had deviated from a ratio of 1:10^120, no matter of any kind (including subatomic particles) could have formed at any time in the universe.

These ratios are so delicate that human engineering is incapable of reproducing them; therefore, they constitute some very compelling evidence for the existence of a divine intelligence.


Furthermore, belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science. The very notion is asinine. Newton, widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, was a Christian. Einstein was a Deist. America is the most religious of all the first-world countries and the most scientifically productive.

 

message board link if you want to message yourself. http://spintopia.com/forum/8-religion-forum/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

 

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

I believe that you're the one who should educate yourself on the subject. The "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is definitely based on an element of chance (genetic variation is due to random mutations). 

 

 

 

The mutations are only random in the sense that they occur in an undetermined place in a genome at an undetermined time.  They are not random in the sense of just any old change occurring.  You and I have at least 100 new mutations.  Are you dead yet?

Is Brownian motion chance?  Yes, in the sense that we can not predict exactly where a particular particle will wind up or when it will get there.  No, in the sense that the motion is caused by electromechanical forces and does not happen for no reason.  The process is a stochastic process.  Random in place and time, but inevitable given the forces in that place and time.  Same with evolution. 

Also, mutations are only a small piece of the puzzle.  In order for a mutation to be advantageous, it has to give some reproductive advantage to the organism.  That is not chance, it is ecology and environment.  Selection is definitely non-random.  Also, the mutation does not have to be random in order to be beneficial in that environment.  It doesn't even have to be a stochastic process - and still it could be beneficial.

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8227442.stm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html (I know you don't like TalkOrigins but it is a very good article on this subject.)

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Paisley

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If you believe that free will is illusory, then the onus is upon you to prove it.

Problem: I don't believe it is illusory, but I still believe it is concept of human characterization.

Merriam-Webster defines "free will" as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, the requirement is 'verifiably' prove the supernatural.

 

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

Yeah, I can. It's called "free will."

 

There's no doubt humans can choose to act In ways that are beneficial to those other than themselves, or not. But the concept of free will - to truly choose with no restraint - is not a reality for human beings. Perhaps if he exists, god has free will, given he can choose to do whatever he likes. Humans on the other hand, are bound in complex social relationships they cannot breach without great risk and significant cost. Do you have free will to push your mother down the stairs? Is it really Jesus who is holding you back from doing whatever it is you please? Or is it that looking after those to whom you are socially contracted is what pleases you?

Perhaps you are defining free will as the mundane human morality of: "I can take that chocolate bar from the corner store, or not - please lord, help me decide." Basic moral imperatives like this one, reflecting decisions based on conventional morality (I will get punished if I steal and lauded if I do not) or post conventional morality (I am undermining another person's livelihood If I steal this chocolate bar) are learned responses to situations. They can't be described as supernatural in origin any more than any other thought we have in our heads that's based on making some higher judgment in the prefrontal cortex that might delay or give up immediate gratification. "I'm in a hurry, can I run across the road? There's a car coming. What are the risks? Perhaps I will become a quadriplegic. I'll wait for the light."

The core lessons of bible morality are lessons meted out to children. Believe this and you will be burned. Believe this other and you will be rewarded. The bible talks about universal morality but it does not walk the talk.

 

P.S. Pais, you're not fundy if I recall so just ignore the bible/gehenna references. I'm projecting my own issues.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Paisley wrote:I

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I believe that you're the one who should educate yourself on the subject. The "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is definitely based on an element of chance (genetic variation is due to random mutations). 

 

The mutations are only random in the sense that they occur in an undetermined place in a genome at an undetermined time.  They are not random in the sense of just any old change occurring.  You and I have at least 100 new mutations.  Are you dead yet?

Is Brownian motion chance?  Yes, in the sense that we can not predict exactly where a particular particle will wind up or when it will get there.  No, in the sense that the motion is caused by electromechanical forces and does not happen for no reason.  The process is a stochastic process.  Random in place and time, but inevitable given the forces in that place and time.  Same with evolution. 

Genetic mutations are directly linked with quantum events, which are pure chance events (IOW, they are physical events occurring without physical cause). And even If determinism were true, then the very fact that we are here could not be characterized as some highly improbable accident, but as a historical fact that could not have been otherwise.

Quote:

"Quantum unpredictability, including cosmic ray movements, radioactive disintegration, and even molecular copying errors, exert direct influences on the sequences of of bases in DNA...Mutation and variation are inherently unpredictable means that the course of evolution is too. In other words, evolution can turn on a very, very small dime - the quantum state of a single subatomic particle."

(source: pg.  207 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)

cj wrote:

Also, mutations are only a small piece of the puzzle.  In order for a mutation to be advantageous, it has to give some reproductive advantage to the organism.  That is not chance, it is ecology and environment.  Selection is definitely non-random.  Also, the mutation does not have to be random in order to be beneficial in that environment.  It doesn't even have to be a stochastic process - and still it could be beneficial.

Random mutations and natural selection are the driving forces of Darwinian evolution. There is no question about this.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:cj

Paisley wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I believe that you're the one who should educate yourself on the subject. The "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is definitely based on an element of chance (genetic variation is due to random mutations). 

 

The mutations are only random in the sense that they occur in an undetermined place in a genome at an undetermined time.  They are not random in the sense of just any old change occurring.  You and I have at least 100 new mutations.  Are you dead yet?

Is Brownian motion chance?  Yes, in the sense that we can not predict exactly where a particular particle will wind up or when it will get there.  No, in the sense that the motion is caused by electromechanical forces and does not happen for no reason.  The process is a stochastic process.  Random in place and time, but inevitable given the forces in that place and time.  Same with evolution. 

Genetic mutations are directly linked with quantum events, which are pure chance events (IOW, they are physical events occurring without physical cause). And even If determinism were true, then the very fact that we are here could not be characterized as some highly improbable accident, but as a historical fact that could not have been otherwise.

 

Probability 101 - we are here, therefore the chance of us being here is 1.  This is not deterministic, it is the correct answer after the event has occurred.  You toss a coin, it comes up heads, the probability of it being heads is 1 since the toss has already occurred.  Not deterministic, but the result of the dice toss, coin toss, evolutionary processes.

DNA changes have many causes.  Some of them we can trace - cancer causing agents cause cancer by disrupting DNA replication.  We are being bombarded with cosmic rays every hour of every day which can cause DNA disruptions.  There are natural sources of radiation - the Columbia River in the NW US flows through solid basalt and is the most radioactive river in the US before it gets to the Hanford Reach and the old radioactive hazardous waste facility there.  Viruses can cause mutations.  Mobile genetic elements within DNA can cause mutations (transposons).  The only one that might qualify as pure chance is the transposons.

 

Paisley wrote:

Quote:

"Quantum unpredictability, including cosmic ray movements, radioactive disintegration, and even molecular copying errors, exert direct influences on the sequences of of bases in DNA...Mutation and variation are inherently unpredictable means that the course of evolution is too. In other words, evolution can turn on a very, very small dime - the quantum state of a single subatomic particle."

(source: pg.  207 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)

cj wrote:

Also, mutations are only a small piece of the puzzle.  In order for a mutation to be advantageous, it has to give some reproductive advantage to the organism.  That is not chance, it is ecology and environment.  Selection is definitely non-random.  Also, the mutation does not have to be random in order to be beneficial in that environment.  It doesn't even have to be a stochastic process - and still it could be beneficial.

Random mutations and natural selection are the driving forces of Darwinian evolution. There is no question about this.

 

We are back to stochastic processes.  Where and when we don't know - but we do know that the changes will occur for many different reasons, some more predictably than others.  You have at least 100 mutations in your DNA.  You are evolving.  Will your great-grandchildren 100,000 years from now look like you?  Scary thought.  I hope mine are as far beyond me as we are beyond Lucy and her family.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If you believe that free will is illusory, then the onus is upon you to prove it.

Problem: I don't believe it is illusory, but I still believe it is concept of human characterization.

Merriam-Webster defines "free will" as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

 

I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  Show me how free will plays into decisions.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Paisley

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Merriam-Webster defines "free will" as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  Show me how free will plays into decisions.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up.

That's not my definition of "free will." That's the definition provided in the dictionary and I would argue that it is the definition that is presupposed by the vast majority of people (skeptical "free-thinkers" notwithstanding).

Here's a scenario. We will play a simple game. You have everything to win and nothing to lose. Here are the rules:

1) I will flip a coin (say a quarter) into the air.

2) While the coin is in the air, you call out either "heads" or "tails."

3) If you guess the correct outcome, then you will win $1,000,000 (I am assuming that this amount of money will motivate you to play this game).

4) If you do guess the correct outcome, there's one criterion that must be met before you can collect the money. You must provide me with a purely logical explanation on how you arrived at this determination.

I flip the coin into the air. While it is in the air, you call out "heads!" The coin falls to the ground with "heads" facing up. I say: "Congratulations! You guessed correctly. Please tell me how you arrived at this answer."

And your response is what?

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
2 choices with 50 per cent probability

 

pick the first one that pops into your head. There's nothing supernatural about it. Are you suggesting every single decision the human mind makes is an exercise in free will - including those with no moral component?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Robster (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It's funny that gawd folk

Hey, is it Silver? That's the reason they came up with "gawd did it" back in the Bronze age, when the lawd chatted with the goat herders. They really had no idea what the answers are to the big questions. When you don't know, you make something up to make yourself feel important. And so its gone for a couple of thousand deluded years. The whole shebang has caused untold harm to humans and society. Now, it's bubbling up again, threatening free speech and the teaching of science in high schools. Thet give it a groovy hip name with some inferred scientific conotation and then try to sell it as an 'alternative' to real science. I mean, they call it Creation Science. What tosh. It's about as scientific as astrology. How are you aware of the very Australian 'Chico Roll'?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Paisley

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Genetic mutations are directly linked with quantum events, which are pure chance events (IOW, they are physical events occurring without physical cause). And even If determinism were true, then the very fact that we are here could not be characterized as some highly improbable accident, but as a historical fact that could not have been otherwise.

 

Probability 101 - we are here, therefore the chance of us being here is 1.  This is not deterministic, it is the correct answer after the event has occurred.  You toss a coin, it comes up heads, the probability of it being heads is 1 since the toss has already occurred.  Not deterministic, but the result of the dice toss, coin toss, evolutionary processes.

Remedial Logic for the Intellectually Challenged 099: In a strictly deterministic world, if we could go back in time and replay that coin toss, it would come up "heads." And it would come up heads each and every time we would replay it. In a strictly deterministic world, nothing is left to chance. That I am here is not a highly improbable accident; it is a predetermined fact that could not have been otherwise.

cj wrote:

DNA changes have many causes.  Some of them we can trace - cancer causing agents cause cancer by disrupting DNA replication.  We are being bombarded with cosmic rays every hour of every day which can cause DNA disruptions.  There are natural sources of radiation - the Columbia River in the NW US flows through solid basalt and is the most radioactive river in the US before it gets to the Hanford Reach and the old radioactive hazardous waste facility there.  Viruses can cause mutations.  Mobile genetic elements within DNA can cause mutations (transposons).  The only one that might qualify as pure chance is the transposons.

I just quoted Kenneth Miller (professor of evolutionary biology at Brown University (Ivy League) and chief opponent (not proponent) of ID in the U.S.) who explicitly stated that genetic mutations are linked to quantum events. I am afraid that quote trumps your stated opinion.

cj wrote:

We are back to stochastic processes.  Where and when we don't know - but we do know that the changes will occur for many different reasons, some more predictably than others.  You have at least 100 mutations in your DNA.  You are evolving.  Will your great-grandchildren 100,000 years from now look like you?  Scary thought.  I hope mine are as far beyond me as we are beyond Lucy and her family.

Spare me your family photo album. The bottom line is that random mutations are truly random (not apparent). Neo-Darwinian evolution is based on an element of chance.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:pick

Atheistextremist wrote:

pick the first one that pops into your head. There's nothing supernatural about it. Are you suggesting every single decision the human mind makes is an exercise in free will - including those with no moral component? 

Then your selection was not based on strict logic. Therefore, you do not win anything. In fact, you just lost this argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fine

 

I lost an argument about something the subject of which has not been revealed. Do enlighten me in plain English.

Now, what exactly is your personal definition of free will given you earlier suggested it varies from that of the masses?

That without freewill we are no more than robots governed by logic?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

pick the first one that pops into your head. There's nothing supernatural about it. Are you suggesting every single decision the human mind makes is an exercise in free will - including those with no moral component? 

Then your selection was not based on strict logic. Therefore, you do not win anything. In fact, you just lost this argument.

 

How about this reasoning?

It is a 50:50 chance on a true coin for heads or tails.  I chose heads because "h" comes before "t" in the alphabet.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Paisley wrote:Then

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Then your selection was not based on strict logic. Therefore, you do not win anything. In fact, you just lost this argument.

How about this reasoning?

It is a 50:50 chance on a true coin for heads or tails.  I chose heads because "h" comes before "t" in the alphabet.

This is stupidity, not logic. It is not logical to assume that heads is more probable because the term begins with the letter "h."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't worry, cj.

Paisley wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Then your selection was not based on strict logic. Therefore, you do not win anything. In fact, you just lost this argument.

How about this reasoning?

It is a 50:50 chance on a true coin for heads or tails.  I chose heads because "h" comes before "t" in the alphabet.

This is stupidity, not logic. It is not logical to assume that heads is more probable because the term begins with the letter "h."

 

The way this works is that we don't find what Pais has loaded these questions with until the end when the meaning of it all turns out to be far sillier than we thought it was. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

This is stupidity, not logic. It is not logical to assume that heads is more probable because the term begins with the letter "h."

The way this works is that we don't find what Pais has loaded these questions with until the end when the meaning of it all turns out to be far sillier than we thought it was. 

Magus was objecting to the commonsense notion of free will because it implies that it is based on an element of randomness, on something "nonrational." But what are we discovering here? That you "rational free-thinking skeptics" cannot make a simple decision based on pure rationality. The fact is that you have to employ an element of nonrationality to make this choice. And if you did not,  then you would have a mental meltdown.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I see your point

 

But Magus was saying something else, too. That his current actions were based on experiences from the past that allowed him to make better judgments. Free will isn't a coin toss. You bring all your experience, all your learned morality, as well as your personal character to bear on an issue. You might even bring friends and family into a decision. I think Magus was questioning how free will fits into this big process and asking whether or not free will is simply a label used to describe something that it is not.

 

Ed: I'm also doubtful the 2 of you are using the word 'random' in the same context.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Magus

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Merriam-Webster defines "free will" as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  Show me how free will plays into decisions.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up.

That's not my definition of "free will." That's the definition provided in the dictionary and I would argue that it is the definition that is presupposed by the vast majority of people (skeptical "free-thinkers" notwithstanding).

Here's a scenario. We will play a simple game. You have everything to win and nothing to lose. Here are the rules:

1) I will flip a coin (say a quarter) into the air.

2) While the coin is in the air, you call out either "heads" or "tails."

3) If you guess the correct outcome, then you will win $1,000,000 (I am assuming that this amount of money will motivate you to play this game).

4) If you do guess the correct outcome, there's one criterion that must be met before you can collect the money. You must provide me with a purely logical explanation on how you arrived at this determination.

I flip the coin into the air. While it is in the air, you call out "heads!" The coin falls to the ground with "heads" facing up. I say: "Congratulations! You guessed correctly. Please tell me how you arrived at this answer."

And your response is what?

 

Which side of the coin started face up.  http://www.physorg.com/news175267656.html

If I don't know that I can calculate the surface tension of the face on the front against the image on the back to determine which one will have less resistance against the air it hits on the way to the ground. 

If for some reason I cannot make that distinction (in time or ever), and then like I said before my random number generator based on an internal clock will give a bool_Rand().  Are you trying to suggest that a computer who uses this type of random number generation is not logical?

So my question is how is Free will any different than Bool_Rand( ) when it comes to decision making?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:cj

Paisley wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Then your selection was not based on strict logic. Therefore, you do not win anything. In fact, you just lost this argument.

How about this reasoning?

It is a 50:50 chance on a true coin for heads or tails.  I chose heads because "h" comes before "t" in the alphabet.

This is stupidity, not logic. It is not logical to assume that heads is more probable because the term begins with the letter "h."

 

I didn't say heads is more probable because it begins with the letter 'h'.  I said, my choice was logical because it really didn't matter which I chose as both are equally probable.  So first in the alphabet is a good of a reason as any.  I could also say last in the alphabet is a good of a reason as any.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:The

Atheistextremist wrote:


The way this works is that we don't find what Pais has loaded these questions with until the end when the meaning of it all turns out to be far sillier than we thought it was. 

 

yeah, I know, but I couldn't resist playing.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Paisley

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's not my definition of "free will." That's the definition provided in the dictionary and I would argue that it is the definition that is presupposed by the vast majority of people (skeptical "free-thinkers" notwithstanding).

Here's a scenario. We will play a simple game. You have everything to win and nothing to lose. Here are the rules:

1) I will flip a coin (say a quarter) into the air.

2) While the coin is in the air, you call out either "heads" or "tails."

3) If you guess the correct outcome, then you will win $1,000,000 (I am assuming that this amount of money will motivate you to play this game).

4) If you do guess the correct outcome, there's one criterion that must be met before you can collect the money. You must provide me with a purely logical explanation on how you arrived at this determination.

I flip the coin into the air. While it is in the air, you call out "heads!" The coin falls to the ground with "heads" facing up. I say: "Congratulations! You guessed correctly. Please tell me how you arrived at this answer."

And your response is what?

 

Which side of the coin started face up.  http://www.physorg.com/news175267656.html

If I don't know that I can calculate the surface tension of the face on the front against the image on the back to determine which one will have less resistance against the air it hits on the way to the ground. 

You have no information on the initial conditions. In fact, the coin is enclosed in a paper cup with my left hand firmly held over it. (Even I don't know what coin is facing up).

Magus wrote:
 

If for some reason I cannot make that distinction (in time or ever), and then like I said before my random number generator based on an internal clock will give a bool_Rand(). 

You never stated before that your "internal clock" will give you a pseudo-random number generation in order to make a decision. In fact, your previous post implies that a decision made on some element of randomness is unintelligible. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's clearly your sentiment.) Here's your previous post...

Magus previously wrote: "I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  SHOW ME HOW FREE WILL PLAYS INTO DECISIONS.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up." (emphasis mine)

Magus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that a computer who uses this type of random number generation is not logical?

A random number generator is not really random. It's completely predetermined by the internal clock of the computer (unless you are referring to a quantum computer).  A true "random number generator" (as opposed to an apparent one) can make a selection from a realm of possibilities.  How it manages to do this defies all mechanical and/or logical explanations. We call this "free choice."

Magus wrote:

So my question is how is Free will any different than Bool_Rand( ) when it comes to decision making?

It's not strictly random. Other factors come into play. But randomness or spontaneity is definitely an aspect. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Magus

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's not my definition of "free will." That's the definition provided in the dictionary and I would argue that it is the definition that is presupposed by the vast majority of people (skeptical "free-thinkers" notwithstanding).

Here's a scenario. We will play a simple game. You have everything to win and nothing to lose. Here are the rules:

1) I will flip a coin (say a quarter) into the air.

2) While the coin is in the air, you call out either "heads" or "tails."

3) If you guess the correct outcome, then you will win $1,000,000 (I am assuming that this amount of money will motivate you to play this game).

4) If you do guess the correct outcome, there's one criterion that must be met before you can collect the money. You must provide me with a purely logical explanation on how you arrived at this determination.

I flip the coin into the air. While it is in the air, you call out "heads!" The coin falls to the ground with "heads" facing up. I say: "Congratulations! You guessed correctly. Please tell me how you arrived at this answer."

And your response is what?

 

Which side of the coin started face up.  http://www.physorg.com/news175267656.html

If I don't know that I can calculate the surface tension of the face on the front against the image on the back to determine which one will have less resistance against the air it hits on the way to the ground. 

You have no information on the initial conditions. In fact, the coin is enclosed in a paper cup with my left hand firmly held over it. (Even I don't know what coin is facing up).

Magus wrote:
 

If for some reason I cannot make that distinction (in time or ever), and then like I said before my random number generator based on an internal clock will give a bool_Rand(). 

You never stated before that your "internal clock" will give you a pseudo-random number generation in order to make a decision. In fact, your previous post implies that a decision made on some element of randomness is unintelligible. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's clearly your sentiment.) Here's your previous post...

Magus previously wrote: "I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  SHOW ME HOW FREE WILL PLAYS INTO DECISIONS.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up." (emphasis mine)

Magus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that a computer who uses this type of random number generation is not logical?

A random number generator is not really random. It's completely predetermined by the internal clock of the computer (unless you are referring to a quantum computer).  A true "random number generator" (as opposed to an apparent one) can make a selection from a realm of possibilities.  How it manages to do this defies all mechanical and/or logical explanations. We call this "free choice."

Magus wrote:

So my question is how is Free will any different than Bool_Rand( ) when it comes to decision making?

It's not strictly random. Other factors come into play. But randomness or spontaneity is definitely an aspect. 

You certainly love to move goalposts, don't you Paisley?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:nigelTheBold

cj wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.

 

ewwwww.......... bug spray!!!!!!!

Well, since it is bugspray... I am into older women, y'know!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If you believe that free will is illusory, then the onus is upon you to prove it.

Problem: I don't believe it is illusory, but I still believe it is concept of human characterization.

Merriam-Webster defines "free will" as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

Nope, not quite right yet..

I postulate that mass/energy(material)+momentum is the cause of biological free will. We derive free will from the complexity of our brains, at least from what I can postulate.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Paisley

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Merriam-Webster defines "

free will

" as the "

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

Nope, not quite right yet..

I postulate that mass/energy(material)+momentum is the cause of biological free will. We derive free will from the complexity of our brains, at least from what I can postulate.

Free will is not compatible with determinism. It's one or the other.

Quote:

"indeterminism: : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause"

(source: Merriam-Webster: Indeterminism)

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Merriam-Webster defines "

free will

" as the "

freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

." So, if you believe in free will, then you are not a materailist.

Nope, not quite right yet..

I postulate that mass/energy(material)+momentum is the cause of biological free will. We derive free will from the complexity of our brains, at least from what I can postulate.

Free will is not compatible with determinism. It's one or the other.

Quote:

"indeterminism: : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause"

(source: Merriam-Webster: Indeterminism)

Gald you finally got around to admitting that free will is incompatible with the deterministic God you serve.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Let's see...a random thread

Let's see...a random thread that Pais steps in to poop on with his free will argument.  I see we're all still trudging the same worn pathway.

 

As an aside, I've noticed a pattern.  Any time a thread contains the word epistemology, that thread is almost certainly going to be an exercise in futility.  I think it is safe to assume the word itself holds some supernatural power...some dark, pulsating, malignant Lovecraftian echo that shakes the very foundations of healthy minds.  I hear that if you say it three times, in the dark, under a full moon, it summons....a philosophy major!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:As an aside,

mellestad wrote:

As an aside, I've noticed a pattern.  Any time a thread contains the word epistemology, that thread is almost certainly going to be an exercise in futility.  I think it is safe to assume the word itself holds some supernatural power...some dark, pulsating, malignant Lovecraftian echo that shakes the very foundations of healthy minds.  I hear that if you say it three times, in the dark, under a full moon, it summons....a philosophy major!

He's back ? Yay !


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:I don't see any

Magus wrote:
I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.

Either you know Paisley's belief system better than I do, or you are a more intuitive thinker than even I am. In either case,


Our thoughts and choices are pre-determined based on the physics/chemistry behind them. That doesn't mean that there isn't free will, or that it's somehow less free with antecedent causation.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't know why Paisley is

 

consistently driven to prove against determinism and turn all godless thought into a contest over randomness. The coin toss is not a good example in the case of human free will. We don't even know how thoughts form. To reduce this multi-system complexity to a coin toss seems intellectually dishonest to me. Free will (in my opinion given we can't yet prove anything about it through observation), is a lot like 'perceiving' the will of god. Both are likely to be the voice of the subconscious making it's usual rapidfire summation of a situation and picking an instinctive 'first impression' option.

Taken to the conscious level free will is a decision that is governed by feelings from the amygdala or logic from the prefrontal cortex. A decision that is governed by these mental modules and balanced by experience is not truly free. This does not mean to say we are not at liberty to choose what we think is right or wrong in a given context, but to plaster the word free will across a broad analytics-based system inside the human brain is a cognitive shortcut.Even our selections of what constitutes right and wrong are restricted by culture and context. Free will is not an open system.

It's worth considering that decisions described by theists as being freewill are based on momentary preferences inside the human brain - let's call them compulsions or desires or needs. In each case, these compulsions cancel free will from existence. To describe predictable human behaviours as entirely determined and utterly predictable is also false, though it's clear humans have a range of optional behaviours that are more or less consistent. Going a step further, at the atomic level, molecules are predictable tho', as we all know thanks to that cat, every possible state cannot be known and even a potentially predictable universe can never be entirely predicted.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Free will is

not

compatible with determinism. It's one or the other.

Quote:

"indeterminism: : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause"

(source: Merriam-Webster: Indeterminism)

Gald you finally got around to admitting that free will is incompatible with the deterministic God you serve.

Free will is compatible with self-determination. That's something that I share with the Creator.
 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Our thoughts

Kapkao wrote:

Our thoughts and choices are pre-determined based on the physics/chemistry behind them. That doesn't mean that there isn't free will, or that it's somehow less free with antecedent causation.

The mechanistic worldview reduces you to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." You're not an active participant in the game of life, just a passive observer. That you actually believe that you have free will only serves to bolster my position.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:The

Atheistextremist wrote:

The coin toss is not a good example in the case of human free will.

The "coin toss" is an excellent example because it illustrates that "rational free-thinking skeptics" like yourself are forced to resort to nonrational means in order to resolve this dilemma. Either that, or undergo a mental meltdown.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Our thoughts and choices are pre-determined based on the physics/chemistry behind them. That doesn't mean that there isn't free will, or that it's somehow less free with antecedent causation.

The mechanistic worldview reduces you to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." You're not an active participant in the game of life, just a passive observer. That you actually believe that you have free will only serves to bolster my position.

Very astute. I do observe quite a bit.

I don't have "free will", I merely note the characterization that other human-animals refer to when stating that their will is "free". My 'internal programming' is that of a person who doesn't care about opinions of others unless they can justify it with incontrovertible reasoning. "Rigorous logic" is one such opinion (or rather, a collection of opinions) I have no use for.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But there's no observable proof of freewill

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

The coin toss is not a good example in the case of human free will.

The "coin toss" is an excellent example because it illustrates that "rational free-thinking skeptics" like yourself are forced to resort to nonrational means in order to resolve this dilemma. Either that, or undergo a mental meltdown.

 

Other than its use as a label to describe things about the human mind we don't adequately understand. Once upon a time, Halley's Comet was a message from god. Now it's a block of ice, dust and rock travelling at 54kmps perihelion. The only difference between these 2 definitions is an increase in knowledge. Why is the ability of the human brain to make decisions and to give these genre of decisions a label any different?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Magus

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's not my definition of "free will." That's the definition provided in the dictionary and I would argue that it is the definition that is presupposed by the vast majority of people (skeptical "free-thinkers" notwithstanding).

Here's a scenario. We will play a simple game. You have everything to win and nothing to lose. Here are the rules:

1) I will flip a coin (say a quarter) into the air.

2) While the coin is in the air, you call out either "heads" or "tails."

3) If you guess the correct outcome, then you will win $1,000,000 (I am assuming that this amount of money will motivate you to play this game).

4) If you do guess the correct outcome, there's one criterion that must be met before you can collect the money. You must provide me with a purely logical explanation on how you arrived at this determination.

I flip the coin into the air. While it is in the air, you call out "heads!" The coin falls to the ground with "heads" facing up. I say: "Congratulations! You guessed correctly. Please tell me how you arrived at this answer."

And your response is what?

 

Which side of the coin started face up.  http://www.physorg.com/news175267656.html

If I don't know that I can calculate the surface tension of the face on the front against the image on the back to determine which one will have less resistance against the air it hits on the way to the ground. 

You have no information on the initial conditions. In fact, the coin is enclosed in a paper cup with my left hand firmly held over it. (Even I don't know what coin is facing up).

Magus wrote:
 

If for some reason I cannot make that distinction (in time or ever), and then like I said before my random number generator based on an internal clock will give a bool_Rand(). 

You never stated before that your "internal clock" will give you a pseudo-random number generation in order to make a decision. In fact, your previous post implies that a decision made on some element of randomness is unintelligible. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's clearly your sentiment.) Here's your previous post...

Magus previously wrote: "I don't see any difference between your idea of free will and random behavior.  If my choice is not based on my previous encounters.  What do I base it on. Are you suggesting that you don't take into consideration previous ideas when making decisions.  How exactly does that not make it random.  Decisions can be broken down into (current state + previous experience)?  Do you not use these when you make a decision.  Why exactly do you remember things if not to help you make a decision. Or are you trying to suggest that decisions are (current state + previous experience * (bool_Rand() or free will)?  SHOW ME HOW FREE WILL PLAYS INTO DECISIONS.  Demonstrate that is something other than you making it up." (emphasis mine)

An internal clock is part of my "current state" is it not?  My point was that your idea of free will can no be demonstrated to be any different than bool_random function.  That was the freaking point.

Paisley wrote:

 

Magus wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that a computer who uses this type of random number generation is not logical?

A random number generator is not really random. It's completely predetermined by the internal clock of the computer (unless you are referring to a quantum computer).  A true "random number generator" (as opposed to an apparent one) can make a selection from a realm of possibilities.  How it manages to do this defies all mechanical and/or logical explanations. We call this "free choice."

I don't see the relevance of anything you said here.  We don't have a reason to suggest that the human internal randomness as you would call free choice is any different than an apparent random number generator.

Magus wrote:

So my question is how is Free will any different than Bool_Rand( ) when it comes to decision making?

It's not strictly random. Other factors come into play. But randomness or spontaneity is definitely an aspect. 

Explain how it is not strictly random. Or random like.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:An internal

Magus wrote:

An internal clock is part of my "current state" is it not?  My point was that your idea of free will can no be demonstrated to be any different than bool_random function.  That was the freaking point.

My point is that you were forced to rely on NONRATIONAL means (I should say "IRRATIONAL means" in your particular case) to come to a choice. And it doesn't make a difference if you believe your choice was predetermined. That's irrelevant. The point is that you did <i>not</i> arrive at this decision by rational means because there is <i>no</i> logical solution to it. 

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It's not strictly random. Other factors come into play. But randomness or spontaneity is definitely an aspect. 

Explain how it is not strictly random. Or random like.

The choice involves both <i>rational</i> and <i>nonrational</i<> components. The rational component was simply to make a choice before the coin had fallen to the ground. (If I wanted to win the $1,000,000, a choice had to be made. That is the rational thing to do.) The nonrational component was the outcome choice (i.e. whether to choose heads or tails). If presented with the same situation again, I could have chosen tails instead of heads.)

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Paisley

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

The mechanistic worldview reduces you to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." You're not an active participant in the game of life, just a passive observer. That you actually believe that you have free will only serves to bolster my position.

Very astute. I do observe quite a bit.

I don't have "free will", I merely note the characterization that other human-animals refer to when stating that their will is "free". My 'internal programming' is that of a person who doesn't care about opinions of others unless they can justify it with incontrovertible reasoning. "Rigorous logic" is one such opinion (or rather, a collection of opinions) I have no use for.

If determinism is true, your "internal programming" is ultimately determined by "external programming." Also, a "program" presupposes a programmer. Either that, or the program magically arose by pure chance events  - physical events that have no physical cause. That's incontrovertible logic. If determinism is true, there is no free will. And if there is no free will, there is no intelligent agent because our belief  in "intelligent agents" is predicated on our belief in free will. Indeed, our belief in a personal identity or "self" is predicated on our belief in free will - that I am the cause of my own actions is what provides me with evidence that I am a causal agent. Therefore, by dispensing with free will you have managed not only to dispense with intelligence itself but also with your personal identity; therefore, you bar yourself from enaging in this or any other rational discourse. I cannot have a rational discussion with an individual whose belief-system reduces him to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." To pursue such an endeavor would truly be an exercise in futility.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Free will is

not

compatible with determinism. It's one or the other.

Quote:

"indeterminism: : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause"

(source: Merriam-Webster: Indeterminism)

Gald you finally got around to admitting that free will is incompatible with the deterministic God you serve.

Free will is compatible with self-determination. That's something that I share with the Creator.
 

 

Ah, the fresh scent of theistic humility...or is it bullshit?  I can't tell anymore.

Paisly and God, Bros for life yo'!

 

Edit:  Sigh, that was rude of me, nevermind 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:mellestad

Anonymouse wrote:

mellestad wrote:

As an aside, I've noticed a pattern.  Any time a thread contains the word epistemology, that thread is almost certainly going to be an exercise in futility.  I think it is safe to assume the word itself holds some supernatural power...some dark, pulsating, malignant Lovecraftian echo that shakes the very foundations of healthy minds.  I hear that if you say it three times, in the dark, under a full moon, it summons....a philosophy major!

He's back ? Yay !

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Magus wrote:An

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:

An internal clock is part of my "current state" is it not?  My point was that your idea of free will can no be demonstrated to be any different than bool_random function.  That was the freaking point.

My point is that you were forced to rely on NONRATIONAL means (I should say "IRRATIONAL means" in your particular case) to come to a choice. And it doesn't make a difference if you believe your choice was predetermined. That's irrelevant. The point is that you did <i>not</i> arrive at this decision by rational means because there is <i>no</i> logical solution to it. 

I choose the rand function because the time and knowledge constrains prevented me from gaining knowledge and the risk of choosing wrong was minimal.  How is that not a rational decision?  The rand function was added so that we would not be stuck in an endless loop of thought waiting for information.  When there is not enough information guess are made. I don't believe it was going to be heads as in I don't base any conclusion on my speculation.  However if our guesses turn out to lead to some sort of consistency we investigate and those and come up with reasoning.  This is how the learning process works.

Also you are moving the goal post again.  The point was that your idea of free will is no different than a rand function.  I don't see how you missed this. You still have not demonstrated that it is any different.  In fact all this proves is that a human didn't have all the tool required to predict the outcome of a coin flip.

Paisley wrote:

 

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It's not strictly random. Other factors come into play. But randomness or spontaneity is definitely an aspect. 

Explain how it is not strictly random. Or random like.

The choice involves both <i>rational</i> and <i>nonrational</i<> components. The rational component was simply to make a choice before the coin had fallen to the ground. (If I wanted to win the $1,000,000, a choice had to be made. That is the rational thing to do.) The nonrational component was the outcome choice (i.e. whether to choose heads or tails). If presented with the same situation again, I could have chosen tails instead of heads.)

My choice involved guessing.  Guessing can be rational.  It is a part of figuring things out.  So no guessing is not irrational.  If I said "its heads" and then went about planning and spending the money before the outcome was given to me then it would be irrational.  Speculation is an important tool in looking into the unknown, believing my speculation is irrational.  I must wait until my speculation is proved true before I would make any decision that would be considered irrational.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


barbara
barbara's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-07-24
User is offlineOffline
This debate is ridiculous

Religions cannot prove we are creating by a "God" anymore then science can prove there information are based on facts concerning the process of how a smaller organism became a larger organism  in the life forms we see today. Science cannot build one from scratch in any of the steps that is believed in how life emerged into another type of life.  

Another problem I have with science is they provide us so many details of what they have learned from the microbial life that describes their important roles that enabled this planet to remain a living one. Science explains in many details of why these bacteria live in our bodies and that without them we could not live.  This all implies that life is directed and did not occur by chance.  No one wants to consider the possibility that microbial life is directing the course of evolution.

The idea that all life must be perfect in how it is built to consider an unknown designer (s) by science is nonsense.  Life is based on biochemistry in how it is defined by humans.   The truth is no species can see all of the dimensional levels of life forms that exist right now.  We are physically  limited in  visual, sensory and the list goes on to explain the true story of life on earth.  No two species on this planet see the world exactly the same way.  Our brains are wired to think a certain way that separates us from other species and this information alone should give you the conclusion that the true details on how life emerged here cannot be solved.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

The mechanistic worldview reduces you to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." You're not an active participant in the game of life, just a passive observer. That you actually believe that you have free will only serves to bolster my position.

Very astute. I do observe quite a bit.

I don't have "free will", I merely note the characterization that other human-animals refer to when stating that their will is "free". My 'internal programming' is that of a person who doesn't care about opinions of others unless they can justify it with incontrovertible reasoning. "Rigorous logic" is one such opinion (or rather, a collection of opinions) I have no use for.

If determinism is true, your "internal programming" is ultimately determined by "external programming." Also, a "program" presupposes a programmer. Either that, or the program magically arose by pure chance events  - physical events that have no physical cause. That's incontrovertible logic. If determinism is true, there is no free will. And if there is no free will, there is no intelligent agent because our belief  in "intelligent agents" is predicated on our belief in free will. Indeed, our belief in a personal identity or "self" is predicated on our belief in free will - that I am the cause of my own actions is what provides me with evidence that I am a causal agent. Therefore, by dispensing with free will you have managed not only to dispense with intelligence itself but also with your personal identity; therefore, you bar yourself from enaging in this or any other rational discourse.

The "programmer" is little else besides nucleic acids and cultural predisposition -and even in a highly theistic region known as "The Bible Belt" here in the US, I'm even more inclined not to give a shit about religion.

Quote:
I cannot have a rational discussion with an individual whose belief-system reduces him to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." To pursue such an endeavor would truly be an exercise in futility.

Which is, of course, your choice, but I don't consider human-animals "robots". They aren't computer controlled...

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
barbara wrote:Religions

barbara wrote:

Religions cannot prove we are creating by a "God" anymore then science can prove there information are based on facts concerning the process of how a smaller organism became a larger organism  in the life forms we see today. Science cannot build one from scratch in any of the steps that is believed in how life emerged into another type of life.  

 

=>>>>>>

=>>>>>>>>

=>>>>>>>>>>

 

In 10,000 years.  If humans are an environmental force that can cause changes like this, why not non-human environmental forces?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
barbara wrote:Religions

barbara wrote:

Religions cannot prove we are creating by a "God" anymore then science can prove there information are based on facts concerning the process of how a smaller organism became a larger organism  in the life forms we see today. Science cannot build one from scratch in any of the steps that is believed in how life emerged into another type of life.

Without getting into an entire discussion about the nature of "proof" in science, there are other ways to "prove" that our modern understanding of biology is accurate. Much of the medicine you take these days is based on an assumption of evolution.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "type of life." We really only know of one "type" of life -- that based on DNA. In some respects, we are all just shells for the DNA we carry in us.

Quote:

Another problem I have with science is they provide us so many details of what they have learned from the microbial life that describes their important roles that enabled this planet to remain a living one. Science explains in many details of why these bacteria live in our bodies and that without them we could not live.  This all implies that life is directed and did not occur by chance.  No one wants to consider the possibility that microbial life is directing the course of evolution.

Greg Bear explores this possibility in his science fiction novel Vitals. It's not one of his best books, but it is one of his more interesting ideas.

Then there is the great essay by Lewis Thomas, The Lives of the Cell, which states outright that we are vehicles for bacteria, in the form of mitochondria and chloroplasts. This is a mind-expanding essay I highly recommend.

I'm not sure why you think this implies that life is directed. Evolution occurs as a system -- species evolve within an ecosystem that includes bacteria and viruses and other metazoans. As species evolve, so does the system, as the species must all fit together within the system.

Quote:

The idea that all life must be perfect in how it is built to consider an unknown designer (s) by science is nonsense.  Life is based on biochemistry in how it is defined by humans.   The truth is no species can see all of the dimensional levels of life forms that exist right now.  We are physically  limited in  visual, sensory and the list goes on to explain the true story of life on earth.  No two species on this planet see the world exactly the same way.  Our brains are wired to think a certain way that separates us from other species and this information alone should give you the conclusion that the true details on how life emerged here cannot be solved.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You keep mentioning an unknown designer, but present no argument to support an unknown designer. What is your conception of a designer?

No two people see the world in exactly the same way. We do have quite a few commonalities, though. Moreover, science is designed to minimize (if not eliminate) those differences in perception. Every time we discover something new about the universe (such as electricity, digital logic, evolution, quantum mechanics, and so on) science proves itself as an effective method of developing a model of reality.

Also, I would like to point out that you are conflating the origin of life ('the true details on how life emerged') with evolution. Science may not be able to solve the riddle of how exactly life began on earth (though it might one day solve even that deep mystery). But it has to a large extent solved the mystery of how life changed over time from the humble beginnings of replicating chains of chemicals to the myriad of animals we find in our world today.

None of this requires design, or intervention. The model is internally consistent, and correlates very well with the world we see around us. The model led us to new discoveries that affect your life every day.

And that is about as much "proof" as any theory ever receives.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If determinism

Paisley wrote:

If determinism is true, your "internal programming" is ultimately determined by "external programming." Also, a "program" presupposes a programmer. Either that, or the program magically arose by pure chance events  - physical events that have no physical cause. That's incontrovertible logic. If determinism is true, there is no free will. And if there is no free will, there is no intelligent agent because our belief  in "intelligent agents" is predicated on our belief in free will. Indeed, our belief in a personal identity or "self" is predicated on our belief in free will - that I am the cause of my own actions is what provides me with evidence that I am a causal agent. Therefore, by dispensing with free will you have managed not only to dispense with intelligence itself but also with your personal identity; therefore, you bar yourself from enaging in this or any other rational discourse. I cannot have a rational discussion with an individual whose belief-system reduces him to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." To pursue such an endeavor would truly be an exercise in futility.

The external programmer is called natural selection.  It chooses the functions that suit the survival.  No intelligence needed for natural selection. Pure chance??? Has anyone told you the good news about evolution?

I am an intelligent system in the sense that I can take input through sensors and do actions. What is self?  Self is the collection of things your brain has remembered and the processes it does and the body that carries it around.

You are the cause of your actions in the same sense that a bad function or computer virus is the cause of the programs/computer crash.  In the system we call society if you cause problems the system either tries fixes you, fixes you, waits until there is a fix, or delete you.  It would be idiotic to keep around bad employee just as much as it would be idiotic to keep code that crashes in your programs.  You either comment it out so you can work on it later, or you fix it, and in some instances you just delete it as it would be best not to have a function that does nothing and returns nothing.  You are the actions you take and the inputs you add to the system of society. 

Why would being an organic robot a bad thing?

You have yet to explain how free will is any different than a random (pseudo or other) behavior. You have yet to even define how it happens or what it truly provides to the ability to make a decision beyond it being purely a random offset of the options.  Maybe you can change my mind.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:...Why would

Magus wrote:

...

Why would being an organic robot a bad thing?

...

 

Exactly.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Paisley wrote:If

Magus wrote:

Paisley wrote:

If determinism is true, your "internal programming" is ultimately determined by "external programming." Also, a "program" presupposes a programmer. Either that, or the program magically arose by pure chance events  - physical events that have no physical cause. That's incontrovertible logic. If determinism is true, there is no free will. And if there is no free will, there is no intelligent agent because our belief  in "intelligent agents" is predicated on our belief in free will. Indeed, our belief in a personal identity or "self" is predicated on our belief in free will - that I am the cause of my own actions is what provides me with evidence that I am a causal agent. Therefore, by dispensing with free will you have managed not only to dispense with intelligence itself but also with your personal identity; therefore, you bar yourself from enaging in this or any other rational discourse. I cannot have a rational discussion with an individual whose belief-system reduces him to nothing more than an "organic robot with consciousness." To pursue such an endeavor would truly be an exercise in futility.

The external programmer is called natural selection.  It chooses the functions that suit the survival.  No intelligence needed for natural selection. Pure chance??? Has anyone told you the good news about evolution?

I am an intelligent system in the sense that I can take input through sensors and do actions. What is self?  Self is the collection of things your brain has remembered and the processes it does and the body that carries it around.

If determinism is true, then you have only two options. Either the whole shebang (i.e. the entire natural process) is an intelligent system or there is no intelligence in the universe.

Magus wrote:

You have yet to explain how free will is any different than a random (pseudo or other) behavior. You have yet to even define how it happens or what it truly provides to the ability to make a decision beyond it being purely a random offset of the options.  Maybe you can change my mind.

Free will entails an element of randomness. or spontaneity. What exactly are you not getting here?!!!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Also, I

nigelTheBold wrote:

Also, I would like to point out that you are conflating the origin of life ('the true details on how life emerged') with evolution. Science may not be able to solve the riddle of how exactly life began on earth (though it might one day solve even that deep mystery). But it has to a large extent solved the mystery of how life changed over time from the humble beginnings of replicating chains of chemicals to the myriad of animals we find in our world today.

And you're conflating biological evolution with the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead