Re: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, whose writing your email?
- Free will is an illusion that we make our own free choices for actions.
Actually science, including brain studies in neurobiology, show an essential
algorithmic brain process based on genetic proclivities, learned information
and beliefs stored in memory and forming the basis for each person's mental
paradigm and "worldview," as the foundation for decision-making. Of course
this is very complex, especially because the brain functions always change
over time, and often through damages to structures, such as lesions, tumors,
etc. IF there is any free choice at all, it has to be very limited. BUT it
is a necessary illusion, as some other illusions also are. Our ancestors
never would have survived without the illusion of believing they make their
own free determinations. That is obvious, as it is easy to predict the
results of belief in total determinism.
----- Original Message -----
From: "a a" <Praesto12@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, whose writing your email?
>I do think that you have to define the term.
> Also, I don't think that if you're designing an
> intellectual finite event of expression of freewill
> that you are negating freewill, like your quantum test
> of donut and icecream. I can't fairly say that I'm
> giving you a choice of a or b, and sense you are
> chosing a or b that you no longer have free will.
> It is an open ended question. It also depends on
> weither or not you're a complete naturalist or not?
> It, to me, also seems to be flawed in saying that you
> are basing so much on the quantum level when we know
> so little about it. Truly. Why some series of quarks
> a)exsist b)form into something else and c) have this
> formation then be part of an organic substance that
> makes a choice is dramatically mysterious and
> complicated. Is there nothing transcendent in a
> person? Is there nothing more then quarks, and if so
> what does that mean and if not then how would we know?
> The question of morality and progression are
> intimately tied with the issue of Free will as well.
> As a Christian, I obviously see a dramatic importance
> with the issue of the reality of Free will. To deny it
> is to kill the soul and potential or responsibility of
> Yes the many worlds theory is interesting.
> --- kensharp81 <kensharp81@...> wrote:
>> Well now, that was quite a mouthful. I think, to
>> even begin engaging
>> such a topic we would need to come to a consensus
>> definition of the
>> concept, "free will". Agree?
>> --- In email@example.com,
>> <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
>> > This topic is strange to me. It never made sense
>> to me at all,
>> > never, ever, ever. Yet almost everyone seems to
>> believe in it and
>> > believe it is fairly simple. I've done searches
>> for explanations
>> > free will, searched hard and long, and found
>> nothing, empty
>> > arguments. And I just can't shake it out of my
>> head because I
>> > tell if I'm insane or if there is still a crazy,
>> wacked out theory
>> > that people are buying without thinking about it.
>> So anyways this
>> > a discussion where I will either strive to
>> understand why people
>> > believe free will (and maybe even notice it is
>> true although I
>> > conceive how yet, it is possible of course) or
>> where others will
>> > me that they also don't believe in free will and
>> that would be
>> > interesting because I haven't really discussed
>> that with anyone who
>> > agrees with me (but I have met people who agree
>> with me but they
>> > give me the nod). So this is to discuss and
>> possibly debate the
>> > validity of free will.
>> > Now I'll just give a bit of background on my
>> > I'm not a determinist...I'm a quantum determinist
>> which to put in
>> > simple terms means I basically believe that
>> certain events have
>> > certain probabilities (and I also think the many
>> worlds theory is
>> > quite logical, unsupported by evidence but
>> logical). To me it
>> > everyone thinks that if determinism dies free will
>> is valid, or at
>> > least most do. Then they go on to say that
>> > makes determinism obsolete, but still I think
>> quantum determinism
>> > logical. Anyways so then they say free will is
>> true what is the
>> > debate? When I talk about free will, I'm not
>> talking about find
>> > most loose definition of free will and flex it a
>> bit and say, see
>> > free will is true. I'm talking about the free
>> will that we all
>> > intuitively understand as just complete control,
>> > moral responsibility, that stuff. So just for
>> simplification say I
>> > have a 50% chance of eating ice cream and a 50%
>> chance of eating a
>> > donut. I'm still confined to quantum determinism
>> and I don't
>> > call this free will I would call this random will
>> personally. Yes
>> > there are some definitions of free will where
>> randomness may
>> > but we all know that it isn't REALLY what most of
>> us think of free
>> > will to be. I have a 50% chance of making choice
>> A or choice B but
>> > can't have an effect on what the outcome
>> is...hence why it is
>> > random.
>> > Any discussion, criticism, or alternative free
>> will theories
>> > invited. Am I crazy or is free will crazy? Or
>> maybe that is a
>> > dilemna maybe we are both crazy, but now I'm
>> getting off topic and
>> > can't use the word "crazy" in logic, crazy has no
>> > point that everyone can agree on.
> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.13/946 - Release Date: 8/10/2007
> 3:50 PM
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
>I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
> --- In email@example.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
> > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
> > numbers.
> I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
> of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
> I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
> pre-cal (11th grade).
back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
more now, however many lectures later).
> I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopicCompared to classical theory pretty much not at all.
> world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.
> If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennisIf the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
> ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
> was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
> long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
> location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
than your lifetime before you notice any difference.
Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).
> > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
> No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
> principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
> the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).
mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).
> > It seems to be more like rambling.The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
> I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
> maybe I could come to an understanding.
I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
can't figure out what you're saying.