Scientific Determinism & consciousness
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    Key terms:
    Laws of Physics + Chemical Properties (advanced geometry + geometry + table of elements) + DNA + + Nurture + Nature + geography = History

    Condensed equation: Laws of Physics + Properties of Chemical Reactions = History (both of these are linked in some degree to geometry and advanced geometry

    Why do we feel like we have free will? The answer lies in the fact that (Noah Harrari and Stephen Hawkings touch on this in their famous books) if you role a trillion sided dice a trillion times it is likely will roll the number you were looking for => People feel like they have free will because that is what is necessary for a creature to find motivation to accomplish tasks that might seem impossible. We are a product of many actions and reactions but the fact that humans have produced what they have produced partially extends from them feeling like they have free will.

    What is my motivation in this post? I believe accepting our past mistakes as a product of past events that are outside us (partially our fault and partially the fault of others) is important in finding hope in the future. This is general philosophy or a general set of beliefs.

    Questions and Comments?
    christian2017 Options
  • Echarmion
    2.7k
    What is my motivation in this post? I believe accepting our past mistakes as a product of past events that are outside us (partially our fault and partially the fault of others) is important in finding hope in the future. This is general philosophy or a general set of beliefs. — christian2017

    How are things partially our fault if there is no free will?
    Echarmion Options
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    How are things partially our fault if there is no free will? — Echarmion

    Fault does not require free will. We talk without any difficulty at all, about how the sun "causes" the earth to warm up. We do not get caught up having to describe what then "causes" the sun to shine. So with a human action. If someone's actions result in some consequence, it's not unreasonable to talk about those consequences being that person's "fault" without having to get bogged down in arguments about whether they were the ultimate or merely proximal cause.
    Isaac Options
  • Echarmion
    2.7k
    Fault does not require free will. We talk without any difficulty at all, about how the sun "causes" the earth to warm up. We do not get caught up having to describe what then "causes" the sun to shine. So with a human action. If someone's actions result in some consequence, it's not unreasonable to talk about those consequences being that person's "fault" without having to get bogged down in arguments about whether they were the ultimate or merely proximal cause. — Isaac

    It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's unnecessarily confusing to use "fault" and "cause" interchangeably when those words have different meanings in common language use.
    Echarmion Options
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    it's unnecessarily confusing to use "fault" and "cause" interchangeably when those words have different meanings in common language use. — Echarmion

    I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure the confusion is to do with free will applying necessarily to 'fault' but not necessarily applying to 'cause'.

    'Fault' seems to me distinct in meaning from 'cause' in that 'fault' carries moral responsibility. So person A having 'caused' B, does not imply any normative conclusion, but B being person A's 'fault' implies that they should not have acted that way - literally, it is a fault in their character.

    But I don't see how free will necessarily enters that distinction. A normative conclusion is simply a declaration that we wish it had been otherwise and that we consider it possible to make it so by social coercion. The social coercion of moral sentiment could be just as deterministic a factor as billiard balls colliding. Nothing about it requires free will.

    Saying something is a person's fault is saying that we would like (and feel it is possible to get) people in similar situations to act differently.
    Isaac Options
  • Dzung
    53
    Why do we feel like we have free will? — christian2017

    well if all is about feeling then no debate, it's quite intrinsic one feels he has free will when say his nose is itchy and he can move his hand to ease it. Of course when mentioning feeling or subjectivity, it doesn't matter either way.
    On the other fronts, hardly any studies have been able to confirm either way, neither.
    But vaguely speaking, because any kind of determinism appears to be just approximate, rooms for free will must be there but very limited.
    P.S: You seemed to weigh chemical reactions against laws of physics, in fact the former is covered by the latter.
    Dzung Options
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    ↪Echarmion


    Thats a good question. John Calvin (and the Reformers) would describe it as, our sub-optimal make up makes us make bad decisions. I would quote a Bible verse but alot of people wouldn't like that. In the strictest sense you are absolutely correct.
    christian2017 Options
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    ↪Dzung
    P.S: You seemed to weigh chemical reactions against laws of physics, in fact the former is covered by the latter. — Dzung

    Well i've been told otherwise. I'm not saying your wrong. I would have to do more research on that aspect.
    christian2017 Options
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    ↪Echarmion


    Perhaps someone could argue we should attempt to make good decisions to please those we care about. People who are called bad actually very often do good things all the time. People who are good sometimes do bad things.
    christian2017 Options
  • Fine Doubter
    200
    " ... any kind of determinism appears to be just approximate ... "

    Dzung, I think that is the crucial factor.

    Removing ourselves somehow from a causal loop (e.g when we are in a communal situation where problems have developed) is the main foundation of making amends to whoever was damaged. By ceasing to reinforce the problem, we strengthen the possibility of solutions developing.
    Fine Doubter Options
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    ↪christian2017
    Where's the part on consciousness?
    RogueAI Options
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    ↪RogueAI


    I accidently did leave that part out. Going from memory i think i meant to say that God gives us free will only when he gives us his Holy Spirit which many christians would argue is just God. I don't expect you to believe that because even alot of Christians right wrong or indifferent reject this theological notion. Basically i'm saying when we share God's consceissness we are free from are robotic responses our own particles (that make us up) and also free from the stimuli of the surrounding environment.

    I hate predestination for the most part, but at this point in time i believe it to be true. That could change in 10 minutes.
    christian2017 Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories