You don’t have free will, but don’t worry. (Sabine Hossenfelder)

(Nov 1, 2020 09:11 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 1, 2020 02:59 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 1, 2020 07:41 AM)Syne Wrote: Puleeze. Unless you already moved (like you mentioned you might), you live in CA, where there have already been rioting, looting, arson, wildfires, and epidemic homelessness to boot. And if you vote, you vote Democrat. If not, do tell us how much you've thrown away your vote on third-party candidates or which Republicans you've voted for. Otherwise, what I said clearly stands.

This is one fallacy that you need to work on.

I missed this post entirely: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7402-p...l#pid30785

But I can only work on premises I'm aware are faulty.

I was never aware that you had ever said anything of the sort, but I clearly gave you the chance to correct me (bolded). I have no idea why you wouldn't just correct me over something I never responded to and clearly had never seen.

Why do you feel that I'm obligated to tell you who I voted for?  That's really none of your business.

What term did you use to find that thread? Was it "Trump"? Why didn’t you take the time to search for evidence before you made that claim?

I think that most of us come here for educational entertainment. If I was to take your accusations seriously, I’d have to be on here 24/7. It’s a really bad habit of yours. You’re always begging the question. A reasonable assumption is made by someone that’s willing to accept the burden of proof. Your assumptions aren’t reasonable. You adopt them rather blindly.

Syne Wrote:It's telling that you quote the Gospel of Thomas and generally dislike the Bible.

I don’t dislike everything in the bible.

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. And after they have reigned, they will rest."

There’s back and forths between several academics.

The Academic Quarrel Over Determinism written by William Tomos Edwards

But nevertheless, I did find Jerry Coyne’s numerous articles and refutations against freewill rather disturbing.

Why We Shouldn't Bet on Having Freewill—A Reply to William Edwards

Quote:In fact, philosophical determinists—who reject free will because there’s no mechanism for “decision” that is free of the physical substance of our brain—base their determinism not on DNA but on the laws of physics. Our brains are made of molecules; those molecules must obey the laws of physics; our decisions derive from brain activity; ergo, our decisions are subject not to an alterable “will” but to physical law. QED: no free will.

And you needn’t believe in pure physical determinism to reject free will. Much of the physical world, and what we deal with in everyday life, does follow the deterministic laws of classical mechanics, but there’s also true indeterminism in quantum mechanics. Yet even if there were quantum effects affecting our actions—and we have no evidence this is the case—that still doesn’t give us the kind of agency we want for free will. We can’t use our will to move electrons. Physical determinism is better described as “naturalism”: the view that the cosmos is completely governed by natural laws, including probabilistic ones like quantum mechanics.

Edwards also seems to conflate determinism with predictability: “The future cannot be precisely known or determined from the present.” But this conflation is wrong: a deterministic process can be so complicated—weather patterns are one example—that precise predictions are impossible. But let’s ignore these problems and see how we can parse a coherent argument from Edwards’s piece. Although he gives no explicit definition, Edwards apparently construes free will, as do most people, as “contracausal” or “dualistic”: we have the ability at any instant to make more than one choice by exercising “will” that influences our molecules; we have a unique ability to overcome the laws of nature.

Edwards’s evidence for this is threefold: there is fundamental indeterminacy in nature; we feel like we have free will; and there are aspects of human mentation, like consciousness, that we don’t fully understand. Let me take these three arguments in turn.

Read more at: A Reply to William Edwards

Against Determinism—A Brief Reply to Jerry Coyne

(Nov 2, 2020 03:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 1, 2020 09:11 PM)Syne Wrote: I missed this post entirely: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7402-p...l#pid30785

But I can only work on premises I'm aware are faulty.

I was never aware that you had ever said anything of the sort, but I clearly gave you the chance to correct me (bolded). I have no idea why you wouldn't just correct me over something I never responded to and clearly had never seen.

Why do you feel that I'm obligated to tell you who I voted for?  That's really none of your business.

What term did you use to find that thread? Was it "Trump"? Why didn’t you take the time to search for evidence before you made that claim?

I think that most of us come here for educational entertainment. If I was to take your accusations seriously, I’d have to be on here 24/7. It’s a really bad habit of yours. You’re always begging the question. A reasonable assumption is made by someone that’s willing to accept the burden of proof. Your assumptions aren’t reasonable. You adopt them rather blindly.

I'm not obliged to any information about you whatsoever (little miss tried to dox/internet stalk me once upon a time), but if you choose to get self-righteous about false premises instead of just correcting them, that's on you.

Like most people nowadays, you've mentioned Trump far too much for that to be a useful search term. I believe it was "voted" (and took quite a few tries to find a good search term). But the vast bulk of evidence would point to you voting Democrat. Between the atheism, pro-abortion (legislatively for others, even if not for yourself), misandry, some seeming push back on the notion that women should carry guns (though you may be pro-gun), being very buddy-buddy with far leftists, and living in CA, what do you think people will assume?

IOW, you either accept that others will make assumptions, or you correct them. This self-righteousness over faulty assumptions you don't correct is hypocritical bullshit.

And no, you took more time to snark about "This is one fallacy that you need to work on" (with several links) than simply saying "I voted for Trump". So if you'd quit snarking and whining and simply correct bad assumptions, there'd be far fewer of them. By contrast, I'd doubt that you're the least bit in the dark about my views on any issue. That's because I don't beat around the bush.


And don't pretend that you're the only one who has assumptions made about them, considering the vile stuff people the likes of MR, a majority on science forums, regularly presume of any conservative.

(Nov 2, 2020 04:33 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

Syne Wrote:It's telling that you quote the Gospel of Thomas and generally dislike the Bible.

I don’t dislike everything in the bible.

"Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. And after they have reigned, they will rest."

You do know that that's still the Gospel of Thomas, right? And that the Gospel of Thomas is not biblical cannon? IOW, it's not typically in the Bible at all. Try

Quote:There’s back and forths between several academics.

The Academic Quarrel Over Determinism written by William Tomos Edwards

But nevertheless, I did find Jerry Coyne’s numerous articles and refutations against freewill rather disturbing.

Why We Shouldn't Bet on Having Freewill—A Reply to William Edwards

Quote:In fact, philosophical determinists—who reject free will because there’s no mechanism for “decision” that is free of the physical substance of our brain—base their determinism not on DNA but on the laws of physics. Our brains are made of molecules; those molecules must obey the laws of physics; our decisions derive from brain activity; ergo, our decisions are subject not to an alterable “will” but to physical law. QED: no free will.

And you needn’t believe in pure physical determinism to reject free will. Much of the physical world, and what we deal with in everyday life, does follow the deterministic laws of classical mechanics, but there’s also true indeterminism in quantum mechanics. Yet even if there were quantum effects affecting our actions—and we have no evidence this is the case—that still doesn’t give us the kind of agency we want for free will. We can’t use our will to move electrons. Physical determinism is better described as “naturalism”: the view that the cosmos is completely governed by natural laws, including probabilistic ones like quantum mechanics.

Edwards also seems to conflate determinism with predictability: “The future cannot be precisely known or determined from the present.” But this conflation is wrong: a deterministic process can be so complicated—weather patterns are one example—that precise predictions are impossible. But let’s ignore these problems and see how we can parse a coherent argument from Edwards’s piece. Although he gives no explicit definition, Edwards apparently construes free will, as do most people, as “contracausal” or “dualistic”: we have the ability at any instant to make more than one choice by exercising “will” that influences our molecules; we have a unique ability to overcome the laws of nature.

Edwards’s evidence for this is threefold: there is fundamental indeterminacy in nature; we feel like we have free will; and there are aspects of human mentation, like consciousness, that we don’t fully understand. Let me take these three arguments in turn.

Read more at: A Reply to William Edwards

Against Determinism—A Brief Reply to Jerry Coyne

And you weigh in where, exactly? Again, you quoting others is pseudo-intellectual, at best. Can you make any specific arguments yourself? Or perhaps you can at least point out a few that you feel are especially compelling, so others can respond to them.

IOW, if you can't have a discussion on the subject, yourself, why should anyone discuss it with you?

(Nov 2, 2020 03:43 AM)Leigha Wrote: [...] It's funny you post that, I recently read a thread in Reddit, where the topic was about determinism, and the original poster states that he believes humans are no different than say rocks, just a differently arranged set of atoms. What? What a dismal way to go through life, I thought. Others felt the same as me, and questioned him as to the value he finds in life. I'm not sure why people feel our existence is random, that the universe is random...but even if I were to wake up tomorrow and believe that, why would life have no moral meaning, or purpose? Why do some so profoundly feel the need to connect randomness with purposelessness? I'm not judging what others choose to believe, but I don't think that it's an either/or proposition.

It's not even scientific, since in that context the universe still has self-organizing regularities that merely had the "God" personhood stripped away from them. The idea of evolution being random (which some among both the 6,000yr creationists & the dumber brand of atheists entertain) also isn't the case, since it requires an information-retaining level via molecular configurations that select (or hold onto) useful mutations in conjunction with contingent environmental situations. Only the mutations have an accidental or arbitrary aspect, but they're "managed" by the administrative structure that survives over the generations of the species.

(Nov 2, 2020 07:39 PM)C C Wrote:

(Nov 2, 2020 03:43 AM)Leigha Wrote: [...] It's funny you post that, I recently read a thread in Reddit, where the topic was about determinism, and the original poster states that he believes humans are no different than say rocks, just a differently arranged set of atoms. What? What a dismal way to go through life, I thought. Others felt the same as me, and questioned him as to the value he finds in life. I'm not sure why people feel our existence is random, that the universe is random...but even if I were to wake up tomorrow and believe that, why would life have no moral meaning, or purpose? Why do some so profoundly feel the need to connect randomness with purposelessness? I'm not judging what others choose to believe, but I don't think that it's an either/or proposition.

It's not even scientific, since in that context the universe still has self-organizing regularities that merely had the "God" personhood stripped away from them. The idea of evolution being random (which some among both the 6,000yr creationists & the dumber brand of atheists entertain) also isn't the case, since it requires an information-retaining level via molecular configurations that select (or hold onto) useful mutations in conjunction with contingent environmental situations. Only the mutations have an accidental or arbitrary aspect, but they're "managed" by the administrative structure that survives over the generations of the species.

Well said! The universe seems ordered, and not at all random. Randomness suggests that cause and effect isn’t possible. (Hence, human free will becomes an impossibility.) Yet, science is built around cause and effect - every single action produces a reaction. How can this law be if the universe is random? There are infinite potential causes for a given event but that still doesn’t seem random.

Is the material world inherently unpredictable?

(Nov 2, 2020 06:45 PM)Syne Wrote: I'm not obliged to any information about you whatsoever (little miss tried to dox/internet stalk me once upon a time), but if you choose to get self-righteous about false premises instead of just correcting them, that's on you.

You’re dealing with highly curious people and pattern seeking individuals. What? Feeling persecuted again? And no, it's on you to make reasonable assumptions and be willing to accept the burden of proof.

BTW, were you stalking, wegs?

Syne Wrote:Like most people nowadays, you've mentioned Trump far too much for that to be a useful search term. I believe it was "voted" (and took quite a few tries to find a good search term). But the vast bulk of evidence would point to you voting Democrat. Between the atheism, pro-abortion (legislatively for others, even if not for yourself), misandry, some seeming push back on the notion that women should carry guns (though you may be pro-gun), being very buddy-buddy with far leftists, and living in CA, what do you think people will assume?

• All atheists are leftists. (wrong)
  
• All republicans are pro-life. (wrong)
  
• All lefists are misandrists. (wrong)
  
• I'm a misandrist. (wrong)
  
• I don't think that women should carry guns. (wrong) [I carry a gun. I'm a woman.] 
  
• I have friends that are leftist. (right) Therefore, I'm a leftist. (wrong)
  
• I live in California. (right) Therefore, I'm a leftist. (wrong)
  

Sounds like the monty python witch skit, doesn't it?

Syne Wrote:IOW, you either accept that others will make assumptions, or you correct them. This self-righteousness over faulty assumptions you don't correct is hypocritical bullshit.

Why don't you stop being a little attention whore by demanding that people defend themselves against all of your faulty assumptions? No one has that kind of time. 

Syne Wrote:And no, you took more time to snark about "This is one fallacy that you need to work on" (with several links) than simply saying "I voted for Trump". So if you'd quit snarking and whining and simply correct bad assumptions, there'd be far fewer of them. By contrast, I'd doubt that you're the least bit in the dark about my views on any issue. That's because I don't beat around the bush.

Well, if you have to do the work, you might learn something.  

Syne Wrote:And don't pretend that you're the only one who has assumptions made about them, considering the vile stuff people the likes of MR, a majority on science forums, regularly presume of any conservative.

You've made quite a few vile remarks towards MR yourself. 

Syne Wrote:You do know that that's still the Gospel of Thomas, right? And that the Gospel of Thomas is not biblical cannon? IOW, it's not typically in the Bible at all. Try

 
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. [golf clap]

Syne Wrote:And you weigh in where, exactly? Again, you quoting others is pseudo-intellectual, at best. Can you make any specific arguments yourself? Or perhaps you can at least point out a few that you feel are especially compelling, so others can respond to them.

IOW, if you can't have a discussion on the subject, yourself, why should anyone discuss it with you?

I did, but like Ben, I wasn't really wanting to discuss it with you.

Tootles.

(Nov 2, 2020 11:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 2, 2020 06:45 PM)Syne Wrote: I'm not obliged to any information about you whatsoever (little miss tried to dox/internet stalk me once upon a time), but if you choose to get self-righteous about false premises instead of just correcting them, that's on you.

You’re dealing with highly curious people and pattern seeking individuals. What? Feeling persecuted again? And no, it's on you to make reasonable assumptions and be willing to accept the burden of proof.

I never feel persecuted. It's no ones responsibility to read your mind. Again, if you don't like assumptions, make your views known. What, you ashamed of them? That would be you feeling persecuted...and projecting.

Quote:BTW, were you stalking, wegs?

Quit projecting. Unlike you, I'm still a member in good standing over there, and you (little miss banned hypocrite) post links to there as well.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Like most people nowadays, you've mentioned Trump far too much for that to be a useful search term. I believe it was "voted" (and took quite a few tries to find a good search term). But the vast bulk of evidence would point to you voting Democrat. Between the atheism, pro-abortion (legislatively for others, even if not for yourself), misandry, some seeming push back on the notion that women should carry guns (though you may be pro-gun), being very buddy-buddy with far leftists, and living in CA, what do you think people will assume?

• All atheists are leftists. (wrong)
  
• All republicans are pro-life. (wrong)
  
• All lefists are misandrists. (wrong)
  
• I'm a misandrist. (wrong)
  
• I don't think that women should carry guns. (wrong) [I carry a gun. I'm a woman.] 
  
• I have friends that are leftist. (right) Therefore, I'm a leftist. (wrong)
  
• I live in California. (right) Therefore, I'm a leftist. (wrong)
  

In a lack of clear information, everyone uses the available info to, jointly, arrive at conclusions.

Most atheists are leftists.
Most Democrats are pro-abortion (don't change the argument that was actually made).
Many leftists are misandrists (evidence rabid feminists).
You are definitely a misandrist (don't lie).
I said "seeming push back...though you may be pro-gun" (judgement call that conceded it may be wrong).
Friends with far leftists is one data point, not an argument in itself.
Most Californians are leftists.

The preponderance of available evidence at the time weighed heavily toward only one conclusion. Again, instead of whining about it, maybe start by not complaining that your Republican father-in-law is a "gun nut".

Quote:

Syne Wrote:IOW, you either accept that others will make assumptions, or you correct them. This self-righteousness over faulty assumptions you don't correct is hypocritical bullshit.

Why don't you stop being a little attention whore by demanding that people defend themselves against all of your faulty assumptions? No one has that kind of time. 

Again, belied by all the time you've taken to write all this, as opposed to just saying "I voted for Trump".

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And don't pretend that you're the only one who has assumptions made about them, considering the vile stuff people the likes of MR, a majority on science forums, regularly presume of any conservative.

You've made quite a few vile remarks towards MR yourself. 

Tit for tat.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You do know that that's still the Gospel of Thomas, right? And that the Gospel of Thomas is not biblical cannon? IOW, it's not typically in the Bible at all. Try

 
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. [golf clap]

Then don't cite it as evidence of "I don’t dislike everything in the bible", genius.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And you weigh in where, exactly? Again, you quoting others is pseudo-intellectual, at best. Can you make any specific arguments yourself? Or perhaps you can at least point out a few that you feel are especially compelling, so others can respond to them.

IOW, if you can't have a discussion on the subject, yourself, why should anyone discuss it with you?

I did, but like Ben, I wasn't really wanting to discuss it with you.

Tootles.

So all that for zero on the topic of free will and a blithe dismissal. You're so predictable.

(Nov 3, 2020 04:34 AM)Syne Wrote: Again, instead of whining about it, maybe start by not complaining that your Republican father-in-law is a "gun nut".

So that was the trigger, "gun nut". Well, he is a gun nut. He fits every single description.

Syne Wrote:In a lack of clear information, everyone uses the available info to, jointly, arrive at conclusions.

Again, if you don't like assumptions, make your views known. What, you ashamed of them?

It was clear and available. You found it, remember?

(Nov 1, 2020 09:11 PM)Syne Wrote: I missed this post entirely: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7402-p...l#pid30785

Syne Wrote:I was never aware that you had ever said anything of the sort, but I clearly gave you the chance to correct me (bolded). I have no idea why you wouldn't just correct me over something I never responded to and clearly had never seen.

Because, like I said, you do it all the time. There are not enough hours in the day, and if you do the work to find it, who knows, you might actually learn something. Try.

(Nov 3, 2020 12:43 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 3, 2020 04:34 AM)Syne Wrote: Again, instead of whining about it, maybe start by not complaining that your Republican father-in-law is a "gun nut".

So that was the trigger, "gun nut". Well, he is a gun nut. He fits every single description.

No, deary, I just gave you a whole list of reasons for that assumption.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:In a lack of clear information, everyone uses the available info to, jointly, arrive at conclusions.

Again, if you don't like assumptions, make your views known. What, you ashamed of them?

It was clear and available. You found it, remember?

Only after some trial and error. If you had simply told me, it would have stopped it right there.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I was never aware that you had ever said anything of the sort, but I clearly gave you the chance to correct me (bolded). I have no idea why you wouldn't just correct me over something I never responded to and clearly had never seen.

Because, like I said, you do it all the time. There are not enough hours in the day, and if you do the work to find it, who knows, you might actually learn something. Try.

Again, for the umpteenth time. You're spending WAY more time whining about it than you would have to simply correct me in the first place. You must really like whining, because you seem to have plenty of time for that.

(Nov 2, 2020 06:45 PM)Syne Wrote: And you weigh in where, exactly? Again, you quoting others is pseudo-intellectual, at best. Can you make any specific arguments yourself? Or perhaps you can at least point out a few that you feel are especially compelling, so others can respond to them.

IOW, if you can't have a discussion on the subject, yourself, why should anyone discuss it with you?

It should be obvious that I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was trying to share the bits that were compelling and disturbing to me. I quoted and linked Coyne's refutation.

This is exactly why no one wants to enter a discussion with you. You only see and hear what you want to.

Notes to self (word games): In regards to Nietzsche, what I was struggling with was his perspectivism (optics of knowledge) and the love of fate.

I think, therefore I am.

"It is … a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think". It thinks: but to say the "it" is just the famous old "I" — well that is just an assumption or opinion, to put it mildly, and by no means an "immediate certainty." In fact, there is already too much packed into the "it thinks": even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself."—Nietzsche

His point is that our thoughts appear in our consciousness without our having willed them.

"Behold, I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."—Nietzsche

Self-overcoming: Nietzsche’s Übermensch is not a product of freewill. It’s an interplay of internal struggles of certain drives. How they play out determines what one will believe, value, and become. When we look at things in greater detail, we obviously expand our awareness. If we look at the past, and understand how we became what we are through chains of events, one might think that we must continue to be what we have been, but with greater awareness, we notice the external forces, such as culture, environmental, evolution, physical laws, etc., and we are more cautious. We notice more options and other ways to live, which increases our freedom, but with greater freedom, comes more responsibility for that which is, and which was, and which is to come.

I would call this an acquired freedom, which is altogether different from circumstantial freedom. It’s to live as one believes one ought to live. Freewill on the other hand, would be a natural freedom, regardless of circumstances or state of mind, which Nietzsche obviously doesn’t believe in and argued against.

"Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?
To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion."

"The child", Nietzsche says, "is innocence and forgetting—a new beginning—a Sacred "Yes".

Life is no longer a reactive struggle to defeat other external forces. Life is a celebration of one's own powers.

"Then, however, was Life dearer unto me than all my Wisdom had ever been."

Anthropomorphism at its finest, eh?

I used to think that the love of life was and would always remain an unrequited love…

But I no longer do. Life is everything. Nothing exists for us outside of it. "The living cannot know death and the dead know nothing." 

It’s more likely that his whisper was simply…but thou knowest it also...that you will inevitably leave me? 

—When thou hearest this clock strike the hours at midnight, then thinkest thou between one and twelve thereon—
—Thou thinkest thereon, O Zarathustra, I know it—of soon leaving me!"—
"Yea," answered I, hesitatingly, "but thou knowest it also"—And I said something into her ear, in amongst her confused, yellow, foolish tresses.
"Thou knowest that, O Zarathustra? That knoweth no one—"

Most people believed and still believe in some form of an afterlife.

And we gazed at each other, and looked at the green meadow o'er which the cool evening was just passing, and we wept together. Then, however, was Life dearer unto me than all my Wisdom had ever been.

Joy—deeper still than grief can be...
Woe saith: Hence! Go!...
But joys all want eternity…
Deep profound eternity…

Acceptance? I think so.

No need to pipe in, Syne. I highly doubt that you'd have anything meaningful to contribute. 

Peace out.