I started taking Sam Harris seriously when I couldn’t understand him. The Jordan Peterson debate was fun and all, but Peterson is too smart and bombastic for his own good. He’s very convincing, even to himself. Harris seems to be an unwitting proponent of Christianity. The best I’ve ever seen, which isn’t bad for an atheist. His argument against free will solves the paradox of “judge not lest ye be judged”, which I’ve never seen anyone plausibility tackle. Free will could certainly be an illusion but have no bearing on religion. Sam may be too “out there”, but he makes some good points. I find them interesting even when I disagree. It sure beats the mindless blather of GAs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 02:41AM by babyloncansuckit.

What movies has Sam Harris been in recently?

I slept on it, and it seems the prospect of no free will is just too scary. It’s okay until things go bump in the night.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I slept on it, and it seems the prospect of no
> free will is just too scary. It’s okay until
> things go bump in the night.

I wonder how much the prospect of taking responsibility for your existence is scary?

While explaining to ourselves about ourselves we should consider who is doing the talking and who needs to be convinced.

I refuse to have free will !!
Take that, Sam Harris !!

But...isn't refusing to have free will exercising free will?

:)

Yes. Isn't it amazing what a simple logical question can imply?

Now, follow that through and ask yourself another question: Where does this human freewill come from; i.e. what is the scientific explanation of this "fact" of freewill? If you take *that* question seriously you will be forced to make a radical adjustment to your worldview. :)

The illusion runs deeply

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, follow that through and ask yourself another
> question: Where does this human freewill come
> from; i.e. what is the scientific explanation of
> this "fact" of freewill?

Oh, that's easy. We're not really sure yet. Although in a non-predetermined universe, it's not that mysterious...

> If you take *that*
> question seriously you will be forced to make a
> radical adjustment to your worldview. :)

Nope.

"Oh, that's easy. We're not really sure yet. Although in a non-predetermined universe, it's not that mysterious..."

COMMENT: So, you believe in freewill, even though you do not have any scientific evidence for it, or for that matter even a scientific theory that supports it? It's all based upon your own subjective experience and faith that science will one day figure it out? How convenient. Now, apply this to the other metaphysical beliefs that you so roundly criticize because of the lack of scientific evidence, starting with belief in God. After all, maybe science will discover God some day; Or the soul; or survival of death, etc. etc.

Now, if I am mistaken above, please fill in the statement, "in a non predetermined universe, [freewill] is not that mysterious . . ." Any kind of explanation or theory (scientific of course, supported by evidence) will do. Also, some citations to the literature would be nice. Do you think Newtonian physics allows for freewill?; Einstein's theories of relativity?; Quantum Mechanics? Neuroscience? What else? The Standard Model? Quantum Field Theory? Please enlighten me.

I love the science as a matter faith angle. McKenna’s “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest” rap is highly entertaining. I don’t think we can understand free will without understanding time, and the consensus seems to be that we don’t understand time.

If time is an illusion, as Einstein put it, what is free will? All possibilities have already occurred and they are all playing out (depending on perspective) in tandem. It sounds preposterous, but so do quantum computers.

There are all flavors of Atheist. You have Judeo Christian Atheists like Sam Harris, who might as well be wearing a yarmulke for the way he talks. The fish who insists there is no water. I’ve never run across a Marquee de Sade or Joseph Stalin type of Atheist. No, they are all good folks with (ideal) Christian ethics. They like being king in their own house as well as their individual sovereignty, but conveniently forget that Christianity sold the world on that idea.

The main tie-in for us is that Mormonism is a malignancy on Christianity. There’s so much to sort out.

But it’s not about what Harris gets wrong, it’s about what he gets right. He’s asking the big questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2018 03:40PM by babyloncansuckit.

"I love the science as a matter faith angle. McKenna’s “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest” rap is highly entertaining."

COMMENT: Although, I would not say that science is a matter of "faith" or any "free miracles," I would say that science does involve a number of metaphysical assumptions. McKenna's comment was directed to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. That theory is not based upon a miracle or faith, it is based upon empirical facts related to the expanding universe, and the cosmic background radiation. However, it does involve a metaphysical assumption that under the laws of the universe, the expansion can be reversed to an initial singularity, representing the beginning of space and time. Under Einstein's theory of relativity, and a block universe, it is hard to understand just what "the beginning of time" actually means.
____________________________________________

"I don’t think we can understand free will without understanding time, and the consensus seems to be that we don’t understand time."

COMMENT: I agree. However, I would also point out that freewill cannot be understood without understanding consciousness, so the mystery of consciousness is related to the mystery of time. Note, however, that consciousness is not part of physics, and is just taken for granted, but time most certainly is found everywhere in physics, even though, as you point out, it is poorly understood at best.
_____________________________________________

"If time is an illusion, as Einstein put it, what is free will? All possibilities have already occurred and they are all playing out (depending on perspective) in tandem. It sounds preposterous, but so do quantum computers."

COMMENT: I agree with this comment. For me (and others) it tells us that there is something fundamentally wrong about relativity, and Einstein's characterization of time as essentially akin to a spacial dimension, and thus destroying our intuitive notion of the flow of time.
_____________________________________________

"There are all flavors of Atheist. You have Judeo Christian Atheists like Sam Harris, who might as well be wearing a yarmulke for the way he talks. The fish who insists there is no water. I’ve never run across a Marquee de Sade or Joseph Stalin type of Atheist. No, they are all good folks with (ideal) Christian ethics. They like being king in their own house as well as their individual sovereignty, but conveniently forget that Christianity sold the world on that idea."

COMMENT: Yes. They all want science as the definer of truth, while keeping their Judeo-Christian values, including their commitment to morality. Then, they (including most notable Harris in this discussion) engage in all sorts of distorted logic (and embarrassing argument) in an attempt to ground such views.
__________________________________

"The main tie-in for us is that Mormonism is a malignancy on Christianity. There’s so much to sort out."

COMMENT: The problem with religion generally is that it flourishes on the unknown and unknowable. When rationalists try to discount it, or tame it, through the tools of science, they may succeed around the edges, but ultimately fail simply because of science's own commitments to the inexplicable; like consciousness, freewill, and time.
__________________________________

"But it’s not about what Harris gets wrong, it’s about what he gets right. He’s asking the big questions."

COMMENT: O.K. perhaps he asks the right "big" questions, but he most certainly is not the first to ask such questions. Moreover, he invariably gives answers that do not stand up to logic and reason, for example in his characterization of morality and freewill.

Good comments. Although I have not followed the Harris-Peterson debates, I am somewhat familiar with Harris' muddled reasoning, and am always astonished that a guy with such limited academic credentials gets so much attention. Apparently, if you write a best-selling book, and are willing to take the stage, you are an authority.

“Note, however, that consciousness is not part of physics, and is just taken for granted, but time most certainly is found everywhere in physics, even though, as you point out, it is poorly understood at best.”

Although inroads are being made. We could go on all day about how Physics came to be where it is now. It takes “time” to get history sorted out. It’s all playing out, like archetypes on a stage. There’s a question of whether or not there are strings and who exactly is pulling the strings. It’s a different kind of string theory but curiosity related to the prevailing one.

Quite a lot was made of the interplay between time and space discovered by Einstein. Lorentz was the actual discoverer, but he didn’t have the hair. The powers that be went gaga over the energy equation, so here we are. But it was the relationship between those two things, a relationship now taught to undergrads, that changed the world.

The use of two-dimensional time could be similarly empowering because it marries QM to GR, and time to consciousness, without the aid of a shotgun. They can kiss and make up, and it will be a much better world. I wrote a paper on this. Mostly engineerese with a smattering of philosophy in the intro to lay out the rationale. I’m more interested in building things. I’d love for you to read the paper and comment on it.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: So, you believe in freewill, even though
> you do not have any scientific evidence for it, or
> for that matter even a scientific theory that
> supports it? It's all based upon your own
> subjective experience and faith that science will
> one day figure it out? How convenient. Now, apply
> this to the other metaphysical beliefs that you so
> roundly criticize because of the lack of
> scientific evidence, starting with belief in God.
> After all, maybe science will discover God some
> day; Or the soul; or survival of death, etc. etc.

I don't "believe" in anything.
And why do you irrationally demand I provide a scientific theory for something I just said we don't know about?
That's ridiculous.
I also expressed no "faith" of any kind that we will ever figure it out, so I haven't got a clue where you got that from.

Finally, I don't criticize beliefs as beliefs, metaphysical or otherwise. I criticize people who take beliefs and claim they're facts -- or "evidence." They're neither.

Talk about straw men...

> Now, if I am mistaken above, please fill in the
> statement, "in a non predetermined universe, is
> not that mysterious . . ."

If events in a universe are not pre-determined, then "choice" is possible. It's a really simple concept, and entirely reasonable/logical. Of course, we don't know for a fact our universe isn't pre-determined, and I didn't claim we did know. I simply pointed out that in such a universe, choice isn't at all mysterious. Or "metaphysical."

> Any kind of
> explanation or theory (scientific of course,
> supported by evidence) will do. Also, some
> citations to the literature would be nice. Do you
> think Newtonian physics allows for freewill?;
> Einstein's theories of relativity?; Quantum
> Mechanics? Neuroscience? What else? The Standard
> Model? Quantum Field Theory? Please enlighten me.

Once again, you make ridiculous demands -- I stated the simple fact that we don't know. It's absurd to demand scientific theories for things we don't know. If we had valid, evidence-backed theories, we'd already know. We don't. There's your enlightenment -- don't pretend to know when we don't.

Incidentally, none of the scientific theories you mentioned above either explicitly imply or exclude human "free will." So I can't imagine why you think they're relevant to the question...

Henry, please engage hie more often. This is awesome.

I don't "believe" in anything.
And why do you irrationally demand I provide a scientific theory for something I just said we don't know about?
That's ridiculous.

COMMENT: You don't believe in anything? That is absurd of itself. You are a human being that functions and acts in accordance with your conscious beliefs, as manifested by brain states and functions as coupled with the environment. That is a simple fact whether you acknowledge freewill or not.

Also, you said: "But...isn't refusing to have free will exercising free will?" This statement implies very clearly that you believe in freewill, since denying it would be exercising it. Moreover, to not believe in freewill is absurd, since your entire life depends upon the assumption of such a belief.
________________________________________________

I also expressed no "faith" of any kind that we will ever figure it out, so I haven't got a clue where you got that from.

COMMENT: You said regarding an explanation for freewill: "Oh, that's easy. We're not really sure yet." Again, this statement implies some sort of faith (the word "yet") that science will at some point figure it out.
__________________________________________________

Finally, I don't criticize beliefs as beliefs, metaphysical or otherwise. I criticize people who take beliefs and claim they're facts -- or "evidence." They're neither.

COMMENT: O.K. So you constantly "point out" (not criticize), that certain beliefs, like a belief in God, are without evidence. Assuming (1) you believe in freewill, based upon the above quoted comments (and since the lack of such a belief is an absurdity), and (2) assuming you do not have scientific evidence for freewill (since you cannot provide it, and there isn't any), then it follows that (3) you yourself have beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. ________________________________________________

If events in a universe are not pre-determined, then "choice" is possible. It's a really simple concept, and entirely reasonable/logical.

COMMENT: Mere possibility is not evidence of any fact; nor is possibility a theory as to how "choice" might be possible! It is possible that God and life after death exists, too. But, the belief is such is not evidence or even a theory of God. This is classic Hie-ism :)

__________________________________________________

Of course, we don't know for a fact our universe isn't pre-determined, and I didn't claim we did know. I simply pointed out that in such a universe, choice isn't at all mysterious. Or "metaphysical."

COMMENT: If freewill is acknowledged to exist, and science has no idea or explanation how freewill is possible under any existing theory, it *is* by definition a scientific mystery! Its lack of mystery can only be based upon intuition and subjective experience confirming that we have it. But subjective experience is not science, nor, by your constant insistence, evidence.
__________________________________________________

> Any kind of
> explanation or theory (scientific of course,
> supported by evidence) will do. Also, some
> citations to the literature would be nice. Do you
> think Newtonian physics allows for freewill?;
> Einstein's theories of relativity?; Quantum
> Mechanics? Neuroscience? What else? The Standard
> Model? Quantum Field Theory? Please enlighten me.

Once again, you make ridiculous demands -- I stated the simple fact that we don't know. It's absurd to demand scientific theories for things we don't know. If we had valid, evidence-backed theories, we'd already know. We don't. There's your enlightenment -- don't pretend to know when we don't.

COMMENT: O.K. we don't know. But by all your posts on this Board, you have denied maintaining any beliefs without evidence, and have, at least indirectly, criticized others who did have such beliefs. Yet, you believe, or at least act upon an assumption, that you have freewill--including all of your posts that represent your freely willed opinions and beliefs. But you have no evidence to support such a belief or to support any "rational" action based upon such an assumption.
_______________________________________________

Incidentally, none of the scientific theories you mentioned above either explicitly imply or exclude human "free will." So I can't imagine why you think they're relevant to the question...Incidentally, none of the scientific theories you mentioned above either explicitly imply or exclude human "free will." So I can't imagine why you think they're relevant to the question...

COMMENT: Wrong. They all do. They all, every single one, are either deterministic theories in principle, or probabilistic theories (QM). Both such theories explicitly and implicitly exclude freewill by definition of the processes they describe. (There is no mathematics of freewill!) Moreover, in most cases the success of the theory depends upon the absence of freewill, the operation of which would disrupt the physical processes they describe. This is not even controversial.

“There is no mathematics of freewill!”

A rather fascinating axiom of belief. Are mathematical concepts real before they are discovered, like unknown continents? Before Newton, was differential calculus sitting out there waiting to be discovered?

And if such mathematics were discovered, could it be the long-prophecied “sword of truth”? It could end the free will game, perhaps even time itself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 03:26PM by babyloncansuckit.

“There is no mathematics of freewill!”

A rather fascinating axiom of belief. Are mathematical concepts real before they are discovered, like unknown continents? Before Newton, was differential calculus sitting out there waiting to be discovered?

COMMENT: Well, what I meant was that there is no *known* mathematics of freewill. I suppose someone might "discover" some mathematical axioms and theorems that together explain freewill, but frankly, I have no idea what they would be like? It would certainly not be like anything we know of now. (But, then, I am not a mathematician!)

As to your second question, I tend to follow the realism of Kurt Godel and more recently Roger Penrose (and, of course others). To my way of thinking there is just too much correspondence between mathematics and physics, not to mention the advances in "pure mathematics," to explain away mathematics as merely a human invention. Obviously, that leaves a problem. What is its ontology; i.e. the nature of its existence? Penrose thinks there are three overlapping fundamental realities; the material world, mathematics, and mind. (See Penrose, Road to Reality, Chapter 1) How mathematics might relate to mind (including consciousness and freewill) is an interesting question that is conceptually challenging, even without specific mathematics. I can roughly think of consciousness as being represented by degrees of freedom in a Hamiltonian-like phase space, but freewill by definition transcends physical interactions. What is it, specifically, that makes a physical system conscious, such as to add this mysterious element of freewill? I have no idea, and the difficulty of the problem is precisely why most academics writing on this subject deny freewill.

This brings to mind chaos theorist Ralph Abraham’s description of mathematics as “the marriage of Father Sky to Mother Earth”.

How is time encoded? Does it come from the future or the past? Or both? I think these questions will be answered. I could be chasing unicorns, but maybe not. How would I know? I’m a zealot. History as the shock wave of eschatology makes sense to me.

But I’m drifting way off topic, maybe. Maybe free will, or its illusion, was never meant to last forever. It could all be a jigsaw puzzle to put together. When we’re done, we’re done. On to the next game level.

This from ifi- is certainly a belief:

“[Science is] the best method we humans have for determining fact. Anything factual is within it's "domain."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2150415,2151050#msg-2151050

Also, as you pointed out, the 2nd point doesn’t follow from the first. This isn’t a logical statement. But I believe ifi- believes it nonetheless.

Further, the statement is an act of faith. Anything factual is within Science’s domain? Surely it is a fact that Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street. Is that within the domain of Science?

There are countless like facts. But from everything I’ve read ifi- write, his faith about Science and it’s domain over any fact is likely unshakable. I’m sure, given the power of faith, ifi- could stuff the question of S. Holmes’s address into a scientific question, somehow.

Nothing wrong with belief and faith, mind you.

Human

"There are countless like facts. But from everything I’ve read ifi- write, his faith about Science and it’s domain over any fact is likely unshakable. I’m sure, given the power of faith, ifi- could stuff the question of S. Holmes’s address into a scientific question, somehow."

COMMENT: I diagnose Hie's problem as failing to realize that the mental aspects of reality, including consciousness and freewill (and creativity as represented in Sherlock Holmes' address), are not explainable by science. You cannot pigeon-hole all of reality into some theory of science. As such, there are things we are compelled to accept that science cannot confirm with scientific evidence. Thus, we have to accept that there are beliefs outside of science, and outside of scientific evidence, that are nonetheless rational, if not necessary, simply because they are based upon profound human experience, and/or humanist values.

P.S. Best personal regards, Human.

Now Henry, hie’s problem?

I tell them there’s no problems, only solutions.

Everybody’s got to have their thing and their own unique gifts. You can’t fault anyone for not agreeing with you. This is friendly sparring, not a slugfest.

Are you sure you don’t want to review ... Edit: On second thought, I’m having trouble sleeping now. So let’s not let this cat out just yet.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 05:09AM by babyloncansuckit.

Are there cartoons?

The presence of cartoons to help explain mean that you really do care about the little guy...

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: You don't believe in anything? That is
> absurd of itself. You are a human being that
> functions and acts in accordance with your
> conscious beliefs, as manifested by brain states
> and functions as coupled with the environment.
> That is a simple fact whether you acknowledge
> freewill or not.

You may find it absurd -- that doesn't make it non-factual.
My consciousness also provides a mechanism for eschewing belief. How about that.

> Also, you said: "But...isn't refusing to have free
> will exercising free will?" This statement
> implies very clearly that you believe in freewill...

No, actually it implies I have a sense of humor.

> Moreover, to not believe in freewill is absurd,
> since your entire life depends upon the assumption
> of such a belief.

Nothing in my life depends on any assumptions.

It appears to me that I have "freewill." That could, however, be just an illusion. The simple fact (as pointed out twice now) is that we don't know. I'm more than happy to proceed as if I do, absent evidence one way or the other, that proceeding that way does not imply either belief or assumption. Just practicality.

> COMMENT: You said regarding an explanation for
> freewill: "Oh, that's easy. We're not really sure
> yet." Again, this statement implies some sort of
> faith (the word "yet") that science will at some
> point figure it out.

It does no such thing. It's a simple statement of fact.
We may never know -- knowing in the future isn't explicit in ending with "yet."

Hint: try going by what I say, not by what you imagine I mean. It's easier and more accurate.

> COMMENT: O.K. So you constantly "point out" (not
> criticize), that certain beliefs, like a belief in
> God, are without evidence.

True. Generally only to those claiming "god" is some kind of fact, though.

> Assuming (1) you...

(assuming is always a bad idea)

> believe in freewill, based upon the above quoted
> comments (and since the lack of such a belief is
> an absurdity)

Oops. There goes your assumption (see above). I warned you assuming was a bad idea.

> and (2) assuming...

(still a bad idea)

> you do not have
> scientific evidence for freewill (since you cannot
> provide it, and there isn't any), then it follows
> that (3) you yourself have beliefs that are
> unsupported by evidence.

That's what you get for assuming.
See above.
Again.

> COMMENT: Mere possibility is not evidence of any
> fact

I never claimed it was. I simply said it wasn't "mysterious."

> nor is possibility a theory as to how
> "choice" might be possible!

I didn't offer any such theory. Or even suggest there was one.

> It is possible that
> God and life after death exists, too.

Sure. Although it depends on which "god" you're talking about (many of the thousands claimed are clearly excludable from possibility). I've never claimed otherwise.

> But, the
> belief is such is not evidence or even a theory of
> God. This is classic Hie-ism :)

Since this is all based on a false premise, and your own unfounded assumptions, it's more like a Henryism: proceeding from assumed and unsupportable premises as factual.

> COMMENT: If freewill is acknowledged to exist...

I don't acknowledge that.

> and
> science has no idea or explanation how freewill is
> possible under any existing theory...

Another twisted statement. Sigh.
Lots of scientists (not "science") have lots of hypotheses about how free will is possible. None have supporting evidence to lead us to conclusion as yet (and no, that doesn't imply that I "believe" someday they will). We do know it's possible. We don't know if it's a fact. And if it is a fact, we don't know the mechanism for it yet.

Which is what I put to start all this off. You did read that, didn't you?

> it *is* by
> definition a scientific mystery!

Well, yeah, we don't know "scientifically" yet if human "free will" is real, an illusion, or something else. So? That's what I put at the beginning! We don't know! Why are you repeating what I already told you as if it were some "gotcha?"

> Its lack of
> mystery can only be based upon intuition and
> subjective experience confirming that we have it.
> But subjective experience is not science, nor, by
> your constant insistence, evidence.

Given the explanation above, I'm not following this attempt at logic. It's self-contradictory...?


> COMMENT: O.K. we don't know.

Finally! You got it!

> But by all your posts
> on this Board, you have denied maintaining any
> beliefs without evidence, and have, at least
> indirectly, criticized others who did have such
> beliefs. Yet, you believe, or at least act upon an
> assumption, that you have freewill...

Wrong. See above. It's your own assumptions that are getting in the way here, not mine.

> --including all
> of your posts that represent your freely willed
> opinions and beliefs.

Since you can offer no evidence my posts and opinions (I don't post beliefs) are "freely-willed," I reject both your premise and conclusion. I myself feel like I have such a will, but I won't wrongly claim to know I do. 'Cause we don't know. That point you just conceded above.

> But you have no evidence to
> support such a belief or to support any "rational"
> action based upon such an assumption.

You're the who's incorrectly claimed I believe in free will or assume it. Not me. I've explained why that claim is mistaken, and poorly-thought out, and based on unsupportable assumptions. Please see above.

> COMMENT: Wrong. They all do. They all, every
> single one, are either deterministic theories in
> principle, or probabilistic theories (QM).

They are with regard to the particular phenomena they describe. Not with regard to EVERYTHING -- including human free will. None of them mention human free will in any way, either explicitly or implicitly. So wrong, they don't. None of them.

Now, there are of course a rash of philosophers (not scientists) who, prone to speculation as such folks are, like to pretend these theories DO have to do with human free will. But since that's largely dishonest (as none of them mention human free will in any way), speculative intellectual hand-waving, I tend to ignore such pretense and speculation.

> Both
> such theories explicitly and implicitly exclude
> freewill by definition of the processes they
> describe. (There is no mathematics of freewill!)

Please, by all means: find ANY description the scientific theory of Newtonian physics or Quantum Mechanics that mentions human free will in any way, shape, or form. I won't wait for you to find such a thing, as it doesn't exist. You can find, as I mentioned above, tons of philosophical speculation on the subject, but as none of that is part of the scientific theories, I'll just rest my case now.

> Moreover, in most cases the success of the theory
> depends upon the absence of freewill, the
> operation of which would disrupt the physical
> processes they describe. This is not even
> controversial.

Wait, you think there's something in Newtonian mechanics that says there has to not be human free will for the moon to orbit the earth? Or for an apple to fall from a tree to the ground?

What in the world have you been smoking, Henry?

Lots of scientists (not "science") have lots of hypotheses about how free will is possible. None have supporting evidence to lead us to conclusion as yet (and no, that doesn't imply that I "believe" someday they will). We do know it's possible. We don't know if it's a fact. And if it is a fact, we don't know the mechanism for it yet.

COMMENT: Name one, with a statement about what their hypothesis is. I know of none, except perhaps in the fringe.
_________________________________

> COMMENT: Wrong. They all do. They all, every
> single one, are either deterministic theories in
> principle, or probabilistic theories (QM).

They are with regard to the particular phenomena they describe. Not with regard to EVERYTHING -- including human free will. None of them mention human free will in any way, either explicitly or implicitly. So wrong, they don't. None of them.

COMMENT: Scientific theories, including all the one's I mentioned, are based upon providing a causal or mathematical explanation as to how the universe works. Causal explanations involve cause and effect relationships between physical events. Mathematical explanations involve theorems that are generated from axioms that are in principle either self-evident or supported by observation and experiment. All such theories assume causal closure, i.e. that there are no non-physical intervening factors, like god or mind, that interfere with the theory to disrupt (or compliment) their otherwise physical descriptions. To introduce mental causation (freewill) into such theories undermines them. It is like saying we need something outside of science and physics for our explanations. Science does not allow this. So, freewill is taboo--unless and until some theory surfaces that encompasses it. And so far there isn't one, or even the suggestion of one in science.
___________________________________

> Both
> such theories explicitly and implicitly exclude
> freewill by definition of the processes they
> describe. (There is no mathematics of freewill!)

Please, by all means: find ANY description the scientific theory of Newtonian physics or Quantum Mechanics that mentions human free will in any way, shape, or form. I won't wait for you to find such a thing, as it doesn't exist. You can find, as I mentioned above, tons of philosophical speculation on the subject, but as none of that is part of the scientific theories, I'll just rest my case now.

COMMENT: But that is precisely my point. They do not mention freewill because freewill is incompatible with their materialist, physicalist theories. They are not setting aside freewill for later discussion, or saying that there is some other theory about freewill that is outside their domain. They are saying that there is no such thing--because it is not compatible with scientific theory in any existing form. Put simply, Newtonian physics is entirely deterministic. There is no room or scientific space for freewill. Relativity implies a block, determined, universe. Again, no freewill allowed. QM initially postulated the possibility that a conscious measurement decision collapsed the wave function, but physicists dramatically revolted against this view, for the very reasons noted above, and bent over backwards to totally eliminate consciousness and freewill from QM, which is where it generally stands today.
______________________________________________

> Moreover, in most cases the success of the theory
> depends upon the absence of freewill, the
> operation of which would disrupt the physical
> processes they describe. This is not even
> controversial.

Wait, you think there's something in Newtonian mechanics that says there has to not be human free will for the moon to orbit the earth? Or for an apple to fall from a tree to the ground?

COMMENT: Newtonian mechanics describes how physical processes work (Newton's laws), which encompasses in theory every interaction and relationship in the physical world. Read, the three laws. I don't recall a fourth law that adds freewill. The suggestion that freewill can disrupt Newton's laws is precisely to say the laws are false; i.e. they do not explain how bodies move, you also need freewill.

(I should note that "Newtonian mechanics" in its modern sense encompasses Maxwell's electromagnetism, which also involves deterministic causal relationships that include electromagnetic fields. It also includes chemical processes on the molecular level. Obviously, when you get to atomic physics, quantum mechanics kicks in. But QM also does not encompass, or allow for freewill.)

Neuroscience is based upon classical Newtonian physics. That means that the brain itself operates in accordance with strict deterministic laws on the molecular level. It is all about cause and effect physical processes. If you ask a neuroscience, "what about freewill," he would say, "What about it? It doesn't exist because the brain is entirely a cause and effect Newtonian system. If you introduce freewill into those processes, you disrupt these causal relationships." You in effect throw a monkey wrench into the explanation that neuroscience is trying to provide. So, according to Neuroscience, everything we think, believe, or do is explainable by physical processes in the brain operating in accordance with deterministic Newtonian laws. I personally do not believe that, but that is what the science says.
________________________________________

What in the world have you been smoking, Henry?

COMMENT: Nothing yet, but I do live in California, and I keep my "peace pipe" close at hand.

I hardly know where to start.

First...Newtonian mechanics:

You say "Newtonian mechanics describes how physical processes work (Newton's laws), which encompasses in theory every interaction and relationship in the physical world"

I challenge you to find a modern physicist who believes that Newtonian mechanics encompasses every interaction in the physical world. Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are not completely compatible with Newtonian mechanics, yet both have experimentally verifiable evidence to support their correctness over Newtonian mechanics.

Second, Newtonian mechanics is completely detrministic IF you can determine the exact position and momentum of each particle in the universe at a given instant in time. Putting aside the practical impossiblity of this, there are other problems. According to Heisenberg's priciple, you cannot determine both the position and momentum exactly. Chaos theory shows that the outcome will be extremely sensitive to initial conditions which cannot be determined exactly. Further, quantum mechanics itself is probabilistic. The wave function at some point can have many possible values each of which has a certain probability. When the wave function collapses, it does not always result in the most probable value. As a result, it is not true that quantum systems are truly deterministic no matter how you manage to collapse the wave function.This randomness is inherent.

Further, you say "If you ask a neuroscience, "what about freewill," he would say, "What about it? It doesn't exist because the brain is entirely a cause and effect Newtonian system. If you introduce freewill into those processes, you disrupt these causal relationships."

Who says this Henry (other than you)? Provide a reference for this assertion.

You also say "So, according to Neuroscience, everything we think, believe, or do is explainable by physical processes in the brain operating in accordance with deterministic Newtonian laws. I personally do not believe that, but that is what the science says."

Again, Henry, give us a reference for this assertion. Otherwise, I must conclude that you have simply posted a bunch of strawmen.

You say "Newtonian mechanics describes how physical processes work (Newton's laws), which encompasses in theory every interaction and relationship in the physical world"

COMMENT: First, I was considering each theory independently. Newton's three laws of motion "in theory" were intended to encompass all of the laws of motion of physical bodies. I did not say it was the final word, in fact I said the opposite. The point was, and is, that if you introduce freewill into Newton's laws of motion, i.e. by suggesting that motion can be instigated not by physical processes, but by mental processes, they are undermined, because there is no "law" of freewill. Newton, did not say, "but for freewill, here are the laws of motion."
______________________________________

I challenge you to find a modern physicist who believes that Newtonian mechanics encompasses every interaction in the physical world. Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are not completely compatible with Newtonian mechanics, yet both have experimentally verifiable evidence to support their correctness over Newtonian mechanics.

COMMENT: Again, I was considering Newtonian mechanics independently, as suggested by Hie's cosmological example. But, if you consider Relativity or QM, neither have place for freewill, again for the same reason. These theories describe the world in mathematical terms. (Relativity is entirely deterministic, and QM is both deterministic (Wave function) and probabilistic (collapse) There is simply no scientific vehicle to introduce freewill into these theories.

_______________________________________________________

Second, Newtonian mechanics is completely detrministic IF you can determine the exact position and momentum of each particle in the universe at a given instant in time.

COMMENT: No. Newtonian mechanics is deterministic regardless of chaos theory. Chaos theory is itself deterministic. The fact that deterministic processes are complicated does render them non-deterministic.
___________________________________

Putting aside the practical impossiblity of this, there are other problems. According to Heisenberg's priciple, you cannot determine both the position and momentum exactly. Chaos theory shows that the outcome will be extremely sensitive to initial conditions which cannot be determined exactly. Further, quantum mechanics itself is probabilistic. The wave function at some point can have many possible values each of which has a certain probability. When the wave function collapses, it does not always result in the most probable value. As a result, it is not true that quantum systems are truly deterministic no matter how you manage to collapse the wave function.This randomness is inherent.

COMMENT: Even though the collapse of the wave function is uncertain and can result in outcomes that are probabilistically unexpected, the mathematics follows very precise probabilistic rules. There is nothing here that even suggests freewill.
____________________________________

Further, you say "If you ask a neuroscience, "what about freewill," he would say, "What about it? It doesn't exist because the brain is entirely a cause and effect Newtonian system. If you introduce freewill into those processes, you disrupt these causal relationships."

Who says this Henry (other than you)? Provide a reference for this assertion.

COMMENT: That is how neuroscience proceeds; i.e. by studying how neurons interact and "compute" in complex ways in order to bring about the various functions of the system. At this cellular level it is viewed as entirely deterministic. Neuroscientists would say that every aspect of human psychology and cognition is a function of such processes. There is no room in this theory for freewill to intervene in such processes. I will be happy to find numerous quotes on this issue. Here is one:

"The brain is a complex system par excellence whose complex components continually create complex patterns. The collective actions of individual nerve cells linked by a dense web of intricate connectivity guide behavior, shape our thoughts, form and retrieve memories, and create consciousness." (Sporns, Networks of the Brain) This description is deterministic, as are all descriptions of brain function in neuroscience.

Further, you say "If you ask a neuroscience, "what about freewill," he would say, "What about it? It doesn't exist because the brain is entirely a cause and effect Newtonian system. If you introduce freewill into those processes, you disrupt these causal relationships."

Who says this Henry (other than you)? Provide a reference for this assertion.

COMMENT: In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick of DNA fame, and a biologist turned neuroscientist, states:

"The Astonishing hypothesis [of neuroscience] is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." (Page 3)

Crick, then discusses the neurological processes that he thinks may be associated with various emotions, including the feeling of freewill, and references discussions with other neuroscientists who share his view, essentially as stated above. The above statement is *the* starting assumption in all neuroscience.

Neuro-philosopher, Patricia Churchland, a collogue and friend of both Crick, and another famous neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio, discusses the causal problems associated with freewill. She states:

"Why and how does a break in causality occur just for those particular brain events that supposedly are paradigm cases of choice? . . . If, as is entirely likely, the brain events constituting choice are uncaused, what precisely are their relations to background desires, beliefs, habits, emotions, and so forth. . . Flippant answers to empirically informed questions are, of course, always possible: 'It just works like that' or 'Magic!' Unless the hypothesis can interdigitate [interlock] with neurobiology and cognitive science to come up with nonfrivolous answers to these questions, however, it will continue to look nakedly ad hoc." (Brain-Wise, p. 233-234)

In short, according to neuroscience, it is all the brain, and principles of physical causation (Newtonian) preclude the interjection of freewill. There are numerous other similar accounts of this basic position in neuroscience.

Note: Now, I happen to disagree with this view. However, everything I say on this Board is grounded in the underlying scientific literature as related to the topic at hand. I do not make it up. You should keep that in mind. Sometimes in my haste I am not as clear as I would like to be, but it is NEVER my own thought or opinion. I am not that smart.

I guess what I really object to is your (very) sloppy use of language.
In science Newtonian mechanics has a specific meaning . If you mean deterministic, then use that term. The two are not really synonymous because Newtonian mechanics is a specific thing which does NOT explain every "interaction and relationship in the physical world".


You originally stated "Newtonian mechanics describes how physical processes work (Newton's laws), which encompasses in theory every interaction and relationship in the physical world". It simply doesn't. Now you try to backtrack and say "I did not say it was the final word, in fact I said the opposite"
Then say what you mean Henry. The problem here again is your incorrect use of the term Newtonian mechanics.

Which of your neuroscientists uses the term "Newtonian mechanics" in their arguments? It may seem like nitpicking, but words have meaning Henry, and if you use them improperly it obfuscates your point.

Finally you assert that quantum mechanics is deterministic because "Even though the collapse of the wave function is uncertain and can result in outcomes that are probabilistically unexpected, the mathematics follows very precise probabilistic rules."

But the outcomes occur randomly which makes it nondeterministic.
An example: You can take a pair of dice and toss them a large number of times. The results will (within the limits of probabilistic error) match the distribution predicted by the laws of probability. Those laws, however, will not allow you to determine what the next throw, or the one after that, or the one after that will be. You will be able to predict the odds of any result occurring, but the actual results are random and thus you cannot determine in advance what they will be.

I guess what I really object to is your (very) sloppy use of language.

COMMENT: Here I would agree. But this Board is not a context where you can expect perfect language all the time. Moreover, my sloppy language was the result of a reaction to the post I was responding to, and not intended as universal principles.

Where are you when my comments are right on? Where are you when someone else makes a questionable comments? Where are *your* substantive opinions about this issue? Are you here just to criticize me? You asked for quotes and I gave them to you--after you denied they exist. No comment on that?

In any event, thank you for your comments.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess what I really object to is your (very)
> sloppy use of language.
>
> COMMENT: Here I would agree. But this Board is not
> a context where you can expect perfect language
> all the time. Moreover, my sloppy language was the
> result of a reaction to the post I was responding
> to, and not intended as universal principles.

Yet you made the statement noted above generalizing Newtonian mechanics.

> Where are you when my comments are right on?

I'm not here all of the time Henry. I have objected to many other posters as well.

> Where are you when someone else makes a
> questionable comments? Where are *your*
> substantive opinions about this issue? Are you
> here just to criticize me? You asked for quotes
> and I gave them to you--after you denied they
> exist. No comment on that?

I asked for quotes that stated that the brain operated in accordance with deterministic Newtonian laws. None of your quotes mentions Newtonian laws. As I noted above, deterministic does not equal Newtonian. So again, I objected to your use of that term.
Pedantic? I plead guilty.

> In any event, thank you for your comments.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All such theories assume causal
> closure, i.e. that there are no non-physical
> intervening factors, like god or mind, that
> interfere with the theory to disrupt (or
> compliment) their otherwise physical descriptions.
> To introduce mental causation (freewill) into such
> theories undermines them.

I'm going to skip most of your response, but that, there...
That's up there in the biggest pile of doo-doo I've ever heard.

Newton's laws don't mention "mental causation" because:
a) it's not established there is any such thing
b) the laws of motion work as described (at least at non-relativistic speeds/masses) whether there's "free will" or not
c) they're all described in terms that describe the sum of all forces acting on an object, which is entirely valid whether there's any "mental causation" producing such a force or not.

You've essentially taken math that describes the behavior of physical forces acting on objects with mass and declared that me deciding to take a nap invalidates it.

Which is easily the most absurd thing I've ever seen written here. Not to mention entirely lacking any confirming evidence of any kind.

I'm back to asking what you're smoking...

Have a nice night, Henry.

edited to add: no assumptions about "non-physical intervening factors" are made in any of the theories or mathematical descriptions. Know why? 'Cause there's no evidence there's any such thing. So they're not mentioned. Not mentioning something has never been shown to affect anything when considering forces acting on objects is not an assumption, it's how science and rational thinking are done. If/when there's ever any evidence of such a thing, and if such a thing can be shown to affect something, it can be fit into the laws/theories without missing a beat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 09:38PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Isaac Newton was a total believer in mental causation. It’s strange that you would bring up such a believer of alchemy, the occult and the supernatural. Too bad he’s not here to refute you. Before rationalism took over the world, mental causation as far as popular wisdom was concerned was the cause of material reality. In that language, “in the beginning was the word” made perfect sense. The real question is whether we have lost our senses. Naturalism has fixed the material problems of life but can’t penetrate the metaphysical realm by your own admission. As distasteful as religion and/or spirituality might be, where is its replacement?

Maybe what bugs you is that you’ve never seen mental causation firsthand. That’s the curse of the brainiacs. You try to pin it down but it eludes you, as if it’s an indication you’re not special enough to have such experiences. If I hadn’t been married to my ex, with her freaky gifts, I wouldn’t believe it either. Mental causation was a normal thing in our family. Telepathy, precognition, mind control, I saw it all. And the miracles. Stuff that absolutely should not have happened. Reality just doesn’t warp like that. Except when it does. Simple minded faith goes way beyond the mind. If I tried to explain it away, I would be pretending. Just as if I were still in TSCC.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 05:19AM by babyloncansuckit.

Isaac Newton was a total believer in mental causation. It’s strange that you would bring up such a believer of alchemy, the occult and the supernatural. Too bad he’s not here to refute you. Before rationalism took over the world, mental causation as far as popular wisdom was concerned was the cause of material reality. In that language, “in the beginning was the word” made perfect sense. The real question is whether we have lost our senses. Naturalism has fixed the material problems of life but can’t penetrate the metaphysical realm by your own admission. As distasteful as religion and/or spirituality might be, where is its replacement?

COMMENT: We are talking about Newton's physical theories here, not is metaphysical beliefs.
_____________________________________

Maybe what bugs you is that you’ve never seen mental causation firsthand. That’s the curse of the brainiacs. You try to pin it down but it eludes you, as if it’s an indication you’re not special enough to have such experiences. If I hadn’t been married to my ex, with her freaky gifts, I wouldn’t believe it either. Mental causation was a normal thing in our family. Telepathy, precognition, mind control, I saw it all. And the miracles. Stuff that absolutely should not have happened. Reality just doesn’t warp like that. Except when it does. Simple minded faith goes way beyond the mind. If I tried to explain it away, I would be pretending. Just as if I were still in TSCC.

COMMENT: I believe in mental causation! I was explaining why theoretical scientists generally do not! I have long been a champion of freewill on this Board. My point is that such a view is not compatible with modern science, making modern science either false or incomplete. But, if incomplete it further means that some aspect of the theory is false. Again, it is not that science has placed freewill on the shelf, it is because freewill is incompatible with a scientific view of the world.

No, I was replying to hie. Sorry about not providing enough context. I’m being the class clown. You’re taking all of this too seriously, given that you know how hie is. Isn’t this all academic? I hope hie gets something out of this. Manager types can stand to have discussions with people who don’t kiss their butts.

You've essentially taken math that describes the behavior of physical forces acting on objects with mass and declared that me deciding to take a nap invalidates it.

COMMENT: According to neuroscience, your deciding to take a nap is completely the result of deterministic brain processes and has nothing to do with freewill. Freewill is deemed an illusion; a psychological effect that itself is a product of some deterministic brain process. (I do not believe this, but this is the standard neuroscientific position.)
_________________________________________

no assumptions about "non-physical intervening factors" are made in any of the theories or mathematical descriptions. Know why? 'Cause there's no evidence there's any such thing. So they're not mentioned. Not mentioning something has never been shown to affect anything when considering forces acting on objects is not an assumption, it's how science and rational thinking are done. If/when there's ever any evidence of such a thing, and if such a thing can be shown to affect something, it can be fit into the laws/theories without missing a beat.

COMMENT: You are wrong. All classical scientific theories encompass "the causal closure of the physical." It is not just that they think that there is no evidence for mental causation. It is because if you add a mental component to physical causation, it entirely disrupts the chain of physical causes that they are postulating in their explanation of a physical event. It creates what is called "causal overdetermination") It is thus incompatible. That is why mental causation (freewill) is denied. (For a complete discussion of this see, Jaegwon Kim, Mind in the Physical World)

Are you saying that science is yet another religion? That’s what I’m reading. Why not, if free will is our experience? It’s all part of inter dimensional space monkeys playing the wetware game. No wonder we die, this is no country for old men. Although inter dimensional technology would let us live longer lives. We’ll get it soon enough.

It could be all about the illusion. The clock goes tick tock. Life and love go on. The great cosmic love story, Earth. Who would leave that up to chance?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 09:56AM by babyloncansuckit.

I’m not sure I’d characterize neuroscience as Newtonian. I’m sure you mean materialist, in the notion that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical processes. I mean it is, even from your point of view, although the definitions of “physical” differ. Your objection is the taboo of mental (as in outside the skull) causation. Naturalism has its own “thou shalt nots”. But if your position is correct, those taboos will fall away in due time.

We exist in the material world and a timeless eternal world simultaneously, according to some Johnny come lately physical theories. Hence two-dimensional time. Our eternal selves are “quantum-entangled” or something akin to it with material reality. What our religions have been saying all along. I’m sure this pisses some people off. I’m just trying to explain rather than explain away. Because explaining away doesn’t work for me. It might not work for others either. Sorry in advance for the triggers.

If that’s actually true then it’s some serious weirdness because if our cryogenic quantum computers can only handle a few qubits without serious decoherence problems, how are living systems doing it at room temperature? The easy answer is they aren’t, but nature is anything but easy. But I think Penrose and Hameroff worked out a plausible basis for that.

Now back to mental causation, at least in the moment, and this is pure speculation, miracles are an effect of mind-induced quantum coherence. Above a certain threshold, matter gives way to mind. It’s very rare but it happens. There is a physics of belief. Experiments are notoriously difficult because skepticism and other non-local (in time and space) effects scuttle the results. However, since the world is lightening up, I would expect such experiments to be more feasible than in years past.

Are we having fun yet? I know I am. Woo hoo hoo! In case you were missing Art Bell.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 05:58AM by babyloncansuckit.

I’m not sure I’d characterize neuroscience as Newtonian. I’m sure you mean materialist, in the notion that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical processes.

COMMENT: "Newtonian" as a modern concept is not limited to Newton's three laws of motion and his law of gravitation. It encompasses "classic" physics, which essentially means deterministic physics. Einstein's relativity expanded and arguably corrected Newton by establishing "spacetime" and eliminating absolute space, but it remained a "classical" theory by preserving Newtonian deterministic processes. ("God does not play dice!) "Materialist" is simply a metaphysical view that claims that all of reality can be explained by known physics, including quantum field theory, without resort to mind.
____________________________________________

The rest of your comments need to be organized for another discussion.

Cool, I’ll play. You start it.

I think we’re getting at the root of institutions, seeing the tone of this thread. Specifically, those that educate the young. It occurs to me that the German education system started WWII. Hitler is just a scapegoat. Nutty institutions like Mormonism aren’t just harmless curiosities. They’re a disaster waiting to happen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 01:22PM by babyloncansuckit.

We always have free will. That isn't the problem. It's that the choices all suck.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We always have free will.


Depends (in my opinion) on what choices. Like the stupid Mormon example of not needing the "holy spirit" to decide which brand in the supermarket (which actually might be important) the concept of free will might be more "real" in regards to small things like brands of a type of cereal (tastes are more determined) than gender designation of sexual partners.

I don't believe in the concept batted around by people that it is some free agent do what I will free will. Sartre's bad faith seems to but a bad taste in my mouth and I freely spit out the concept of free wheeling will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 06:18PM by Elder Berry.

I'm renting my will. I'd like to have 'free will' but everyone knows there ain't no such thing as free will. Not to mention that I still don't have a stand on free Willy.

And free won't is just as good.

We MUST believe in free will! We have no choice!

I have heard very few things I disagree with Sam about in any debate, interview, speech or book.
Peterson, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense, until it comes to equal rights for women and minorities, which is why hes a favorite of incels and other white males who cant get laid to save their lives.

This is why Peterson should support Sam Harris in his free will theories. Maybe some guys aren’t meant to get laid.

I know something and it is life changing.

This discussion is worthless. My micro world doesn't allow for a macro viewpoint. I probably doesn't matter in the least what I do because my decision cannot impact the universe. Whatever is going to happen will happen.

But on the other hand everything I do will effect me. So I get to decide.

This isn't metaphysics this is simple reality. It doesn't matter to much where the ability for me to choose to brush my teeth or not came from. But I'll bet it is the same place as where a cat deciding where to take a dump came from.

Love the reply.

I thought so too, but Sam Harris provides a solution other than “don’t do that”. Jesus said judge not that ye not be judged. Okay, that’s a koan because it doesn’t make any sense. If you take it at face value, you’ll get hammered. So where’s the truth in it? Sam the unwitting Rabbi takes a stab at it. He could be as full of it as your cat.

Free will is a belief system that exists for its metaphysical power. It’s the thing that drives life forward, like manifest destiny or Moore’s Law. Belief is the pole that pulls futures into being. So beliefs matter. They matter more than factual truth because they bring those factual truths into existence. Now, it’s not my fault or your fault that the church devolved into a tyrannical structure. But that’s not a belief problem, since there are plenty of constructive beliefs.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that’s not a belief
> problem, since there are plenty of constructive
> beliefs.

And many of them aren't true.

It is very constructive to think you aren't (you as in the general faceless person) a complete rotten asshat with nothing to contribute to the life of other people than your painful presence.

I’ll put nihilism on my to do list.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Free will is a belief system that exists for its
> metaphysical power.

How do you define free will? For me it is simply the ability to choose to do something. Since I neither believe that I have the ability to choose or believe in the metaphysical; I simply know that I choose to brush my teeth.

> It’s the thing that drives
> life forward, like manifest destiny or Moore’s
> Law.

I'm of the opinion that what drives my "life" forward is my desire to not die. But if by life you mean my desire to be happy I'll say that portion is my desire to not be sad.

> Belief is the pole that pulls futures into
> being.

And I think that my undeniable desire to copulate is what pulls futures into being.

> So beliefs matter.

Yes they do matter.

> They matter more than
> factual truth because they bring those factual
> truths into existence.

Nothing can be willed into existence or believed into existence. Belief can be a determining factor in creating a false perspective but it cannot create reality. There is the observable fact that a preserving person with a desire to create can create. But it is a disservice to that person to tell them that their belief created when it was instead their perseverance.

> Now, it’s not my fault or
> your fault that the church devolved into a
> tyrannical structure.

It isn't the tyranny that I have issue with. I have issue with it not being true.

> But that’s not a belief
> problem, since there are plenty of constructive
> beliefs.

Beliefs can be constructive, they just aren't and independent metaphysical power.

I can see the truth being a sore spot, with TSCC being a lying POS and all. Maybe I’m having a temporary fit of optimism. It will pass soon enough. But truth isn’t the problem. Mormon conditioning is the problem. It taught us to hate lies and deception and then turned out to be the king of lies and deception. But only because the lies could not be sustained. We’ve basically swapped one set of lies for another, which this thread goes into some depth about.

As a practical matter, the majority of what passes for truth in any given age is later found to be bogus. Joe’s pervy sex cult set us up to have such a visceral reaction to being lied to. Shame on him.

I think things through by writing. You don’t have to agree. I see what I see and you see what you see. I’m not satisfied to simply bash Mormonism, as much fun as that is. The falsehood of Mormonism raises more questions than it answers.

“Maybe I’m having a temporary fit of optimism.”

Okay, I’m over it. Screw the church. They are sick, sick, sick. No kid of mine will have an interview ever.

Here's a lovely essay exploring free will. Is God a Taoist, Raymond Smullyan, 1977.

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

My personal opinion is that free will is as real as a sunset.

Sunsets, of course, are deeply satisfying illusions that we maintain even though we now know precisely what is really going on - it's just the surface of the earth is spinning into the earth's own shadow.

We don't know precisely what is going on with free will (and that is true whether it exists as we perceive it, or not). I admit that I am taking it on faith that what we perceive as free will is an illusion. I also have faith that we will eventually unravel the illusion, but I could be wrong on that. I have no trouble imagining a world that runs exactly as our world does now, without the need to posit free will.

It must be difficult living with uncertainty on such fundamental questions.

Difficult and intellectually honest.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My personal opinion is that free will is as real
> as a sunset.
>
> Sunsets, of course, are deeply satisfying
> illusions that we maintain even though we now know
> precisely what is really going on - it's just the
> surface of the earth is spinning into the earth's
> own shadow.

That's a satisfying way of putting it, BoJ! :)

If we knew everything, there wouldn’t be free will. Given our current condition, how could we not have free will? Or what’s the point in not believing in it? Sam Harris may be engaging in Impressionism for the sake of doing so.

It’s useful to note that many of his ideas were guided by MDMA, which he freely admits. If he did find some deep truth there, it’s not necessarily objectively true. Maybe subjectively true for him. Psychedelics are wonderful liars. He could just be an entertaining tripster.

An evolved creature with free will is oxymoronic.