|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GreatIslam
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Do we have any Free Will? Take the poll please. |
 |
|
Do Free Will exist?
Take the poll at this link
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=52712
I guess many times before this topic have been discussed in this forum.
I would like to read new comers ideas on this.
Please give me your thought if we have "Free Will".
Please consider the implication and logical connections between Free Will and the following.
1) Definition of Free Will
a) Why shouldn't we assume the definition of Free Will that general public wished, desired, thought, fantasized, wanted to express this abstract thought. After all, same issue of definition goes to "God" as well. Most atheist are quick to deny the existence of god without any psychological discomfort but unable to do so when it is the issue of Free Will. Free Will and God, both are vaguely defined.
2) Consider implications and logical connection of the following on Free Will
a) Newtonian physics (cause and effect),
b) Quantum Mechanics/Heisenberg Uncertainty principle
c) Emerging Theory.
3) Personal responsibility
a) Crime and Punishment b) Good deeds and rewards c) Planning and forecasting
Last edited by GreatIslam on Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ixolite
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 12939
Location: land of pork and beer
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Take the poll please |
You can't vote on a forum you're not a member of. 
_________________
</islam>
"Never argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Goldthwait H. Dorr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreatIslam
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ixolite wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Take the poll please |
You can't vote on a forum you're not a member of. |
Then become a member. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixolite
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 12939
Location: land of pork and beer
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GreatIslam wrote: |
| ixolite wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Take the poll please |
You can't vote on a forum you're not a member of. |
Then become a member. |
So one should become member of a forum just to take part in a poll?  Don't be ridiculous!
_________________
</islam>
"Never argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Goldthwait H. Dorr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Free will" is not really a meaningful concept outside of the context of a "test for salvation."
So... until the reality of such a test is established... what would it matter if we had "free will" or not?
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Do we have any Free Will? Take the poll please. |
|
|
There is no fre will .
We are all born muslims but this mfrigging world made us what we are. We should go back to Islam. That proves there is no choice but to be muslims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreatIslam
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| THHuxley_redux wrote: |
"Free will" is not really a meaningful concept outside of the context of a "test for salvation."
So... until the reality of such a test is established... what would it matter if we had "free will" or not? |
Good answer.
I just added some more detail in my original post above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: Do we have any Free Will? Take the poll please. |
|
|
| GreatIslam wrote: |
2) Consider implications and logical connection of the following on Free Will
a) Newtonian physics (cause and effect),
b) Quantum Mechanics/Heisenberg Uncertainty principle
c) Emerging Theory.
3) Personal responsibility
a) Crime and Punishment b) Good deeds and rewards c) Planning and forecasting |
Determinism and Free Will
It is common for traditional theists confronted by the contradiction between omniscience and free will to try and shift the debate away from that contradiction to another one; that between determinism and free will.
The core of the argument rests on the correct understanding that if mental processes are entirely physical phenomenon (i.e. if “mind is” what “brain does”), then they must be determined by the laws of physics which are, as we know, invariant. In this view, there is ultimately no free will, since all our “choices” are determined by the particular causal processes that led to the specific constellation of forces and particles that existed at the moment of that “choice.” In such a universe, human behavior is governed by physics rather than genuine volition.
In an attempt to score additional rhetorical points, these traditional theists then go on to argue that such determination renders any concept of human justice, punishment or reward illegitimate. After all, goes the argument, if our behaviors are determined, what right do we have for punishing someone for an act that ultimately “was not their fault.”
This essay is designed to address those issues. I will attempt to demonstrate the following two things:
1. The argument is first and foremost a red herring. The contradiction between omniscience and free will only matters in a context that presumes eternal reward or damnation as the end result of personal choice. If there is no “heaven and hell” then “free will” is rendered inconsequential as a human capacity. It simply would no longer matter one way or the other.
2. Any such determination of human choice poses no challenge whatsoever to the concept of human justice. This is because justice, as properly understood, is not about punishment at all. It is about the utilitarian protection of the community.
Part One: The Argument is a “Red Herring”
It is important to remember that the context of the original discussion is the “salvation scheme” that characterizes human existence as a “test on earth,” the ultimate purpose of which is to sort out the eternal fate of individuals; either eternal reward in paradise or eternal punishment in hell.
For such a “test” to be just, it requires that reward and/or punishment be earned based upon the moral choices of the people being rewarded/punished. An individual cannot be held morally responsible for the choices of anyone other than themselves.
But if individuals have no “free will,” (i.e. if they are not actually responsible for their own moral choices) then any differential treatment based on those choices is rendered unjust and arbitrary.
Atheists and non-traditional theists are aware that anything in the traditional theist’s belief that denies “free will” is a contradiction that is more than merely troubling. It compellingly undermines the entire foundation of both orthodox Islam and orthodox Christianity. In the words of the wag, it reduces god to a “small boy playing with an ant farm.”
It is curious, therefore, that the traditional theistic response is so often “well, if you are correct, then in a deterministic universe there is no ‘free will’ anyway.”
How would such an alternative (if true) solve their problem? The original challenge was to the rationale for their salvation scheme. This alternative destroys that rationale as completely as the other one did. It still requires that their faith be false, and that their respective salvation schemes be labeled as absurd.
On the other hand, for the challenged opponent there are no similar undesirable consequences of such an alternative. The opponent posed no eternal consequence of moral choice requiring free will in the first place.
In other words… even were we to fully concede the diversionary argument, the argument leaves the theist in exactly the same position he was placed earlier; residing in a universe in which any eternal salvation scheme is not just bad farce, but gratuitously cruel farce at that.
Part Two: Human Justice in a Deterministic Universe
Let us again concede, arguendo, that human behavior is ultimately determined by laws of physics rather than unconstrained human volition. Would such a reality render human justice as farcical and arbitrary as eternal divine justice?
The answer is patently, “No.” To understand this, we must give some thought to the interaction between individuals and communities.
The human individual is the result of a vast number of different inputs and their effects. We are each for starters physically different, with unique and unrepeatable patterns of neural connections and cerebral structure. Some of this is driven by genetics, and some of it by environment… but even identical twins will not have identical brains. As the embryonic cells that eventually will become our neurons reproduce and connect, each pattern will be different even if arising from identical genetic instructions.
Second, we each encounter different experiences that are formative of the filters we employ in our decision making process. Our behaviors change as we learn and each of us learns different things. And all humans (other than the autistic) assemble specific filters based on those experiences to drive efficiency in attention and decision making. Many of our behaviors are not conscious “choices” but the results of the automatic application of specific filters appropriate to the moment.
Finally, the immediate circumstance of any instance of “choice” will uniquely modify those filters. An example is the “urgency threshold.” Given an immediate, life threatening situation we will make decisions based on far less information than we would feel necessary were the situation not so pressing. Such thresholds will subtly alter the outcomes of otherwise very similar decisions.
These three components insure that individual behaviors are exactly that; individual. And such behaviors will be normally distributed (as in the “normal distribution” of a bell curve) just like any other outcome in the physical sciences. Most humans will make similar choices close to the median of that distribution, while increasingly smaller numbers of individuals will make choices that stray to the tails of the bell curve.
The locations of the medians on those normal distributions are not arbitrary. They are the results of millions of years of natural selection regarding behavior. They are centered on the specific behaviors that have proven over the millennia to have the greatest survival value for our species.
Note: Not the greatest survival value for any individual. But the greatest survival value for our species.
Any behavior that benefits the individual at an overwhelmingly larger cost to the species will not sustain itself as a normal behavior in the population. Each and every individual behavior is vetted by natural selection so that “normal behavior” eventually represents what is objectively good for the community.
(It does not escape the author that this is arguably the foundation of altruism and morality. But that is a discussion for another day.)
In counterpoint, “abnormal behavior” is potentially a threat to that community. And the human capacity for learning has created the almost unique circumstances in which humans consciously vet those behaviors in parallel with natural selection. Our unique intelligence allows us to respond to abnormal behaviors in a manner much faster than natural selection can. We can do what natural selection cannot; anticipate the negative effects to our community of “bad behaviors.”
This is the role of our system of justice, jurisprudence and punishment. The purpose of punishment is primarily to protect the community from further “bad behavior” by individuals who have demonstrated a tendency to stray so far from the “normal” that it threatens that community.
It does not matter if that behavior is “determined” or “volitional.” It only matters that the community has an interest in protecting itself from that behavior… and from the individuals who tend to demonstrate it. It does not matter if that person has free will or not. Their tendency to behave a certain way for whatever reason something deserving of suppression.
A good analogy would be that of asteroids. Most asteroids orbit the sun in a diffuse belt between the planets Jupiter and Mars, and these “normal” asteroids are no threat to life on Earth.
But a small number of them have eccentric orbits that cross the orbit of the planet Earth. These “near Earth asteroids” are a threat to life on this planet, and should one threaten an impact (of the sort that wiped out the dinosaurs) it would be reasonable for humanity to take steps to protect ourselves from such impact.
Asteroids are not “volitional.” Their behavior is governed explicitly by the laws of physics. Those that behave “normally” are no threat to our self interest. But some of them behave in an “abnormal” way that warrants our communal response to protect ourselves from them.
The “free will” of asteroids is not relevant to our response to them.
What is critical here is the stunning difference between human justice in the form of a penal system, and “divine justice” in the form of eternal reward or suffering.
The first balances (or at least attempts to balance) the competing interests of individual and community, and make decisions based on utilitarian outcomes. It does not matter if “free will” exists or not, only if a threat to the community exists or not.
The latter is, frankly, simply gratuitous. What competing interest does eternal suffering balance that eternal oblivion would not accomplish without the needless cruelty? Who or what would a “god” be protecting by repeatedly burning a person’s skin off, or forcing them to eat burning coals and drink scalding water? People with eternal life in paradise would already possess transcendent reward. The suffering of others could not add to that.
In this way we understand that divine justice and human justice are completely different things, and only the former requires any consideration of “free will” whatsoever. A deterministic universe is still one in which humans can anticipate the results of behaviors and respond preemptively… and so we do. Even if that anticipation is ultimately determined.
If “free will” does not exist, that poses a challenge only for divine justice, not human justice.
Closing Thoughts: The Need for Libertarian Bias
I wrote earlier of the “normal distribution” of behaviors established and refined by natural selection. I wrote also of the near unique capacity of humans to anticipate the effects of “abnormal” behaviors and thus preemptively seek to control that threat.
But the “filters” that humans apply to the assessment tend to have at least one major drawback. It is a common error of human assessment that “abnormal” behaviors are generally threatening, while in fact many “abnormal” behaviors are actually neutral. Human systems of justice have tended over time to criminalize behaviors just because they are “abnormal,” without a full consideration of their actual potential for harm.
Humans, having evolved in small hunter-gatherer clans, are not very good at assessing risk in communities that now measure in the multiple millions. We do not intuitively understand the sort of long term tradeoffs that natural selection would ruthlessly account for over long periods of time. Natural selection would, if left to its own devices, eventually account for the interests of the community over the individual. But modern human society is not as capable accounting for the interests of the larger community over the smaller.
Our biggest challenges from war to global warming come from too great an identification with our smaller communities over our interest as a species. It is our adherence to religion, or nationality or ethnicity that allows obscenities like terrorism to flourish with such disastrous consequence.
Among our “normal” behaviors is the tendency to follow leaders like sheep. As a result, we are too quick to accept the imposition of religious or secular laws that actually make no sense and serve no genuine purpose… just because our leaders assert them. The imposition of “law” should instead be carefully reviewed to insure it genuinely is protective of the community… or of the species. Otherwise, any infringement on individual prerogatives is both pointless and doomed only to create criminals out of good people.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreatIslam
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Huxley,
Did you write this long essay?
I hope it was not just cut and paste.
I liked it. God coherent thought.
Can you please tell me about yourself a little bit. You do not have disclose your exact address or any personal, or tracble information.
I am just curious.
How old are you? What city do you live in?
At what age did you leave Islam? Why? How?
How much reading have you done?
I am trying to find a solid disagreement point so that I can debate with you. But so far that hasn't happened yet.
Which of the following virtue do you think is the most important? Here by important I mena most foundational, the root, that has far reaching implicaitons, connection, relevancy for a better human society.
1) Do not lie
2) Do not murder
3) Do justice/be fair/do symmetrical thought experiemnt before determining right from wrong, or truth from lie
4) Do not take bribe
5) Do not hurt other's feeling
6) Be compassionate, feed the hungry, shelter the orphan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popeye
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GreatIslam wrote: |
Which of the following virtue do you think is the most important? Here by important I mean most foundational, the root, that has far reaching implications, connection, relevancy for a better human society.
1) Do not lie
2) Do not murder
3) Do justice/be fair/do symmetrical thought experiemnt before determining right from wrong, or truth from lie
4) Do not take bribe
5) Do not hurt other's feeling
6) Be compassionate, feed the hungry, shelter the orphan |
You have forgotten the most important one: Know thyself.
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GreatIslam wrote: |
Huxley,
Did you write this long essay?
I hope it was not just cut and paste.
I liked it. God coherent thought. |
Yes... it is original and this is the first place I have published it anywhere.
| GreatIslam wrote: |
Can you please tell me about yourself a little bit. You do not have disclose your exact address or any personal, or tracble information.
I am just curious.
How old are you? What city do you live in?
At what age did you leave Islam? Why? How?
How much reading have you done? |
I am 52 years old and live in Denver, CO. I was never a Muslim, I was Roman Catholic and left the faith at 8 years of age. I read constantly.
| GreatIslam wrote: |
Which of the following virtue do you think is the most important? Here by important I mena most foundational, the root, that has far reaching implicaitons, connection, relevancy for a better human society.
1) Do not lie
2) Do not murder
3) Do justice/be fair/do symmetrical thought experiemnt before determining right from wrong, or truth from lie
4) Do not take bribe
5) Do not hurt other's feeling
6) Be compassionate, feed the hungry, shelter the orphan |
Three.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aksel Ankersen
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 465
Location: Away, sorry about this.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good response Huxley, I shall bookmark it.
_________________
“The mystery of existence is the connection between our faults and our misfortunes.”
-Madame de Staël |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Islamis_Allah_Tashit
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4384
Location: A Holiday Inn bathroom
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Popeye wrote: |
| GreatIslam wrote: |
Which of the following virtue do you think is the most important? Here by important I mean most foundational, the root, that has far reaching implications, connection, relevancy for a better human society.
1) Do not lie
2) Do not murder
3) Do justice/be fair/do symmetrical thought experiemnt before determining right from wrong, or truth from lie
4) Do not take bribe
5) Do not hurt other's feeling
6) Be compassionate, feed the hungry, shelter the orphan |
You have forgotten the most important one: Know thyself. |
True true. How do people pretend to know God, or, in the case of staunch atheists, the universe, if they don't even first know themselves? When people used to ask Buddha about God, Buddha basically told them to ask about who is asking the question first, which really means that one should understand the person asking the question (themselves) and understand their motives for asking such a question and therefore the angle that the question is coming from as obviously the answer changes based on the angle that the question is asked from.
_________________
Somebody get me a hairdryer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popeye
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Islamis_Allah_Tashit wrote: |
True true. How do people pretend to know God, or, in the case of staunch atheists, the universe, if they don't even first know themselves? |
Dear IAT,
I may be wrong but I believe you are alluding to Huxley and I want to tell you that I also learnt a lot from your clever questions.
Why Huxley has chosen this high level of "protagonism" in the Forum is his own affair, I am sure he understands about vanity, glory and "memento mori".
I am still young, I like learning and I think I can discern convincing logic.
As far as I am concerned Huxley is legitimized by his knowledge and arguing skills.
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charleslemartel
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you think that consciousness is the result of some physical and/or chemical processes, there is no free will.
On the other hand, if you believe that consciousness is something non-physical, there can be "free will".
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone
Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
