Determinism vs. Free Will

[Dre89]

Alt, if you know that "obtains in reality" meant exist, then you wouldn't need an alternate definition. Doggs probably said "it means it's real" because he thought you weren't aware "obtains in reality" means exist.

And Alt in science you're still appealing to authority, it's just usually not fallacious. Often, you're not quoting/paraphrasing merely because they articulate the point better, but also because that's where you learned that point. I know this going to make me sound simple and stupid, but whenever you're quoting results done from an experiment that you yourself haven't done, then that's appeal to authority because you are placing trust in that person's experiment and honesty.

 

[AltF4]

This is quite a divergence from the original topic, but I know what you're saying. But this isn't just a science issue, but rather a problem with knowledge more generally.

How can you know anything about mathematics without solving all the equations yourself? Unless you do, everything is just an appeal to authority.

There's really two kind of appeals to authority. (or at least two) There's the kind that says: "X is true because person Y says so. And I trust Y, so I assume X is true."

And then there's "Person Y says X is true, but then also gives everyone the ability to recreate Y's work independently." Which is how science works. (And any respectable field of study) Authorities are never important. Not even Einstein could come out and just declare something true without providing full and complete evidence and a method for recreating the work.

 

[Dre89]

Fair enough, I'll concede that.

Now to get this thread back on track- if I don't have free will, then I'm just like a robot. But why is it then that I have a notion of "self" or "I", how is that that I have a constant consciousness?

If I was determined, then my mind would just be a chain of thoughts, but I seem to have a consciousness distinct from my thoughts. This is what distinguishes us from robots. A robot doesn't have a consciousness, otherwise you'd be saying a robot is sentient, which is absurd. A robot simply has a chain of commands.

To me determinism is not compatible with consciousness because consciousness is not necessary if we are simply a chain of thoughts.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

When someone says they believe some non-physical entity exists and that science is useless to the topic, I usually just roll my eyes. This is the death throes of a bad argument. Once you realize that your argument can't work, you just resort to: "Oh, yea? Well it doesn't have to make sense, because it's magic!"

So you don't believe that consciousness, thoughts, and feelings exist?

I just want to hear how you define these terms.


I'm not resorting to anything. I am simply stating that science cannot explain everything. How can you expect to explain something like free will, which is clearly not a physical thing, in terms of physical laws? It does not work!

Now I will try to answer your questions more directly.

How exactly does Free Will work? Some gland, or chemical that violates physical law?

I answered this already. Choice is something you experience. What else can I say?

And is it just humans? What about monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, flies, mites, bacteria, viruses, rocks? What causes the line to be drawn where it is?

It has to do with our level of awareness. Some animals besides humans are self-aware. But humans are the only animals that are aware that they are self-aware.

What would happen if you made an exact, atom-for-atom duplicate of a person? Should we expect them to drop down dead because the copy has no "mind"?

If a body spontaneously appeared out of nowhere without a consciousness this body at most might be able to survive in a permanent vegetative state, but my guess is that it wouldn't be able to survive. Think about it: what does it mean if we are "unconscious"? It means that we are without consciousness/awareness, thoughts, and feelings.

Besides, people are made up of their experiences from their whole lives. Even if this random body is created with a mind he would not know how to talk, eat, pee correctly; he'd be strait up ******** and not a normal person by any standards.

Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either have it or not. There's no in-between. So, then at what point in the human development cycle does Free Will occur? Clearly, the mass of a few dozen cells shortly after conception doesn't have Free Will. But a grown adult does? So at what exact developmental period does Free Will occur? And what causes it to?

Our free will develops as our awareness develops from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. We have no awareness as a mass of cells, so we have no free will at that time. Toddlers and children have some awareness but they are still developing i.e. learning the difference between right and wrong. Adults for the most part have full awareness of their actions and choices.

I think you may be thinking about this concept a little too much, and going into too much detail. Because the way I see it, free will is actually a really simple thing. It simply means that I have control over my actions, and that I can choose to act any way I see fit. A machine, no matter how sophisticated, is unable to pick a color pen without first being programed by someone else what color to pick, and it absolutely must follow its programming. But I know that I can choose whichever color I want, because I am my own programmer for my actions.

 

[Theftz22]

Excellent question. You'll notice the section you're reading (link here for those following along: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Critical_reactions) is titled "Critical Reactions". Which is true, when the Uncertainty Principle first came out, there was a lot of people who couldn't believe it. Notably Einstein.

A lot of people then went to try and prove why the Uncertainty Principle couldn't be true. But it turned out they were wrong.

I'm sure you know this, but for the sake of readers: In Quantum Mechanics, there are two important but distinct areas. The mathematical laws, and the "Interpretations". So there are a series of mathematical equations which describe how particles and stuff works at a fundamental level. And then there is a qualitative description of what those equations "mean".

On one hand, the interpretations don't matter at all. The math works out and matches experiment.

But on the other hand they matter a lot in terms of trying to predict future advances, since they give you an insight into how things work.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is a mathematical rule of physics. It can have many different interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that wave functions themselves are reality. The Many Worlds Interpretation says that there are many worlds (a multiverse) of possibilities where each uncertain event takes place in parallel.

So the Uncertainty Principle (or any equation in Quantum Mechanics for that matter) doesn't presuppose a particular Interpretation. It goes the other way around. Interpretations are developed to fit the equations.

So then it seems to me that the fundamental point of contention is whether the Uncertainty Principle is ontic, or merely epistemic in nature. If it's only epistemic in nature then quantum physics is completely compatible with the universe being deterministic. And as I said, there are 4 such physical interpretations that are fully deterministic.

It's perfectly acceptable to quote prominent scientists, but only as an illustrative point. Not as an authoritative point.

For example, Niel Tyson has a way of explaining the cosmos far better than I. So you may find me quoting him from time-to-time in matters of astronomy. But I only do so because he can speak better than me. I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm just helping the process of understanding by including a good quote.

I objected to your quote because I felt like it was just an appeal to authority. If you think I was wrong about that then tell me.

Like I said, I wasn't making an argument that because he said it must be true. I chose the quote because it's a good summary of the topic and explains the relationship of determinism and the physical interpretations.

1) Neutrinos do have mass (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neutrino#Mass)

2) That's fair. Saying existence is "having predicates" is at least coherent.

I just think it's far too inclusive for our intuitive understanding of the word "existence". What's going on now is that we're using the same word "exist" to mean two totally different things, which get muddled together.

We say that a brain exists, in a physical sense. Meaning it has position and momentum.

Then we say that a non-physical mind "exists". Which here means something totally different. We really ought to be using a different word. They're totally different.

I think that this definition is quite a good one, because a definition of existence should include everything in a given possible world. Since it doesn't make any sense to say that something that does not exist has predicates, something that does have predicates must by definition exist. It's a sort of minimal baseline. Either way, I don't see any good reason to reduce existence to physical existence. That seems to me to be just begging the question against the possibility of the existence of non-physical things, at least my definition allows for the possibility of the existence of both physical and non-physical things, yours simply rules it out by definition. I mean you could have the word existence as being "having mass, location, and velocity", but then I'll just say that non-physical things shmexist, as in they have predicates. And I'll take the photon with me thank you very much.

I'll let you claim all the invisible non-physical planes of existence that you want, using whatever definition of existence you want. As long as it doesn't interact with our physical universe.

Once you start saying that particles in our physical universe are getting moved, then I become interested. And if you can't reconcile that with physical law, then don't expect me to take it seriously.

Property dualism actually doesn't posit any immaterial beings or substances at all. Rather the claim is that only physical substances exist, but that mental properties are in no way identical to physical properties, and that additionally the instantiation of these mental properties is due to the physical properties, such that the mental properties of a thing are causally dependent on the physical properties of that thing. This serves to avoid the arguments against physicalism because the mind is not claimed to be identical to the brain and mental properties really exist, they are just mental properties of a physical thing. However it also avoids objections to substance dualism such as the causal relationship between physical events such as damage to the brain and the mental outcome like derangement. This is actually to be expected on property dualism because the mental properties of the brain are dependent upon its physical properties. And property dualism doesn't posit the existence of an immaterial substance causally interacting with a material substance, so it faces no mind-body problem!

Basically it's a really chill position, you should try it out sometime.

 

[Dre89]

Existence can be defined as anything with a specific form. So even something such as time exists, in that it can have multiple forms (eg. finite, linear, infinite, circular etc.).

In contrast, nothingness, or non-being, can be defined as formless and having no potency. The reason why I mentioned the potency part is because there can't be two types of nothingness. If the first cause came out of nothingness, then that isn't really nothingness, because it has potency, and can be distinguished from nothingness that has no potency. But such a distinction gives both types of nothingness forms, which means they aren't truly non-being.

So I think saying that something exists if it has a specific form is the best explanation, because it allows for both physical and non physical existences. Limiting existence to physical objects means you're never open to the possibility of non physical beings existing, which is clearly fallacious.

 

[AltF4]

So you don't believe that consciousness, thoughts, and feelings exist?

I just want to hear how you define these terms.

I see no reason why one has to look outside our universe to explain thoughts and feelings. You can call me a "materialist" insofar as the following statement:

I see nothing in this universe that cannot be explained in this universe. And while theories of non-physical dimensions of reality may be logically consistent, they are utterly unfalsifiable, and therefore unworthy of my consideration.

I'm not resorting to anything. I am simply stating that science cannot explain everything. How can you expect to explain something like free will, which is clearly not a physical thing, in terms of physical laws? It does not work!

I frequently hear the same statement in religious debates, and this one tends to have the same sort of undertones. "Science can't explain everything" While true, strictly speaking, this rather misses the point. If something is falsifiable, then you can explore it with science.

When you tell me that something is not knowable by science (and has to do with the physical world, not something like pure math or logic) I just stop listening. Because your idea is unfalsifiable.

Now I will try to answer your questions more directly.

Yay! Finally after all this time, it's Suntan Luigi that steps up and even TRIES to answer some basic questions about Free Will. And, in my opinion, answers then honestly without weaseling out. (kudos)


For this first Question-and-answer, I'm going to back up a step and give a bit of context, because I don't you quite got what I was asking.

I assert (and everyone including yourself agree) that you have to invoke an other-wordly "mind" or "soul" in order to make Free Will even a coherent idea. But that's not enough! You also have to have these two worlds interact. Because minds control bodies, but what happens to your brain affects your minds too.

So what is the nature of this interaction? I assert that you have two options:

1) There is a set of well defined natural laws that govern the actions of minds upon bodies and vice versa. But then in what sense can you call a mind "non-physical"? If this is true, then the mind is just merely in another spatially separate location in our plain old universe. It plays by natural laws just like everything else. In this world, there is no room for Free Will.

It might be "weird". It might even be a type of matter not yet discovered. But it won't be "non-physical". We don't go around calling every new type of matter "non-physical". Even when we suspected they might be massless (as in the case of neutrinos as they were first discovered).

2) There are no natural laws governing these interactions. Things can just happen for... any reason at all. This is called a violation of causality, and I've already gone at great length earlier in this thread to show that this is a very bad thing which causes your theory to get instantly rejected.

This is why I say that Free Will is by definition in violation of natural law. That's exactly all it is. It's the belief that humans can violate nature... just because we're vain and like to think that our species is special.

It has to do with our level of awareness. Some animals besides humans are self-aware. But humans are the only animals that are aware that they are self-aware.

So this is why I think this answer misses the point. I'm not asking you "what properties do humans posses that makes them appear to have Free Will". What I'm asking you is: "Since the only difference between Chimpanzees and Humans is a tiny variation in DNA, what about that variation causes us to have Free Will?"

Where is the Free Will gene? Where is the Free Will gland?

I am not the only one to recognize this problem. Many others have as well. Descartes even went so far as to claim that the Pineal Gland in the brain (which didn't have any known purpose at the time) acted as a bridge to your soul. A kind of radio antennae to the afterlife. I think we can all see how silly this is.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pineal_gland#Metaphysics_and_philosophy

Yet another problem with this is the problem from Evolution. If Chimps don't have Free Will and humans do, then at what point in our evolutionary history did we gain this ability? And (more to the point) what SPECIFIC evolutionary feature (ie: a gene) caused this to happen?

If a body spontaneously appeared out of nowhere without a consciousness this body at most might be able to survive in a permanent vegetative state, but my guess is that it wouldn't be able to survive. Think about it: what does it mean if we are "unconscious"? It means that we are without consciousness/awareness, thoughts, and feelings.

Besides, people are made up of their experiences from their whole lives. Even if this random body is created with a mind he would not know how to talk, eat, pee correctly; he'd be strait up ******** and not a normal person by any standards.

This answer is why I complemented you for answering honestly. Because this is the answer that naturally follows from what you've been positing: minds separate from bodies. Others here may not have been comfortable admitting to it.

If you make a body, some lump of atoms, without a mind it ought to just fall to the ground dead and lifeless.

But you are then left with a whole host of serious problems:

1) Why don't Chimps fall to the ground lifeless? They have no "soul" as you are positing.

2) Your body is not a single atomic entity. You are comprised of millions of microscopic individual living organisms (cells and other things) which live in symbiosis with each other. But these cells die off regularly and are replaced. It's estimated that about every ten years, every single cell in your body will have been replaced.

You are literally not figuratively a different person than who you used to be ten years ago.

How is this different than making an atom-for-atom copy of a human? In fact, this is exactly the same thing but a little slower than using a machine to,

Our free will develops as our awareness develops from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. We have no awareness as a mass of cells, so we have no free will at that time. Toddlers and children have some awareness but they are still developing i.e. learning the difference between right and wrong. Adults for the most part have full awareness of their actions and choices.

Free Will cannot "develop". Your intelligence can. Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either freely choose your actions, or you can't.

Once you've gained Free Will, you can talk all day about the quality of the choices you're making. But there are no shades of gray with Free Will.

This is why there is a problem with development of a human. A mere lump of cells does not have Free Will, but a grown human does? You have to answer the question about at what exact developmental biological stage Free Will grows.

I think you may be thinking about this concept a little too much, and going into too much detail. Because the way I see it, free will is actually a really simple thing. It simply means that I have control over my actions, and that I can choose to act any way I see fit. A machine, no matter how sophisticated, is unable to pick a color pen without first being programed by someone else what color to pick, and it absolutely must follow its programming. But I know that I can choose whichever color I want, because I am my own programmer for my actions.

Have you ever heard of a man names Alan Turing? He is referred to as "The father of computer science".https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alan_Turing (Among other things, he helped break a Nazi encryption scheme during WWII)

He was one of the very first to really study Artificial Intelligence, and he devised what is now known as "The Turing Test". https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Turing_test

Very briefly, the Turing test is where you take a computer (A) and human (B) both talking to another human (C). The point of the game is for C (the human) to tell the difference between the computer (B) and human (A). If he cannot, the computer is said to have "passed the Turing test".

(Fun fact: Those annoying tests when you sometimes log into a website where you have to type in a bunch of scrambled letters and numbers are called "CAPTCHAs". Which stands for: Completely Automated Personal Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart)

Now some people have gone and actually designed and ran real Turing Tests on real computers, to varying degrees of success. But that's not how Alan Turing meant the test to be understood. He never meant for people to actually do it, he was making a deeper statement. Namely:

That once you get to the point of computers emulating humans, and humans can't tell the difference, theories that there IS a fundamental difference between them become irrelevant, unnecessary, and unfalsifiable.

Or, put more poetically in "I, Robot" (heavily influenced by Alan Turing):

Ever since the first computers, there have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul?

If you say that a robot cannot ever develop a soul, why can a mere lump of cells that will eventually grow into a human?

 

[Dre89]

I see nothing in this universe that cannot be explained in this universe. And while theories of non-physical dimensions of reality may be logically consistent, they are utterly unfalsifiable, and therefore unworthy of my consideration.

I frequently hear the same statement in religious debates, and this one tends to have the same sort of undertones. "Science can't explain everything" While true, strictly speaking, this rather misses the point. If something is falsifiable, then you can explore it with science.

When you tell me that something is not knowable by science (and has to do with the physical world, not something like pure math or logic) I just stop listening. Because your idea is unfalsifiable.

Let's take the notion of an aquatic deity who is self-sufficient, yet needs to be submerged in a body of water to survive , and can't generate that body of water himself.

This is a clear contradiction; the fact he is dependent on an external agent (the water) and can't create it himself contradicts the fact that he is self-sufficient. Yet how did we prove this? Not through science or observation, but by pure metaphysical or philosophical premises.

This shows two things. Firstly, that metaphysical propositions are disprovable. Secondly, and more importantly, that the empiricist is forced into a dilemma- either they contend that the aquatic deity is not a contradiction ,which is absurd, or that there are plausile ways of deducing truths outside of science and observation.

Now I know what you'll say here, you'll say that you already conceded that science can't explain everything, but this is different. You may concede that science can't explain things such as know that other minds apart from your own exist, but the difference with the diety is that the minds example is something no methodology can really prove or disprove, whereas the deity is a self-evident contradiction, which not only can science not show, but other methodologies can.

And the reason why you stop listening when people make metaphysical propositions is because you're not educated in them (no offence). The reason why you think they're so unintelligible is because they're not accessible by science, but as I showed before science is not the only valid methodology.

It's easy to prove why there is no reason to believe certain metaphysical propositions such as a pink bull who turns invisible whenever someone looks at it. But theists and FW proponents don't hold their respective positions because they believe that they are merely conceivable, but because they have argumentation to suggest it is more than merely conceivable.

You and other scientisimists straw man theism and FW by reducing them to saying "X is metaphysically conceivable, therefore it exists". So by immediately dismissing any metaphysical proposition, you are committing straw mans.

 

[AltF4]

You can, of course, use "pure logic" to determine if something is internally consistent. Your aquatic deity example is obviously self contradictory. So there's no need to go any further than that in asking the question about whether it exists.

But you're stuck after that. You can't tell if your theory describes our universe without doing tests in our universe.

Coming up with an idea that is internally consistent is not hard, special, nor interesting. There are an infinite number of theories that are self-consistent, and could possibly describe our world. I am only interested in the ones that you can falsify. Because those are the ones that actually provide new information about our universe.

When you say "metaphysical propositions are disprovable", you are being quite misleading. What you really mean to say is "some metaphysical propositions are internally inconsistent, and some are not". But what you're implying is that no metaphysical claim in unfalsifiable, which is untrue.


But again, this isn't just a simple matter of mere metaphysical claims. Free Will necessarily involves claims about our universe as well.

 

[Dre89]

The deity example shows the issue with an empiricism only approach.

Alt what you're missing is that the pink bull and the sophisticated notion of God are not equally valid claims, despite both being internally inconsistent.

The reason why the God notion is more valid is that God is supposedly necessary, and the bull isn't. If an object hasn't been experienced, then it can only be rational to assert it's existence if it's necessary for some reason.

Now whether God is necessary or not is debateable, but that's just it, that can be proved/disproved.

Basically, what I'm saying is that theists aren't just positing internally consistent propositions, they posit positive propositions as to why this internally consistent being exists.

This is related to fw because you dismissed non physical notions as unintelligible and I'm trying to show otherwise.

So as for non-physical fw, it's valid if people could show why it's necessary. They're not just saying fw exists simply because it's internally conceivable.

 

[AltF4]

Well then your "empiricism only" approach is a silly strawman, since nobody does that.

If your strategy is to show that your theory is "necessary". (It could not even conceivably have been any other way. All other positions are impossible) Then all I have to say is... good luck with that. I hope you realize the gravity of what you're positing. This is not an "argument". It's a formal proof. There should be no debate.

When a mathematician discovers a new equation that follows from old ones, it is a proof not an argument. There is no room for debate for new equations. Either it's right or it's wrong.

This is what you're trying to establish. A definite, 100%, undeniable, PROOF. And you're trying to develop this using what process?... Just sitting and thinking? Good luck with that.

 

[Dre89]

Again you're trying to turn non-scientific discussions into a scientific one. Seriously for once take off your scientific glasses, we're indoors in a philosophical museum.

As for the empiricism, that's not a straw man, because you reject any metaphysical, or non-empirical propositions.

And the question of necessity is debateable because it is a metaphysical topic. Again, just because you're not educated in it doesn't mean it's unintelligible.

You don't even realise that you have a metaphysics, and indirectly make positive metaphysical propositions. It's virtually impossible not to.

The reality is, the empirical atheists make more unproved assumptions than theists do. For example, you simply assume the positive metaphysical proposition that the first cause can be contingent, and can consist of multiple parties. I have multiple arguments to disprove this proposition, so no, necessity isn't unintelligble.

You think my claim is bold? You're the one sayin that thousands of years of literature on a topic you're not even remotely educated in is irrelevant. Do you realise how ignorant that sounds?

 

[AltF4]

You're a difficult person to debate with, Dre. You put words in my mouth over and over again. You completely and utterly ignore direct challenges. And you just assert that I personally am too stupid to comprehend the topic. It's like you're not even debating me. You're debating some hypothetical person saying things you wish I were saying. Meanwhile (as usual) you conveniently fail to address any of my points.

Again you're trying to turn non-scientific discussions into a scientific one. Seriously for once take off your scientific glasses, we're indoors in a philosophical museum.

If you'll just tell me that this topic has no effect on the observable physical universe then I'll gladly "take off my science glasses". Otherwise, I can't see why this is not a scientific topic. (Despite mere assertions to the contrary. Waiving a magical wand and declaring a topic "metaphysical" doesn't preclude it from scientific skepticism.)

As for the empiricism, that's not a straw man, because you reject any metaphysical, or non-empirical propositions.

Again, just because you're not educated in it doesn't mean it's unintelligible.

More insults and assumptions. I never said Free Will is unintelligible.

You don't even realise that you have a metaphysics, and indirectly make positive metaphysical propositions. It's virtually impossible not to.

Words in my mouth. I am well aware of metaphysical assumptions that I (and everyone) makes. It's inevitable. But somehow this makes me ineligible to talk about this topic?

The reality is, the empirical atheists make more unproved assumptions than theists do.

...Atheism? Non-sequitur. Are you now saying that you need god to have Free Will? I'd gladly take that and call it a day.

You think my claim is bold? You're the one sayin that thousands of years of literature on a topic you're not even remotely educated in is irrelevant. Do you realise how ignorant that sounds?

Words in my mouth and insults.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not insulting you (I even said "no offence"). I'd be insulting you if I came into this thread saying you weren't capable of debating because you were uneducated, before any debating took place. Instead, I brought up your lack of education only because you consider metaphysical propositions unintelligible, which is a result of your empirical eduation, and a lack of a metaphysical one. My point was that you only consider them unintelligible because you're looking through an empirical lens, because that's how you were educated, and had you been educated in metaphysics you'd know metaphysical propositions are intelligible.

It's not a scientific topic because no one is arguing for a physical notion of free will. No one is disputing the chemical functions within the brain.

You don't need God to assert FW, the reason why I mentioned empirical atheists is because you are one of them, and you're using an empirical atheist framework to reject opposing claims in this thread, so it's relevant.

As for accusing you of a bold claim, that's because you deemed the discussion of necessity, and metaphysics in general irrelevant. You dismiss thousands of years of literature without being remotely eduated on it. How many metaphysical works have you read? The fact you reduce all metaphysical propositions to either internally consistent or inconsistent shows how little you know on the subject. Had I made any similar claim about science, you'd point to my lack of education instantly.

 

[rvkevin]

You dismiss thousands of years of literature without being remotely educated on it. How many metaphysical works have you read? The fact you reduce all metaphysical propositions to either internally consistent or inconsistent shows how little you know on the subject. Had I made any similar claim about science, you'd point to my lack of education instantly.

This tends to be a fairly standard criticism in the atheist and religion conversation. It is said that atheists simply haven’t studied the arguments for theism and are therefore not capable of speaking on the subject. When it is pointed out that many atheists are former believers or have otherwise read many of the works recommended to them by religious friends, it is never considered adequate and/or it is claimed that they didn’t fully understand them, presumably on the assumption that if they understood the content that they would become believers. This then leads way into another series of book recommendations for the atheist to read. After awhile, this tactic becomes clear; it is not an attempt to educate, but an attempt to pacify the critic. If you made a similar claim concerning science, we would either point to an observation showing that it is wrong, show the fallacy in the reasoning, or explain how your conception of the notion is different than what is being proposed.

A cursory glance shows that there are nearly 8,000 books on Amazon regarding astrology. I have not read any of these, yet I can use the tools available to me to talk intelligently about the alleged effect that the position of stellar objects at the time of birth has on someone’s everyday affairs. If these effects are actually real, then I should be able to observe them myself, no reading necessary. When I try to observe them myself, and discover that they don’t exist, no amount of writing or reading will change reality. When the astrologer then calls me ignorant for not being aware of the vast literature regarding astrology, that may be true, but it bears no relation to whether I can or cannot intelligently speak about these matters. Should I take off my empirical lens and ignore the lack of any manifestation in regards to the truth of the topic at hand? What would it mean to say that something is true or real if it does not manifest?

 

[Dre89]

I'm not criticising all atheists, I'm criticising scientists (the ones that use science in these debates), including theistic ones.

Being a former theist does not give them any more credit than I should get for the fact I'm a former atheist. Plus, most theists aren't adequately educated to debate these topics and neither are most atheists.

Just because I'm a theist doesn't mean I support all theism and religion. I find atheism more logical than pretty much every theistic notion apart from my own.

I have no issue with natural atheology, aka atheist philosophy, eg the argument from evil.

As I said before, I only pointed out his lack of education once he displayed it by making oversimplifying and straw man statements about metaphysics, which he has no authority to do

Criticise me if you want, but at least I know my boundaries. You never see me contesting any scientific premises, or dismissing it as irrelevant.

 

[AltF4]

So as usual, Dre, you manage to utterly ignore direct questions put to you. Honestly now. If you don't want to debate, nobody's twisting your arm. Don't debate. But if you're going to post, at least make an effort to respond to direct (and repeated) challenges.

You continue to try and weasel out of a direct question: Does Free Will involve actions in our physical observable universe? This is a yes or no question. If no, then I'll gladly let you and the "meta-physicists" duke it out. If yes, then this is a scientific topic.

And then I make a big post about how you make stuff up and put words in my mouth, what's the first thing you do? Do it again.

you consider metaphysical propositions unintelligible

News to me.

you're using an empirical atheist framework to reject opposing claims in this thread

News to me.

 

[Dre89]

News to me.

I see nothing in this universe that cannot be explained in this universe. And while theories of non-physical dimensions of reality may be logically consistent, they are utterly unfalsifiable, and therefore unworthy of my consideration.

When you tell me that something is not knowable by science (and has to do with the physical world, not something like pure math or logic) I just stop listening. Because your idea is unfalsifiable.

Alt I've answered that question multiple times. Yes, there are actions of supposed free will in the universe, but the argument for fw is not physical, we're not saying that there's scientific evidence that suggests we have free will, nor is anyone contesting the chemical processes linked to brain activity. So no, it's not a scientific debate.

That's like saying science can disprove that humans have souls. If the theorised non-physical exists, then it is ontologically prior to the physical, because everything physical by nature is contingent. That's why you can have non physical agents acting in the physical world, but not vice versa. Good non-physical propositions are in addition to physical ones, they do not seek to replace or conflict with them.

The thing is, the arguments for souls are not scientific in nature , but they do not contest any science. Furthermore, people don't believe in souls simply because they are interally consistent, but because they have further reasons to believe they exist.

It's the same with free will. It's an internally consistent idea, but its proponents propose reasoning that is not scientific, or contests science, that gives reason to believe it exists. You straw man non physical arguments by assuming all of them function as "idea X is internally consistent therefore it exists", the quote even shows that.

 

[AltF4]

I said theories involving non-physical dimensions of reality are unfalsifiable. Not unintelligible. Big difference. Falsifiability means the theory makes meaningful predictions about the world. Intelligibility just means you are able to understand the theory.

You straw man non physical arguments by assuming all of them function as "idea X is internally consistent therefore it exists", the quote even shows that.

...What? In no way have I said that. I'm actually make a list of all the times you put words in my mouth. It will come in handy later.

I did say that you can categorize any theory into two sets: Internally consistent ones, and internally contradictory ones. And you can use "philosophy" (which might be defined here as: sitting and thinking) to classify theories into one of those two sets.

But what you can't do is figure out which of those infinite theories applies to our universe by just sitting and thinking. You have to do tests in the real universe. (Which is called science)


And lastly, if your theory has observable effects on the physical world, then it's falsifiable. We can device an experiment where we should expect to see the effects that your theory is predicting should exist. This is called scientific scrutiny. So I don't know how you can declare your argument immune to experimental evidence by waiving a magical metaphysics wand.

 

[Dre89]

Ok, well then what I'm criticising is your claim that all metaphysical propositions are unfalsifiable. They're not empirically falsifiable, but some propositions are more reasonable, and more believable than others, and are worthy of consideration.

So you're still oversimplifying by saying that all internally consistent propositions are equal, when they're not. For example, I can demonstrate more reasons to believe in a life force than in a unicorn. So what I'm saying is that you can't dismiss metaphysical notions simply because they're not empirically falsifiable.

Certain propositions which take effect in the physical world aren't accessible by physical means. For example, the idea that no other minds exist. It has effect in the physical world, but is not intelligible by observation because observation itself is what is in question.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ok, well then what I'm criticising is your claim that all metaphysical propositions are unfalsifiable. They're not empirically falsifiable, but some propositions are more reasonable, and more believable than others, and are worthy of consideration.

Really? I mean, sure, you can break it down into three groups: "Logically impossible", "logically possible", and "logically necessary" (these are the only three I can think of; please inform me if I'm wrong), but the first of those is falsified by logic itself, and the last of them is either falsifiable via direct logic or contingent on falsifiable empirical observations. So there's essentially just one group that is not inherently either correct or false: things that are logically possible. Let me be perfectly clear here: if you imply that we "empiricists" shouldn't care about that distinction because we only care about empirical evidence, then I will be forced to remove your eyes with a melon baller for strawmanning the position of scientists so hard.

So you're still oversimplifying by saying that all internally consistent propositions are equal, when they're not. For example, I can demonstrate more reasons to believe in a life force than in a unicorn.

...With pure logic? As in, without incorporating any falsifiable empiricism? All right, go ahead. Do it. Demonstrate that there is more reason to believe in a life force than in a unicorn without resorting to the empirically falsifiable. I'll wait.

So what I'm saying is that you can't dismiss metaphysical notions simply because they're not empirically falsifiable.

You're right. There are also the ones that are considered logically necessary. But those are few and far between (and tbh, I can't honestly think of one). But beyond that? Hell, expand it. Let's not limit you to the unicorn<->life force example. Go ahead and prove, purely via metaphysics, that any two metaphysical objects that are not logically considered necessary or impossible to exist are more reasonable to believe in.

Certain propositions which take effect in the physical world aren't accessible by physical means. For example, the idea that no other minds exist. It has effect in the physical world, but is not intelligible by observation because observation itself is what is in question.

...What you seem to be missing is that this is simply more metaphysical ******y.

 

[Dre89]

Asking me to show how one unnecessary mp proposition is more logical than another defeats the purpose because if the object hasn't been experienced, then it's the necessity that matters. That's like me asking you to prove the existence of a physical object without science or observation.

The life force is easier to market as necessary because it serves a role in the universe, and more importantly it can be argued that it is not contingent, and that it has no form. One can't say the same for the unicorn.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Asking me to show how one unnecessary mp proposition is more logical than another defeats the purpose because if the object hasn't been experienced, then it's the necessity that matters. That's like me asking you to prove the existence of a physical object without science or observation.

So is my claim that there are 3 single metaphysical groupings once you separate physical observation and empiricism accurate? As far as I can tell, you're trying to disqualify empiricism with the unfalsifiable... Or maybe it's just too early for this kind of discussion where I am right now.

 

[Dre89]

To be honest I'm not really sure what your point was by making those distinctions. As far as I can see, I guess they're pretty accurate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, I kinda lost the thread of discussion here...

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I see no reason why one has to look outside our universe to explain thoughts and feelings. You can call me a "materialist" insofar as the following statement:


I see nothing in this universe that cannot be explained in this universe. And while theories of non-physical dimensions of reality may be logically consistent, they are utterly unfalsifiable, and therefore unworthy of my consideration.

The way I see it consciousness, thoughts, and feelings are not outside of our universe, even though they are not physical. I define the universe to include all things in it, both material and immaterial things (such as emotion, ideas, thoughts, and other things that are formally known as Quailia). I think when you think of the universe you are thinking in mainly physical terms, is this right?


How exactly do you define consciousness, thoughts, and feelings?

I frequently hear the same statement in religious debates, and this one tends to have the same sort of undertones. "Science can't explain everything" While true, strictly speaking, this rather misses the point. If something is falsifiable, then you can explore it with science.


When you tell me that something is not knowable by science (and has to do with the physical world, not something like pure math or logic) I just stop listening. Because your idea is unfalsifiable.

Something may not be testable, but we can still use our reason to see if it makes sense.

Yay! Finally after all this time, it's Suntan Luigi that steps up and even TRIES to answer some basic questions about Free Will. And, in my opinion, answers then honestly without weaseling out. (kudos)

Thanks!

For this first Question-and-answer, I'm going to back up a step and give a bit of context, because I don't you quite got what I was asking.


I assert (and everyone including yourself agree) that you have to invoke an other-wordly "mind" or "soul" in order to make Free Will even a coherent idea. But that's not enough! You also have to have these two worlds interact. Because minds control bodies, but what happens to your brain affects your minds too.

I agree with the above (except the part about the mind or soul being otherworldly).

So what is the nature of this interaction? I assert that you have two options:


1) There is a set of well defined natural laws that govern the actions of minds upon bodies and vice versa. But then in what sense can you call a mind "non-physical"? If this is true, then the mind is just merely in another spatially separate location in our plain old universe. It plays by natural laws just like everything else. In this world, there is no room for Free Will.


It might be "weird". It might even be a type of matter not yet discovered. But it won't be "non-physical". We don't go around calling every new type of matter "non-physical". Even when we suspected they might be massless (as in the case of neutrinos as they were first discovered).


2) There are no natural laws governing these interactions. Things can just happen for... any reason at all. This is called a violation of causality, and I've already gone at great length earlier in this thread to show that this is a very bad thing which causes your theory to get instantly rejected.


This is why I say that Free Will is by definition in violation of natural law. That's exactly all it is. It's the belief that humans can violate nature... just because we're vain and like to think that our species is special.

I do not think that Free Will violates any laws. I define it as the ability to be aware of and choose my own actions. How do you define free will exactly? Maybe I am misunderstanding your position.

So this is why I think this answer misses the point. I'm not asking you "what properties do humans posses that makes them appear to have Free Will". What I'm asking you is: "Since the only difference between Chimpanzees and Humans is a tiny variation in DNA, what about that variation causes us to have Free Will?"


Where is the Free Will gene? Where is the Free Will gland?

There is no single Free Will gene or gland. Free Will is not a chemical process, it could never be a chemical process, because of the very nature of these processes. Chemical processes cannot make any decisions for themselves.

I am not the only one to recognize this problem. Many others have as well. Descartes even went so far as to claim that the Pineal Gland in the brain (which didn't have any known purpose at the time) acted as a bridge to your soul. A kind of radio antennae to the afterlife. I think we can all see how silly this is.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pineal_gland#Metaphysics_and_philosophy

Actually, the pineal gland, or your "third eye" as it is more often known, has been thought to be the "bridge" or "seat" to the soul for thousands of years. It is involved in many esoteric, mystic practices around the globe. I won't go into detail right now though, as to not diverge from the topic at hand.

Yet another problem with this is the problem from Evolution. If Chimps don't have Free Will and humans do, then at what point in our evolutionary history did we gain this ability? And (more to the point) what SPECIFIC evolutionary feature (ie: a gene) caused this to happen?

There are problems with the theory of evolution in general, so for this reason I can't and won't provide a satisfactory answer for this issue. I suppose this will be a future topic for another debate entirely.

This answer is why I complemented you for answering honestly. Because this is the answer that naturally follows from what you've been positing: minds separate from bodies. Others here may not have been comfortable admitting to it.


If you make a body, some lump of atoms, without a mind it ought to just fall to the ground dead and lifeless.


But you are then left with a whole host of serious problems:


1) Why don't Chimps fall to the ground lifeless? They have no "soul" as you are positing.

Chimps do have souls. Not the same type of souls as humans do though. If you create a chimp without a soul it will just be a body, no different from a corpse. In fact, every living thing that you can think of has to have some type of "soul" or "life force".

2) Your body is not a single atomic entity. You are comprised of millions of microscopic individual living organisms (cells and other things) which live in symbiosis with each other. But these cells die off regularly and are replaced. It's estimated that about every ten years, every single cell in your body will have been replaced.


You are literally not figuratively a different person than who you used to be ten years ago.


How is this different than making an atom-for-atom copy of a human? In fact, this is exactly the same thing but a little slower than using a machine to.

It's very different. Like I said before, I as a person am made up of, among other things, all of my past experiences, emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I am not the same person I was five years ago, I thought and acted completely differently back then. If you make a body out of thin air, and give him consciousness, how does he know how to talk, eat, and do basic things? My body does not define who I am as a person.

Born and being raised and living != spontaneous creation.

Free Will cannot "develop". Your intelligence can. Free Will is a binary proposition. You can either freely choose your actions, or you can't.


Once you've gained Free Will, you can talk all day about the quality of the choices you're making. But there are no shades of gray with Free Will.


This is why there is a problem with development of a human. A mere lump of cells does not have Free Will, but a grown human does? You have to answer the question about at what exact developmental biological stage Free Will grows.

When I say Free Will develops, what I mean is that when people develop as individuals they gradually become aware of more choices that they can make. They depend less on their instincts, and start to make greater and more types of choices as they become aware of them. Also, intelligence certainly has a role to play in this development.

Have you ever heard of a man names Alan Turing? He is referred to as "The father of computer science".https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alan_Turing (Among other things, he helped break a Nazi encryption scheme during WWII)


He was one of the very first to really study Artificial Intelligence, and he devised what is now known as "The Turing Test". https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Turing_test


Very briefly, the Turing test is where you take a computer (A) and human (B) both talking to another human (C). The point of the game is for C (the human) to tell the difference between the computer (B) and human (A). If he cannot, the computer is said to have "passed the Turing test".


(Fun fact: Those annoying tests when you sometimes log into a website where you have to type in a bunch of scrambled letters and numbers are called "CAPTCHAs". Which stands for: Completely Automated Personal Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart)


Now some people have gone and actually designed and ran real Turing Tests on real computers, to varying degrees of success. But that's not how Alan Turing meant the test to be understood. He never meant for people to actually do it, he was making a deeper statement. Namely:


That once you get to the point of computers emulating humans, and humans can't tell the difference, theories that there IS a fundamental difference between them become irrelevant, unnecessary, and unfalsifiable.


Or, put more poetically in "I, Robot" (heavily influenced by Alan Turing):






If you say that a robot cannot ever develop a soul, why can a mere lump of cells that will eventually grow into a human?

Funny thing is, I was watching I Robot on TV and heard that speech while I was reading your post. The computers are watching me...

As far as the Turing test goes, what a joke. Is this what we have reduced what it means to be human to? Just because some people can't tell the difference doesn't mean that a computer is "intelligent" or can feel and experience things like we can. It can appear to exhibit signs of intelligence, but that does not mean that it is intelligent.

Side note: If you have this logic, if this is how you define life and intelligence, then by definition the computer opponent in SSBB could be defined as "intelligent" and even having a "mind" or "soul".

And how do you define "exhibit intelligence"? Are there not more ways to exhibit intelligence than chatting in a chat box?

The ideal computer that we can attempt to approach with regards to the development of A.I. is that of a philosophical zombie, which is a "hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience" (Wikipedia). You can never give these things to a machine, no matter how advanced its programming is. However, we know that humans have these qualities, even if we do not fully understand where they came from yet. No one can give life to a computer, any more then they can give life to a corpse or to a rock.

Please answer this question: How do you define life? What is it about some group of molecules working together in a certain way, that causes something to be alive?



Here are a few quotations which sum up how I feel about A.I.:

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Computers have lots of memory but no imagination. ~Author Unknown

[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]They can only give you answers. ~Pablo Picasso, about computers

And most of all:

[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers. ~Sydney J. Harris[/FONT]

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I hope you don't mind me talking over ever so slightly, I felt the need to address this post.

The way I see it consciousness, thoughts, and feelings are not outside of our universe, even though they are not physical. I define the universe to include all things in it, both material and immaterial things (such as emotion, ideas, thoughts, and other things that are formally known as Quailia). I think when you think of the universe you are thinking in mainly physical terms, is this right?

I'm gonna stop you right here. Define "non-phyiscal".

How exactly do you define consciousness, thoughts, and feelings?

Are you familiar with modern neuroscience?

First of all, our entire consciousness, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and all is predicted to be, essentially, electrical activity within our brain. It's perfectly explained by neuroscientific models.

Something may not be testable, but we can still use our reason to see if it makes sense.

You mean like the Global Consciousness Project?

Look, I hate to burst your bubble, but no, we can't. We can use our reason to determine if something is possible to exist, but if something is not testable or falsifiable, there is no way to demonstrate it. To take the concept of a soul you have presented: how could I ever prove you wrong? How could you ever be sure that what is driving our free will is your soul, and not, say, the movement of some outside entity that merely offers the illusion of free will? You could not ever demonstrate your claim to be true on any level other than "intuitive", and if you'd like to commit the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy, you should probably do it around people who aren't subscribed to SisyphusRedeemed's YT channel.

On the other hand, when you take a falsifiable scientific field like, say, Neuroscience, you can create a control, propose a way to prove the hypothesis wrong (before even gathering the data needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis), and generally figure out if it's wrong or not.

Case in point, this is a falsifiable conclusion. Prove me wrong.

There is no single Free Will gene or gland. Free Will is not a chemical process, it could never be a chemical process, because of the very nature of these processes. Chemical processes cannot make any decisions for themselves.

...No, but this is part of why I consider "free will" to be such a bogus concept. I'll get back to this in a moment below.

Actually, the pineal gland, or your "third eye" as it is more often known, has been thought to be the "bridge" or "seat" to the soul for thousands of years. It is involved in many esoteric, mystic practices around the globe. I won't go into detail right now though, as to not diverge from the topic at hand.

The funny part about this is that you actually think that ancient mysticism, most of which has passed into folklore and has never been verified, and a lot of which is actually demonstrably bull****, is a good argument for that position.

There are problems with the theory of evolution in general, so for this reason I can't and won't provide a satisfactory answer for this issue. I suppose this will be a future topic for another debate entirely.

...

Oh dear.

"Problems"? Okay, this needs its own thread, because there is nothing more fun or easy than pwning someone who has doubts about major tenets of evolutionary theory. I'm hoping you mean that you disagree with some complex little snag in it that changes a few evolutionary branches, and that this isn't a "I don't believe in evolutionary theory" kind of confession.

Please answer this question: How do you define life? What is it about some group of molecules working together in a certain way, that causes it to be alive?

This is a difficult question, but the answer may surprise you: living-nonliving is a completely human construction. It's a limiter that we invented to separate one kind of chemical reaction/collection of molecules from others. It's a completely arbitrary destinction, and the fact that it's so hard to tell where life begins and ends is a sign that we haven't drawn the clear line yet. Science actually does have a very clear and very well-laid-out definition for life; criteria that something must fulfill to be considered "life", but the fact that it's the same kind of destinction as "Species" should mean something to this discussion.

It's very different. Like I said before, I as a person am made up of, among other things, all of my past experiences

Data stored in your brain.

emotions,

Current running through your brain, specifically the Medulla Oblongata (if my extremely basic knowledge of neuroscience serves me well).

thoughts, and feelings.

See above.

I am not the same person I was five years ago, I thought and acted completely differently back then.

Your computer is not the same computer it was five years ago if you've been using it. It acted and worked differently. The main difference being the level of complexity involved and the degree to which the brain was NOT engineered to work like a computer; you can't simply reset your brain.

If you make a body out of thin air, and give him consciousness, how does he know how to talk, eat, and do basic things? My body does not define who I am as a person.

Have you ever tried it? Furthermore, does the term "instinct" mean anything to you? Certain behaviors are hardwired into our brains. A human created out of nothing may have issues, but the basic instincts like eat, sleep, reproduce will be present and active. Speech and other such non-instinctive things may have to wait.

As far as the Turing test goes, what a joke. Is this what we have reduced what it means to be human to? Just because some people can't tell the difference doesn't mean that a computer is "intelligent" or can feel and experience things like we can. It can appear to exhibit signs of intelligence, but that does not mean that it is intelligent.

Really?

Prove it.

You say that there's an inherent difference between our intellect and any series of normal, random biological/physiological apparatuses. Why? Because we think? Maybe we're simply reacting to outside stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, ever thought of that? Maybe the source is cause and effect among atoms in a way you just don't understand?
The brain is essentially a biological supercomputer. Those thoughts rattling around in your head could be nothing more than the kind of AI-like response you would get from google-bot, just on a much higher level, and I think you're going to find it very hard to prove that there is some outside agent giving it choices. You can't even prove that we truly have those choices at all!

Finally, I'd like to offer you a hypothetical; one that seems to be more on your level of the pragmatic/philosophical matrix... Imagine a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe; one which does simulate our universe, down to a T. Do the humans have free will? Furthermore, can you demonstrate that our universe is not a simulation?

 

[Dre89]

Suntan- Chemicals in the the body do make 'decisions'. For example, when you receive a cut.,the body makes the decision to inflammate (is that the right word?) the area and swell it up with fluid. The determinist can simply explain mental activity is this type of process.

BPC- So do you believe that we're not sentient, or that robots are sentient?

And you say that the living non-living distinction is arbitrary, but I thought it was objective in that non-living objects are only altereted by chemical changes, whereas living beings are altered by both chemical and physical changes. If a rock has part of it cut off, then the rest of the rock is largely unaffected. The entirety of the rock is only subject to change if the chemical make up is altered. However, with a living being, cutting of a body part, such as the head, comprimises the functionality of the res of the organism.

And isn't another distinction between living and non-living the need for nutrition and the ability to reproduce?. Note how generous I'm being here, I'm being neutral and assuming that all sentience is illusory, but even then there still appears to be some major distinctions.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC- So do you believe that we're not sentient, or that robots are sentient?

I believe that sentience is a very misleading term. I mean, what do you mean by sentient? If you mean we have a type of agency not present in other biological/mechanical operations, then I don't believe that we're sentient. That said, until we can monitor all variables in the universe, I don't think that makes a very big difference, because the number of things affecting our decisions and forcing us to decide a certain way is effectively limitless.

And you say that the living non-living distinction is arbitrary, but I thought it was objective in that non-living objects are only altereted by chemical changes, whereas living beings are altered by both chemical and physical changes. If a rock has part of it cut off, then the rest of the rock is largely unaffected. The entirety of the rock is only subject to change if the chemical make up is altered. However, with a living being, cutting of a body part, such as the head, comprimises the functionality of the res of the organism.

This is simply the degree of complexity speaking. If the rock had thousands of interconnected systems, then it would make a big difference if it lost one of those. But by this definition, wouldn't a typical computer be alive? After all, remove the computer's motherboard (or just smash it to bits with a rock), and it's clearly not going to have the same functionality.

That said, I have a further issue with that argument: the idea of functionality. What functionality does the rock have before you chop off half of it that you could compare to afterwards?

And isn't another distinction between living and non-living the need for nutrition and the ability to reproduce?. Note how generous I'm being here, I'm being neutral and assuming that all sentience is illusory, but even then there still appears to be some major distinctions.

As said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology
That's a good starting point. You're listing things that we put into our definition of life. However, again, while that definition is objective in where something is on a side of the line, the drawing of said line was more or less subjective, akin to where we draw the line on species, genuses, etc. Like, why don't we consider viruses alive, even though they have most of the traits of life? Why is this our definition?

 

[AltF4]

I think that the definition of life is actually a really meaningful topic for this debate. What "really" is the difference between a cat and a rock? Is it the level of complexity? Or is it something "more"? And if it's "more" then what exactly is that "more"? And why do only humans have it? Why can't rocks have that same "more"?

I attended an excellent lecture in the ASU Origins series a while back hosted by Lawrence Krauss. The topic was all about this exact subject, how do you define life? The problem is that we have an "intuitive" idea of what life should be, but when we try to pen a hard definition we're not able to strike the right balance. Either you include things we don't consider alive, or you exclude things we do consider alive.

If you define it as something which reproduces, uses up resources in its habitat, and forms symbiotic relationships with the habitat, then you have to come to the conclusion that forest fires are life.

If you think a virus is life, why isn't a computer virus? (A network worm is actually a better example)

The only reasonable conclusion that you can draw is that our concept of a hard distinction between life and non-life is not meaningful. There is a broad spectrum entities of varying degrees of complexity. It's like looking at a spectrum like this: LINK and trying to define where Black ends and White begins. The reality is that it's all just shades of gray.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I hope you don't mind me talking over ever so slightly, I felt the need to address this post.



I'm gonna stop you right here. Define "non-phyiscal".

Something with no mass. You can't see it with your eyes, feel it with your hands, or otherwise observe it. But you can experience it. Please see qualia, this is what I'm talking about when I say non physical.

As far as the soul goes, I am not concerned with whether it is an unobservable type of matter, energy, or entirely non-physical. The main point is that it is something that stands apart (is different from) from biological functions and that it is necessary for life to exist.

Are you familiar with modern neuroscience?

First of all, our entire consciousness, thoughts, feelings, emotions, and all is predicted to be, essentially, electrical activity within our brain. It's perfectly explained by neuroscientific models.

Yes, I am aware of those terms. I studied some basic neurobiology in high school.

So, this is your definition of consciousness, thoughts, and feelings then? Electrical and chemical activity? What about the electrical activity of household appliances or computers? Electricity and chemical activity may characterize or be responsible in part for qualia, but that is not what they actually are.

I'll try to clarify what I mean. Let's look at another thing: pain. Firstly, I'm sure we can all agree that pain exists. We have all felt it before, have we not? Now when you trip or cut yourself, electrical signals are sent to, from, and within your brain to tell you that you are in pain. But those signals are not what pain actually is. They simple enable you to feel pain. Pain is something we feel. Pain, itself, is a sensation.

When you scream, "SCREW ME THIS HURTS LIKE HELL", after hammering your finger in you are describing pain, which is a sensation.

You mean like the Global Consciousness Project?

Look, I hate to burst your bubble, but no, we can't. We can use our reason to determine if something is possible to exist, but if something is not testable or falsifiable, there is no way to demonstrate it. To take the concept of a soul you have presented: how could I ever prove you wrong? How could you ever be sure that what is driving our free will is your soul, and not, say, the movement of some outside entity that merely offers the illusion of free will? You could not ever demonstrate your claim to be true on any level other than "intuitive", and if you'd like to commit the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy, you should probably do it around people who aren't subscribed to SisyphusRedeemed's YT channel.

Reasoning is how we make sense of the data we obtain from these very studies. The scientific method itself is based on logic and reasoning.

So what you are telling me, is that I can say something ridiculous (like, for example, that there is a mannequin orbiting the sun, or that there is an evil genius controlling our thoughts, or that the world will end in 2012) and you would have no choice but to accept this as a real possibility, simply because you cannot scientifically prove it wrong?

I am having a hard time understanding your position on this issue.

On the other hand, when you take a falsifiable scientific field like, say, Neuroscience, you can create a control, propose a way to prove the hypothesis wrong (before even gathering the data needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis), and generally figure out if it's wrong or not.

Case in point, this is a falsifiable conclusion. Prove me wrong.

So you want an example of something that cannot be scientifically tested, yet can be shown to make sense through the use of reason/logic? Easy enough.

What will happen if I smacked you upside the head with an aluminum bat? Assuming you are an average person, would you feel pain? My intuition says that yes, you would be in a lot of pain. But is there any way to scientifically verify that you would be experiencing pain? Sure, you could have all the electrical activity in your brain and whatnot, you could say "ow you *******", but there is no scientific test to show that you are actually experiencing the sensation of pain.

For that matter, there is no scientific test or method that can prove that you are experiencing anything at all. Maybe you're just a philosophical zombie. Perhaps I am the only person in the entire world who actually experiences things! Logic, reason, and my intuition, however, say otherwise.

The funny part about this is that you actually think that ancient mysticism, most of which has passed into folklore and has never been verified, and a lot of which is actually demonstrably bull****, is a good argument for that position.

I'm not just talking about ancient stuffs. Much of these mystic practices continue to this very day. Here's one example of such a practice. Have you ever heard of Astral Projection by any chance? I don't recommend you try it, but there is a thread in UB where users are sharing their experiences. Here it is: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=311365.

Regardless, I don't have to time to give you a bunch of examples. As far as I'm concerned there is no point, and it diverges from the topic we are discussing.

...

Oh dear.

"Problems"? Okay, this needs its own thread, because there is nothing more fun or easy than pwning someone who has doubts about major tenets of evolutionary theory. I'm hoping you mean that you disagree with some complex little snag in it that changes a few evolutionary branches, and that this isn't a "I don't believe in evolutionary theory" kind of confession.

Oh, noes! Our precious theory is under attack! Man the battle stations! Destroy all who oppose the mighty monkeys of our ancestors!

I will post a thread in the future, when I have more time, and when this discussion on Free Will has reached some sort of a conclusion. For now, can we agree to leave evolution out of the discussion on Free Will? I guarantee it won't go anywhere useful.

This is a difficult question, but the answer may surprise you: living-nonliving is a completely human construction. It's a limiter that we invented to separate one kind of chemical reaction/collection of molecules from others. It's a completely arbitrary destinction, and the fact that it's so hard to tell where life begins and ends is a sign that we haven't drawn the clear line yet. Science actually does have a very clear and very well-laid-out definition for life; criteria that something must fulfill to be considered "life", but the fact that it's the same kind of destinction as "Species" should mean something to this discussion.

Will address at the bottom.

Data stored in your brain.



Current running through your brain, specifically the Medulla Oblongata (if my extremely basic knowledge of neuroscience serves me well).



See above.

See above.

Your computer is not the same computer it was five years ago if you've been using it. It acted and worked differently. The main difference being the level of complexity involved and the degree to which the brain was NOT engineered to work like a computer; you can't simply reset your brain.

Sorry, but I can't see what this point argues for. It doesn't disprove what I said about me being different. Please clarify?

Have you ever tried it? Furthermore, does the term "instinct" mean anything to you? Certain behaviors are hardwired into our brains. A human created out of nothing may have issues, but the basic instincts like eat, sleep, reproduce will be present and active. Speech and other such non-instinctive things may have to wait.

But you see, that is my point exactly. He would not be, and could never be, normal by any standards. Also, as far as instincts are concerned, humans are not like a lot of other animals that know what to do straight from (and even before) birth. Babies do not know how to eat and chew solid foods, that skill needs to be developed and taught. They also do not know how to properly urinate. They need to be potty trained by their parents or guardian.

The main point is that there is more to us then our physical composition, and also that we are not like other animals. But I'll get to that in a minute.

Really?

Prove it.

You say that there's an inherent difference between our intellect and any series of normal, random biological/physiological apparatuses. Why? Because we think? Maybe we're simply reacting to outside stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, ever thought of that? Maybe the source is cause and effect among atoms in a way you just don't understand?
The brain is essentially a biological supercomputer. Those thoughts rattling around in your head could be nothing more than the kind of AI-like response you would get from google-bot, just on a much higher level, and I think you're going to find it very hard to prove that there is some outside agent giving it choices. You can't even prove that we truly have those choices at all!

Finally, I'd like to offer you a hypothetical; one that seems to be more on your level of the pragmatic/philosophical matrix... Imagine a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe; one which does simulate our universe, down to a T. Do the humans have free will? Furthermore, can you demonstrate that our universe is not a simulation?

First I should point out that science actually does not have any sort of definition for what life itself is. It can only describe the signs or consequences of life. Now that that's out of the way...

As far as feeling and experiencing things goes, I don't think anyone in their right mind, certainly not you nor I, believes that computers can feel things, that they can experience sensations like pain and emotion, the way humans can. Computers are not alive. Which brings us again to the question of what exactly life is.

My main argument for the "life force" or soul is this: If you say that there is no more to us then our physical composition, if you say that there is no fundamental difference between a human and a computer because we are both made up of atoms moving in certain ways, if you say that physical things are only things which can exist, then because you cannot define life or the soul in terms of atoms moving in a certain way, you have two and only two possible conclusions about life:

1- Everything is alive. Computers, thermostats, and rocks are alive.

2- Life does not exist, and therefore nothing is alive. Therefore, if nothing is alive, then you are not alive. I am not alive. This seems to be the position you and AltF4 support. Heck, you even said that we are not sentient beings. Things may appear to be alive but it's humans that make these distinctions to make sense of the world.

Can't you see how absurd this is? When you get to the conclusion of "I am not alive" you know something is wrong. Stop thinking like a computer, and start thinking like a human.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how the forest fire analogy works because it itself doesn't comduct mitosis/miosis, it merely induces it in other agents.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Something with no mass. You can't see it with your eyes, feel it with your hands, or otherwise observe it. But you can experience it. Please see qualia, this is what I'm talking about when I say non physical.

I see what you're talking about, but I don't agree that it actually exists.

As far as the soul goes, I am not concerned with whether it is an unobservable type of matter, energy, or entirely non-physical. The main point is that it is something that stands apart (is different from) from biological functions and that it is necessary for life to exist.

Can you prove it though? And I don't mean intuitively, like you try below. I mean either with a clear logical argumentation or with empirical evidence.

I'm going to cut right to the heart of the matter.

First I should point out that science actually does not have any sort of definition for what life itself is. It can only describe the signs or consequences of life. Now that that's out of the way...

As far as feeling and experiencing things goes, I don't think anyone in their right mind, certainly not you nor I, believes that computers can feel things, that they can experience sensations like pain and emotion, the way humans can. Computers are not alive. Which brings us again to the question of what exactly life is.

My main argument for the "life force" or soul is this: If you say that there is no more to us then our physical composition, if you say that there is no fundamental difference between a human and a computer because we are both made up of atoms moving in certain ways, if you say that physical things are only things which can exist, then because you cannot define life or the soul in terms of atoms moving in a certain way, you have two and only two possible conclusions about life:

1- Everything is alive. Computers, thermostats, and rocks are alive.

2- Life does not exist, and therefore nothing is alive. Therefore, if nothing is alive, then you are not alive. I am not alive. This seems to be the position you and AltF4 support. Heck, you even said that we are not sentient beings. Things may appear to be alive but it's humans that make these distinctions to make sense of the world.

Can't you see how absurd this is? When you get to the conclusion of "I am not alive" you know something is wrong. Stop thinking like a computer, and start thinking like a human.

The destinction between life and non-life is an entirely human construct.

EVERYTHING is made up of atoms rearranging themselves in accordance with various laws of chemistry and physics. In some cases, this leads to chemical reactions with an indication of design, or consciousness, or "life". Complexity can very well spring up from very, very simple reactions. The claim that we are different seems intuitively true–after all, we "think". That's nice, but you know what? That in no way makes us special. It just means that we have a different electrochemical setup to most things in existence.

The belief that we are "alive" or "sentient" moreso than anything else has to rely on a few very dubious assumptions: first, the existence of a soul, or life-force, or something akin to that–this has never been proven, never been demonstrated, and has completely failed to be a logical necessity unless you go down this road. Second, the intuitive belief that we are "more alive". You can't prove it on more than a "It seems logical" level. In other words, on the same level as claiming that it is "intuitively true" that all things that happen must have a cause, or that mathematics is logically and rhetorically true and complete. Seeing as you can neither prove it with logic nor empirically demonstrate the existence of such a soul or life-force, you're essentially left arguing for the unfalsifiable, a logical dead end. You have fallen into the "it seems logical enough" trap without actually showing it with logic. It's intuitively true that we are more alive than a rock. Logically/Empirically speaking, you either start with the unfalsifiable entity, or the dead logical chain.

But hey, you know what? Let's go to something you believe is unequivocally "not alive": computers. More specifically: robots. Imagine a hypothetical artificial intelligence capable of learning/advancing itself, even on a very basic level (something that we aren't as far from as you think). Is that "alive"?

So yeah, I don't believe that we are "more alive" than a computer by any objective standard. I think that the degree to which our biomechanical "computers" are more advanced and nuanced than, say, the electronics in the average computer or vacuum cleaner grants us a higher sense of intelligence and a good starting point for a morals system, but it doesn't grant the existence of the soul or free will.

--

Your explanation of pain essentially says, "Yeah, stimulus-response exists, but it doesn't explain how we feel that way". Which is flat-out wrong. The feeling of pain is caused by our body responding.

Reasoning is how we make sense of the data we obtain from these very studies. The scientific method itself is based on logic and reasoning.

So what you are telling me, is that I can say something ridiculous (like, for example, that there is a mannequin orbiting the sun, or that there is an evil genius controlling our thoughts, or that the world will end in 2012) and you would have no choice but to accept this as a real possibility, simply because you cannot scientifically prove it wrong?

I am having a hard time understanding your position on this issue.

You are the one making the claim here. I'm simply stating the obvious: that you have provided next to no real evidence for the claim you are stating, and that therefore it's reasonable to reject. But hey, nice attempt to give me the burden of proof.

So you want an example of something that cannot be scientifically tested, yet can be shown to make sense through the use of reason/logic? Easy enough.

What will happen if I smacked you upside the head with an aluminum bat? Assuming you are an average person, would you feel pain? My intuition says that yes, you would be in a lot of pain. But is there any way to scientifically verify that you would be experiencing pain? Sure, you could have all the electrical activity in your brain and whatnot, you could say "ow you *******", but there is no scientific test to show that you are actually experiencing the sensation of pain.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Excuse me for getting irate, but please, if you're coming into a discussion regarding the mind, learn some basics. Figure out, say, how the ****ing nervous system works before you go spouting off nonsense like this. For example here: seeing as we know how an aluminum bat interacts with the physiology of our head, we will get a reaction from the nerves in our head that will give us the stimuli of pain–assuming, that is, that my nervous system is working, and that the laws of physics don't decide, for some stupid reason, to turn themselves upside down.

For that matter, there is no scientific test or method that can prove that you are experiencing anything at all. Maybe you're just a philosophical zombie. Perhaps I am the only person in the entire world who actually experiences things! Logic, reason, and my intuition, however, say otherwise.

No, just intuition. That said, we have certain axioms we take to even begin to make sense of a discussion like this. This is one of them. Just like you don't argue against a scientific proof by attacking our senses, i.e. "my senses give me false data". But fair enough, I will accept this as proof or your premise. Now how about we don't pretend that this automatically is true, or that it gives your hypothesis any credibility?

Oh, noes! Our precious theory is under attack! Man the battle stations! Destroy all who oppose the mighty monkeys of our ancestors!

...I really don't know how to address this, but I hope you make that thread soon. Prepare your anus.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Note: my previous responses that you addressed are in green.

Something with no mass. You can't see it with your eyes, feel it with your hands, or otherwise observe it. But you can experience it. Please see qualia, this is what I'm talking about when I say non physical.
I see what you're talking about, but I don't agree that it actually exists.

Ok, we’re making progress. We have drawn the distinction between qualia(e.g. pain) and causes of qualia(e.g. electrical nerve activity). You say however that the things we experience aren’t real. In that case please answer these two questions.
1- How do you define “actually exists”?
2- Can something that does not actually exist have any sort of effect on the world/reality?

As far as the soul goes, I am not concerned with whether it is an unobservable type of matter, energy, or entirely non-physical. The main point is that it is something that stands apart (is different from) from biological functions and that it is necessary for life to exist.
Can you prove it though? And I don't mean intuitively, like you try below. I mean either with a clear logical argumentation or with empirical evidence.

I am simply trying to show that there is more to us then our chemical components, and I am trying to present my arguments in a logical, coherent manner. If something I say seems illogical just let me know. We'll get to the proofs soon enough.

Reasoning is how we make sense of the data we obtain from these very studies. The scientific method itself is based on logic and reasoning.

So what you are telling me, is that I can say something ridiculous (like, for example, that there is a mannequin orbiting the sun, or that there is an evil genius controlling our thoughts, or that the world will end in 2012) and you would have no choice but to accept this as a real possibility, simply because you cannot scientifically prove it wrong?

I am having a hard time understanding your position on this issue.
You are the one making the claim here. I'm simply stating the obvious: that you have provided next to no real evidence for the claim you are stating, and that therefore it's reasonable to reject. But hey, nice attempt to give me the burden of proof.

The only thing I said with regards to this issue is that “We can still use our reason to see if something makes sense”; in other words, we do not have to empirically verify every scrap of knowledge to judge it in a meaningful manner. You responded that we in fact cannot, and I proceeded to give a sufficient counterexample, and you acknowledged it as proof that “We can still use our reason to see if something makes sense”. That’s all that’s going on here.
I don’t want to get lost in details. I am just trying to present my arguments in a logical, coherent manner.

So you want an example of something that cannot be scientifically tested, yet can be shown to make sense through the use of reason/logic? Easy enough.

What will happen if I smacked you upside the head with an aluminum bat? Assuming you are an average person, would you feel pain? My intuition says that yes, you would be in a lot of pain. But is there any way to scientifically verify that you would be experiencing pain? Sure, you could have all the electrical activity in your brain and whatnot, you could say "ow you *******", but there is no scientific test to show that you are actually experiencing the sensation of pain.

Your explanation of pain essentially says, "Yeah, stimulus-response exists, but it doesn't explain how we feel that way". Which is flat-out wrong. The feeling of pain is caused by our body responding.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Excuse me for getting irate, but please, if you're coming into a discussion regarding the mind, learn some basics. Figure out, say, how the ****ing nervous system works before you go spouting off nonsense like this. For example here: seeing as we know how an aluminum bat interacts with the physiology of our head, we will get a reaction from the nerves in our head that will give us the stimuli of pain–assuming, that is, that my nervous system is working, and that the laws of physics don't decide, for some stupid reason, to turn themselves upside down.

I think you may have missed the point. I did not say “There is no way to prove that our senses cause us to experience pain”. I said “There is no way to prove that anyone but you experiences pain in the first place.” It plays into the whole Philosophical Zombie example.

For that matter, there is no scientific test or method that can prove that you are experiencing anything at all. Maybe you're just a philosophical zombie. Perhaps I am the only person in the entire world who actually experiences things! Logic, reason, and my intuition, however, say otherwise.
No, just intuition.

“I am a human being. I experience things. There are other human beings similar to myself. Therefore, it is likely that they experience things as well.”

Those four sentences up there are my reasoning. I used reason.
How do you define “reason” and “logic” anyways?

That said, we have certain axioms we take to even begin to make sense of a discussion like this. This is one of them. Just like you don't argue against a scientific proof by attacking our senses, i.e. "my senses give me false data". But fair enough, I will accept this as proof of your premise. Now how about we don't pretend that this automatically is true, or that it gives your hypothesis any credibility?

If this P Zombie example is acceptable proof of the premise, “We can still use our reason to see if something makes sense”, why should we pretend that it is not true?
Please clarify for me what you mean.

First I should point out that science actually does not have any sort of definition for what life itself is. It can only describe the signs or consequences of life. Now that that's out of the way...

As far as feeling and experiencing things goes, I don't think anyone in their right mind, certainly not you nor I, believes that computers can feel things, that they can experience sensations like pain and emotion, the way humans can. Computers are not alive. Which brings us again to the question of what exactly life is.

My main argument for the "life force" or soul is this: If you say that there is no more to us then our physical composition, if you say that there is no fundamental difference between a human and a computer because we are both made up of atoms moving in certain ways, if you say that physical things are only things which can exist, then because you cannot define life or the soul in terms of atoms moving in a certain way, you have two and only two possible conclusions about life:

1- Everything is alive. Computers, thermostats, and rocks are alive.

2- Life does not exist, and therefore nothing is alive. Therefore, if nothing is alive, then you are not alive. I am not alive. This seems to be the position you and AltF4 support. Heck, you even said that we are not sentient beings. Things may appear to be alive but it's humans that make these distinctions to make sense of the world.

Can't you see how absurd this is? When you get to the conclusion of "I am not alive" you know something is wrong. Stop thinking like a computer, and start thinking like a human.
The destinction between life and non-life is an entirely human construct.

EVERYTHING is made up of atoms rearranging themselves in accordance with various laws of chemistry and physics. In some cases, this leads to chemical reactions with an indication of design, or consciousness, or "life". Complexity can very well spring up from very, very simple reactions. The claim that we are different seems intuitively true–after all, we "think". That's nice, but you know what? That in no way makes us special. It just means that we have a different electrochemical setup to most things in existence.

The belief that we are "alive" or "sentient" moreso than anything else has to rely on a few very dubious assumptions: first, the existence of a soul, or life-force, or something akin to that–this has never been proven, never been demonstrated, and has completely failed to be a logical necessity unless you go down this road.

You say the existence of a soul has never been demonstrated? I beg to differ. First off, what do you mean by this, do you mean empirically verified via scientific testing? We agreed that, although it would be supportive if we could scientifically demonstrate it, it is not a necessity. Now lets look at the evidence.

The kind of evidence that supports the existence of something other then our chemical make-up consists largely of first-hand experiences. I want to look mainly at those experiences that fall into the category of Out-of-Body experiences or Near-Death experiences.

Firstly, what is a NDE? It "refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body; feelings of levitation; extreme fear; total serenity, security, or warmth; the experience of absolute dissolution; and the presence of a light." NDE are in many cases accompanied by OBEs. (Wikipedia)

What is an OBE? It's "an experience that typically involves a sensation of floating outside of one's body and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place outside one's body" (Wikipedia). One in ten people has experienced an OBE at least once in their lives, according to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141057.htm. Side note: this is the sensation one achieves when performing astral projection.

I would venture to guess that you have most likely not experienced either an OBE or an NDE. It's quite easy to say that every person who has experienced one of these is just hallucinating, or going through some kind of brain-death process, if you have never had such an experience yourself. You can dismiss such claims as anecdotal/insignificant, but the people who have these experiences in most cases have their lives completely changed. But before you simply dismiss this as BS, I want to point out something else to you.

Now what may surprise you is the fact that many people in OBEs/NDEs have accurately described things that they had never seen or heard previously before.

For example, from http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html: (I recommend you to follow that link and real the whole thing)

"Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of an amazing near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead."

What can you make of examples like these? Clinically brain dead/no brain activity whatsoever, no heartbeat, no breathing, and yet such accurate descriptions? From your position, how are these kinds of experiences and accurate re-telling even possible? They should not exist, and yet they do!

Let me remind you that this is not an extremely uncommon case to hear of. The quantity and quality of anecdotal evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of something other then our chemical make-up.

Second, the intuitive belief that we are "more alive". You can't prove it on more than a "It seems logical" level. In other words, on the same level as claiming that it is "intuitively true" that all things that happen must have a cause, or that mathematics is logically and rhetorically true and complete.

Don’t underestimate our intuition. Can you explain how it is possible that it feels like we have free will and yet it is an illusion? Why don't we feel compelled to do all of our actions in certain ways if we really don't have free will?

Seeing as you can neither prove it with logic nor empirically demonstrate the existence of such a soul or life-force, you're essentially left arguing for the unfalsifiable, a logical dead end. You have fallen into the "it seems logical enough" trap without actually showing it with logic. It's intuitively true that we are more alive than a rock. Logically/Empirically speaking, you either start with the unfalsifiable entity, or the dead logical chain.

The evidence has been presented.

But hey, you know what? Let's go to something you believe is unequivocally "not alive": computers. More specifically: robots. Imagine a hypothetical artificial intelligence capable of learning/advancing itself, even on a very basic level (something that we aren't as far from as you think). Is that "alive"?

What do you mean by learning/advancing itself? If you mean things like ingenuity, creativity, intelligence, well it would certainly be a remarkable achievement, to say the least. But we can’t give things like emotions, awareness, and just general sensation to a robot; even though these are things we have and take for granted.

So yeah, I don't believe that we are "more alive" than a computer by any objective standard.

What do you mean by “any objective standpoint”?

I think that the degree to which our biomechanical "computers" are more advanced and nuanced than, say, the electronics in the average computer or vacuum cleaner grants us a higher sense of intelligence and a good starting point for a morals system, but it doesn't grant the existence of the soul or free will.

Just want to remind you that there is absolutely no application for morals in a world without free will, absolutely none. If what you say is true, then all of that Plato, Aristotle, Confucius stuff is just rubbish and an illusion.

 

[Reaver197]

Read this interesting essay on dualism and disproving the existence (or, at least, the relevance) of the soul. At the end, it has a section about determinism and free-will. It seemed to fit with the spirit of this thread, so I figured someone might get a kick out of reading it. A warning: it is quite long. An interest in neuroscience and neuropathology will help in keeping the read entertaining.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

 

[AltF4]

Suntan Luigi:

I stopped reading at "consists largely of first-hand experiences". (And by "largely", you mean "entirely")

Come on. I can provide tons of first hand accounts for all sorts of absurd things. This is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence, it's not evidence at all.

Reaver:

I didn't read the whole essay. (It's very long) But the "Part 4" hits most of what I've been saying in this thread. Only with more philosophy terms and less sciencey terms.

 

[Dre89]

What I don't understand is why you guys always attack dualism, as if it's the only type of non physical position people hold. For example Alt label every non physicalist a dualist, which isn't always the case.

 

[AltF4]

I don't know what super specific meaning you think the word dualism has, but I'd take it to mean anyone who believes there are two forms of existence; only one of which is physical. I think that follows pretty naturally from the word itself.

So yes, I would call anyone who refers to their-self as a "non physicalist" a dualist. You believe there exists (at least) two different planes of existence. Unless by "non physicalist" you mean "doesn't believe the physical world exists". In which case I'd call you insane.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. Dualism is a specific type of belief in the non physical in which you believe there exists a perfect realm of infinite ideas, and the physical world is simply the manifestation of some of these ideas. Dualists believe essence is prior to existence, a sentiment not shared by all non physicalists.

There are even varying types of dualism, such as Cartesian or Platonic dualism.

 

[Theftz22]

Let's not mix up dualism in general with dualism with regards to the mind however.