- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Dang, and I hate salad, especially word salad...sorry.
Duly noted. I'll try to restrain myself.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dang, and I hate salad, especially word salad...sorry.This ^, is word-salad.
Duly noted. I'll try to restrain myself.You appear to be on some kind of philosophical 'chicken or the egg' crusade here(?)
I can definitely accept this as pretty much the standard naturalistic explanation, but there's one particular point that I have to question, and that's this one:
This isn't necessarily true. Preexisting conditions may serve to strongly influence one's choice, but they don't necessarily dictate that choice. Let me see if I can explain what I think is a possible counterargument, and that's indeterminacy.
We're all familiar with the double slit experiment in which it's impossible to tell from the preexisting conditions which slit the particle will go through when measured. Which leads me to wonder whether the brain also has some level of indeterminacy. Such that one can never know for certain what the outcome of a choice will be even given the exact same conditions.
However this still doesn't seem to allow for free will, it simply takes a deterministic process and makes it random, or at best probabilistic, unless one somehow invokes a hidden variable.
And yes, I'm aware that I'm attempting to apply a physical explanation to what some would claim is a supernatural process. But if someone is willing to offer a better explanation for the process of free will, then I'm all ears. I.E what is there, other than the preexisting conditions, that serves to determine one's choices?
ThanksIf you want to learn about this topic I would suggest reading about the notion of "agent causation" in contrast to "event causation."
Agent causation counter-proposes the idea that an action need not be classified as either determined or random, but rather can occur under an agent's control.
In chaos theory, the lack of knowledge of precise initial conditions, produces unpredictable outcomes (see the history behind the Lorenz Attractor here).I definitely can't argue against that, then again it's supposed to be hypothetical. The essential question is, do the initial conditions dictate the outcome? If indeterminacy is correct then it's possible that the answer is no, they don't. Thus you can perhaps find a way around determinism by proposing that the outcome isn't the product of a simple deterministic process, because the process isn't actually deterministic. But if the initial conditions don't dictate the outcome then what does?
Again, see determinsitc chaos.partinobodycular said:It's at this point that one could attempt to insert free will via some form of active agent, be it a conscious mind or something else which is the actual source of those free will choices. But that would seem to lead to a followup question...doesn't that active agent come with it's own initial conditions? Such that you're left with the exact same problem, you've simply transferred the initial conditions from one place to another. The problem hasn't actually gone away. The choice still boils down to either being deterministic, probabilistic, or random.
There's plenty to read on it and the principles are well known in mainstream science. There is considerable evidence that parts of the brain depends on operating at a criticality point (state based, systems theory-wise) referred to as 'Edge of Chaos'.partinobodycular said:And that's the place that I'm really eager to explore.
I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any direct objective results relating free will, per se, with mathematical unpredictability from previously thought as being deterministic processes, but the principles from Chaos theory point to a reliable and consistent way forward in furthering research in the general topic.partinobodycular said:Complexity, indeterminacy, chaos. It seems to me that if you're going to find free will then that's where you're going to find it. I just can't figure out how.
I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.The following:
You've invoked something that serves to restrict your behavior. I.E if you're irrational and neurotic then you're more likely to behave that way. That's a restriction. It's not absolute, but it does serve to restrict your behavior, at least to some degree. It means that you will tend to act in a manner that's consistent with, if not wholly determined by your natural inclinations. You won't summarily kill someone even when that's a viable option.
But this leaves an unanswered question, if one isn't physically restricted by neural processes to choosing one option over another, and one's natural inclinations aren't sufficient to compel one option over another, (assuming that there's a difference between neural processes and natural inclinations), then what does compel someone to choose one option over another? To simply put it down to free will would seem to suggest that the choice is simply random. There is no underlying cause. It's essentially an uncaused cause. But if there is an underlying cause then it's not really free will, is it? Something caused you to make that particular choice.
So once again we seem to be left with only two options, either something caused you to make that particular choice, or it was random.
If 'irrational' means 'for no reason', then the word 'choice' can be used.I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.
Imagine how it feels for non-english speaking, non Christian refugees in the US!?I have no idea how people can buy into this deterministic idea when we can all be guilty of being wishy washy with our decisions. I mean I moved not too long ago, but I keep thinking about making my way back! I’m New York City born and raised but nowadays I’m lost between two shores. L.A.’s fine but it ain’t home, New York’s home but it ain’t mine no more. And I am lost, and I can’t even say why.
And the doctrines supported by scriptures aren't human concepts?Freewill is a man made doctrine. It is not supported by scripture.
But that's really missing the point isn't it. It doesn't matter if you call a behavior irrational, or brilliant, or normal, or whatever. The fact that you won't run around naked in church is because there's something acting to restrict your behavior. It's not a physical restriction necessarily, it's not restricting what you can do, but none-the-less it's restricting what you'll choose to do. As I say it's not an absolute restriction, you could still choose to run around naked in church, but it does seem to be pretty effective.I don't think that's a restriction. An irrational choice is still a choice. "Irrational" is just a subjective way we may choose to describe a choice.
Calvinists are an argumentative, rude people.
Wait what? Determinism will stop you from running around naked in church, but the thing is that you could still choose to run around naked in church??The fact that you won't run around naked in church is because there's something acting to restrict your behavior.
…As I say it's not an absolute restriction, you could still choose to run around naked in church
So even if dualism is true, there are still things acting to restrict what you'll choose to do.
This is asking me to do something that I am definitely not qualified to do...define dualistic.
I try not to classify people or make broad generalizations.
I’ve never met a person who “Acts like physics.” How can people have varying personalities that you & me would classify as annoying, friendly, boring, entertaining, etc, if it is an absurdity to ever refer to the laws of physics with such classifications? How do deterministic laws of physics lead to personalities?We have about as much free will as a rock. Rocks and people are both governed by the known and unknown rules of physics. Neither has the power to change these rules or their outcome.
I’ve never met a person who “Acts like physics.” How can people have varying personalities that you & me would classify as annoying, friendly, boring, entertaining, etc, if it is an absurdity to ever refer to the laws of physics with such classifications? How do deterministic laws of physics lead to personalities?
Anthropomorphic bias itself is an absurd concept if reality is nothing but laws of nature. Christian bias itself is an absurd concept in a reality that is exhaustively just laws of nature.You need to firstly put aside any Christian considerations, bury your anthropomorphic bias
Why adopt incoherence?and then adopt the mindset of a reductionist:
I agree with you up until this point.• The Universe is composed of matter and energy
• Matter and energy act in accordance with the laws of physics
• You are part of the universe
• Therefore you are also composed of matter and energy
• Since you are composed of matter and energy your actions, at their most basic, are determined by the laws of physics
Touching on my previous post, I’ve never met a rock with a personality. And your model of exhaustive reality hits a wall at entities such as rocks. So actually, I CAN speak of Christian biases and anthropomorphic biases…but you need a new model of reality to do so.Think of yourself as a rock. In the same way a rock can't act outside of physical laws - neither can you. And, if you look closely, no two rocks are the same.
The obvious difference is that you are a little more complex than a rock. Even so, you are still only the sum total of all your little bits of matter and energy each acting in accordance with the laws of physics.
OB
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?