Do All Atheists Reject Free Will?

[Jason (Memphis)]

Do all atheists reject free will? If so, why not? If you don't have
a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
laws, right? Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos. Anyway, I heard that some
atheists think that free will exists. How is this possible without
something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
the natural universe)?

Jason

[Rupert]

On Jul 1, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Do all atheists reject free will?

No.

> If so, why not?  

Why should they?

> If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?

Peter Unger is an atheist who believes in the existence of the soul;
see his recent book "All the Power in the World".

And some atheists are compatibilists; they believe that the existence
of free will is consistent with materialism and determinism. Quine was
a compatibilist.

> Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.

Chaos theory does not help in arguing for compatibilism, no, although
I don't think your second clause is especially coherent.

> Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?
>

Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
despite being an atheist. You can read all about that in his book "All
the Power in the World". But some atheists are compatibilists, they
believe that the existence of free will can be reconciled with full
determinism, or at least complete governance of the world by (possibly
probabilistic) natural law. You should check out the Wikipedia
article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

[Shot In The Dark]

All atheists do not have any definite common understanding other than
a lack of belief in a god. Personally I'm sufficiently convinced of
the idea of indeterminism. As for the concept of free will, I find it
to be rather loosely defined, a rather vague notion. Outside of the
severly mentally crippled, is one responsible for their actions and do
people have a mechanism and ability to make choices? Abso-fucking-
lutely.

On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Shot In The Dark]

Ammended with the exception of those held in captivity or bondage of
some nature, then will is more limited. When the ability for an
action is stripped from an individual, obviously so then is thier
ability or responsibility in the same degree.

[Observer]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Observer
Free will is of limited scope in that genetics , society, education,
and other
considerations tend to mold us according to strength of their
influence upon us.
It is , however , observable that within the constraints of these
influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities.

Please advise us as to exactly what exists outside of the natural
universe and just how you have obtained knowledge there of.

You see, there is no scientifically verifiable substantiating data
proving the EXISTENCE of or any ACT of a creature of any kind which is
beyond or outside of the physical universe. That of course goes for
the preposterous christian concepts of a god , angels , a devil,
ghosts, demons, or any of the utter nonsense conjured by the god
merchants who fleece the public by claiming special knowledge there of
and or special access thereto.

If of course you are able to supply such proof we will be happy to
consider it if it is well documented and scientifically verifiable .
Please supply access to peer reviewed published papers from a
respected scientific journal or your claim will be rejected as
nonsense.

One more thing , I am lost as to what directed your thinking in
formulating your question. It appears that you started typing long
before you engaged your brain.

Regards

Psychonomist
> Jason

[Skeptic]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Determinism is perfectly compatible with free will.

Even something so simple as a coin-operated automaton has a measure of
free will. It accepts certain combinations of coins and dispenses
goods (or provides a service), and rejects other combinations of
coins.

It does that because it ``wants'' to. We might be tempted to say that
it can exhibit no other behavior, but that's exactly the same thing as
not wanting to.

[Trance Gemini]

In addition to what Rupert said, if one goes by natural laws, it's my
understanding that Quantum Physics indicates that the universe is both
deterministic and probabilistic which would indicate that while we
don't have complete free will there is an element of free will in
natural law.

Rapp is the Physicist and could explain this better than I can so if
you want the explanation behind this it's best to ask him to provide
it.

>
> Jason
>
>
> >
>



--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott
(paraphrased)

[Drafterman]

On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Do all atheists reject free will?

Not necessarily.

Irrelevant. An atheist can believe in something beyond the natural
realm. Just not god.

>
> Jason

[Kilmir]

On Jul 1, 8:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Not all atheists do.
I personally think ultimately there is no free will, but as far as
we're concerned there is no realistic way to determine it completely
so there will always be an illusion of free will.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Do all atheists reject free will?

In the sense that I am free from God's control, yes. I am not free to
do as I wish though - natural laws prevent that. So do social laws.

> If so, why not?  If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?

I don't see any Christians violating any natural laws.

> Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.

Chaos is not the same thing as indeterminacy.

> Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.

I'm not one of them. I regard "free will" as a religious construct,
like "soul." To me, it is tilting at windmills.

> How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?

People think all sorts of things that don't make sense - Christians,
for example.

[Jason]

Rupert,

So some atheists believe in supernatural entities such as souls? I did
not know that. According to the article compatibilism, the
supernatural atheists evoked concepts such as "soul" or
"consciousness," which supposedly are in the supernatural realm and
not governed by the natural universe.

You wrote, "But some atheists are compatibilists, they believe that

the existence of free will can be reconciled with full determinism, or
at least complete governance of the world by (possibly probabilistic)

natural law." I do not understand this argument of "possibly
probabilistic" as an argument of free will. Storm systems are
probabilistic so does that argument also apply to the possibility that
a storm system has a free will?

Jason

[LL]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

LL: I doubt all atheists accept or reject anything (except god).
Unfortunately, some atheists are not critical thinkers. Fortunately,
the majority are.

You make a good point and I agree with it. My position is that we
have no free will and that free will is a religious concept. Nobody
has been able to demonstrate that it exists. In fact, there have been
laboratory brain tests that show that our brains make decisions
fractions of seconds before we are aware of it.

*************************
>
> Jason

[Jason]

Observer,

So you also believe in the supernatural that functions outside of
"genetics , society, education"... of which outside these "constraints
influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities." So
humans have an aspects outside of these natural constraints (that is,
supernatural) that allow for free will?

Jason

[LL]

On Jun 30, 11:58 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
despite being an atheist.

LL: He sounds irrational to me. He is making a very bad argument.

***************************************

[Jason]

Skeptic,

So how does inserting free will into a "coin-operated automaton" help
us understand it? Won't it be better to get rid of this concept of
free will in a coin-operated automaton and focus on naturalistic
causes of the variation (what you call "choice")?

Jason

[LL]

On Jul 1, 4:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason
>

> (Memphis)<jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > the natural universe)?
>
> In addition to what Rupert said, if one goes by natural laws, it's my
> understanding that Quantum Physics indicates that the universe is both
> deterministic and probabilistic which would indicate that while we
> don't have complete free will there is an element of free will in
> natural law.

LL: Although that's true, we aren't talking about the universe when we
are talking about human determinism. In any case, arguing against a
purely deterministic universe doesn't mean humans have free will. All
that means is that there is randomness in the universe and in human
actions as well. Randomness is not an argument for free will. It's an
argument against it.

******************************************************************

[Jason]

Trance,

So physicists like Rapp and yourself believe in magical entities
called "free will" or "consciousness" that control or choose actions
(control or direct the motion of matter) in this probabilistic realm.
In addition, this "free will" and "consciousness" is beyond or outside
of the natural universe?

Jason

On Jul 1, 6:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason
>

[Jason]

Kilmir,

I agree with you. I don't know how any atheist can believe in free
will.

Jason

[Sebastian]

Free will is not compatible with determinism, if you accept that free
will means that there exist situations where there are genuine
multiple possible choices of action in the sense that it is in
principle possible to take either of the actions. If determinism is
true then such situations cannot exist.

[Sebastian]

This could be debated. Quantum measurement can be considered to be
totally deterministic without any element of probability at all.

On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason
>

[Jason]

Neil,

I agree with you. Free will is a religious concept. I also think
that the religious concept of free will breeds concepts such as
"responsibility" and so forth. To have a scientific view of organisms
such as humans, I think that the questions should NOT be whether a
person can "choose" or "act freely" but rather (1) whether the causes
of the action(s) are explicit or hidden and (2) whether those actions
can be reasonably controlled. Put another way, it is not a question
of whether we are controlled or not controlled (we are controlled) but
whether these controls are explicit or hidden. By the way, those
controlling would be partially controlled by those being controlled
(that is, interacting in the manipulation just like people are
controlled by various circumstances when controlling inorganic
matter). I think that is a far more consistent atheistic stance than
evoking religious concepts such as "free will." I also think that the
religion of "liberty" prevents (or at least impedes) the West from
talking honestly and openly about a scientific view of humans.


Jason

[Jason]

Thanks for the input. I was just confused about atheism and free
will. I think that atheists are split on this topic.

Jason

[rappoccio]

On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

There is insufficient evidence (currently) to decide if we have actual
free will, or apparent free will. It is not necessarily the case that
a given person, when faced with the exact same stimulus under the
exact same circumstances, will react in the same way. There are many
reasons for this (neural responses are, after all, diffusive processes
that are contingent upon many other chemicals at the same time).

Let's look at other animals for the moment, however. Do you think that
dolphins, elephants, whales, chimpanzees and bonobos have free will? I
think they do. They are self-aware and are capable of making complex
decisions. Do these animals have a "soul"? Why would these particular
animals have a soul, whereas others do not?

I think there is, instead, some mental development via which "choice"
becomes a possibility for some animals. There are many situations
where our brains are responsive (i.e. there is no free will involved),
but there are other situations where we have some amount of choice.

One very interesting area is discussed by V.S. Ramachandran in Beyond
Belief 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_106922/Split_Brain_Studies_Theological_Implications.html

Here, Dr. Ramachandran discusses a "split brain" patient (where the
left and right portions of the brain are no longer connected), and the
separate portions of the brain are "asked" if they believe in God. One
side says "yes" and the other says "no". This is a profound
theological development, or it should be. However, it does raise the
question of "what is free will" to begin with? How does it function?
Is there a decision process involved? Is it merely a result of
chemical predisposition? Or has free will become available via
composite function, but is not present in the atomic function?

There is active research going on in this respect, but I think it is
premature to say that there is no naturalistic explanation for the
apparent free will we have.

[Jason]

Rappocio,

I think that when you scientifically study the behavior of organisms,
you have to approach it as an atheist and dispense of religious

concepts such as free will.

Jason

> http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_106922/Split_Brain_Studies_Theologica...

[Jason]

PS--That includes ALL organisms (ants, humans, etc.)

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 1, 9:56 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Neil,
>
> I agree with you.  Free will is a religious concept.   I also think
> that the religious concept of free will breeds concepts such as
> "responsibility" and so forth.

Disagree. I think the concept of responsibility is independent of
religion.

> To have a scientific view of organisms
> such as humans, I think that the questions should NOT be whether a
> person can "choose" or "act freely" but rather (1) whether the causes
> of the action(s) are explicit or hidden and (2) whether those actions
> can be reasonably controlled.

I disagree that a scientific view of organisms such as humans includes
the goal of controlling them.

>  Put another way, it is not a question
> of whether we are controlled or not controlled (we are controlled)

Who is controlling me if I live in a secular democracy?

> but whether these controls are explicit or hidden.

I don't think the controllers are that competent that they can remain
hidden, at least in a secular democracy. One word - Watergate.

>  By the way, those
> controlling would be partially controlled by those being controlled
> (that is, interacting in the manipulation just like people are
> controlled by various circumstances when controlling inorganic
> matter).

I don't share this somewhat paranoid view of people. One word - Iran.
Another word - USSR. Three more words - English Civil War. People
eventually rebel against the controllers, and then make laws that make
it difficult for controllers to function as controllers. For instance,
the US government probably realized they couldn't institute a draft
when they got into the recent wars, not after what they went through
in Vietnam. Instead, they reduced the need for ground troops through
military technology. Problem solved, and no one was controlled.

I think you give people way more credit than I would. I think we
stumble along as best we can, are more reactionary than anything else,
and when something doesn't work we replace it with something else.
After tens of thousands of years we've finally figured out that
everyone has basic human rights, or at least a large part of the world
has. The remainder of the world seems to be getting pretty choked that
they don't.

> I think that is a far more consistent atheistic stance than
> evoking religious concepts such as "free will."

I don't know atheists that do that, although I'm sure there are some.
To me it's just a simple matter of defining terms, and then we'd
probably agree.

> I also think that the
> religion of "liberty"

How is liberty a "religion?"

> prevents (or at least impedes) the West from
> talking honestly and openly about a scientific view of humans.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by that, because it seems to me that
in the West we can talk honestly and openly about a scientific view of

humans.

> Jason
>
> On Jul 1, 8:52 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>
> > In the sense that I am free from God's control, yes. I am not free to
> > do as I wish though - natural laws prevent that. So do social laws.
>
> > > If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > laws, right?
>
> > I don't see any Christians violating any natural laws.
>
> > > Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.
>
> > Chaos is not the same thing as indeterminacy.
>
> > > Anyway, I heard that some
> > > atheists think that free will exists.
>
> > I'm not one of them. I regard "free will" as a religious construct,
> > like "soul." To me, it is tilting at windmills.
>
> > > How is this possible without
> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>
> > People think all sorts of things that don't make sense - Christians,

> > for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jul 1, 4:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason
>

> (Memphis)<jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > the natural universe)?
>
> In addition to what Rupert said, if one goes by natural laws, it's my
> understanding that Quantum Physics indicates that the universe is both
> deterministic and probabilistic which would indicate that while we
> don't have complete free will there is an element of free will in
> natural law.

LL: Although that's true, we aren't talking about the universe when we
are talking about human determinism. In any case, arguing against a
purely deterministic universe doesn't mean humans have free will. All
that means is that there is randomness in the universe and in human
actions as well. Randomness is not an argument for free will. It's an
argument against it.

Since human beings follow the general laws of the universe it would indicate that we too both have deterministic and probabilistic aspects to us.

This makes far more sense to me rationally than human beings as completely deterministic entities.

As far as free will goes, it just depends on how you define it.

I agree that it can be defined as a religious concept.

However, there is also the philosophical concept of free will which is tied to concepts like determinism, compatibilism as Rupert indicated, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

******************************************************************

>
> Rapp is the Physicist and could explain this better than I can so if
> you want the explanation behind this it's best to ask him to provide
> it.
>
>
>
> > Jason
>
> --

> “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it
> turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott
> (paraphrased)

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jason <jason_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

So physicists like Rapp and yourself believe in magical entities
called "free will" or "consciousness" that control or choose actions
(control or direct the motion of matter) in this probabilistic realm.
In addition, this "free will" and "consciousness" is beyond or outside
of the natural universe?

I'm not a Physicist but like I said to LL, there is a philosophical concept of Free Will which is not the same as the religious concept.

This concept is tied to philosophical questions like determinism and compatibilism as Rupert indicated.

As I stated, indications appear to be that our universe is both deterministic and probabilistic.

That has nothing to with magical entities and since we're talking about natural laws has nothing to do with ""free will" and "consciousness" beyond or outside of the natural universe".

We *are* conscious aware human beings which follow the laws of the natural world and so it would make sense to me that both determinism and probability would play a role in how we interact with our world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Sebastian <mezn...@gmail.com> wrote:

This could be debated. Quantum measurement can be considered to be
totally deterministic without any element of probability at all.

True. But it's my understanding that current thought indicates that it's both.
 

[tonysin]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?

Do all Christians reject free will? If NOT, why not? If God knows in
advance who will be saved, as several Protestant denominations
believe, then you have no free will, right? God's intervention in
hardening people's hearts (e.g. the Pharaoh of Exodus) does not lead
to choice either. Anyway, I heard that some Christians think that
free will exists. How is this possible if you have something that
stands beyond the natural realm and controls events?

[Jason]

Neil,

That is not a paraoid view. What is wrong with having no free will and
being completely controlled. Members of secular democracy are
controlled, just by different controls that foster variability of
behavior.

You have no free will--just accept it. I disagree with your religion
of free will. Your emotional reaction and short rebuttals with no
substance are typical of other defenders of your religious faith and
your precious mystical, supernatural entity called "free will."

Jason

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Neil,
>
> That is not a paraoid view.

Sure it is.

> What is wrong with having no free will and
> being completely controlled.

Well, besides any objections I may have to complete control, I just
don't think it's the case that we are completely controlled.

>  Members of secular democracy are
> controlled, just by different controls that foster variability of
> behavior.

Who is controlling me if I go kayaking up the coast (for instance)?

> You have no free will--just accept it.

I already have, but not in the sense that you want me to. I regard
"free will" as a religious construct - i.e. free from God - and since
I'm an atheist, I mostly dismiss the whole free will argument as a
large red herring. But just because I reject "free will" doesn't mean
I think we're being controlled. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist
either.

>  I disagree with your religion
> of free will.

I'm an atheist, I have no religious beliefs, including "free will."

> Your emotional reaction and short rebuttals with no
> substance are typical of other defenders of your religious faith and
> your precious mystical, supernatural entity called "free will."

Ummm...it seems to me that you're the one who is getting emotional. I
was simply disagreeing with you.

Why didn't you answser these questions?

1. Who is controlling me if I live in a secular democracy?
2. How is liberty a "religion?"

[Shot In The Dark]

Let's see if I can clarify my position further. Environmental
factors, present influences, and the prior construct and sequence of
events leading to a relative specifically defined person/animal/
sentient being and action(s) will provide a cross sectional snapshot
in which you could hypothetically deduct all correlative data (given
an infinite amount of timespace to analyze it with) and determine
nearly conclusively necessary causation, with at least one ultimate
limitation-quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. In so
that all other factors are derivable, all particles and waves are only
a manifestation of probability, and remain a smeared and
indeterminible (definitively singularly, anyhow) value, and may in
fact (from my limited scope of knowledge, I understand will
necessarily provide occasions of this phenomena) appear contradicting
the most probable of outcomes. All rests on the value of relative
context, a perspective if you will. The arbitrary assignment of free
will to sentient activity neglects even the least of all limitations
of living things in that it makes no distinction between finite and
infinite and provides nothing for relative context. As quantum
mechanics provides description, to the furthest of our available
resource in this existence, of the very fabric of our reality, it is
our very existence in this universe that defies absolute determinism.
Very little, if any-I can't think of any examples-of this phenomena is
observable in the context of my sentience here on this wet rock. So
there is quite a sense of predetermination with things at times which
complicates my understanding of the issue. But I think there is a
practical amount of active involvement with animals of advanced
intelligence, and humans play a role in determining the outcomes
experienced here at home. To assign such a capability to unseen
forces and to attribute conscious presence thereof (to that force/
influence/cosmic backdrop) is a farce and counter to the empirical
evidence. To be sure, I am a complete layman in the physical
sciences, just very interested in their roles. I love to be corrected
and to learn. It is an interesting discussion for philosophy, and one
I feel is most hindered by my individual perspective, the limitations
of my objectivity. I really don't know if that clarified anything at
all... :-)
On Jul 1, 3:27 am, Shot In The Dark <tdgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ammended with the exception of those held in captivity or bondage of
> some nature, then will is more limited.  When the ability for an
> action is stripped from an individual, obviously so then is thier
> ability or responsibility in the same degree.
>
> On Jul 1, 3:18 am, Shot In The Dark <tdgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All atheists do not have any definite common understanding other than
> > a lack of belief in a god.  Personally I'm sufficiently convinced of
> > the idea of indeterminism.  As for the concept of free will, I find it
> > to be rather loosely defined, a rather vague notion. Outside of the
> > severly mentally crippled, is one responsible for their actions and do
> > people have a mechanism and ability to make choices? Abso-fucking-
> > lutely.
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have

> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural

> > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without

> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > Jason

[rappoccio]

I don't believe you have really established that free will is a
religious concept. "We don't currently know" does not mean "it must be
magic".

I do, however, believe that when operating in science, one operates as
an atheist... there are no nascent assumptions of divine intervention,
simply because we observe that divine intervention plays no role in
nature as far as we can tell.

[etienne]

You would need to be perfect to lack "free will", and that's not
possible what we are and how the universe works.

[LL]

On Jul 1, 10:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > the natural universe)?
>
> > Jason
>
> There is insufficient evidence (currently) to decide if we have actual
> free will, or apparent free will.

LL: There is insufficient evidence to decide if there is a god or not,
too. But in this case you come down on the side of at least probably
no god. Why do you see it differently when it comes to free will?
Neither have a scintilla of evidence in their corner and everyone
thinks that if they "feel" it it must be true, both for free will and
god.



Rapp: It is not necessarily the case that

> a given person, when faced with the exact same stimulus under the
> exact same circumstances, will react in the same way.

LL" Actually, determinist doesn't say that persons will react in the
same way to a given stimulus. The deterministic view is that the
reaction may be different for everyone depending on certain factors
the person is not even aware of and has no control over.

Rapp: There are many

> reasons for this (neural responses are, after all, diffusive processes
> that are contingent upon many other chemicals at the same time).

LL: Indeed that's the point I try to make. Everyone is different--
everyone has different genes, different experiences and different
environment. And our genes determine how we react to our experiences
and environment.
>
Rapp: Let's look at other animals for the moment, however. Do you

think that
> dolphins, elephants, whales, chimpanzees and bonobos have free will? I
> think they do. They are self-aware and are capable of making complex
> decisions. Do these animals have a "soul"? Why would these particular
> animals have a soul, whereas others do not?
>
> I think there is, instead, some mental development via which "choice"
> becomes a possibility for some animals. There are many situations
> where our brains are responsive (i.e. there is no free will involved),
> but there are other situations where we have some amount of choice.

LL: Well, we all like to think so. It certainly feels as if we are
making independent decisions and most people don't want to give up
that idea. I'm not so sure. Scientific laboratory brain scans show
that we make decisions before we are aware of it. If that's the case,
we have no choice and no free will. Our brains are reacting to many
factors and decide for us without any conscious control.


**************************************************

>
> One very interesting area is discussed by V.S. Ramachandran in Beyond
> Belief 2006:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0
>

> http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_106922/Split_Brain_Studies_Theologica...

[LL]

On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Neil,
>
> That is not a paraoid view. What is wrong with having no free will and
> being completely controlled.

LL: It's not a matter of being controlled by an outside entity. We are
controlled by our own brains, our intellect, our emotions, our
experiences and our environment--but it's all unconscious. We have no
conscious control over these factors, even though we all think we
should have such control. It feels as if we have such control. From
everything I've read on the subject, I doubt we have such control. To
have it we'd have to step outside of ourselves, override our genes,
environment and experience and how our genes react to such factors. I
say we can't do that.

****************************************************

[Observer]

On Jul 1, 9:26 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Observer,
>
> So you also believe in the supernatural that functions outside of
> "genetics , society, education"... of which outside these "constraints
> influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities."  So
> humans have an aspects outside of these natural constraints (that is,
> supernatural) that allow for free will?

Observer

I have made it very clear there is no scientificllly verifiable
substantiating data proving anything such as the nonsense of a
supernatural thing , condition, function ,or being.


You have typically misrepresented or completely misunderstood my post.
You ignored the following and/or were appearantly afraid to attempt
an answer.


Quoting my original post

"Please advise us as to exactly what exists outside of the natural
universe and just how you have obtained knowledge there of.

You see, there is no scientifically verifiable substantiating data
proving the EXISTENCE of or any ACT of a creature of any kind which is
beyond or outside of the physical universe. That of course goes for
the preposterous christian concepts of a god , angels , a devil,
ghosts, demons, or any of the utter nonsense conjured by the god
merchants who fleece the public by claiming special knowledge there of
and or special access thereto.

If of course you are able to supply such proof we will be happy to
consider it if it is well documented and scientifically verifiable .
Please supply access to peer reviewed published papers from a
respected scientific journal or your claim will be rejected as
nonsense."

End quote

Regards

Psychonomist

>
> Jason
>
> On Jul 1, 2:35 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>
> > Observer
> > Free will is of limited scope in that genetics , society, education,
> > and other
> > considerations tend to  mold us according to strength of their
> > influence upon us.
> > It is , however , observable that within the constraints of these
> > influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities.
>
> >
>

[finbar]

On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Neil,
>
> That is not a paraoid view. What is wrong with having no free will and
> being completely controlled.  Members of secular democracy are
> controlled, just by different controls that foster variability of
> behavior.
>
> You have no free will--just accept it.  

That was a self-refuting statement.


- finbar

[Jason]

Trance,

I think I follow you. However, probabilistic human behavior does not
imply free will. In the wiki definition, free will encompassed some
kind of control. Varied or unpredictable behavior does not necessarily
imply control on the part of the organism. When animal behavior is
probabilistic, saying that the organism acted "out of free will" is
akin to saying God did it (evoking a supernatural entity to pseudo-
explain natural events). This argument is often used by other
religious people when the causes of other natural events (humans are
natural events) in which the natural causes are not well understood.

Jason

[Jason]

Neil,

I did not claim you were control by someone. I simply said that you
are being controlled. You are controlled by the interaction of your
biological structure and the environment. You have no choice in the
matter to act in a fashion counter to the natural laws that govern
that interaction. Some environments (secular democracies) evoke or
provoke various behaviors when interacting with various organisms.
You are controlled. The real question is how explicit or hidden are
these controls.

Jason

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Jason <jason_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

I think I follow you.  However, probabilistic human behavior does not
imply free will.  In the wiki definition, free will encompassed some
kind of control. Varied or unpredictable behavior does not necessarily
imply control on the part of the organism.  When animal behavior is
probabilistic, saying that the organism acted "out of free will" is
akin to saying God did it (evoking a supernatural entity to pseudo-
explain natural events).   This argument is often used by other
religious people when the causes of other natural events (humans are
natural events) in which the natural causes are not well understood.

Yes Jason I see where you're going with this, and perhaps the term, "free will" is a poor choice of words. It's really probability.

That is, a human being in a given situation has a number of choices when reacting or interacting in that given situation.

While determinism has an influence, we also appear to be "free" to make certain choices within the context of that situation, and appear to do so using reason.

I know that hasn't been proven yet but neither has pure determinism.

Given that human beings are a part of this universe and subject to it's laws, if the universe is purely deterministic I believe that we will be as well.

However, current science is leaning more towards it being deterministic and probabilistic which would mean that human beings would like be as well.

This is an approach that makes far more sense to me.

[Jason]

Rappoccio,

If a behavioral scientist is conducting behavioral research on human
subjects, the scientist cannot explain away variations in behavior by
stating, "He acted that unexpected way due to his free will." You
simply assume that the controlling factors of that behavior are
unknown--a puzzle to be solved.

Jason

[Jason]

Observer,

Show the data that proves that people have free will; otherwise,
concede that you are, in fact, not a real atheist and wholeheartedly
embrace supernatural entities such as free will. Not knowing the
natural cause of a behavior (thought, feeling, or anything human) does
NOT prove the existence of free will or other supernatural entities.

Jason

[Timothy 1:4a]

The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
philosopher's.

As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
deterministic and therefore there is no free will.

As one guy talking to another, I assure you that you can do and be
whatever you choose to do and be. (Sure there are limits, but they are
wider than most people realize - if you live in the 21st century and
have access to a computer, I can guess that you also have amazing
resources and opportunities at your disposal).

Determinism determines what you will choose to do and be - so what?
That happens at a level so far below our consciousness that none of us
will ever have access to it. Do not let determinism be an argument for
fatalism.

On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?
>

> Jason

[scooter]

On Jul 1, 1:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?
>
> Jason

This is a strange question Christians like to ask as if to say that if
people did have free will, automatically it's because "goddidit".

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jul 1, 5:53 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Neil,
>

> I did not claim you were control by someone.

Here's what you said:

"Put another way, it is not a question of whether we are controlled or

not controlled (we are controlled) but whether these controls are
explicit or hidden. By the way, those controlling would be partially

controlled by those being controlled (that is, interacting in the
manipulation just like people are controlled by various circumstances
when controlling inorganic matter)."

When you said "those controlling would be partially controlled by
those being controlled," in conjunction with your statement that you
are claiming that "we are controlled," you ARE claiming that we are
being controlled by someone.

>  I simply said that you are being controlled.

Disagree. You said we are being controlled, and that "those
controlling would be partially controlled by those being controlled."
That is telling me you think we are being controlled by someone.

>  You are controlled by the interaction of your
> biological structure and the environment.

I am limited by my biological structure and the environment. I would
hardly say that Saturn i(part of my environment) is controlling me,
for instance. That would be astrology. Saturn is exerting a
gravitational force upon me (a very small one) and Saturn is beaming a
dim light into my eyeballs, and that's about it. I'd hardly call that
control - inanimate objects have no intent.

> You have no choice in the
> matter to act in a fashion counter to the natural laws that govern
> that interaction.

I said as much in my first post, I think - you just used a double
negative, agreed? In other words, I agree that there is no way to
violate the laws of physics/nature/biology/etc. I don't regard the
laws of nature as controlling though, because to control something
implies intent. Only living organisms are capable of intent. The laws
of nature merely limit what my choices are.

>  Some environments (secular democracies) evoke or
> provoke various behaviors when interacting with various organisms.

Secular democracies have no intent. They are not organisms. When I go
to vote, I have a choice, and I can vote for whatever candidate I
want, or none of them if I don't want. That's hardly "control."

> You are controlled.

You haven't proved that claim.

> The real question is how explicit or hidden are
> these controls.

Since you haven't proved that I'm being controlled, my question is
still, who is controlling me?

[Rupert]

On Jul 2, 12:20 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rupert,
>
> So some atheists believe in supernatural entities such as souls?

Yes.

> I did
> not know that.   According to the article compatibilism, the
> supernatural atheists evoked concepts such as "soul" or
> "consciousness," which supposedly are in the supernatural realm and
> not governed by the natural universe.
>

Some atheists believe that consciousness is a natural phenomenon.

> You wrote, "But some atheists are compatibilists, they believe that
> the existence of free will can be reconciled with full determinism, or
> at least complete governance of the world by (possibly probabilistic)
> natural law."   I do not understand this argument of "possibly
> probabilistic" as an argument of free will.  Storm systems are
> probabilistic so does that argument also apply to the possibility that
> a storm system has a free will?
>

Well, actually, storm systems are fully deterministic. No,
compatibilists do not claim that every system governed by fully
deterministic or probabilistic natural law has free will; more is
required than that.
> Jason
>
> On Jul 1, 1:58 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>

> > No.
>
> > > If so, why not?  
>
> > Why should they?

>
> > > If you don't have
> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > laws, right?
>

> > Peter Unger is an atheist who believes in the existence of the soul;
> > see his recent book "All the Power in the World".
>
> > And some atheists are compatibilists; they believe that the existence
> > of free will is consistent with materialism and determinism. Quine was
> > a compatibilist.

>
> > > Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.
>

> > Chaos theory does not help in arguing for compatibilism, no, although
> > I don't think your second clause is especially coherent.

>
> > > Anyway, I heard that some

> > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without

> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>

> > Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
> > despite being an atheist. You can read all about that in his book "All
> > the Power in the World". But some atheists are compatibilists, they
> > believe that the existence of free will can be reconciled with full
> > determinism, or at least complete governance of the world by (possibly
> > probabilistic) natural law. You should check out the Wikipedia
> > article.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

[Rupert]

On Jul 2, 12:27 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 11:58 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
> despite being an atheist.
>

> LL: He sounds irrational to me. He is making a very bad argument.
>

Well, you should probably check out the book before coming to that
conclusion.

[Observer]

On Jul 1, 6:03 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Observer,
>
> Show the data that proves that people have free will; otherwise,
> concede that you are, in fact, not a real atheist and wholeheartedly
> embrace supernatural entities such as free will.

Observer
What utter nonsense ! Your argument is as sensible as saying , if you
can not prove that a peach tree shits green frogs then you
wholeheartedly embrace supper natural entities that manufacture
manufacture green frogs.

Such is fallacious and utter nonsense.

Moses Maimonides formulated the argument, in the traditional manner,
in terms of good and evil actions, as follows:[4]
“ … "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will
be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows
that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would
act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"[5] ”
More generally, the argument can be applied to all freely willed
actions by individuals using reductio ad absurdum:
Humans have free will.
By the definition of free will, this implies that it must have been at
least possible, even if highly unlikely, for a human to have made a
different choice from the one they made for any given decision.
Assumption: God is omniscient.
By the definition of omniscience, this implies that God can perfectly
predict ("see into") the future (except possibly God's own, but this
doesn't matter for the purposes of this formulation).
If God's omniscient predictions are truly perfect, then it must not be
possible for humans to make choices different from those God has
already predicted.
But it must be possible for humans to make said different choices by
point (2).
Therefore, the assumption (3) must be false, and an omniscient God
cannot exist if humans have free will.
[edit]Dan Barker
In modern terms, the argument is formulated typically as follows[6]
The theistic God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
Personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each
of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there
must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you
cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your
decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential
(if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It
knows its choices in advance.
A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid
its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal
being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the theistic God does not exist.

You asked a question and I responded with an enlightened , well
thought out opinion. An opinion is offered and you of course free to
reject it if such as free will exists. Or you are also free to confine
your thoughts to the convoluted nonsense of religious/superstitious
Voodoo Hoodoo of christianity.

But if you do you have still made the claim, and that requires proof
or an admission that your belief in your god thing is but an other
mindless opinion structured by primitive , minds, for primitive minds
and of little use to anyone else.

Suit your self !

You claimed the existence of supernatural beings and in as much as you
have made the claim the onus is on you to prove such.

Now Where is your scientifically verifiable substantiating the
EXISTENCE of or any ACT of any god?

 Not knowing the
> natural cause of a behavior (thought, feeling, or anything human) does
> NOT prove the existence of free will or other supernatural entities.

Observer
What makes free will a supernatural entity ? Now you are really
getting goofy.

WTF?

[LL]

On Jul 1, 6:36 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> philosopher's.
>
> As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> As one guy talking to another, I assure you that you can do and be
> whatever you choose to do and be.

LL: Nevertheless, what you choose to do and be is determined by
factors beyond your control. You only THINK you are making an
independent choice. All determinism means is that our decisions are
determined by mostly unconscious factors. We may even be aware of some
of them, but we can't step outside ourselves and make different
decisions that run counter to that which determines our actions. Most
humans want so badly to be "in charge" that most can't accept the idea
of determinism and think it means we are predetermined. Well, we
aren't predetermined--we are determined by factors that make us who we
are and we can't remove ourselves from them. We are controlled by
genes, which determine how we react to our environment and experience
whether we like it or not and they change by the minute. We can't do
anything about it in any case. When someone "decides" to do or not do
something or be or not be something, or feel or not feel something, it
is a result of those factors, not free will, whether we like it or
not. Once a person understands this phenomenon, he will no longer by
confused by it, and it wouldn't do any good to feel bad about it,
anyway. He will simply accept it-- but only if he is determined to
accept it. He may well fight it tooth and nail--if his factors lead
him in that direction, of course.

**********************

[LL]

LL: It's not a who, it's a what.

**********************************

[LL]

LL: Ordinarily I would, but when someone who claims to be an atheist
says he believes in a soul, my red flags go up. And my suspicions
have always been justified. I've never met or read the writings of
anyone who says he's an atheist and believes in a supernatural concept
whose thinking I could respect. It just doesn't happen.

************************

[Sebastian]

To be fair, the topic is very disputed. There are people who say that
quantum probabilities are actual probabilities and other people who
claim what I wrote in the topic. But in the last decade or so a
considerable progress has been made by the side claiming it's
deterministic, mostly in understanding quantum decoherence using the
superoperators. Basically upon the interaction with the environment
quantum states transform to classical probabilistic distributions and
there are two ways to view that. One is that the probabilities arise
from the apparently random (unknown) distribution of states in the
environment and the other that these probabilities are somehow
fundamental. However, if you want to stick with the evolution equation
(Schrodinger or Dirac equation) then you're forced to say that this
transformation is completely deterministic and that if the details of
the environment were known exactly it would be possible to predict
with certainty whether the state was going to evolve to one or any of
the other possibilities.

On Jul 1, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Sebastian <mezn...@gmail.com> wrote:

To be fair, the topic is very disputed. There are people who say that
quantum probabilities are actual probabilities and other people who
claim what I wrote in the topic. But in the last decade or so a
considerable progress has been made by the side claiming it's
deterministic, mostly in understanding quantum decoherence using the
superoperators. Basically upon the interaction with the environment
quantum states transform to classical probabilistic distributions and
there are two ways to view that. One is that the probabilities arise
from the apparently random (unknown) distribution of states in the
environment and the other that these probabilities are somehow
fundamental. However, if you want to stick with the evolution equation
(Schrodinger or Dirac equation) then you're forced to say that this
transformation is completely deterministic and that if the details of
the environment were known exactly it would be possible to predict
with certainty whether the state was going to evolve to one or any of
the other possibilities.

Thanks for the explanation Sebastian.

I think I understand what you're saying but don't have the Physics background to debate the Physics with you.

Is the following correct (in English, not Physics ;-)

1. Fully deterministic.

This infers that *if* we knew all the variables of a given event and the person interacting with the event we could predict the end result of the interaction irrespective of the persons belief that they made a choice.

That is, the probabilities you are talking about just appear to be probabilities but are fundamental in that they are tied directly to the unknown variables.

2. Deterministic and Probabilistic.

This infers that no matter what all of the variables of a given event and the person interacting with the event, there are multiple choices (random distribution of states) open to us in determining how we will interact which means that there are more than one possible end result.

My language may not be as precise as the Physics but I think it's an accurate restatement.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (preferably in English Lol).

[Steve in Virginia]

Of course not, what a ridiculous notion. Atheist fully accept Free
Will. The problem arises with theists - if you have an omniscient god
who knows the past, present and future the Free Will doesn't exist.
The fact that we don't know our future is irrelevant. God knows out
destiny to an absolute certainty - hence, free will under a supreme
being is illusory. You can't have it both ways. If god knows all our
future decisions - we're just going through the motions.

Steve

On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?
>

> Jason

[Neil Kelsey]

He said:

"Put another way, it is not a question of whether we are controlled or
not controlled (we are controlled) but whether these controls are
explicit or hidden. By the way, those controlling would be partially
controlled by those being controlled (that is, interacting in the
manipulation just like people are controlled by various circumstances
when controlling inorganic matter)."

It's a who, according to Jason.

I'd also question the use of the word "control" when it comes to
something inanimate, like gravity. We just don't say "the earth
controls the moon." We say "the moon is in the earth's gravitational
field." The word "control" implies intent, which only a conscious
living being can have. Looking through the Oxford dictionary, the
definitions there agree with me about this.

[Sebastian]

1) Yes, precisely.

2) Well this could be debated. If (2) is true then what we know for
certain is that the outcomes of these interactions cannot be predicted
with certainty. Whether these uncertainties arise from personal
conscious decisions or some other (known or unknown) physical
mechanism is so far not clear.

On Jul 2, 1:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Sebastian <mezn...@gmail.com> wrote:

1) Yes, precisely.

2) Well this could be debated. If (2) is true then what we know for
certain is that the outcomes of these interactions cannot be predicted
with certainty. Whether these uncertainties arise from personal
conscious decisions or some other (known or unknown) physical
mechanism is so far not clear.

However, to me (and I'm not a scientist) number 2) appears to fit reality far closer than number 1) and its more consistent with the way that I personally see the world.

Interestingly enough if number 1) is true it lends credence to claims of being able to tell the future (psychics) because everything can potentially be predictable.
 

[Sketch System]

On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> Do all atheists reject free will?

No.

> If so, why not?

Because many atheists are willing to admit when they don't know
something. Is the universe deterministic? Probabilistic? I don't
know. I have read theories that have suggested one or the other, or
both. But, I don't know.

> If you don't have
> a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> laws, right?  

If a soul exists, it would not be a supernatural component.
Currently, "soul" has been shown to be nothing more than a metaphoric
account of counsciousness. Meanwhile, we are not free to act in a way
contrary to natural law. For instance, I don't have the free will to
fly because I lack the necessary physical components.

> Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> the natural universe)?

As there only exists the natural realm, your question is nonsensical.

Meanwhile, religion has not solved this problem either. It only
asserts that some supernatural being wishes us to have free will.
It's nonsense.

[LL]

LL: Yes, I agree. When nitroglycerin is shaken or when it absorbs
moisture without human intervention, an explosion results. Who or what
is controlling that reaction? Nothing but the intrinsic nature of it.
No god is necessary and the nitroglycerin is not acting out of "free
will". ("Hmm, let's see, will I explode under these conditions today
or not?") I think human decision-making works the same way. To say
that someone or something outside of the reaction is "controlling" it
is simply to add a factor for which there is no evidence. It would be
ridiculous in a chemical laboratory to assume there might be a
supernatural factor controlling chemical reactions or that the
chemicals themselves are able to make decisions contrary to their
nature.

******************************

*************************

> > > > > > > > > I don't see any...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Jul 2, 8:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Yes, precisely.
>
> 2) Well this could be debated. If (2) is true then what we know for
> certain is that the outcomes of these interactions cannot be predicted
> with certainty. Whether these uncertainties arise from personal
> conscious decisions or some other (known or unknown) physical
> mechanism is so far not clear.

LL: The ability for humans to predict what will happen with any
interaction has nothing to do with free will. There have been brain
scans done that show that our brains make decisions before we are
consciously aware of them. The ability to predict the results of any
interaction has nothing to do with this phenomenon.


"The experiments carried out by Benjamin Libet into the timing of
conscious awareness (briefly described here ) have provoked, and go on
provoking, a vast amount of discussion. His own theory of
consciousness as a kind of field has received somewhat less attention;
and the strange brain-cutting experiment he proposed to test it seems
likely to remain unperformed for the foreseeable future. A large
number of papers and discussions have been published: in 2004, Libet
finally summarised his own account in the book 'Mind Time'.

"Libet's early research was actually intended to explore what the
minimum stimulus giving rise to a conscious sensation might be. He had
an enviable opportunity to study the response of the brain to direct
stimulation (using trains of electrical pulses) through the help of a
friendly neurosurgeon and the co-operation of a series of patients,
who remained conscious and able to report their sensations throughout
the experiment. There are several ways of varying electrical stimuli,
of course, but a curious fact emerged: whatever the voltage or
frequency of the pulses, the stimulus had to persist for about 500
milliseconds before the subject became consciously aware of it.
Actually, this is not quite true: above a certain level of voltage,
the interval decreased, but the current involved was by then well
above anything likely to occur in the brain normally.

"The result was unexpected, because it had already been established
that stimuli applied to the skin, rather than directly to the brain,
could be detected consciously even if they were much shorter than 500
milliseconds. Libet was able to demonstrate that although the stimulus
to the skin might be brief, it was still the case that the resultant
brain activity had to persist for 500 milliseconds before the subject
became consciously aware of it. Where a patient was anaesthetised, the
initial brain response to a stimulus was the same as for a fully
conscious subject, but it failed to continue for the required period:
moreover, a stimulus applied directly to the brain 500 milliseconds
after one applied to the skin could cancel (or in some circumstances,
enhance) it."
http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

As with any science, there are other scientists who dispute the
meaning of the experiment. In this case I think it's a result of the
scientists, being human, having a hard time accepting that free will
may not exist. They want to feel that they are in control

**************************************

[LL]

On Jul 2, 9:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) Yes, precisely.
>
> > 2) Well this could be debated. If (2) is true then what we know for
> > certain is that the outcomes of these interactions cannot be predicted
> > with certainty. Whether these uncertainties arise from personal
> > conscious decisions or some other (known or unknown) physical
> > mechanism is so far not clear.
>
> However, to me (and I'm not a scientist) number 2) appears to fit reality
> far closer than number 1) and its more consistent with the way that I
> personally see the world.
>
> Interestingly enough if number 1) is true it lends credence to claims of
> being able to tell the future (psychics) because everything can potentially
> be predictable.

LL: That would be true if we could know every possible factor that
goes into the mix. It's true on an abstract basis, but highly unlikely
or impossible on a practical one.

******************************

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:13 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) Yes, precisely.
>
> > 2) Well this could be debated. If (2) is true then what we know for
> > certain is that the outcomes of these interactions cannot be predicted
> > with certainty. Whether these uncertainties arise from personal
> > conscious decisions or some other (known or unknown) physical
> > mechanism is so far not clear.
>
> However, to me (and I'm not a scientist) number 2) appears to fit reality
> far closer than number 1) and its more consistent with the way that I
> personally see the world.
>
> Interestingly enough if number 1) is true it lends credence to claims of
> being able to tell the future (psychics) because everything can potentially
> be predictable.

LL: That would be true if we could know every possible factor that
goes into the mix. It's true on an abstract basis, but highly unlikely
or impossible on a practical one.

If the universe is purely deterministic then we have the capacity. If it's deterministic, it's predictable. That's the point.
 
If you want to conclude based on existing evidence that the universe is a strictly deterministic one then based on existing claims you would have to also accept that the possibility exists that those psychic claims are true and that those people may have a built-in capacity to which allows them (consciously or unconsciously) access to what they need to determine such.

There is no disconnect between how human beings function and how the universe functions. If it's deterministic so are we.

I personally don't believe that this is the case and while Sebastian states that it's disputed I think he may be giving us a slightly biased presentation based on preference like you are since you can't support this claim either.

The example you keep giving proves only that there is a time differential between consciousness of reasoning and reasoning, which there should be. It doesn't prove what you are claiming.

It's my understanding that the generally accepted position is *not* a purely deterministic universe but one that is both deterministic and probabilistic.

However, I'm not a Physicist and can't refute his implication that 2) is somehow *more* disputed than 1).

I don't recall Rapp ever making such a claim though.

When it comes right down to it neither of us knows for sure and to strongly advocate for one over and above the  other isn't a rational position to take.

All either one of us can actually say is that while we don't know we favor one over the other because ....

[rappoccio]

I assume nothing. On the contrary, I refuse to make the assumption
that you are requesting (or requiring) me to make. I merely say that
you have not established that naturalistic explanations are
insufficient to explain free will. You're requiring scientists to
actually make a presupposition that "god exists, or we're mindless
automatons" which I do not agree with. You're committing the fallacy
of the excluded middle.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 1, 6:09 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jul 1, 10:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>
> > > Jason
>
> > There is insufficient evidence (currently) to decide if we have actual
> > free will, or apparent free will.
>

> LL: There is insufficient evidence to decide if there is a god or not,
> too. But in this case you come down on the side of at least probably
> no god. Why do you see it differently when it comes to free will?
> Neither have a scintilla of evidence in their corner and everyone
> thinks that if they "feel" it it must be true, both for free will and
> god.

There is no evidence for or against the concept of a naturalistic free
will. "Zero evidence" versus "zero evidence" leads to the most honest
answer: "We don't yet know". I'm comfortable with that until we
discern the answer. It certainly seems like we have free will. Our
societal constructs are dependent upon the existence of free will.
However there is no firm evidence for or against. Neuroprocessing is
in its infancy, especially regarding consciousness. There is a lot of
work that needs to be done before we make a hard and fast decision.

>
> Rapp:  It is not necessarily the case that

>
> > a given person, when faced with the exact same stimulus under the
> > exact same circumstances, will react in the same way.
>

> LL" Actually, determinist doesn't say that persons will react in the
> same way to a given stimulus. The deterministic view is that the
> reaction may be different for everyone depending on certain factors
> the person is not even aware of and has no control over.
>
> Rapp:  There are many

>
> > reasons for this (neural responses are, after all, diffusive processes
> > that are contingent upon many other chemicals at the same time).
>

> LL: Indeed that's the point I try to make. Everyone is different--
> everyone has different genes, different experiences and different
> environment. And our genes determine how we react to our experiences
> and environment.
>
> Rapp:  Let's look at other animals for the moment, however. Do you

> think that
>
> > dolphins, elephants, whales, chimpanzees and bonobos have free will? I
> > think they do. They are self-aware and are capable of making complex
> > decisions. Do these animals have a "soul"? Why would these particular
> > animals have a soul, whereas others do not?
>
> > I think there is, instead, some mental development via which "choice"
> > becomes a possibility for some animals. There are many situations
> > where our brains are responsive (i.e. there is no free will involved),
> > but there are other situations where we have some amount of choice.
>

> LL: Well, we all like to think so. It certainly feels as if we are
> making independent decisions and most people don't want to give up
> that idea.  I'm not so sure. Scientific laboratory brain scans show
> that we make decisions before we are aware of it. If that's the case,
> we have no choice and no free will. Our brains are reacting to many
> factors and decide for us without any conscious control.

I think this is slightly over-simplistic. There are two levels of
human thought: conscious, and subconscious. Certainly there are
decisions that are made subconsciously (even instinctively). However,
there are other decisions via which we reason through the response to
decide what the answer is (consciously). For instance, can you
immediately recognize that pi is an irrational number? I can't. It's
simply not something I can instantly determine. If a functional MRI
was taken of my brain while I was asked the question (before I knew
the answer, of course), it would show my brain without a clear idea of
what the answer is. However, we can conduct a proof (which is fairly
long and involved) to determine that, indeed, pi is an irrational
number. Clearly there is some computation that is being done in the
human brain to relate this proof to the concept that "pi is
irrational".

http://pirate.shu.edu/~wachsmut/ira/infinity/irrat_nm.html

Is this computation "pre-programmed" in our genome? I don't know. I
would be extraordinarily surprised if it were. I don't think our
brains are "hard-wired" to develop a proof that pi is irrational given
a certain set of inputs. I also don't think there are many human
beings who can simply "just see" that pi is irrational. It takes a
long, painstaking process to make the (conscious) determination of the
irrationality of pi.

Another thing our brains are *exceptionally* good at is simulation.
Our imaginations are extremely detailed, to the point where it
sometimes becomes problematic and some people literally cannot discern
"real" from "delusion". I can spontaneously imagine a great deal of
things. I can decide to imagine, say, a gorilla eating a banana on a
stool. Instantly, the image is formed in my mind. There is at least
some autonomous control I have over the process. I can make my
imaginary gorilla dance, sing a song, jump, walk, shake hands, recite
Shakespeare, etc. Is all of this pre-programmed in my genome? It
certainly doesn't seem that way.

To make a long story short, we do not yet know whether there is a
mechanism for a neural network to become self aware and develop free
will. The science of neural networks of that complexity is in such a
natal stage that it would be very silly to make a decision at the
present time. For now, it seems like we have free will, so we act as
if we have free will.

>
> **************************************************

[rappoccio]

On Jul 1, 9:36 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> philosopher's.
>
> As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> deterministic and therefore there is no free will.

Why would you suspect that the universe is deterministic? We already
know that there are a great deal of processes within it that are NOT
deterministic, but probabilistic.

[philosophy]

On Jul 2, 11:36 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> philosopher's.
>
> As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> deterministic and therefore there is no free will.

I'm not sure I follow you. Let's look at the possibility of parallel
universes (hypothesis at the present time). If these exist, why? What
is the point of determinism? My own bent would go for "potentiality".
In other words, whatever choice one makes will tend to lead a person
in a particular direction. But, I see this as being different from
determinism.

[Treebeard]

On Jul 2, 4:54 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:36 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> > philosopher's.
>
> > As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> > deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Let's look at the possibility of parallel
> universes (hypothesis at the present time).  If these exist, why? What
> is the point of determinism? My own bent would go for "potentiality".
> In other words, whatever choice one makes will tend to lead a person
> in a particular direction. But, I see this as being different from
> determinism.

Well, because it obviously IS different; the point of the free will vs
determinism debate is the claim that you cannot really make choices
because your choice was determined LONG before you even set out to try
to make it.

Breaking determinism by introducing probabilistic elements doesn't
help free will either, since random chance determines your choice, not
anything that can actually be ascribed to the choosing process.

(And, BTW, there are serious problems with the experiments that tried
to show that we "decide" before we are consicously aware of it. Two
important ones are: a) is it the case that conscious awareness of the
final choice is absolutely required for us to have made the choice
first? and b) how did they determine when we WERE aware of what choice
we made, anyway (initally, it was humans noting time on the clock, but
that's too unreliable, and the neuron one makes assumptions that may
not be valid in this case)).

>
>
>
>
>
> > As one guy talking to another, I assure you that you can do and be
> > whatever you choose to do and be. (Sure there are limits, but they are
> > wider than most people realize - if you live in the 21st century and
> > have access to a computer, I can guess that you also have amazing
> > resources and opportunities at your disposal).
>
> > Determinism determines what you will choose to do and be - so what?
> > That happens at a level so far below our consciousness that none of us
> > will ever have access to it. Do not let determinism be an argument for
> > fatalism.
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > Jason- Hide quoted text -

[Jason]

Rappoccio,

Free will assumes that a person (the organism) has some control of his
thoughts, feelings or behaviors. How can you have control without
conjuring up some supernatural entity such as "free will." Humans
have just as much free will as a storm system or any other complex
structure. Free will is just another way of stating, "I don't know
the natural causes of the natural event (thought, feeling, behavior);
therefore, I will attribute the cause to something outside of nature
and call it 'free will'." If you don't believe that humans are
completely controlled by nature and have no choice outside of this
control, you assume that some supernatural forces are controlling this
organism such as a "soul" or "free will".

Jason

On Jul 1, 2:44 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe you have really established that free will is a
> religious concept. "We don't currently know" does not mean "it must be
> magic".
>
> I do, however, believe that when operating in science, one operates as
> an atheist... there are no nascent assumptions of divine intervention,
> simply because we observe that divine intervention plays no role in
> nature as far as we can tell.
>
> On Jul 1, 1:14 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rappocio,
>
> > I think that when you scientifically study the behavior of organisms,
> > you have to approach it as an atheist and dispense of religious
> > concepts such as free will.
>
> > Jason
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:05 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > Jason
>
> > > There is insufficient evidence (currently) to decide if we have actual

> > > free will, or apparent free will. It is not necessarily the case that

> > > a given person, when faced with the exact same stimulus under the

> > > exact same circumstances, will react in the same way. There are many

> > > reasons for this (neural responses are, after all, diffusive processes
> > > that are contingent upon many other chemicals at the same time).
>

> > > Let's look at other animals for the moment, however. Do you think that
> > > dolphins, elephants, whales, chimpanzees and bonobos have free will? I
> > > think they do. They are self-aware and are capable of making complex
> > > decisions. Do these animals have a "soul"? Why would these particular
> > > animals have a soul, whereas others do not?
>
> > > I think there is, instead, some mental development via which "choice"
> > > becomes a possibility for some animals. There are many situations
> > > where our brains are responsive (i.e. there is no free will involved),
> > > but there are other situations where we have some amount of choice.
>

[Jason]

Etienne,

God bless you. Why would you have to be perfect to lack free will?
That is rooted in religious theology.

1. What exactly is perfection? That concept is also religious is
nature. Show me an example of perfection. You throw out another cloud
concept that hides in the shadows of vagueness to pseudo-bolster your
argument.

2. All things are perfect. What is your argument against that?
Perfection (that vague concept) is just an opinion.

Jason

On Jul 1, 3:59 pm, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You would need to be perfect to lack "free will", and that's not
> possible what we are and how the universe works.

[Jason]

LL,

I agree with this stance.

Jason

On Jul 1, 4:14 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Neil,
>

> > That is not a paraoid view. What is wrong with having no free will and
> > being completely controlled.
>
> LL: It's not a matter of being controlled by an outside entity. We are
> controlled by our own brains, our intellect, our emotions, our
> experiences and our environment--but it's all unconscious. We have no
> conscious control over these factors, even though we all think we
> should have such control. It feels as if we have such control. From
> everything I've read on the subject, I doubt we have such control. To
> have it we'd have to step outside of ourselves, override our genes,
> environment and experience and how our genes react to such factors. I
> say we can't do that.
>
> ****************************************************

>
>  Members of secular democracy are
>
> > controlled, just by different controls that foster variability of
> > behavior.
>

> > You have no free will--just accept it.  I disagree with your religion
> > of free will. Your emotional reaction and short rebuttals with no

> > substance are typical of other defenders of your religious faith and

> > your precious mystical, supernatural entity called "free will."
>
> > Jason
>

> > > > > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>

> > > > > In the sense that I am free from God's control, yes. I am not free to
> > > > > do as I wish though - natural laws prevent that. So do social laws.
>

> > > > > > If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > > > laws, right?
>

> > > > > I don't see any Christians violating any natural laws.
>

> > > > > > Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.
>

> > > > > Chaos is not the same thing as indeterminacy.
>

> > > > > > Anyway, I heard that some
> > > > > > atheists think that free will exists.
>

> > > > > I'm not one of them. I regard "free will" as a religious construct,
> > > > > like "soul." To me, it is tilting at windmills.
>

> > > > > > How is this possible without
> > > > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > > People think all sorts of things that don't make sense - Christians,

> > > > > for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jason]

Trance,

Yes, that is where I was going with this argument. Thanks for the
summary.

Jason

On Jul 1, 6:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Trance,
>
> > I think I follow you.  However, probabilistic human behavior does not
> > imply free will.  In the wiki definition, free will encompassed some
> > kind of control. Varied or unpredictable behavior does not necessarily
> > imply control on the part of the organism.  When animal behavior is
> > probabilistic, saying that the organism acted "out of free will" is
> > akin to saying God did it (evoking a supernatural entity to pseudo-
> > explain natural events).   This argument is often used by other
> > religious people when the causes of other natural events (humans are
> > natural events) in which the natural causes are not well understood.
>
> Yes Jason I see where you're going with this, and perhaps the term, "free
> will" is a poor choice of words. It's really probability.
>
> That is, a human being in a given situation has a number of choices when
> reacting or interacting in that given situation.
>
> While determinism has an influence, we also appear to be "free" to make
> certain choices within the context of that situation, and appear to do so
> using reason.
>
> I know that hasn't been proven yet but neither has pure determinism.
>
> Given that human beings are a part of this universe and subject to it's
> laws, if the universe is purely deterministic I believe that we will be as
> well.
>
> However, current science is leaning more towards it being deterministic and
> probabilistic which would mean that human beings would like be as well.
>
> This is an approach that makes far more sense to me.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason
>
> > On Jul 1, 12:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:32 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 4:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason
>
> > > > > (Memphis)<jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't

> > have
> > > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by
> > natural

> > > > > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if
> > control
> > > > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that
> > some
> > > > > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without

> > > > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom
> > outside
> > > > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > > In addition to what Rupert said, if one goes by natural laws, it's my
> > > > > understanding that Quantum Physics indicates that the universe is
> > both
> > > > > deterministic and probabilistic which would indicate that while we
> > > > > don't have complete free will there is an element of free will in
> > > > > natural law.
>

> > > > LL: Although that's true, we aren't talking about the universe when we
> > > > are talking about human determinism. In any case, arguing against a
> > > > purely deterministic universe doesn't mean humans have free will. All
> > > > that means is that there is randomness in the universe and in human
> > > > actions as well. Randomness is not an argument for free will. It's an
> > > > argument against it.
>
> > > Since human beings follow the general laws of the universe it would
> > indicate
> > > that we too both have deterministic and probabilistic aspects to us.
>
> > > This makes far more sense to me rationally than human beings as
> > completely
> > > deterministic entities.
>
> > > As far as free will goes, it just depends on how you define it.
>
> > > I agree that it can be defined as a religious concept.
>
> > > However, there is also the philosophical concept of free will which is
> > tied
> > > to concepts like determinism, compatibilism as Rupert indicated, etc.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> > > > ******************************************************************

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Jason <jason_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Trance,

Yes, that is where I was going with this argument.  Thanks for the
summary.

NP. Interesting discussion topic. Jason. Thanks for posting it.
 

[rappoccio]

On Jul 2, 8:08 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rappoccio,
>
> Free will assumes that a person (the organism) has some control of his
> thoughts, feelings or behaviors.   How can you have control without
> conjuring up some supernatural entity such as "free will."

I don't know. Neither do you. There is not enough information to
answer the question. It is, as yet, unanswered. There is no evidence
for or against. Therefore the most prudent stance is "I don't know".
Studies of emergent properties in neural networks are simply not
advanced enough to know the answer.

It's like asking if there are aliens from another galaxy, or if there
is a multiverse... there is simply no information either way. That
doesn't mean that "free will" = "soul".

[Timothy 1:4a]

Agreed. But the point of the "one guy to another" argument is that we
are not predetermined to do A and B _no_ _matter_ _what_. We are only
predetermined to do A and B based on inputs C and D. Inputs C and D
will happen in the future and no one today can guess what they will
be.

To take some examples: It's meaningful to decide, "tomorrow I will do
things differently." It's meaningful to screw up your courage and do
something that's difficult for you. It's meaningful to persuade your
friends or family to behave differently. It's meaningful to read self-
help books. Et cetera.

We've had this discussion before and I'm pretty sure you agree. But
many people exclude this from their idea of "predetermined" unless
it's spelled out.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jul 2, 3:55 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:36 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> > philosopher's.
>
> > As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> > deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> Why would you suspect that the universe is deterministic? We already
> know that there are a great deal of processes within it that are NOT
> deterministic, but probabilistic.

To take doubts off the table, let me put it this way: we don't control
the random quantum events in our world, our bodies and our brains any
more than we control the other physical processes. Neither
deterministic nor probabilistic events are under our control.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jul 2, 4:54 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> On Jul 2, 11:36 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> > philosopher's.
>
> > As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> > deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Let's look at the possibility of parallel
> universes (hypothesis at the present time).  If these exist, why? What
> is the point of determinism? My own bent would go for "potentiality".
> In other words, whatever choice one makes will tend to lead a person
> in a particular direction. But, I see this as being different from
> determinism.

Determinists like LL and myself deny that one could have made another
choice.

Taking a gross example: you can probably predict how some of your
close friends will react to some things - for example, will they enjoy
this action movie / horror film / chick flick?

Now a subtle example: if you could know EVERYTHING about your friend,
you would know how they would react in EVERY situation. If you could
rewind and replay the situation 1000 times, they would do the same
thing 1000 times.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jul 2, 5:27 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:54 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 11:36 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> > > philosopher's.
>
> > > As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> > > deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> > I'm not sure I follow you.  Let's look at the possibility of parallel
> > universes (hypothesis at the present time).  If these exist, why? What
> > is the point of determinism? My own bent would go for "potentiality".
> > In other words, whatever choice one makes will tend to lead a person
> > in a particular direction. But, I see this as being different from
> > determinism.
>
> Well, because it obviously IS different; the point of the free will vs
> determinism debate is the claim that you cannot really make choices
> because your choice was determined LONG before you even set out to try
> to make it.
>
> Breaking determinism by introducing probabilistic elements doesn't
> help free will either, since random chance determines your choice, not
> anything that can actually be ascribed to the choosing process.
>
> (And, BTW, there are serious problems with the experiments that tried
> to show that we "decide" before we are consicously aware of it.  

I doubt there are; but there may indeed be serious problems with how
many people interpret it.

> Two
> important ones are: a) is it the case that conscious awareness of the
> final choice is absolutely required for us to have made the choice
> first?

No, in fact the experiment shows the opposite. First we choose, then
we become conscious of our choice.

[Jason]

Neil,

I don't understand how you can have "intent" if you don't have free
will. I think that you are just a supernatural believer in naturalist
clothing. Like free will, intention is an illusion.

Jason

On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 1, 5:53 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Neil,
>

> > I did not claim you were control by someone.
>
> Here's what you said:
>

> "Put another way, it is not a question of whether we are controlled or

> not controlled (we are controlled) but whether these controls are
> explicit or hidden.  By the way, those controlling would be partially

> controlled by those being controlled (that is, interacting in the
> manipulation just like people are controlled by various circumstances
> when controlling inorganic matter)."
>

> > Jason

>
> > On Jul 1, 3:11 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 12:52 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Neil,
>
> > > > That is not a paraoid view.
>

> > > Sure it is.

>
> > > > What is wrong with having no free will and
> > > > being completely controlled.
>

> > > Well, besides any objections I may have to complete control, I just
> > > don't think it's the case that we are completely controlled.
>

> > > >  Members of secular democracy are
> > > > controlled, just by different controls that foster variability of
> > > > behavior.
>

> > > Who is controlling me if I go kayaking up the coast (for instance)?
>

> > > > You have no free will--just accept it.
>

> > > I already have, but not in the sense that you want me to. I regard
> > > "free will" as a religious construct - i.e. free from God - and since
> > > I'm an atheist, I mostly dismiss the whole free will argument as a
> > > large red herring. But just because I reject "free will" doesn't mean
> > > I think we're being controlled. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist
> > > either.
>

> > > >  I disagree with your religion
> > > > of free will.
>

> > > I'm an atheist, I have no religious beliefs, including "free will."

>
> > > > Your emotional reaction and short rebuttals with no
> > > > substance are typical of other defenders of your religious faith and
> > > > your precious mystical, supernatural entity called "free will."
>

> > > Ummm...it seems to me that you're the one who is getting emotional. I
> > > was simply disagreeing with you.
>
> > > Why didn't you answser these questions?
>

> > > 1. Who is controlling me if I live in a secular democracy?
> > > 2. How is liberty a "religion?"
>
> > > > Jason
>

> > > > > > > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>

> > > > > > > In the sense that I am free from God's control, yes. I am not free to
> > > > > > > do as I wish though - natural laws prevent that. So do social laws.
>

> > > > > > > > If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > > > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > > > > > laws, right?
>

> > > > > > > I don't see any Christians violating any natural laws.
>

> > > > > > > > Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > > > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.
>

> > > > > > > Chaos is not the same thing as indeterminacy.
>

> > > > > > > > Anyway, I heard that some
> > > > > > > > atheists think that free will exists.
>

> > > > > > > I'm not one of them. I regard "free will" as a religious construct,
> > > > > > > like "soul." To me, it is tilting at windmills.
>

> > > > > > > > How is this possible without
> > > > > > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > > > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > > > > People think all sorts of things that don't make sense - Christians,

> > > > > > > for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jason]

Rupert,

How do you know that a storm system is "fully deterministic"? A storm
system is a complex system that is unpredictable at a certain level.
Biological structures (the organism called a human) is also a "fully
deterministic" complex system with a certain level of
unpredictability--unless you find some kind of soul, free will, etc in
that complex system. So where is your evidence of this supernatural
soul or free will?

Jason

On Jul 1, 9:37 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 12:20 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Rupert,
>
> > So some atheists believe in supernatural entities such as souls?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I did
> > not know that.   According to the article compatibilism, the
> > supernatural atheists evoked concepts such as "soul" or
> > "consciousness," which supposedly are in the supernatural realm and
> > not governed by the natural universe.
>
> Some atheists believe that consciousness is a natural phenomenon.
>
> > You wrote, "But some atheists are compatibilists, they believe that
> > the existence of free will can be reconciled with full determinism, or
> > at least complete governance of the world by (possibly probabilistic)
> > natural law."   I do not understand this argument of "possibly
> > probabilistic" as an argument of free will.  Storm systems are
> > probabilistic so does that argument also apply to the possibility that
> > a storm system has a free will?
>
> Well, actually, storm systems are fully deterministic. No,
> compatibilists do not claim that every system governed by fully
> deterministic or probabilistic natural law has free will; more is
> required than that.
>
> > Jason
>
> > On Jul 1, 1:58 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>

> > > No.
>
> > > > If so, why not?  
>

> > > Why should they?

>
> > > > If you don't have
> > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > laws, right?
>

> > > Peter Unger is an atheist who believes in the existence of the soul;
> > > see his recent book "All the Power in the World".
>
> > > And some atheists are compatibilists; they believe that the existence
> > > of free will is consistent with materialism and determinism. Quine was
> > > a compatibilist.

>
> > > > Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.
>

> > > Chaos theory does not help in arguing for compatibilism, no, although
> > > I don't think your second clause is especially coherent.

>
> > > > Anyway, I heard that some

> > > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without

> > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
> > > despite being an atheist. You can read all about that in his book "All
> > > the Power in the World". But some atheists are compatibilists, they
> > > believe that the existence of free will can be reconciled with full
> > > determinism, or at least complete governance of the world by (possibly
> > > probabilistic) natural law. You should check out the Wikipedia
> > > article.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

[Jason]

Observer,

You are making the claim that a "free will" (or possibly a "soul")
exists. I am making no such claim. I just don't believe that such a
supernatural entity existence. However, I am open to exploring your
claim. Since you are making that claim, you should back your
supernatural entity ("soul," "free will") with some evidence.
Otherwise, why are claiming that something exists without any
evidence?

Jason

On Jul 1, 11:06 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:03 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Observer,
>
> > Show the data that proves that people have free will; otherwise,
> > concede that you are, in fact, not a real atheist and wholeheartedly
> > embrace supernatural entities such as free will.
>
> Observer
> What utter nonsense ! Your argument is as sensible as saying , if you
> can not prove that a peach tree shits green frogs then you
> wholeheartedly embrace supper natural entities that manufacture
> manufacture green frogs.
>
> Such is fallacious and utter nonsense.
>
>  Moses Maimonides formulated the argument, in the traditional manner,
> in terms of good and evil actions, as follows:[4]
> “     … "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will
> be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows
> that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would
> act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"[5]  ”
> More generally, the argument can be applied to all freely willed
> actions by individuals using reductio ad absurdum:
> Humans have free will.
> By the definition of free will, this implies that it must have been at
> least possible, even if highly unlikely, for a human to have made a
> different choice from the one they made for any given decision.
> Assumption: God is omniscient.
> By the definition of omniscience, this implies that God can perfectly
> predict ("see into") the future (except possibly God's own, but this
> doesn't matter for the purposes of this formulation).
> If God's omniscient predictions are truly perfect, then it must not be
> possible for humans to make choices different from those God has
> already predicted.
> But it must be possible for humans to make said different choices by
> point (2).
> Therefore, the assumption (3) must be false, and an omniscient God
> cannot exist if humans have free will.
> [edit]Dan Barker
> In modern terms, the argument is formulated typically as follows[6]
> The theistic God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
> Personal beings have free will.
> In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each
> of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there
> must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you
> cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your
> decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential
> (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
> A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It
> knows its choices in advance.
> A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid
> its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
> Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal
> being who knows everything cannot exist.
> Therefore, the theistic God does not exist.
>
> You asked a question and I responded with an enlightened , well
> thought out opinion. An opinion is offered and you of course free to
> reject it if such as free will exists. Or you are also free to confine
> your thoughts to the convoluted nonsense of religious/superstitious
> Voodoo Hoodoo of christianity.
>
> But if you do you have still made the claim, and that requires proof
> or an admission that your belief in  your god thing is  but an other
> mindless opinion structured by primitive , minds, for primitive minds
> and of little use to anyone else.
>
> Suit your self !
>
> You claimed the existence of supernatural beings and in as much as you
> have made the claim the onus is on you to prove such.
>
> Now Where is your scientifically verifiable substantiating the
> EXISTENCE of or any ACT of any god?
>
>  Not knowing the
>
> > natural cause of a behavior (thought, feeling, or anything human) does
> > NOT prove the existence of free will or other supernatural entities.
>
> Observer
> What makes free will a supernatural entity ? Now you are really
> getting goofy.
>
> WTF?
>
> Regards
>
> Psychonomist
>
>
>
> > Jason
>
> > On Jul 1, 5:14 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 9:26 am, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Observer,
>
> > > > So you also believe in the supernatural that functions outside of
> > > > "genetics , society, education"... of which outside these "constraints
> > > > influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities."  So
> > > > humans have an aspects outside of these natural constraints (that is,
> > > > supernatural) that allow for free will?
>
> > > Observer
>
> > > I have made it very  clear there is no scientificllly verifiable
> > > substantiating data proving anything such as the nonsense of  a
> > > supernatural thing , condition, function ,or being.
>
> > > You have typically misrepresented or completely misunderstood my post.
> > > You ignored the following and/or  were appearantly afraid to attempt
> > > an answer.
>
> > > Quoting my original post
>
> > > "Please advise us as to exactly what exists outside of the natural
> > > universe and just how you have obtained knowledge there of.
>
> > > You see, there is no scientifically verifiable substantiating data
> > > proving the EXISTENCE of or any ACT of a creature of any kind which is
> > > beyond or outside of the physical universe. That of course goes for
> > > the preposterous christian concepts of a god , angels , a devil,
> > > ghosts, demons, or any of the utter nonsense conjured by the god
> > > merchants who fleece the public by claiming special knowledge there of
> > > and or special access thereto.
>
> > >  If of course you are able to supply such proof we will be happy to
> > >  consider it if it is well documented and scientifically verifiable .
> > >  Please supply access to peer reviewed published papers from a
> > >  respected scientific journal or your claim will be rejected as
> > >  nonsense."
>
> > > End quote
>
> > > Regards
>
> > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > Jason
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 2:35 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have

> > > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural

> > > > > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some

> > > > > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > > Observer
> > > > > Free will is of limited scope in that genetics , society, education,
> > > > > and other
> > > > > considerations tend to  mold us according to strength of their
> > > > > influence upon us.
> > > > > It is , however , observable that within the constraints of these
> > > > > influences we are relatively free to direct our own activities.
>
> > > > > One more thing , I am lost as to what directed your thinking in
> > > > > formulating your question. It appears that you started typing long
> > > > > before you engaged your brain.
>
> > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > > > Jason

[Jason]

LL,

I agree. Believing a "soul" is not the atheistic thing to do.

Jason

On Jul 2, 2:05 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:41 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 12:27 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Jun 30, 11:58 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Peter Unger believes in a soul which is not subject to natural law,
> > > despite being an atheist.
>

> > > LL: He sounds irrational to me. He is making a very bad argument.
>
> > Well, you should probably check out the book before coming to that
> > conclusion.
>
> LL: Ordinarily I would, but when someone who claims to be an atheist
> says he believes in a soul, my red flags go up. And my suspicions
> have  always been justified. I've never met or read the writings of
> anyone who says he's an atheist and believes in a supernatural concept
> whose thinking I could respect. It just doesn't happen.
>
> ************************

[Jason]

Sebastian,

In order for free will to exist, the organism would have to control
this "randomness," which would destroy the randomness (that is,
randomness is not controlled but random).

Jason

On Jul 2, 6:43 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To be fair, the topic is very disputed. There are people who say that
> quantum probabilities are actual probabilities and other people who
> claim what I wrote in the topic. But in the last decade or so a
> considerable progress has been made by the side claiming it's
> deterministic, mostly in understanding quantum decoherence using the
> superoperators. Basically upon the interaction with the environment
> quantum states transform to classical probabilistic distributions and
> there are two ways to view that. One is that the probabilities arise
> from the apparently random (unknown) distribution of states in the
> environment and the other that these probabilities are somehow
> fundamental. However, if you want to stick with the evolution equation
> (Schrodinger or Dirac equation) then you're forced to say that this
> transformation is completely deterministic and that if the details of
> the environment were known exactly it would be possible to predict
> with certainty whether the state was going to evolve to one or any of
> the other possibilities.
>

> On Jul 1, 6:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This could be debated. Quantum measurement can be considered to be
> > > totally deterministic without any element of probability at all.
>
> > True. But it's my understanding that current thought indicates that it's
> > both.
>

> > > On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Jason

>
> > > > (Memphis)<jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > > > > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > > > > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > > > > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > > > > the natural universe)?
>

> > > > In addition to what Rupert said, if one goes by natural laws, it's my
> > > > understanding that Quantum Physics indicates that the universe is both
> > > > deterministic and probabilistic which would indicate that while we
> > > > don't have complete free will there is an element of free will in
> > > > natural law.
>

[Jason]

Steve,

Many theists who I know do not believe in free will. God is in
complete control. Your fate has already been determined. However, I
think that in order to be an atheist, you cannot believe in free
will. Some theists believe in free will and some don't believe in
it. Atheists, ironically, are the same way as you can see from these
posts.

Jason

On Jul 2, 7:39 am, Steve in Virginia <chandler2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course not, what a ridiculous notion.  Atheist fully accept Free
> Will.  The problem arises with theists - if you have an omniscient god
> who knows the past, present and future the Free Will doesn't exist.
> The fact that we don't know our future is irrelevant.  God knows out
> destiny to an absolute certainty - hence, free will under a supreme
> being is illusory.  You can't have it both ways.  If god knows all our
> future decisions - we're just going through the motions.
>
> Steve
>
> On Jul 1, 2:22 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > Do all atheists reject free will?  If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > laws, right?  Chaos does not lead to choice either because if control
> > existed in chaos, that wouldn't be chaos.  Anyway, I heard that some
> > atheists think that free will exists.  How is this possible without
> > something that stands beyond the natural realm (or has freedom outside
> > the natural universe)?
>

> > Jason

[Jason]

Neil,

Just a clarification:

The control is not necessarily a who. If you re-read my post, I never
claimed it was always a who. The point was that if another person is
controlling your biological structure, that controlling biological
structure is also being controlled in part by your biological
structure (that is, an interaction occurs between the environment of
which complex biological structure are a part). In other words, a
controller (a who) does not function in a vacuum.

Jason

On Jul 2, 9:16 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 12:02 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> > LL: It's not a who, it's a what.
>

> He said:
>
> "Put another way, it is not a question of whether we are controlled or
> not controlled (we are controlled) but whether these controls are
> explicit or hidden.  By the way, those controlling would be partially
> controlled by those being controlled (that is, interacting in the
> manipulation just like people are controlled by various circumstances
> when controlling inorganic matter)."
>

> It's a who, according to Jason.
>
> I'd also question the use of the word "control" when it comes to
> something inanimate, like gravity. We just don't say "the earth
> controls the moon." We say "the moon is in the earth's gravitational
> field." The word "control" implies intent, which only a conscious
> living being can have. Looking through the Oxford dictionary, the
> definitions there agree with me about this.
>

> > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 8:52 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <jason_gros...@hotmail.com>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Do all atheists reject free will?
>

> > > > > > > > > In the sense that I am free from God's control, yes. I am not free to
> > > > > > > > > do as I wish though - natural laws prevent that. So do social laws.
>

> > > > > > > > > > If so, why not?  If you don't have
> > > > > > > > > > a soul (or supernatural component), then you are governed by natural
> > > > > > > > > > laws, right?
>

> > > > > > > > > I don't see any
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Rupert]

On Jul 3, 12:21 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rupert,
>
> How do you know that a storm system is "fully deterministic"?

I think we understand the physics of storm systems fairly well, it is
just that it is a nonlinear dynamical system so that puts limitations
on the effectiveness of weather forecasting.

>  A storm
> system is a complex system that is unpredictable at a certain level.

I've never heard of any reason to think that unpredictability at the
quantum level affects the behaviour of storm systems.

> Biological structures (the organism called a human) is also a "fully
> deterministic" complex system with a certain level of
> unpredictability--unless you find some kind of soul, free will, etc in
> that complex system.  So where is your evidence of this supernatural
> soul or free will?
>

Well, I'm not arguing in favour of such things, but Peter Unger thinks
that we have the capacity for real choice and that therefore a
completely physical ontology is unsatisfactory. I'm not really clear
on why he is so sure that we have such a capacity, to be honest. He
also has an argument based on "Mental Problems of the Many". The idea
is as follows. Consider a complex of water droplets such as a cloud.
There are billions of complexes which are all equally good candidates
for being the cloud. For example, you can remove one water droplet
here, add another water droplet there, and the mathematics of
combinations gives rise to billions of possibilities. Similarly each
water droplet is a complex of molecules and there are billions of
complexes which are all equally good candidates for being the water
droplet. Now, if we ourselves are complexes of very large numbers of
neurons, or cells, or molecules, and all our conscious experiences are
purely physical processes, then it seems hard to avoid the conclusion
that there should be several billion subjects of experience where you
are right now, and Peter Unger finds this hard to swallow.

I don't find these arguments especially persuasive, myself. I am happy
to do without a belief in a capacity for real choice, and I am also
happy to believe that there are just experiences, and that there is
nothing especially metaphysically deep to the idea of a "subject of
experience". Still, Peter Unger, an atheist, does advance these
arguments, and Swinburne also advances arguments for substance dualism
which are supposed to be independent of his theism.

Materialism is the standard metaphysical view today among academic
philosophers, but there's no good reason why the outcome of the debate
should be tied to the question of the existence of God. If there are
any good reasons for thinking that we are immaterial souls, then they
might well carry weight quite independently of the question of whether
God exists.

The following article about the place of free will in modern physics
should be mentioned:

http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

as should David Chalmer's article about the possibility of developing
a science of conscious experience:

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

[Jason]

Rappoccio,

I disagree. You are claiming that a complex natural phenomena (human
actions, feelings, storm systems, weather patterns, etc.) has the
freedom (or free will) to act or configure itself in certain patterns
or generate certain responses (a cloud willfully choosing to rain). I
am saying that if a cloud chooses to rain (or human chooses to cry), I
would like some evidence of that supernatural aspect (soul, free will)
within the complex system that causes (or allows) that entity (cloud
or human) to make the choice by its own free will.

Jason

[Rupert]

On Jul 3, 12:27 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LL,
>
> I agree.  Believing a "soul" is not the atheistic thing to do.
>

Why not?

[Jason]

Rupert,

Are you actually claiming that quantum mechanics does not apply to
storm systems or other complex systems in nature but rather only
applies to humans (or possibly biological organisms)? Please explain
and clarify your position. I really don't know how you could possibly
be eluding to such a claim.

Jason

[Rupert]

On Jul 3, 1:01 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rupert,
>

> Are you actually claiming that quantum mechanics does not apply to
> storm systems or other complex systems in nature but rather only
> applies to humans (or possibly biological organisms)?  Please explain
> and clarify your position. I really don't know how you could possibly
> be eluding to such a claim.
>
> Jason
>

Quantum mechanics applies to everything, but macroscopic systems can
usually be given fully deterministic models whose deviation from
observation is negligible. I don't know where you got the idea that I
was trying to claim that the human brain is an exception. The authors
of the article about the Strong Free Will theorem seem to think that
it is. Roger Penrose, an eminent physicist believes on grounds
relating to Goedel's theorem that human mathematical thought cannot be
modelled by any computational process, and so believes that quantum
effects must be relevant at the macroscopic level in the operation of
human brains. He has some conjectures for how this might be possible,
relating to the microtubules in the cytoskeletons of neurons; you
should read his book "Shadows of the Mind".

However, I make no such claim; I simply observe that questions such as
whether we should accept a completely physical ontology, or whether
physical reality can be modelled in fully deterministic (or partly
probabilistic) terms, or whether, if it can, this can be reconciled
with free will, seem to me to be completely independent of the

question of the existence of God.

You were asking "Do all atheists reject free will?" The answer is no.
You can be an atheist who is a substance dualist, like Peter Unger, or
you can be an atheist who accepts a purely physical ontology but
believes that physical reality cannot be modelled in a purely
deterministic way, or a purely stochastic way, like John Conway; or
you can be an atheist who accepts a purely physical ontology and
believes that physical reality can be modelled in a purely
deterministic (or possibly partly stochastic) way, but that this
scenario can be reconciled with the existence of free will, like W. V.
Quine. Or you could reject the existence of free will. You can also
take up any of these four positions if you are a theist. The question
of the existence of God has no bearing on the matter.

[LL]

On Jul 2, 1:54 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:36 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The popular understanding of free will is very different from the
> > philosopher's.
>
> > As a philosopher (amateur that I am) I suspect that the universe is
> > deterministic and therefore there is no free will.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Let's look at the possibility of parallel
> universes (hypothesis at the present time).  If these exist, why? What
> is the point of determinism? My own bent would go for "potentiality".
> In other words, whatever choice one makes will tend to lead a person
> in a particular direction. But, I see this as being different from
> determinism.

LL: It isn't. You are using the wrong definition of determinism when
we talk about human decision making. It doesn't mean pre- determined.

***************************

[LL]

On Jul 2, 5:17 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LL,
>
> I agree with this stance.

LL: Welcome to a very small club of people who understand what
determinism actually is.

****************************************

[LL]

LL: We aren't predetermined to do anything. We are determined by
factors outside of our control. This is not predetermination. It means
that what we do is determined by whichever factors are the most
dominant at any moment. Our factors change every moment.
>
Timothy: To take some examples: It's meaningful to decide, "tomorrow

I will do
> things differently." It's meaningful to screw up your courage and do
> something that's difficult for you. It's meaningful to persuade your
> friends or family to behave differently. It's meaningful to read self-
> help books. Et cetera.

LL: You can do any of those things, but whether you do them is
determined by those pesky factors. And after you've read them or
persuaded someone to behave differently depends on which factors are
operating at the moment of decision. Reading self-help books is a
factor in your experience. It may or may not kick in. You have no way
of knowing whether it will or not. But, being human, if we've read a
self-help book and then we do something that the self-help book said
was the right thing to do, we automatically assume we made the
decision out of free will.
>
Timothy: We've had this discussion before and I'm pretty sure you

agree. But
> many people exclude this from their idea of "predetermined" unless
> it's spelled out.

LL: Again, determined does not mean predetermined. Predetermined
implies a moving force, perhaps a god, that decides what we are going
to do from the outset. Determinism means factors beyond our knowledge
or control push us into one decision or another, and it all depends on
which factors are in control when we make a decision. They change
every moment and can be but are not necessarily influenced by many
things we don't have much information about: our psychological or our
physical state, our intellect, our knowledge, our education, the
people we talk to, the books we read and a million other factors we
cannot identify.

*******************************(

[LL]

On Jul 2, 9:35 pm, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Many theists who I know do not believe in free will.  God is in
> complete control.  Your fate has already been determined. However, I
> think that in order to be an atheist, you cannot believe in free
> will.  Some theists believe in free will and some don't believe in
> it.  Atheists, ironically, are the same way as you can see from these
> posts.

LL: That's because all humans want to think they are in control of
their decisions, whether they call it free will or not. The only
atheists who would claim to have free will are those who do not
understand that no person or thing can do anything contrary to what
the billions of factors that influence him lead him to do. But most
people are very reluctant to give up what they see as control, even
when they can't possibly have it.

**********************************

[LL]

On Jul 2, 9:42 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, I'm not arguing in favour of such things, but Peter Unger
thinks
that we have the capacity for real choice and that therefore a
completely physical ontology is unsatisfactory. I'm not really clear
on why he is so sure that we have such a capacity, to be honest. He
also has an argument based on "Mental Problems of the Many". The idea
is as follows. Consider a complex of water droplets such as a cloud.
There are billions of complexes which are all equally good candidates
for being the cloud. For example, you can remove one water droplet
here, add another water droplet there, and the mathematics of
combinations gives rise to billions of possibilities. Similarly each
water droplet is a complex of molecules and there are billions of
complexes which are all equally good candidates for being the water
droplet.

LL: Perhaps he is saying that each individual water droplet has free
will and can decide whether to become a cloud or not, no matter what
physics determines.

***************************


********************************************

[LL]

LL: It's unfortunate that it has to be explained to you, but most
atheists don't believe in anything supernatural and a soul is a
supernatural idea. Of course, there are a few on the lunatic fringe
that might, but they have probably come to their atheism through
something other than rational thought.

*************************

[Rupert]

On Jul 3, 3:56 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:42 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not arguing in favour of such things, but Peter Unger
> thinks
> that we have the capacity for real choice and that therefore a
> completely physical ontology is unsatisfactory. I'm not really clear
> on why he is so sure that we have such a capacity, to be honest. He
> also has an argument based on "Mental Problems of the Many". The idea
> is as follows. Consider a complex of water droplets such as a cloud.
> There are billions of complexes which are all equally good candidates
> for being the cloud. For example, you can remove one water droplet
> here, add another water droplet there, and the mathematics of
> combinations gives rise to billions of possibilities. Similarly each
> water droplet is a complex of molecules and there are billions of
> complexes which are all equally good candidates for being the water
> droplet.
>
> LL: Perhaps he is saying that each individual water droplet has free
> will and can decide whether to become a cloud or not, no matter what
> physics determines.
>

No, he wouldn't say that; the problem kicks in when you add the
capacity for conscious experience.

[Rupert]

I am aware that at present a majority of those who identify themselves
as atheists also subscribe to a materialist metaphysic, but I don't
think that's an especially good reason to say that doing that is "the
atheist thing to do". I don't think of belief in the theory of
evolution or the theory of general relativity as "the atheist thing to
do", I think that these theories should stand or fall on their own
merits, independently of what conclusions we have come too about
whether any gods exist. So too with metaphysical theories. Presumably
the best argument in favour of accepting a materialist metaphysic is
the principle of parsimony: we seem to be able to explain everything
that we can observe quite well without assuming the existence of any
non-material entities. But we might make observations in the future
that lead us to revise that assessment, or we might not. So it's silly
to say it's "the atheist thing to do"; it's just the view of the
matter most widely accepted at the moment, probably with good reason,
but there is no particular reason to dismiss someone out of hand if
they want to offer considerations to the contrary.

It's also not very clear what you consider to be a "supernatural"
explanation. I've given a link to paper by David Chalmers which
proposes introduce conscious experience as a new fundamental (and non-
physical) entity, and I've also given a link to a paper by some
mathematical physicists who believe that physical reality cannot be
fully explained by a fully deterministic model, nor by a deterministic
model with some stochastic elements added. I don't think that these
writers can be dismissed as being "irrational" or having come to their
atheism through "something other than rational thought", and if you
combine the two proposals then what you have is really not that
different from Peter Unger's idea.

I don't think that Peter Unger's arguments for the existence of the
soul in "All the Power in the World" are especially strong, but I do
think that Peter Unger is a highly skilled and intelligent philosopher
and there's a passage in the book where he presents a version of the
argument from evil which I quite like - I was thinking of posting it
here - which I certainly think is sufficient grounds for saying that
he has rational warrant for his atheism.

There is plenty of stuff that we don't know about the mind and about
physical reality (regardless of whether the former may be an aspect of
the latter), and there really isn't any good warrant for refusing to
even consider an attempt to argue for substance dualism.

[etienne]

Jason,

On 3 juil, 02:15, Jason <jason_gros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Etienne,
>
> God bless you.

Just so you know, I'm an atheist, but no offence, I agree that what I
wrote can seems to come from some believer.

> Why would you have to be perfect to lack free will?
> That is rooted in religious theology.
>
> 1.  What exactly is perfection?  That concept is also religious is
> nature.

No, It means "what cannot possibly be better". It's independant of any
human activity.

> Show me an example of perfection.

I don't believe in the existence of perfection.

> You throw out another cloud
> concept that hides in the shadows of vagueness to pseudo-bolster your
> argument.
>

I don't think you understood me :p

> 2.  All things are perfect.  What is your argument against that?

Facts, everything can be judged as good and bad, at the same time, and
within any given worldview.

> Perfection (that vague concept) is just an opinion.
>

I don't consider perfection as a vague concept.

> Jason
>

Regards
Etienne

> On Jul 1, 3:59 pm, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You would need to be perfect to lack "free will", and that's not
> > possible what we are and how the universe works.