Thread: A Clockwork Orange-esque debate.

Okay, I choose to argue against the hard determinists itt.

Originally Posted by Syme

For better or for worse, the concept of "free will" is pretty dubious from a scientific perspective. It basically amounts to believing in magic, because it means you believe that there is something inside each person--in their brain, or in their "soul" or whatever--that is unaffected by causality, that is utterly divorced from the causal chain that determines everything else in the universe.

Free will isn't unaffected by causality. It fits in the causal chain. The causal chain up to now affects my will, which affects my actions, which affects the further causal chain.

I consciously choose what to do, based on the causal chain. Science hasn't and perhaps can't give a good account for consciousness.

Originally Posted by Syme

And causality is pretty much one of the most ironclad principles that exists in science. All human understanding of the universe rests of causality.

Causality itself is magic. To use Think's example, you drop a pen, and watch it fall. You say the dropping causes the falling, but you can't actually observe the causal relation between the two. There's only dropping and falling, no causing to be seen. It's not in the bar of soap. It's not in the air. It's not physical.

Even worse, scientists have to take a leap of faith to say that every time you drop some object in such-and-such conditions, it will fall. There's no way to verify that this purported causal relation is universal. If human understanding of the universe rests of causality, then that understanding rests on faith magic.

The example doesn't work with gravitons or any other reduced explanation either. Even if we observe gravitons moving around, we can't observe their causing the pen to fall.

Originally Posted by Syme

For a start, do you agree the the universe is comprised of matter (atoms), and that the interactions between them are governed by predictable laws? E.g., if one atom collides with another atom while moving in X direction at Y speed, then it is going to come away from that collision moving in X1 direction at Y1 speed?

No. As far as I'm aware, we can only predict probabilistically. There's no evidence to think there are laws that predict events exactly.

Originally Posted by Think

Everything you are is necessarily because of what you've learned and been, and therefore everything you do is totally inevitable.

This doesn't follow. Even if everything I am right now is what my past has determined, what I do next is related, but not certain. One would agree with your claim here only if they already reject free will. My personality, beliefs, composition—what I am—aren't the only things that determine what I do. The will is missing.

Originally Posted by Think

I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this. Anything else has to be wholly religious and metaphysical. You talk as though there's a difference between all the stuff you learned, what happened to you in the past, and what you would do RIGHT NOW. But tell me, could you start talking fluent chinese right now? Could you suddenly believe in Islam?

Of course I can't suddenly believe in Islam right now. That fact is irrelevant since saying what I can't do doesn't restrict what I can do. I know that if I start studying Islam, I will then be able to believe in it should I choose.

Originally Posted by Think

This still makes sense within the context of free will thinking, actually, because as long as we decide ourselves to restrict our free will, we retain our free will; it's just expressed in our self imposition of morality in one moment.

Are these analogous to what you're saying? 1. When I kill myself, I retain my free will. It's just expressed... in one moment. 2. When I inject myself to become a vegetable, I retain my free will. It's just expressed in one moment.

Originally Posted by mutton

I know that if I start studying Islam, I will then be able to believe in it should I choose.

Do you really believe you can choose what to believe in? This is an important point.

Originally Posted by mutton

Free will isn't unaffected by causality. It fits in the causal chain. The causal chain up to now affects my will, which affects my actions, which affects the further causal chain.

I consciously choose what to do, based on the causal chain.

So you think that the causal chain exists up until it impinges on you, then causality is suspended for a minute while some magical property of your brain allows you to make decisions outside of the causal chain, then once you've made your decision, causality kicks back in? No. Every atom in the universe is a part of the causal chain at every moment, including the ones that make up your brain. If you think that you can "consciously choose what to do, based on the causal chain," you don't understand causality.

Originally Posted by mutton

Science hasn't and perhaps can't give a good account for consciousness.

So? Are you saying that because you feel like you're consciously making decisions, you must actually be doing so? Consciousness is pretty irrelevant to this issue. As Think explains, your brain is like a black box with a huge number of inputs, a huge number of outputs, and a lot of complex clockwork inside. The fact that you feel conscious doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by mutton

Causality itself is magic. To use Think's example, you drop a pen, and watch it fall. You say the dropping causes the falling, but you can't actually observe the causal relation between the two. There's only dropping and falling, no causing to be seen. It's not in the bar of soap. It's not in the air. It's not physical.

Even worse, scientists have to take a leap of faith to say that every time you drop some object in such-and-such conditions, it will fall. There's no way to verify that this purported causal relation is universal. If human understanding of the universe rests of causality, then that understanding rests on faith magic.

The example doesn't work with gravitons or any other reduced explanation either. Even if we observe gravitons moving around, we can't observe their causing the pen to fall.

You are correct that causality, as a principle, emerges from observed relationships between events. We see two events and label one the cause, and one the effect, and there's never any way to actually detect a causal relationship between them. Yeah, maybe tomorrow I'll drop a bar of soap and it won't fall--who knows. Nevertheless, causality has never failed us yet; and in science, that's about as good as it gets. The principle of causality is the foundation stone of science. It's held even more dearly by scientists that utterly ironclad, exhaustively tested theories like the theory of gravitation or the theory of relativity. If you really don't want to accept it, that's fine; no one can force you to. Human understanding of the universe DOES rest on causality, because science rests on causality. So I guess that you believe science is "faith magic". Okay.

Originally Posted by mutton

No. As far as I'm aware, we can only predict probabilistically. There's no evidence to think there are laws that predict events exactly.

Yeah, I set aside quantum randomness in trying to explain that to no_brains. You can see that I do mention it earlier in the thread. Either way, free will gets the boot.