Column: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus

[itsnobody]

Care to cite any of this so-called "evidence"?

Oh, and if free will doesn't exist, then isn't this discussion pointless? A lack of free will means that life is deterministic; that things "just happen." How did you write your post? How are you reading my response? What purpose could any discussion possibly serve without the ability to choose?

Anyone can prove to themselves that free will exists. Just look inward (introspection). Did you make a choice?

Sure.

Here's the scientific evidence against free-will:
- Neuronal Correlate Explanation
- Libet's Experiment
- TMS Experiment
- RT Experiments
- Chemical reactions altering consciousness
- Modern physics in general

Claiming your physical brain has free-will is like saying a radio has free-will. Believing in free-will is similar to believing in the geocentric theory. Determinism vs. Indeterminism doesn't matter, indeterminism doesn't indicate free-will but rather "unpredicatable will".

The amount of scientific evidence against free-will is so overwhelming and staggering. So since there's much more scientific evidence against free-will than God thereby indicating that it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than God, anyone who believes in free-will must admit that the reason they don't believe in God has absolutely nothing to with science or evidence.

If the statement "you don't believe in anything that lacks evidence" is true then you wouldn't believe in free-will, gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, God, etc....or anything else without evidence

By believing in free-will you've shown that the statement "you don't believe in anything that lacks evidence" is false.

So any atheist (like Ayn Rand) who believes in free-will must fully admit that faith and evidence has nothing to do with their disbelief in God.

As for your other question regarding if it would be pointless, I would have to know how you would objectively determine whether or not something is pointless or not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure.

Here's the scientific evidence against free-will:
- Neuronal Correlate Explanation
- Libet's Experiment
- TMS Experiment
- RT Experiments
- Chemical reactions altering consciousness
- Modern physics in general

Claiming your physical brain has free-will is like saying a radio has free-will. Believing in free-will is similar to believing in the geocentric theory. Determinism vs. Indeterminism doesn't matter, indeterminism doesn't indicate free-will but rather "unpredicatable will".

The amount of scientific evidence against free-will is so overwhelming and staggering. So since there's much more scientific evidence against free-will than God thereby indicating that it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than God, anyone who believes in free-will must admit that the reason they don't believe in God has absolutely nothing to with science or evidence.

If the statement "you don't believe in anything that lacks evidence" is true then you wouldn't believe in free-will, gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, God, etc....or anything else without evidence

By believing in free-will you've shown that the statement "you don't believe in anything that lacks evidence" is false.

So any atheist (like Ayn Rand) who believes in free-will must fully admit that faith and evidence has nothing to do with their disbelief in God.

As for your other question regarding if it would be pointless, I would have to know how you would objectively determine whether or not something is pointless or not.

The fact that the body performs numerous functions involuntarily does not mean free will does not exist. The "hard" sciences, which you are citing, do not adequately measure these sort of things. We have to turn to social sciences like psychology and sociology.

 

[AceNZ]

Here's the scientific evidence against free-will:
- Neuronal Correlate Explanation
- Libet's Experiment
- TMS Experiment
- RT Experiments
- Chemical reactions altering consciousness
- Modern physics in general

Nothing you've listed refutes free will. In fact, the act of undertaking a study or reporting it actually requires free will -- so your list works in support of free will, not against it.

Free will is at the root of the concept of validation. The validation of ideas is only possible because there is a choice. This applies to all ideas, including that of free will itself. If there were no choices to be made, then validation would not be possible; you would just have to accept whatever you were presented with.

In that context, free will is a near-axiom. In other words, it can't be proven directly, only indirectly, by introspection -- the same as for consciousness itself. For the same reasons, it also can't be disproved.

To say you don't believe in free will is to say "I am free to decide -- that I am not free to decide."

Claiming your physical brain has free-will is like saying a radio has free-will.

I'm not saying the brain has free will or that all beings with brains have free will. I'm saying human consciousness has free will. The brain and consciousness are not the same thing; consciousness is a property of the brain, not something that stands on its own.

The amount of scientific evidence against free-will is so overwhelming and staggering.

Sorry, I don't agree. I haven't seen any evidence at all against free will. What I have seen are philosophical arguments, all of which are self-contradicting.

 

[itsnobody]

The fact that the body performs numerous functions involuntarily does not mean free will does not exist. The "hard" sciences, which you are citing, do not adequately measure these sort of things. We have to turn to social sciences like psychology and sociology.

Lol, I'm not saying "that the body performs numerous functions involuntarily" indicates the non-existence of free-will, just a straw man argument

Modern science is simply incompatible with free-will and there is much MORE scientific evidence against free-will than God which is why it's always a great laugh to see an atheist who believes in free-will

 

[low preference guy]

Modern science is simply incompatible with free-will and there is much MORE scientific evidence against free-will than God which is why it's always a great laugh to see an atheist who believes in free-will

Yep. You repeated it enough times. Therefore, it is true.

 

[itsnobody]

Nothing you've listed refutes free will. In fact, the act of undertaking a study or reporting it actually requires free will -- so your list works in support of free will, not against it.

Free will is at the root of the concept of validation. The validation of ideas is only possible because there is a choice. This applies to all ideas, including that of free will itself. If there were no choices to be made, then validation would not be possible; you would just have to accept whatever you were presented with.

In that context, free will is a near-axiom. In other words, it can't be proven directly, only indirectly, by introspection -- the same as for consciousness itself. For the same reasons, it also can't be disproved.

Rather than giving an actual reason for why it doesn't refute free-will you instead just made the statement that "it does not refute free-will"

Then you went on the argue that the reason you have free-will is simply because you say you have free-will

It's if it's true that the physical brain is the mind, then there is no free-will. It would be equivalent to arguing that a radio has free-will.

I'm not saying the brain has free will or that all beings with brains have free will. I'm saying human consciousness has free will. The brain and consciousness are not the same thing; consciousness is a property of the brain, not something that stands on its own.



Sorry, I don't agree. I haven't seen any evidence at all against free will. What I have seen are philosophical arguments, all of which are self-contradicting.

LOL! Any evidence for this? No you don't have any, it's just because you have a feeling inside that you have free-will that you believe that free-will exists, right?

Well it's always a great laugh to see an atheist who believes in free-will yet does not believe in an afterlife or God.

Do you believe in afterlife then?

 

[itsnobody]

Yep. You repeated it enough times. Therefore, it is true.

Actually not, just another straw man argument. I did not claim something is true if someone repeatedly says so.

Anyone who understands even a little bit about physics should know what I'm talking about, but I doubt most atheists on here understand physics.

If it's true that neurons control all your decisions, and neurons follow the same laws of physics as a radio, then how is claiming your physical brain has free-will different from claiming that a radio has free-will?

When you typed this response, that decision to type that particular response was simply the result of electrochemical processes in your brain that you have absolutely NO CONTROL over, do you understand now?

If you want me to explain in more details the evidence against free-will and how free-will is incompatible with modern science then I'll explain it to you.

I'll just give a short explanation right now.

There's two branches of physics, determinism (General Relativity) and indeterminism (Quantum Mechanics).

If your physical brain follows deterministic physics, which is most likely since neurons are not quantum particles this would mean that all of your decisions are predictable, and that there is no free-will.

If your physical brain some how follows indeterministic physics, which is not likely since neurons are not quantum particles, then this would mean that all of your decisions are unpredictable, and you don't have free-will (or any control of your decisions).

If your physical brains sometimes follows deterministic physics and at other times follows indeterministic physics then this would mean that some of your decisions are predictable and some of your decisions are unpredictable, and that you have no free-will.

No conditions in either deterministic or indeterministic physics would allow any degree of free-will, not even the smallest slightest most infinitesimal amount of free-will.

In order to have actual free-will you have to entirely re-model physics so that consciousness and the observer play a special role in reality. Otherwise if consciousness has no special role, then there cannot be any free-will, regardless of whether or not your decisions are predictable or unpredictable.

 

[low preference guy]

When you typed this response, that decision to type that particular response was simply the result of electrochemical processes in your brain that you have absolutely NO CONTROL over, do you understand now?

I *choose* to type my response, and that's is what caused the electrochemical processes in my brain to carry out my commands.

 

[itsnobody]

I *choose* to type my response, and that's is what caused the electrochemical processes in my brain to carry out my commands.

What? How did you choose it if electrical signals decided and you have no control over the electrical signals in your brain?

You're just using circular reasoning "The reason free-will exists is because I can choose"

Circular reasoning is a very common flawed argument used for free-will.

 

[low preference guy]

How did you choose it if electrical signals decided and you have no control over the electrical signals in your brain?

I do have control over the electrical signals in my brain. When I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action.

 

[itsnobody]

I do have control over the electrical signals in my brain. When I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action.

Once again circular reasoning. Also if you believe if that you can control electrical signals in your brain then you essentially believe that humans have superhuman powers and that modern science is wrong, is this true? You believe that you can break the laws of physics with your mind and change the chemical reactions in your brain?

I'll explain how it's circular reasoning in detail.

You made the statement "When I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action". But you cannot conclude that you chose to lift your arm unless you already assume that free-will exists.

So your statement is equivalent to saying "When I already assume that free-will exists and I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action"

If you don't already assume that free-will exists, then how can you conclude that you chose to lift your arm? Just circular reasoning.

Without already assuming that free-will exists you would instead conclude that an action occurred and that you had the feeling inside that you lifted your arm. If you don't assume that free-will exists, then you can only conclude that you have the feeling inside that free-will exists.

 

[low preference guy]

Once again circular reasoning. Also if you believe if that you can control electrical signals in your brain then you essentially believe that humans have superhuman powers and that modern science is wrong, is this true? You believe that you can break the laws of physics with your mind and change the chemical reactions in your brain?

I'll explain how it's circular reasoning in detail.

It's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning has this form: A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. My free will is not justified by a complex argument but is a fact that I grasp just by thinking about it. All arguments need starting points. Can you prove that existence exists? No. But I grasp that fact and I know that existence exists. The same is true for free will.

 

[AceNZ]

Rather than giving an actual reason for why it doesn't refute free-will you instead just made the statement that "it does not refute free-will"

I did give an actual reason. But then, since you don't think you have free will, this discussion is pointless. Without free will, you would be unable to read, understand, or act on anything I'm saying. Without free will, you are free to avoid taking responsibility for your life.

Then you went on the argue that the reason you have free-will is simply because you say you have free-will

No, I said that I have free will because I can observe it in myself.

It's if it's true that the physical brain is the mind, then there is no free-will. It would be equivalent to arguing that a radio has free-will.

The physical brain is not the mind.

The mind is not physical (it's mental)
The body is not mental (it's physical)
The mind has no location (location is a physical attribute), just as thought and emotion don't have a location
Human life requires a body and a mind
The body cannot exist on its own without a mind
The mind cannot exist without a body
The mind is an attribute, not of the body, but of the person (the body is also an attribute of the person)

Using your example, looking for free will in the physical brain would be like looking for the price of a radio inside a radio.

LOL! Any evidence for this? No you don't have any, it's just because you have a feeling inside that you have free-will that you believe that free-will exists, right?

Not a feeling. It's an observation, using introspection.

Well it's always a great laugh to see an atheist who believes in free-will yet does not believe in an afterlife or God.

Do you believe in afterlife then?

No, I don't believe in God or an afterlife. ("Afterlife" seems to me to be a contradiction: "after your life is over, your life is not over")

You are entertaining yourself based on a logical fallacy. Proofs are only required to show something exists, not to proof something doesn't exist. No proof that God doesn't exist is needed. (Having said that, I do have some very good arguments for why God doesn't exist).

There are a small number of things on which all proofs rely, without which all proofs would be impossible. As such, they can't be proven; they can only be observed. These things are called axioms. As I said before, free choice is a near axiom. If you deny any of the axioms, then you are denying life and reason, and there's no point in having a discussion. Not just about this subject, but about anything.

 

[robert68]

...

The mind cannot exist without a body

Evidence?

The mind is attribute, not of the body, but of the person (the body is also an attribute of the person)

Using your example, looking for free will in the physical brain would be like looking for the price of a radio inside a radio.

The price of a radio is dependent on market forces, how is that consistent with the idea of free will?

I agree with much of what you wrote about free will, but I agree with him that it's circular reasoning to suggest the mind’s existence is dependent on the body, while the body’s existence is dependent on the mind.
A person controls a machine (a computer to make a post in a forum for example), but it can’t at the same time be the case that a person’s life is dependent on that machine he/she exclusively controls.

 

[AceNZ]

Evidence?

The mind is an attribute; it can't exist separately from that which it is an attribute of. It's like emotion. Emotion can't exist without a body, either.

Another way to look at it is that the mind depends on brain processes; it can't exist without them. So, without a brain, which is part of the body, there can be no mind. This doesn't mean that the mind is part of the brain; it's not. There's no location you can point to and say: "that's the mind" (or, "that's emotion").

The price of a radio is dependent on market forces, how is that consistent with the idea of free will?

I used price as an example, because it's an attribute of a radio, like free will is an attribute of consciousness. Taking it further, if a radio was conscious, it might know it had a price, but there's nothing you could test or observe inside the radio that would prove it to you.

I agree with much of what you wrote about free will, but I agree with him that it's circular reasoning to say the mind’s existence is dependent on the body. A person controls a machine (a computer to make a post in a forum for example), but it can’t at the same time be the case that a person’s life is dependent on that machine he/she exclusively controls.

Sorry, I don't really understand this.

What I'm saying is that the mind and body are (separate) attributes of a person, and that those attributes can't exist separately, on their own. If you have a body, you have a mind; if you have a mind, you have a body. If you are a person, you have a body and a mind.

 

[AceNZ]

You made the statement "When I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action". But you cannot conclude that you chose to lift your arm unless you already assume that free-will exists.

So your statement is equivalent to saying "When I already assume that free-will exists and I choose to lift my arm, the electrical signals in my brain respond and initiate that action"

If you don't already assume that free-will exists, then how can you conclude that you chose to lift your arm? Just circular reasoning.

Without already assuming that free-will exists you would instead conclude that an action occurred and that you had the feeling inside that you lifted your arm. If you don't assume that free-will exists, then you can only conclude that you have the feeling inside that free-will exists.

Here's how anyone can know that they have free will, using the example above.

First, observe that you have a choice. You can either lift your arm, or not lift your arm. Choose one or the other.

Voila. You had an alternative, and you made a choice. That is free will. There's nothing circular about it; you don't have to assume it exists in order to observe it.

"Having a feeling inside" and suddenly lifting your arm is not a choice; there is no alternative to choose from. Free will does not cover all human thought or movement. You can't choose whether your heart beats or whether your reflexes work. That doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Free will only applies when there is an alternative.

 

[itsnobody]

It's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning has this form: A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.

What are you talking about? It is circular reasoning and you gave no reasoning as to why it wasn't, in fact it matches the exact definition you just gave.

"Free will exists because I can choose to lift my arm and I can choose to lift by arm because free-will exists" , where A is free will and B is I can choose to lift my arm

So it matches the exact definition of circular reasoning

You gave an example of an action, and then already assumed that you chose that action, therefore free-will exists is just circular reasoning.

It's just like saying "Free-will exists because I already assume that I have free-will and can choose to lift my arm"

How can you conclude that you can choose any action if don't already assume that free-will exists?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. My free will is not justified by a complex argument but is a fact that I grasp just by thinking about it.

Just a faith-based belief, based off faith or "belief without evidence"

I guess I can prove that an afterlife or God exists by saying "it is a fact that I grasp just by thinking about it"

All arguments need starting points. Can you prove that existence exists? No. But I grasp that fact and I know that existence exists. The same is true for free will.

Sure you can prove that existence exists, but first you would have to define existence.

Well at least you can admit that you require absolutely no shred of evidence to believe in free-will and just take in on nothing more than faith that it exists

Well I declare myself the winner of this debate, you and all the other atheists who believe in free-will must openly admit that science and evidence have absolutely nothing to do with your disbelief in God or an afterlife

 

[itsnobody]

Here's how anyone can know that they have free will, using the example above.

First, observe that you have a choice. You can either lift your arm, or not lift your arm. Choose one or the other.

Voila. You had an alternative, and you made a choice. That is free will. There's nothing circular about it; you don't have to assume it exists in order to observe it.

Just circular reasoning again.

"First, observe that you have a choice." - The pre-assumption that you already have free-will is made here

"You can either lift your arm, or not lift your arm. Choose one or the other." - What? How did you conclude that you can either lift your arm or not lift your arm, oh I know, because you already assume that you have choices and that free-will exists

The summary of your argument is "The reason why free-will exists is because I already assume that I have free-will and can make choices...checkmate!"

Without already pre-assuming that free-will exists you would instead conclude that the decision to lift your arm or not is made by neurons in your brain and the feeling that you were responsible for that action is just perception

"Having a feeling inside" and suddenly lifting your arm is not a choice; there is no alternative to choose from. Free will does not cover all human thought or movement. You can't choose whether your heart beats or whether your reflexes work. That doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Free will only applies when there is an alternative.

What are you talking about? This entire time your argument is nothing more than laughable circular reasoning.

All you're doing is giving examples of actions then already assuming that you have choices and that free-will exists

 

[itsnobody]

I did give an actual reason. But then, since you don't think you have free will, this discussion is pointless. Without free will, you would be unable to read, understand, or act on anything I'm saying. Without free will, you are free to avoid taking responsibility for your life.

Actually not, you gave no reasons and I already believe in free-will to some extent but I also believe in an afterlife and that the physical brain is not the mind and that modern science is fatally flawed

No, I said that I have free will because I can observe it in myself.

Observe it in yourself? Are you saying that you believe that free-will exists because your sensory perception tells you so?

The physical brain is not the mind.

The mind is not physical (it's mental)
The body is not mental (it's physical)
The mind has no location (location is a physical attribute), just as thought and emotion don't have a location
Human life requires a body and a mind
The body cannot exist on its own without a mind
The mind cannot exist without a body
The mind is an attribute, not of the body, but of the person (the body is also an attribute of the person)

Using your example, looking for free will in the physical brain would be like looking for the price of a radio inside a radio.

Hmm...well based on this statement this tells me that you do not believe in modern science and that you believe in a mind or soul beyond the physical brain, so do you believe in an afterlife then?

An afterlife and free-will are directly connected because they both have to do with what consciousness is composed of....do you then believe that consciousness continues after death?

So you already don't believe in modern science right?

"We assume that we have free will and that we make decisions, but we don't. Neurons do. We decide that this sum total driving us is a decision we have made for ourselves. But it is not" - Rodolfo Llinás, Top Neuroscientist

Most neuroscientists do not believe in free-will and have concluded that it is nothing more than an illusory perception.

Here's a paper from Stanford by Mark Hallett on free-will - http://bioethics.stanford.edu/conference/hallett.pdf

"No evidence can be found for the common view that it [free-will] is a function of our brains that causes behavior" - Mark Hallett, PhD

Right now in neuroscience it's the consensus that there is no such thing as free-will, only a very small minority of neuroscientists think that free-will exists, but these are the same neuroscientists that believe that the physical brain is not the mind

Not a feeling. It's an observation, using introspection.

What observation?

No, I don't believe in God or an afterlife. ("Afterlife" seems to me to be a contradiction: "after your life is over, your life is not over")

So if you believe that the physical brain is not the mind how can you believe that consciousness ends at death?

This is just contradictory, how do you know that consciousness ends at death if you believe that the mind is not the physical brain?

You are entertaining yourself based on a logical fallacy. Proofs are only required to show something exists, not to proof something doesn't exist. No proof that God doesn't exist is needed. (Having said that, I do have some very good arguments for why God doesn't exist).

What are you talking about? I never asked you for proof that "God doesn't exist" you're just using a straw man

Which logical fallacy did I use?

I instead argued that anyone who believes in free-will must admit that science and faith has nothing to do with their disbelief in God

 

[low preference guy]

Sure you can prove that existence exists, but first you would have to define existence.

rotfl!

The concept of proof presupposes the concept of existence! What you're doing is equivalent to accepting the existence of odd numbers and then asking for a proof of the existence of numbers. Geez.