“How would quantum physics prove that free will exists?”

Quantum is not static—it is always relative to two or more objects;

for us it is like interactions, described as nonexistence—-

physics described as existence—-

If you—know—your are looking at your screen,

you may be closer to free will than—-you—-think

Lois - 02 March 2013 10:32 AM

George - 02 March 2013 09:30 AM

The problem here is that we do decide if we’ll have a pizza or lasagna on the neurological level. I still don’t find the arcticle funny. But to each his own, I guess.

We only “decide” from experience and environment and perhaps from genetic influences.  A person who had never experienced either would probably not choose either.  If he did it would be a random choice.  The point iswe can’t consciously overcome other factors that would lead us to choose one or the other.

I wouldn’t drag consciousness into this; it doesn’t belong here—unless you know something that I don’t. As for the rest, I am not sure why you’re telling me this.

Now that I think of it, GdB, you don’t need to go to the atomic level to find that natural selection is not there. You can go higher instead of lower. Like Pinker, when he said that he didn’t care that his genes wanted to procreate since he chose (apparently, contrary to what his genes wanted) not to have children. See? He wasn’t naturally selected to end the billion-years-long path of geneticly successful reproduction, he chose to do so. It’s all about our wishes and beliefs, even natural selection. The only problem here is that both of you, that is Pinker and you, are maing stuff up. I know it feels more comfy to think you have free will of that you are not a screw-up (in the genetic way when it comes to Pinker), but it changes nothing. Pinker wasn’t naturally selected to be a father, and you’ll never be free to decide to have pizza, just like a calculator isn’t really free to decide that 1+1=2.

“How would quantum physics prove that free will exists?”

Quantum is two objects becoming one, philosophically then—-

Eternally/infinitely—-unknown/known—-nonexistence/existence

arnoldg - 02 March 2013 12:55 PM

“How would quantum physics prove that free will exists?”

Quantum is two objects becoming one, then—-

Eternally/infinitely—-unknown/known—-nonexistence/existence

That makes no sense.  I suspect you don’t understand quantum physics any more than you understand free will.

George - 02 March 2013 12:03 PM

Lois - 02 March 2013 10:32 AM

George - 02 March 2013 09:30 AM

The problem here is that we do decide if we’ll have a pizza or lasagna on the neurological level. I still don’t find the arcticle funny. But to each his own, I guess.

We only “decide” from experience and environment and perhaps from genetic influences.  A person who had never experienced either would probably not choose either.  If he did it would be a random choice.  The point iswe can’t consciously overcome other factors that would lead us to choose one or the other.

I wouldn’t drag consciousness into this; it doesn’t belong here—unless you know something that I don’t. As for the rest, I am not sure why you’re telling me this.

Do you mean a person can have free will without being conscious?

I added philosophically, thanks

George - 02 March 2013 12:25 PM

Now that I think of it, GdB, you don’t need to go to the atomic level to find that natural selection is not there. You can go higher instead of lower. Like Pinker, when he said that he didn’t care that his genes wanted to procreate since he chose (apparently, contrary to what his genes wanted) not to have children. See? He wasn’t naturally selected to end the billion-years-long path of geneticly successful reproduction, he chose to do so. It’s all about our wishes and beliefs, even natural selection. The only problem here is that both of you, that is Pinker and you, are maing stuff up. I know it feels more comfy to think you have free will of that you are not a screw-up (in the genetic way when it comes to Pinker), but it changes nothing. Pinker wasn’t naturally selected to be a father, and you’ll never be free to decide to have pizza, just like a calculator isn’t really free to decide that 1+1=2.

If Pinker “decided” not to have children it came from millions of factors he isn’t aware of.  It didn’t come to him consciously as a flash of light.  He’d like to think it was a free choice with no antecedents. That’s how the human mind and psyche work.  We think we’re in control, we want to be in control.  We are not.  So we pretend we are.

Beware of the semantics in Philosophy and Science

Lois - 02 March 2013 01:27 PM

George - 02 March 2013 12:03 PM

Lois - 02 March 2013 10:32 AM

George - 02 March 2013 09:30 AM

The problem here is that we do decide if we’ll have a pizza or lasagna on the neurological level. I still don’t find the arcticle funny. But to each his own, I guess.

We only “decide” from experience and environment and perhaps from genetic influences.  A person who had never experienced either would probably not choose either.  If he did it would be a random choice.  The point iswe can’t consciously overcome other factors that would lead us to choose one or the other.

I wouldn’t drag consciousness into this; it doesn’t belong here—unless you know something that I don’t. As for the rest, I am not sure why you’re telling me this.

Do you mean a person can have free will without being conscious?

I don’t think free will exists, so, again, not sure why you’re asking me this question.

George - 02 March 2013 02:27 PM

Lois - 02 March 2013 01:27 PM

George - 02 March 2013 12:03 PM

Lois - 02 March 2013 10:32 AM

George - 02 March 2013 09:30 AM

The problem here is that we do decide if we’ll have a pizza or lasagna on the neurological level. I still don’t find the arcticle funny. But to each his own, I guess.

We only “decide” from experience and environment and perhaps from genetic influences.  A person who had never experienced either would probably not choose either.  If he did it would be a random choice.  The point iswe can’t consciously overcome other factors that would lead us to choose one or the other.

I wouldn’t drag consciousness into this; it doesn’t belong here—unless you know something that I don’t. As for the rest, I am not sure why you’re telling me this.

Do you mean a person can have free will without being conscious?

I don’t think free will exists, so, again, not sure why you’re asking me this question.

The question wasn’t directed at you, specifically, but to everyone on the group, though you’re the one who said you wouldn’t drag consciousness into this.

George - 02 March 2013 09:30 AM

The problem here is that we do decide if we’ll have a pizza or lasagna on the neurological level. I still don’t find the arcticle funny. But to each his own, I guess.

That sounds the same as that the survival of an organism is decided on atomic level. It does not make any sense either.

George - 02 March 2013 12:25 PM

you’ll never be free to decide to have pizza, just like a calculator isn’t really free to decide that 1+1=2.

It is obvious from this sentence that you use another definition of free will than I do.

StephenLawrence - 02 March 2013 09:48 AM

George’s problem with free will is what it means to him is this: We could do otherwise in the actual situation in a way that makes us ultimately responsible for our choices.

And he finds any attempts to define it differently don’t ring true (for want of a better way of putting it).

This is true. But George’s problem is that he selectively applies the idea of higher order phenomena. The concept of free will gets its meaning in the context of actions, responsibility, motives, beliefs, persons, choice, coercion, etc etc. Trying to build a concept of free will, or to deny its existence, based on physics is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. In stating that we are causally determined by our neurological structures, he assumes there is no meaningful concept of free will. But he sticks to this one, naive and wrong definition of libertarian free will: that is the straw man he is attacking all the time.

Lois - 02 March 2013 10:34 AM

How would quantum physics prove that free will exists?

It was supposed to ‘break the causal chain’, which the concept of libertarian free will needs. As an example: according to Simon van der Meer free will is based on ‘the noise in the brain’. But of course quantum physics only has randomness on offer. And it is impossible to build a concept of free will based on the idea that you actions are (partially) random.

For heaven’s sake, GdB, are you telling me that using neuroscience to figure out why we go for pizza instead of lasagna is the same thing as looking at atoms to explain natural selection?

George - 03 March 2013 09:23 AM

For heaven’s sake, GdB, are you telling me that using neuroscience to figure out why we go for pizza instead of lasagna is the same thing as looking at atoms to explain natural selection?

In the sense that they are both nonsense. Or can you explain natural selection by referring to the way chemical bonds work?

And as usual you pick only one thing out of my postings, and leave the rest.

Looking for decision making at the neurological level is nonsense? Why? Because free will doesn’t exist at that level?

Why do you always end up sounding like the theists? Yeah, we don’t have scientific evidence that God exists, but there is the higher level of spiritual feeling, which is supposed to be the right level to look for God.