Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: RG on 20 May 2010 13:46 In article <ht3hfr$9s4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-20 07:52:57 -0400, Nicolas Neuss said: > > > I'm somehow lost how anyone can believe as firmly > > as Raffael in determinism nowadays. > > I don't believe in hard determinism (i.e., I do accept that quantum > indeterminacy exists). However, there is no existing evidence that > quantum indeterminacy operating in the brain is equivalent to free > will. Moreover, as Ron points out elsewhere in this subthread, quantum > indeterminacy in the brain may very well amount to the equivalent of > classical determinism. > > On the contrary, we have a great deal of evidence that our subjective > evaluation of the freeness of our choices is wildly inaccurate. We have a great deal of evidence that every single aspect of our perception is wildly inaccurate, starting with the most fundamental perception of all, that we exist as classical entities. I keep bringing this up and you keep ignoring it. Insisting that free will doesn't exist is no different than insisting that we ourselves do not exist. Both are true at a fundamental level, but they are both self-undermining truths (pun intended). Your very existence is exactly the same sort of illusion as your free will is. It is an *essential* illusion, not (as Pascal would have it) because society would break down if we didn't subscribe to it, but because not subscribing to it is *logically* self-defeating (pun intended). You cannot logically assert your own non-existence, because the mere fact that you are asserting *anything* proves that you *do* exist. And yet you don't. Buying into the collective delusion of existence a pre-requisite to being a human. We "really" are in the Matrix, except that the overlying quantum reality is so different from our own that the scenario of taking the blue pill and emerging into "real" reality is physically and logically impossible. Humans are first and foremost classical entities. We cannot exist in a quantum reality except as an approximation. It's the same for free will. Yes, it's an illusion that can exposed with the right experiments. But accepting that illusion as "reality" is a prerequisite for living life as a human being. rg
From: Bob Felts on 20 May 2010 14:15 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: [...] > > I keep bringing this up and you keep ignoring it. Insisting that free > will doesn't exist is no different than insisting that we ourselves do > not exist. I think you're making a category error, confusing the definition of things with the implementation of things. We can agree on the meanings of platonic ideals, for example, even if we might disagree about the true nature of their existence. So far, I don't think we've agreed on what "free will" means. Raffael seems to think it means "freedom from physical constraint". Pascal B. says that it's a property a creator/created relationship, and not inherent in the created itself. I'm not sure what you mean, except that it's true by some defintion. [...] > > It's the same for free will. Yes, it's an illusion that can exposed > with the right experiments. But accepting that illusion as "reality" is > a prerequisite for living life as a human being. If everything is illusion, what is real? Anything? Nothing?
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 May 2010 16:33 On 2010-05-20 13:15:34 -0400, RG said: > Retribution is not pointless. The point is to assuage the negative > emotions of anger and helplessness that people feel when they are > victims of a crime. This is true regardless of whether or not you > believe in free will or dualism. One can certainly argue that > retribution is cruel, or that the benefits are not worth the costs. But > under no circumstances is it pointless. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." M.K. Gandhi warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 May 2010 16:44 On 2010-05-20 13:46:29 -0400, RG said: > We have a great deal of evidence that every single aspect of our > perception is wildly inaccurate, starting with the most fundamental > perception of all, that we exist as classical entities. > > I keep bringing this up and you keep ignoring it. Insisting that free > will doesn't exist is no different than insisting that we ourselves do > not exist. Both are true at a fundamental level, Your point originally - "what practical difference does it make?" Demonstrations of the illusory nature of various aspects of perception lead us to modify our behavior. Demonstration of the blind spot illusion, for example, suggests that it is unwise to place too much faith in a single, quick glimpse (i.e., we may very will have missed something in our field of view). Showing that free will is illusory has direct consequences for how we live our lives, as I've pointed out elsewhere. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: RG on 20 May 2010 20:52
In article <ht4704$s96$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > Again, what matters is evidence, not speculation. Evidence indicates > free will is an illusion; evidence indicates that fostering retribution > makes people more violent, not more calm. If evidence shows that fostering retribution makes people more violent then why bring free will into it at all? You can argue against retribution on the purely empirical grounds that reducing retribution will reduce violence. No need to get metaphysical. (Your argument will fail on other grounds, but we're already pretty far afield here.) rg |