"Free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund
Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. There is no free will at any particular point. What do people think?
In mathematics an infinite regression can have a "first cause". — jgill
What determinist chain?Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund
we ponder things and take decisions, chosing among limited options of course. — Olivier5
Is pondering and thinking not something that goes on in the brain? — punos
Is free-will something that is inherent in the laws of physics or does it come from outside those laws?
Does free-will violate the normal functioning of these laws? — punos
As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation? — Echarmion
Given that "the brain" is also a thought, this would get us stuck in a circle. — Echarmion
The laws of physics are a collection of human observations. — Echarmion
But since freedom is not even in principle observable, it seems weird to expect it to show up. — Echarmion
As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation? — Echarmion
You wouldn't be able to see any of it if you dissected a brain. — Olivier5
Everything else is also a thought, and that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Why is the thinking of "the brain" specifically a problem? — punos
Everything we know comes from human observation — punos
If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? — punos
The other option is for this particle to use its God given free-will to move towards the negatively charged particle in violation of the law (and against every scientists expectations). — punos
The result of this would be that things would cease to work properly such as anything dealing with electricity. — punos
Nothing would be consistent, or reliable. — punos
Because, as I pointed out, it's only there that we circle our observations back to their point of origin. What does it mean to say that thoughts occur "in the brain" when the brain is also a thought? — Echarmion
This is not true. We know some things that do not depend on observations. For example, we know the scientific method, but the scientific method does not come from observation. — Echarmion
If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? — punos
I know I have it because I use it all the time. I have direct experience of making decisions. — Echarmion
But since the laws of physics are just the shortest description that accounts for all observations, if this were to happen then the laws would simply be different. That's why I pointed out earlier that the laws of physics are simply a description of observations. Nothing we observe can ever violate the laws of physics, it's a logical impossibility. — Echarmion
Our thoughts about the brain are thoughts, but the brain is an objective object in spacetime. You may be conflating two different concepts "brain" and "mind". One is objective and the other is subjective.
Do you believe in objective reality? — punos
I don't know what you mean. What is your definition of observation? — punos
How do you know there is a thing called "the scientific method"? Were you born knowing that, not having to learn it? — punos
That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. — punos
We always "observe" that they do the same thing every single time, no exception. — punos
Observation does not violate anything, the violation would happen in the free act of will (free-will) — punos
Like you said "observations" must obey logic (law), and thus observations are valid. — punos
If you reject observation then what are you left with? Rejecting observation is the most anti-scientific method thing i've ever heard. — punos
How do you acquire your premises for your logical arguments without observation? — punos
How do you know the brain is part of objective reality? I do believe there is one, but the physical world is a model of this objective reality created by human minds. — Echarmion
Observation is processing an outside stimulus, where "outside" means not mentally labeled as part of our selves. — Echarmion
It's based on a logical assessment of epistemological principles. I was born knowing logic, or at least with the requisite mental machinery to process it. — Echarmion
That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. — punos
The anthropic principle makes this impossible though. — Echarmion
It's the other way around. We build our laws to account for the observations. — Echarmion
Some things can be established without observation. For example, there is something that thinks, and some thoughts have the attribute of being "mine". — Echarmion
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.