ACt

Except with my argument, you need to look at the biology. EVERYTHING you do is a product of your genetics. Whether you are really nice or quick to anger is all a byproduct of the susceptability of your neurons to certain stimuli, all of which are biochemically produced by your neurons. So your moral code is set by your neurons and your brain chemistry. The reason you feel good for helping someone or aversion to the idea of murdering someone is because of that and these responses exist because they have been evolutionarily promoted because the humans who helped others rather than killed others breed more successfully, thus passing on the positive genes that promote good behaviour. (Which for all simplicity is how Evolution works - anything that improves your chances of breeding becomes a prevalent trait.) There is a reason people often have very similar behaviours to their parents that goes beyond the fact that they were raised by them.

The biggest complication people have with this thought process is the fact that humans have committed a lot of these innate codes to text and now morals are "taught". But your brain still responds favourably to altruism and social engagement, so it isn't completely nurture. Though I do admit there is a lot of nurture in our behaviours and enough evidence exists that genetics are regulated, in some cases permanently, in response to exterior stimuli, so it can't fully be negated.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Axiom

I always considered conscience to be taught myself as well. Its development being functions of society, culture and upbringing. Social conditioning conflicting with ones natural instincts.

Having little to no knowledge of the genetics of it, other than what I am getting from you. Using your 'really nice or quick to anger' example. So the social conditioning I was considering(being the external stimuli) does indeed act on it, but even that is primarily in the biological sense of neurons that fire together wire together, making the behavior more likely?

Miburo

It seems like you're suggesting that predictability negates free will. Would that also mean that if a god could predict or foresee all the choices I will ever make then that would also mean I would lack free will? Because I've seen many theists argue that it wouldn't, since I'm still choosing things and that god knowing the choices I'd make beforehand doesn't effect my actual ability to do so. And it seems like the Christian God would be able to hypothetically predict all events.

I'm not seeing how the two hypothetical situations (God making stuff vs. No god existing) really differ when it comes to this free will stuff.



I definitely didn't word that well, my bad. I'm not actually claiming free will exists or addressing it's existing or anything like that. I'm responding to what I believe your belief on the matter consists of. That being that free will does exist because of God, but wouldn't without God. From what I've gathered, that is what your stated belief entails. I'm disagreeing with the part where it wouldn't exist without God, but does with God.

I was operating under the assumption that everyone would be in agreement that free will does exist here, or at least both you and I would. And that the claim would be free will is actually just an illusion. So I just skipped to the counter-argument part there. Like, some dude saying the sun doesn't exist and we'd all be like "prove it." I dunno why I said that though, because I guess it doesn't matter. I think I was going to then be like "How is that different because God made people that way?" after you brought up the brain function stuff. Like I'm going to do down below, Haha.

Assuming the first two paragraphs here are true, then that's how our brains work even if God made us. Yeah, God could alter our brain functions so that we work differently, but He clearly doesn't if what you're saying is how our brains currently work. So if you believe that is how our brains work and that God made us then He either made us without free will or we can have free will despite how our brains currently function.

That second part is what is really important. Because it means that despite how our brains currently function, free will is possible. It could very well be a supernatural agent that makes it possible, as you suggest. But it could also just as likely be a completely natural cause that we don't yet know about (Arguably more likely, since we at least know natural shit exists). There doesn't have to be a creator God that made it so, so one cannot logically conclude that without a creator God free will cannot exist.

That's pretty much what I was going for here. Though I'd also probably argue against the idea that since thought is controlled by involuntary processes of the brain then we cannot freely make choices. That seems like the same logic people use to say love and other emotions are illusions based on the fact that they're just signals and chemical reactions in the brain or whatever. Yes, the brain controls emotion, but emotions still exist. Hell, the brain controls my ability to walk around and shit like that though involuntary chemical reactions and signals and whatnot. I still actually walk around and shit though. None of those things are actually illusions. Just like I would still be a being capable of reason making choices about shit even though the brain functions that explain how I go about doing those things exists. Not really relevant to our discussion, I know. I figure everyone else was sharing their stance on random shit, so why not eh?

ACt

There is definitely an aspect to the mutability of neurons into forming behaviour, but this is also in your genes. Some people are going to able to form thoughts or behaviour patterns far easier because they are predisposed to it, just like some people are more likely to develop cancer. There's a documentary out there called "What the Bleep do we know?" which is a weird mix of advanced physics, biology and sociology - I really should watch it again. In any case, they go into some brain chemistry and talk about it in terms of depression.

The big thing to know when it comes to neurons is that they can alter how sensitive they are to certain stimuli. If you are constantly pumping your brain full of one neurotransmitter, the neurons will change either to blunt or alter its response to it (usually though increasing numbers of receptors). This is all genetic based. A behaviour that is rewarded will cause either the "rewiring" of your brain to make this a faster response or a change in the number of receptors to a positive response. Same in a negative response. The documentary made a very basic association that people get into depression when their neurons physically get addicted to the depressing neurotransmitters - almost a habit forming response in presence of normal levels. If you have genetics that promote the overreaction of such neurotransmitters, it is likely you are more oft to develop depression.

I'm guessing the problem in communication here is that when I say genetics, most people think of a static DNA system that hums along producing what is you which is at odds with the idea that we change greatly in thought and action throughout our lives. But DNA and the associated systems do change. Genes are turned on and off, altered in terms of activity and even amount of effort it takes for a system to activate them. Considering you have 22,000 genes that are in a dynamic flux with each other, there is huge potential for unique alterations (temporary or permanent) to explain the idea of self taught. Especially when the genetics main goal is to drive cellular/organ function. Nothing happens in the body (from production of stomach acid, sweating and neural rewiring) that is not driven by genetic activation or change.

And it's all evolutionarily set up to provide that these genes get passed on to a new generation. Culture is just another extension (or phenotype) of our brain genetics which aid in allowing humans to work together, survive and thrive - all good things when it comes to genetic survival.

Other cool things in genetics that people are currently studying: behaviours are genetically passed. Some studies have shown that people who's grandparents smoked are more easily addicted to nicotine and more likely to smoke. Mice given fat diets have offspring which eat more and are genetically predisposed to diabetes because of insulin regulation alterations in their genetics (this also works when only one parent is fed fatty diets). The list goes on and if you like I could try and dig up some specifics.

I guess it also seems pretty insulting to think that everything little clever thing we are can be attributed (if we work hard enough and are smart enough to map out the interconnections) to a series of "mindless" self-replicating molecules, but when you consider that the human genetic variance is roughly 0.1%, meaning that you and I share 99.9% of our genes in common and we have so much in difference with each other... I find it intensely fascinating.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Human Rasengan

ok my bad I'll take note .. I was just sure posting here would get the right kind of people to respond but it seems your response to kael kinda gave me a hint in the direction I was looking towards.. I was under the impression that being an atheist would contradict a persons belief in possibly having a soul but i can accept your response as a good start

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Mal

I'm not suggesting that predictability negates free will. I am suggesting that predictability and the impossibility of free will both result from the unalterable cause-effect relationship between the past and future.

As for God knowing events before they happen, Christian theology teaches that God is "outside" of time, constantly seeing and present in every moment of existence. C.S. Lewis compared this to a piece of paper with a line drawn on it, where the line is a timeline of all physical existence and the paper itself is where God "dwells." Alternatively, some Christians believe in Predestination, the idea that God specifically chooses those who will be saved. The rest of us think that goes against everything that Christianity is.




Okay, cool.




Scientifically, that is how our brains work. What I am arguing is that the "soul" can affect these functions in a way that is impossible for us to detect or measure. Think of it like a calculator; it gives predetermined answered based on input and its programming. If you, as an external force, alter its programming you will change its results (considering you to be "supernatural" to the calculator for the purposes of the metaphor).

I honestly don't think any natural occurrence could result in free will. Even if there is some portion of our brain wired to allow whatever processes would result in "free choice," that wiring would still be dependent on our genetics, and our brains still rely on our past experiences. If there is such a thing though, it is not necessarily a universal feature shared by all people. Since creative thought is arguably the only original thought, it makes sense that highly creative and original thinkers would be the most likely to posses this hypothetical feature. Recent studies have found similarities between the brains of creative individuals and those with schizophrenia, so such creative thought could be a result of schizophrenic minds which show fewer or no negative symptoms. However, this is again all dependent on genetics and "pre-programmed" brain processes, which will get us back to where we started. Ultimately, I don't think anything within nature can affect the brain in such a way that an indefinite effect results from a certain initial cause.

Miburo

Okay.

And what exactly is Christian theology, in this context? I wiki'd the term so I know what it means and whatnot. But it's basically just theory-crafting kinda shit, right? By that, I mean it's kinda like just making up explanations for how God's magic powers work and shit, yeah? Not trying to be condescending or anything, honest. I just don't know how to word shit any less brutish and shit.



Yeah. So despite how our brain works, you're saying we are capable of free will. I can sort of see the argument for the reason being supernatural (Though, there isn't any reason it couldn't be some unknown natural reason. Even if it's through genetics or whatever it shouldn't matter so long as it allows free will.). I definitely don't see how it has to be divine intervention though. Saying "something" causes us to have free will despite how our brain functions is simply more logical than saying "supernatural divine intervention" causes us to have free will despite how our brains function.

--------
Unnecessary, most likely retarded rambling below.
--------


Also, I'm not getting what free will is or some shit. I don't see how that wouldn't be free will if it's dependent on genetics or brain function. But would be free will if it's dependent on a soul or a spirit or a god. How is that really any different if in either group of scenarios it's still dependent on something (I'm assuming it's because of magic, or supernatural stuff)? How are you specifically defining free will?

I see free will as being able to make rational choices as a self-aware rational dude. Not being free from influence or limitations. My genetics and environment most likely do effect my thoughts, and my brain functioning is what allows me to have thoughts in the first place. But my thoughts can also control or influence my environment and some brain functions, my genetics can be influenced by my environment, etc. Seems way more like a big triangle of influence over any one or more facets completely and totally controlling another.

I dunno. I never gave the free will shit too much thought, honestly. I always figured that it's okay simply because it's a functionally useful concept. People being responsible for the shit they do makes a lot of shit a fuck-ton more simple when deciding who to punch and who not to punch.

Mal

Theology is the study of religion in a way similar to how one would study math or science; studying religious writings like you would study academic papers. Theologians through history have developed various theories about God, though it is understandably difficult to experimentally test such theories. If the Christian God does not exist then it really is nothing more than making shit up, but if He does then I expect we do have a fairly accurate picture of Him.



The problem I have with "something" causing free will is that any natural "something" is still going to be a result of natural processes, and everything natural is a result of the natural occurrences that preceded it. It is possible that "something" natural could give us free will, but it would go against our idea that every natural occurrence is the result of some past occurrence.



It's all about dependence. Our genetics and memory is all based on, and entirely dependent on, what has happened before. Everything that's happened before is in turn based on what happened before that and so on. Assuming we are strictly physical beings, we have no control over our genetics or the way our brain functions so our entire thought process is dependent entirely on the past. We make choices all the time, but none of those choices are ever really "made" because there is only one choice that is most compatible with who our past has made us.

It is impossible to make choices free of influence or limitations. Your past influences your personality, and your personality influences your choices. Your knowledge and creativity limit your imagination, and your imagination limits the possibilities you will take into consideration when given a choice. Your thoughts can influence your environment, and your environment can influence your thoughts, but both your thoughts and your environment are natural. Being able to change or effect your environment doesn't mean you are completely independent of its influence.

Responsibility is obviously important for society to function properly. It's only necessary for people to accept the idea of free will though, whether or not it actually does exist doesn't really matter if people assuming it exists allows society and justice to be possible. Like I said though, I believe that free will does exist as a result of supernatural influence. I also doubt that most people would be willing to accept that a (mentally healthy) criminal had no control over their actions, since that would imply they also have no control over their owns actions. I don't think human vanity will allow people to accept that they are not really their own person.

Miburo

I dunno...I guess it doesn't really matter though.


So why would it matter if the "something" is natural and the result of some past occurrence? The point is that free will would still exist. So long as "'something' natural could give us free will" then it's all good since the point is that we have free will.

Also, me having free will would be the result of a past occurrence if we assume the supernatural explanation anyway. That past occurrence being that God gave me free will. Everything in the present comes from the past.



So is that how you're defining free will? Choices free of influence or limitations? That wouldn't make any sense given the fact that currently we're still not free of influence or limitations, even if God gave us 'free will'. Because I'm still influenced and limited by natural things like genetics and environment. I can't do whatever I can think of, I can't do what my environment and genetics doesn't allow. How can we have free will if that's the definition you're going to go with? Free will defined like that doesn't exist, or at the very least we don't have it.

I think the big problem here is that most arguments you can use to say free will cannot exist without God or the supernatural will ultimately make free will impossible even with God or the supernatural. Since the perspective of the natural world doesn't change in either scenario. If I choose to not eat a pickle because I've had pickles before and they tasted like shit then I'm being influenced by my past and whatever biological genetic shit that makes me dislike the taste of pickles. The would remain constant in a purely natural world or a world where supernatural shit has imbued me with whatever you're calling free will. The difference between that choice in either scenario is that the natural world that isn't free will, but through a supernatural world it is magically free will even though everything is exactly the same. That's pretty much it. God magic makes something that logically isn't your definition of free will turn to something that is free will. A wizard did it, free will edition.


Yeah. That wasn't an argument for the existence of free will or anything. Just a why I never really gave it any thought before.

ACt

First off, interesting discussion Mal and Miburo.

Second, I will take up the contrary position: I don't see any evidence or need for the idea of "free will". It could exist, but given everything, I could easily argue it is an unnecessary complication to help describe how and why humans do the things they do.

It all has to do with how we define and understand the fourth dimension of time. To make it simple, our brains are altered to a higher level of complexity in the "forward" direction of time. Our memories build in one direction due to the construction of neural links and webs and as this increases, we increase our perception of time passing. However, as physicists build an increasingly larger understanding of space-time as a dimension, I think we can begin to see how time is not this independent factor but just another way to view the universe. Let's see if I can put this into a reasonable analogy.

Let's say the first three dimensions are a ball. The ball then rolls along a flat surface that we will call time, so we can say the father it rolls the more time that has passed in the ball's existence. Our brains record the ball moving in one direction. Now, let's say we take every "timepoint" and map them. We get a line of where the ball was which we could call the dimension of time. What if this exists in its entirety before we begin viewing the ball? (for logically, the ball would continue rolling if we were not there to view it) In this case, time exists as an intact dimension at all times and if viewed from a point outside time, it would appear as a solid path of ball, stretched out until existence ends. The ball is both at the start and the finish of its trek and only when you choose to pick a point in time does it appear again as a singular ball.

OK, what does that have to do with anything. Well, if time exists as a solid dimension then everything that is travels in it and there is the potential that it is indeed predetermined. Everything will play out in one manner and one only. Must like we are able to predict the evolution of a star (mainly because it is really just one or two reactions occurring over and over again), we could learn to predict everything in the universe - a monumentally difficult task because to predict ourselves we'd need to be able to predict how our prediction machines (brains) would work. That's kinda like asking water to clean itself.

Memory and decision making do fall into this. Because our brains perceive the flow of time direction rather than "both", we live our lives as building upon the past, making choices based on what comes before (as Mal has pointed out). But you never truly get a second chance. Everything ends up with one decisions, one outcome, one probability. In this case, does it matter if we have free will when our brains don't give us anything in terms of predictive potential beyond what has already happened? (It'd be different if we knew the two outcomes 100% before we chose, but we don't. We like to think we do, but we don't.)

Stephen Hawking has a wonderful example of this which I will now paraphrase. You're sitting down for tea, feel you want the cream (goodness knows why) and reach across for it and clumsily knock your tea cup off the table, it falls and smashes on the ground. You are distressed. But wait! We can just turn back time and fix the entire situation. Time reverses, the pieces of cup and puddle of tea leap back together, fall back up onto the table and reform as you pull your hand away. Now you can avoid your mistake. Except that when we reversed time, the recording of the falling tea cup, your distress at that blunder have been taken away, your brain altered back to the original state. You have no knowledge of knocking off the tea cup at all. You decide you want cream and clumsily knock your tea cup off the table.

How we perceive time is the key attribute of free will and while I agree we cannot prove it doesn't exist, I think there are some evidence that if we find, we could say it does. The biggest would be proving the Multi-verse hypothesis, that oft used science fiction trope. The basic idea is that every decision or action leads to different outcomes which all exist in parallel universes. That's pretty clear cut that our decisions affect time and have different outcomes and could be construed as free will. As it is, if the multi-verse exists, what level time fragments could also be proof of our place in the world. If it is just our actions (highly arrogant thought), then we are truly special and probably be one of the few things that could challenge my thoughts of god. If, however, it is altered by the actions of a dog, the wind or whether or not an election decides to adopt a +1/2 or -1/2 spin, then we have a universal property of matter to affect the dimension of time (probably with the use of gravity as has been proposed/demonstrated). That would prove nothing special but could be a big argument for free will.

The other is time travel. If we can move through time without affecting our brains and then affect past events, even relive them to different outcomes (or view different outcomes from "outside time"), then we could again say free will exists.

Beyond that, free will isn't necessary because everything is as it is and, for all we know, will be what it is. Or more accurately, is what it is - we just can't perceive it.

Of course, that opens the "then what does it matter" type of arguments but that again goes back our brain function. Because it is designed to view time as a flowing, point A to point B organ, the construction of free will becomes a useful tool in describing the world and living in it (and as Mal said, the basis for the idea of justice - and probably a bunch of other civilization characteristics). We are bound by the rules of our physiology, so while free will doesn't have to exist, it makes life easier (thus fulfilling the needs of our genes) pretending that it does. Now, if only I could stop dwelling on the past.

__________________
It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

Miburo

I agree with that. I don't think it would be possible to choose something different than what we choose or any shit like that. If someone defined free will as that, then I would agree that it likely doesn't exist.

Admittedly, I don't understand some of that time part though. Like, the fourth dimension ball rolling part. Maybe the part where viewing it from the outside is fucking me up. Because I always thought of time as this one way thing where only the present actually exists. Like, there is no past because it's gone and no future because it hasn't happened yet. I get that the present is a result of the past and the future is a result of the present kinda thing, and I get that the future is going to happen a certain way because of what happened before it. So am I understanding this right, or am I viewing this shit as something that contradicts how time actually works? Just making sure I'm not completely misunderstanding something.

But yeah. I agree that shit is going to happen the way it's going to happen. I just figure that since I'm self-aware and capable of rational thought I can take all these things into consideration as I choose shit. So I know I dislike the taste of shitty fucking pickles, I know that based on past experiences eating disgusting as fuck pickles, I know that every choice I made would be the same if I rewound time, I know my shit is influenced and controlled by stuff, etc. That's what makes us different than wind and bugs and most other shit. The fact that I'm aware of myself and my thoughts and whatnot. That is what I would call free will if I were to argue for it's existence. Admittedly, I'm totally cheating by defining it as something that exists in the same way I guess emotions and shit exist. But eh. My original thing in here about free will was in regards to natural vs supernatural free will thingers.

Edit: late 11-10-11, Don't care about this shit. Skyrim.

Mal

This. I will find time to read your guys' responses, but I don't expect I'll be responding myself. I am astonished I have even managed to find time to catch up on two weeks absent from NL.