Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 16830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #232 on: December 20, 2011, 05:49:44 PM »
Wow, I have missed a lot and I don't think I can catch up with the speed of this thread!!

When I attended a lecture by the co-inventor of the LASER, he asked me to turn out the light, because "All work on light must be done in the dark."

Someone is definitely in the dark here.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #233 on: December 20, 2011, 05:55:56 PM »
Could it be that science and religion or spirituality are not compatible? Jes wondering?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #234 on: December 20, 2011, 05:58:51 PM »
^^ Except for when it's demonstrably not travelling at c.  You're keeping a false premise around.  Re-read what you've just written.  You are explaining how you think that light can change speeds without force...by citing the fact that light never changes speeds.

Err...

Maybe I used the wrong words.   I'm saying it's the nature of it to be at c, since, it instantaneously reaches c, after whatever material it was passing through is removed, there's no need for a force to accelerate the light back to c.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #235 on: December 20, 2011, 06:00:19 PM »
I gotta go right now though, I appreciate the time many of you have put into this discussion....

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #236 on: December 20, 2011, 06:01:31 PM »
It is the nature of massless particles to travel at c when no forces are acting on them (ie. in a vaccum), yes.  But to say that a force is not needed to change its speed back to c would require that no force was keeping it at less than c.  Which, as you've acknowledged, is not the case.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10619
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #237 on: December 20, 2011, 06:04:07 PM »
It is the nature of massless particles to travel at c when no forces are acting on them (ie. in a vaccum), yes.  But to say that a force is not needed to change its speed back to c would require that no force was keeping it at less than c.  Which, as you've acknowledged, is not the case.

Getting semi-off-topic for a second here: What force acts on photons to get them "back" to c?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #238 on: December 20, 2011, 06:15:41 PM »
Azdgari/Jeff (posts 116/117 - my, this thread has moved on, hasn't it?),

To be honest, I regret contributing to this thread. I've already spent enough hours here discussing free will, and I now find the subject dispiriting (whatever that means, ha-ha). I know where I stand on the issue, I know where you guys stand, and I've really got nothing new to say about it.

I acknowledge that my reasons for believing in free will are pragmatic; I think that civilization is based partially on the principle that people are responsible for their actions, which your determinism denies (dloubet: No one is responsible for their actions). And I suspect that civilization would collapse if that principle were removed.

May I ask a question, though? If you believe that free will is an illusion, why don't you ignore the illusion, and get real? As kin hell said:
Quote
Of course this doesn't stop us from living our life as though we have complete freewill.
Why would anyone want to do that? Why live as if an illusion was real, when you know it isn't?

Gnu.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 06:21:25 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10619
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #239 on: December 20, 2011, 06:17:53 PM »
May I ask a question, though? If you believe that free will is an illusion, why don't you ignore the illusion, and get real? As kin hell said:
Quote
Of course this doesn't stop us from living our life as though we have complete freewill.
Why would anyone want to do that? Why live as if an illusion was real?

Here's the thing - if free will is an illusion, then people don't really have a choice.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #240 on: December 20, 2011, 06:17:59 PM »
Okay - I'm bringing in the "save-state universe" argument again....

For some reason Gill seems unable or unwilling to engage with me.  Can't think why.....

Imagine that the entire universe can be "saved", like a giant computer game, and can be "reloaded" to that point without the reload having any effect on the universe itself.  (Just a fancy way of setting up the background for the thought experiment, to be able to isolate and repeat a particular set of conditions).

Okay....so.  Save the state of the universe just before making a choice.  Make your choice.  Reload the universe, and make the choice again.

Was the choice the same, or different?  Will it always be the same, or can it be different every time?

Because every moment in the universe comes with a particular set of circumstances, answering the above question for our one chosen save point will answer for ANY save point.

My contention is that in exactly the same circumstances, a person who has exactly the same thoughts and memories and upbringing and stimulation, in exactly the same environment and in exactly the same physical and mental state, will ALWAYS - ALWAYS make the same decision, UNLESS there is some random factor involved.  So "choice" is either deterministic, or random )or a stochastic combonation of the two).

The opposing argument must perforce be that there is some element in "choice" that is neither determined, nor random.  That there is something other than these choices that means that - in the save game state - a different decision can be made each time that is NOT the reslut of a random fluctuation, but is equally NOT the necessary product of what has gone before.

I've raised this example a few times on this forum.  I've never, to my recollection, had it refuted.  We normalyl go off on a tangent such as "what do you mean by moment....?" or some such.

So Gill.....what is YOUR counter to the "save-game universe" argument?  You propose "free will"....can you explain how that works, in the context of my argument?
How is someone supposed to refute something that hasn't been observed to actually happen?  The problem with thought experiments is that they are essentially speculative.  In other words, you can't observe how the situation you describe would actually happen in reality.  So how can you be sure that it would indeed happen that way?  That's the problem with thought experiments, as long as they're logical, they can neither be proven nor refuted.  The fact that they can't be proven doesn't make them false; the fact that they can't be refuted doesn't make them true.

Also, this topic advanced really far on me.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #241 on: December 20, 2011, 06:56:23 PM »
In all fairness to you Gill. I think we are all in the dark to some degree (about light). Unless someone understands quantum electrodynamics, gauge bosons and so forth...

For instance, I can't begin to answer Lucifer's question just above. Perhaps Cyberia can.

But trying to apply concepts about spirit to light just confuses things.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #242 on: December 20, 2011, 07:00:31 PM »
Getting semi-off-topic for a second here: What force acts on photons to get them "back" to c?

Presumably, that of the electron that repels it from the refracting medium.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #243 on: December 20, 2011, 07:09:55 PM »
May I ask a question, though? If you believe that free will is an illusion, why don't you ignore the illusion, and get real? As kin hell said:
Quote
Of course this doesn't stop us from living our life as though we have complete freewill.
Why would anyone want to do that? Why live as if an illusion was real, when you know it isn't?

I dunno, Gnu.  Looking back on my life, I think I've lived it exactly as I would be expected to if determinism is true.

With respect to my current and future actions, whether or not they are "free" has absolutely no impact on the logic of any of my decision-making processes.  I mean, my consciousness - defined as a physical state of my brain - does control my actions.  Cause and effect.  "I" am in control as much in a deterministic paradigm as I would be in a random one, or an incoherent one.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #244 on: December 20, 2011, 07:11:30 PM »
Luc:
Quote
Here's the thing - if free will is an illusion, then people don't really have a choice.
Well, quite.

I believe in free will - and if free will is real, I'm right to do so.

Whereas if determinism is real, then evidently it is inevitable that I should believe in free will regardless - as I do.

Either way, I believe in free will. And there's no way to logically dissuade me from my position, because it is either correct or inevitable.

Which suits me fine, because I want to believe in free will.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 08:15:55 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10619
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #245 on: December 20, 2011, 07:14:32 PM »
<snip>
Either way, I believe in free will. And there's no way to logically dissuade me from my position, because it is either correct or inevitable.

Precisely the same conclusion I reached while struggling with the issue of free will versus determinism.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #246 on: December 20, 2011, 07:18:54 PM »
Getting semi-off-topic for a second here: What force acts on photons to get them "back" to c?

Presumably, that of the electron that repels it from the refracting medium.

That sounds about right!

And there I was... all like...thinking about conservation of energy and momentum and having all sorts of brain farts trying to find a way of understandin' and splainin it!
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2556
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #247 on: December 20, 2011, 07:36:33 PM »

So, if one considers things such as light (or electromagnetic waves to be technical),  you're considering something which in it's own nature is outside of this cause and effect chain.

If you look at consciousness as being similar to light, in the sense that it is infinite, and timeless, then there is a part of you which is not bound by any causal chain. 


Why not look at consciousness as similar to duck turd?

Gill, I'm coming to the conclusion, from my own thinking on the subject that consciousness isn't some kind of magical fairy that comes from somewhere else. The strange thing about our consciousness is that it seems to be able to accommodate impossible things. People on hard drugs, like DMT and LSD also see things which are inexplicable. They come to the conclusion that there are many more realities out there, and universal consciousness. However, when they come down from the drug, they are unable to really conceive of anything that they perceived  in that state. They attribute this to the smallness of their normal conscious mind.

However, there is another way of interpreting it: that our consciousness has the ability to represent impossible things to us, and make them believable. You can see this in many optical illusions. This one I particularly like: http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/

The reason why you can be so fooled by this illusion is that your consciousness is designed to be fooled. That's really all consciousness is, and may even be its definition. I should point out to you that colors and smells are impossible.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5375
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #248 on: December 20, 2011, 07:48:03 PM »
Luc:
Quote
Here's the thing - if free will is an illusion, then people don't really have a choice.
Well, quite.

I believe in free will - and if free will is real, I'm right to do so.

Whereas if determinism is real, then evidently it is inevitable that I should believe in free will regardless, as I do.

Either way, I believe in free will. And there's no way to logically dissuade me from my position, because it is either correct or inevitable.

Which suits me fine, because I want to believe in free will.

excellent

and it answers your previous question

As kin hell said:
Quote
Of course this doesn't stop us from living our life as though we have complete freewill.
Why would anyone want to do that? Why live as if an illusion was real, when you know it isn't?

Gnu.
my bold

because we don't have the capability to discern all the input leading to any decision we make, then we cannot in advance recognise the inevitable  choice we will make.
So experientially it is exactly as if we are exercising free will.

I'm with you Gnu really, in that I choose not to think about it in everyday life (a waste of time), because outside of the aforementioned thought experiments, I cannot really perceive it as an effect, and so I feel as though I am acting from freewill, and am happy to get on with life through that artificial (however benevolent) filter.


« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 07:56:22 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #249 on: December 20, 2011, 08:03:09 PM »
The idea of determinism can yield the emotional reaction of helplessness or powerlessness.

Yet, the expected behaviour of a free-willed individual's are indistinguishable from that of a deterministic individual.  Both are equally empowered and in-control, by any objective measure one can apply.  So, this emotional reaction is unjustified.

Perhaps, rather than allow our emotions to dictate our views about reality in a way that - when it comes down to it - doesn't make sense, we should condition our emotions to react to reality in a more sensible way.  Such as not to be dispirited by the idea of determinism.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #250 on: December 20, 2011, 08:14:46 PM »
Azd:
Quote
I dunno, Gnu.
Fair enough. I'll leave it for you to think about.

Quote
Looking back on my life, I think I've lived it exactly as I would be expected to if determinism is true.
Looking back on my life, I think I've lived it exactly as I would be expected to if free will is true.  ;) 

Azd, did you use to believe in free will, and then later convert to determinism? If so, when you look back at your life, do you see any difference in terms of your behaviour between your pre- and-post conversion life? I'm just being curious here, not trying to make a point.

Quote
With respect to my current and future actions, whether or not they are "free" has absolutely no impact on the logic of any of my decision-making processes.
But the concept of freedom, of liberty, is an essential component of democratic society. As is the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions. Surely that affects your judgments and decisions? Particularly if, in your words, you believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth - ie. a truth about our experience.

Also, making decisions isn't an entirely logical process, emotions are involved - for good evolutionary reasons. [Edit: Oh, you just raised the question of emotions, OK, ignore that).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 08:22:11 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #251 on: December 20, 2011, 08:30:48 PM »
Looking back on my life, I think I've lived it exactly as I would be expected to if free will is true.  ;)
Which was sort of my point:  There's no detectable difference.  Just like there's no detectable difference between a garden with invisible, intangible fairies dancing in it, and one without.  Positing the fairies may feel nice, but it's unwarranted.

Azd, did you use to believe in free will, and then later convert to determinism? If so, when you look back at your life, do you see any difference in terms of your behaviour between your pre- and-post conversion life? I'm just being curious here, not trying to make a point.

Nah, first I didn't think about the topic at all.  And then when I encountered the topic as a teen, I saw that determinism made sense in every logical way that I could think of.  So I adopted it.

But the concept of freedom, of liberty, is an essential component of democratic society.
Freedom from external oppression.  Liberty of the self from the state.  These are meaningful with or without metaphysically free will.

As is the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions.
That concept is extremely useful to uniformly adopt, for the purpose of fostering a society that upholds our sorts of values.  That doesn't mean we have to reify it as some metaphysical state.  Similarly, the concept that it is good to wake up in the morning is extremely useful.  We don't have to make it into something that exists in some dualistic plane of reality, either.

Surely that affects your judgments and decisions? Particularly if, in your words, you believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth - ie. a truth about our experience.

"Free will" applies to our subjective experiences.  It is how we feel about the world, which is what I mean by that comment.  Similarly, "God" exists subjectively, as a meme.  "Free will" is a meme, and one which we are biologically biased to accept.

But no, thinking of myself and others as deterministic doesn't affect my decision-making processes.  Because - due to its indistinguishability from a "free will" scenario - it is utterly devoid of information.  It can't make a difference, logically.  It can make a difference to how I feel, but that's then a matter of conditioning.

Also, making decisions isn't an entirely logical process, emotions are involved - for good evolutionary reasons.

Agreed.  Emotions can be a good short-hand for a rational decision-making process.  But they can also be really crappy.  Or they can have the sole effect of preventing us from acknowledging subtle stuff about reality, or from forming a rational worldview.  Like the emotions that derive from a belief in YHWH, or in free-will.

As I understand it, we are also - as a species - biased toward viewing those who look different from people we've grown up to associate with "our people" with more suspicion (or whatever) than those who look similar to that group.  This is an emotional response.  Should it be preserved, because emotions are involved - for good evolutionary reasons?  Or should we try to condition our emotions to react to the world more reasonably?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 08:32:22 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #252 on: December 20, 2011, 09:19:14 PM »
A question for those who don't believe in free-will;

Why trust any of your intuitive senses?  I mean, say you feel fear in some instance, and you trust that feeling is telling you something.  Maybe you realize the fear was imagined, but maybe you find out that sense did help you.

So then, why not trust the sense-of-agency?  Maybe that sense was incorrect in a situation,  it was beyond your control, even though you felt it was at the time.  But,  why would the sense always be wrong?

If the sense of agency must be an illusion, then why not other senses, such as fear, joy, etc..?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #253 on: December 20, 2011, 09:41:43 PM »
(Kin, I skipped your post by mistake, sorry. Appreciate the +1 though).

Azd:
Quote
Positing the fairies may feel nice, but it's unwarranted.
The obvious difference is that almost everyone experiences (the illusion of) free will, and that civilization may depend on it. Not so with fairies.

Quote
Freedom from external oppression.  Liberty of the self from the state.  These are meaningful with or without metaphysically free will.
If everything is determined, there is no freedom on any level, neither for the oppressor nor the oppressed. The universe is simply proceeding like clockwork (with a few random variations, if you like).

Quote
Quote
As is the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions
That concept is extremely useful to uniformly adopt, for the purpose of fostering a society that upholds our sorts of values.
What do you mean, adopt? Pretend to be true?

Your society's values would be built on a lie: Society acknowledges that citizens are not responsible for their actions, but is going to treat them as if they were.

Quote
Similarly, "God" exists subjectively, as a meme.  "Free will" is a meme, and one which we are biologically biased to accept.
Again, most people experience (the illusion of) free will. It's more than an idea. And while the God meme is to a significant extent being replaced by scientific knowledge, there is no replacement for (the illusion of) free will, and no-one on this forum has provided a clear conception of an alternative. Most of you determinists simply advise that one goes along with the illusion, e.g. dloubet:
Quote
But since the illusion of magical free will is so strong, go with it. I go with it, but intellectually I know the truth.
Living as if free will is real, while knowing intellectually that it is not, is living a lie. It's not coherent.

Gnu.

PS I hope you don't mind me dragging in quotes from other people and threads to illustrate my points. I don't mean to imply that the deterministic viewpoint is monolithic, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone.   
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 09:50:29 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #254 on: December 20, 2011, 09:59:23 PM »
Living as if free will is real, while knowing intellectually that it is not, is living a lie. It's not coherent.

I also live as if I am made from solid matter, though I know the vast majority of me is empty space.  Both are illusions based upon my perception.  I don't see how this is different. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #255 on: December 20, 2011, 10:12:14 PM »
The obvious difference is that almost everyone experiences (the illusion of) free will, and that civilization may depend on it. Not so with fairies.

Civilization depends on us not adopting determinism half-way - the bare fact of it, without a mature reaction to it.

If everything is determined, there is no freedom on any level, neither for the oppressor nor the oppressed. The universe is simply proceeding like clockwork (with a few random variations, if you like).

The first part isn't true.  Most things are free from the brunt of most influences.  Clockwork (with or without random variations) has no effect on that.

What do you mean, adopt? Pretend to be true?

No.  I figured you might think that, so I included an example of what I really meant in order to help clarify.  You have left that part of my response out and ignored what it said.  I'll try again, in the hope that you won't repeat that behaviour:  By "adopt", I mean as a practice and standard to deliberately apply.  "Democracy" is an example of what I mean:  It is not "true" in the sense of being the One True Means of Organization or Actiontm.  But it is useful.  Adopting democracy isn't pretending that a lie is truth, despite democracy not being "true".  The doctrine of democracy is a tool of productive social organization.  Just like the doctrine of responsibility is.

Again, most people experience (the illusion of) free will. It's more than an idea. And while the God meme is to a great extent being replaced by scientific knowledge, there is no replacement for (the illusion of) free will, and no-one on this forum has provided a clear conception of an alternative.

There certainly is a replacement for the illusion of free-will: the reality of determinism.  This is directly comparable to the replacement of the illusion of theism with the reality of atheism.  The only qualitative difference, as you've pointed out - and which I acknowledged in my last post - is that we have an automatic bias toward the former illusion, whereas the latter must be conditioned into us, usually from a young age.

As for the lack of an alternative, I am trying to provide you with one.  You don't seem to want it, though.  Why is that?  If you were offered a way to keep the way you feel about your actions from the free-will paradigm, while simultaneously acknowledging determinism, why wouldn't you take that route?  What's the catch, from your perspective?

Most of you determinists simply advise that one goes along with the illusion, e.g. dloubet:
Quote
But since the illusion of magical free will is so strong, go with it. I go with it, but intellectually I know the truth.
Living as if free will is real, while knowing intellectually that it is not, is living a lie. It's not coherent.

Neither is the idea of free-will in the first place.  Both your approach, and dloubet's approach, are really easy.  They don't require one to adjust one's thinking at all.  They don't require one to re-think and re-condition one's emotional responses.  And in the end, the ramifications of adhering to either incoherent position (believing that reality is deterministic while pretending we have free will, or believing that we really have "free will" while refraining from dealing with the problems of metaphysical dualism) aren't all that significant in practice.  So taking an easy way out - yours or dloubet's - isn't a bad option, generally.

The problems start coming up when one begins using the ideas of determinism or free will as talking points in a debate, where they are bound to come under greater scrutiny and end up having ramifications for other topics.  Case in point:  Gill's attachment to metaphysical dualism, with all its problems.  Dloubet's self-contradiction would also be bound to come up in some discussions, and cause problems.

PS I hope you don't mind me dragging in quotes from other people and threads to illustrate my points. I don't mean to imply that the deterministic viewpoint is monolithic.

I don't mind it, as long as you don't try to hold me accountable for his views.  They are beyond my control.  He is free of my influence, whether one believes him to have free will or not.

EDIT:  I said some other stuff toward the end of my post that I think is pertinent to the discussion.  Would you mind responding to it, if only to agree or disagree with it?

EDIT #2:  tm, not[1].
 1. tm
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 10:18:49 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #256 on: December 20, 2011, 10:13:08 PM »
Quote
I also live as if I am made from solid matter, though I know the vast majority of me is empty space.
You really are made of solid matter, Jeff, according to the current definitions of 'solid'.

It's why you can't move through a wall (whereas a gas or a liquid can).

The ratio of baryonic matter to empty space in your body is immaterial (ha-ha). You're still a solid, and it's not an illusion.

 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 10:14:58 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #257 on: December 20, 2011, 10:13:32 PM »
Living as if free will is real, while knowing intellectually that it is not, is living a lie. It's not coherent.

I also live as if I am made from solid matter, though I know the vast majority of me is empty space.  Both are illusions based upon my perception.  I don't see how this is different.

Interesting. 

But I wouldn't call the perception of the body being solid an illusion if I'm considering how my body interacts with other objects.  The idea of solidity only becomes illusionary if I'm only considering say, atoms and such...

So then ,  is it a far stretch to assume that determinism,  just as the perception of looking at the body as solid, or empty space, is only real depending on what aspect of reality one is focusing on?

For instance, maybe determinism is useful for describing some aspects of reality , but like idea of the body being mostly empty space, is not applicable for other areas? 

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #258 on: December 20, 2011, 10:15:01 PM »
Quote
I also live as if I am made from solid matter, though I know the vast majority of me is empty space.
You really are made of solid matter, Jeff, according to the current definitions of 'solid'.

What is the current definition of "free"?

Is it differrent from the current definition of "random"?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #259 on: December 20, 2011, 10:17:18 PM »
Why trust any of your intuitive senses?  I mean, say you feel fear in some instance, and you trust that feeling is telling you something.  Maybe you realize the fear was imagined, but maybe you find out that sense did help you.

So then, why not trust the sense-of-agency?  Maybe that sense was incorrect in a situation,  it was beyond your control, even though you felt it was at the time.  But,  why would the sense always be wrong?

If the sense of agency must be an illusion, then why not other senses, such as fear, joy, etc..?

The sense of agency is real.  So is the sense of fear, the sense of joy, etc.  They are all real emotions, and as such should be treated as real emotions.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #260 on: December 20, 2011, 10:27:49 PM »
Kin hell:
Quote
excellent
cheers, mate.

Quote
and it answers your previous question
Sorry kin, I don't see how. You say:
Quote
because we don't have the capability to discern all the input leading to any decision we make, .
I get that...
Quote
then we cannot in advance recognise the inevitable  choice we will make.
I get that too... .
Quote
So experientially it is exactly as if we are exercising free will.
But I don't get that.

But then I don't understand the experience of not having free will.  What does it feel like?