Natural it is

[Freethinker]

it so happens that you never try to evaluate my side of the argument. you have profound abhorrence towards metaphysics. skepticism must be your virue.

Yes I do consider Skepticism to be a virtue and try to use it effectively.

 

But you are wrong to state that I do not EVALUATE your side. Esp as a Skeptic, I am more than anxious to evalaute ALL sides and ALL factual data. But that is the rub. We don't see FACTUAL data from the meta side. So it is not that I DON'T evaluate your side, it is a lack of facts to evaluate that is the issue.

I have to clarify my stand first. I believe that humans have free-will, but their actions are also partly determined by external influence - the physical, social, and umm, divine factors.

As soon as you put restrictions on the possible range of actions, Free Will is gone. And I don't mean artifical human laws, but physical limitations immutably impossed by nature. As to "divine", once more, if you can not provide proof of it's existence, skeptical processes require that it be rejected from intellectually honest discourse. (we can't "evaluate" what yoo don't provide facts to evalute for)

1. Humans have made the biggest observable difference on the planet compared to other species. This suggests our ability to use symbolic language to think independent of external influences.

You are confusing our ability to modify (effectivenss) with the ability to act totally independantly. An atomic bomb has more effect than a fire cracker, but neither has any "free will".

2. Behavioral psychology - the demise of behaviorist ideology based on an addition of inner speech in the formation of our total past learning history which influences our actions(read the attachment)

OK here we discuss the nature/ nurture issue. Neither of which invles "Free Will". Just what sources there are for a deterministic outcome.

3. Humanism? I thought it is opposed to behaviourism and promotes free-will and responsibility of our actions

HUmanism merely removes religious authority and replaces it with humans as the primary power. That human laws and goals are derived from humans and for humans. Not a supernatural authority. I see nothing in Humanism that conflicts with behaviorism. In fact B.F. Skinner, DA MAN in behavioral circles, is (was?) a Secular Humanist.

4. Ultimately, it leads to a question of metaphysics. My view is that the special theory of relativity offers the possibility that our mind is linked to a the soul...

SOUL? What soul? Show us this "Soul" thing you are claiming. You are assigning it PHYSICAL properties, that it is linked to and that that link is based on a PHYSICAL thing, "light"

due to the nature of light as a means of conveying information in the form of EMR.

If it has a physical component, then it has to have a physical presence. Show it to us.

As I said, would it be logical if we were to see one action done by someone, then go back in time, and observe a different action at that exact time? ;)

Seeing two different outcomes of the same event could as easily be assigned to Uncertainty. If we were monitoring a mass of radioactive element to see which released a particle at point in time A and went back to point A again, Uncertainty would state that there is no reason to assert that it would be the same molecule/ particle..

 

Again, we see nothing that validates Free Will.

[TINNY]

wow... i'm a goner.

better get some sleep first. its 2am here....

[TINNY]

;) this is getting off topic and the question of free will has popped up in many threads. so i'll start a new thread on this. ;)

[geko]

I consider there to be a difference between influenced and determined.

 

Determined to me implies an outcome that couldnt have been any other way. Influenced implies that eg actions etc., experienced a 'nudge' in a certain direction that could possibly lead to a particular outcome, other 'nudges' (which we experience) could lead other places.

 

Stating human action as completely determined denies the complexity i feel. Even in the quantum world we have the uncertainty principle. Sure, human will is influenced constantly, but the choices are our own because who are we if not what we've been influenced toward? This, as an identity, equals freewill.

 

?

[TINNY]

i agree about influence-determinined

tating human action as completely determined denies the complexity i feel. Even in the quantum world we have the uncertainty principle. Sure, human will is influenced constantly, but the choices are our own because who are we if not what we've been influenced toward? This, as an identity, equals freewill.

so the uncertainty principle is where the human free will comes into play?

[geko]

No that's not what i meant.

 

I think there should have been a new paragraph started after "...the uncertainty principle" so the principle wouldnt have aided comprehension of the next sentence (...think im improving with my understanding of the ambiguity of language you know :) ).

 

Now im reading it again i also think that it wasnt a good analogy to use because I was implying that the quantum world is less complex than the human psyche, and yet the quantum world has uncertainty in its predicatability, so this would imply that human will is even more unpredicatable [edit: free].

 

Inaccurate analogy because predicatable/determined, unpredicatable/free will, dont match.

 

An analogy is superfluous to the idea anyway thinking about it, so maybe ill edit it.......

:)

[pgrmdave]

Maybe we should try to define what free will is more specifically. We all have a basic understanding of it, I think, but we should have a starting point. I believe Tinny came the closest to defining it as the ability to make more than one choice at any given juncture in time. Of course, the problem with that is that we can only coose one choice when faced with any options, so we can't know if we are acting with free will and choosing that choice, or if it is determined by science and if the situation were somehow replayed we would always make that choice.

[jazzn85]

Hi everyone. I'm a new member and thought that this would be a good thread to start with. I've been reading numerous discussions from start to finish in hopes to not introduce irrelovence or ignorance into my posts. I'm sure I'll still fail at this and look forward to the responces of FT or Tormod, i respect you both highly from your previous posts, as well as the other regulars that I seem to know well from past discussions. Anyways, onto the post.

 

for me, free will has always been defined as complete control of one's actions be it in responce to a scenario or unprovoked. Such as, I could easily continue with this post, or walk off and do a different unrelated activity. I can lift my arm up right now, or leave it in it's current position. Granted, this is a very simplistic form of free will, if free will exists, but free non the less. Animals would experience similar activities, such as when to eat, sleep, drink, mate. Their thought process, assuming the have one, is likely to be simpler or more focussed than humans', but they can't just be on autopilot, right? And if we hadn't "free" will, what point is there in existance?

Freethinker stated "As soon as you put restrictions on the possible range of actions, Free Will is gone. And I don't mean artifical human laws, but physical limitations immutably impossed by nature." I reluctantly disagree. why should limitations irradicate free will and not simply limit it's potential. Sure, there's a difference between choosing any number at random from infinity, but even if the choice is limited to picking from 1-10, one is still free to pick within the limitation. That is, allowing that the limitation isn't restrictive to the point that one only has a single option or path to follow.

However, if we really have free will of any sort, does this not invalidate fate (being a predetermined path that one follows in correspondance with a God), and therefore, Divinity and the SUPERnatural? Maybe for another discussion.

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute and I look forward to a diminution of my ignorance.

[pgrmdave]

for me, free will has always been defined as complete control of one's actions be it in responce to a scenario or unprovoked. Such as, I could easily continue with this post, or walk off and do a different unrelated activity. I can lift my arm up right now, or leave it in it's current position.

 

But you didn't make multiple choices, you only chose one. The question is whether you could have possibly made another choice. All of our common sense tells us that this is so, but common sense isn't always right.

[pgrmdave]

However, if we really have free will of any sort, does this not invalidate fate (being a predetermined path that one follows in correspondance with a God), and therefore, Divinity and the SUPERnatural?

 

I fail to understand how invalidating fate would invalidate god, divinity, or the supernatural.

If anything, it would invalidate a deterministic view of the universe, which has traditionally been the realm of science, although science is beginning to break away from that.

[jazzn85]

I fail to understand how invalidating fate would invalidate god, divinity, or the supernatural.

If anything, it would invalidate a deterministic view of the universe, which has traditionally been the realm of science, although science is beginning to break away from that.

Free will would invalidate the super natural if fate was directly tied to the supernatural, as in "Gods will" or "Plan". But agreed, free will would be detrimental to a deterministic universe. And with your past responce about common sence, agreed that common sense isn't always right and that i did make a singular decision at the time (it just seems so hard to believe it's all planned, if only it were that easy...). This brought to mind, however, the theory that every unmade decision in the world spawns of a duplicate reallity where the only difference lies in the choice in question. Just wondering what the forum's opinion on this theory are. and to keep the forum on topic, are alternate reallities considered a natural phenomina...(opposed to the un- or supernatural)

[Tormod]

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute and I look forward to a diminution of my ignorance.

You are very welcome to our community, jazzn85! Great to have you onboard. :)

[lindagarrette]

Free will would invalidate the super natural if fate was directly tied to the supernatural, as in "Gods will" or "Plan". But agreed, free will would be detrimental to a deterministic universe. And with your past responce about common sence, agreed that common sense isn't always right and that i did make a singular decision at the time (it just seems so hard to believe it's all planned, if only it were that easy...). This brought to mind, however, the theory that every unmade decision in the world spawns of a duplicate reallity where the only difference lies in the choice in question. Just wondering what the forum's opinion on this theory are. and to keep the forum on topic, are alternate reallities considered a natural phenomina...(opposed to the un- or supernatural)

The concept of dual realities is pure speculation. So are a lot of ideas. The solution is to find out if any evidence exxsits to support the notion and how can it be tested.