What Is Man?

[seer]

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.

Except if hard determinism is true it would undermine all human rationality, including the belief in hard determinism. It is self defeating.

[shunyadragon]

Except if hard determinism is true it would undermine all human rationality, including the belief in hard determinism. It is self defeating.

I do not endorse hard determinism.

[JimL]

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

Consciousness and will are not things in themselves. But the question is not whether ones subjective feelings of consciousness or free will exist, they do, the question is whether or not those subjective feelings correlate with reality. The answer to the former is obvious, you are conscious. The answer to the latter is not, and so far the scientific evidence contradicts the subjective feelings that we have for free will.


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

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?

Because, as above, unlike for that of consciousness, there is evidence concerning the will, and the evidence contradicts the subjective feeling of it being free. Besides seer, as Tass has pointed out, and as i tried to convey in a previous post, hard determinism or not, ones will is not entirely free. It is dependent upon previous causes. You would not be the very same you had you been raised under different circumstances. You would not necessarily have the same beliefs. Environment and nurture are causes that precede that which has become your brain.

[Tassman]

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

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.

Nonsense!

For nearly a million years we were subsistence Hunter/Gathers and very similar to the bonobos and chimpanzees (with whom we share a common ancestor) in every respect. The difference is our higher intelligence has enabled us to slowly develop beyond our simian cousins. We have never

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.

Really! So when does the baby pass from not having self awareness to having that ability? Given that several species are self aware it is reasonable to assume that it has a useful survival advantage, otherwise it would have been bred out.

AND You didn't answer at what specific moment did "self-awareness" suddenly occur, given that you reject the fact of incremental change over aeons. Was it when God created Adam and Eve? When? [U] Please answer this question; you've been asked many times. [U]

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

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

Not "completely wrong"

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

not governed by by the implacable natural laws of the universe. Do you really think this likely or possible?

Of course you are entitled to believe that a deity intervened at some point and suspended the natural laws in order to insert Free-Will into Adam and Eve and their successors, but without a shred of evidence other than Bronze Age mythology, why would anyone believe you?

[Tassman]

Except if hard determinism is true it would undermine all human rationality, including the belief in hard determinism. It is self defeating.

[tabibito]

If your actions are wholly constrained by pre-existing conditions, what you will do has been pre-determined - absolutely. Hard determinism would make fatalism undeniable.
If you are arguing that fatalism is invalid, you are arguing that there is at least some latitude for the exercise of free will, however limited it may be.

[seer]

Consciousness and will are not things in themselves. But the question is not whether ones subjective feelings of consciousness or free will exist, they do, the question is whether or not those subjective feelings correlate with reality. The answer to the former is obvious, you are conscious. The answer to the latter is not, and so far the scientific evidence contradicts the subjective feelings we have for free will.

But the point is Jim nothing in science has conclusively shut the door on freedom of the will. Show me what scientific study conclusively does so. So I am perfectly justified in holding to my position. The other point, again, if science can not even account for one of the major attributes of a human being, consciousness, why should I believe that they have a real lock on the human brain and what we can or can not do?

[seer]

No I don’t as you well know. I repeat, yet again: This is over-simplification to the point of meaninglessness!

“Determinism might imply that our choices and efforts have earlier sufficient causes; it does not imply that we don't make choices or that our choices and efforts are causally impotent. Determinism is consistent with the fact that our deliberation, choices and efforts are part of the causal process…” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Arguments for Incompatibilism),

We are a part of a determined universe, not separate from it, and our choices affect it just as the natural laws affect us. It’s an interactive process. You night not like it but you’re stuck with it and no amount of escapist religious dogma can alter this fact.

Just answer the question Tass, do you agree that you have no control over what you believe - whether true or not?

You're flogging a dead horse, seer. Very few outside of religious dogmatists recognize Libertarian Free-Will as being possible. We live in a “Determined” universe; this is beyond doubt. The only issue is whether or not a limited degree of Free-Will can be compatible with it. Most say no. Some Compatabilists, e.g. Dennett say a little is possible. But even he recognizes that Free-Will in the classic sense is largely impossible. And that’s it. Your religious alternative is not fact-based; it’s merely a faith statement. Hence, Determinism is not subject to debate, seer; just the degree of it.

So you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not. Correct?

[tabibito]

So you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not. Correct?

Near as I can tell, he still is determined to believe it.





Oh, you meant a different kind of determined?

[seer]

Near as I can tell, he still is determined to believe it.

Yes, but he will not give a direct answer - he knows that would undermine his whole argument, human rationality, in any classic sense, is out the window.

[JimL]

But the point is Jim nothing in science has conclusively shut the door on freedom of the will. Show me what scientific study conclusively does so. So I am perfectly justified in holding to my position.

No, determinism isn't scientifically conclusive, specifically with regards to the will, but there is objective evidence that denies free will, and no such evidence allowing it. The only evidence so far, if you want to call it that, for free will, is the subjective feeling of having it. Subjective feelings are not reliable as evidence though. Do you "subjectively feel" as though you are orbiting the sun at 30 kilometers a second. Of course not, but you are! The Schroedinger equation, which describes the wavefunction of the universe, is deterministic, Physics itself is deterministic, and other than your subjective feeling of freedom, there is nothing in wavefunction or in physics that implies freedom. You don't have to believe the science of course, but it is certainly more reliable as evidence than are your subjective feelings.

The other point, again, if science can not even account for one of the major attributes of a human being, consciousness, why should I believe that they have a real lock on the human brain and what we can or can not do?

Because the scientific evidence is not specific to the human brain, it is universal. The Schroedinger equation defines the wavefunction of the entire universe, your brain being a part thereof, and it descibes it as being deterministic in nature.

[Tassman]

If your actions are wholly constrained by pre-existing conditions, what you will do has been pre-determined - absolutely. Hard determinism would make fatalism undeniable.

"Fatalism" is the passive acceptance of what befalls us. "Determinism" is the interactive participation in the processes of the causally determined universe of which we are a part.

If you are arguing that fatalism is invalid, you are arguing that there is at least some latitude for the exercise of free will, however limited it may be.

[Tassman]

Just answer the question Tass, do you agree that you have no control over what you believe - whether true or not?

“Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well”- Hawking. Thus, although we feel as though we have control over what we do and believe and act as though we do, in actuality we don't; no more than our Bonobo and Chimpanzee cousins do.

NOW, for the umpteenth time, YOU just answer the question: Given that you disagree with the above, WHEN and HOW during the evolutionary journey from blue/green algae through to us Homo sapiens did we manage to extricate ourselves from this implacable causal chain? Unless you have an answer you don't have an argument.

So you were determined to believe the above - whether true or not. Correct?

What is “true” is in accordance with fact and reality. And scientific “fact” supports the "reality" of a Causally Determined universe with no place for the notion of Libertarian Free-Will. Your "feeling" that you have the latter is a deceptive illusion.

The Deterministic argument can be demolished only if you provide evidence that the human animal has somehow bypassed the natural laws which apply to every other aspect of the universe and somehow acquired autonomous Libertarian Free-Will. This would make Homo sapiens utterly unique in not being governed by the natural laws of the universe. So, at what specific moment did this unlikely event occur; was it when God created Adam and Eve? WHEN? You've been asked endless times and never given an answer.

[tabibito]

“Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well”- Hawking

The Deterministic argument can be demolished only if you provide evidence that the human animal has somehow bypassed the natural laws which apply to every other aspect of the universe and somehow acquired autonomous Libertarian Free-Will.

In short - the difference between "fatalism" and "determinism" lies strictly in the choice {oops: predetermined use} of the word used to describe the phenomenon.

The Deterministic argument can be demolished only if you provide evidence that the human animal has somehow bypassed the natural laws which apply to every other aspect of the universe and somehow acquired autonomous Libertarian Free-Will.

Given that this argument is concordant with Calvinist perceptions, the answer is obvious. In the ordinary course, humans don't break free of "determinism" - The preaching of the gospel disrupts the chain of causality and makes it possible to submit to Christ. Assuming that the person takes advantage of the opportunity, he is no longer bound by the limitations imposed by the physical universe.
However, I consider that the existence of intelligence at any level does mean that the effects of causality are not absolute in the first place. Strong yes, but not absolute.

[seer]

No, determinism isn't scientifically conclusive, specifically with regards to the will, but there is objective evidence that denies free will, and no such evidence allowing it. The only evidence so far, if you want to call it that, for free will, is the subjective feeling of having it. Subjective feelings are not reliable as evidence though. Do you "subjectively feel" as though you are orbiting the sun at 30 kilometers a second. Of course not, but you are! The Schroedinger equation, which describes the wavefunction of the universe, is deterministic, Physics itself is deterministic, and other than your subjective feeling of freedom, there is nothing in wavefunction or in physics that implies freedom. You don't have to believe the science of course, but it is certainly more reliable as evidence than are your subjective feelings.

No Jim, I don't have to believe that science is even close to understanding these things. I mean how many times have we seen science change its view. And the other point I have been ranting on - if determinism is correct human rationality is out the window. For instance did you write the above because it is true or because you were predetermined to think that way - true or not? Determinism colors everything - and not for the better.