Topic: Free Will from an Atheist's POV. (Read 6065 times)

Heretic · « **Reply #40 on:** September 09, 2005, 01:32:07 PM »

...being able to choose between different alternatives. Doritos vs. Cheetos. You chose Doritos, but you COULD have chosen Cheetos. No prior causes dictated your choice of one over the other. That choice was within your control.

So broken down to it's simplist form this 'free-will' is nothing more than the ability to make a choice. So what's the argument here? You folks can't see how evolution could produce the ability to make choices? To survive a species must choose healthy and strong mates.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #41 on:** September 09, 2005, 01:41:21 PM »

"So broken down to it's simplist form this 'free-will' is nothing more than the ability to make a choice. So what's the argument here? You folks can't see how evolution could produce the ability to make choices? To survive a species must choose healthy and strong mates."

Two key statements here:

1. "'free-will' is nothing more than the ability to make a choice."

No.

As Cimics has pointed out, a computer can make a choice. Chess programs do it all the time.

2. "To survive a species must choose healthy and strong mates."

And that would be a cause that undermines an evolutionarily derived 'fre will.' This statement speaks to free will as much as "To succeed a computer chess game must make 'healthy and strong' moves."

In either case, there is programming. The living organism 'chooses' a mate that is 'healthy and strong' because that is what it is programmed to do. That's why a computerized chess game makes the moves it does, too. Its programmed to do this.

Free will is not just a 'choice' but a choice unhinged from one's 'program.'

If you programmed the computer game to play chess, but it instead went out and had a coffee instead, the computer would have free will.

You could say we are programmed to have 'healthy and strong mates' but that would not be free-will. If anything, though, I think this defeats the overall premise of evolution, since as near as I can tell, people make a lot of BAD decisions on who they mate.

Heretic · « **Reply #42 on:** September 09, 2005, 02:20:04 PM »

I think this defeats the overall premise of evolution, since as near as I can tell, people make a lot of BAD decisions on who they mate.

I don't think it defeats the overall premise. It just shows there is a 'glitch' in the programming.

We are 'programmed' to travel by way of our two feets. We get up and fly, drive, ride in machines of our own creation. So we do something unhinged from our 'programming'. Fine, call it 'free-will' if you must.

I call it intellegence instead. We want to get down this snow covered hill. Our 'programming' would tell up to get-to-steppin'. We see a piece of bark, sit our butts upon it and slide down. Free-will? Well, if that's what you really want to call it, fine, call it that. I'd rather call it intellegence and I believe it can be shown how evolution provided for the emergence of intellegence.

Heretic · « **Reply #43 on:** September 09, 2005, 02:46:54 PM »

I'd thought I'd come back and add I agree with Ragnar. This is a non-sensical subject that leads nowhere. I don't know why I bother with it either.

I think the reason it keeps popping up is what I have stated in the other "free-will" thread. It's all about your God thing.

First we have to give in on the premise you claim that this God exists and knows the choice you will make in every decision you will make so do you really have a choice?

AND

Why should we believe the claims of christianity (or any other religion for that matter) without any evidence or proof? Theist answer--> Because God wants you to believe out of your own 'free-will'.

So put this thread in perspective. Tell me how will this God reveling himself interfere with your free-will to choose to follow/worship him? And explain to me how I have the free-will to make a choice if every choice to be made is already made before I even make it? To say it's known in some unforeseen future requires me to concede that the future exists before it becomes present. That I will not do. It's 12:30am here right now. NOTHING exists at 1am yet. It will not until 1am arrives. You can say yes it does and God knows everything that's happening at 1am right now all you want, I'll believe that claim with as much vigor as I believe your claim that the xtian God is a part of reality.

Until you can prove one way or the other all this is just meaningless banter. Or until you can define free-will to mean something more than the ability to choose or the demonstration of intellegence this is all meaningless.

If we can discuss it within the context of the God providing proof of his existance, then maybe we can find some meaning in all this.

This whole thread is just another fine example of johnny's obfuscation skills.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #44 on:** September 09, 2005, 02:57:38 PM »

sntjohnny what's your doctors name? I bet that one had to hurt you. lol

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #45 on:** September 09, 2005, 03:04:54 PM »

heh

No, this has nothing to do with God. The answer is important whether you are a theist or not.

If we don't have free will, then we have logical permission to act that way. So when I come and clock you over the head, you've got no moral right to complain. After all, I was caused to clock you, and it was destiny anyway. I suppose I better make sure I finish you off so you don't use the reasoning in reverse, right?

Such a view has significant consequences in our daily affairs.

But if we do have free will, as everyone admits we at least have the ILLUSION of having (if you go the way of Harry_is_pre-destined), you have to demonstrate how that is consistent within your materialistic and evolutionary systems.

Right now, the way its looking to me is that you're all chickening out. You keep bringing up God because you know that the only way you can trust your own senses and reasoning and perception that you have free will is to go outside your philosophical naturalism. You know that your own awareness is inconsistent with your other beliefs, and that leads you to fear the slipperly slope leading to 'God.' And you'd rather have us argue about the ramifications of THAT, since then the onus is off of you.

But that's wimpy. :)

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #46 on:** September 09, 2005, 03:10:55 PM »

It is called a prediction. Early man would logically have to predict where animal herds would be. Sntjohnny calls this destiny.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** September 09, 2005, 03:27:25 PM »

"It is called a prediction. Early man would logically have to predict where animal herds would be. Sntjohnny calls this destiny."

That's ad hoc. Man would have needed intelligence in the first place to create the technology allowing him to attack the herd successfully, anyway, since humans lack the speed and other tools (sharp claws and fangs). But that's what you have to select for. And it doesn't matter if its RATIONAL to think that it would be logical for them to benefit from being able to 'predict.' You still have to GET there. You can't just assume it.

Since the biosphere is filled to the brim with creatures that have the speed and tools but don't have intelligence, it can be empirically asserted that intelligence is not required nor is it inevitable within evolution. In fact, it is completely unnecessary. In fact, as I said already, our intelligence has done as much, if not more, harm to our species than it has helped.

Heretic · « **Reply #48 on:** September 09, 2005, 05:22:12 PM »

Johnny, you're still blurring the line between what is free-will and what is intellegence. What is it you are talking about? You call free will the ability to act outside programming and give a computer analogy about it going out for coffee. (although how it can do this with out legs or lips or a stomache is beyond me) So I give you that, just in my head I substituted the computer plays checkers even though it was programmed for chess. Yes, in that example you could say the computer had 'free-will'. It freely choose to play checkers even though it's programming called for chess. Wait, that didn't even make sense. It had to have at least the rudements of checkers in it's programming before it could chose checkers when asked for chess. You're analogy is like saying a baby it programmed to suckle when a teet is pressed against it's mouth but it get's up and drives to MacDonalds instead. Ya know what? Forget your analogy, let me try this;

In humanity we could say we have a certain amount of 'programming'. An instinct, if you will. We want to get from point A to point B. Our 'programming' will make use of our locomotive ability and............... wait, you ain't gonna make me type out that whole example again. Please just re-read my last post. Point is, that is an example of "INTELLEGENCE".

The bean me in the head analogy you made is a poor one for your case (which I really haven't figured out what that is) no one here is denying we have abilities to make choices. One has the choice to bean or not to bean and they would then use their intellegence (no matter how diminutive) to make that decision.

And Anti was on track with his comment. Just by observation an early man figured out a herd of animals is usually at a certain place after a certain event (whether it be a weather condition or a passage of time, whatever ((<--pre-emptive anti-obfuscation strike)) it doesn't matter) and predicts when the next herd is likely to come. Now he is more successful in his ability to acquire meat thus ensuring his more intellegent genes survive. Intellegence evolves.

I think I get this now. This is all a ruse by johnny to try to strike a blow against evolution. I can't even say 'Nice Try' because it wasn't. All this 'free-will' talk will only have meaning if you invoke some God into it. From this atheist's POV, free-will is only a concept of the human mind as it relates to religious clap-trap. In the real world you are only talking about the ability to chose and the emergence of intellegence.

Heretic · « **Reply #49 on:** September 09, 2005, 05:30:33 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** September 09, 2005, 06:45:24 PM »

You silly boy. :) Its not even necessarily about evolution. You are trying to change the subject again. The question is whether or not 'free will' is consistent with atheism. Doesn't philosophical naturalism reduce to determinism? Harry_is_absent believes it does.

This, despite the obvious fact that we all appear to experience free will anyway. Cimics pointed out the irony there of using a skeptical point of view that is supposed to rely on empirical principles to erect a system where empirical principles don't really matter.

And on the other side, we've got you folks, embracing the reality of free-will, but refusing to explain where it came from and how we came to have it. I ran with evolution because I know that's the normal bag. If you have something else, I'd be glad to hear it. To just dismiss the question as non-sensical is only to dodge it.

Heretic · « **Reply #51 on:** September 09, 2005, 07:55:42 PM »

Jeez johnny, I think you need some sleep or something. I ain't changing the subject, I'm trying to figure out what is it you want here.

You say we've got you folks, embracing the reality of free-will, if it's helping to float your boat by labeling it as such then sail away, my friend, but as I've been trying to get you to realize all your talking about is the ability to make choices, period. Explain were it came from? We evolved the ability, what more do you want? You want the exact processes for it or what? JeezusCrimminy man, that's like me telling you "If God created us then YOU explain to me why males have nipples and why do we have a (Oh phooey I cant remember the name of that human organ that serves no purpose, you know, some people get it infected and it's routinely removed, leaves a little scar on their side.... help me out here, what is that thing called?)... one of those.

And how do you get I'm dodging anything. I've answered the best I can but you all are refusing to tell me what is it you want here. I'll try again, YES we have the ability to chose. Where did it come from? It came along as our intellegence evolved. You want the EXACT processes? HellifIknow.

Happy now? This is still meaningless.

Heretic · « **Reply #52 on:** September 10, 2005, 11:28:12 AM »

Appendix. That's the body part I was trying to remember, the appendix.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #53 on:** September 10, 2005, 11:37:54 AM »

Come on Harry, its not so hard. Do we make the choices that we make because we are PROGRAMMED to make them or because we can consciously measure options and factors (like, this will taste really good, but it costs $20 bucks. Ah, what the hey.")?

You can come at it from an evolutionary POV or you can go to the cold philosophical naturalistic perspective and we'll be talking about the multiverse. That part is your call.

I seem to be hearing from you that you at least don't have any sense of being 'programmed' so you need to demonstrate that this is consistent with your worldview.

Heretic · « **Reply #54 on:** September 10, 2005, 12:09:10 PM »

We make choices because we can consciously measure options and factors.

We are 'programmed' to an extent. We call this 'instinct'. As newborns we suckle when things are put into our mouths instinctually.

We grow, we learn and then we make choices by measuring options and factors and predicted outcomes.

Simple enough for you? I never hinted at this being 'hard', johnny. It is you who are obfuscating it. (I just love that word, obfuscate... just rolls off the tongue)

Now be fair and answer a simular query when posed to you. Demonstrate how men having nipples is consistant with your worldview.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #55 on:** September 10, 2005, 12:20:30 PM »

"We are 'programmed' to an extent. We call this 'instinct'. As newborns we suckle when things are put into our mouths instinctually."

"Simple enough for you? I never hinted at this being 'hard', johnny. It is you who are obfuscating it. (I just love that word, obfuscate... just rolls off the tongue)"

Yea I've noticed you love that word. :)

Its nowhere near answering the question. Perhaps someone else can try putting it to you. It could be my poor communication or maybe you've got sand in your gears, or ears, or old age, I dunno.

"Now be fair and answer a simular query when posed to you. Demonstrate how men having nipples is consistant with your worldview."

Start a thread. :)

Heretic · « **Reply #56 on:** September 10, 2005, 02:06:28 PM »

Its nowhere near answering the question.

??? What?!?

Here was the question. (Or at least the latest revision of it)

Do we make the choices that we make because we are PROGRAMMED to make them or because we can consciously measure options and factors (...)?

Here was the answer;

We are 'programmed' to an extent. We call this 'instinct'. As newborns we suckle when things are put into our mouths instinctually. We grow, we learn and then we make choices by measuring options and factors and predicted outcomes.

Explain to me how this is not answering your question.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #57 on:** September 10, 2005, 02:09:38 PM »

Harry, aren't you supposed to be working?!?!?

Heretic · « **Reply #58 on:** September 10, 2005, 02:31:09 PM »

LOL! Look who's talking! Shouldn't you be taking a load of something somewhere?!

Get to it! I need more postcards for my cabinet!

Heretic · « **Reply #59 on:** September 10, 2005, 05:15:27 PM »

And

C'mon johnny, it isn't that hard. You thought you were being clever by starting this thread in an attempt to show how us atheists are inconsistant in our world views. You failed to do so and are being challenged on being opaque in your querys. Instead of just admitting you could not accomplish what you set out to do in this thread you're blaming me for having a lack of understanding.

I understood your question easily. Can we make choices or are we pre-programmed? In order to avoid your obfuscation (<- :D ) attempts I tried to answer throughly. (i.e. "pre-programmed" at birth, choice makers as we grow and learn)

Would it be easier if we just refered to the question as it applies to us here and now or what? I'm willing to work with you here to make your hazy querys more clear. To blame you lack of a clear and concise question on my 'lack of understanding' or age or cleanliness of my ears is to avoid the confronting arguement. To blame it on your poor communication skills is an obvious lie. You're a college educated type and an author arn't you? You have no lack of communication skills, you just have a lack of admission skills when either wrong or when your attempts at formulating clever ploys go awry.

But I still love ya.

Author Topic: Free Will from an Atheist's POV. (Read 6065 times)