do we have free will?

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it seems dumb to make a point in this post at all since we are starting with a premise that almost by its nature makes your argument for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
open call to Christians (especially Catholics/Orthodox)...please post some rebuttals. i'm really interested in your perspective of the issue...because from what I understand, your beliefs accept the premises to be true.

Hi.

[ QUOTE ]
In order to not have free will, the universe must be deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic.

As the Copenhagen interpretation has been brought up (in a defense of free will, no less), I guess continuing on that topic is fair game: It's true that quantum theory states (via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) that not all events can be predicted. Whether or not that makes the universe deterministic can be debated - and the Copenhagen Interpretation claims "not".

What Bohr and Heisenberg didn't claim, however, is that the human mind is shaped to control these events that have a probability but no certainty (except for maybe Uri Geller). And without that special gift, we're not even free-will-less drones in a deterministic universe, we are free-will-less drones in a RANDOM universe.

So to believe in free will, in any meaningful way that rises above neurons continuing on their cause-and-effect path (random or not), there must be something outside the neurons controlling the neurons. That would surely qualify as a "supernatural power", by most definitions. Religion has an answer for this, science does not.

That doesn't make religion correct. But religious groups need it to be true; because without free will, God sure would be cruel to judge people who can't help but do what they do.

On a related note, I don't encourage proving God's existence through science, but the best logical argument made so far was made 2300 years ago; Aristoteles' "Prime Mover" (or "Unmoved Mover"). It's not proof, but it's an interesting idea, and one that is as valid today as it was then.

Cheers,
FP

[Mroberts3]

"No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic."

Good point, I guess I was a little overbroad in my interpretation.

One thing I don't understand is this though, why is it that so many people see a gap in "reality" and fill it with a godlike being. For example, you say that there has to be something above those neurons aka the Umoved Mover. Now, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but isn't it equally logical to say that maybe the human mind is that force? That somehow the concious mind is removed and "above" all those neurons and electrons etc? I don't really subscribe to either view but I don't understand why the missing link so to speak is so often attributed to "god"

[Mroberts3]

didnt mean to imply anything about your own beliefs, but I was just wondering why the scope of answers for questions is so limited to what can reasonably be call religious ones.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
yep. that's why they are premises. if you don't accept the premises as valid then no discussion can continue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Premises are not valid. Premises are true or false. An argument can be valid with false premises, but it cannot be sound.

So are you asking if you have made a valid argument, or a sound argument? I believe neither.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
you wouldn't happen to have a 2+2 link, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...7289&page=
http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...page=&vc=1

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[hypermegachi]

care to elaborate why?

p.s. i'm gonna go read those links posted (thanks purnell!)

[ QUOTE ]
"No. If the universe is deterministic, man can not have free will. But there are ways to not have free will that doesn't depend on the universe being determinstic."

Good point, I guess I was a little overbroad in my interpretation.

One thing I don't understand is this though, why is it that so many people see a gap in "reality" and fill it with a godlike being. For example, you say that there has to be something above those neurons aka the Umoved Mover. Now, I'm not saying its a bad idea, but isn't it equally logical to say that maybe the human mind is that force? That somehow the concious mind is removed and "above" all those neurons and electrons etc? I don't really subscribe to either view but I don't understand why the missing link so to speak is so often attributed to "god"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. What I meant was that if there is a conscious self that somehow - by no means that can be explained by science, as of yet - transcends what we believe to be the laws of the universe, then something supernatural is going on around here. What one wishes to attribute that supernatural phenomenon to is, well... One's own choice.

Myself, I don't attribute it to anything specific. I'm by almost any count an agnostic, and on this topic, I just haven't made up my mind. I could as well believe that we're mindless... Sorry, free-will-less drones, as believing that we're somehow above the laws of the universe. The first makes more sense, the latter appeals to my ego (don't mess with my ego).

But no, it doesn't have to be any kind of deity by the standard definition that gives us the ability of free will. But it does lend itself to some sort of spirituality, doesn't it? I mean, we are talking about our "self" as being something other than flesh and blood. But this is mostly semantics, and trying to put labels on something we don't know to exist - and much less are able to understand and describe - is kind of futile.

Still, your point is valid. Even if god... No wait, that's not a good analogy. Even if <something> came to you right now and explained to you how free will works, there's no guarantee that the explanation (if there even is one) includes anything that even remotely resembles what we'd call a god.

[Mroberts3]

agreed, well said.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
care to elaborate why?


[/ QUOTE ]

The main point I disagree with is the statement "if you don't accept the premises as valid then no discussion can continue."

A good discussion results from forming a valid argument. A valid argument is an argument structured in such a manner that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

For you to argue that the premises must be accepted as true is silly, because if we accept that your premises are true, and also accept that you've structured your argument in a valid manner, there is nothing left to discuss.

This leads us back to your premises (the meat of any logical argument) and whether they are true or false. We can argue about those for the next fifty years and not get anywhere because they cannot be proved as true or false.