Free Will.

[Hermit]

Perfect knowledge, in the sense that I used it, is all about the initial conditions, and is simply impossible to achieve.

At one stage it was asserted that heavier-than-air flight was impossible to achieve because it contradicted science. It turned out that the scientific theory of the time was leapfrogged by technological actuality, which finished up proving the scientific impossibility manifestly wrong. I put it to you that the current scientific impossibility of arriving at total determinism may likewise turn out to be demonstrably mistaken some time in the future.

[pErvinalia]

The question is: How to test for free will?

If its not possible to design test for free will, debates are just debates. Metaphysics never proved anything.

Actually, there is play of free will even when deterministic factors are at play.
When I am taken with the need to poop, I can decide to delay it until either I am finished with what Im doing, and sovereignly decide to give in, or I do perceive the need to be too imperious to resist anymore, and even then I could still resist and risk pooping my pants.

That example fits perfectly well into my assertion that we have a compelling, vivid illusion of free will.

I don't see where it is an illusion.

It's an illusion if there is only one choice that you can make given the state of the universe at the point the "choice" is made (i.e. determinism).

[JimC]

The question is: How to test for free will?

If its not possible to design test for free will, debates are just debates. Metaphysics never proved anything.

Actually, there is play of free will even when deterministic factors are at play.
When I am taken with the need to poop, I can decide to delay it until either I am finished with what Im doing, and sovereignly decide to give in, or I do perceive the need to be too imperious to resist anymore, and even then I could still resist and risk pooping my pants.

That example fits perfectly well into my assertion that we have a compelling, vivid illusion of free will.

I don't see where it is an illusion.

The neurological evidence against free will is suggestive, although not really compelling. However, it is hard to find a philosophical basis for free will that does not involve some form of non-materialist intervention. As I've said earlier in the thread, it is possible for the universe to be non-deterministic in that some random, chaotic elements can be found, but this does not automatically support the usual concept of free will.

However, all of us feel as if we are acting as free agents in at least some of the parts of our lives. I have simply made the suggestion that a compelling illusion of free will could be useful, since acting as if we are free agents allows quick and efficient decision making, and, as rEv suggested, facilitates a useful view of others as acting in their own interests as free agents, i.e. a theory of mind.

[piscator]

Perfect knowledge, in the sense that I used it, is all about the initial conditions, and is simply impossible to achieve.

At one stage it was asserted that heavier-than-air flight was impossible to achieve because it contradicted science. It turned out that the scientific theory of the time was leapfrogged by technological actuality, which finished up proving the scientific impossibility manifestly wrong. I put it to you that the current scientific impossibility of arriving at total determinism may likewise turn out to be demonstrably mistaken some time in the future.

You're confusing predictability for determination. While one may not be able to predict a particular eigenstate of position based on initial conditions, wave functions do collapse and a set of initial conditions still maintains the power to determine outcomes.

[Hermit]

Perfect knowledge, in the sense that I used it, is all about the initial conditions, and is simply impossible to achieve.

At one stage it was asserted that heavier-than-air flight was impossible to achieve because it contradicted science. It turned out that the scientific theory of the time was leapfrogged by technological actuality, which finished up proving the scientific impossibility manifestly wrong. I put it to you that the current scientific impossibility of arriving at total determinism may likewise turn out to be demonstrably mistaken some time in the future.

You're confusing predictability for determination. While one may not be able to predict a particular eigenstate of position based on initial conditions, wave functions do collapse and a set of initial conditions still maintains the power to determine outcomes.

Prediction in terms of quantum physics, at least as far as Bohr, Heisenberg and a substantial number physicist who deal with the theory are concerned, is probabilistic. It has nothing to do with determinism. So, no, since I do not conflate statistical with actual predictability I do not think that I confuse predictability with determination.

[mistermack]

To me, the debate about a deterministic universe, and quantum physics etc is sidetracking what I was on about in the OP.
And that is that, what you think of as your own decisions, are being made for you, by people who constantly indoctrinating you through the media.

In this country, one of the most blatant examples, is the reporting of anything done by Russia. You would think that Russia is totally responsible for the Syrian conflict, going by the British newsmedia.

Another blatant example, is the "browning" of British TV.
On commercial tv, practically every advert has either a black family, or even a mixed race family, portrayed in the commercial. Mixed marriages are pretty rare, but you see them all over ITV commercials. And the BBC does it's bit, by having far more black and asian presenters than the mix in the country would normally support.
It's been like that for years on the BBC, and in the early days, some of the black newscasters were so bad, it was actually embarrassing to watch.

The intention is obviously to convince us all that blacks and asians are just as british as everybody else, and a perfectly natural part of everyday life.

Whatever you think of assimilation, ( which I fully agree with ), the point is that we are being told what to think. And not in an honest, upfront way, but in a sneaky underhand subliminal way.

And of course, if you buy an newspaper, you are being told what to think by Rupert Murdoch and his friends

And it works. Nobody seems to question any of it, or even notice that it's going on.

[JimC]

That is really a different topic to the classic "free will vs determinism" debate. Your point about indoctrination might be a political reality, but at least some skeptical, free-thinking people will be able to see through it, and consciously ignore media or establishment messages when making decisions.

If there is absolutely no free will, then these people are just reacting inevitably to the sum total of their genetics and life experiences, and could act in no other way, when they decide on some course of action.

Your point is really about how extensively group think in some form or another permeates a given society.

[pErvinalia]

To me, the debate about a deterministic universe, and quantum physics etc is sidetracking what I was on about in the OP.
And that is that, what you think of as your own decisions, are being made for you, by people who constantly indoctrinating you through the media.

In this country, one of the most blatant examples, is the reporting of anything done by Russia. You would think that Russia is totally responsible for the Syrian conflict, going by the British newsmedia.

Another blatant example, is the "browning" of British TV.
On commercial tv, practically every advert has either a black family, or even a mixed race family, portrayed in the commercial. Mixed marriages are pretty rare, but you see them all over ITV commercials. And the BBC does it's bit, by having far more black and asian presenters than the mix in the country would normally support.
It's been like that for years on the BBC, and in the early days, some of the black newscasters were so bad, it was actually embarrassing to watch.

The intention is obviously to convince us all that blacks and asians are just as british as everybody else, and a perfectly natural part of everyday life.

Whatever you think of assimilation, ( which I fully agree with ), the point is that we are being told what to think. And not in an honest, upfront way, but in a sneaky underhand subliminal way.

And of course, if you buy an newspaper, you are being told what to think by Rupert Murdoch and his friends

And it works. Nobody seems to question any of it, or even notice that it's going on.

Well in that case you are talking about standard psychology. And it's definitely the case that we form our world views based significantly on our surrounding environment (which includes stuff people tell us). Liberals and libertarians like to pretend psychology doesn't exist and that we are all able to make choices in isolation of our environment. That's just not the case.

[rainbow]

I did. Aside from being utter wibble, neither of them asserted that objective reality doesn't exist.

'Wibble' that underlies the beliefs of a huge proportion of the world's population. I expect the parochial mindset cannot learn beyond a certain point.
...so it follows that one's reality is severely limited, and that any objective reality is beyond our grasp.

[pErvinalia]

But that's not what you initially asserted.

[rainbow]

But that's not what you initially asserted.

What part of:

We cannot assume an Objective Reality exists since we can only observe the universe subjectively.

didn't you understand?

[pErvinalia]

You said: "To have a deterministic universe you require an Objective Reality. "

Implying that we don't, else why would you even raise it?

And now you are claiming that objective reality may be beyond our grasp. A point that no one denies and a point that has absolutely nothing to do with determinism or free will (which is what we are supposed to be discussing).

[pErvinalia]

Basically address this post - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1640167 in your own words addressing each part of the post. Linking to some spiritual mumbo jumbo isn't addressing anything.

[rainbow]

You said: "To have a deterministic universe you require an Objective Reality. "

Implying that we don't, else why would you even raise it?

It implies nothing of the sort. It is a statement of a Necessary Condition.
Please try to keep up.
If you need further explanation: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/341/ ... ec-suf.htm

[pErvinalia]

Stop providing nebulous links. You can either answer questions put to you in your own words, or you don't understand the topic.

You made a claim that objective reality is related to determinism. Explain why you make that assertion. You claim that for objective reality to exist it requires a "supreme being". Why? What is a " supreme being"? Address the points that you yourself asserted without any reasoning to accompany them.