Are atheists determinists?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

I think we can say we have free will. Our will is unpredictable from considering only the sensory inputs; therefore we have free will. But this is only a true way of thinking about ourselves when we confine our thinking to the gross, larger level of our complete thoughts, our complete actions, and how we see things in terms of our image of the world we have in our heads.

If we consider the minute components of our brains, the nerve cells, the chemical reactions that power them, we have there merely the operation of natural law coupled with the random nature of certain quantum mechanical actions.

Even classical natural law can come up with unpredictable results as per chaos theory. The patterns that swirl about in our brains qualify as chaotic in that sense, so it isn't even necessary to invoke quantum mechanics to achieve unpredictable behavior in a human.

So at the cellular and particle level, we don't see free will, we see some random events and some determined events. At the whole brain level, we can call the result as permitting free will. We are not a brain cell firing, we are the whole shebang.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Pardon me if I side with the world renowned theoretical physicist and co-founder of Unified Field String Theory.

Does not make him correct concerning free will, which is a philosophical topic anyway.

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.

Computers weren't meant as a comparison to brains, but rather to show that it possible to have determinism at a certain level even if the world is probabilistic.

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.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton,

You have asserted several times throughout this thread that free will or volitional consciousness must be caused by a supernatural agent and can't be caused by natural processes. I'd like to argue that this view is false and I'd really like to have you interact with my argument.

Simply put, your assertion is false because it contradicts the primacy of existence principle.

It does not contradict it. I generally agree with the principle, and I certainly agree with you that consciousness exists, but the rest of your post mistakenly conflates consciousness with free will.

Here's how. Consciousness exists, we know this. It is perceptually self evident as is the fact that man has a volitional consciousness. This too is directly observable through introspection. You may argue that some scientists say that this is just an illusion but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether free will is handed down from a supernatural agent.

Like all things that exist consciousness possesses a specific set of attributes or an identity. It exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's conscious wishes, demands, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, preferences or fondest desires. Consciousness is a fact of reality. This is the principle of the primacy of existence.

When you claim that this attribute, volition, comes from a supernatural agent presumably this agent would itself be conscious and would grant this, I think you called it magic, through an act of conscious will. So you are saying that our consciousness is not what it is independently of anyone's consciousness but because of someone's consciousness. This clearly and performatively affirms the primacy of consciousness principle which states that things do not exist independently of consciousness but are dependent on it for their identity.

The primacy of existence is undeniably true. In fact it must be true even to deny it. It is implicit in all knowledge claims. As soon as you say "it is", just that, you have affirmed its truth because to say something is is to say it is independent of anyone's conscious action. It is whether you believe it or not.

Independence can have an original cause. A great nation can grant a colony independence, and it will indeed by independent thenceforth, and its independence will be "true", but only because of a conscious act by a greater power.

You can test this any time and any place. Simply pick any item in your vicinity and think of it being made of solid gold. No matter how much you wish or plead or stamp your feet it will not turn to gold because existence exists independent of conscious action, anyone's. If even one consciousness holds primacy over existence then existence does not have primacy, consciousness does. Every observation of reality confirms this principle. There are no examples of a consciousness which holds primacy over its objects, whether Human or Frog or Fish or Fowl. None. Now we can imagine a consciousness that holds primacy over its objects but that is the only way we can "perceive" such a thing. We can not see it by looking outward at reality.

Any claim which contradicts this fact of reality, that existence holds primacy, is false. Clearly the claim that our free will comes from a god contradicts this and therefore is false. And it is false regardless of anyone's fondest wishes.

I haven't contradicted any fact of reality, and you haven't shown how my claim contradicts that existence holds primacy. You could go a good ways towards refuting my claim if you'd offer some plausible explanation of how physical matter is able to exert will and make decisions.

 

[Chesterton]

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?

Free will and omniscience are not incompatible.

 

[Chesterton]

I've noticed that some people are trying to turn the table. When it comes to will, instead of asking me how "God-did-it", I'd like to ask how "nature-did-it".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Free will and omniscience are not incompatible.

Yes they are. To be omniscient you have to know the future with 100% accuracy. however, if there are multiple possible futures as there would have to be the case with free will! it would be impossible to know the future with 100% accuracy, because as long as there are multiple possible options which aren't predetermined, the future can't be set in stone or known.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes they are. To be omniscient you have to know the future with 100% accuracy. however, if there are multiple possible futures as there would have to be the case with free will! it would be impossible to know the future with 100% accuracy, because as long as there are multiple possible options which aren't predetermined, the future can't be set in stone or known.

But omniscience can be real and multiple possible futures real if, in some sense, every possible future is also real anyway.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But omniscience can be real and multiple possible futures real if, in some sense, every possible future is also real anyway.

If every possible future was real, 1 that would require the existence of multiple timelines and perhaps even multiple dimensions, 2, that would still render free will to not exist in all those possible futures, which are inevitably set in stone still, because they all would have to be fulfilled.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If every possible future was real, 1 that would require the existence of multiple timelines and perhaps even multiple dimensions, 2, that would still render free will to not exist in all those possible futures, which are inevitably set in stone still, because they all would have to be fulfilled.

This gets into the nature of time. If the possible futures are infinite instead of finite, then perhaps the infinite options would be a satisfactory substitute for uncertainty in terms of counting ourselves to have free will.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This gets into the nature of time. If the possible futures are infinite instead of finite, then perhaps the infinite options would be a satisfactory substitute for uncertainty in terms of counting ourselves to have free will.

Not really, infinite possibilities is rendered ineffective when each possibility is limited to only one timeline.

 

[BL2KTN]

Does not make him correct concerning free will, which is a philosophical topic anyway.

Much of ancient philosophy gave way to scientific understanding. This continues.

Computers weren't meant as a comparison to brains, but rather to show that it possible to have determinism at a certain level even if the world is probabilistic.

But computers aren't inherently deterministic. We actually program them to make multiple copies of their data transmission so that we can eliminate probabilities to a degree of absolute certainty. We have to do that because computers now operate at levels in which quantum effects take place; I think we're down to 14 nanometer circuit gates now. Your brain doesn't have that sort of system in place, and if it did, we'd likely be philosophical zombies.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes they are. To be omniscient you have to know the future with 100% accuracy. however, if there are multiple possible futures as there would have to be the case with free will! it would be impossible to know the future with 100% accuracy, because as long as there are multiple possible options which aren't predetermined, the future can't be set in stone or known.

Multiple possible futures are no more of a problem than multiple possible pasts or presents. If I'm omniscient, then yesterday I know you chose soup for lunch, today (right now) I know you are choosing salad, tomorrow I know you will choose a sandwich. Knowing what you'll choose in no way infringes on the freedom to choose.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not really, infinite possibilities is rendered ineffective when each possibility is limited to only one timeline.

I suppose you could look at it either way . . . and it would not, of course, make any difference whichever way you looked at it, only how you feel about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I suppose you could look at it either way . . . and it would not, of course, make any difference whichever way you looked at it, only how you feel about it.

The point really wasn't about whether or not free will existed, but I was just pointing out that things can't have any uncertainty for a being to be omniscient.

I don't believe in deities, much less omniscient ones, so free will isn't much of an issue for me, I am not a determinist, and I don't see how being atheist would really make anyone a determinist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Much of ancient philosophy gave way to scientific understanding. This continues.

First we need to settle what Free Will even is and what we mean by it. Then see if it is possible. Then if it is true.

And it is the very definition of Libertarian Free Will where people are at odds with Kaku. His scientific qualifications count nothing here.

Compatibilists don't consider randomness to be helpful. Neither do most(?) Libertarians. And then there is of course the no free will faction ...

But computers aren't inherently deterministic. We actually program them to make multiple copies of their data transmission so that we can eliminate probabilities to a degree of absolute certainty. We have to do that because computers now operate at levels in which quantum effects take place; I think we're down to 14 nanometer circuit gates now. Your brain doesn't have that sort of system in place, and if it did, we'd likely be philosophical zombies.

Yes, but it is still possible that a determistic entity emerges from a probabilistic foundation. See it as a proof of principle.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I've noticed that some people are trying to turn the table. When it comes to will, instead of asking me how "God-did-it", I'd like to ask how "nature-did-it".

You have made a whole lot of assertions and it is perfectly understandable when people grill you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes they are. To be omniscient you have to know the future with 100% accuracy. however, if there are multiple possible futures as there would have to be the case with free will! it would be impossible to know the future with 100% accuracy, because as long as there are multiple possible options which aren't predetermined, the future can't be set in stone or known.

I tend to agree with Chesterton on this one.

Even if an omniscient being were to see only one future thread, that doesn't mean that anything is predetermined. It means only that one has a preview of what free willed beings will choose at the time they make their choices. Those free willed beings aren't actually prevented from making other choices.

I don't see any logical inconsistencies with such a power, though certainly one might ask how such a power could even exist in the first place.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Supervenience and downward causation both seem to require physical backwards time travel. [Bolding mine]

I've never heard that objection before.

Seem to whom? Is that your judgment, or is there some link you could share that covers this issue?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pardon me if I side with the world renowned theoretical physicist and co-founder of Unified Field String Theory.

I'm not exactly sure why that should impress anyone. There are also brilliant people who reject free will, and who are in more relevant fields, such as brain science and philosophy of mind.

We are all most likely siding with one or more brilliant people who have written on the subject whether we realize it or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Because you and I know we can choose what we do.

Speaking of lying...

Purely physical systems cannot.

Yes, we know you believe this but repeating it over and over doesn't constitute a reason for thinking it is true.