Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?

[Brakeman]

So is a coin toss bound by forces to statistically average 50%/50%, or does it have free will?

Our minds are a complex aggregate of simple cell reactions that can be Broken down still into even smaller inter-cell chemical reactions. We are not unlike the coin, we are mechanical beings.

A computer in it's most basic form is nothing but a series of electrical switches, but add millions of them and we can play the most wondrous software on them. Does the computer have free will? Does the internet have free will?

[monkeymind]

If this is directed to me.

No


ADDED: I changed my previous post to conform more closely to my thots.

[Brakeman]

No, It was just a rhetorical question about so called "Free will".  Thanks though..

[Azdgari]

Whose position is it that genes determine everything you do?

Does anyone ever seriously propose that idea?

I am waiting for you to address this, Gill.  Why bring up an idea that nobody seriously holds?  That would be a dishonest thing to do.  You're aware of what a "strawman" is, right?

[free]

In two threads with Gill I haven't seen him respond coherently to any counter point to his arguments, and ignore very good arguments against his.

Classic case of believing what he wants to believe and denying what is inconvenient.

[Gill]

Whose position is it that genes determine everything you do?

Does anyone ever seriously propose that idea?

I am waiting for you to address this, Gill.  Why bring up an idea that nobody seriously holds?  That would be a dishonest thing to do.  You're aware of what a "strawman" is, right?

lol, why do you keep thinking I'm dishonest?  It's just miscommunication.

If the mechanism is natural selection,  mechanism meaning 'that which moves the process along' I assume.  In other words,  this is an attribution of causality.

Natural selection is attributing the cause of an organisms ability to survive, on exterior factors, genes.   As opposed to interior factors, i.e. their conscious choices.

[Gill]

In two threads with Gill I haven't seen him respond coherently to any counter point to his arguments, and ignore very good arguments against his.

Classic case of believing what he wants to believe and denying what is inconvenient.

No no no, I havent addressed everyone's point, not because I want to ignore anyone, but there's just too many points to address,  trying to address every point would just take the thread all over the place.

[jetson]

In two threads with Gill I haven't seen him respond coherently to any counter point to his arguments, and ignore very good arguments against his.

Classic case of believing what he wants to believe and denying what is inconvenient.

No no no, I havent addressed everyone's point, not because I want to ignore anyone, but there's just too many points to address,  trying to address every point would just take the thread all over the place.

Gill - take your time, and let the members know when you need a bit more time to get some responses in.  It's not a race, or a competition!

[free]

Whose position is it that genes determine everything you do?

Does anyone ever seriously propose that idea?

I am waiting for you to address this, Gill.  Why bring up an idea that nobody seriously holds?  That would be a dishonest thing to do.  You're aware of what a "strawman" is, right?

lol, why do you keep thinking I'm dishonest?  It's just miscommunication.

If the mechanism is natural selection,  mechanism meaning 'that which moves the process along' I assume.  In other words,  this is an attribution of causality.

Natural selection is attributing the cause of an organisms ability to survive, on exterior factors, genes.   As opposed to interior factors, i.e. their conscious choices.

Natural selection doesn't attribute anything.  Natural selection favors those which pass their genes on to the next generation.  The reason those genes gets passed on is because of the phenotypes (traits) that the genes code for.  Organisms with favorable traits (intelligence, speed, sharp claws, strong shell.....) survive long enough to produce offspring.  The offspring inherit the genes from the parents and as a result will have similar traits!  That is natural selection, genes are the cause of the traits, not some "exterior factor".  As far as conscious choices, these play a role in determining survival, but are made because of our traits, which come from genes.   

[Gill]

In two threads with Gill I haven't seen him respond coherently to any counter point to his arguments, and ignore very good arguments against his.

Classic case of believing what he wants to believe and denying what is inconvenient.

No no no, I havent addressed everyone's point, not because I want to ignore anyone, but there's just too many points to address,  trying to address every point would just take the thread all over the place.

Gill - take your time, and let the members know when you need a bit more time to get some responses in.  It's not a race, or a competition!

I hear ya.

[Azdgari]

lol, why do you keep thinking I'm dishonest?  It's just miscommunication.

I merely assume that your word choices are deliberate/intentional.

If the mechanism is natural selection,  mechanism meaning 'that which moves the process along' I assume.  In other words,  this is an attribution of causality.

Natural selection is attributing the cause of an organisms ability to survive, on exterior factors, genes.   As opposed to interior factors, i.e. their conscious choices.

No it's not.  Their choices are controlled by what they are.  Most of our bodies, or even just our brains, is not made of genes, nor is it actively controlled by genes.  Whether your brain-state, or "spirit-state" or whatever is controlling your thoughts, it's still deterministic.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness.

[Azdgari]

Gill, let's say a majority of women were more attracted to tall men than to shorter ones.  As a result, tall men get more girls, and reproduce more on average, producing taller offspring.

What's wrong with that expectation, from your perspective?  I've just described natural selection in a nutshell.  The tallness-preferring women are still just as "free" to choose short guys.  They just don't, because they have a preference.

Removing that preference from the equation requires that we treat the womens' decisions as entirely random and unpredictable.  Why is that an attractive option?

[Gill]

Ntural selection doesn't attribute anything.  Natural selection favors those which pass their genes on to the next generation.  The reason those genes gets passed on is because of the phenotypes (traits) that the genes code for.  Organisms with favorable traits (intelligence, speed, sharp claws, strong shell.....) survive long enough to produce offspring.  The offspring inherit the genes from the parents and as a result will have similar traits!  That is natural selection, genes are the cause of the traits, not some "exterior factor".  As far as conscious choices, these play a role in determining survival, but are made because of our traits, which come from genes.

Then aren't you agreeing that natural selection denies free-will?

[Gill]

lol, why do you keep thinking I'm dishonest?  It's just miscommunication.

I merely assume that your word choices are deliberate/intentional.

Deliberate yeah, but nah, not to be deceitful.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness.

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation.  People can project images in their mind into the future.  Use that projection to make decisions.  Therefore, the mind, isn't simply directly reacting to something, or even something real.

[Azdgari]

What controls which future-ideas they form?

See, either a thought is a result of something (cause -> effect, with the cause generally being another thought), or it is a result of nothing (ie. completely random).

Which is it?

[Gill]

What controls which future-ideas they form?

See, either a thought is a result of something (cause -> effect, with the cause generally being another thought), or it is a result of nothing (ie. completely random).

Which is it?

Well, feeling hungry could be an example of something caused,  the insulin and what not, starts directing those thoughts towards food. 

But you know you don't have to eat this moment if you don't want to, even if you could.  So the awareness over the choice, is what's the cause. 

[Azdgari]

Let's say I am hungry, and I choose not to eat.

Why did I make the choice I did?

Either the choice had a cause (something that makes up my preference of not eating, despite my hunger, whether this is "physical" or not)...

...or it did not have a cause, nothing could predict its likelihood, and it is utterly random and unpredictable.

There is no middle ground here, Gill.  Either thoughts are deterministic, or they are random, as a logical necessity.

[Gill]

I don't know why you made the choice.  But just like you sense with the eyes, ears, nose, etc.  , there's other, more abstract senses, such as the sense of self, and sense of agency.   Therefore,  sense alone could be your reasoning, I don't see why it has to be confined to logic.

Maybe the cause then is metaphysical.

[Azdgari]

What specifically it was that resulted in my choice is irrelevant.  All that matters is that there was something - "physical" or otherwise.

That's deterministic.

[Gill]

What specifically it was that resulted in my choice is irrelevant.  All that matters is that there was something - "physical" or otherwise.

That's deterministic.

I think it is relevant.   I could choose to attribute my typing skills to myself wholly, or I could attribute it to being lucky to have certain genes.  In the first case, I'm increasing my sense of self, and control over the skill,  in the other, I'm not. 

[Azdgari]

To "yourself wholly"?  What is "yourself"?

Does "yourself" have a state-of-being?  In that case, then it's as deterministic a cause as your genes.

If it does not have a state-of-being, then it is random, with no specific contents at all.

EDIT:  Forget agreed-to-be-physical causes for the moment.  Let's talk just about thoughts, character-traits, etc.  Those are the topic under dispute.

[Gill]

To "yourself wholly"?  What is "yourself"?

Does "yourself" have a state-of-being?  In that case, then it's as deterministic a cause as your genes.

Again, I'd say this goes back to a sense of self, not just a logical definition of the self.   

Not sure what you mean by state-of-being, if you mean emotions, yes, some of them can be determined by unconscious things.

But, since we have the awareness of choice, such as the case with attributing causes, then we are free from determinism. 

[Azdgari]

I can't see how.

Every choice is going to depend on the factors that work their way into that (emotions, desires, principles, morals, etc.).

A choice can only depend on factors that are a part of the person making the choice.

Agreed?

[Gnu Ordure]

Gill:

Then aren't you agreeing that natural selection denies free-will?

You say that as if you were making a major point.

Gill, there a number of people on this site who believe that they don't have free will.

So they aren't going to be bothered by the suggestion that natural selection denies it, because they don't believe in it anyway.

[Azdgari]

^^ And there are those of us who believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth - ie. a truth about our experience[1] - without believing it to be a physical fact.  Like me.   

1.	And since our sense of self is subjective and experiential, that's no big deal.  It's true about the part of us that cares - about the perspective itself.

[Gill]

Well I appreciate all the time you guys have put into this discussion with me.    Definitely a good mental exercise, I have to get off this comp now though, bye.

[free]

Ntural selection doesn't attribute anything.  Natural selection favors those which pass their genes on to the next generation.  The reason those genes gets passed on is because of the phenotypes (traits) that the genes code for.  Organisms with favorable traits (intelligence, speed, sharp claws, strong shell.....) survive long enough to produce offspring.  The offspring inherit the genes from the parents and as a result will have similar traits!  That is natural selection, genes are the cause of the traits, not some "exterior factor".  As far as conscious choices, these play a role in determining survival, but are made because of our traits, which come from genes.

Then aren't you agreeing that natural selection denies free-will?

Is there anything wrong with that?  I to do think deterministically, but that has nothing to do with this argument. 

Natural selection favors those of certain traits to survive, it doesn't mean that one with 'perfect' genes can't make a boneheaded decision and fall off a cliff.  It means that members of that community with those genes are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. 

Your big problem in this discussion is that you're using a mechanism for a population (natural selection) to try to analyze an individual notion (free will). 

[Anfauglir]

Every choice is going to depend on the factors that work their way into that (emotions, desires, principles, morals, etc.).

A choice can only depend on factors that are a part of the person making the choice.

Agreed?

well, quite.  Whether you want to stick with a purely naturalistic world, or add some kind of spirit or soul into the mix, the actions of that entity will still be either random, or the natural result of that entitiy's experiences so far.  (Or a mix of the two).  But there's still no way to plug "choice" in there, if you define choice as "something that has the potential to be one of several outcomes in a non-random fashion".  I may have to pull out the "save game universe" again....

But Gill - I'd like to hear your answer to Az's question.

[Gill]

Every choice is going to depend on the factors that work their way into that (emotions, desires, principles, morals, etc.).

A choice can only depend on factors that are a part of the person making the choice.

Agreed?

But Gill - I'd like to hear your answer to Az's question.

That perception makes sense if your considering a person from the outside, observing them.   But from the 'inside looking out', so to speak, you have the awareness of choice, and the ability to reason and imagine the outcomes.  Then you'd be making a choice not based on something real always,  although maybe a very good prediction, but still an imagined possibility.

Unless you want to claim that imagination and reason is caused by determined physical forces. If so, well then, the idea that 'God is imaginary' would be also be, therefore people who believe such would be no more incorrect to believe such than people who don't, since both ideas were determined.  That doesn't make any sense. 

The very fact that people can perceive a reasoning to be flawed is evidence that they are not bound completely by determinism.    For what would be the logic of a universe which determines the evolution of conscious being that comes to be aware that determinism itself could be flawed?  It would seem then that the deterministic universe would undermine itself.