The Great Contradiction

[Learner]

Logical choices yes. It's sometimes mentioned, that when it comes to choices - a computer can have free will too. I don't think this would be quite the same as humans dealing with various choices because... we also make choices from our emotions i.e. compassion, hatred, fear, love and so on - be it wise or unwise ... self control, refrainment, sacrifice. The biblical free will - if you will - depending on the scenario.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Logical choices yes. It's sometimes mentioned, that when it comes to choices - a computer can have free will too. I don't think this would be quite the same as humans dealing with various choices because... we also make choices from our emotions i.e. compassion, hatred, fear, love and so on - be it wise or unwise ... self control, refrainment, sacrifice. The biblical free will - if you will - depending on the scenario.

Emotions, if anything, should be included in the determinism camp because they just happen, no choice involved. If anything we struggle against our emotions for the most part, at least rational people do.

The question is if we have free will, then why do we make such terrible choices. Is it the same lame fantasy explanation we've been hearing forever, that we had lunch with a talking snake in a magic garden? Give it a break. The fact that we build nuclear bombs to drop on one another proves to me beyond any doubt that we don't have anything like free will.

Here's another contradiction: If we had free will Earth would be a paradise. But it isn't. Is this where the terrible Doodly Doo comes in and casts its evil spell on everyone, the evil spell we should resist with our magnificent free will?

Do kids have free will when they're dying of cancer or starving and malnourished? Free will is religious hooey except for the fantasy seekers.

 

[remez]

Exactly the way I'd describe reasoning.

ok

But the brain isn't just a mass of chemical reactions. It has structure and intricate feedback mechanisms that allow ideas to compete.

What ideas?
Where did they come from?

See you are just magically saying nature did it without giving account how. Somewhere in between one atom and a collection of many atoms free will just magically appears. No explanation needed.

Atoms react they don’t reason. Thus where and how does the free will jump on board your evolutionary train?

It’s like saying here are the steps to becoming a millionaire…..step one get a million dollars and step 2 two put it in the bank.

In order to evolve in size and complexity you have the need for support mechanisms to limit runaway heat generation. The brain has evolved over millions of years in order to survive by making choices (i.e.; making decisions). Evolution is all about competition.

Nothing there but a materialist simply assuming free will.

Think of the mind as an ecosystem where randomly generated connections increase or decrease the level of energy requirements. This provides your open-mindedness as well as creative impetus. The brain has everything it needs for open-minded decision making.

You are not saying anything there. You are just assuming the brain has free will. It is a nature of the gaps argument. You have provided no materialistic mechanism that would cause a non-sentient object to become sentient. You’re just assuming it happened naturally through some fairytale version of evolution. Evolution has its strengths but that is stretching the reason to fairytale proportions.

What could free will add to this method of reasoning that isn't already provided?

Free will contains the ability to reason. The opposite of free will in determinism. Meaning all is determined by the actions of atoms without free will to choose. No free will no reasoning.

I assume that reasoning means seeking the logical choice, right?

Absolutely, but brains can’t do that with atomic action alone. Because atomic action alone is deterministic. Somewhere from a deterministic atom to free will brains (collection of deterministic atoms) you assumed the natural creation of free will. Where and How?

 

[remez]

The question is if we have free will, then why do we make such terrible choices. Is it the same lame fantasy explanation we've been hearing forever, that we had lunch with a talking snake in a magic garden? Give it a break. The fact that we build nuclear bombs to drop on one another proves to me beyond any doubt that we don't have anything like free will.

Sentence 1. Great question. I would simply say rebellion is one great reason. And the rest falls in line.

S2. You answer your own question on behalf of theists. Infering the mytho-history is too unreal to be real, but gnoring the obvious outcome is rebellion. But still also inferring that the theistic answer of rebellion is bad reasoning.

S3. I can’t give you a break. You asked.

S4. You exercise your free will to reason historically that free will cannot exist.

Which was my contention with your OP.

Wiploc?

Here's another contradiction:

Hold on….where was the first? Other than your own.

Here's another contradiction: If we had free will Earth would be a paradise. But it isn't.

Who claimed it would be a paradise? I know of no theists claiming to if free will exists that the earth would be a paradise. Theistic doctrine runs contrary to your pseudo-supposition of theism.

Is this where the terrible Doodly Doo comes in and casts its evil spell on everyone, the evil spell we should resist with our magnificent free will?

You are so off, I have no recognition of the theism you speak of.

Do kids have free will when they're dying of cancer or starving and malnourished? Free will is religious hooey except for the fantasy seekers.

If course they do. But you are making a category error there. Cancer is caused not a choice of free will. Starving in your presented context is caused not a choice of free will. A child dying of cancer might be presented with a wish from which to choose. A child dying of cancer can still reason. A starving child may choose to believe help is coming are set out to find food.
And
You conclude with that poor reasoning that theists are hooey.

 

[Bomb#20]

You offered the circumstance of the argument coming from Haldane rather than from some random internet user, to Bilby, as a reason to change his thoughts about its merit.

Not at all. I simply stated and corrected MY wrong assumption that the point was well known. Thus I properly represented the quote and asked if he now wanted to change is reply, because as I perceived his reply….it did not reflect the reasoning I was referring to. And it was my fault.

Oh, okay, sorry to misunderstand. Consider the fact that Haldane was an idiot withdrawn. But that said...

Why did you suppose proper representation of the quote made a difference as to whether Bilby's reply reflected the reasoning you were referring to? The only difference, as far as I can see, was that Haldane said "They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.", whereas you'd skipped that line. As far as I can see, that sentence merely reiterates in different words the intuition already expressed in "For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true." As far as I can see, Bilby's reply perfectly reflected the reasoning of both versions of your & Haldane's claim. How does adding that line back in give Bilby a reason to change his thoughts?

(Or do you mean merely that it was a new idea to him and you'd incorrectly assumed he was familiar with it? If that's what you mean, why would drawing his attention to the fact of its familiarity to lots of other people give Bilby a reason to change his thoughts? To suppose ideas are better if they're familiar and commonplace to the public is just a different sort of argument from authority: argument from the authority of popular opinion.)

It was a statement Haldane made regarding the contradiction that strict materialism can account for reasoning at all. That was the point I was making against the OP.

But that isn't a contradiction; it's a hypothesis you disagree with. For it to be a contradiction in the OP, the OP would need to have said strict materialism can account for reasoning and also said strict materialism can't account for reasoning. As far as I can see, the OP made neither of those claims. People aren't contradicting themselves just because you think they think (X) and you think you have a good reason to think (not X).

As your link says, "Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance." An ad hominem is usually a fallacy, because the characteristics of the arguer are usually irrelevant to the merit of the argument. But that's not what's going on in this case.

You have it mixed up there. I did not allege that bilby made a mistake. I alleged you made the fallacy when you attempted to refute Haldane by addressing his personal politics and where he got his reasoning, instead of addressing the reasoning itself.

But I wasn't attempting to refute Haldane by addressing his personal politics and where he got his reasoning; I was attempting to refute you. I perceived you to be making an argument from authority, because I couldn't see anything in your post besides Haldane's name that looked like it was being offered as a reason for Bilby to change his thoughts.

When you make an argument from authority, you open your alleged authority up to non-fallacious ad hominems.

That I agree with. But that I did not do.

Fair enough. But I still don't understand what "They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically." adds to your case.

...If determinism is the way of the universe then you don’t have the free will to think or reason at all. Choice does not exist. Think about it. ...

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

Oh, come off it. How dare I suggest you made an assumption; but it's perfectly fine for you to suggest I haven't thought about it? Dude, we come here to argue -- to tell other people why they're wrong. That means telling them they relied on false premises, or telling them they made reasoning errors, or telling them they didn't think. If you're going to feel insulted whenever others don't just roll over and accept you as their patronizing professor and themselves as your respectful students, you're going to feel insulted a lot.

You cherry picked to different comments there in different contexts to allege me of bad reasoning. Other fallacy btw. You have a new one to look up.

Huh? I didn't cherry pick to allege bad reasoning; I cherry picked to allege that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Lets look at each quote in its proper context………first…You had just said….

Well, in the first place, free will is an irrelevance to the issue at hand. If people have no choice about what to think then some brains will have to think correctly and others will have to make errors because of how the brains' pieces fit together, but that hardly changes the fact that the ones that think right, think right, and know it.

And I responded with…………..

You’re missing the reasoning here. Free will is the RELAVENCE here. No free will….no choice. All is determined by moving atoms. Reasoning is just an illusion.

Let me stop you right there. Your step from "no choice. All is determined by moving atoms." to "Reasoning is just an illusion" is not reasoning. It's precisely the point in dispute. It's Haldane's claim, in a nutshell. So you appear to be making a circular argument.

For you to say that free will was irrelevant to the issue at hand, meant that you did not understand what I was reasoning, not that you haven’t thought about the topic.

Why is it that so many people think when they aren't agreed with it automatically means they aren't understood? Maybe they are understood just fine, and their ideas just aren't very convincing.

So I presented my reasoning to you as why it was important. And simply asked you to think about it. I did not infer you hadn’t thought about the topic. I clarified my reasoning on the topic which you clearly did not understand. Calm down.

Dude, I'm not the one who became uncalm. I didn't bat an eye at your argumentation style until you made a stink about mine.

Not half a page latter in a different context you said this………….

So of course you deduce contradictions. I'm not blaming you for this -- deleting the premises one takes for granted is ***hard***. But it's something you have to discipline yourself to do if you want to draw correct conclusions.

I responded this…………

I concur with your thoughts on epistemic duty.
But…..
I disagree with your baseless assertion that my deductions are based on unexamined assumptions.

But I didn't assert that your deductions are based on unexamined assumptions; I asserted that they're based on assumptions you took for granted. Not the same thing at all. One can perfectly well examine a premise, decide incorrectly that one has a good reason to believe it, and then proceed as though it has been granted, when it has not. That's what happens in a circular argument: one relies on an assumption after examining it and incorrectly deciding it's no longer an assumption. It's still an assumption, and one is still taking it for granted.

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

That is invalid reasoning. Merely addressing a concern in no way implies that you've made a reasonable demonstration. Just because you think you addressed something is not proof that it's nasty of the person you're talking to not to be of the opinion that you addressed it adequately. Maybe he just made a mistake and thought he still saw an assumption being glossed over. Maybe you just made a mistake and there really still is an assumption being glossed over. To jump to the conclusion that he's insulting you over that sort of disagreement is very thin-skinned. If you want to be thin-skinned here, that's up to you, but you'll probably have more satisfying discussions if you aren't.

No insult was meant. I simply had it pronounced in my head the wrong way, and thus spelled it incorrectly. I was unaware I had it wrong there. Perhaps I had it wrong bc it was so close to bible, idk. I never had the inclination the look up bilby.

Yeah, I figured. He's an Aussie. They have nifty wildlife there.

But now due to the critter lesson, I’m fairly certain I’ll get it right from now on. Cute critter mind reference. I’ll have my atoms store that new one into my brain for better reference in the future.

Adorable, aren't they?

 

[Learner]

Logical choices yes. It's sometimes mentioned, that when it comes to choices - a computer can have free will too. I don't think this would be quite the same as humans dealing with various choices because... we also make choices from our emotions i.e. compassion, hatred, fear, love and so on - be it wise or unwise ... self control, refrainment, sacrifice. The biblical free will - if you will - depending on the scenario.

Emotions, if anything, should be included in the determinism camp because they just happen, no choice involved. If anything we struggle against our emotions for the most part, at least rational people do.

If it helps, by All-means include emotions in the determinism camp. You still have choices and as you mention, struggles on how to deal with those emotons. It's interesting now that this has come up, that people act or react differently, given that there is the underline materialistic restraints of determinism which has no choices - yet it seems determinism still allows 'variable',' individualistic' emotional & logical viewpoints.

The question is if we have free will, then why do we make such terrible choices. Is it the same lame fantasy explanation we've been hearing forever, that we had lunch with a talking snake in a magic garden? Give it a break. The fact that we build nuclear bombs to drop on one another proves to me beyond any doubt that we don't have anything like free will.

Here's another contradiction: If we had free will Earth would be a paradise. But it isn't. Is this where the terrible Doodly Doo comes in and casts its evil spell on everyone, the evil spell we should resist with our magnificent free will?

Do kids have free will when they're dying of cancer or starving and malnourished? Free will is religious hooey except for the fantasy seekers.

Don't need to add to Remez's answer but I will ask: Have you forgotten that there are people that do NOT want to build nuclear bombs? That is the will of those people (if we are of course, considering this to be an alternative choice).

 

[Bomb#20]

We all get to think for ourselves.

How?

With our electrochemical brains, of course. We get one each. No two are alike, so thoughts form in one brain that do not form in another. I can figure out facts Haldane couldn't. He could figure out facts I couldn't.

As you state latter our brains are atomic movement. Atomic movement does not have free will or capacity to think. We don’t get to think if free will does not exist. By your reasoning there…..What you just said, you had no choice to say, you had to say it because the movement of atoms caused you to say it. The rational outcome of that reasoning infers that your thoughts… that your response…. was reasoned…. was just an illusion.

That appears to be the "fallacy of composition". From the fact that a moving atom has no capacity to think, it does not follow that a trillion trillion atoms have no capacity to think.

Have you ever played chess against a computer? A computer is made up of thousands or millions of transistors. A transistor has no capacity to play chess -- all it can do is vary its resistance deterministically in response to an applied voltage. But put a million transistors together, in just the right combination, and connect a battery to them, and they'll checkmate you. Is the checkmate just an illusion? The combination of transistors evidently has the capacity to play chess, even though its individual parts don't. Supposing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole is a fallacy.

The same principle applies to reasoning in general: an atom cannot reason, but a machine made up of enough atoms, assembled in just the right way, will reason. We can tell this is possible because a transistor is made of atoms, and playing chess well requires reasoning. In order to checkmate you, the computer has to consider what you will probably do if it makes a certain move and it has to draw a correct inference about whether your countermove will bring victory closer to you or bring it closer to the computer. If the computer doesn't reason but you do, the computer will lose.

(Of course for all I know you may have won every game you've played against a computer. But that would just mean you haven't played the best computers.)

And in the second place, there's no reason to think material causes are incompatible with free will.

I freely choose not to reason that at all. I have the free will to correctly acknowledge that material causes are all around us. Hence they are completely compatible. What I’m protesting is that my thoughts on that were determined by a material cause.

Sorry, I'll try to speak more precisely. There's no reason to think thoughts being determined by material causes is incompatible with free will. Maybe my brain is deterministic; maybe it isn't; I'm agnostic on that question; and either way I have free will.

The classic argument that causality conflicts with freedom is a reasoning error that Hume refuted back in the 1700s.

I’m unaware of any classical argument stated that way. So please provide a link to that….should be easy if it is a classic.

Sorry, I've been speaking imprecisely again. I meant the classic argument that freedom conflicts with human actions being wholly determined by prior causes. It's in the "of liberty and necessity" chapter of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (In Hume's 1748 terminology, freedom is "liberty" and a determined event is "necessary".)

"I hope, therefore, to make it appear that all men have ever agreed in the doctrine both of necessity and of liberty, according to any reasonable sense, which can be put on these terms; and that the whole controversy has hitherto turned merely upon words."​

I.e., he's saying the common opinion that freedom is incompatible with prior causes determining human action was derived from unreasonable definitions of terms. Here's the link. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/...ing-the-principles-of-morals#lf0222_label_043

I really don’t see how the two relate. But I’m open to hear your thoughts on it.
Because…….
When you say “causality conflicts with freedom” you can mean one of two thoughts here. (as I read it.) And neither is reasonable at all.

You are inferring the material causality and thought are incompatible.

I'm certainly not inferring that.

Which is what I just redressed above. They are not in conflict unless you are asserting the free will has a material cause.
Or….
You are saying that the free will has a material cause.

Yes. More precisely, I'm saying free will can have a material cause. Of course for all I know there might be some beings whose free will has material causes and other beings whose free will has immaterial causes. It's a big multiverse.

Which is a flat out contradiction. And not “Hume-rous” at all.

I don't see any contradiction. I said "free will can have a material cause." I didn't say "free will can't have a material cause." So I didn't contradict myself on that point. I take it when you call it a flat out contradiction, what you mean is that the premise "free will can have a material cause" logically implies the conclusion "free will can't have a material cause." I don't see how it implies that. Can you point me to the derivation?

The opinion persists because of cultural inertia. The intuitive basis for its plausibility is Western culture's previous general acceptance of Cartesian Dualism -- the notion that we have a physical brain and a separate immaterial mind.

AKA substance dualism. OK.
And you assert that it is wrong. OK.
But….
Here is the issue I have with that.

But to what end?
Is your view one of physicalism or property dualism?
Or some other alternative I haven’t heard of yet?

I am unconvinced that the term "physical" is sufficiently well-defined to make all those metaphysical distinctions coherent. I guess that makes it "some other alternative".

And this……..as I understand it this here is…………

So if an action is caused by atoms in your brain then that means it isn't caused by your mind, so your mind is a helpless passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle. But Cartesian dualism is wrong. You ***are*** the atoms in your brain. So when the atoms in your brain cause your finger to move, that's ***you*** causing your finger to move. You are the driver. Where you go is your choice. You aren't a helpless passenger.

…….your attempt to show the substance dualism is wrong.

So….let examine your attempt.

That's not at all what I was attempting to show. I was showing how (Determinism + Substance Dualism) implies (No free will), in order to draw attention to the fact that (Determinism all by itself) does not imply (No free will).

Showing substance dualism is wrong would take a whole separate argument.

I am the atoms of my brain. The atoms move my fingers presumably to control the vehicle. Thus I am the driver and not a helpless passenger.
But that means………
Since I am the atoms of my brain and I am the driver, then the atoms are the driver.
So where in there is free will?

Same place as the chess-playing ability: it's in the structure in which the atoms combine.

Because
Atoms do not choose nor reason. Their movements are determined by material causation.
Gravity does not choose to act. Nor can it act differently.
Atoms do not choose to stop the car or go, turn left or right, go to the movies or the beach.

And you think that means a trillion trillion atoms do not choose nor reason? That's the fallacy of composition.

How am I not a helpless passenger if there is no free will?

Somewhere in there you deceived yourself. Do you see where?
Well…
You smuggled in free will with your nebulous “YOU”. You assumed “YOU” has a choice to reason.

That's not me deceiving myself; that's me recognizing who set out to show what, and me showing no more than I need to.
You're reversing burden-of-proof. You're the one claiming that free will having a material cause is a "flat out contradiction"; that makes it your job to show that my nebulous "YOU" has no choice. We can walk away right now and agree to disagree, with you still thinking all those atoms have no choice and me still thinking they have a choice, neither of us establishing we're right. If we do that, you lose the argument. You claimed we atheists were contradicting ourselves, but all you showed was that you disagree with us.

“YOU” can’t choose if “YOU” is just atomic movement.

Let's see you derive ("YOU" can't choose) from ("YOU" is just atomic movement) without relying on the fallacy of composition.

Free will is argued against in semi-atheistic reasoning -- reasoning that adopts some atheistic premises and some theistic premises and tries to draw reasonable conclusions from the hopeless chimera formed by mixing the two.

Explain this semi-atheistic reasoning to me. You simply make an assertion there without reason of what the premises are and why the reasoning fails. Meaning your assertion at this point is baseless until you make a case for your assertion.

Huh? I explained it. And you quoted it back to me. (In pieces. I take it you didn't recognize it as a single semi-atheistic argument once you'd broken it up in order to address the fragments separately. No worries.)

"we have a physical brain and a separate immaterial mind. So if an action is caused by atoms in your brain then that means it isn't caused by your mind, so your mind is a helpless passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle."​

That's the semi-atheistic reasoning. "An action is caused by atoms in your brain" is the atheistic premise. "We have a physical brain and a separate immaterial mind" is the theistic premise. "Your mind is a helpless passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle" is the conclusion that follows from the chimera of mixed premises.

That's what you've been doing all along in this thread -- trying to figure out what atheism implies by adding atheistic premises to your premise set, but without deleting all of the conflicting theistic premises you live and breathe and take for granted.

That’s your interpretation.
But
My conclusions have been reach by examining the alternatives of this issue. Substance dualism to me is the only reasonable choice.

I understand you think it's the only reasonable choice; but that's not a premise I or most atheists share. So if you want to find out whether free will having a material cause is a "flat out contradiction", you have to either delete the assumption of substance dualism and try to derive a contradiction without it, or else you need to prove substance dualism is correct. And I mean "prove" literally: a deductive proof from pure logic. A mere inductive argument that it's more likely than not, or a deductive argument from some other premise you think is obviously true, won't do you any good here. If you convince yourself substance dualism is the only reasonable choice inductively or from a different assumption, then free will having a material cause won't be a flat out contradiction -- it will merely be a hypothesis you think you have good reason to disagree with.

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far.

Your attempts to address it look to me like they involved circular arguments and/or the fallacy of composition. If you think you made a case for substance dualism somewhere that didn't commit either of those fallacies, let me know which post I need to reread more carefully.

You have provided no reason as to why I should delete my premises.

By "delete your premises", I didn't mean "Stop believing your premises"; I meant "Stop relying on your premises when you argue about what atheists' premises imply". I provided you a reason for that: so that you won't screw up your argument and draw a false conclusion about what our premises imply. "I believe X. You believe Y. Y implies NOT X. Therefore your beliefs are contradictory." is invalid reasoning.

We have free will or we do not. If we do not have free will then we have determinism. You have been miserably trying to make the case that determinism provides free will.

No I haven't -- I've been trying to make the case that you haven't made the case that it doesn't. For a positive case that it does, see the above link to Hume. Be persuaded or not -- it doesn't matter to me. Like I said from the start, "in the first place, free will is an irrelevance to the issue at hand". Haldane committed a non-sequitur even if free will requires non-determinism.

I examined your case, provided reasons as to why it is not reasonable. To believe that determinism provides free will IS a contradiction. Perhaps that is a premise you should delete?

That's no premise of mine. Like I said, I'm agnostic about determinism. Like Hume said, "liberty, when opposed to necessity, not to constraint, is the same thing with chance". Chance does not provide free will; therefore non-determinism does not provide free will.

Not at all. Bilby simply pointed out that Haldane had not made a logical argument. Haldane's conclusion does not follow from his stated premises.

And I countered his charge of it being a massive non sequitur. Which you have failed the reason into your assertion there. Simply repeating bibly’s error does not make it correct.
So……
Prove to me that you’ve reasoned that correctly. Give me the Haldane’s premises, conclusion and the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion and then point out where any of it is wrong.

His premises: "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain."

His conclusion: "I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true"

His reasoning: Hard to say. Maybe no reasoning. Maybe a feeling of truthiness. Maybe "They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically." Maybe a truly remarkable proof of this theorem which the margin was too small to contain.

In the event that Haldane intended "They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically." to be his reasoning from his premise to his conclusion, it's an invalid argument. It's of the form "X is not a Y; therefore I have no Y." That's the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Before you reply, you may want to first go back and read my reply to bibly on that.

You mean this?

"Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking. He simply had to say that. You had to disagree with him. Christians have to believe what they believe. That’s the way naturalism works….there is no freewill, thinking or choice. It is all but illusion bc all is naturally deterministic."​

That's still a non-sequitur. Even if Haldane simply had to say it, and Bilby had to disagree, and you have to agree, and naturalism rules out free will and choice, how would any of that imply it rules out thinking? Just because the free will and the choice are illusion in no way imply the thinking is illusion. Quite the reverse. Your own argument specifies Bilby disagreeing and Christians believing. Well, disagreeing and believing are species of thought. So even if we conclude the mind is a helpless passenger because atoms can't provide freedom, that doesn't make it an unthinking passenger. Just because a mind is stuck on a railroad track with only one possible destination doesn't mean that track isn't carrying it through a chain of reasoning.

You also replied with this:

"And to support my point you added (also from post 33)…..

Do you think that if the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip you have no reason to suppose that the output is correct? If so, you have no way to tell whether I even wrote this, so you would be crazy to respond to it.

I don’t think that at all, I’m theistic. That is the logical product of atheistic thinking. Which again was my point. Hence why I claimed that you seemingly supported my reasoning."​

You don't think the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip, because you're theistic? Does that mean God personally intervenes in order to set the voltages on the chip wires? You trust the output of your computer to tell you the truth about what Bilby typed, not because electrons follow Maxwell's equations, and the engineers knew what they were doing when they designed the circuit, and the manufacturers knew what they were doing when they built it, but because you trust God not to want you to get the wrong idea?

 

[Learner]

I don't know much about Huldane hence not engaging much with this discussion however...

...if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...

That's a massive non sequitur.

Whether or not "I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true" is entirely unrelated to whether or not "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain".

You could just as well say "if my mental processes are determined partly by the whim of a supernatural being I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true", or "if my mental processes are determined wholly by an immaterial soul I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true".

Do you think that if the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip you have no reason to suppose that the output is correct? If so, you have no way to tell whether I even wrote this, so you would be crazy to respond to it.

It's probably the wrong analogeous comparison. Remez and even Bilby's response has highlighted something that actually distinguishes the difference between the CPU and a human-being or the brain (my simplistic opinion). I think Remez means in context, that the CPU is not doing any thinking. It will give correct results, ALWAYS that one could rely on, being that the CPU calculates by given set rules, i.e. Remez's example "determined wholly by the 'motion of atoms' which wouldn't be that particular mental process we have as humans. Having beliefs that could either be right or wrong is unlikely for a CPU to do the same - to "mentally" process something, let alone the CPU to understand it's output.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have you forgotten that there are people that do NOT want to build nuclear bombs? That is the will of those people (if we are of course, considering this to be an alternative choice).

Don't take me so literally. Those people who build nuclear bombs also care for their families. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

And what of the two year old malnourished and starving, does this individual have your free will?

Maybe you can give me an example that is something like free will so I can understand what you mean. Is free will like free money? Do we all have it and it's just a matter of how we spend it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Our friend remez has been implying that your free will is something separate from mere atoms. How then does mental illness happen? These are people who have lost their free will, at least as I understand what you mean by the phrase anyway. If it isn't particles, atoms, energy, then there should be no mental illness and loss of free will associated with brain anomalies, but there is. How is this so if your free will is something separate from mere atoms?

Dementia should never happen. Should we be performing exorcisms on folks with alzheimer's? That's what I think you do, get rid of the evil spirits. Even this doesn't make sense because the person now needs help to regain their free will, something you say everyone has. Maybe you could explain.

 

[fromderinside]

Our friend remez has been implying that your free will is something separate from mere atoms. How then does mental illness happen? These are people who have lost their free will, at least as I understand what you mean by the phrase anyway. If it isn't particles, atoms, energy, then there should be no mental illness and loss of free will associated with brain anomalies, but there is. How is this so if your free will is something separate from mere atoms?

Dementia should never happen. Should we be performing exorcisms on folks with alzheimer's? That's what I think you do, get rid of the evil spirits. Even this doesn't make sense because the person now needs help to regain their free will, something you say everyone has. Maybe you could explain.

Seems to me that determinism stands regardless of to what it is being referred: Determinism - given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. So quibbling about whether a computer or a human has free will only depends on whether determinism is false. Noone touting free will has successfully falsified the determinism statement.

 

[Learner]

Have you forgotten that there are people that do NOT want to build nuclear bombs? That is the will of those people (if we are of course, considering this to be an alternative choice).

Don't take me so literally. Those people who build nuclear bombs also care for their families. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

I take the two simple words 'Free Will' to be literal as our friend Lion does. So we have two types of people that care for their families but.... one is in favour of building nukes and the other is not.

And what of the two year old malnourished and starving, does this individual have your free will?

With a little more detail to the circumstance, to which there may be many, could give a different clearer perspective. The poor child obviously doesn't have decision making abilities at that age - those discisions are made from the childs parents. Those parents may unfortunately be caught up in circumstances against their own wills, imposed upon by someone elses will.

Maybe you can give me an example that is something like free will so I can understand what you mean. Is free will like free money? Do we all have it and it's just a matter of how we spend it?

Decisions decisions ...its entirely up to you what you make of it "sigh".

 

[OLDMAN]

ok



What ideas?
Where did they come from?

See you are just magically saying nature did it without giving account how. Somewhere in between one atom and a collection of many atoms free will just magically appears. No explanation needed.

Atoms react they don’t reason. Thus where and how does the free will jump on board your evolutionary train?

It’s like saying here are the steps to becoming a millionaire…..step one get a million dollars and step 2 two put it in the bank.

In order to evolve in size and complexity you have the need for support mechanisms to limit runaway heat generation. The brain has evolved over millions of years in order to survive by making choices (i.e.; making decisions). Evolution is all about competition.

Nothing there but a materialist simply assuming free will.

Think of the mind as an ecosystem where randomly generated connections increase or decrease the level of energy requirements. This provides your open-mindedness as well as creative impetus. The brain has everything it needs for open-minded decision making.

You are not saying anything there. You are just assuming the brain has free will. It is a nature of the gaps argument. You have provided no materialistic mechanism that would cause a non-sentient object to become sentient. You’re just assuming it happened naturally through some fairytale version of evolution. Evolution has its strengths but that is stretching the reason to fairytale proportions.

What could free will add to this method of reasoning that isn't already provided?

Free will contains the ability to reason. The opposite of free will in determinism. Meaning all is determined by the actions of atoms without free will to choose. No free will no reasoning.

I assume that reasoning means seeking the logical choice, right?

Absolutely, but brains can’t do that with atomic action alone. Because atomic action alone is deterministic. Somewhere from a deterministic atom to free will brains (collection of deterministic atoms) you assumed the natural creation of free will. Where and How?

Some spiders sit in the middle of their webs...some stay to the outside. Their choice?

 

[Lion IRC]

That appears to be the "fallacy of composition". From the fact that a moving atom has no capacity to think, it does not follow that a trillion trillion atoms have no capacity to think.

Have you ever played chess against a computer? A computer is made up of thousands or millions of transistors. A transistor has no capacity to play chess -- all it can do is vary its resistance deterministically in response to an applied voltage. But put a million transistors together, in just the right combination, and connect a battery to them, and they'll checkmate you. Is the checkmate just an illusion? The combination of transistors evidently has the capacity to play chess, even though its individual parts don't. Supposing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole is a fallacy

The chess program doesn't do free will. "IT" doesn't choose which move it wants to make. It has a road map of moves and when it comes to a fork in the road, the software follows an IF/THEN program. The software can't choose to lose instead of win. It can't get bored and resign or offer a draw. Even if you wanted the computer to randomly make apparently inexplicable blunders during a game, you would have to tell it to do so - according to a software code put there by its Maker.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That appears to be the "fallacy of composition". From the fact that a moving atom has no capacity to think, it does not follow that a trillion trillion atoms have no capacity to think.

Have you ever played chess against a computer? A computer is made up of thousands or millions of transistors. A transistor has no capacity to play chess -- all it can do is vary its resistance deterministically in response to an applied voltage. But put a million transistors together, in just the right combination, and connect a battery to them, and they'll checkmate you. Is the checkmate just an illusion? The combination of transistors evidently has the capacity to play chess, even though its individual parts don't. Supposing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole is a fallacy

The chess program doesn't do free will. "IT" doesn't choose which move it wants to make. It has a road map of moves and when it comes to a fork in the road, the software follows an IF/THEN program. The software can't choose to lose instead of win. It can't get bored and resign or offer a draw. Even if you wanted the computer to randomly make apparently inexplicable blunders during a game, you would have to tell it to do so - according to a software code put there by its Maker.

That is irrelevant. B20's example shows that it does not follow from the fact that a transistor cannot do X that a gazillion transistors cannot do X, and the same goes for atoms, or any other stuff. That shows there appears to be a fallacy, regardless of any free will (if remez meant something else and did not incur the fallacy of composition, he'd have to explain what he meant and why he made the assessment he made)

Side note (but not the point here): Some programs do resign in bad positions. All programs make unintended blunders - and not just due to programming errors, but also sometimes because they're low on time, and in the case of some programs (NNs like lc0) because the net hasn't learned enough chess to realize it's a mistake - a mistake at least by common parlance. But one could press the question: what is a blunder? is it an error playing against a perfect chess (i.e., 32-man tablebase) opponent? Against a human GM? Something else? Maybe they all blunder much more than we know.

 

[Learner]

Our friend remez has been implying that your free will is something separate from mere atoms. How then does mental illness happen? These are people who have lost their free will, at least as I understand what you mean by the phrase anyway. If it isn't particles, atoms, energy, then there should be no mental illness and loss of free will associated with brain anomalies, but there is. How is this so if your free will is something separate from mere atoms?

Perhaps I'm out of my league here as I am confined to simple basic logic. I avoid trying to philosophically "over-think" the sometimes uneccessary thought-exercises that may lead to confusion.

Dementia should never happen. Should we be performing exorcisms on folks with alzheimer's? That's what I think you do, get rid of the evil spirits. Even this doesn't make sense because the person now needs help to regain their free will, something you say everyone has. Maybe you could explain.

Stating the obvious: everything and everyone is made up of atoms ... and yes there are constraints but there is lots of room within those constraints, for example indivualism e.g. we don't like to do the same things as others do, even sometimes going against the grain even common-sense. We don't behave single-file like the fixed behaviour patterns of atoms. And the atoms don't vary or alter their behavior just to"influence" the differences in a variety of differing viewpoints of thinking individuals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know much about Huldane hence not engaging much with this discussion however...

...if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...

That's a massive non sequitur.

Whether or not "I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true" is entirely unrelated to whether or not "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain".

You could just as well say "if my mental processes are determined partly by the whim of a supernatural being I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true", or "if my mental processes are determined wholly by an immaterial soul I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true".

Do you think that if the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip you have no reason to suppose that the output is correct? If so, you have no way to tell whether I even wrote this, so you would be crazy to respond to it.

It's probably the wrong analogeous comparison. Remez and even Bilby's response has highlighted something that actually distinguishes the difference between the CPU and a human-being or the brain (my simplistic opinion). I think Remez means in context, that the CPU is not doing any thinking. It will give correct results, ALWAYS that one could rely on, being that the CPU calculates by given set rules, i.e. Remez's example "determined wholly by the 'motion of atoms' which wouldn't be that particular mental process we have as humans. Having beliefs that could either be right or wrong is unlikely for a CPU to do the same - to "mentally" process something, let alone the CPU to understand it's output.

But why would that be the wrong analogy? Even if the computer is not conscious, it reaches the right conclusions - i.e., it applies logic correctly, it makes probabilistic assessments correctly (depending on the case) and so on. Why would that be different for humans, if human beliefs are wholly determined by the motions of their atoms?

But let us stipulate that - for whatever reason - this is the wrong analogy. Then, it remains the case that remez has provided no good reason to support his claim "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...". If you think otherwise, what good reason has remez provided in support of such a claim? If he has not, can you think of a good reason to support such a claim?

 

[Learner]

But why would that be the wrong analogy? Even if the computer is not conscious, it reaches the right conclusions - i.e., it applies logic correctly, it makes probabilistic assessments correctly (depending on the case) and so on. Why would that be different for humans, if human beliefs are wholly determined by the motions of their atoms?

But let us stipulate that - for whatever reason - this is the wrong analogy. Then, it remains the case that remez has provided no good reason to support his claim "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...". If you think otherwise, what good reason has remez provided in support of such a claim? If he has not, can you think of a good reason to support such a claim?

"my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain to suppose that my beliefs are true...I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true""

It seems obvious to me he is saying by that sentence, he would be something like an autobot where belief in anything would be non-existent. (for lack of better wording)

 

[Learner]

Our friend remez has been implying that your free will is something separate from mere atoms. How then does mental illness happen? These are people who have lost their free will, at least as I understand what you mean by the phrase anyway. If it isn't particles, atoms, energy, then there should be no mental illness and loss of free will associated with brain anomalies, but there is. How is this so if your free will is something separate from mere atoms?

Dementia should never happen. Should we be performing exorcisms on folks with alzheimer's? That's what I think you do, get rid of the evil spirits. Even this doesn't make sense because the person now needs help to regain their free will, something you say everyone has. Maybe you could explain.

Seems to me that determinism stands regardless of to what it is being referred: Determinism - given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. So quibbling about whether a computer or a human has free will only depends on whether determinism is false. Noone touting free will has successfully falsified the determinism statement.

I don't think theists have been arguing against the above determinsim aka laws of physics. Definition perhaps.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Our friend remez has been implying that your free will is something separate from mere atoms. How then does mental illness happen? These are people who have lost their free will, at least as I understand what you mean by the phrase anyway. If it isn't particles, atoms, energy, then there should be no mental illness and loss of free will associated with brain anomalies, but there is. How is this so if your free will is something separate from mere atoms?

Perhaps I'm out of my league here as I am confined to simple basic logic. I avoid trying to philosophically "over-think" the sometimes uneccessary thought-exercises that may lead to confusion.

Dementia should never happen. Should we be performing exorcisms on folks with alzheimer's? That's what I think you do, get rid of the evil spirits. Even this doesn't make sense because the person now needs help to regain their free will, something you say everyone has. Maybe you could explain.

Stating the obvious: everything and everyone is made up of atoms ... and yes there are constraints but there is lots of room within those constraints, for example indivualism e.g. we don't like to do the same things as others do, even sometimes going against the grain even common-sense. We don't behave single-file like the fixed behaviour patterns of atoms. And the atoms don't vary or alter their behavior just to"influence" the differences in a variety of differing viewpoints of thinking individuals.

The question is about people whose atoms are arranged so that they cannot make decisions, and other people who's atoms are arranged differently are able to make decisions. Why do you say a child is unable to make decisions? Are you not aware that the arrangement of atoms in the brain of a two year old is very different than that of an adult brain? Maybe that's why their decision making ability, like the dementia brain and the learning disabled brain is so determined.

All these brains are different arrangement of atoms, all ostensibly doing the same thing, as you say, but you have to explain how one set has the ability to make free will decisions but the other does not. What makes them different if not the arrangement of atoms? That's the point of the OP. Obviously what makes them different is the arrangement of atoms, determinism. If you cannot provide a better explanation your free will claims are wishful thinking at best.