What Is Man?

[JimL]

And? Where is your conclusive evidence that humans don't have free will? And even if "science" came to such a conclusion how can you know that it won't change that conclusion in the future? So as far as I can see, I'm perfectly justified in trusting my subjective experience at this point.

I never said that it was conclusive seer, as a matter of fact i said just the opposite. Most would tell you that all scientific conclusions are theoretical and not proof. All i am saying is that the only evidence that we have at present points to determinisn. Personally, I am not yet convinced and believe that there may be something we are missing in the underlying quantum nature of existence wherein free will is allowed to emerge from out of an otherwise detemined universe. But I wouldn't call that a justified belief, there is nothing so far by which to justify it and subjective feelings are, as i've pointed out previously, totally unreliable. "You subjectively feel as if you are on a stationary earth and yet you are spinning and orbiting the sun at 30 kilometers a second." In other words your subjective feelings, our subjective fellings, are not a reliable source with which to justify your beliefs.

That makes no sense. It doesn't matter "who" develops it, because everything the "who" knows was also predetermined. And if hard determinism is correct, rationality is not somewhat dependent upon preceding causes, it is completely dependent on said causes. You have no control over what you believe, or how you process stimuli or information, ever - whether it is true or not.

Because ones mind is dependent upon preceding causes does not make the information that he acquires or the use that he puts it to thusly irrational. One can be predetermined to think rationally, just as he can be predetermined to think irrationally. Just because the information that one acquires is predetermined doesn't undermine or negate its rational or irrational nature.
In other words rational behavior would look the same and be the same whether it be the result of determinism or free will.

Btw seer, i am not convinced either way myself as of yet, and like I said, I do believe that there may be a mystery concerning free will that may yet be hidden from us in the still not yet understood mysteries of the quantum world. If free will exists, i think that it is only there that it will be discovered.

[Tassman]

But Tass, how can we even have a discussion if you are correct? We have no control over what we think, believe or say - true or not. It is all predetermined and therefore meaningless.

More glib prevarications!

It is YOU asserting that we have autonomous Free-Will, as opposed to the almost universal acceptance of Determinism as being integral to our condition. So when did we acquire this alleged Free-Will of yours? Answer the question. You are the one making the assertion so the burden of proof rests with you.

To seer:

... subjective feelings are, as i've pointed out previously, totally unreliable. "You subjectively feel as if you are on a stationary earth and yet you are spinning and orbiting the sun at 30 kilometers a second." In other words your subjective feelings, our subjective feelings, are not a reliable source with which to justify your beliefs.

[Tassman]

And by the definitions that you have been promoting, determinism shows that "choices" don't exist. By the definitions that you have been promoting, everything is dictated by, not influenced by, a causal chain.

Not so. Choices do exist and I've said so many times:

it does not imply that we don't make choices or that our choices and efforts are causally impotent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This is a statement of belief that has a body of evidential support that is in turn subject to interpretation.

No, it is a statement of demonstrable fact that autonomous Free-Will could only be exercised is by functioning outside the laws of nature. This is not subject to interpretation. If you assert otherwise you need to provide verifiable evidence of how Free-Will could be exercised within a determined universe.

No dispassionate reading of my statements could have led to the conclusion "uniquely in the entire universe". Nor could any dispassionate reading of my statements have led to "causal determinism cease to play a role." I have stated that determinism has a strong influence. I have stated that the Christian is released to a far greater extent hmmm. my actual wording maybe wasn't what it should have been from the influence of causes than would otherwise be the case.

The claims of any religion cannot overcome the laws of nature in a determined universe when there is no substantiated evidence to support such claims. The bolded bit above is a bald assertion, i.e. a Logical Fallacy.

I have also stated that intelligence itself makes possible some circumvention of the causal chain, as evidenced by the fact that intelligence makes responses to, and some influence of, the environment possible.

That you deny that the evidence provided doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist. The evidence that free will does not exist is no more substantive than the evidence to the contrary. Even the researchers providing that evidence don't claim that it is substantive (reasonably conclusive).

It is considerably more substantive than the evidence to the contrary for which there is no substantive evidence at all.

Hawking: - The Grand Design.

Your faith is vested in science and your ability to understand the findings of science. Yes, I am entitled to my faith, just as you are to yours.

[seer]

More glib prevarications!

It is YOU asserting that we have autonomous Free-Will, as opposed to the almost universal acceptance of Determinism as being integral to our condition. So when did we acquire this alleged Free-Will of yours? Answer the question. You are the one making the assertion so the burden of proof rests with you.

1. Well no Tass, the burden is on you. I have been trying to get a straight answer for a while now. If you are correct how can we even have a rational discussion since we have no control over what we believe - whether true or not. How is rationality possible?

2. Don't get me wrong, I see why your hard determinism is attractive. One can justify all manner or nasty, immoral behavior. After all if we don't have control over our thoughts and behavior how can one be morally culpable?

3. And how many times must I tell you. I'm a Christian and a dualist, I am not limited to seeing the human person from your narrow, materialistic point of view.

[seer]

I never said that it was conclusive seer, as a matter of fact i said just the opposite. Most would tell you that all scientific conclusions are theoretical and not proof. All i am saying is that the only evidence that we have at present points to determinisn. Personally, I am not yet convinced and believe that there may be something we are missing in the underlying quantum nature of existence wherein free will is allowed to emerge from out of an otherwise detemined universe. But I wouldn't call that a justified belief, there is nothing so far by which to justify it and subjective feelings are, as i've pointed out previously, totally unreliable. "You subjectively feel as if you are on a stationary earth and yet you are spinning and orbiting the sun at 30 kilometers a second." In other words your subjective feelings, our subjective fellings, are not a reliable source with which to justify your beliefs.

OK, we may not be that far off. But you can't discount the subjective as much as you do. We have been over this before - the only way you know that you are self aware is because of your subjective experience. The only way you know that the outside world corresponds to the perceptions in your mind is through subjective experience. As a matter of fact, everything you know or experience is filtered through this subjective experience. You/we have nothing else.

Subjective: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

Because ones mind is dependent upon preceding causes does not make the information that he acquires or the use that he puts it to thusly irrational. One can be predetermined to think rationally, just as he can be predetermined to think irrationally. Just because the information that one acquires is predetermined doesn't undermine or negate its rational or irrational nature.

Two points:

1. You could come to true conclusion, but not because they are true, but because you were determined to. And if how you process stimuli and information is predetermined then you could never distinguish between false or true conclusions since one could just as easily be predetermined to believe that false things are true. How would you know?

2. If we are predetermined to think as we do - what did the programming? Well, at bottom, it was the laws of nature. But those laws care nothing for truth or rationality. It is like saying that the laws of nature could create a working calculator. Darwin himself understood this problem, and the problem has not disappeared since his time:

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005),

Btw seer, i am not convinced either way myself as of yet, and like I said, I do believe that there may be a mystery concerning free will that may yet be hidden from us in the still not yet understood mysteries of the quantum world. If free will exists, i think that it is only there that it will be discovered.

Well Jim, since I am a Christian and dualist I do not have to wait for science to confirm my subjective experience. ; )

[tabibito]

The claims of any religion cannot overcome the laws of nature in a determined universe when there is no substantiated evidence to support such claims. The bolded bit above is a bald assertion, i.e. a Logical Fallacy.

For a person who has not observed occasions when access to free will has in fact been blocked to make such a claim is of course understandable.

[JimL]

OK, we may not be that far off. But you can't discount the subjective as much as you do. We have been over this before - the only way you know that you are self aware is because of your subjective experience. The only way you know that the outside world corresponds to the perceptions in your mind is through subjective experience. As a matter of fact, everything you know or experience is filtered through this subjective experience. You/we have nothing else.

[I]Subjective: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

Yes seer, and there in lies the problem, the objective world is "filtered" and we are not subjectively privy to its secrets without scientific testing. This is the only way we can know the objective thing in itself. At one time it was thought, and had you lived at the time you to would have subjectively believed, that the earth was flat and stationary, it still today subjectively feels that way, but we now know that it isn't because of science. Subjective feelings could end up being correct, but again, they are not a very good source of evidence which is why we test them.

Two points:

1. You could come to true conclusion, but not because they are true, but because you were determined to. And if how you process stimuli and information is predetermined then you could never distinguish between false or true conclusions since one could just as easily be predetermined to believe that false things are true. How would you know?

Yes our conclusions would be determined, but they would be no less of a true conclusion due to their being determined. The preceding causes could lead you in either direction, but in the end whether determined to do so or not we test our conclusions which is how we either confirm or deny the truth of those conclusions. In other words the truth is there to be found and can be confirmed whether or not we were determined by preceding causes to confirm it.

2. If we are predetermined to think as we do - what did the programming? Well, at bottom, it was the laws of nature. But those laws care nothing for truth or rationality. It is like saying that the laws of nature could create a working calculator. Darwin himself understood this problem, and the problem has not disappeared since his time:

I would suggest that the laws of nature don't have to care about the truth seer, they embody the truth, we just discover it.

Well Jim, since I am a Christian and dualist I do not have to wait for science to confirm my subjective experience. ; )

No, you don't have to, but as one who cares for truth i think you would be well advised to follow the evidence. I don't think God would be upset with you for that.

[Tassman]

1. Well no Tass, the burden is on you. I have been trying to get a straight answer for a while now.

It is YOU making the positive assertion, namely that we have autonomous Free-Will - contrary to authoritative opinion. Therefore, as the one making the assertion, the burden of proof rests with you. So answer the oft repeated, as yet unanswered question: "At what point, during our evolutionary journey from blue/green algae through to Homo sapiens, did we extricate ourselves from the implacable causal chain of this deterministic universe?"

If you are correct how can we even have a rational discussion since we have no control over what we believe - whether true or not. How is rationality possible?

For the reasons already given many times but typically reduced by you to this glib, simplistic nonsense above.

Again, briefly: Stanford Encyclopaedia.

2. Don't get me wrong, I see why your hard determinism is attractive. One can justify all manner or nasty, immoral behavior. After all if we don't have control over our thoughts and behavior how can one be morally culpable?

I take snide Christian judgmentalism for granted. Do you really think my goal is to "justify all manner or nasty, immoral behavior"?

More to the point, scientific knowledge is not based upon what is

3. And how many times must I tell you. I'm a Christian and a dualist, I am not limited to seeing the human person from your narrow, materialistic point of view.

Your personal religious views are no argument any more than a worldview based on belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is. Subjective beliefs bereft of substantive evidence are unacceptable and readily dismissed as bunkum.

To Jim:

Well Jim, since I am a Christian and dualist I do not have to wait for science to confirm my subjective experience. ; )

You do if you want this subjective experience of yours to be accepted as reliable evidence, otherwise it is on a par with any delusional or brain-based so-called mystical experience. To quote your friend Richard Dawkins :

[Tassman]

For a person who has not observed occasions when access to free will has in fact been blocked to make such a claim is of course understandable.

Smug comments aside, you have offered no credible evidence that access to Free-Will is possible under any circumstances, other than unsubstantiated religion-based claims.

[seer]

Yes seer, and there in lies the problem, the objective world is "filtered" and we are not subjectively privy to its secrets without scientific testing. This is the only way we can know the objective thing in itself. At one time it was thought, and had you lived at the time you to would have subjectively believed, that the earth was flat and stationary, it still today subjectively feels that way, but we now know that it isn't because of science. Subjective feelings could end up being correct, but again, they are not a very good source of evidence which is why we test them.

Jim that doesn't change the fact that everything you/we know is subjectively filtered through your personal experience. It doesn't matter what "science" says, you personally have to subjectively process that information.

Yes our conclusions would be determined, but they would be no less of a true conclusion due to their being determined. The preceding causes could lead you in either direction, but in the end whether determined to do so or not we test our conclusions which is how we either confirm or deny the truth of those conclusions. In other words the truth is there to be found and can be confirmed whether or not we were determined by preceding causes to confirm it.

I don't think you grasp the gravity of this position. It doesn't matter how many times you test your conclusions if you are predetermined to believe that a false conclusion is true or that a true conclusion is false. There is no way to escape this Matrix.

I would suggest that the laws of nature don't have to care about the truth seer, they embody the truth, we just discover it.

So the laws of nature which do not care about truth correctly programmed us to discover truth? How does that work?

[seer]

It is YOU making the positive assertion, namely that we have autonomous Free-Will - contrary to authoritative opinion. Therefore, as the one making the assertion, the burden of proof rests with you. So answer the oft repeated, as yet unanswered question: "At what point, during our evolutionary journey from blue/green algae through to Homo sapiens, did we extricate ourselves from the implacable causal chain of this deterministic universe?"

Again, do you believe the above because it is true or because you were determined to?

For the reasons already given many times but typically reduced by you to this glib, simplistic nonsense above.

Again, briefly: “Determinism is consistent with the fact that our deliberation, choices and efforts are part of the causal process whereby our bodies move and cause further effects in the world.” Stanford Encyclopaedia.

That does not answer the question. I'm not claiming that you don't make decisions or choices, I'm asking how rationality is possible when we have no control over what we believe or the conclusions we come to. You have yet to show how that is possible.

I don’t get you wrong; I take snide Christian judgmentalism for granted. Do you really think my goal is to "justify all manner or nasty, immoral behavior"?

Why not? It follows that you can easily justify any immoral behavior. Perhaps that is your real motive, after all who knows what the laws of nature predetermined you to believe or think.

Your personal religious views are no argument any more than a worldview based on belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is. Subjective beliefs bereft of substantive evidence are unacceptable and readily dismissed as bunkum.

You can dismiss anything you like, it is meaningless since you have no choice in what you believe, or the conclusions you come to.

[seer]

Smug comments aside, you have offered no credible evidence that access to Free-Will is possible under any circumstances, other than unsubstantiated religion-based claims.

And you have offered no credible evidence for how rationality is possible if all our thoughts and conclusions are predetermined.

[tabibito]

Smug comments aside, you have offered no credible evidence that access to Free-Will is possible under any circumstances, other than unsubstantiated religion-based claims.

Neither have you - well except that you are advancing nothing other than faith-based, rather than religion-based, claims. You've ignored the study that does provide evidence for free will, and in declaring that there is no free will, you are claiming faith in your own abilities, greater than those of the researchers themselves, to properly assess the results of experiments that tend to support your faith-claims.

[JimL]

Jim that doesn't change the fact that everything you/we know is subjectively filtered through your personal experience. It doesn't matter what "science" says, you personally have to subjectively process that information.

The objective world exists whether human minds exist or not, human minds through the senses directly observe only the outward appearance of that world, not its inner nature, its inner nature is mathematical and it doesn't matter if we freely choose or are deterministically led to the knowledge concerning it, because in either case the knowledge gathered isn't made up in our minds, it comes to us from the outside. I'm not sure what the problem is that you are seeing in the fact that we have to subjectively process the nature of the external world, processing is not the same thing as making it up which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I don't think you grasp the gravity of this position. It doesn't matter how many times you test your conclusions if you are predetermined to believe that a false conclusion is true or that a true conclusion is false. There is no way to escape this Matrix.

Since the conclusions you come to are not dependent upon yourself, not self caused, but are dependent upon your experience and observations of the external reality then whether you are determined or freely come to your conlusions is irrelevant. The truth about the objective world isn't made up in your mind, the truth of the objective world resides in itself, which is where you find it, so you are not subjectively processing an internal image of your own, you are subjectively processing an external reality.

So the laws of nature which do not care about truth correctly programmed us to discover truth? How does that work?

Naturally through evolution. Its why we developed brains, to learn, to better understand the environment and survival.

[seer]

The objective world exists whether human minds exist or not, human minds through the senses directly observe only the outward appearance of that world, not its inner nature, its inner nature is mathematical and it doesn't matter if we freely choose or are deterministically led to the knowledge concerning it, because in either case the knowledge gathered isn't made up in our minds, it comes to us from the outside. I'm not sure what the problem is that you are seeing in the fact that we have to subjectively process the nature of the external world, processing is not the same thing as making it up which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Yes Jim, but the "outside" must be filtered or processed by the subjective mind. So yes reality exists, but you/we only know it be subjective experience. So when you suggest that the subjective is somehow untrustworthy then you must logically apply that to all experience, since all is subjective.

Since the conclusions you come to are not dependent upon yourself, not self caused, but are dependent upon your experience and observations of the external reality then whether you are determined or freely come to your conlusions is irrelevant. The truth about the objective world isn't made up in your mind, the truth of the objective world resides in itself, which is where you find it, so you are not subjectively processing an internal image of your own, you are subjectively processing an external reality.

That was not the point here. How do you know, or can you logically show, that the non-rational forces of nature didn't programme you to believe that false things are true. Or that true things are false.

Naturally through evolution. Its why we developed brains, to learn, to better understand the environment and survival.

That is an assumption. The forces of evolution did not create you to learn or understand, they could care less about learning or understanding.