The brothers karamazov and absolute freedom

[lindagarrette]

 

It seems to come down to this: I chose to brew an IPA yesterday :Alien: . Could I have chosen otherwise, a scotch maybe? All the inputs into my system (genes, molocules, levels of hormones, etc etc) were present that morning. Is it possible I could have chosen something else, were that situation repeated exactly?

There is no possibility that you would have chosen anything else as long as none of the variables changed.

[motherengine]

Yep, and back to my earlier post, this is "Newtonian" and not "Quantum"....I won't fault Fyodor for his view (you also have to be careful with determining what his views were versus what came out of his characters as mother aluded to in post #1, same with Melville by the way), its just no longer valid in my book, cuz science marches on!

 

"freewill is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to us. conversely, an unfree action would be 'up to' something else. the phrase 'up to us' is vague, and, just like freewill itself, admits of a variety of interpretations. because of this vagueness, the usefulness of the concept of freewill is questioned by some." wikipedia.

 

i am not sure how you are defining freewill let alone morality but i think it is safe to say that there is still an open debate (even in the world of quantum theory) whether 'freewill' exists at all. as of now there is no definitive answer from physics or biology and so science may march on but it is still marching in circles (albeit more condensed circles) when it comes to concepts that were initially (and still are as far as i am concerned) thought of as metaphysical. when i started this thread my intention was not for anyone to show proof that ultimate morality can exist without a moral god because this is impossible. my intention was to see how far the need of moral security and control feed into a given mind, especially one that views scientific study as paramount to learning (as opposed to raw experience). i think it is essential when discussing morality to draw a distinction between what one feels and what one thinks. i feel that murder is wrong in the sense that it disturbs me emotionally. i do not think murder is wrong in any way shape or form beyond idiot chemistry. and without design one cannot say chemistry is anything but senseless and undetermined. it also follows then that the chemistry which creates the illusion of self has a kind of chaotic 'freedom' to it, but the central consciousness is not free at all because it is subject to the chaos that makes it up. one can free fall but cannot be free while falling so to speak.

[lindagarrette]

let me just say one final thing concerning 'freewill'. regardless of quantum (or any other) theory the very fact that you cannot predict your own actions, let alone know everything that can and will happen should tell you that you probably don't have freewill in a scientific sense. how can any action be free unless it is unburdened? do you actually think you are in total control of your emotions and the chemical reactions that cause them? freewill is a metaphysical concept because it requires a belief in a mind/soul/entity unburdened from chemical influence. random does not equate freedom.

You can predict your own action, if you know all the elements that make up its cause. The reason we are deluded by the prospect of free will is we aren't able to understand all the factors and that makes us try to explain our actions through something supernatural -- free will. What that means is we perceive the mind and body as separate entities, which they are not. All of nature is deterministic, and we are no exception.

[lindagarrette]

i am not sure how you are defining freewill let alone morality but i think it is safe to say that there is still an open debate (even in the world of quantum theory) whether 'freewill' exists at all. as of now there is no definitive answer from physics or biology and so science may march on but it is still marching in circles (albeit more condensed circles) when it comes to concepts that were initially (and still are as far as i am concerned) thought of as metaphysical.

The notion of free will is metaphysical because it means that we humans have a means of acting outside the limitations of nature's cause and effect. On a more general level, the argument for determinism is so far not disputed by evidence. Quantum effects excluded, there is not even any question that every effect has a cause. If it did not, then science would be meaningless.

[lindagarrette]

And *that's* what I disagree with...I don't really see why its necessary, since so much science has embraced non-determinism, and indeed made it central to the explanation of the way things work. If everything is deterministic, then the answer to the question about IPA vs. scotch is certainly true, but it requires making an a priori assumption of complete determinism in everything that happens, which I argue there's no evidence for.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Actually, there is only one field where science has questioned determinism as a solid law of the universe and that's up for grabs since our knowledge is so limited. If you can come up with an example of an uncaused event, then please let me know of it so I can win the Nobel prize. Linda

[motherengine]

just as an aside concerning the interesting (an inevitable) digression within this thread: the problem with freewill in a purely philosophical sense is that if anyone had freewill then they would be sucessful in life (barring acts of god, muder...etc.) because they would have not only 'freeaction' which could prevent them from 'doing the wrong thing', but the freedom to manipulate their own emotions completely. if they lacked ambition they would call it up through force of will. if they were angery they would simply stop being so by control of their emotions. humans are caged by impulse and influence and only memory and language give them the contemplative abilities that they misconstrue as 'free thought'. look carefully at any one act you have commited or will commit, say replying to this statement if you are going to, and you can see how that action is completely out of your hands (unless you 'choose' not to reply to prove this statement wrong which would simply be the inevitable reaction your brain is having to the inertia of my comment). as we do not ask to be born but are, we do not draw up our paths but flow into them. but then forest gump may be right after all: it is both destiny and chance that make up this stuff we call our lives. either way we are not in control.

[bumab]

Actually, there is only one field where science has questioned determinism as a solid law of the universe and that's up for grabs since our knowledge is so limited. If you can come up with an example of an uncaused event, then please let me know of it so I can win the Nobel prize. Linda

 

I agree, determinism is unquestioned.

 

Now, however, I should like to bring up something about free will. If it indeed exists, then it would break the laws of causality, as we agreed. Let's say somebody wanted to test that out- how would they go about doing that? I think, even given the entire worlds computing power, the scientific establishment would never accept evidence of free will, because one could always say- you've not checked for some variable.

 

I'm not making the "since you can't prove it doesn't exist, it must exist" argument at all. Just wondering if we can imagine the possibility that free will exists, and accept results that indicate it; or does the preverbial pandora's box free will would open make those results automatically discounted?

[Buffy]

Actually, there is only one field where science has questioned determinism as a solid law of the universe and that's up for grabs since our knowledge is so limited. If you can come up with an example of an uncaused event, then please let me know of it so I can win the Nobel prize.

You're using "determinism" in a form that I must admit I'm unfamiliar with: that is that non-deterministic means the same as "uncaused," and if that's your meaning, I'd agree with you. The way I'm using it--which is the only way I've ever seen it, although heck, I'm just an amatuer physicist--is that results are not predictable with any reasonable accuracy, and in a very real sense, no experiment is "repeatable" exactly, thus results can vary. I'm not sure how you reconcile what you're saying with Heisenberg other than to say that we will eventually be able to violate his principle once we have a better understanding of how quantum mechanics works. Am I missing something here?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[bumab]

You can predict your own action, if you know all the elements that make up its cause. The reason we are deluded by the prospect of free will is we aren't able to understand all the factors and that makes us try to explain our actions through something supernatural -- free will. What that means is we perceive the mind and body as separate entities, which they are not. All of nature is deterministic, and we are no exception.

 

So, I have a question based on your stance that free will is a created concept, and has no basis in reality. If that is so, all our actions are "controlled" (or rather, set in motion) by events that preceded ourselves. Thus, we are simply products of what happened before, and any sense of freedom is an illusion.

 

So, Linda- do you have any sense of self? What do you think of when you think of yourself? Don't take that as mean or anything- i'm really enjoying this conversation, and I want to see how you view yourself. I don't see how a sense of self is possible in that deterministic worldview- but I'm sure you have one. :confused: could you explain, or was that to vaugue a question?

[lindagarrette]

So, I have a question based on your stance that free will is a created concept, and has no basis in reality. If that is so, all our actions are "controlled" (or rather, set in motion) by events that preceded ourselves. Thus, we are simply products of what happened before, and any sense of freedom is an illusion.

 

So, Linda- do you have any sense of self? What do you think of when you think of yourself? Don't take that as mean or anything- i'm really enjoying this conversation, and I want to see how you view yourself. I don't see how a sense of self is possible in that deterministic worldview- but I'm sure you have one. :confused: could you explain, or was that to vaugue a question?

You must realize that you are part of the equation. Your actions cause other events. Of course you are a self. You exist as the sum of all your experiences, your genetic makeup, your present frame of reference, and your environment. How much more complete could you be? That's how I feel. This is a unique and awesomely wonderful existance that could only be possible after billions of years in the making. It doesn't take any supernatural or extraordinary aspect to be human. There is no disembodied mind with its own set of rules, separate from nature.

[lindagarrette]

You're using "determinism" in a form that I must admit I'm unfamiliar with: that is that non-deterministic means the same as "uncaused," and if that's your meaning, I'd agree with you. The way I'm using it--which is the only way I've ever seen it, although heck, I'm just an amatuer physicist--is that results are not predictable with any reasonable accuracy, and in a very real sense, no experiment is "repeatable" exactly, thus results can vary. I'm not sure how you reconcile what you're saying with Heisenberg other than to say that we will eventually be able to violate his principle once we have a better understanding of how quantum mechanics works. Am I missing something here?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

The scientific meaning of determinism, since Newton, on, is the cause and effect nature of the universe. Newton, however, believed in a diety so he didn't conceptualize the notion in its entirety. Since it is such a seemingly counterintuitive and for some, offensive proposition, most people would rather not even think about it. Even with an open mind, the idea takes a wile to sink in. Don't forget, it is our tradition to believe humanity posesses some supernatural gift and it's usually called free will. The quantum effects, if they are indeed random, can have virtually no effect (certainly not noticeable) on three dimensional reality.

 

Every experiment can be repeated exactly. It takes complete control over all the variables. Just like a computer program, as I mentioned earlier, it's debuggable.

[lindagarrette]

I agree, determinism is unquestioned.

 

Now, however, I should like to bring up something about free will. If it indeed exists, then it would break the laws of causality, as we agreed. Let's say somebody wanted to test that out- how would they go about doing that? I think, even given the entire worlds computing power, the scientific establishment would never accept evidence of free will, because one could always say- you've not checked for some variable.

 

I'm not making the "since you can't prove it doesn't exist, it must exist" argument at all. Just wondering if we can imagine the possibility that free will exists, and accept results that indicate it; or does the preverbial pandora's box free will would open make those results automatically discounted?

If you had free will, you would go around doing things for no reason whatsoever, and with no purpose or sense of being. Free will means freedom from all precedent conditions. There is no such thing as partial free will, or partial determinism. It is or it is not. That's all.

[lindagarrette]

. humans are caged by impulse and influence and only memory and language give them the contemplative abilities that they misconstrue as 'free thought'.

Very true. And from another perspective, we can only exist in the moment. Everything else is just a memory and not a very exact one since it blends with many other parts of our makeup. That's what makes us alive and wonderful. Otherwise we might just be machines.

[Buffy]

The scientific meaning of determinism, since Newton, on, is the cause and effect nature of the universe. The quantum effects, if they are indeed random, can have virtually no effect (certainly not noticeable) on three dimensional reality.

That's not true. While quantum effects are direct only at small scales, these effects *propagate upward*. This is why we use radioactive decay meters to create true random numbers: the incidence of atoms undergoing radioactive decay is due to quantum effects, and is easily measurable. The location and momentum of electrons--per Heisenberg--cannot be determined or controlled--the random motions of those electrons can and do affect their motions (they really don't operate like billiard balls!), etc. Googling "macroscopic quantum effects" will get you over 200,000 hits.

 

If you read science history books on the topic, you will see a constant theme that quantum theory was revolutionary because it overthrew Newtonian determinism.

 

So again, are you saying that Heisenberg will be proven wrong? Do you have any evidence of this?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TINNY]

The scientific meaning of determinism, since Newton, on, is the cause and effect nature of the universe. Newton, however, believed in a diety so he didn't conceptualize the notion in its entirety. Since it is such a seemingly counterintuitive and for some, offensive proposition, most people would rather not even think about it. Even with an open mind, the idea takes a wile to sink in.

I can understand your explanation of determinism. One problem is the big bang. why would energy suddenly come into existence at that singularity? Quantum gravity? THat still does not dispell the problem.

Don't forget, it is our tradition to believe humanity posesses some supernatural gift and it's usually called free will.

Not exactly. Our tradition is split right in half. SOme superstitious people tend to be rather fatalistic. quite a lot of people actually hold on to that.

Every experiment can be repeated exactly. It takes complete control over all the variables. Just like a computer program, as I mentioned earlier, it's debuggable.

for sure, you don't get repeated results of radioactive decay.

[TINNY]

You must realize that you are part of the equation. Your actions cause other events. Of course you are a self. You exist as the sum of all your experiences, your genetic makeup, your present frame of reference, and your environment. How much more complete could you be? That's how I feel. This is a unique and awesomely wonderful existance that could only be possible after billions of years in the making. It doesn't take any supernatural or extraordinary aspect to be human. There is no disembodied mind with its own set of rules, separate from nature.

again, i must call upon the problem of reductionism. Only specific characteristics can be applied. You don't say a sodium chloride molecule to only have the characteristics manifested by electrons and protons and neutrons right? Or, it doesn't have the characteristic of a sodium atom or a chlorine atom. Not even close. As different atoms combine to form molecules, they exhibit different characteristics. groups of molecules combined form different and more complex organizations of matter. Extrapolating this to our minds, it is a complex arrangement of neurons. They possibly manifest more and more complex characteristics, and who knows, it might be the stage where it transcends the deterministic nature.

One other thing; How can we be aware of ourselves. Imagine a computer having a whole entity, a being which is aware of itself...

[motherengine]

the whole idea is that one mind can challenge descarte's principal argument of the limitation of conscious understanding. moral is me writing a word. words are written without my conscious influence as actions are commited and judged without my influence. this is how i understand that action is not subject to my will or my judgement. things are ultimately out of my control and beyond my sense of right and wrong. therefore i believe that only an agency in control could lable any action free or right or wrong. without a god the sheep have much grass to account for, and they simply are not able to do the accounting (only the eating).