11 of 11
11
Free Will in theodicy
Posted: 17 June 2008 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 June 2008 12:39 AM

One wonders how it was ever invented, in that case.  Perhaps a common species of birds had a song that sounded just like “You-have-free-choice You-have-free-choice” and after early humans heard that song over a period of decades that’s what started the whole thing.

It’s no different to any other myth in this respect, we know of at least two reasons, one is to absolve God of responsibility for mans suffering and another is to justify retribuitive justice.

Seriously, if you believe what you’re saying then make a real (organized, step-by-step) proof of it.

I think perhaps you believe it’s impossible, They say you can’t prove a negative but I’ll have another go on the free will thread, as we’ve been off topic for some time.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 June 2008 12:39 AM

If you assume that one would want could not vary from one instance to another then you are assuming causal determinism.  I explain this to you over and over again but you keep right on doing it, while occasionally reminding me that you do not assume causal determinism.  Not very convincing.

I think a want could vary from one instance to another in a deterministic or a non deterministic universe, what I don’t believe is that change can take place without time passing.

We can’t make choices without time passing.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 June 2008 10:39 AM
Bryan - 17 June 2008 12:39 AM

If you assume that one would want could not vary from one instance to another then you are assuming causal determinism.  I explain this to you over and over again but you keep right on doing it, while occasionally reminding me that you do not assume causal determinism.  Not very convincing.

I think a want could vary from one instance to another in a deterministic or a non deterministic universe, what I don’t believe is that change can take place without time passing.

We can’t make choices without time passing.

There’s no need for that.

In terms of a possible-worlds scenario, what we’re supposing is that if we replayed the same segment of history over and over again from a certain point without the assumption of causal determinism then we could expect different outcomes, including (though not limited to) a different reasoning process in response to a given situation calling for a decision.

Time passes and decisions are made.  In one possible world the result might be A and in another ~A.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 June 2008 11:00 AM

In terms of a possible-worlds scenario, what we’re supposing is that if we replayed the same segment of history over and over again from a certain point without the assumption of causal determinism then we could expect different outcomes, including (though not limited to) a different reasoning process in response to a given situation calling for a decision.

I’ve been down this road too, the trouble with it, from your point of view, is if something else could or couldn’t happen, it looks equally reasonable to suppose we don’t have free will.

The other problem is we cannot replay the circumstances, we just can’t do it, so there can’t be a right answer, can there?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 June 2008 11:00 AM

Time passes and decisions are made.  In one possible world the result might be A and in another ~A.

Yes agreed but then you have to agree, for there to be a result or a selection (same thing I think) there must be a preceeding process, don’t you?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
StephenLawrence - 17 June 2008 11:48 AM
Bryan - 17 June 2008 11:00 AM

Time passes and decisions are made.  In one possible world the result might be A and in another ~A.

Yes agreed but then you have to agree, for there to be a result or a selection (same thing I think) there must be a preceeding process, don’t you?

Of course.

Just look at you, going step by step!  smile
This is almost as good as a formal proof!  I’m delighted you’ve adopted this tack.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2008 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6102
Joined  2006-12-20
Bryan - 17 June 2008 12:02 PM
StephenLawrence - 17 June 2008 11:48 AM
Bryan - 17 June 2008 11:00 AM

Time passes and decisions are made.  In one possible world the result might be A and in another ~A.

Yes agreed but then you have to agree, for there to be a result or a selection (same thing I think) there must be a preceeding process, don’t you?

Of course.

Just look at you, going step by step!  smile
This is almost as good as a formal proof!  I’m delighted you’ve adopted this tack.

Good, Ok then, can we agree on this?

We cannot be ultimately responsible for parts of the process that we do not select?

Stephen

P.s Bryan try and reply on t’other thread, I tried but gave up when my copy and paste didn’t work. In another possible world it did, apparently. I like this place and I know the mods have been V patient letting this conversation go on, on this thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 05:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Jackson - 15 June 2008 04:58 AM
GdB - 15 June 2008 02:12 AM

Hi Jackson,

You seem to equate chaotic with indeterminate. Is that correct? Isn’t there a difference between ‘non-predictable’ (= non deterministic?), chaotic, and (metaphyiscal) probabalistic, like in QM?

I firmly believe, that we can only be free in a deterministic world, otherwise my actions would be sheer coincidence, and as Doug said, my ‘movements’ would not be actions anymore. QM showing a ‘non-causal hole’ in nature has nothing to do with free will.

GdB

I am referring to [ “Chaos Theory” ]  which is both fully deterministic and also ‘non-predictable’ in practice because of the sensitivity to small perturbations.  I shouldn’t have used the term “non-deterministic” here which adds confusion.

I agree with your points…

Jackson

I’m not sure the best way to connect this to the other free will thread.
I think that part of what looks like free will is a “nonlinear system” effect so that the system (the mind) can make decisions that aren’t dependent in a completely deterministic way on the specific wiring of the neurons.  Quantum Mechanics provides some non-causal holes but the “nonlinear system” effect makes more sense since the brain is operating at a macrocopic level.

Part of the nonlinearity can come from the recursive nature of decisions (I need to make a decision. I need to decide on the choices. I need to decide on the pros and cons of each choice, and how fast I need to make the decision. I need to decide on the pros and cons of different ways of making the decision. Should I make the decide, or should I imagine a God who will make the decision for me. etc )

The recent D.J.interview with Ginger Campbell mentioned free will.
The Ginger Campbell podcast
[ Brain Science #53: Neuroscience and Free Will] looks like it reviews a book touching on this.

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 11
11