What Is Man?

[seer]

I don't know, and I don't want to speak for Tass, but I think what he is saying is that our so called free will is not completely free. He denys fatalism, which you seem to keep ignoring seer. There is a difference. But the complete answer is not scientifically conclusive yet at any rate as scientist are still working on the problem.

Again Jim to quote Tass:

It is generally accepted outside of religion, that the known cosmos is the outcome of causes and effects from the very beginning and that all human choices can only be the result of earlier causes, despite our seeming ability to make free-will choices.

IF we have Free Will, as you imagine it to be, you must explain HOW and WHEN Homo sapiens acquired it, as opposed to the illusion of it, given that science can provide ample evidence for Causal Determinism by taking us back via an unbroken causal chain to earliest days of life on earth. You must also explain WHY animals almost identical to us genetically DON'T have it.

Free will is merely an illusion, and science has provided ample evidence that out choices are just cogs in an unbroken causal chain. There can be no genuine choice in this model.

[JimL]

He's switched now to saying there's no such thing as libertarian free will, (I think). If that is the same as saying there's no such thing as unfettered free will, I can accept it.
But early in the piece and in pre-crash TWeb, he was claiming no such thing as free will.

And that may well be true as far as we can tell. Our only real evidence for free will is our personal experience of it, which could indeed be an illusion. If free will does exist then it somehow emerged from out of an otherwise physically determined system. So to claim that you know free will isn't an illusion is a mere assertion based upon your personal feelings of having it.

[JimL]

Again Jim to quote Tass:



Free will is merely an illusion, and science has provided ample evidence that out choices are just cogs in an unbroken causal chain. There can be no genuine choice in this model.

Yes, and it is generally accepted at this point because it has not been shown, at least not yet, as to how free will could have emerged from out of an otherwise physically determined system. The Schodinger equation for example is deterministic. So if you can explain, without mere assertions, what science has not yet been able to explain, then you would have a case to make. We don't have that yet.

[seer]

Yes, and it is generally accepted at this point because it has not been shown, at least not yet, as to how free will could have emerged from out of an otherwise physically determined system. The Schodinger equation for example is deterministic. So if you can explain, without mere assertions, what science has not yet been able to explain, then you would have a case to make. We don't have that yet.

Why should I or anyone be restricted by what science can or can not explain? Science can not explain why, even in principle, consciousness arose. Yet we know it is a fact. But the point was that Tass does believe in hard determinism - that all our choices are predetermined, there is no room for freedom of any kind.

[tabibito]

And that may well be true as far as we can tell. Our only real evidence for free will is our personal experience of it, which could indeed be an illusion. If free will does exist then it somehow emerged from out of an otherwise physically determined system. So to claim that you know free will isn't an illusion is a mere assertion based upon your personal feelings of having it.

Well now, something arising from nothing at all with no cause whatever is a matter of standard atheistic belief, or so I had thought. If that is in fact atheist belief, the concept of free will arising from out of no-where should present no problems - for an atheist, at least.
Now to prove that free will does exist, you would need to be able to watch someone make a decision, and then keep going back in time to watch his response at that same decision point again and again until he made a different decision. However, you would then assuredly find some skeptic who would still declare that there was no such thing as free will, and that your going back in time had changed something, which made it inevitable that the person would choose a different course.

I won't argue that unfettered free will exists - not for the natural man, and effectually not for the spiritual man. The factors that act to push people toward a given course are strong, and all the stronger when they go unrecognised. However, people (and cats) can and do demonstrate the ability to opt for the unexpected.

Responses to circumstances as they arise aren't the same as deliberating about things in advance. Those studies which focus on responses simply don't address free will.
In the studies that did look at deliberation, the reports by subjects of making a decision are rejected on the basis that the machinery doesn't show any decisions being made. The concept that maybe the machinery isn't showing decision making, but only responses, doesn't seem to have occurred to the researchers.

[shunyadragon]

Well now, something arising from nothing at all with no cause whatever is a matter of standard atheistic belief, or so I had thought. If that is in fact atheist belief, the concept of free will arising from out of no-where should present no problems - for an atheist, at least.

That is an illusion of wishful thinking that distort the Methodological Naturalism view of cosmological origins. The cause of things arising id Natural Laws, the misunderstood nothing you refer to is the Quantum existence all things have arisen from.

Now to prove that free will does exist, you would need to be able to watch someone make a decision, and then keep going back in time to watch his response at that same decision point again and again until he made a different decision. However, you would then assuredly find some skeptic who would still declare that there was no such thing as free will, and that your going back in time had changed something, which made it inevitable that the person would choose a different course.

This would only confirm the fractal nature of our decision making process with constraints of choices, and not free will.

I won't argue that unfettered free will exists - not for the natural man, and effectually not for the spiritual man. The factors that act to push people toward a given course are strong, and all the stronger when they go unrecognised. However, people (and cats) can and do demonstrate the ability to opt for the unexpected.

This is uncertain grounds. Yes I propose a limited potential free will. This takes more effort to justify then the simple argument above.

Responses to circumstances as they arise aren't the same as deliberating about things in advance. Those studies which focus on responses simply don't address free will.
In the studies that did look at deliberation, the reports by subjects of making a decision are rejected on the basis that the machinery doesn't show any decisions being made. The concept that maybe the machinery isn't showing decision making, but only responses, doesn't seem to have occurred to the researchers.

I disagree. They do address some of the problems of free will, but not the more complex decision making process where free will decision may be possible. The problem is still human will is not a simple decision making process as many describe, either from a libertarian nor a strictly deterministic process of willful decisions.

[JimL]

Why should I or anyone be restricted by what science can or can not explain?

Because the facts of the matter are not determined by whatever it is that you happen to believe. Thats what science is for.

Science can not explain why, even in principle, consciousness arose. Yet we know it is a fact. But the point was that Tass does believe in hard determinism - that all our choices are predetermined, there is no room for freedom of any kind.

Thats true, but there is no evidence that consciousness, just like that of the will, be it free or not, or of life itself for that matter, is not an emergent property of evolution from out of a system which seems to be deterministic in nature.

But the point was that Tass does believe in hard determinism - that all our choices are predetermined, there is no room for freedom of any kind.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, I don't know for sure, but from what you have quoted of him that is not how I interpret what he said. He disavows fatalism, which to my thinking is the same as hard determinism. The way I read him is that though we may have freedom to choose, those choices are still somewhat dependent upon preceding causes. But again, it isn't known one way or the other with certainty, it isn't proven, and hard determinism may well be the case if we restrict ourselves to the cause and effect nature of physics which at this point, as far as I know, is all that we have to go on.

[JimL]

Well now, something arising from nothing at all with no cause whatever is a matter of standard atheistic belief, or so I had thought. If that is in fact atheist belief, the concept of free will arising from out of no-where should present no problems - for an atheist, at least.

No, that has nothing to do with atheistic belief. Most atheists are not into the science of cosmology, they simply don't believe in God for various reasons. Personally I do not believe that the universe, or to be more precise, that the greater cosmos, arose from out of nothing. I believe that it is eternal and so needs no cause.

Now to prove that free will does exist, you would need to be able to watch someone make a decision, and then keep going back in time to watch his response at that same decision point again and again until he made a different decision. However, you would then assuredly find some skeptic who would still declare that there was no such thing as free will, and that your going back in time had changed something, which made it inevitable that the person would choose a different course.

First off you can not go back in time to change what has already taken place, so that is an argument of no practical use.

I won't argue that unfettered free will exists - not for the natural man, and effectually not for the spiritual man. The factors that act to push people toward a given course are strong, and all the stronger when they go unrecognised. However, people (and cats) can and do demonstrate the ability to opt for the unexpected.

When you say they demonstrate free will, what exactly do you mean by "demonstrate"? You can't see if their choices are freely made or determined.

Responses to circumstances as they arise aren't the same as deliberating about things in advance. Those studies which focus on responses simply don't address free will.
In the studies that did look at deliberation, the reports by subjects of making a decision are rejected on the basis that the machinery doesn't show any decisions being made. The concept that maybe the machinery isn't showing decision making, but only responses, doesn't seem to have occurred to the researchers.

And how do you determine if the deliberating process is a free process rather than a determined one? Deliberating itself is a response to circumstances. All you are doing there is moving the goal posts so to speak.

[seer]

Because the facts of the matter are not determined by whatever it is that you happen to believe. Thats what science is for.

No, the point is what makes you think science has the last word on this, or can even solve the problem.

Thats true, but there is no evidence that consciousness, just like that of the will, be it free or not, or of life itself for that matter, is not an emergent property of evolution from out of a system which seems to be deterministic in nature.

Again, that is not the point. Which is, there is no reason, presently, to assume science has the ability to figure this out.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, I don't know for sure, but from what you have quoted of him that is not how I interpret what he said. He disavows fatalism, which to my thinking is the same as hard determinism. The way I read him is that though we may have freedom to choose, those choices are still somewhat dependent upon preceding causes. But again, it isn't known one way or the other with certainty, it isn't proven, and hard determinism may well be the case if we restrict ourselves to the cause and effect nature of physics which at this point, as far as I know, is all that we have to go on.

Tass in this thread claims that he is a hard determinist. To quote: Personally, I hold to the Hard Determinist line as espoused by Hawking and others, because it makes best sense of the known facts.

[JimL]

No, the point is what makes you think science has the last word on this, or can even solve the problem.

We think that science has the last word, because that is the purpose of science, to keep us from fooling ourselves. Whether or not science can or will solve the problem is another story, but belief alone can never do the trick, thats why its called "belief".

Again, that is not the point. Which is, there is no reason, presently, to assume science has the ability to figure this out.

Again seer, whether science figures it out, proves it with certainty one way or the other is besides the point, the fact of the matter is that if either free will or determinism is ever proven with certainty then it will be science that proves it. Until that happens you can believe what you want, but at this point you, as well as i, are on the losing side of the argument. Subjective beliefs are of little consequence in an attack on science.

Tass in this thread claims that he is a hard determinist. To quote: Personally, I hold to the Hard Determinist line as espoused by Hawking and others, because it makes best sense of the known facts.

Okay, so be it then, and perhaps he is correct since as of yet we have no hard evidence to the contrary, evidence that shows how freedom might have emerged from out of deterministic processes. I haven't read enough on the subject myself to overcome the intuitive feeling of free will that I have and so am not yet convinced either way. But the hard evidence does, so far as I can tell, point to determinism and so any argument against it at this point is purely subjective, not evidence based, which again is a meager weapon to use against science.

[Tassman]

Where there are in theory, a hundred equally valid choices available, but the person is so constrained by background factors (many of them perhaps unknown to him) that only two choices can be considered viable, that person is still capable of exercising free will.
The fact that I can't walk from here to New York doesn't mean I don't have free will - it's just that an ocean is in the way.

A person has two identical tasty items presented to him, and he is invited to take one: most commonly, he'll choose the one that is closest to his dominant hand. That doesn't mean he was prevented from exercising free will - it means he decided to do what came naturally.

Subjects in some of the more complex experiments declare that they have made a decision to take a given action. The researchers decide that the subjects are mistaken.... I find that kind of interesting. Maybe the researchers don't know what a decision looks like.

[Tassman]

So you do have control over what you believe and how you process stimuli?

We are an integral part of the interactive process within the universe. We can't control the universe nor our place in it because we are not separate from it; we're part of its very fabric.

If I were to hazard a guess I would say this happened between 10-13,000 years ago

Really! At what specific moment did this "self-awareness" suddenly occur? Was this when God created Adam and Eve? Or was it a gradual process, i.e. just a “little bit of self-awareness” at a time – to quote your silly remark below.

when we separated from other animals with an explosion of architecture, art, language, writing, an understanding of numbers, a belief in Divinity, and afterlife, etc...

We have never “separated from the other animals”. It is sheer arrogance to think that we are somehow different from them in kind. The precursors of everything we regard as uniquely human are to be found in our primate cousins. Humans are no different in kind to our fellow primates, just cleverer.

Really? Can you prove that it was incremental?

Yes! Evolution is established fact and Natural Selection functions via incremental changes. There’s no doubt about this.

What does a little bit of self-awareness look like Tass?

Rather like the glimmerings of self-awareness we first detect in infants as they slowly become cognizant of themselves as distinct from their surroundings.

To Jim:

Why should I or anyone be restricted by what science can or can not explain?

Because only scientific methodology can empirically verify the facts of the natural universe, that’s why.

Science can not explain why, even in principle, consciousness arose.

Of course it can. “Consciousness arose” for the same reason all our other naturally selected qualities arose, namely because it was useful for survival.

Yet we know it is a fact. But the point was that Tass does believe in hard determinism - that all our choices are predetermined, there is no room for freedom of any kind.

Indeed! But NOT what you wrongly think Determinism is. Your version of it (which you persist in erroneously attributing to me) is synonymous with Fatalism. But we are not the mindless victims of Fate passively awaiting our destiny, which is your mistaken understanding of Determinism; that's Fatalism. With Determinism our deliberations, choices and efforts are an integral part of the causal process of the universe. Each interacts with the other.

[seer]

Again seer, whether science figures it out, proves it with certainty one way or the other is besides the point, the fact of the matter is that if either free will or determinism is ever proven with certainty then it will be science that proves it. Until that happens you can believe what you want, but at this point you, as well as i, are on the losing side of the argument. Subjective beliefs are of little consequence in an attack on science.

Is your subjective experience of consciousness evidence for consciousness? Let me quote one of Tass' favorites Sam Harris:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world. Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to.

Get it Jim, there is no evidence in the physical world for consciousness except our subjective experience of consciousness. Now I bet you will maintain that your conscious experience is a fact even though it is subjective. So why can't my subjective experience of freedom be real evidence for free will?

[seer]

We are an integral part of the interactive process within the universe. We can't control the universe nor our place in it because we are not separate from it; we're part of its very fabric.

So you agree that you have no control over what you believe - whether true or not.

We have never “separated from the other animals”. It is sheer arrogance to think that we are somehow different from them in kind. The precursors of everything we regard as uniquely human are to be found in our primate cousins. Humans are no different in kind to our fellow primates, just cleverer.

No Tass, we are light years ahead of any other animal - show me other primates in the wild that have even a basic writing system or primitive art.

Rather like the glimmerings of self-awareness we first detect in infants as they slowly become cognizant of themselves as distinct from their surroundings.

Even with a basic or primitive form self-awareness you still have to pass from not having that ability to having that ability. And you can not point to when that happened or why. Or why it was necessary for survival.

Of course it can. “Consciousness arose” for the same reason all our other naturally selected qualities arose, namely because it was useful for survival.

Remember Tass, I was quoting Harris on the principle thing:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

And your claim is completely wrong, consciousness is not necessary for survival, the vast majority of creatures survive just fine without it.

Indeed! But NOT what you wrongly think Determinism is. Your version of it (which you persist in erroneously attributing to me) is synonymous with Fatalism. But we are not the mindless victims of Fate passively awaiting our destiny, which is your mistaken understanding of Determinism; that's Fatalism. With Determinism our deliberations, choices and efforts are an integral part of the causal process of the universe. Each interacts with the other.

Then you agree that you have no control over what you believe - true or not - correct?

[shunyadragon]

No, the point is what makes you think science has the last word on this, or can even solve the problem.

Claims of the 'Last word' is vary revealing problem from the perspective of extreme claims from the religious or scientific perspective. At present, the two extreme views on human will are represented in religious agendas, either 'no free will' from ie the Calvinist perspective, or a version of 'libertarian free will' common among many Protestant beliefs. The other view being presented here is the extreme determinism from the scientific perspective. The reality is neither of these views have the 'last word' as claimed. The jury is still out, because of the complexity of the human decision making process. I believe JimL has described these problems of taking extreme positions.

Science' of course, does not represent the 'last word,' but nonetheless science is continually making strong well grounded advances in understanding the brain and the nature of our will decision making process, and how evolution plays a role. At present the extreme versions of libertarian free will do not reflect the evidence we have at present.