it does. Determinisn is the belief that everything that happens happens as a result of a previous equal opposite action. Thus in a deterministic world there can be no first action, unless you make an exception and say "only that first action is spontaneous, everything else is deterministic" In which case you are making an completely unfounded claim. The first action proves spontaneity exists, and uncertainty that results makes newtons laws untestable in the lab. Therefore determinism is no more than a religious belief -Yuri
no those two things are mutually exclusive Claiming determinism is real because infinite refressise is POSSIBLE is like saying God exists because he has been there forever Your belief is unfounded and cannot be proven or tested. But can easily be disproven -Yuri
no it is'nt. claiming possibility and making absolute statements are pretty different. free will is even more unfounded and can't be tested, because it's incompatible with the scientific method. Believe it.
Not that I am a fan of strict determinism.. I too think it is a borderline religious belief, but playing Devil's Advocate.. there may have never actually been a first cause. If the universe is infinite.. it very well may be infinite in age too. Like if you had a time machine and just started traveling backwards.. you might never reach that first action because there would be no first. You'd be traveling backwards through time through an endless, infinite cycle of cause and effect. So there is still room for strict determinism.. I just think it is wrong because it ignores the uncertainty of an infinite universe.
free will is the ability of a deterministic being to make a calculated choice in the face of uncertainty (spontaneity) Your claim that "free will" doesn't exist is silly and pointless and like you said, can't be proven. Its really just a semantics circle jerk between cynical philosophy and optimistic philosophy -Yuri
but in that case is the paradox not the same? Perhaps you can infinitely find a cause for each action. But what does that really suggest? Isn't that the opposite of what we would think? That's going into the idea that reality itself comes into creation as its observed (made up) and must always make sense I believe an infinite loop is incompatible with strict determinism for this reason. "It just always existed" is not a logical argument for the support of a logical belief in determinism. -Yuri
I think it's a healthy mix of that - and how you deal with your 'original programming' and meld it into something different through experiences and choices* *which are arguably pre-determined so I guess bleh lol
presuming spontaneity exists (as suggested by existence itself existing), uncertainty will always be an inherent issue with determinism. Hypothetically there is never a way to know if a reaction is 100% equal and opposite, nor can an intelligent being know all factors in the reaction (even in a truely deterministic world resulting from a single spontaneous event) So wouldn't free will he a valid description of an intelligent being trying to make the best calculated choice in the face of uncertainty? -Yuri
See [x] for reference in post [1]My high school physics are foggy, but to my knowledge, newtons third law still holds for the oddities of quantum physics (this is a minor aside to your larger point tho) [2]I can't entirely argue against it, but from what I've understood of Sam Harris' studies*, the pattern of selection an intelligent being goes through is pre-determined and yields results before you cognitiviely understand them An example: When deciding upon what kind of meal you want at the lunch line, the choice you make between the lasagna and the hamburger is not a result of free will but a result of a neural algorithm that has hardwired in it a long history of preference. Your brain makes the choice for you before you think about it consciously**, it's sort of a "gut feeling" #nopuns * ** Sort of like falling in love, you aren't the master of that at all, it happens or it does not at the whim of the hardwired neural algorithm. That's the argument for 'the illusion of free will' that speaks strongest to me scientifically, but I don't buy it or sell it religiously, it could be way off. TLDR; I'm not sure.
A person's experience of themselves and how that's projected - their personality - can be significantly altered by suitable brain lesions, ingesting certain chemical compounds, surgery, Alzheimer's Disease and other dementias, stroke, and host of other brain-mind influences. We want to think that we are more than chemical reactions but unfortunately, even the desire to think that is bound up in selective neural connectivity and the conditional modulation of a bewildering conglomeration of electrochemical interactions. Even the most conscious decision where we think to ourselves, "I initiated that" and "I made that decision", was the result of a huge quantity of neural processing, occurring far beyond anything that can be construed as "conscious". Many clever experiments have shown that the results of conscious decision aren't updated into our conscious awareness until well after (from millisecs to secs) the actual gathering, weighing, integration, and comparison of pertinent information. The higher areas of the brain's cortex that are heavily involved with choreographing "the conscious mind" can add a great deal of input into the decision making process. But the determination of when enough information sufficient for reaching a conclusion (the decision) has been reached occurs before the conscious mind is actually updated with the result and the subject experiences the sense that he/she made the decision. Unless that is, the conscious "I" is also somehow immersed in some kind of supernatural (beyond physics) reality that interacts somehow with physical brain function. Lotsa "somehow"s. Barring that remote possibility, I'm afraid our minds are to the brain what digestion is to the stomach.
I agree.. an infinite universe goes against strict determinism, but people who follow SD don't see it as such. If the universe is infinite in most aspects of itself, that means every effect is really the product of an infinite amount of causes in the present, and those causes stem from an infinite amount of other causes from the past. That is why there is uncertainty in any event that is determined, because there was never an initial cause to the universe.. which strict determinism actively ignores. Strict determinism would have more weight to me if I believed there was a first cause, but even the idea of there being a first cause is too religious/metaphysical to me because the first cause would have to be spurred on by something supernatural to break the laws of physics. Such as energy not being able to be created nor destroyed.. cause the first cause would need to be created, which follows the path of creationism.
that's only because people want to define free will as something its not so they can say if doesn't exist. In reality there are only two options and neither disproves free will Option 1 our thoughts are predetermined Option 2 they are spontaneous Obviously humans try to make the "best" choices they can. This is basically determinism. We make the choice because we think it's best. But this choice is made in the face of uncertainty and spontaneity That is the definition of free will. The ability of a deterministic being to counter spontaneity -Yuri
Respectfully, I found Sam Harris' reasoning and layout of experiment data more convincing, though I give you some intuitive points, I feel capable of free will A 12 minute condensation of his book:
Whatever you do believe in SOMETHING but only if it makes sense to you...and if you can't find anything just believe in the universe and that you were created for a purpose !