Is Hell Dead?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

Precisely: They can't, because it's fundamentally irrational. If they were able to find verifiable evidence that could have no other rational explanation, then it wouldn't be based in belief / wouldn't be in the realm of the unknown. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Scientific Method here as it's been done to death dozens of times before on this board alone.

Do you have a fundamentally rational reason for posting on NZG?

[pervy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Do you have a fundamentally rational reason for posting on NZG?

To discuss things, to interact with fellow humans.

Seems pretty rational to me.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Do you have a fundamentally rational reason for posting on NZG?

Dear god (see what I did there?), how is that even relevant?

Besides, everyone knows we're all here for the Hottie of the Day and Pic of the Day threads What better reason to come to a forum than boobs and lols?

[Lightspeed]

I'm trying to point out that what is "fundamentally rational" is not the basis of human experience. But maybe that is an aside.

The scientific method is great for understanding what can be observed and measured. I.e. a tiny fraction of human experience.

To insist that beliefs held outside of what can be grasped with the scientific method is unreasonable seems... unreasonable. It would be impossible to live a life without acting out of beliefs and values and only what can be in the moment scientifically justified.

[crocos]

Not necessarily unreasonable, but definitely irrational.

Hell, there's a lot of things I do/think/say that are not rational, but as long as I recognise those and don't try treating them as fact in inappropriate circumstances (EG: Educating others) then it's manageable. However I do strive to control & educate myself to minimise any irrational behaviours I have so as to become a more rational person.

[pervy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I'm trying to point out that what is "fundamentally rational" is not the basis of human experience. But maybe that is an aside.

The scientific method is great for understanding what can be observed and measured. I.e. a tiny fraction of human experience.

To insist that beliefs held outside of what can be grasped with the scientific method is unreasonable seems... unreasonable. It would be impossible to live a life without acting out of beliefs and values and only what can be in the moment scientifically justified.

So what you're saying is that the human experience includes that which cannot be observed and measured? How can you know of the existence of something that cannot be observed or measured?

To insist on the existence of something outside of what can be measured or observed is unreasonable.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part? Care to clarify?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

I think it's reasonable to believe that everything in nature has a mechanism, so to me this implies that it's a supernatural concept. Do you agree with this?

Yes, it seems that way unless there might one day be a place in physics for the indeterminacy of the quantum level without its randomness.

Though as I've previously stated, discussing 'freewill' is pointless as even if we accept determinism as true we are stuck with the presupposition of free will.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by crocos

Not necessarily unreasonable, but definitely irrational.

Hell, there's a lot of things I do/think/say that are not rational, but as long as I recognise those and don't try treating them as fact in inappropriate circumstances (EG: Educating others) then it's manageable. However I do strive to control & educate myself to minimise any irrational behaviours I have so as to become a more rational person.

Exactly. And there's something else that you don't seem to understand, Lightspeed. When you're engaging others in discourse or doing things/making decisions that affect others, it's good form -- provided you accept the equality of all humans -- to make your decision/argument on the basis of reasons/logic to which all reasonable adults are presumed to have access. This way you're actually treating someone as a person worthy of consideration (because they can actually see/discern the processes which you took) and are actually helping the world move forward.

There's a reason why most liberal societies insist on metaphysical neutrality -- we generally don't go around arguing over whether there is an afterlife or whether doing X or not doing X will land us in hell. We refrain not out of some kind of fear. The reason why we don't is that there's simply no generally acceptable method of reasoning that can resolve these issues and most sensible people don't sit around pointless arguing their brains out.

[adonis]

I tend to leave quantum mechanics out of discussions like this. I don't think our limited knowledge of it can have a practical impact, and on a macroscopic/pragmatic level I haven't observed a level of impact that would lead me to re-examine the assertion I've stated.

But aside from that, you didn't really answer my question? The reason I'm curious is because it seems like most people who believe in free will do not think that it's a supernatural belief. I'm not asking you to defend your belief, I just want to know what you think it is and how it interacts with reality.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think finding ridicule in spiritualism is a convenient defence against thinking about existential concerns that some people are too afraid think about. To take a leaf out of Hawkin's book.

Cute! Bizarre! Very useful ways of minimising what's too hard to know.

Hehe, cute.

You're silly.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

Not necessarily unreasonable, but definitely irrational.

Hell, there's a lot of things I do/think/say that are not rational, but as long as I recognise those and don't try treating them as fact in inappropriate circumstances (EG: Educating others) then it's manageable. However I do strive to control & educate myself to minimise any irrational behaviours I have so as to become a more rational person.

Okay, in some respects I'm the same as you. I do/think/say things that are not rational. I (at least attempt to) recognise these things and I don't treat them as fact in inappropriate circumstances.

I differ in the sense that I don't strive to control & educate myself for the purpose of minimising any irrational behaviour. Partly because I see no rational reason to do so. I do attempt to minimise self-defeating behaviour, but I think that's different.

[xor]

Originally Posted by pervy

Remember that if religious people could be reasoned with, there would be no religious people.

Originally Posted by pervy

Anyone and everyone, they can reason to a point, but that gets thrown out the window when it comes to anything regarding religion.

Your previous comment seems to contradict that Please don't post ignorant dribble.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

Exactly. And there's something else that you don't seem to understand, Lightspeed. When you're engaging others in discourse or doing things/making decisions that affect others, it's good form -- provided you accept the equality of all humans -- to make your decision/argument on the basis of reasons/logic to which all reasonable adults are presumed to have access. This way you're actually treating someone as a person worthy of consideration (because they can actually see/discern the processes which you took) and are actually helping the world move forward.

So what you're saying is we should only share experiences and knowledge that is based on and communicated with reason and logic, but anything we experience that doesn't makes sense or cannot be expressed with words should not be discussed?

[cyc]

And you wonder why I think you're a disgraceful piece of fraud, Lightspeed?

Stop being an intellectually dishonest and read what I said carefully, instead of putting words into my mouth. By all means tell me how you feel, for example, about a great piece of music by Chopin and what pictures that evokes. By all means tell anyone who's interested about your religious experience. What I am saying, however, is when you're engaging in discourse (in a debating sense) or making decisions that involve others, you should show a bit more respect and endeavour to use and appeal to those things that every adult presumably has and which most responsible people use to guide their behaviour where others' well-being is involved.

[Lightspeed]

Cool.

For the record, I am not attempting to engage in any kind of "discourse" as prescribed by cyc. I'm just saying what I want to say the way I want to say it. You know, just like everyone else.

[pervy]

Originally Posted by xor

Your previous comment seems to contradict that Please don't post ignorant dribble.

What? Those statements regard two separate things.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Cool.

For the record, I am not attempting to engage in any kind of "discourse" as prescribed by cyc. I'm just saying what I want to say the way I want to say it. You know, just like everyone else.

Stop being a dishonest fuck yet again. This isn't my fucking definition of a discourse -- it's the proper meaning of a discourse. And, no, most people in this thread aren't just posting whatever that comes out of their asses.

Stop debasing others based only on your pathetic standards. Not everyone aspires to be an intellectually dishonest slimebag.

[Lightspeed]

For the record I don't care what's proper.

Fear my powers of debasing.

[cyc]

Thanks for admitting that you're an asshole.

[pervy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

For the record I don't care what's proper.

Fear my powers of debasing.

[xor]

Originally Posted by pervy

What? Those statements regard two separate things.

No it's not.

[Vrtigo]

LULZ RECEIVED
OPERATION COMPLETE
/THREAD

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

But aside from that, you didn't really answer my question? The reason I'm curious is because it seems like most people who believe in free will do not think that it's a supernatural belief. I'm not asking you to defend your belief, I just want to know what you think it is and how it interacts with reality.

It's a experiential based belief with no 'empirical' evidence, so yeah it's a supernatural belief in the sense that it appears to transcend the laws of nature. I think that understanding the nature of consciousness is an essential input for explaining fee will. Here it's not clear that phenomenal consciousness can be explained by physical properties alone.

Also I'm not talking about a libertarian notion of free will independent from causality, I'm talking about a combatabilist will which operates within the framework of its own area of functionality. We are all (to differing degrees) driven by how we have been conditioned through environment and past experiences. Yes it seems that the physical world is causally closed, though this may not apply to first-person conscious experience.

My question to you is if fee will doesn't exist . . . 'so what?'

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

For the record I don't care what's proper.

How dare you not subscribe to the popular subjective epistemological framework! The Minitrue will be round at your house asap.

[Lightspeed]

If free will does not exist, is it reasonable to say that this would make us all puppets?

[crocos]

Personally I think you're asking the wrong question.

If free will doesn't actually exist, does it matter? As long as we have the perception of free will we should act as if we have free will.

And "puppets" implies that someone is controlling us, which there is no evidence for.

[Lightspeed]

So there's no evidence of us being under any kind of control, so does it stands to reason that free will does exist?

Originally Posted by crocos

we should act as if we have free will.

Is there some kind of alternative?

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Is there some kind of alternative?

Religion.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

So there's no evidence of us being under any kind of control, so does it stands to reason that free will does exist?

That's a disingenious and misleading question, but "No." is it's simple answer.

Just because we are (as far as we can tell) not under any consious control by another entity does not mean that we have free-will - there is a strong possibility that even our very thoughts are a classical physical process, and as such predictable if sufficient information is held.

Even if we introduce an element of quantum chaos / randomness into the mix it simply removes some of the predictability from the process, rather than implying that free will exists. Only some of the predictability, as it's still running within the templates laid down through prior experiences and happenstance.


Oh, and an alternative to acting as if we had free will? Sure: Making no attempt to reflect upon and alter one's own behaviours to align with desired outcomes.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My question to you is if fee will doesn't exist . . . 'so what?'

For future reference, It's not a libertarian notion of free will I described, it's an objectivist notion. As a libertarian I find being lumped in with the cult to be pretty insulting :P

As to your question It's not something I can give a universal answer to. Human beings are not motivated by rationality. What we do always comes down to the justification, "Because I desire it". I desire to understand the world around me, without embracing unreasonable beliefs. So for me the question is sort of irrelevant.

The concept of free will is so badly defined that I really have no idea what people mean by it. Free will is a concept that is always set against determinism, and determinism basically means accepting causality as the basis for human behavior. Self awareness does influence outcomes, for example we wouldn't be talking about these concepts if we weren't self aware. But the facts that we are conscious and have the ability to imagine possibilities aren't at odds with determinism, they work in conjunction with it.

So 'free will' ends up being... what exactly? A feeling that we aren't governed by laws? Is that it? Is 'free will' simply an emotion? If that's true then I would say that sometimes I have free will, even though I don't actually believe in free will as a metaphysical phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

If free will does not exist, is it reasonable to say that this would make us all puppets?

Nope. A puppet implies a puppeteer. A ragdoll might be a better metaphor

[adonis]

Originally Posted by crocos

Even if we introduce an element of quantum chaos / randomness into the mix it simply removes some of the predictability from the process, rather than implying that free will exists.

Pretty much. It's a very big stretch to say that there is a unique relationship between the influence quantum mechanics could have on human behavior, which is beyond the influence that it could have on the rest of reality.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by crocos

Oh, and an alternative to acting as if we had free will? Sure: Making no attempt to reflect upon and alter one's own behaviours to align with desired outcomes.

If we don't have free will then how are we able to act as if we do or don't for that matter. We don't have the power to act.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

For future reference, It's not a libertarian notion of free will I described, it's an objectivist notion. As a libertarian I find being lumped in with the cult to be pretty insulting :P

Not trying to insult you - I think a political libertarian and a libertarian in the context of free will are two different things??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...metaphysics%29

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Not trying to insult you - I think a political libertarian and a libertarian in the context of free will are two different things??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...metaphysics%29

Fair enough, it's just that philosophical libertarian views on 'free will' seem to differ atm, the description I gave came from Rand which is at odds with compatibilism.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

That's a disingenious and misleading question, but "No." is it's simple answer.

It wasn't meant that way...

Just because we are (as far as we can tell) not under any consious control by another entity does not mean that we have free-will - there is a strong possibility that even our very thoughts are a classical physical process, and as such predictable if sufficient information is held.

Even if we introduce an element of quantum chaos / randomness into the mix it simply removes some of the predictability from the process, rather than implying that free will exists. Only some of the predictability, as it's still running within the templates laid down through prior experiences and happenstance.

I'm not sure about the distinction between conscious or unconscious control? Control is control, right?

We clearly lack free will in many, easily identifiable ways (e.g. every morning I cannot wake up as anything but a human.) You can definitely understand why certain people make certain decisions, given their history, genetics, circumstances. However to identify why a single person takes a specific action (instead of the innumerable actions they might have taken) would require the observer to get involved with the observed, hence preventing any objective viewpoint. To me this makes human objects inherently quantum in nature, not classical.

Originally Posted by adonis

Nope. A puppet implies a puppeteer. A ragdoll might be a better metaphor

But what force tumbles the doll, why does it fall this way and not that?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by crocos

If free will doesn't actually exist, does it matter?

Perhaps. For example, we have a couple of posters here who really subtract value from the community every time they post and perhaps are best simply removed from society before they work out how to engage in serious harm. However, if this is occurring through non-active action on their part them perhaps a compassionate stay-of-execution is okay. Prisoners are a similar example. We can't have them run around amongst the rest of us (and the majority not wanting them to is all the justification needed) but perhaps they should get two-ply toilet paper to reflect they didn't really choose to act in a particular way and are just unlucky they're wired in a manner the rest of us don't like.

[DrTiTus]

Prisoners get to shit in front of their cell mate. I bet you love your 2 ply now.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

If we don't have free will then how are we able to act as if we do or don't for that matter. We don't have the power to act.

Muppet. We either have free-will or at least the perception of having free-will, so one should attempt to exercise that will.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by crocos

Muppet. We either have free-will or at least the perception of having free-will, so one should attempt to exercise that will.

I'm not sure that you are correctly interpreted what I'm saying.

We can only 'attempt to exercise that will' if we actually have it. So for someone to believe that actions are causally determined by previous events, while at the same asserting that they have the volition to act as if they can exercise will - is an oxymoron. Without will, you can't attempt anything.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I'm not sure that you are correctly interpreted what I'm saying.

We can only 'attempt to exercise that will' if we actually have it. So for someone to believe that actions are causally determined by previous events, while at the same asserting that they have the volition to act as if they can exercise will - is an oxymoron. Without will, you can't attempt anything.

But we are acting. Are you saying the fact that we are acting is proof of free will?