{Split} Discussion on free will

[a500lbgorilla]

I still think about this thread constantly. And I don't like where my discussions with friends have gone.

[SaulPaul]

interested to know what your thoughts are; i stopped thinking aboiut it when i realised it was entirely dependant on a) an actual understanding of the brain; not just a very good model. b) on whther there is deterministic physics underlying everything

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, my conclusion is now that free will can only exist in a form of either fearless curiosity or a gift from God.

I think the core basis for a lack of free will is the understanding that there is going to be one unified theory of the universe. Naturally, there is no guarantee that one theory exists instead of a collection of very accurate but specialized theories using 'fudge factors' and very specific values which can only be found in observation (mass of electron/proton, charge of electron etc. etc.). But if you could describe the interaction of all particles, even with a set of accurate theories (even laws), how would any of them incorporate any decision making elements which would describe free will?

On that basis, I felt that the only form free will could take is as a by-product of a well constructed system (the brain). I've since learned that the neocortex is a brilliant form of predictive memory which uses a heavily intertwined hierarchy system which, in addition to other cool features, can use its own output as a (4th of 6 layer) input thus allowing the mind to wander and muse about the future. So you have a system which can bounce ideas around within itself until it chooses an appropriate course of action. In this sense, free will could exist if you possess fearless curiosity. If your mind, as a system, will muse and muse and muse until the system chooses when an idea is satisfying, then the system provides you with free will. The other neat thing about the neocortex is that it is heavily cross wired with our motor functions. This allows us to do complex tasks like typing and speech. And also why we trump monkeys in overall intelligence (on top of neo-cortex surface area versus mass). So, if your 'system' has the ability to listen to itself until it is satisfied, then it does have the ability to act on those ideas thus creating free will.

Then a friend of mine recommended that I read Lost in the Cosmos by Percy Walker. Which I would HIGHLY recommend to anyone who just enjoys a little bit of deep thinking bordering on mind-fucking. My friend has been on the tireless task of trying to bring me closer to God. I welcome it even though I've been an atheist my entire life. I'd be more than willing to admit I'm wrong and accept God if I can be convinced of it and he knows it. The author struck a deep accord with me and towards the end of the book, I was basically creaming myself with the thought of simply having a cup of coffee with Percy Walker. In any case, he made a very capable argument that we as humans should seek the help of God. The only counterargument I could think of, and the one I made naturally, quickly lead to the conclusion that there is no free will. Walker makes a lot of arguments about what it means to be triadic beings, consciousness and our level of consciousness. The only way to counter these arguments, to me, was that consciousness is simply what it feels like to have a neocortex. And I could trump my friend by playing the card, "What if humans don't have free will?" So, at the end of the book, I was left with a sense that either God exists or humans have no free will.

So, now I'm trying to figure out what it means to be conscious, where/how God could fit into the entire picture, why it is that I think what I think and how any of this leads to you being more than a collection of memories and a neatly wired system of particles which move in a prescribed and predictable manner.

[a500lbgorilla]

I just dont understand. How can there be laws to predict the transfer of ideas? The transferring of an idea is done most commonly by sentences and not all sentences are de-constructed in your mind the same way. The deeper structure of anything I'm trying to say is almost never precisely transfered. It's like compressing a file, transferring it to you and having you decompress it with some losed elements and some replaced elements. And sometimes, not even accurately.

When I say, "My cat ate some rice today." Your mind can make the presuppositions that there is a cat, there was some rice and that it was being eaten by the cat. But that will not create in your mind the same stimulus that it creates in mine. You might only think of rice you've specifically eaten and I may think of only rice which I used to make bean-bags.

So if there are laws of all particle interactions in the universe, that doesn't matter. Because the flow of ideas is not followed by any law. Ideas are formed based on what has happened before, what is happening now and what may happen in the future. Particle flow doesn't consider what may happen, does it? Even though a rock can sense gravity or an airflow can sense an approaching airfoil, they sense that based on what is happening currently. A brain can act on what it thinks is going to happen, what has happened and what is happening. Thoughts aren't trapped to one destiny. They can cycle around in your head for a while until you deem them decent enough to throw back out into the world. There has to be some element which decides when an idea is worth saying. And an element which can decide is an element of free will.

In that sense, it should be almost impossible to develop laws for the meta-processes of our brains without incorporating some decision making element.

I don't think people noticed this post of mine either. Just more shit to think about. :P

[badgers]

So, at the end of the book, I was left with a sense that either God exists or humans have no free will.

This is exactly the conclusion I reached when talking with friends... Athiesm ftl

Although they are obv just tricking themselves into thinking they have free will when I feel like I sort of understand and I'm happy regardless. Meh, This thread is too confusing.

[wufwugy]

if god exists in omnipotence and omniscience and all that jazz purported by the christian church then free will doesn't.

since it seems like youre interested, id say start a thread about the existence of god and such, but i dunno, i find that topic silly since it has nothing to do with logic. most people thinks it does for two reasons imo:

1) humans are extremely genetically wired and compelled to fabricate and espouse religious thoughts. my definition of religious thoughts here is in contrast to scientific thoughts. because our evolution dictates so, we find much sense in religion. our upbringing also affects this deeply, but thats often just in the type of religious thinking, not religious thoughts in general.

2) religion has logic. humans are very logical beings. without logic we would be as capable as a lamp shade, and with logic we have become everything we are. there is much logic in religion, but with a catch. the logic is tainted. religious thinking is in the form of logical fallacies, and the catch about logical fallacies is that they're all logical in certain isolations and degrees, but when applied to the entire spectrum they crumble. this is imo the biggest reason why people believe stupid and wrong stuff. it makes so much sense, but thats only because of how their mind is applying it. and to make matters worse we all even believe that truth must make sense, when in actuality 'sense' is not a requisite for truth. so the next time you believe something to be true because it makes sense, look again because sense is never causation for truth.

so the discussion of and even postulation of the existence of god i find absurd. the flying spagetti monster we all heard about a few years ago did a damn good job of portray some reasons for why. let me break it down for why its so absurd.

god isnt defined. i have never once ever come across a definition of god or spirit or supernatural entity that doesn't have a self-contradictory definition or even just a categorical definition that may or may not be contradictory. it should end here. the scientific method, our source of understanding, has taught us that definition comes first, and without it we cannot continue.

but we do continue even without defining god. as silly as it is, we dont acknowledge this and simply just assume that some enigmatic assumption we have somewhere that allows us the leisure of knowledge of god allows this, or that we are innately capable of god knowledge. this opens up so many other cans of worms its ridiculous.

what thoughts on the existence of god correctly should be boiled down to are: what is the definition of god, and does this definition comply with what we know? once we start doing that we will very very easily see our mistakes.

we will see that yes, god can exist, and probably does. but this god is not a personal or religious god. this god is simply the source of our existence like how our bodies are the source of our cells' existence. we will see that when we define a personal god, we are simply making stuff up and pulling from previous sources that may or may not be made up.

compare all the gods of all the religions and you have literally infinite number of gods all founded in the same ways for the same reasons. even in single religions, like judeo-christianity, we have an infinite number of gods. we have catholic god, mormon god, jehovah, yod hey vah hey (or is it yod hey wah hey), yeshua, jesus yadda yadda yadda. not only does every sub-religion have their own idea of god, but each individual in each sub-religion has their own idea of god. god remains undefined; god remains in our minds. just like aboogorilla said, our minds create different stimuli when confronted with the 'same' thing as other minds.

on a personal note, i would be absolutely ecstatic if a personal god existed. i was born and raised hardcore christian, and i loved it. coming of age i couldn't deny the ill-logic of my religion so i had to move on. a number of things i like i cannot do now. i truly wish i could go to church. im so good at church, and a ton of awesome people go to church. i cannot be a part of this tho because i am atheist. its very frustrating since pretty much 100% of my close friends have all been or are christians.

also its an awesome feeling to be able to blame something else and put my faith in something higher than myself. its very consoling and why people are so religious imo. but its wrong

[pocketfours]

Good post wuf. It's funny how atheists generally tend to understand religous people and the motivation behind their beliefs, but the reverse is usually not true, at least not in the same extent.

[wufwugy]

i think ive posted this here before, but it didn't get love http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/ it is a truly awesome site. at the very least scroll down to the fourth picture entitled 'spiritual safety tip'. you can make mcgruff the atheist goat say more things by clicking him.

and yes, the site is parody, but i bet about 99.9% of christians who visit it dont think so at first. hell at first i thought it was real because c'mon its just so real to the hardcore christian cults

also it makes sense that atheists have a better understanding of religious thought than religionists have of atheistic thought. atheism is founded in science, whereas religion is founded in, well, religion. science demands and provokes more logical thought than religion. also, most religions teach bias. as well as almost nobody ever starts out as being aware that they're atheist because we are taught religion. so atheists are ex-religionists, whereas religionists have been for all their life or converted from a pseudo-agnostic state. i hate the word agnostic too. being able to be 'agnostic' makes people feel like they have their own deserved niche in the philosophical world and that they're something other than not paying attention, not caring, or wishy washy.

if somebody is truly unsure and searching then they are truly agnostic, but most who espouse agnosticism aren't unsure and aren't searching and are simply lazy and wanna feel smart.

oh and fyi, im using the word agnostic in its modern colloquial usage, not its true definition. by its true definition many of us atheists are actually agnostic, we can even be both because they're very similar.