|
|
|
Killer Bud
New Member
5 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2008 : 11:56:32
|
Greetings! This is my first post here, so I thought Id do a small intro up front. I usually post on another forum called Serial Killer Central (SKC). Been posting and helping moderate that forum for about 7 years. Since I was on probation for possession of marijuana, and its was a true crime forum, I combined my 2 favorite things into my name, hence Killer Bud. 
Nice to meet ya'll!
OK, now this is a subject that I have breached with other people on SKC recently. A friend of mine there is a private engineer, and an atheist. He explained on the forum that he believes he got to where he is today based on predetermined circumstances. I on the other hand lean towards free will. I believe that where we end up in life is based on our decisions we make on a daily basis.
Anyways, I thought Id branch out a bit, and get other educated opinions from the skeptics regarding this subject. Im sure there can be good discussions validating both sides, but I want to know which one the skeptics can agree upon the most.
For now, Im going to sit back, burn a doobie, and see where you guys are at on this subject. Thanks in advance for taking the time to make your case.
Peace!,
Killer Bud
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 12:29:05 [Permalink]
|
As I see it, I must assume freewill for pragmatic reasons. Certainly, heredity and environmental factors enter into how we conduct ourselves. Every experience we have probably enters into the choices we make.
But it's just not practical to sit around and wait around and see what happens next, or to absolve myself from any responsibility for my actions by claiming that I have no choice in the matter.
Even if I don't have freewill, I will operate under the assumption that I do and let the expert's sort it out…
Of course, it doesn't really matter what conclusion they arrive at. We will still make choices that we will be held accountable for.
Oh, and welcome to SFN!. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 13:27:24 [Permalink]
|
Hi Killer Bud, and welcome to SFN!
Ok, from an atheists point of view, predetermination won't cut it. Predetermination requires some power or other to do the, for lack of a better word, determining (that's a word, isn't it?), ie: some sort of supreme being(s) or "powers that be." There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of such and I suspect that there will never be.
"What will be, will be," as they say, but from the first "will be" so the second there are always so many varibles that it's scarcly possible to justify the statement much less make a prediction beyond the next few minutes. The longer the "will be" gap, the more varibles that will come into play.
Again, welcome!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/14/2008 16:05:56 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 16:15:56 [Permalink]
|
Had another thought: religons, notably Christianity, demands free will so that God may judge the sinners. If predestination were true, there would be no sinners to consign to Hell and the blessed wouldn't get to enjoy watching their torture because there'd none of those, either. Then what's a poor deity to do?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 16:53:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Killer Bud
...A friend of mine...explained on the forum that he believes he got to where he is today based on predetermined circumstances. I on the other hand lean towards free will. I believe that where we end up in life is based on our decisions we make on a daily basis.
Anyways, I thought Id branch out a bit, and get other educated opinions from the skeptics regarding this subject. Im sure there can be good discussions validating both sides, but I want to know which one the skeptics can agree upon the most.
|
Welcome to SFN, Killer Bud.
I'd start with the assumption that noone has control over the time (era, etc), place, culture, family, body, & circumstances into which he or she was born & spent his or her first few ("formative") years.
(Does anyone disagree with this part?)
Nor does anyone have control over "things we can't control" (sorry for the tautology) such as "natural disasters", weather, or actions of people who act "unpredictably" or who are outside our immediate "circle of influence" (again, tautology, sorry). (In that latter category I'd place "a serial killer who has decided to kill the person about whom we are talking.")
(Does anyone disagree with this part?)
We do, or may, or can, have a modicum of control over people who are close to us, or at least may be better able to anticipate how they may act & thus choose our own actions with clearer sense of what the outcomes are. We DO have control over whether we pay attention to the possibility of beneficial and adverse events occurring to us in certain circumstances, & acting to maximize the likelihood of the outcomes we desire, including for our health, safety, education, & wealth. I suspect this paragraph essentially summarizes the extent of our "free will."
None of us can change the fact that we are all mortals, & even if we make choices through our lives to maximize health & minimize preventable diseases & injuries, there will be occurrences important to our health & well-being (and lives, and deaths) over which we do not have any discernible control.
(Does anyone disagree with this part?)
Edited to add summary statement: IMO, predestination is limited to the fact that each of us is predestined to die at some point, though the time/place/manner is not predetermined. And our free will is of limited utility, as above. |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
| Edited by - Zebra on 06/14/2008 16:56:56 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 17:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Predetermination requires some power or other to do the, for lack of a better word, determining (that's a word, isn't it?), ie: some sort of supreme being(s) or "powers that be." |
Not really. All that's needed is an initial state that, if left to develop, would always lead to the same result. Classical chemistry is usually cited as an example of where one could know the final outcome of a series of chemical reactions, providing one knew the initial position, state, direction of travel and velocity of every single atom. Quantum mechanics, however, makes this impossible, since there appears to be truly random events occuring (at the quantum level). Predeterminism would, therefore, seem to be ruled out. Not that this means that there necessarily is free will, since you have no more control over random events than you do predetermined ones (the OP really presents a false dichotomy).
...
I don't really have a good answer to the OP. Like Kil, I assume free will for pragmatic reasons. And if nothing else, it appears to me as if my will does have consequences in the real world - although not always completely freely so. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 17:21:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Ok, from an atheists point of view, predetermination won't cut it. Predetermination requires some power or other to do the, for lack of a better word, determining (that's a word, isn't it?), ie: some sort of supreme being(s) or "powers that be." |
Nah, you've got the wrong sense of the word.
Imagine programming a computer with the positions and momentum of all the balls on a pool table in the middle of a shot, and with the data on the imperfections in the felt as well as the air movement in the pool hall. With the deterministic laws of physics, you can run a simulation of all of it and find the final position of the balls, and no matter how many times you run the simulation, it'll always provide the correct answer.
Now imagine that the things that we think of as "random" about quantum physics aren't really random, they just look that way. With perfect knowledge of every sub-atomic particle in the universe, you could (hypothetically) simulate the whole thing on a really giant computer and run time as far forward as you like, and what the simulation says will happen will happen in the actual universe.
Theoretically speaking, my typing this post at this time is due to nothing more than the original set of energy fluctuations throughout space during the Big Bang, coupled with billions of years of the laws of physics acting upon that priordial state.
After all, decisions, thoughts and feelings are simply reflected by changes in brain chemistry, which (given enough data) are determined by nothing more than the combination of the brain's previous chemistry and the environment's effects on its sensory organs.
Besides, anyone with a phobia or an addiction knows that "free will" only goes so far. Even a "pet peeve" is a reaction that a person can't avoid in response to a certain stimulus.
However, even if a person's choices are entirely deterministic, so too are learning and responsibility. Positive (and negative) reinforcement works (to some extent) to train a person into socially acceptable responses to stimuli, including traing-in the desire to behave "nicely." So while it might be true that all the events that have occured in the last 13.7 billion years have led - inexorably - to a particular guy driving while intoxicated tonight, the punishment he faces is an also "predetermined" attempt to limit such behavior in the future. "My brain chemistry is not under my control, your honor," won't cut it with the judge.
On the third hand, it is unlikely that we'll ever be able to test the accuracy of determinism with respect to even a single person's brain from any arbitrary state. The number of variables regarding the environment is far too high to contain in even a planet-sized computer. And so I think it's safe to say that even if the universe is wholly determined, for all practical purposes it will always look like we have actual free will. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 17:40:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Quantum mechanics, however, makes this impossible, since there appears to be truly random events occuring (at the quantum level). Predeterminism would, therefore, seem to be ruled out. |
But the stochastic (and macro-) nature of the brain isn't dependent upon individual quantum events. Neurotransmitters flood through synapses by the millions, meaning that (for example) a single C-14 decay within a single dopamine molecule (presumably "breaking" it) in a single synapse isn't going to change a person's behavior. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 17:49:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Hawks
Quantum mechanics, however, makes this impossible, since there appears to be truly random events occuring (at the quantum level). Predeterminism would, therefore, seem to be ruled out. |
But the stochastic (and macro-) nature of the brain isn't dependent upon individual quantum events. Neurotransmitters flood through synapses by the millions, meaning that (for example) a single C-14 decay within a single dopamine molecule (presumably "breaking" it) in a single synapse isn't going to change a person's behavior.
|
It did mine!!!!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 18:14:17 [Permalink]
|
Nah. You guys are over-thinking this.
Early his spring, a storm blew down a dead tree in my yard, putting a sizable dent in my car (considering the over-all condition of the wretched, old heap, that's not terribly important). The only thing that could have been predetermined, that I can see, was my neglect in not cutting it down before the winds took it out. Unless you count the flying squirrels that lived in it, preventing my chainsaw from going anywhere near it.
Unless there was some outside intervention, possibly dating back to before my birth, the whole thing was strictly free will. I chose not to cut that squirrel-infested snag out of there. Durn squirrels.
If I were to shoot a certain neighbor, would that be predetermined? Only if you assume that there is some force guiding our actions from an arranged conception to a scedualed death, that neighbor's being an asshole not withstanding. I cannot accept that without a lot more evidence in favor such a force than has been put forth thus far in human history.
But in the short term, we do live with a predetermination of sorts. We go to work at a certain time and come home by that same clock, and that will continue until we quit/get fired/laid off/the plant mysterously burns down. However, this predetermination is self imposed and therefore also free will. And if it gets any more circular than that, I'm gonna puke.
And I remind, we all chose to answer Killer Bud, who, by now, has probably chosen to become couch-locked.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Killer Bud
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 18:51:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
And I remind, we all chose to answer Killer Bud, who, by now, has probably chosen to become couch-locked.
|
Im totally enjoying this, thanks for the warm welcome by the way. |
| Edited by - Killer Bud on 06/14/2008 18:53:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 19:00:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
If I were to shoot a certain neighbor, would that be predetermined? Only if you assume that there is some force guiding our actions from an arranged conception to a scedualed death, that neighbor's being an asshole not withstanding. I cannot accept that without a lot more evidence in favor such a force than has been put forth thus far in human history. |
You've got the burden of proof backwards, filthy.
All that classical (and even much of quantum) physics shows us is deterministic. There is no subatomic particle called the "choice-aton." There is no "law of decisions." The science we already know states, in no uncertain terms, that determinstic brain chemsitry is the "force guiding our actions." Those "arranged conception" and "scheduled death" bits are actually strawmen, as the laws of physics are inconsiderate - they don't give a damn about you.
If you wish to argue for a truly free will, then it is you who will need to put forth a theory and/or a mechanism through which it occurs. Despite (probably) millions of brain disections, nobody has ever found any part of it that houses a free-will enabler. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 19:10:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
And I remind, we all chose to answer Killer Bud... |
Did we? How so? Throughout my brain - and quite without my volition - groups of neurons ran cost/benefit ratios analyses of the potential risks and rewards of responding to the posts in this thread, and - again, without conscious decision on my part - changed my brain chemistry around so that I started replying. I never went through any period of thinking, "should I post on this thread or not?"
Even if I had spent time meditating on such a question, consciously, what is it, exactly, that you think might cause the balance of thought to tip one way or the other? Given two equally enticing options of which you can pick one and only one, how (exactly) do you reach a decision? What is the mechanism in your brain which lets you consciously choose to do anything? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 19:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
All that classical (and even much of quantum) physics shows us is deterministic... |
And I forgot to expand upon this part like I meant to, for the benefit of those who would argue that quantum events are truly random and thus not deterministic.
All that buys us is a non-deterministic universe, still without free will.
Imagine that your neurons are all firing away trying to reach a decision between two options that are, so far as your brain is capable of measuring, truly equally enticing (or repugnant, take your pick). If a quantum event occurs in a neuron such that it fires when it otherwise wouldn't have, and that macro event tips the balance to 50.0000001% versus 49.9999999%, and that eventually results in you "choosing" option A over option B, then you haven't really made a decision at all, it was just a random occurence that, without you even being aware of it, made the option calculations inequal.
Flipping a coin to make a decision isn't making a decision, it is abdicating that decision. And that's all that quantum effects buy us in relation to this question is little tiny coin tosses.
Actually, I think I've just shown that "determinism versus free will" is a false dichotomy. Well, in a truly deterministic universe one cannot have free will, but even in a non-deterministic universe one might not have free will.
(I think H. and a few others who might remember this same sort of discussion from a few years ago will be amused with my flip-flop on the issue.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2008 : 19:40:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Despite (probably) millions of brain disections, nobody has ever found any part of it that houses a free-will enabler. |
This device comes pretty close to finding a free-will enabler.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Predetermination or Free Will?
