Bucky
Member
Now that you mention this, are you familiar with this article?
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will
I am digressing, I know :)
246. DR. MICHAEL GRAZIANO LIKENS NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE RESEARCH TO ASTROLOGY RESEARCH
- Thread starter malf
- Start date
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will
I am digressing, I know :)
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Digression often leads to the best conversations!
A friend sent this to me last year. I've seen a few interesting takes on the QM & Free Will question, though I lack the physics knowledge to really judge any of these arguments.
I think belief in free will is always a reality gamble as from the outside you can only ever see the outcome of decision. Though perhaps our relationship to time isn't what we perceive with our limited senses...
Is it all deterministic/indeterministic? Is all our life written in the Book o' Fate? If the universe is timeless from the outside, or time simply doesn't exist, or there are forward and backward Arrows of Time, or reality is ultimately acausal patterns in the Platonic Math, what does it mean to even ask a question about free will?
Throw in questions about consciousness and I contend the distance between skeptic and proponent should get smaller.
Bucky
Member
Thanks for the articles, interesting material.
Indeed it should be the case, but in reality it doesn't seem so.
The philosophical questions that you pose are certainly interesting for anyone who's looking into the big questions: skeptic, agnostics, proponents...etc... but that's because all those questions sit on an intellectual plane. When you bring Ψ to the table, many of them will flee :) I did it myself for years.
I too tend towards an intellectual approach and I have learned, the hard way, that without the "experiential factor" one can spend an entire life running the analytical hamster in our mind at full speed :) I am all for philosophical questions but I had experiences that no specific philosophical approach could help me with. So I directed my attention to evidence for an existence of certain type of phenomena, and lo and behold there's aplenty, even though most of the "authorities" in the society around me says the contrary.
We're too much intellectually stuck on one specific philosophical position. It has many historical reasons to be what is, it is the result and continuation of our cultural evolution and it's part of our identity (maybe not all, but some) etc... etc...
Nonetheless we're filtering out an incredible amount of knowledge because it is at odds with the culture war between religion and science and the materialistic/reductionst approach of science.
But again I digress... :)
ghost
New
I am surprised that nobody gets this. Quantum mechanics tells us that we do have free will, even if it's limited. If eigenstates are detected at random, that is equivalent to saying that the quantum system has limited free will, but will obey certain behavior statistically.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I think it'll be interesting if there's a general acceptance of Psi. IMO a lot of arguments about the odd nature of certain aspects of mind will come to public knowledge as I strongly suspect something like telepathy can't be explained in mechanist terms. (Possibly no human communication can -> See Feser's 'Hayek, Popper, and the Causal Theory of the Mind'.)
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
The paternalistic, paranoid position of organizations like JREF really seems like a melodramatic, delusional belief in a Chaoskampf to me, designed for ego inflation and elevation of trolling the internet into supposedly important work.
Massimo's made note of this, that many people join the skeptical movement for a chance to call others idiots. This Gossip Girl status playing seems very prevalent among internet skeptics.
Gary Wolf also discussed these issues in a Wired Article about his examination and ultimate refusal to join the New Atheists :
This immediately called to mind the doomsayers to whom you sometimes link, with their apocalyptic visions of a future where materialism/atheism is widely accepted.
Pat
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Let's hope those guys end up being clowns, but it wouldn't change the incompetence and lack of foresight of the morons running the materialist evangelist movements that masquerade as skeptics. They already claim there's genetic connections leading people toward immaterialism, perhaps they might have thought to project what happens if those religiously inclined people can't handle the conclusions of materialism?
The studies, after all, are already out there and they don't appear to offer an optimistic conclusion.
Maybe they have thought it through, I don't know. In my view, people who are strongly inclined towards a particular belief system are likely to go with their inclination regardless of what someone else says. I think that often emotional/psychological drivers override clear-headed analysis. (And I'm not singling out religious believers; I think that can apply to anyone.)
There's another reason I'm not too worried about the doom and gloom scenarios. We seem to have an inborn capacity to persevere regardless of circumstances (within limits, of course). What is some existential angst compared to, say, the Great Depression? People tend to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get on with their lives. I may contemplate the crushing meaninglessness of the prospect of a finite life, devoid of free will, in a purposeless universe, but come suppertime I still enjoy a good steak, and I still appreciate a beautiful sunset. :)
Pat
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I thought you weren't a materialist? Curious as to your views as you seem to present a rather unique P.O.V. around these parts given your more skeptical posts. (Don't get me wrong - you're obviously more educated than the
In any case I admire the optimism, but not everyone will have the assets necessary to enjoy creature comforts in the brave new world of the materialists, unless one is suggesting New Atheist victory is quickly followed by some kind of global utopia.
If anything, I suspect most people will be victims as corporations, criminal enterprises, & governments incorproate/internalize a rather uncomfortable conclusion made by Peter Hankins -
"If people are just machines, why can't we treat them like machines?"
Hench the Live lyrics in my sig. <<insert appropriate smiley>>
Last edited by a moderator:
Arouet
Member
Sure, we could do that: but what would it be like living in such a society?
We could also say: if we're just part of a universal consciousness having experiences should we consider any one experience to be better or worse than any other? Should we relish the idea of living in a society where we treat everyone like machines - miserable though it may be - just so we can have the experience?
And there you have it, my friends.
Now, should you feel like some introspection, you could ask yourself:
- How does an infinite life provide meaning, and what the hell will I do with myself forever?
- How can libertarian free will possibly work?
- If purpose isn't chosen by me, then why would I want it?
~~ Paul
I consider myself a skeptic, but I'm agnostic on most issues like materialism/dualism/idealism, theism/atheism, free will/determinism, etc.
It strikes me that the people who have the assets (and especially the free time) to enjoy creature comforts are the ones most likely to wring their hands over the implications of philosophical issues. :)
The New Atheists are no more representative of materialism or atheism than Young Earth Creationists are representative of religion.
Do you really believe that's how materialists think?
Pat
Bucky
Member
If you were a machine, you wouldn't be asking that question :D
Bucky
Member
Read Eastern philosophy :)
There are more interesting ways to conceive free will.
Highly recommended read --> Rudolf Steiner's "The Philosophy of Freedom"
It all depends on how "me" is defined. If it's just "ego mind/consciousness", then we're talking about a component of "me". Not the full picture.
Again Eastern philosophy goes in much more depth and sophistication on this subject.
I have read some. Care to explain it in your own words?
I'll check it out.
Again, I read a bunch during my Transcendental Meditation years. I guess I'm just not very good at going with the flow.
~~ Paul
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Gotcha.
But the people exploiting those who don't have those creature comforts will probably be tapping into philosophies that provide opportunity for rationalization. And those who don't have comforts are also more vulnerable to criminals.
Too bad they write the books, do interviews, make movies.
It's how corporations, governments, and criminal enterprises think. It's hard to build morality up from the mere assumption of evolutionary wiring.
Arouet
Member
Yes, but why would you want to build up morality based on the mere assumption of evolutionary wiring?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
How do you plan to do it? (Honest question)
Arouet
Member
I've set out my basis for morality a few times here. It's'a mix of subjective and objective as i dont think you can have pure objective.
We start off by assuming three basic goals for humans: to survive, thrive and be happy. These are subjective but i suspect there is probably pretty massive agreement on these. We also recognise that humans are not self sufficient - we need othersto help achieve those goals. From those starting points i think you can derive a pretty broad based relatively objective moral system.
Example: i could treat everyone like shit but what is likely to happen: it doesnt make me feel good to do that, it hurts others and in return it may cause others to retaliate and hurt or refuse to help me. * society where everyone did that would be a prettty crummy place to live.
It's'not that simple of course and there is plenty of room for debate and at times there will be conflict that requires compromise.
I'm sure there are holes and aspects i havent thought of so i welcome constructive feedback - probably in its own thread though.
The thing is with basing morality on what we're made of is that its pretty easy most of the time to argue it multiple ways. Particularly with we are all one versions.
We start off by assuming three basic goals for humans: to survive, thrive and be happy. These are subjective but i suspect there is probably pretty massive agreement on these. We also recognise that humans are not self sufficient - we need othersto help achieve those goals. From those starting points i think you can derive a pretty broad based relatively objective moral system.
Example: i could treat everyone like shit but what is likely to happen: it doesnt make me feel good to do that, it hurts others and in return it may cause others to retaliate and hurt or refuse to help me. * society where everyone did that would be a prettty crummy place to live.
It's'not that simple of course and there is plenty of room for debate and at times there will be conflict that requires compromise.
I'm sure there are holes and aspects i havent thought of so i welcome constructive feedback - probably in its own thread though.
The thing is with basing morality on what we're made of is that its pretty easy most of the time to argue it multiple ways. Particularly with we are all one versions.