Are atheists determinists?

[fireof god98]

Many don't and I have gotten the impression over the years that many don't actually understand the arguments they present. I think they take them on faith. They've been told that the argument proves god and so when you point out that the argument commits a fallacy it doesn't even register. At least that's been my experience.

Another thing I've noticed is that they avoid talking about fundamentals of their world view. They want to move the discussion away from fundamentals such as the issue of primacy and focus on concretes. I try to keep the conversation on essential principles because most don't know the essentials of their world view. They take them completely for granted. That has been my personal experience.

well im an atheist and there is still so much i don't know as well. but i don't delude myself of having knowledge either

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can you explain?

I actually would rather you explain the reasoning behind a deity being necessary for free will, especially considering free will and omniscience (the property of being all knowing) are incompatible. Free will is basically not believing in destiny or fate, basically thinking that the future isn't set in stone. How does a lack of a deity conflict with that?

 

[True Scotsman]

well im an atheist and there is still so much i don't know as well. but i don't delude myself of having knowledge either

You do know some things right or are you a skepticist? I've talked to many a skepticist and they are adamant in telling me that we can't know anything for sure. How do they Know that If we can't know anything?

While we can't know everything, we can know that what we know is true if we have a proper starting point of knowledge. We have to start from something we can be sure is true and then go from there validating and integrating each new piece of knowledge into our worldview. If a person's starting point is something they have taken on faith, their whole worldview is in danger and is at best unreliable in my opinion. Those are the people who can't be sure of anything.

 

[Chany]

You do know some things right or are you a skepticist? I've talked to many a skepticist and they are adamant in telling me that we can't know anything for sure. How do they Know that If we can't know anything?

While we can't know everything, we can know that what we know is true if we have a proper starting point of knowledge. We have to start from something we can be sure is true and then go from there validating and integrating each new piece of knowledge into our worldview. If a person's starting point is something they have taken on faith, their whole worldview is in danger and is at best unreliable in my opinion. Those are the people who can't be sure of anything.

Do you have an answer to hard solipsism?

 

[True Scotsman]

Do you have an answer to hard solipsism?

Hi Chany,

Yes I do but it will have to wait until tonight because I am off to work.

 

[BL2KTN]

Again, as Dr. Kaku so easily showed... neurons in the brain fire based in no small part on quantum physics. Quantum physics deal with probabilities, not direct cause-and-effect. Just like you can never predict the location of an electron, you cannot predict with absolute knowledge a person's future actions. The universe cannot either. Determinism is dead.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Again, as Dr. Kaku so easily showed... neurons in the brain fire based in no small part on quantum physics. Quantum physics deal with probabilities, not direct cause-and-effect.

That still doesn't prove free will.

Random will isn't free will. All it means is that there is a random and unpredictable element in people's behavior. What it amounts to is that human beings are determined to do unpredictable things by forces beyond their control, not that they are the authors of their own choices.

I really wish that QM did prove free will. It would be nice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

That still doesn't prove free will. Random will isn't free will. All it means is that there is a random element in people's behavior.

I can see why you would make that argument. The problem, however, is that our conscious selves are flooded with random unconscious thoughts, observations, drives, etc. Then our conscious selves make decisions about how to use these competing thoughts, observations, drives... and even the conscious self is derived from quantum level neuron probabilities. Because we know determinism is dead (quantum physics says the universe is one of probabilities), and because we know that decisions are made over time from multiple options given by unconscious, probability-based neuron messages, I think it is safe to say that we have a form of free will.

Think of it this way - we receive unconscious inputs based on probabilities, and then we make a decision over time based on probability-based, conscious outputs. Because we are aware of the decision-making process, and because that awareness arises from something other than classical physics cause-and-effect, our awareness literally makes selections from a wide array of options. That seems like free will to me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem, however, is that our conscious selves are flooded with random unconscious thoughts, observations, drives, etc. Then our conscious selves make decisions about how to use these competing thoughts, observations, drives...

How are these decisions made? Is this a deterministic process? Is there only one possible outcome for any set of random thoughts?

Because we know determinism is dead (quantum physics says the universe is one of probabilities), and because we know that decisions are made over time from multiple options given by unconscious, probability-based neuron messages, I think it is safe to say that we have a form of free will.

I don't see this as safe at all. It looks like determinism in disguise. It is simply determinism with a random element. One still has no control over one's life.

Think of it this way - we receive unconscious inputs based on probabilities, and then we make a decision over time based on probability-based, conscious outputs. Because we are aware of the decision-making process, and because that awareness arises from something other than classical physics cause-and-effect, our awareness literally makes selections from a wide array of options. That seems like free will to me.

Not to me! Even classical determinists will say that our brain activity makes a selection from a wide array of options.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

BlueLightningTN,

The only way you can justify free will based on what you say in post #88 is if "awareness" is something that is not itself subject to the randomness of QM. Otherwise, the selection process would be random, defeating the point. If awareness is something that has emergent properties that are above and beyond the randomness of QM, then it could be free will.

However, in that case, all the randomness involved in the inputs are not particularly relevant to the case for free will. The probabilities have nothing to do with it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

How are these decisions made? Is this a deterministic process? Is there only one possible outcome for any set of random thoughts?

Decisions are made at a conscious level, after competing pattern recognition systems weigh in at the unconscious level. We're still not sure what consciousness even is, though a strong theory currently has to do with mass quantum vibrations within neuron nanotubules.

I don't see this as safe at all. It looks like determinism in disguise. It is simply determinism with a random element. One still has no control over one's life.

Well, determinism and randomness are polar opposites. One and the other cannot exist. I think one thing that is significant is that our conscious selves make decisions from random inputs over a given amount of time. And because our conscious selves are the result of probabilities rather than classical physics, cause-and-effect isn't the phenomenon taking place within our mental states.

Not to me! Even classical determinists will say that our brain activity makes a selection from a wide array of options.

Yes, but they would say you are a slave to those selections. They view the brain as 1+1=2. I'm saying that the brain is like x(>0<11) + y(>0<11) = z, with your consciousness picking from the answer it views as strongest based on past evidence.

And yes, that's just an illustration. It's completely unscientific, and I know that... I'm just using it as a means of communicating an idea.

The only way you can justify free will based on what you say in post #88 is if "awareness" is something that is not itself subject to the randomness of QM. Otherwise, the selection process would be random, defeating the point. If awareness is something that has emergent properties that are above and beyond the randomness of QM, then it could be free will.

The problem here is that we don't yet know how sentience / consciousness arises. If I gave you an answer, I'd be lying. The one thing we do know is that determinism isn't correct. Consciousness may be based on quantum physics' probabilities, or it may be something greater than the sum of its parts.

However, in that case, all the randomness involved in the inputs are not particularly relevant to the case for free will. The probabilities have nothing to do with it.

Sure they do. If my subconscious always kicks me a best option, there's not much to decide at the executive function. Luckily for us, our brains are constantly giving us competing ideas which we must choose from. One pattern recognizer says "eat the darn milkshake, the hunting season may not go well this year," while another pattern recognizer says "we hunt at the supermarket now where food is aplenty, and you know you need to lose weight." While there may be a better answer between the two (and the other options who weigh in), worse options may actually be louder than others. We still get to choose though.

 

[keith99]

I think I have free will. I am an atheist.

To be a determinist I would have to believe I did not have free will. Case closed.

BTW if God created the universe with the same physical laws that exist in a universe that just happened then any argument for determinism holds equally well (or poorly) for either.

 

[Chesterton]

I wouldn't say that reductionism has been completely replaced, but there is a growing number of people who reject reductionism. Their views, when made explicit, are probably forms of emergentism, thought there may be other options.

Wikipedia:
In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not) with reductionism. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is in some sense more than the "sum" of the properties of the system's parts. An emergent property is said to be dependent on some more basic properties (and their relationships and configuration), so that it can have no separate existence. However, a degree of independence is also asserted of emergent properties, so that they are not identical to, or reducible to, or predictable from, or deducible from their bases.

The reason your argument falls flat on its face for me is that it is clearly a form of reductionism. I have no good reason to be a reductionist. When it comes to the mind-body relation, I favor a form of strong emergentism coupled with dual-aspect theory, and that includes such ideas as supervenience and downward causation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Saying that something "emerged" isn't really saying anything. Supervenience and downward causation both seem to require physical backwards time travel. I've heard some astrophysicists say time travel is theoretically possible, but I really don't know how it works.

 

[Chesterton]

Every "last" prediction is made in a situation where this prediction is not know to the decider. Giving him this knowledge changes the situation where the prediction was made.

By what physical mechanism? The air molecules entering the subjects ears? You think they would change the actions of the atoms in his brain in a way that the predictor knows beforehand? (Bearing in mind that there are a nearly infinite number of possibilities. The subject isn't limited to showing rock, paper or scissors; he could show nothing, get bored and quit playing, start a fight, start writing a poem, anything a human can do.)

But all of that is quite irrelevant, seeing that you agreed with me on my assertion what is necessary to make such a prediction at all.

It's just an imaginary hypothetical someone brought up.

No. If atoms are arranged in a really, really special way (which happens to be rather complex) the whole system they make up start choosing and deciding how to act. The individual atoms do not change, do not decide, do not chose... and do not defy any physical laws.

What special way?

Please explain what you think is the difference between what the sieve does and "a decision". Then we can talk about my position on the ability of sieves to make decisions.

A sieve has no options; it does one thing. A decider has options, is not limited by physics, and can do one (or none) of two or more actions.

 

[Chesterton]

I think our brains are predestined to believe in it - our conscious mind is pretty good at telling us "we" are in charge.

Just don't look too closely at the research which shows that it is lying to us in many cases.

No the situation is worse than that. We're not lied to in many cases, but in all cases. The research is also lying.

This assumes will and decision making is something more than just an ordinary physical system doing what it does. Why make that assumption?

Because you and I know we can choose what we do. Purely physical systems cannot.

 

[Chesterton]

I disagree. I do see a way. Man's conceptual faculty does not act automatically like digestion or the endocrine system. The connections of logic aren't made automatically. The locus of free will lies in this fact. We must choose to think. Nothing forces us to. That is the fundamental choice we face, to think or to evade thinking. I think this argument is just another example of question begging.

The fact that man's actions are caused does not make them determined. We choose the reasons behind our actions.

Without something above or beyond physics allowing it, no, you cannot choose to think any more than water can choose to run downhill.

The fact that we have free will is directly observable.

I agree.

 

[fireof god98]

You do know some things right or are you a skepticist? I've talked to many a skepticist and they are adamant in telling me that we can't know anything for sure. How do they Know that If we can't know anything?

While we can't know everything, we can know that what we know is true if we have a proper starting point of knowledge. We have to start from something we can be sure is true and then go from there validating and integrating each new piece of knowledge into our worldview. If a person's starting point is something they have taken on faith, their whole worldview is in danger and is at best unreliable in my opinion. Those are the people who can't be sure of anything.

i tend to follow solipsism

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Again, as Dr. Kaku so easily showed... neurons in the brain fire based in no small part on quantum physics. Quantum physics deal with probabilities, not direct cause-and-effect. Just like you can never predict the location of an electron, you cannot predict with absolute knowledge a person's future actions. The universe cannot either. Determinism is dead.

What Eudaimonist said is absolutely correct.

One thing I would like to add however is, that this does not show that our decision making process is probabilistic too. It is perfectly conceivable that any randomness has "washed out" (Take a computer for example, it is a perfectly deterministic machine). Or is so small as to be negligible.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I actually would rather you explain the reasoning behind a deity being necessary for free will, [snip]

I would like to see that too. I would even be content with a proof of concept that shows how libertarian free will is possible if God exists.

But it is never going to happen.

The only thing that is different "if God exists" is that you don't have to explain stuff.

 

[BL2KTN]

What Eudaimonist said is absolutely correct.

One thing I would like to add however is, that this does not show that our decision making process is probabilistic too. It is perfectly conceivable that any randomness has "washed out" (Take a computer for example, it is a perfectly deterministic machine). Or is so small as to be negligible.

Pardon me if I side with the world renowned theoretical physicist and co-founder of Unified Field String Theory. Also, I'd rather not get into why computers currently aren't a good comparison to brains with the mechanics of how they work... it's a really long discussion that I don't have sufficient time to do.

I will say this: computers are written with code to deal with the errors they naturally produce due to quantum physics. It's especially important in quantum computing, which may be more similar to the way our brains function due to the number of neuron connections each cell has. Still, even in simple on-off gate switch computers (traditional), we have to deal with quantum effects as we scale downward. Brains do not have this programming system.