Originally posted by StarrmanPersonally I'm gutted that existence seems the way it does to me, I'd much rather entertain the notion that I was an agent of my own destiny, a detached and functional subject in an objective world, able to carry out my own desires and achieve my own goals. Alas from what I understand about the logical implications of the material world, and in the absence of the supernatural, I see no other possible way. STARRMAN
Pretty much, though that's only my current view. A couple of years ago I was very much pro free will. It is entirely possible that as my experiences continue in life I may change my viewpoint accordingly. Personally I'm gutted that existence seems the way it does to me, I'd much rather entertain the notion that I was an agent of my own destiny, a detache ...[text shortened]... s of the material world, and in the absence of the supernatural, I see no other possible way.
I applaud your honesty ! I have been a bit rough with you and you deserved better. You have at least admitted what some of the compatabilist fudgers seem not to be able to admit , ie that free will is only really possible with the presence of the supernatural. I agree entirely.
The interesting thing is how incredibly convincing our experience of free will actually is ....this should lead you to one of two conclusions either a) maybe there is actually something supernatural interfering with man to cause this or b) the experience is illusionary and for some reason nature has seen fit that we will be under this illusion.
Compatabilists can't stand a) and can't deal with b) so they come up with c) fudge = all the benefits of free will without the God bit.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI missed the bit where he admitted that. I personally don't see how the presence of the supernatural makes any difference and you are yet to explain it in understandable terms other than "the supernatural is illogical so anything can happen".
You have at least admitted what some of the compatabilist fudgers seem not to be able to admit , ie that free will is only really possible with the presence of the supernatural. I agree entirely.
The interesting thing is how incredibly convincing our experience of free will actually is ....
I am not aware of experiencing the type of free will you are describing but then your description is extremely vague at best consisting of a statement to the effect that your decisions are neither caused nor random. I believe that most of my important decisions are caused by reason with some random components and I experience them as such. There is no illusion involved.
The rest of your post becomes invalid at this point.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not aware of experiencing the type of free will you are describing WHITEY
I missed the bit where he admitted that. I personally don't see how the presence of the supernatural makes any difference and you are yet to explain it in understandable terms other than "the supernatural is illogical so anything can happen".
[b]The interesting thing is how incredibly convincing our experience of free will actually is ....
I am no ...[text shortened]... as such. There is no illusion involved.
The rest of your post becomes invalid at this point.[/b]
So you have never agonised over a decision and then taken the plunge knowing that the other choice was a real possibility?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have. But such a situation fits my description of free will just as well as it does yours.
I am not aware of experiencing the type of free will you are describing WHITEY
So you have never agonised over a decision and then taken the plunge knowing that the other choice was a real possibility?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have. But such a situation fits my description of free will just as well as it does yours. WHITEY
I have. But such a situation fits my description of free will just as well as it does yours.
How so? I am right in guessing that you attribute the other possibility to randomness?
If so then there is one difference in that this experience is only possible if one really believes my description and not yours. If one were to believe that the ultimate choice was REALLY going to be random or determined then one would not agonize over it as if one were really free to have meaningful control over that decision.
This is the difference , the experience is only possible if my description is believed. This does not prove your description to be false but a suspension of belief is neccessary to achieve the experience. There is no congruity between the experience and the stated belief.
What I am asking you to admit is that either a) we are actually able to be free agents in control of meaningful non-random actions OR b) nature has done a pretty damn good job of creating the illusion that a) is actually true.
Originally posted by knightmeisterDespite a number of threads on the subject and a large number of posts you still don't seem to have a clear picture of my position or yours. Is this intentional or just a lack of intelligence? If its intentional then why not say so then we don't need to waste our time any further.
If so then there is one difference in that this experience is only possible if one really believes my description and not yours. If one were to believe that the ultimate choice was REALLY going to be random or determined then one would not agonize over it as if one were really free to have meaningful control over that decision.
What I am asking you to admit is that either a) we are actually able to be free agents in control of meaningful non-random actions OR b) nature has done a pretty damn good job of creating the illusion that a) is actually true.
You refuse to accept that an "agent" could be an entirely natural phenomena. You also refuse to dissect said agent. But that is your problem and not a fault of my hypothesis.
If I am an entirely biological (physical/natural) agent who makes a decision whose causes are entirely internal though nevertheless generated by entirely natural means including both reason and random processes then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs this intentional or just a lack of intelligence? If its intentional then why not say so then we don't need to waste our time any furtherWHITEY
Despite a number of threads on the subject and a large number of posts you still don't seem to have a clear picture of my position or yours. Is this intentional or just a lack of intelligence? If its intentional then why not say so then we don't need to waste our time any further.
[b]What I am asking you to admit is that either a) we are actually able ...[text shortened]... es then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve.
I assure you it's not intentional. I am naively working under the assumption that we cut to the chase and really get to the bottom of this. If you perceive me as unintelligent it must be because you misread what I am saying. But then if you understood what I was saying (and I you) then we wouldn't be doing this would we?
Originally posted by twhitehead"If I am an entirely biological (physical/natural) agent who makes a decision whose causes are entirely internal though nevertheless generated by entirely natural means including both reason and random processes then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve." WHITEY
Despite a number of threads on the subject and a large number of posts you still don't seem to have a clear picture of my position or yours. Is this intentional or just a lack of intelligence? If its intentional then why not say so then we don't need to waste our time any further.
[b]What I am asking you to admit is that either a) we are actually able ...[text shortened]... es then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve.
Ok , now we have a reference point to work on . You need to define free will here because I'm sure it's not the same free will I'm on about but it's a start. The statement above is entirely the one I am going to refute and challenge , so there is little point in stating it as a given because it's not to me.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I am an entirely biological (physical/natural) agent who makes a decision whose causes are entirely internal though nevertheless generated by entirely natural means including both reason and random processes then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve.WHITEY
Despite a number of threads on the subject and a large number of posts you still don't seem to have a clear picture of my position or yours. Is this intentional or just a lack of intelligence? If its intentional then why not say so then we don't need to waste our time any further.
[b]What I am asking you to admit is that either a) we are actually able ...[text shortened]... es then I have free will. It is not an illusion and does not require bits of God to achieve.
Let's examine this carefully...
If I have a computer and I run a sophisticated program on it which has the outcome of the computer producing a "decision" is it really free will? Let's say I introduce a random element into the program (similar to many current strategy computer games ) and let the random element blend with the programmed element is the computer exercising free will?
This computer could reach a "decision" internally via "natural" means and programming with some random element involved as well. Is it making a free choice of it's own volition or is it just running a sophisticated program with a complex processor and random elements? Would we hold such a computer responsible for its decision or would we blame the programmer and person who built the computer ?
You see the logical implications of you being "an entirely biological (physical/natural) agent" is that basically you are a walking meat computer with a random element to you. Essentially you are saying that we are the way we are (down to the finest detail) because nature has programmed us to be that way. Nature has made us , like a man has made a PC. Our decisions may not feel "forced" but in this world view there is no room for them to be anything other than as a direct result of our brain structure ( programming) which is determined by nature ultimately.
As Dawkins might put it , its the blind watchmaker and the selfish gene that is driving us. We just think we are sitting in the driving seat.
If you think the computer has free will then it is certainly NOT the same kind of free will I experience (illusionary or otherwise) . If you think the computer doesn't have free will then how do you argue we do have free will when essentially we are no different (in your view) apart from being made of neurons and flesh rather than CPUs and hard drives. ?
In your world view how can we ever be more than just a walking , slightly randomised , highly complex, meat computer? I don't see how you avoid the need for something more to create sentient , meaningful , free will.
Can you explain how you do this? I can only conclude that the "free will" you are on about is not the same as the real free will in which men choose real alternatives in full knowledge of what they are doing without the sense that they are programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of both)
I don't understand how you mix randomness and determinism and produce free will. To me that's like mixing water and coal to produce a piano concerto.
(EDIT-The strange thing about this is that we baulk at the idea of being mere meat computers almost as if something somewhere is telling us that we are more than that...how queer!)
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy concept of free will is the meat computer that you describe. You are yet to explain how your concept is different other than that your computer is not made of meat but made of supernatural material. The basic workings are the same.
This computer could reach a "decision" internally via "natural" means and programming with some random element involved as well. Is it making a free choice of it's own volition or is it just running a sophisticated program with a complex processor and random elements? Would we hold such a computer responsible for its decision or would we blame the programmer and person who built the computer ?
As for responsibility, first of all as a theist you have a completely different view of responsibility than I do as you believe in absolutes and I believe in relatives. You are probably talking about who God is going to punish, which holds no meaning for me.
Anyway, I would hold both the computer and its maker responsible for a computers actions but the relative amount of responsibility depends on what extent the maker (programmer) knew what the computer would do and what it was capable of. The random components allow for actions that the maker did not plan but if the probability of a certain outcome is high then the maker is still responsible. If I design a program that has a 90% change of killing someone then I am partially responsible for any deaths that result.
(EDIT-The strange thing about this is that we baulk at the idea of being mere meat computers almost as if something somewhere is telling us that we are more than that...how queer!)
You may baulk at it but I don't and I don't hear anything telling me otherwise. If you are hearing voices then it is queer and you should be worried.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, you believe you are making a choice and know what you are choosing but don't know how you are doing it? Thats just ignorance of the human brain and not some magical phenomena.
Can you explain how you do this? I can only conclude that the "free will" you are on about is not the same as the real free will in which men choose real alternatives in full knowledge of what they are doing without the sense that they are programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of both)
We have gone round and round on this one and you have refused to answer: If you are not "programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of both)" then how are you making the decisions? And don't start with your uncaused cause crap because it isn't an answer. A non-programmed decision is a flip of a coin by definition, you cannot escape that fact.
Originally posted by twhitehead"My concept of free will is the meat computer that you describe. You are yet to explain how your concept is different other than that your computer is not made of meat but made of supernatural material. The basic workings are the same.
My concept of free will is the meat computer that you describe. You are yet to explain how your concept is different other than that your computer is not made of meat but made of supernatural material. The basic workings are the same.
As for responsibility, first of all as a theist you have a completely different view of responsibility than I do as you b ...[text shortened]... ng telling me otherwise. If you are hearing voices then it is queer and you should be worried.
As for responsibility, first of all as a theist you have a completely different view of responsibility than I do as you believe in absolutes and I believe in relatives. You are probably talking about who God is going to punish, which holds no meaning for me.
Anyway, I would hold both the computer and its maker responsible for a computers actions but the relative amount of responsibility depends on what extent the maker (programmer) knew what the computer would do and what it was capable of. The random components allow for actions that the maker did not plan but if the probability of a certain outcome is high then the maker is still responsible. If I design a program that has a 90% change of killing someone then I am partially responsible for any deaths that result. " ----WHITEY
KM- RESPONSE....
Notice how you have not answered the question of whether the computer has free will or not. Nice side step. You imply that the computer could be held morally responsiible for it's decisions/ actions though?
Very interesting. So if the computer were to stand before a judge on the charge of deciding that 100 people should be murdered you think said computer responsible? Even if it arrived at the decision randomly or through programming? How would you hold such a computer to account?
Would you say to the computer "..Mr PC I'm afraid you did know what you were doing and you did have other more moral options open to you , you cannot argue that it's all programming or chance , you did it and you didn't have to..." ??
You fail to understand the meaning of responsibility in our society. Moral responsibility means not just that something was done but MAINLY that the thing that was done DID NOT HAVE TO BE DONE because there is a free choice available. It also requires that the agent understands the difference between the choices. This cannot be achieved with a computer and is the reason why any sane judge would find the maker 100% responsible.
So does the computer have free will or not? How can the computer really be held morally responsible for anything it does if its actions can be attributed entirely to randomness or programming? What options does the computer really have?
You say ..."My concept of free will is the meat computer that you describe." ...... but to me this isn't free will at all. Why not call it something else than free will? No meaningful options , no moral responsibilty , just programming and chance. Do you not see this?
"You are yet to explain how your concept is different other than that your computer is not made of meat but made of supernatural material. The basic workings are the same." WHITEY
KM- The concept is different because it does hold men ultimately to account and says that other real possible options are available through choice , not chance or programming. This can only be achieved by something that is not programmed , is not a slave to causality or randomness , and is not of the same essence as deterministic nature. What this nature is , is something beyond/different from nature . ie supernatural. How God does this is partially mysterious , but then how he is the eternal Uncaused Cause is pretty mindblowing too. One thing I do know , you need something a bit different from what we know to logically explain the free will we actually experience. The meat computer model doesn't cut the mustard
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaking a choice is it simply a physical thing, or spiritual? If spiritual
So, you believe you are making a choice and know what you are choosing but don't know how you are doing it? Thats just ignorance of the human brain and not some magical phenomena.
We have gone round and round on this one and you have refused to answer: If you are not "programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of bo ...[text shortened]... . A non-programmed decision is a flip of a coin by definition, you cannot escape that fact.
do you think anything you could come up with in the physical realm
would be able to touch it as far as understanding it, or explaining it?
If it is physical as in your make up basically programs you to act one
way or another, than free will is not real, you are hard coded to act one
way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE ---------------------"So, you believe you are making a choice and know what you are choosing but don't know how you are doing it? Thats just ignorance of the human brain and not some magical phenomena. We have gone round and round on this one and you have refused to answer: If you are not "programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of both)" then how are you making the decisions? And don't start with your uncaused cause crap because it isn't an answer. A non-programmed decision is a flip of a coin by definition, you cannot escape that fact". WHITEY
So, you believe you are making a choice and know what you are choosing but don't know how you are doing it? Thats just ignorance of the human brain and not some magical phenomena.
We have gone round and round on this one and you have refused to answer: If you are not "programmed to do the inevitable or make decisions on the flip of a coin (or a bit of bo ...[text shortened]... . A non-programmed decision is a flip of a coin by definition, you cannot escape that fact.
RESPONSE-----KM ----------------
Ok , this is getting too confusing because we are having two debates at once here.I can come back another time to explaining how God promotes free will through the activity of the Holy Spirit and the Uncaused nature of God when all this is over. I'm going to suggest that for the purposes of this line of reasoning I will become an Atheist . No "faeries" and stuff , no supernatural elements , just you , me and nature. If you want to start another thread on that then feel free.
Ok , now that's over , let's get on with the debate about compatabilism. If I were an Atheist I would have to logically be a hard determinist and not believe in free will because it doesn't add up.
You see as an Atheist , I would agree entirely with your statement "A non-programmed decision is a flip of a coin by definition, you cannot escape that fact" Whitey... I agree. It is a fact that us Atheists cannot escape indeed. Therefore , I feel that we must adopt the position that morally repsonsible free will as we experience it must be illusionary. Can you stop talking as if these meat computers of yours really can produce free choices from progamming and randomness , you are making me nervous , you sound like one of those mad theists when you talk like that (LOL). Come and join me as a hard determinist , I know its uncomfortable , but at least we will be able to hold our heads up high and say we are being logically consistent. I don't want you to do what those Theists do and just fudge the issues. Logically we can be no more free than a frog or a worm.
So now back to meat computers. Let's take a less complex meat computer like a frog . Do you think a frog has free will? If so why?