FANDOM


Birric Forcella: Hi all

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :)

Gilles Kuhn: well as you know all will be logged and the bunny of death will report all to big bother ;-)

TR Amat: So, we are here of our own free will. :)

Arisia Vita: Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul. - Ashleigh Brilliant

Gilles Kuhn: yes wes indeed and btw whats your blood group tr ? ;-)

Teleo Aeon: hi all

Gilles Kuhn: hello teleo

Teleo Aeon: I brought my own chair, if that's ok

Arisia Vita: Hi Teleo

Arisia Vita: that's fine, I brought my own seat too

Birric Forcella: Yeah, but who directs the Captain? And does that Captain have a Captain of his own?

TR Amat: My blood group is a nice oxygenated fluoro carbon, thanks. :)

Teleo Aeon: :)

Arisia Vita: perspective is everything

Gilles Kuhn: np teleo i assume she pass the tec controls ;-)

Gilles Kuhn: it passed*

Teleo Aeon: :)

Birric Forcella: You'll regret that, Gaya

Gilles Kuhn: well ok so last weeks we have saw two articles that seemed to present a kind of challenge to the idea of free will

Gaya Ethaniel: :P

Gilles Kuhn: both based in brain scanning technique

Gilles Kuhn: first identified an electrical activity correlated to movement 500 ms before a conscious decision to move was made

Gilles Kuhn: (libett one so)

Birric Forcella: We should actually be clear about it, that there will be more to come - there will be finer views of the brain which will show more sites involved - and maybe even earlier reaction - as well as sites that control the "veto" Libet talked about

Gilles Kuhn: secund predicted a motor choice 5 second before the conscious decision of say choice mas made (or at least perceived to be made)

Gilles Kuhn: indeed birric

Birric Forcella: We should wonder what kind of finding would actually make a difference

Gilles Kuhn: but now i propose we try to see the big picture do these empirical experience say something to the philosophical problem of free will?

Gilles Kuhn: lot of things are at stake scientific realism or relativism for instance are epistemological position that will have a very different opinion of the importance of these results

Gilles Kuhn: and indeed again birric

Gilles Kuhn: and as i have make a lot of taks in the late week to try to explain the technique and the experiemnts i would like today to be way more open debate so load and fire at will ladies bunny gentlemen and fox

Gaya Ethaniel: well ... I just don't know enough to answer such a big question Gilles.

Winston Haystack: Don't forget Box

Gilles Kuhn: well let try first to separate the issues in a good old cartesain ways then gaya

Gilles Kuhn: sorry winston

Gaya Ethaniel giggles.

Gilles Kuhn: first issue is the value of empirical science to mingle in let say ontological debate such as the question of free will defined in an absolute manner like kant freedom is

TR Amat: Are p-zombies allowed to speak? :)

Gilles Kuhn: yes and non p too tr

TR Amat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Cosmo Fenwitch: Suppose a computer claimed to have free will? Would discovering that certain circuits activated just before it announced its "decision" make any difference to us?

Gilles Kuhn: as birric put it with the new theories and technique in neuroscience we will have lot more of communication like libett and haynes with everytime some fuss and not only about free will but consciousnees responsability of act etc

TR Amat: It say the evidence suggests that mind is something done by brains. But, exactly what the processes involved in 'mind' are...

Gilles Kuhn: well cosmo the problem is not about the announcement of decision but of the being conscious of the decision the nuance is capital

Gilles Kuhn: yes tr but thats very old evidence i remember to have read (translated of course ) an egyptian text to this effect

TR Amat: How much self-referential perception is involved in the idea of "free will"? Does this experiment illuminate anything about that?

Gilles Kuhn: well the assumation of both article is that to be free a dcision need to be conscious

TR Amat: There are major issues of determining what "free will" and "decision" are.

Gilles Kuhn: and as the conscious part seems to happen after a brain activity that can even tell per se the "decision " made apparently we have a problem here

Gilles Kuhn: indeed tr

TR Amat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

TR Amat: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Gilles Kuhn: oh i can find another big one too as web ref one sec

TR Amat: Why do you need to be conscious of the it for it to be "free wll"?

TR Amat: Being conscious of it would seem to be another layer of perception?

Gaya Ethaniel: If it's not conscious, does it means automatically 'reflex'?

Gilles Kuhn: because the concept of freedom is linked to the concept of consciousn ess for example a sleepwalker is not considered to have free will due to his non conscious state

TR Amat: Not being conscious of it need not mean it is 'reflex'?

Gilles Kuhn: no gaya reflex are very precisemotor movement that originate not in the brain

TR Amat: The mental equivalent of reflexes are probably 'prejudices'.

Arisia Vita: or possibly "reactions"?

TR Amat: Though, 'prejudice' does have negative associations.

Gilles Kuhn: well but thats high cognition order tr and btw thats important because all experient rely on very elemental motor movement very elemental decision makeing remember a quality and too a limitation of science is its reductionist simplification method

TR Amat: Does consciousness need to be conscious of itself to be functioning?

Arisia Vita: the question to me is, if we duplicate the exact state before the "decision" was made, will it be repeated? always?

Gilles Kuhn: is it not the definition of consciousness to be conscious off something and the least seems to be of itself whatever self is

Birric Forcella: If you look at what "free will" is supposed to mean - it can't possibly be unconscious - I don't even think Libet's "veto" could qualify, since it is far too short. Free will is supposed to be based on deliberation and reasoning and all the "mind" stuff. A reflex can't really contain all that.

Teleo Aeon: what would it mean if two people decided between themselves , which button to press ?

TR Amat: I'm unsure of that definition of consciousness.

Gilles Kuhn: right birric agreed on the reflex part but i am not so sure about the veto part

Birric Forcella: What possible meaning could there be to "free" if it is unconscious?

TR Amat: I'm pretty sure I take allegedly reasoned decisions of a morning before I'm sure that I'm conscious. :)

Gilles Kuhn: well arisia to reproduce exactly a neurological state is probably absolutely impossible

Arisia Vita: it is a thought experiment

Arisia Vita: not necessary to be physically realizable

Gilles Kuhn: and no need to invoke heisenberg principles brain complexity well enough

TR Amat: Experience is almost certainly continuously throwing in new variables - "advancing the state of the consciousness vector".

Gilles Kuhn: ok ari then indeed it is a good question but and thats a big jump in the argumentation what the subject of free will would it not be the brain as an object and process in its entirety ?

Gilles Kuhn: but this argument is another direction remember that all the point is about the time decision is perceived to be made

Gaya Ethaniel: I'm not really sure what exactly the subjects were perceiving to begin with. Were they really about 'making decisions'?

Birric Forcella: I think the whole question has a simple bottom line: You MUST claim something outside of natural law - indeed outside of the universe - in order to claim free will.

Birric Forcella: How ould you do that?

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Dali :)

Dali Waverider: Hi Gaya. Sorry to be late.

Gaya Ethaniel: How so Birric? I don't get that ...

Birric Forcella: If your act/thought is caused by natural laws - then clearly it was not free

Birric Forcella: Either it is caused or not

Gilles Kuhn: well birric thats a big point in the debate you assume there that free mean out of natural law and you assume too which is a big assumption that the universe is reductionist epistemicaly speaking and that laplace daemon could theoretically exist in thougjht experiment that is very discutable

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ... I see.

Teleo Aeon: Kant, posited the principle of universal causal determinism as the principle which could be argued give rise to the Class, sense forms of thought.

Birric Forcella: No, Gilles - I have no problem with QM - if QM causes my decision - it's just the same as if it was caused by causality - in both cases it is CAUSED

Gilles Kuhn: and too birric you assume the universe is ruled by what you call natural law or causality or anything making it a mechanic in a cartesain way big ontological and i say metaphysical assumption and as metaphysical not provable nor testable

Cosmo Fenwitch: I'm concerned about the different time scales observed by Libet (ms) and Haynes (several sec). Are they both related to free will? If not, perhaps neither is.

Birric Forcella: Unless you can show that somehow my mind changes the RANDOM effects of QM underlying my mind - my decision was NOT free

Gilles Kuhn: sorry i never mentionned qm as an positive argument

Gaya Ethaniel: I think Haynes' method was more accurate to begin with ... but I'm not sure.

Gilles Kuhn: well cosmo the time scales were due essentially to the instruments used

Gaya Ethaniel: more accurate in some aspects than*

Birric Forcella: No, in fact, my whole philosophy is about showing that mechanistic theories or even QM is not all that is in the universe - however, I do think that NOTHING unnatural or supernatural is in the universe - and you would need something supernatural to claim Free Will - and there is zero proof that it exists

Gilles Kuhn: well gaya haynes is more accurate spatially speaking less for time and he can male prediction which is really spooky

Gaya Ethaniel: ah yes I remember thanks Gilles :)

Gilles Kuhn: wel birric i dont understand why you need something not natural to claim free will

Arisia Vita: because nature is assumed to be rational? predictable?

Teleo Aeon: Kant isn't claiming anything unatural to explain Free will is He Gilles ?

Gilles Kuhn: and if the definition of nature is all what is the universe then indeed by definition nothing unnatural exist

Birric Forcella: Because if it's natural, then it is CAUSED and thus not free -- can we get straight what FREE means?

Gilles Kuhn: but that dont say anything about what nature can do evidently....

Gilles Kuhn: sorry i dont see the necessary relation between the human concept of causation and the idea of nature

TR Amat: I understand that one approach to the predictability of reality is that there is not enough information on reality to predict itself, so, predictability within the universe can't work. I may have mangled that...

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: I'm curious how the two papers compare?

TR Amat: Causation is sometimes claimed to be an artifact of human perception, or, at least a selection process via perception...

Gilles Kuhn: well teleo kant say that if free will can be reduced to natural law and has not its own set independant of law then there is no free will (i have always said that birric was kantian)

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Arisia Vita: if reality is "in principle" predictable, that is enough, it does not have to "in practice" be predictable.

Birric Forcella: Well, then look at it another way - the outcome of any will - caused or free - is an ACTION. If you claim free will, that action would come from nothing. You have to claim that the most fundamental laws of the universe are violated massively all the time in our mind.

Teleo Aeon: right Gilles.

Arisia Vita: unique cause = unique effect and vice versa

Gilles Kuhn: arisia if reallity is in principle predictable but that in pratique and due to absolute reason unpredictable ? i think that predictability is relative to the epistemic subject we are not laplaces daemon

Winston Haystack: Free will might work on the same principle that imagination does. When we dream we violate numerous physical laws, e.g, flying in space etc. Yet those physical law violations have a causal basis. Throwing it out there. HAHA

TR Amat: Can free will be functional, due to lack of predictability, rather than absolute?

Gilles Kuhn: thats my way of seeing it tr

Birric Forcella: I thought Kant said there IS free will. So how can I be a Kantian?

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

TR Amat: I've not given up on flying in space in RL. :)

Gilles Kuhn: if you remember i define liberty as the fact not to be predictible so haynes article was quite a pique for me

Teleo Aeon: for Kant, the notion of causation and even Time and space are seen as human artifacts.. not natural physical ones. so they are outside any physical naural system.. it's just for Kant that, he thought that we confuse and mislead ourselves into thinking that these things are actually instantiated in nature.. kant possits them as human constructs to a large degree.

Birric Forcella: I think it would be much more interesting to ask why some people so desperately cling to the idea of free will. Especially since there is zero proof for it

Gilles Kuhn: kant said it postulated it and if there was not then all is moral was without subject

Gaya Ethaniel: ok ... what is pique?

Gaya Ethaniel: You mean you disagreed Gilles?

Gilles Kuhn: totally correct teleo and as kant i a m relativist knoàwledge is a creation of the epistemic subject and so we cannot infer metaphysical things from mere empirical theories that remain constructs of our minds

TR Amat: Definitions of pique on the Web:

  • tightly woven fabric with raised cords
  • cause to feel resentment or indignation; "Her tactless remark offended me"
  • a sudden outburst of anger; "his temper sparked like damp firewood

Birric Forcella: It doesn't matter about kant or Lapace or anything. The question is: Is your thought/act caused by something or not. It's a matter of principle - not of actual predictability or complication, etc.

Gaya Ethaniel often juggles between French/English & English/Korean dictionaries ... :P

Birric Forcella: You seem to miss the little fact that it is exactly Free Will that is the metaphysical assumption

Gilles Kuhn: well but it can be birric that the question cannot be solve at least by empirical data

Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks TR :) It was an English word.

Winston Haystack: The argument that free will must be unnatural or supernatural presupposes that physical laws as we know them are necessarily true of the world. We however, to reiterate, can imagine physical law violations. How is that possible, if free will is impossible? More FFT.

Birric Forcella: Sure it can, Gilles. Unless you want to tell me that the preservation of energy/matter laws in physics cannot be settled by empirical data - or indeed by a-priori assumptions

Gaya Ethaniel: I'm sorry ... what's FFT?

Arisia Vita: we can imagine anything at all...what does that buy us re the real universe?

Winston Haystack: Food for thought

Teleo Aeon: to be honest Gilles, I think kant is in many ways correct.. I already have showed that Time cannot be found anywhere in the universe , for example. people just end up possiting very human notions such as age etc, to try to show Time is real in the universe... They don't seem to realize that the notion of -age- is a human construct and can not in any way be found to exist in the natural world.

Gaya Ethaniel: ah

Gilles Kuhn: and all your argument birric rely on the concept of cause this concept was smashed about our capacity to distinguish them by hume and kant causation is a relative one so not one that can be used in a metaphysic debate as kant said it very clearly in his critic of pure reason

TR Amat: I am not a fan of 'super determinism', which was a rather extreme form of the calvanist belief considered for a while. Maybe: http://everything2.com/user/Glowing+Fish/writeups/Determinism+and+super-determinism

Birric Forcella: AT this point I would rather question WHY people are so desperately wedded to their free will.

Birric Forcella: Well, Gilles, then please show me ANYTHING that is not caused.

Teleo Aeon: Birric..probably for the same reasons they are wedded to a notion such as determinism.

Birric Forcella: In fact, Kant himself saw causation as an a-priori

Birric Forcella: But I don't even mean LaPlace causation - QM works just fine for causation

Arisia Vita: even it we cannot know the cause, if one exists, that is the crucial point

Birric Forcella: Teleo, there are tons of proof for determination - zero proof for free will

Teleo Aeon: Kant would argue causation is a human construct.. QM actually shows indeterminism actually, and not determinism.

Gilles Kuhn: btw : http://philpapers.org/browse/free-will

Arisia Vita: tons of evidence...not proof

Gilles Kuhn: yes but relative to the epistemic subject

Birric Forcella: Teleo, you misunderstand QM

TR Amat: Laplace & causation: http://lowrypei.wordpress.com/products/from-laplaces-demon-to-a-new-consensus/

Winston Haystack: Wasn't Kantian Free Will in the noumenal world, thus ruling out the A priori (pure reason )

Birric Forcella: QM is a NATURAL phenomenon. If QM is at the bottom of our decisions, then they are NOT free

Gilles Kuhn: tons of hints from system of thought that rely on the concept of causation birric thats a circular argument

Teleo Aeon: sure Birric,, it is not just simply a strait causal line though in causation.. a notion of causation maps well to the world.. but then so does free will.

Gilles Kuhn: free will indeed is noumenal because is postulate an idea of pure reason

Teleo Aeon: QM is not a decission phenomenon.. like where is the proof of that ?

Birric Forcella: Nonsense - you are refusing to consider the implications of your claim

Gilles Kuhn: qm is not a natural phenomenon : it is a scientific theory the difference is huge !

TR Amat: QM is a little short of having an "arrow of time" (which only appears on a macro scale), so, talking about it and causation...

Teleo Aeon: an idea does not map dirrectly to a quantum state.. that would be almost absurd

Birric Forcella: Well, Gilles now pretends to know what's happening in the noumenal

Gilles Kuhn: goddamn birric i have not say that

Cosmo Fenwitch: Gilles, you define liberty as the fact not to be predictible. What if I flip a coin and will give you a large sum of money if you say how it lands, and I allow you to say that AFTER you see the coin land. If I can predict with greater than 50% accuracy that you chose in a way that allows you to win, that doesn't mean that the choice was not free or that the coin forced you choice or predicted it. So, free does not mean absolutly unpredictable.

Gaya Ethaniel: language Gilles language :P

Gilles Kuhn: yes gaya i have read wittgenstein too ;-)

Winston Haystack: The Noumea world was beyond A priori concepts and formal intuitions, so how can that be something of Pure reason Gilles?

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Teleo Aeon: Cos.. get something right has little to do with freedom.. you are as free to get it wrong.

Teleo Aeon: getting*

Gilles Kuhn: i must say cosmo that i have difficulty to see your argument probably fatigue of mine

TR Amat: Once you head off into deep metaphysics I'm afraid you tend to loose me...

Dali Waverider: My take: as organisms evolved to make more and more complex decisions, the brain developed a self-awareness, where what had previously been unconscious decision making rose into the conscious mind. That's what we perceive as free will. But I agree with Birric that it's an illusion. But I say its a natural consequence of evolution.

Gilles Kuhn: because its an idea of pure reason winston and if it ""exist"" it is noumennal but as an idea of pure reason is a postulate nothing you can proof so it has this very noumenal quality to be unknowable

Birric Forcella: QM says that things appear in certain places according to iron laws - randomly - now all you can claim using QM is that these random positons are the basis for effects in the mind. So clearly the effects in the mind are CAUSED by those random laws. Unless you can claim and show that your Free Will changed the random positions of particles creating the input to your mind - you have NO Free Will

Teleo Aeon: kant was saying that we can't know a thing in itself... so we may think we know something about the world and it may map really well.. but these are maps.. they don't access the real nature of the thing in itself.. which is a fair point in my view.

TR Amat: Consciousness is a very powerful tool. It allows all sorts of things simple learned reactions don't. Is it necessarily tied to ideas of free will?

Birric Forcella: In addition, Gilles, your claims basically imply that there is no regularity at all in the Universe - since you have to challenge the very basics of physics to maintain your position. So you can't even make the claim your ARE making

Birric Forcella: What difference does that make, Teleo?

Dali Waverider: It seems that free will as detrmined by the experimenters is tied to awareness, so yes, for them.

Gilles Kuhn: and cosmo that s not a prediction you make because you cannot claim certainty of my action if for example i'm a buddhist or an ascethic or a western philosopher wanting to piss you off i can very well refuse the money

TR Amat: I'm not convinced consciousness is tied to self-awareness, either. Unless, conscious modelling of the situation requires a consideration of the position of 'self' within it.

Gilles Kuhn: birric hume argument

Cosmo Fenwitch: My point was that the fact that I can predict that you will do something in a particular situation does not mean that you were not free to do otherwise.

Arisia Vita: I believe it does Cosmo

Gilles Kuhn: and yes i challenge physic as a realist theory for me its only an instrumental one

Teleo Aeon: kant is about showing the differences between what is the physical and scientific world and what is the Human epistemological world etc.. kant isn't saying people shouldn't inquire about the physical and causal nature of things.

Cosmo Fenwitch: And yes you could, so you are free, but I still might be able to correctly predict most of the tiome.

Birric Forcella: You are simply playing word games with the word "free."

Gilles Kuhn: most of the time not enough for my definition of freedom cosmo

Birric Forcella: How can you claim that anybody is free to do otherwise?

Gilles Kuhn: back to wittgenstien then well sorry but tonight i cannot stay more than the official hour

Teleo Aeon: Birric.. how about, WE induce the qantum states by thought induction...any better ? so QM is determined by OUR thinking

Cosmo Fenwitch: Haynes was only right about 60% of the time.

Dali Waverider: oy

Arisia Vita: thanks for coming Gilles

Gaya Ethaniel: ok good night Gilles :)

Teleo Aeon: <--- takes ownership of the QM state of his own brain cells :p

Gilles Kuhn: yes cosmo but he was using a computer and indeed that mean thats his experience is way less conclusive than libett one ....

Birric Forcella: The claim that you are free to do otherwise would obviously assume that another state of atoms/neurons/brain cells obtained. So you are claiming that UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES you will do otherwise. That's a trivial claim

TR Amat: QM is about relationships between things. I'm not convinced it describes causation.

Winston Haystack: Then that still makes Free Will outside A priori. Whether the noumenal world can be extrapolated using A prioriness is one thing, but the world itself is outside the A priori, thus the place where Free Will exists. My last comment on this, and I will move on.

Birric Forcella: You need to show that under the SAME circumstances you could have done otherwise - that includes the SAME QM inputs

TR Amat: Thanks Giles.

Gilles Kuhn: btw before i go someone want to be part of the group if someone is not still?

Cosmo Fenwitch: ME

Gilles Kuhn: then ask gaya

Teleo Aeon: I can induce the quantum states and balances of my own Brain cells.. I do it all the time. by thinking.

Gaya Ethaniel: ok I will invite you Cosmos.

Birric Forcella: For Free Will it doesn't matter if QM describes causation. It only matters if it causes things to be in the place they are - that's all

Teleo Aeon: I just explained that Birric

Gilles Kuhn: gaya could you please give cosmo the holy orders ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: ok :)

Birric Forcella: Teleo, your thinking is caused - the whole train of your thinking is caused

Arisia Vita: Teleo, thinking is just a reaction to a previous state?

Cosmo Fenwitch: Thanks Gaya.

Teleo Aeon: no Birric.. I cause my OWN thinking

Arisia Vita: caused!?

Arisia Vita: how?

TR Amat: Do holy orders preclude free will? :)

Gilles Kuhn: and now farewell we will continue next week

Gilles Kuhn: mine not tr ;-)

Winston Haystack: TY Gilles

Dali Waverider: see you Gilles

Cosmo Fenwitch: Bye all.

Gilles Kuhn: bye all

Birric Forcella: No, you can't cause your own thinking - how could you? Thoughts are energy movements. You would have to claim that you can violate the laws of nature

Gaya Ethaniel: Good night :)

Arisia Vita: we're likely to still be here Gilles... :)

Birric Forcella: Basically, you MUST be claiming a miracle

Teleo Aeon: Birric, you seem to want to place thinking outside your own control and hand it over to some physical world we know little about, and then be able to say.. it was the atoms that made me do it

Arisia Vita: yes!

Arisia Vita: now you have it

Birric Forcella: Sure, Teleo - it IS the atoms making you do that

Teleo Aeon: lol

Gaya Ethaniel: afk for a bit then to record for wiki :)

Dali Waverider: more like the molecules, I think

Teleo Aeon: as if we have no agency ?

Arisia Vita: molecules are made of atoms?

Birric Forcella: That's the reason why people are so desperate about this - they can't brook the idea that it is nature doing it - just as people were desperate to keep the earth in the middle of the universe

Dali Waverider: uh huh

Birric Forcella: You're just afraid of being a physical body - having physical emotions - not having a "noble" "higher" nature

TR Amat: Then there is the Simulation Hypothesis to makes things really fun, where all our 'natural laws' are a program running in an extra-universal computer. :)

Birric Forcella: All that isn't necessary, TR

Dali Waverider: I like that TR

Winston Haystack: Would identical Birrics be making the same exact arguments?

Arisia Vita looks out the window and dreams of the power to predict the shape of every snowflake...

Teleo Aeon: Birric, to be honest it seems to be you that is mostly seeking to take this possition.. I have some ideas why, but I honestly don't think it is the case.. you can't hand over a notion of a meaningfull determinism to a world you don't even really know anything about.

Dali Waverider: Only in this timeline/universe, Winston.

Birric Forcella: All we need is the realization that we live in a natural universe. Free Will is merely a remnant of religious thinking

Teleo Aeon: or little about at best

Birric Forcella: It's claiming miracles

Teleo Aeon: it's nothing to do with claiming miracles

Dali Waverider: Birric, I really think the issusion of free will far precedes religious thinking.

Teleo Aeon: you are so anti religion you have entered a merry go round

Birric Forcella: Teleo, we know enough to rule out free will. Period

TR Amat: If 'free will' is a practical thing rather than an absolute, does that make a practical difference?

Dali Waverider: illusion.

Winston Haystack: Does that mean Birric is center of all possible worlds? Dali?

Arisia Vita: yes TR, that is an excellent point

Teleo Aeon: Birric.. we don't KNOW what we think we know.. becuse it is impossible to KNOW a thing in itself

Birric Forcella: Our brains create the illusion of free will as a comfort. Some people are just desperate to have illusions be real

Dali Waverider: Birric is the center of many, but not all worlds.

Birric Forcella: Just as they are desperate that there is a god

Winston Haystack: HAHA

TR Amat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Winston Haystack: Touche

Dali Waverider: Funny Birric, you almost are sayng that we freely (for comfort) create the illusion of free will.

Arisia Vita: I don't see him saying that

Birric Forcella: No, that clinging to the free will illusion is caused, of course - and the development of history will move people away from it - just as they moved away from god or geocentricity

Teleo Aeon: Birric.. if I make some music up based on a whole host of factors and experiences etc.. I don't ascibe that to my brain cells.. I posit that I am inducing me Brain cells to do what I want them to do.. in general at least

TR Amat: Free will is an illusion created by a theoretically predicable system of mind?

Birric Forcella: People with old ideas simply have to die out

Arisia Vita: yes TR

TR Amat: Some transhumanists are quite enthusiastic about free will. And, they plan to live indefintely. :)

Birric Forcella: It doesn't matter how predictable it is - the only thing that matters is that it has a natural cause

TR Amat: Why to do claim causation in a part of nature?

Birric Forcella: It's interesting to see grown people who pretend to be philosophers argue for supernatural ghosts in the machine

TR Amat: is a part?

Dali Waverider: But what if we are destined to believe in free will, Birric? Then there's nothing to be done. In fact why have the sense that you can change anything?

TR Amat: I don't know how reality works.

Arisia Vita: because of evidence TR, there is much evidence for causation

Birric Forcella: Who cares how enthusiastic somebody is? Christians are enthusiastic about their god. Only what is true and supportable matters. There is zero support for free will

Teleo Aeon: it has a human cause Birric.. I control my own brain thank you very much... do you think that qantum inderminism creates symphonies and poetry now ?

TR Amat: The root of creativity are unclear.

Birric Forcella: Well, SOME people are clearly destined to believe in Free Will - just as people were destined to believe in god. That's why the movement of history reveals truth in the end.

Birric Forcella: People mostly can't find it by themselves - only a few people are privileged to see the new truth

TR Amat is not convinced by 'historical inevitability'.

Dali Waverider: And why hope for that belief to die out? Whatever happens, will happen, right?

Winston Haystack: Why should anyone take anything you say serious Birric? If it's just atoms doing all the talking

Dali Waverider: Best just to take it as it comes?

Birric Forcella: Well, maybe historically we will go back into the dark ages - Teleo seems to argue for it

TR Amat: If there is no free will, does that mean there is no real responsibility?

Teleo Aeon: Birric, this position on Free will you have is a very particular Amercian style obsession.. it's US politicking not philosophy.

TR Amat: Reality probably regards humans as optional...

Birric Forcella: Well, the movement of history demands that some people have the right ideas - and impart them to others - right ideas finally will prevail - as they always have

Dali Waverider: It's pretty clear to me that neither position is satisfactorily provable.

TR Amat: A mix of ideas is more healthy than 'one true way'.

Birric Forcella: It's actually Hegel, Teleo - not very American

Winston Haystack: I choose not to respond to atoms talking, HAHA

Dali Waverider: We might be able to prove that the question cannot be answered though.

Birric Forcella: It's not a matter of provable - some people are simply blindered for whatever reason and can't be shown anything - you can see it in our Christians. You people claiming miracles are doing the same

Birric Forcella: There are no miracles

TR Amat: Without free will, no responsibility, so, the legal system collapses?

Teleo Aeon: Hegel was an idealist.. I am not sure what his position on determinism was to be frank

Birric Forcella: Oh, you are desperate to preserve the legal system? Why?

Arisia Vita: why must the legal system collapse?

Birric Forcella: Because the legal system shows you to be "noble" and "good" and "deserving"?

Teleo Aeon: I knew it was political.

TR Amat: No legal system means "everyone for themselves" - rather counter-survival, I think.

Winston Haystack: Bye

Arisia Vita: bye Winston

TR Amat: Bye Winston

Dali Waverider: seeya winston

Birric Forcella: They are desperate to cling to their hateful legal system, Teleo - a system based on the Bible and such

TR Amat: Personally i'm in favour of my continued survival.

Birric Forcella: It seems clear that in order to support an irrational legal system as in England, you NEED to claim free will

Teleo Aeon: well thats another matter Birric.. I am quite capable of having radical ideas so... shrugs

Birric Forcella: Same in the US

Dali Waverider: I dunno Birric, we lock up the nutters to protect the rest of us more than to punish these days.

Birric Forcella: You are about as conventional a sheeple as they get, Teleo

TR Amat: Are there any rational legal systems that you've familiar with, Birric?

Gaya Ethaniel: Have to go now, nice seeing you all :)

TR Amat: Bye Gaya

Dali Waverider: Good night, sweet Gaya

Birric Forcella: Do I need to be, TR, in order to say there is no free will?

Birric Forcella: Good night

Birric Forcella: I'm going too

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.