Free Will (not to be confused with Free Willy) (priest, soul)

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Vash

No, but thats why we are talking about predictability and not certainty. The distinction is important in this case.

In the case of a 'higher power' forcasting our fate, we would be dealing with such a high degree of predictability as to be virtually indistinguishable from certainty.

That's why I don't believe in predestination, nor prophecies that foretell the future.

[Vash]

Originally Posted by oracle

That's why I don't believe in predestination, nor prophecies that foretell the future.

If by predestination you mean as individuals, then yes I would not agree that we as individuals we have a predetermined fate.

But prophesies I believe can be thought of seperately than predestination. The tiny degree of uncertainty could produce accurate prophecies yet not seal our fate as indivuals.

As an example, look at The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov. The premise of the series is that mathematician Hari Seldon has spent his life developing a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory. It uses the law of mass action to predict the future on a large scale, such as of planets or empires. Using these techniques, Seldon foresees the fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way. He also predicts that there will be a thirty-thousand-year dark age before the next great empire rises. To prevent this, he decides to create a small haven of technology in a corner of the galaxy (on the planet Terminus) called the Foundation, whose job it will be to preserve knowledge after the collapse, thus reducing the time required for the next Empire to rebuild. If done properly, it will take only a thousand years before the next empire rises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Series

[oracle]

Originally Posted by Vash

If by predestination you mean as individuals, then yes I would not agree that we as individuals we have a predetermined fate.

But prophesies I believe can be thought of seperately than predestination. The tiny degree of uncertainty could produce accurate prophecies yet not seal our fate as indivuals.

As an example, look at The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov. The premise of the series is that mathematician Hari Seldon has spent his life developing a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory. It uses the law of mass action to predict the future on a large scale, such as of planets or empires. Using these techniques, Seldon foresees the fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way. He also predicts that there will be a thirty-thousand-year dark age before the next great empire rises. To prevent this, he decides to create a small haven of technology in a corner of the galaxy (on the planet Terminus) called the Foundation, whose job it will be to preserve knowledge after the collapse, thus reducing the time required for the next Empire to rebuild. If done properly, it will take only a thousand years before the next empire rises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Series

This is a fictional book. I don't understand why you are using it as an example.

[linwood]

linwood-- You say you have control over your environment. After all, you could move to Saudi Arabia if you wanted to, right? So....what's preventing you from moving to Saudi Arabia? Well....you don't want to move to Saudi Arabia, for one. Why don't you want to move to Saudi Arabia? Because you know what Saudi Arabia is like, and you have the intelligence to imagine how much worse your life might be if you moved there. If your genetics had given you less intelligence, or if you had never been exposed through your environment what Saudi Arabia is like, it is quite possible that you would make a different choice.

True but tell me why I`m not looking at real estate in Sweden?
Since November Sweden seems like the place to be for me.

All joking aside Spinks I do see your point and agree with it somewhat.
However you see those nuerons firing as evidence that free will does not exist.
I see those neurons firing as evidence of free will at work.

The existence of free will implies that something other than our environment and our genetics has an influence over firing neurons.....the burden of proof is on you, linwood, to provide this evidence. I have already suggested a method....bring me my twins!

No twins here ..sorry.
I don`t believe it does imply some other influence..
I believe it is a part of each persons free will.
The data I recieve from my environment is what causes me to "choose" a certain course.
However I could and have chosen to ignore the data from my environment and choose an entirely different course. (How do you think I got married?)

In both ways the data from my environment has influenced my decision but did not "force" my will either way.

Actually, first we should probably define the "self," since it is this "self" that supposedly has free will to begin with. Traditionally, the "self" was defined as a supernatural spirit that existed apart from the body....modern science rejects that notion. I personally view the "self" as simply an idea with no physical existence....it exists in our minds, and no where else. It is an emergent phenomenon of complex patterns of neurons firing, just as a symphony is an emergent phenomenon of the complex sounds being made by individual instruments.

I would agree with your definition.
However lets not argue about whether or not those neurons control or actions because they do.
Lets instead argue about what controls those neurons.
Thats the heart of this debate.
Considering that I`m quickly coming to the belief that this debate may very well be entirely circular from both sides.
I have the power to alter my environment, I even have the power to alter my genetic traits within my offspring.
This I would call free will.
You on the other hand would say that the decisions made using these powers were determined by my current environment and that negates free will.
I would argue I chose that environment and my respones to it ad infinitum.
Circular.

I think we will find that like most of our debates this one will show we basically believe the same evidence.
Our differences come from how we interpret that evidence.
You seem to be very absolute in your analysis while I am willing to explore what may be grey areas not directly considered by the evidence.

In other words where the evidence is lacking you will contend the same consistent path shown in areas where it isn`t lacking.
I will state that this is logical but is not necessarily "truth" and we cannot know until those gaps are filled.

To begin with, what is the mechansim that causes those neurons to fire one way at times and a completely different way at other times when ones evironment hasn`t really changed?

[oracle]

I think in the objective sense, you can perceive freewill as neurons firing in the brain. But I still have the freewill to move my arm how I want to. Of course on a physiological aspect this has everything to do with the brain. But it's this freedom of choice which is unpredicatable, undeterminable, and random that is the essence of free will. The self and free will from my perspective, is the conscious mind. If we didn't have free will, we'd be walking zombies.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by linwood

True but tell me why I`m not looking at real estate in Sweden?
Since November Sweden seems like the place to be for me.

All joking aside Spinks I do see your point and agree with it somewhat.
However you see those nuerons firing as evidence that free will does not exist.
I see those neurons firing as evidence of free will at work.

I am not saying neurons firing is evidence of anything. I'm saying that neurons fire, and a decision is made--end of story. Those who posit the existence of free will are the ones making the claim, linwood, and the burden of proof falls squarely on their shoulders.

Originally Posted by linwood

No twins here ..sorry.
I don`t believe it does imply some other influence..
I believe it is a part of each persons free will.

Okay, so it is "a part of each persons free will". Call it what you like, it makes a prediction that can be falsified, and indeed it has been falsified.

Originally Posted by linwood

The data I recieve from my environment is what causes me to "choose" a certain course.
However I could and have chosen to ignore the data from my environment and choose an entirely different course. (How do you think I got married?)

No, you couldn't have. Not unless your brain chemistry or your environment had been different. If we could go back in time and mess with your brain....then yes, you may have chosen to ignore the data from your environment. Or if we could go back and change your environment, then yes, you may have chosen to ignore that data. But imagine going back in time and everything is exactly as it was before. You would have made the exact same decisions, linwood...you would have chosen not to ignore the data coming in from your environment. If we could go back in time a million times, and keep your genetics and your environment exactly the same, you would have made the exact same decision each time. There is no hidden "free will variable" apart from your genetics and your environment.

Originally Posted by linwood

In both ways the data from my environment has influenced my decision but did not "force" my will either way.

I'm not suggesting anyone is "forced" to do anything. A man was not "forced" to marry his wife, for example.....he did what he wanted to do. My point is that the reasons he wanted to marry his wife in the first place were beyond his control. He never chose to be born a male, nor to be a heterosexual, nor to meet the woman whom he is about to marry. Those things are beyond his control...but he acts accordingly, and naively thinks it's because he is a seperate entity from the rest of the world who has successfully exercised power over it.

Originally Posted by linwood

I would agree with your definition.
However lets not argue about whether or not those neurons control or actions because they do.
Lets instead argue about what controls those neurons.
Thats the heart of this debate.
Considering that I`m quickly coming to the belief that this debate may very well be entirely circular from both sides.
I have the power to alter my environment, I even have the power to alter my genetic traits within my offspring.
This I would call free will.

Even bacteria have the power to alter their environment, and as for altering your genetic traits within your offspring...I have no idea what that means.

Originally Posted by linwood

You on the other hand would say that the decisions made using these powers were determined by my current environment and that negates free will.
I would argue I chose that environment and my respones to it ad infinitum.
Circular.

I would simply refer to previous environments which influenced your decision to change your current environment, and we could go all the way back to the time you spent in the womb....I anticipate you would cede the argument at that point long before it approached ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by linwood

I think we will find that like most of our debates this one will show we basically believe the same evidence.
Our differences come from how we interpret that evidence.
You seem to be very absolute in your analysis while I am willing to explore what may be grey areas not directly considered by the evidence.

No, linwood, I don't see neurons firing as "evidence" for anything, just as I don't see the universe as "evidence" for anything. It simply is what it is. You are the one claiming that neurons firing is evidence of something, but you have yet to substantiate this assertion.

Originally Posted by linwood

In other words where the evidence is lacking you will contend the same consistent path shown in areas where it isn`t lacking.
I will state that this is logical but is not necessarily "truth" and we cannot know until those gaps are filled.

I completely agree with you here. I just don't take what I view is an unfounded leap by saying "therefore, Free Will did it." That's just an argument from the gaps, linwood, and I think you know it.

Originally Posted by linwood

To begin with, what is the mechansim that causes those neurons to fire one way at times and a completely different way at other times when ones evironment hasn`t really changed?

Because their environment has changed, linwood, if only slightly. At any rate, what are you suggesting here? That some supernatural "free will" force besides genetics and environment causes neurons to fire?

[Melody]

Originally Posted by linwood

Why just last month I refused my families request for a dog and yet I`m picking up a lab mix this Friday?

Why?

Temporary insanity?

[linwood]

.I anticipate you would cede the argument at that point long before it approached ad infinitum.

Highly unlikely.

I completely agree with you here. I just don't take what I view is an unfounded leap by saying "therefore, Free Will did it." That's just an argument from the gaps, linwood, and I think you know it.

Spinks it is you who are filling the gaps with a lack of evidence.
You do this on a regular basis.
I`ll submit your religiouslike assertion of The Particle in a previous debate.

Simply because we "Don`t Know" does not make it acceptable to fill it in with extrapolation of what we "Do Know" especially if what we "Do Know" does not directly correlate to the gap in question.

Because their environment has changed, linwood, if only slightly. At any rate, what are you suggesting here? That some supernatural "free will" force besides genetics and environment causes neurons to fire?

What I am asserting Spinks is that "I don`t know" but it would seem to me in order to find out we need to know what mechanism is working to process the environemntal data that causes us to make ceretain decisions over others.

Do you know what this mechanism might be?

I also tire of your continued assertion that I`m positing some sort of "supernatural" influence for free will as you are more than aware that I am an atheist with no belief whatsoever in anything supernatural
Not to mention the fact that you`ve already asked me this question numerous times in different forms in this thread alone with my answer each time being negative.

You are arguing that just because "I don`t know" I`m saying "God did it!"
Considering my personal disbelief of a "God" the argument is more than ridiculous.
Considering your knowledge of my personal disbelief concerning a "God" your argument is less than honest.

What standard makes these neurons fire the way they do spinks?
I don`t believe it`s as simple as you think it is but of course I must be saying "God did it!" huh?

[Scuba Pete]

You know,

Linwood makes a GREAT point about extrapolation. Knowledge is seldom linear (like a graph) nor is it entirely predictable.

No one has (as of yet) addressed how critical thought fits into this whole scenario. The concept of it alone debunks predetermination. If your thoughts were merely a sequence of synapses, then thinking "outside of the box" is simply not possible.