tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post115023330810073208..comments2024-01-07T05:17:58.943-05:00Comments on Orthoprax: Deterministic DamnationOrthopraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151099178975173152006-06-23T17:46:00.000-04:002006-06-23T17:46:00.000-04:00>All of these things are "me"? Now we're getting i...>All of these things are "me"? Now we're getting into the philosophy of identity. Can you define what makes you you?<BR/><BR/>Well, the structure of your mind is essential to what you are. Your experiences and memories would be another aspect. <BR/><BR/>>Is it? Just think about it. Where does your personality come from...<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter where is comes from. This is your core identity. What does it mean to be enslaved by yourself? if you were to escape from yourself, you wouldn't be you (and you would be destroyed)<BR/><BR/>Also, am I enslaved by the laws of gravity? Am I enslaved by my body, eventhough it limits me? Everything has limits, that is the nature of reality. <BR/><BR/>Limits are what gives us identity. Without limits there would be no individuality<BR/><BR/>>what I meant was that in your view, with those given beliefs these other beliefs then logically follow.<BR/><BR/>I think you are also describing my opinions using negative emotional language. The universe is not a "Giant Machine", and we are not made up of "mechanical gears". Instead of arguing using reasons you are using emotion.B. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151017412193637922006-06-22T19:03:00.000-04:002006-06-22T19:03:00.000-04:00Spinoza,"these thing are "you", there is no entity...Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>"these thing are "you", there is no entity apart from these things that make "you"."<BR/><BR/>All of these things are "me"? Now we're getting into the philosophy of identity. Can you define what makes you you?<BR/><BR/>"what a very strange way of looking at things. You think your enslaved by your own personality? Bizarre"<BR/><BR/>Is it? Just think about it. Where does your personality come from...<BR/><BR/>"I am not making anything. I am trying to describe reality."<BR/><BR/>I know that, what I meant was that in your view, with those given beliefs these other beliefs then logically follow.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151016445666165132006-06-22T18:47:00.000-04:002006-06-22T18:47:00.000-04:00>Whatever my personality is or my manner of thinki...>Whatever my personality is or my manner of thinking or acting has nothing to do with "me."<BR/><BR/>these thing are "you", there is no entity apart from these things that make "you".<BR/> <BR/>>My nature, my personality, are nothing but the manner in which I am enslaved by the dictates of determinancy.<BR/><BR/>what a very strange way of looking at things. You think your enslaved by your own personality? Bizarre<BR/><BR/>>By your making all of these things strictly mechanical, you are destroying the very factor of individuality.<BR/><BR/>I am not making anything. I am trying to describe reality. I don't create reality. You can't change reality to suit your own desires. Do you want to live in a fantasy land or understand the way things are in reality?B. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151009747122320752006-06-22T16:55:00.000-04:002006-06-22T16:55:00.000-04:00Spinoza,"We all have a unique way of viewing thing...Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>"We all have a unique way of viewing things. We all have different personalities. It is this which makes us individuals, there is no denying this."<BR/><BR/>No. "We" don't "have" personalities. I exist solely as a consciousness. Whatever my personality is or my manner of thinking or acting has nothing to do with "me." I act the way I do, I think the way I think, I am the way I am without any volition on my part. These things are not "mine." I make no claim on them. Yet I cannot get rid of them either. My nature, my personality, are nothing but the manner in which I am enslaved by the dictates of determinancy.<BR/><BR/>By your making all of these things strictly mechanical, you are destroying the very factor of individuality. We are not individuals, we are merely reflections on the giant machine that is the universe. We spin on our mechanical gears powerless to escape.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151007983334752222006-06-22T16:26:00.000-04:002006-06-22T16:26:00.000-04:00>The internal nature is the same thing as your ext...>The internal nature is the same thing as your external nature. Didn't I say earlier that you destroyed the individual?<BR/><BR/>you may have said it before, but I don't agree. We all have a unique way of viewing things. We all have different personalities. It is this which makes us individuals, there is no denying this.<BR/><BR/>>Ok, but "our nature" is itself determined by outside influences.<BR/><BR/>of course, how could it be otherwise? How can I create my own nature? It doesn't even make sense.B. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1151002242501816622006-06-22T14:50:00.000-04:002006-06-22T14:50:00.000-04:00Spinoza,"I didn't say that each individual doesn't...Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>"I didn't say that each individual doesn't have their own internal nature."<BR/><BR/>The internal nature is the same thing as your external nature. Didn't I say earlier that you destroyed the individual?<BR/><BR/>"But that doesn't mean my will is free in the sense that it is unlimited and not influenced by external causes."<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone argues that.<BR/><BR/>"but our will is determined by our nature + outside influences"<BR/><BR/>Ok, but "our nature" is itself determined by outside influences. Hence, you are an inexplicably conscious automaton. Super. Enjoy the show.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150904359679874532006-06-21T11:39:00.000-04:002006-06-21T11:39:00.000-04:00>It has to do with your concern for your responsib...>It has to do with your concern for your responsibility to yourself. If your desires are themselves externally founded then rationally you should have no logical reason for preferring one set of desires over the other.<BR/><BR/>I didn't say that each individual doesn't have their own internal nature. We are influenced by our own nature and external causes. But that doesn't mean my will is free in the sense that it is unlimited and not influenced by external causes. Perhaps it is correct to say that we are determined by the relationship and interaction between our own nature and external stimuli. But I don't think our will determines our nature (how could it?), but our will is determined by our nature + outside influencesB. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150842502550788122006-06-20T18:28:00.000-04:002006-06-20T18:28:00.000-04:00"I like being human, but thanks for the offer. I d..."I like being human, but thanks for the offer. I don't understand why you ask this question"<BR/><BR/>It has to do with your concern for your responsibility to yourself. If your desires are themselves externally founded then rationally you should have no logical reason for preferring one set of desires over the other.<BR/><BR/>You desire because you desire. You like being human because 'Spinoza' likes being human. Complete artifical subjectivity.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150842168349114632006-06-20T18:22:00.000-04:002006-06-20T18:22:00.000-04:00Spinoza,Re: liberty "why not?"No, it can. But then...Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>Re: liberty "why not?"<BR/><BR/>No, it can. But then it would be false.<BR/><BR/>"because they are dangerous and we want them put away so they won't harm people. And we also want incentives for people to behave well."<BR/><BR/>That's not moral responsibility. That's treating people like natural disasters.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not saying a person doesn't have the power to distinguish between good and bad arguments. What does this have to do with free will?"<BR/><BR/>If our very opinions are determined, not by our own choice, but by external factors beyond our control then it makes the whole exercise a little silly. You cannot even guarantee that your own opinions are actual rational conclusions and not from the vagaries of your determined mind. Your whole matter of agency and the concern for holding correct views is not your own.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150841389217890632006-06-20T18:09:00.000-04:002006-06-20T18:09:00.000-04:00>Btw, would you have no problem being hyponotized ...>Btw, would you have no problem being hyponotized to want to act like a chicken?<BR/><BR/>I like being human, but thanks for the offer. I don't understand why you ask this questionB. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150841046463080992006-06-20T18:04:00.000-04:002006-06-20T18:04:00.000-04:00>How can America be founded on liberty if our will...>How can America be founded on liberty if our wills are not free?<BR/><BR/>why not?<BR/><BR/>>How can we punish criminals in prison if they cannot be held morally responsible for their acts? <BR/><BR/>because they are dangerous and we want them put away so they won't harm people. And we also want incentives for people to behave well.<BR/><BR/>>The very act of trying to convince others of the correctness of an argument has the implicit assumption that the person has the power to choose between good and bad arguments.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand what you mean. I'm not saying a person doesn't have the power to distinguish between good and bad arguments. What does this have to do with free will?B. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150778214525973812006-06-20T00:36:00.000-04:002006-06-20T00:36:00.000-04:00Spinoza,"I don't know, It seems to me that the awa...Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>"I don't know, It seems to me that the awareness of our body movements come at the same time or after our body moves."<BR/><BR/>That may be true for trivial acts, like I didn't realize my foot was stepping to the beat or something. But we have intended purposes for things that we do. I walk to the kitchen to get food. I open the front door to pick up the paper. It is simply not the case that I discover my purpose after only reaching for food.<BR/><BR/>"It's a central component of reward and punishment in judeo-christian religions"<BR/><BR/>In most of it, yes, but not all of it. There are a number of Christian sects that are wholly pre-deterministic, like Calvinism and its offshoots. Islam, though it is not Judeo-Christian, is also involved in the idea that God's will is what determines all acts.<BR/><BR/>I'd say it is a more general concern that pervades all sources of society. How can America be founded on liberty if our wills are not free? How can we punish criminals in prison if they cannot be held morally responsible for their acts? The very act of trying to convince others of the correctness of an argument has the implicit assumption that the person has the power to choose between good and bad arguments.<BR/><BR/>"I don't need to justify my actions."<BR/><BR/>You do to yourself if you seek satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Btw, would you have no problem being hyponotized to want to act like a chicken?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Baal,<BR/><BR/>It can be a frightening subject and it goes far more to the core of the measure and worth of human existence than the debate on God goes.<BR/><BR/>In a sense, I guess it is a sort of faith. I don't fully understand how it is possible but I am willing to live as if it is so until I see significant incontrovertible evidence indicating that it cannot be so. <BR/><BR/>I am curious to see what the results would be with that experiment at Caltech. Though whatever its result I have seen theories from the opposite side of the spectrum that say that free will comes from human actions being a source of determinism in the face of a universe that is ruled by indeterminism (the opposite of normal scientific assumptions). That human minds "focus" deterministic factors and hence can be said to be self-determining.<BR/><BR/>Alternatively, the idea that we are cognizant of our own thoughts can mean that we somehow direct their causal relationship. Our belief that we are responsible for our acts makes us act as if we were responsible - hence making us actually responsible.<BR/><BR/>Though, strangely enough, it is the idea that humans are an exception in the universe as individuals with free will that brings us back to ideas of design and intention in creation and that humans were a specific goal in it. Hence free will can be used to bolster theistic metaphysics.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150772364916263502006-06-19T22:59:00.000-04:002006-06-19T22:59:00.000-04:00Daniel, (and company), > Essentially our experienc...Daniel, (and company), <BR/>> Essentially our experience of free will trumps any theoretical argument against it - for we experience it directly. That's as empirical as you can get.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm very much out of my league in this stuff and I find it quite disturbing. Interestingly enough,for the past two weeks I've been reading a book about genetics by a Matt Ridley, see <BR/><BR/>http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2006/06/curse-of-tiresias.html<BR/><BR/>As a result of your post, I skipped ahead to the last chapter which discusses Free will and I must admit, that it's scary. He discusses a hypothetical planned experiment by Shimojo of California inst of Tech (Caltech?) in which an electrode implanted in the brain near the area controlling voluntary movement will induce in the subject movement of the arm which the subject himself believes was voluntary. Scary stuff. <BR/><BR/>Yet in the end, perhaps to finish the book on a positive note, Ridley uses some double speak and claims its freedom because it's our own internal determinism and not someone else's.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150772103660751272006-06-19T22:55:00.000-04:002006-06-19T22:55:00.000-04:00>Not so, I experience my desire, yes, but also my ...>Not so, I experience my desire, yes, but also my intent to act. I don't just want my arm to move, I control its movement.<BR/><BR/>I don't know, It seems to me that the awareness of our body movements come at the same time or after our body moves. The brain sends a signal to the hand to move, but that doesn't mean that our conscious mind is aware of it. Most of the time we move without even realizing it. If we had to have a conscious decision to move every body part, we would never do anything.<BR/><BR/>>Theological? How do you figure?<BR/><BR/>It's a central component of reward and punishment in judeo-christian religions How can God punish the wicked if we have no free will? Which is why theologians feel so strongly about it<BR/><BR/>>That may be, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that you don't have any reason to do anything at all.<BR/><BR/>It's my nature to strive and seek Joy.<BR/><BR/>>As a victim of causality you cannot justify any act you make.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a victim, since there is noone to blame. It's just the nature of reality. <BR/><BR/>I don't need to justify my actions.B. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150691550081130922006-06-19T00:32:00.000-04:002006-06-19T00:32:00.000-04:00Shtern,"You are calling something free when it is ...Shtern,<BR/><BR/>"You are calling something free when it is not."<BR/><BR/>You're right, I would have difficulty defining it. What is important to me is that free will is what makes me, as an individual, responsible for my actions. <BR/><BR/>"Realizing through a philosophical process that there is really no "I", there only is a combination of many existences that we encapsulated with the word I."<BR/><BR/>See, that's the same type of thought experiment that is on the one hand fascinating and intellectually stimulating, but on the other hand cannot be taken seriously as a way to base life. How can I live without the stimulation that I am important, at least from my own perspective?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Spinoza,<BR/><BR/>"what we experience is our desire to act which precedes action (sometimes)."<BR/><BR/>Not so, I experience my desire, yes, but also my intent to act. I don't just want my arm to move, I control its movement.<BR/><BR/>"The idea that our will is free is a theological theory and is not directly experienced."<BR/><BR/>Theological? How do you figure?<BR/><BR/>"I don't really have any emotional attachment to the theory of free will."<BR/><BR/>That may be, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that you don't have any reason to do anything at all. As a victim of causality you cannot justify any act you make.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150667571409045612006-06-18T17:52:00.000-04:002006-06-18T17:52:00.000-04:00>In a way, free will is like existence. We can’t p...>In a way, free will is like existence. We can’t prove that it is reality, but at least it is an experience of ‘reality’ which we all share.<BR/><BR/>I think it is very different. Existence cann't logically be denied. Just try it. Every thought is an affirmation that something exists, even the thought that there is no existence affirms it. Free will, on the other hand, can be denied<BR/><BR/>>Essentially our experience of free will trumps any theoretical argument against it <BR/><BR/>we do not experience free will, what we experience is our desire to act which precedes action (sometimes). The idea that our will is free is a theological theory and is not directly experienced.<BR/><BR/>I don't really have any emotional attachment to the theory of free will. You guys, on the other hand, want so badly for your conscious mind to be free and to be in control of your actions that you don't take seriously the idea that your body may be in control of your thoughts or that they may be independent of each otherB. Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150661861141373092006-06-18T16:17:00.000-04:002006-06-18T16:17:00.000-04:00Just one point regarding QT. Probabilistic and ra...Just one point regarding QT. Probabilistic and random are not the same thing. In a way, QT is saying "I can tell you the odds of this happening, but until it happens, I can't predict it." <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if that helps, and I don't think that QT is going to end up being the real model for how choice works. For me it is just a hint that there are things which don't have to work the way that we intuit about them.dbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06447811758752083384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150653992386943622006-06-18T14:06:00.000-04:002006-06-18T14:06:00.000-04:00DBS,Ah, excellent. You've hit the nail on the head...DBS,<BR/><BR/>Ah, excellent. You've hit the nail on the head. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Free will is such an integral experience in human existence, as well as so fundamental a point in human activity, that I am willing to depend my basic philosophy of life on the truth of its reality over any current scientific or philosophical arguments to the contrary. I am more likely to promote the idea that there are errors in those theories than that freedom of will is a complete illusion.<BR/><BR/>Essentially our experience of free will trumps any theoretical argument against it - for we experience it directly. That's as empirical as you can get.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, determinism is hardly a scientific argument. It is unfalsifiable. For even if we were unable to locate a cause for an action, we could always imagine that there still is one.<BR/><BR/>(As far as Quantum Theory and free will goes, the point is that free will is not equivalent to random will. QT says that random events occur, but our wills are clearly not random. That would be akin to the acts of madmen, not rational actors. That said, there may be truth within QT regarding free will, but you can hardly point to it as anything better than speculation.)Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150651165880089062006-06-18T13:19:00.000-04:002006-06-18T13:19:00.000-04:00Orthoprax,Look, I totally get your point. Obvious...Orthoprax,<BR/><BR/>Look, I totally get your point. Obviously, (since we’ve discussed this before) it isn’t a problem which bothers me, which, as you and Ben point out, is probably just my own defensive wiring. I do understand the implications.<BR/><BR/>So, with the disclaimer that this may be my involuntary response at work, here is what I think: <BR/><BR/>I think that we have free will. As I’ve written, it is a fundamental part of the human experience. Just as we experience consciousness, we experience ourselves making choices. Choosing, determining, differentiating – these are what define us every moment of our lives.<BR/><BR/>How do I reconcile the experience of choice with the fact that we are biological beings interacting with external forces? First, the answer may well be the quantum physics which you dismiss. I think that you are not appreciating a fundamental lesson; not all problems have deterministic answers. In quantum mechanics, a solution to, say, the location of an electron, can only be defined in probabilistic terms. This really does mean that the electron can be anywhere. The only thing which can ultimately define its location is an ‘event’. And, each event gives rise to a new set of probabilities.<BR/><BR/>But, even if this model does not end up working for the human mind, I just believe that there is a solution. Just as I believe that there is a solution to the first fact problem – one which we do not yet understand – I believe that there are many concepts about the mind which we can not yet fathom. Consider that just as we do not have a concrete idea of infinity, though the concept is mathematically valid, so we do not have a concrete example of a pure random occurrence, though we can describe it mathematically.<BR/><BR/>In a way, free will is like existence. We can’t prove that it is reality, but at least it is an experience of ‘reality’ which we all share.dbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06447811758752083384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150421221363711202006-06-15T21:27:00.000-04:002006-06-15T21:27:00.000-04:00>>>But if you know that it is an illusion - how ca...>>>But if you know that it is an illusion - how can you take it seriously? Is the trick simply to not think about it?<BR/><BR/>I don't think we have any choice but to take it seriously...it's all we have. We have no access to the inner workings of our minds.<BR/><BR/>I'd love it if we could stumble on some mechanism that allowed free will, but it's not looking good.Ben Avuyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814145983874592449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150420395369662722006-06-15T21:13:00.000-04:002006-06-15T21:13:00.000-04:00Baal,"Daniel, I once read an article that this "ra...Baal,<BR/><BR/>"Daniel, I once read an article that this "random factor" leaves room in the world for a God. Random factors may also include free will, I'm not sure of the mechanics but it certainly can be stated that we don't have a complete understanding of it."<BR/><BR/>Sure, it does leave room. The way it works is that within these random events it is believed that there may be a superior order, a higher plane on which other types of mechanics work. Other mechanics like miracles or free will.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it is wholly speculative.<BR/><BR/>"True.<BR/>So what would you like to do? Close your eyes and go to sleep for the rest of your life?"<BR/><BR/>Does it matter what I want? I want whatever I'm directed to want. The joke given about this debate is that we must believe in free will, we have no choice. ;-)<BR/><BR/>"I still think about pre-determinism but only from an intellectual perspective, not from a "how should I run my life" perspective."<BR/><BR/>Then you're just not taking philosophy very seriously. Not the worst sin, really. Though if you read the New York Times today, they had an article on the consequences of recent genetics research that seem to indicate that things like dance talent and obesity are genetically directed.<BR/><BR/>I hate to give up on free will, but if belief in it seems to fly in the face of all the direct evidence then where can I appeal to? The supernatural? But then where does that stop?Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150396785329806432006-06-15T14:39:00.000-04:002006-06-15T14:39:00.000-04:00> Ok, so we can say the same about any controversi...> Ok, so we can say the same about any controversial issue that people hold emotionally necessary. God, the afterlife, angels, miracles, spirits, faith healing, voodoo magic, etc. There's no end to what you can justify that way.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>Daniel, I once read an article that this "random factor" leaves room in the world for a God. Random factors may also include free will, I'm not sure of the mechanics but it certainly can be stated that we don't have a complete understanding of it.<BR/><BR/>> There's no end to what you can justify that way. <BR/><BR/>True.<BR/>So what would you like to do? Close your eyes and go to sleep for the rest of your life?<BR/><BR/>We have no choice but to THINK and make decisions. And just as we decide to buckle down, study and go to Med school we can decide to not murder. <BR/><BR/>I still think about pre-determinism but only from an intellectual perspective, not from a "how should I run my life" perspective.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150342778615701152006-06-14T23:39:00.000-04:002006-06-14T23:39:00.000-04:00Ben,"The amazing thing is the power of the illusio...Ben,<BR/><BR/>"The amazing thing is the power of the illusion of choice. Very few people ever doubt that this illusion is absolute reality." <BR/><BR/>But if you know that it is an illusion - how can you take it seriously? Is the trick simply to not think about it?<BR/><BR/>"Perhaps a counsciousness that creates free will with mirrors and glitter is natures balm for the emotional well being that is so important with us high strung cognates at the top of the food chain."<BR/><BR/>But why would evolution favor the creation of consciousness in the first place? If we have no control over what we do and all our actions and reactions are determined by external natural forces - what does consciousness add to it?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Baal,<BR/><BR/>"Why isn't the "randomness" that Qantom Mechanics injects into the equation, enough to possibly mean there is free will?"<BR/><BR/>It can, but it isn't the free will that you think you're talking about. It's not *you* making the choice, it is random factors controlling the choice. Not much better than strict determinism.<BR/><BR/>"Thinking about it from a functional issue drove me batty. Till I stopped thinking about it."<BR/><BR/>Ok, so we can say the same about any controversial issue that people hold emotionally necessary. God, the afterlife, angels, miracles, spirits, faith healing, voodoo magic, etc. There's no end to what you can justify that way.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150317315559808112006-06-14T16:35:00.000-04:002006-06-14T16:35:00.000-04:00Orthoprax, > Qantum mechanics may have very well o...Orthoprax, <BR/>> Qantum mechanics may have very well overthrown the conceptualized deterministic clockwork universe of Newton, but random will is hardly a preferential substitute for determined will.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Some of this concepts of predeterminism are familiar to me from reading "A brief history of time". <BR/>But truthfully, I don't follow all of your discussions. Why isn't the "randomness" that Qantom Mechanics injects into the equation, enough to possibly mean there is free will?<BR/><BR/>Either way, even if its all predetermined, we all live AND think as if there were free will. "We" believe that we decide to type a comment in OP blog or not. Actually, there might be an analogy to Libido. Thinking of sexual performance is enough to create anxiety to interfere with Libido. Thinking about predeterminism in life may also cause problems. Just don't think about it other than as an intellectual issue. Thinking about it from a functional issue drove me batty. Till I stopped thinking about it.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1150305655948603722006-06-14T13:20:00.000-04:002006-06-14T13:20:00.000-04:00I can't disagree with anything in your post, and s...I can't disagree with anything in your post, and since I am a naturalist and an empiricist, and believe that our behavior is determined by genetics, experience, and brain chemicals, I agree that we are enjoying the ride (or not).<BR/><BR/>The amazing thing is the power of the illusion of choice. Very few people ever doubt that this illusion is absolute reality. <BR/><BR/>I have often wondered if the internal monologue that we experience as "our thoughts" is not just a by product of the hyperactive speech centers that have so differentiated humanity from our animal cousins. The long and verbose internal statements (thoughts) may make our very mechanistic innards seem much more open to debate and even appear to be under our control and will.....perhaps..<BR/><BR/>I also wonder if this illusion of choice is necessary for a functional being, and has been selected for over the millenia. People who feel they have no control over their situation often suffer from depression. Perhaps a counsciousness that creates free will with mirrors and glitter is natures balm for the emotional well being that is so important with us high strung cognates at the top of the food chain.Ben Avuyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814145983874592449noreply@blogger.com