A Plea for Understanding

[shunyadragon]

Good.... So this idea that free will is an illusion is certainly coming from science.

No, Calvinism long ago also rejects 'Free Will.'

And you are completely wrong about John Dylan Haynes, from Nova:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insiden...t-have-it.html

You may be right about Haynes, but not Adina Roskies. Read further in the article.

Few scientists are convinced that this is the death knell for free will, though. Marcel Brass, of the University of Ghent, Belgium, points out that the 60% figure is not that much better than chance, but adds, "It shows our decisions are influenced by stuff that happens in our brain before we decide. But it is not showing our decisions are completely pre-determined." Jeff Miller, of the University of Otago in New Zealand, agrees: "Finding that brain activity predicts a decision does not undermine free will." He explained the brain activity used to make the prediction could just be a leaning towards one choice or another, and that the final decision could still have been made consciously.

Today we are learning more about how the brain prepares our body to perform actions. At the very least we know as Marcel Brass said, some "stuff" happens in our heads before we are aware of it happening. Some take this as evidence against free will as the cause of our actions, and some do not feel O.K to go that far yet. As technology improves we can predict with more accuracy what that "stuff" might be telling us, but as Haynes noted there is a difference between finding brain patterns that are predictive of our actions and ones that determine our actions. It will be a long time before we have a definite answer as to how exactly real-life decisions, which have greater importance than deciding to press a button, work.

The reference in Scientific American still stands. The jury is still out on the view of Free Will from the Scientific perspective.





BS Shuny, according to the above Nova quote. And you are just playing word games again. If free will is an illusion, then determinism is all that is left - if you have another option then please present it.[/QUOTE]

[firstfloor]

A Turing test for Free Will: Seth Lloyd knows what he's talking about. You can get a pdf download at this website:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225

[seer]

No, Calvinism long ago also rejects 'Free Will.'

Yes, but Calvinists don't really have influence today. These present ideas are coming from science.

You may be right about Haynes, but not Adina Roskies. Read further in the article.

The reference in Scientific American still stands. The jury is still out on the view of Free Will from the Scientific perspective.

Not the point Shuny, the point is that it is scientists (science) that are saying that free will is an illusion and, like Haynes said, that it is all deterministic.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but Calvinists don't really have influence today. These present ideas are coming from science.




Not the point Shuny, the point is that it is scientists (science) that are saying that free will is an illusion and, like Haynes said, that it is all deterministic.

Again and again and again, NOT ALL scientists in the appropriate field DO NIOT support that no 'Free Will' exists.

Again, Calvinists were by far the first that supported Divine Determinism and no Free Will, regardless of whether you feel they are influential or not. Arminianism vs Calvinism remains an issue between churches in Christianity. Your wrong that some scientist were the first to propose no free will. The issue remains that it divides Christianity. Actually in Arminianism God has fore knowledge of those that will select to be saved by Free Will, so what good is 'Free Will'?

[JohnnyP]

Ascending into Heaven and descending into Hell, as Jesus is described as doing, is hardly the way to convey those realms occupy the same space.

Or it could be that your Christian teleology has adapted to what we know about the sky and beyond.

These would be symbolism of higher/lower dimensions, rather than going into literal bottomless pits in the Earth, or clouds into Heaven like the Giant's Kingdom in Jack and the Beanstalk. I'm no scientist and not saying this refers to Heaven/Hell or that it is even accurate, but it somewhat illustrates:

Theoretical physicist Oskar Klein later revised the theory, proposing that the fourth dimension was merely curled up, while the other three spatial dimensions are extended. In other words, the fourth dimension is there, only it's rolled up and unseen, a little like a fully retracted tape measure. Furthermore, it would mean that every point in our three-dimensional world would have an additional fourth spatial dimension rolled away inside it. -How Stuff Works

How have angels helped you and demons tried to foil you? Maybe our experiences are similar.

In a general way I've experienced a lot of coincidences and strange things that are evidence to me of both, others may not see it that way and chalk it up to natural occurrence, imagination, etc. Sometimes the following experience with an utterly evil force, then a godly force taking control of me and casting it away, as if I was not speaking but God's power was speaking through me:

People also experience, sense or see a presence around them during their paralyzed state. Fear grips them and some of them have said that a demonic force was out to possess their soul or was trying to crush or smother them. -Sleep paralysis

Once coming out of that to see a demon sitting in the corner of my room laughing at me...I believe it was real, but admit the possibility these may only be realistic nightmares, even if I don't think so.

IOW, the Father knew that he was creating a food chain with disease and calamity built into the system.

I think both Father and Son knew that, yes.

Which is interesting in the context of demons tasked with foiling humans. I sometimes wonder if some Christians truly understand the implications of this behind-the-scenes war for souls.

My impression is that some Christians don't really believe angels and demons are active in the world, or if they are, their influence is minimal (SEE THIS THREAD). Either that or they don't want to be labeled as nuts by discussing it.

JohnnyP, apologies if it sounds like I'm making sharp cracks. I might be. I'm going through an ordeal with a family member who is Christian whose teleology has affected part of the family, and it affected the tone of my previous post. Again, apologies.

I didn't sense that tone but thanks, no problem.

[seer]

Again and again and again, NOT ALL scientists in the appropriate field DO NIOT support that no 'Free Will' exists.

Again Shuny you are the one who took me to task for bringing up the idea of determinism - when it is the scientists themselves that are using these terms, and suggesting that free will is an illusion. And I never said that all scientists agree, all scientists seldom agree on anything. Just that these ideas, like free will being an illusion, or that we are deterministic beings, are coming from science.

[Tassman]

Again,

Calvinists were by far the first that supported Divine Determinism and no Free Will,

regardless of whether you feel they are influential or not. Arminianism vs Calvinism remains an issue between churches in Christianity. Your wrong that some scientist were the first to propose no free will. The issue remains that it divides Christianity. Actually in Arminianism God has fore knowledge of those that will select to be saved by Free Will, so what good is 'Free Will'?

Actually, well before Calvin, Augustine in the 5th century didn’t leave much room for free will either: “By the grace of God” someone accepts the Gospel and is thereby saved”. Very similar to the Calvinist doctrine that God extends grace and gives salvation only to the chosen, which is the basis of many denominations today, including e.g. the Presbyterians.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny you are the one who took me to task for bringing up the idea of determinism - when it is the scientists themselves that are using these terms, and suggesting that free will is an illusion. And I never said that all scientists agree, all scientists seldom agree on anything. Just that these ideas, like free will being an illusion, or that we are deterministic beings, are coming from science.

Yes, of course, I am taking you to task on you views on the idea of determinism. By the way 95+% of all scientist agree fully on evolution. It has been well documented the determinism was believed in Calvinism long before some recent scientists proposed it today.

[seer]

Yes, of course, I am taking you to task on you views on the idea of determinism.

But it is not me that is bring these ideas us. It is the scientists.

[shunyadragon]

But it is not me that is bring these ideas us. It is the scientists.

I am not saying it is you, but your view is in error. The view that there is no 'Free Will' is first a religious view as old at least Augustine, and later defined as Calvinism. Some scientists and philosophers today support absolute determinism and others do not. It is not necessarily an atheist thing either,

Originally Posted by David Hayward

"How does Benjamin Libet's experiments provide evidence against Free will?"

The philosopher Daniel Dennett is a hard eliminative materialist who has written a book called "Consciousness Explained" but which critics have apparently mockingly re-titled "Consciousness Ignored" and "Consciousness Explained Away"; and he is also a prominent New Atheist. These are reasons why we might expect him to conclude from the Libet experiment what Alec Welsh could not be budged from, namely the denial of free will; but Dennett does no such thing, and in his book, "Freedom Evolves" argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Benjamin Libet's experiments supposedly demonstrating the non-existence of conscious volition.

So a prominent hard-core eliminative materialist acknowledges the evidence is weak.

[seer]

I am not saying it is you, but your view is in error. The view that there is no 'Free Will' is first a religious view as old at least Augustine, and later defined as Calvinism. Some scientists and philosophers today support absolute determinism and others do not. It is not necessarily an atheist thing either,

Yes, and all the church fathers until Augustine (some 400 years) believed in free will - when they spoke about the subject. As the vast majority of Christians do today. But in the present culture these ideas are coming primarily from science. I don't see Calvinists being quoted in these popular publications.

[David Hayward]

I'm very happy to add my voice to shunyadragon's, to support what I consider his reasonable and moderate position in this thread.

Like him, I think it is a mistake to assume that those who are locked into the extreme position that is free-will-denying Scientism speak for scientists in general; or to assume that scientists speak with the same voice: they don't, and they don't.

[seer]

I'm very happy to add my voice to shunyadragon's, to support what I consider his reasonable and moderate position in this thread.

Like him, I think it is a mistake to assume that those who are locked into the extreme position that is free-will-denying Scientism speak for scientists in general; or to assume that scientists speak with the same voice: they don't, and they don't.

But I never claimed that all scientists hold this view. Only that this view, in this present time, is being put out there by scientists - and some very popular scientists like Sam Harris.

[David Hayward]

I can agree with that, seer, but can also agree with shunyadragon:

It has been well documented the determinism was believed in Calvinism long before some recent scientists proposed it today.

Are you guys arguing past each other?

[shunyadragon]

I can agree with that, seer, but can also agree with shunyadragon:

Are you guys arguing past each other?

I do not think so. You have to follow the original series of posts. The problem is a little more fundamental in seer's view that the Mechanistic biological determinism of evolution science cannot explain the possibility of Free Will, therefore . . . He may be apparently shifting his argument (a little?) from his original position, but I doubt it.

Whag, I want to flesh out this idea of freedom of thought a bit more. You are an evolutionist correct? You don't believe in a God or an immaterial soul - right? How can free thought exist in your world view? Are we not then biologically determined in how we respond to stimuli and think or come to our conclusions? Where is the freedom in that?

Actually, those scientists that propose no 'Free Will' will obviously not cite religious Christian sources for any support, but the Calvinist view is still very much a part of the Protestant view of Free Will.