I am with Sam on this. We are all just a part of a chain of events that started with the Big Bang (insert yo mama joke here).
The Critical Thinking Thread
Both quantum mechanics and determinism says there is no such thing as free will.
I had to post this.
Posted by: chupacabra
I am with Sam on this. We are all just a part of a chain of events that started with the Big Bang (insert yo mama joke here).
I tend to disagree with him, or at least don't prescribe to the idea that our fate is predetermined or unalterable. I do think there are things in our life that we can't get away from, things that are genetically determined such as heart disease, etc, but the notion that we don't have free will just doesn't wash with me. From a physiological standpoint I get the argument he makes about making a decision before we are aware of it. Our body/brain is reacting to sensory input and acting on it before we really become aware of it. In the same sense we are making decisions based on or programming - or the combo of our genetic makeup and social conditioning. I see the challenge to not having free will as self awareness, which gives us the ability to change our conditioning, our programming. Maybe the problem comes down to how free will has been defined, and like Dennet asserts needs to be redefined to say, catch up with what medical science allows us to understand. I see it as life itself, there's no black and white just many shades of grey. So there isn't a yes/no or absolute answer to the question of free will, but varying aspects of free will - some that are determined and some that aren't.
Reading list on free will if anyone's interested:
https://philosophybreak.com/reading-lists/free-will/
Last edited by: syncro on Dec. 11, 2021, 9:48 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
I am with Sam on this. We are all just a part of a chain of events that started with the Big Bang (insert yo mama joke here).
I tend to disagree with him, or at least don't prescribe to the idea that our fate is predetermined or unalterable. I do think there are things in our life that we can't get away from, things that are genetically determined such as heart disease, etc, but the notion that we don't have free will just doesn't wash with me. From a physiological standpoint I get the argument he makes about making a decision before we are aware of it. Our body/brain is reacting to sensory input and acting on it before we really become aware of it. In the same sense we are making decisions based on or programming - or the combo of our genetic makeup and social conditioning. I see the challenge to not having free will as self awareness, which gives us the ability to change our conditioning, our programming. Maybe the problem comes down to how free will has been defined, and like Dennet asserts needs to be redefined to say, catch up with what medical science allows us to understand. I see it as life itself, there's no black and white just many shades of grey. So there isn't a yes/no or absolute answer to the question of free will, but varying aspects of free will - some that are determined and some that aren't.
Reading list on free will if anyone's interested:
https://philosophybreak.com/reading-lists/free-will/
I think it is a lot like the concept of god, or possibly consciousness. There is really not much difference if they truly exist or not from a human perspective so maybe it does need to be redefined. We make decisions and act one them, so does it matter if that was a matter of fate or if we changed fate when the future is unknowable? The only reason I subscribe to the same way of thinking as Sam Harris is that from the view of physics it seems to me that the universe has to be predetermined. It is just an infinitely complex game of Plinko. As humans we are drawn to the idea of self and personal agency, so it is hard to think that every move we made since birth was predetermined even if it makes no difference one way or the other. With AI rapidly advancing these are concepts we will be facing shortly. When an AI "decides" to do something and appears to be sentient will we endow them with free will or consciousness? I doubt it.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AN2cBr6xKWCB8dRQG/what-is-bayesianism
Core tenet 1: Any given observation has many different possible causes.
Core tenet 2: How we interpret any event, and the new information we get from anything, depends on information we already had.
Sub-tenet 1: If you experience something that you think could only be caused by cause A, ask yourself "if this cause didn't exist, would I regardless expect to experience this with equal probability?" If the answer is "yes", then it probably wasn't cause A. This realization, in turn, leads us to
Core tenet 3: We can use the concept of probability to measure our subjective belief in something. Furthermore, we can apply the mathematical laws regarding probability to choosing between different beliefs. If we want our beliefs to be correct, we must do so.
Often people make decisions that are not "rational" from a purely economical point of view — meaning that they don't necessarily lead to the best result. Why is that? Are we just bad at dealing with numbers and odds? Or is there a psychological mechanism behind it? Sara Garofalo explains heuristics, problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition rather than analysis.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_garofalo_the_psychology_behind_irrational_decisions
What is bullshit?
If you were ever interested in reading a critical discussion on exactly what constitutes bullshit, then this essay is for you. It's not a 5 minute read, but it's worth it imho.
Edit: It's also quite entertaining.
The Varieties of Bullshit by Peter Ludlow
https://peterludlow.medium.com/the-varieties-of-bullshit-5edd5b0aff4e
Last edited by: syncro on March 3, 2022, 1:15 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Another interesting read...
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/science-is-flawed-covid-19-ivermectin-and-beyond
"There are no two ways about it: Science is flawed. We’re not talking about the philosophical leanings of science or the origins of white coats and linoleum-floored laboratories, but about the nuts and bolts of the process by which we determine whether things are true or false. In the decades before the pandemic, scientists spent endless hours wrestling with the painful fact that much of the knowledge base of science and medicine is reliant on research that is flawed, broken, or potentially never occurred at all.
Science has a gap between its mechanics and outputs. The mechanics of science are fine. The machines always get bigger and more efficient. New tools are always developed. Techniques become more sophisticated over time, and more knowledge is acquired.The outputs of science are not. The culture of academia demands publication and warrants little retrospection about potential errors — this means that mistakes are rarely corrected, and even outright fraud is often left undetected in academic literature."
Interesting thread. Tried the test but it is gone......Not sure if any of you out there are audiophiles (been one for most of my life) but preconceived bias is huge in audio. If you think you hear it, you do. Or, you hear only what you want to hear. Unlike tires, you have grip or you don't.....
Personally I find a lot of belief to be a cop-out for a lack of being informed. Most of hard science is a given; chemistry, physics etc....philosophy and its ilk not so much. Problem with today is that regardless of whether it is truth or not it is whether that truth fits your view to your benefit (think vaccines, medicine etc).
And yet, with the internet, there is no excuse for ignorance. You can find out whatever you want given the will and time. I remember the times when the encylopaedia was the only way to get general info. Thank you Colliers. And yet it is my observation that we are more ignorant now than ever.
As for scientific fraud: if it goes against mainstream ideals you get suppressed. Or, more bluntly, follow the money to find the real truth. One example: DEF fluid for diesel engines (new ones) is to make the exhaust more "clean" (when in fact it is already cleaner than gas exhaust despite the looks). You put DEF in the tank and it does its thing....but the plastic jugs cannot be recycled. Clean indeed. And how many jugs of DEF do you think are used every day in NA? All commercial trucks are diesel. And here we are worried about plastic straws. But DEF becomes mandatory, companies make more money off of it.....I think about this every time I throw out a DEF container and want to take a picture for the David Suzuki Foundation and especially Greta.
Def jugs get recycled with milk jugs...moran
Last edited by: three-sheets on April 16, 2022, 7:05 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
everytime i get a paper straw from the takeout window i sigh a little inside.
Forum jump: