Is free will an illusion?

[olavisjo]

I find that under a naturalistic philosophy it is impossible for free will to exist, for the simple reason that when we make decisions about things we are performing electrical and chemical reactions in our brains, very much like our computers process data under the control of natural laws, so the outcome of any such process must be strictly determined by past events.
A theist can say that free will is a daily miracle given to us by God, but how can an atheist explain the concept?

[olavisjo]

first of all, chance and purpose both imply intent.. meaning both imply God. the other option would be that all of this information just simply exists, that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes (and phases of universes), or that the death of this one and only universe is the birth of another single universe. the existence of this universe is not evidence of a higher being.

If you can believe in something like that, why would you not believe in a god? There is no difference.

Also, you will have to explain how chance implies intent

not only do i not understand what you mean by "new information", but what created God?

Before you wrote that last post, the information you wrote did not exist so you created "new information" by writing the post.

God exists like math, logic, love, space. These things were never created, they just exist because it is impossible for them to not exist.

[olavisjo]

B. Information is the result of cause and effect. The information you are reading was caused by my thoughts which was caused by my past which was caused by evolution which was caused by debris from a supernova which was caused by a hydrogen cloud which was caused by the big bang...

C. Conclusion. All the information that exists was created by chance or on purpose, when the universe began, only it was archived in the position and momentum of the first matter and energy to be revealed over billions of years of cause and effect.

The word "information" is commonly regarded as denoting knowledge.

• in-for-ma-tion [in-fer-mey-shuhn]
  
  
  –noun
  1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
  
  2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

So for information to exist there must necessarily be an apprehending mind---something capable of knowing---which, as far as we know, only came on the scene about a billion years ago with the appearance of multicellular life. This means that information has only existed for about 7% of the age of the universe.

But maybe it isn't really "information" that you have in mind????? May want to try another term.

The information in the DNA of a bacteria exists, even if there is no "apprehending mind".

Information is just data that is useful in some way. Knowledge is the application of information, and answers questions that begin with "how". Understanding answers the "why" questions. And wisdom is the proper application of understanding.

So, information is the best word to describe the content of the post that you wrote. So tell me, where did the information you wrote ultimately come from?

[olavisjo]

There is certainly the appearanec of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time.

What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.

If we look at 'now' rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.

"Now" has always been and will always be. The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sensse of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.

This is clearly an argumentum ad nonsense.

If I am missing something then please try and explain what you said in some rational terms and we may continue, but as far as I can tell you are just throwing words out with no real meaning behind them.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past.

Clearly I do not accept it.

Then refute it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 231:

The information in the DNA of a bacteria exists, even if there is no "apprehending mind"...

Not quite. DNA acts according to its physical properties. It is really nothing more than a molecule that behaves like all other molecules - based on its constituent parts.

In using the term information, we are extrapolating this information from this complex molecule when we consider its properties. DNA doesn't so much react to its own "information" as it does react according to its constituent parts.

Notice the phrase...

...Information is just data that is useful in some way. Knowledge is the application of information, and answers questions that begin with "how". Understanding answers the "why" questions. And wisdom is the proper application of understanding.

Except here we're conflating information with DNA containing its own "knowledge". DNA has yet to be shown to think, and thus considering it to hold this knowledge can't be supported. Again, it is merely a complex molecule that reacts according to various chemical/physical laws.

So, information is the best word to describe the content of the post that you wrote. So tell me, where did the information you wrote ultimately come from?

You seem to be making an analogy to DNA, so I'll rephrase it thus:

"Where did the information in DNA come from?"

It comes from its own properties. As it is a complex chemical it will react according to its makeup, and its environment.

That we perceive information in DNA is only because we classify it as such. Anything that has substance can be considered to hold information. This doesn't show that this information is anything beyond what that substance itself is composed of, or how that substance may react to its environment by way of physical laws.

[bernee51]

There is certainly the appearance of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time.

What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.

If we look at 'now' rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.

"Now" has always been and will always be. The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sensse of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.

This is clearly an argumentum ad nonsense.

Because you say so?

If I am missing something then please try and explain what you said in some rational terms and we may continue, but as far as I can tell you are just throwing words out with no real meaning behind them.

Let me take it sentence by sentence....
“There is certainly the appearance of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time. “
The reason we have a sense of self is because of this concept we call time. Our sense of self is built on our relationships with the manifest universe. These relationships are constructs built on past memories and future anticipations. Because we are caught up in this time concept – our very sense of self is dependent on it – we perceive action/reaction as cause and effect. Have you read Hume on causality?

“What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.�
Not sure what problem you would have with this...it is self evident that with perception of cause and effect what was perceived as an effect becomes a cause in the apparent chain of events.

“If we look at ‘now’ rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.�

‘Now’ is outside of time...how long is a ‘now’? When existence is viewed as a series of ‘nows’ – outside of time, the concept of cause and effect becomes an emergent existence as opposed to a ‘caused’ one.

“"Now" has always been and will always be. “

Can you describe a ‘time’ when now did not exist?

“ The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sense of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.�

Because we are caught up in the apparent temporal – our very sense of self is dependent on it - the idea of an eternally existing existence is difficult to grasp – that difficulty is overcome by inventing a creator and a creation in order of kickoff this apparent, but illusory, chain.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past.

Clearly I do not accept it.

Then refute it.

I have done so. Cause and effect is an illusion on which our sense of individual self depends. In reality we are biological creatures who have evolved a self reflective consciousness. First comes consciousness then comes mind (which is nothing more than thoughts).

Erwin Schrodinger questioned as to why consciousness is only ever referred to in the singular.

Is my consciousness, and by that I am not referring to the our respective mental manifestations of it but consiousness itself, any different to yours?

[olavisjo]

From Post 231:

The information in the DNA of a bacteria exists, even if there is no "apprehending mind"...

Not quite. DNA acts according to its physical properties. It is really nothing more than a molecule that behaves like all other molecules - based on its constituent parts.

In using the term information, we are extrapolating this information from this complex molecule when we consider its properties. DNA doesn't so much react to its own "information" as it does react according to its constituent parts.

Notice the phrase...

...Information is just data that is useful in some way. Knowledge is the application of information, and answers questions that begin with "how". Understanding answers the "why" questions. And wisdom is the proper application of understanding.

Except here we're conflating information with DNA containing its own "knowledge". DNA has yet to be shown to think, and thus considering it to hold this knowledge can't be supported. Again, it is merely a complex molecule that reacts according to various chemical/physical laws.

So, information is the best word to describe the content of the post that you wrote. So tell me, where did the information you wrote ultimately come from?

You seem to be making an analogy to DNA, so I'll rephrase it thus:

"Where did the information in DNA come from?"

It comes from its own properties. As it is a complex chemical it will react according to its makeup, and its environment.

That we perceive information in DNA is only because we classify it as such. Anything that has substance can be considered to hold information. This doesn't show that this information is anything beyond what that substance itself is composed of, or how that substance may react to its environment by way of physical laws.

So are you trying to argue that genetic information is not passed from generation to generation by way of DNA?

[olavisjo]

There is certainly the appearance of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time.

What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.

If we look at 'now' rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.

"Now" has always been and will always be. The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sensse of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.

This is clearly an argumentum ad nonsense.

Because you say so?

If I am missing something then please try and explain what you said in some rational terms and we may continue, but as far as I can tell you are just throwing words out with no real meaning behind them.

Let me take it sentence by sentence....
“There is certainly the appearance of cause and effect as a result of our concept of time. “
The reason we have a sense of self is because of this concept we call time. Our sense of self is built on our relationships with the manifest universe. These relationships are constructs built on past memories and future anticipations. Because we are caught up in this time concept – our very sense of self is dependent on it – we perceive action/reaction as cause and effect. Have you read Hume on causality?

“What we call cause becomes effect and effect becomes a cause - cause and effect are essentially the same.�
Not sure what problem you would have with this...it is self evident that with perception of cause and effect what was perceived as an effect becomes a cause in the apparent chain of events.

“If we look at ‘now’ rather than a period of time we do not see cause and effect - we see an emerging and emergent state of existence.�

‘Now’ is outside of time...how long is a ‘now’? When existence is viewed as a series of ‘nows’ – outside of time, the concept of cause and effect becomes an emergent existence as opposed to a ‘caused’ one.

“"Now" has always been and will always be. “

Can you describe a ‘time’ when now did not exist?

“ The idea, the concept, of a creation and a creator exists for the same reason the sense of individual self exists - and like the individual self it is illusory.�

Because we are caught up in the apparent temporal – our very sense of self is dependent on it - the idea of an eternally existing existence is difficult to grasp – that difficulty is overcome by inventing a creator and a creation in order of kickoff this apparent, but illusory, chain.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past.

Clearly I do not accept it.

Then refute it.

I have done so. Cause and effect is an illusion on which our sense of individual self depends. In reality we are biological creatures who have evolved a self reflective consciousness. First comes consciousness then comes mind (which is nothing more than thoughts).

Erwin Schrodinger questioned as to why consciousness is only ever referred to in the singular.

Is my consciousness, and by that I am not referring to the our respective mental manifestations of it but consiousness itself, any different to yours?

I still do not have a clue as to what you are trying to say.

Just try and explain to me why cause and effect is an illusion. Is that to say if I cause an accident by running a red light, the effect is just an illusion?

[T-mash]

That is all the evidence that we need.

Which part of my reasoning do you dispute?

A. The law of cause and effect. Everything that happens was caused by something(s) that happened prior.

B. Information is the result of cause and effect. The information you are reading was caused by my thoughts which was caused by my past which was caused by evolution which was caused by debris from a supernova which was caused by a hydrogen cloud which was caused by the big bang...

C. Conclusion. All the information that exists was created by chance or on purpose, when the universe began, only it was archived in the position and momentum of the first matter and energy to be revealed over billions of years of cause and effect.

So, if you accept my first premise (cause and effect) then you must accept that information can not be created, it can only come from the past. Yet new information is created fresh everyday so all the information you see around you was either caused, at the beginning of the universe, by random chance or the will of a very powerful being that we can call God.
The odds of it happening by chance is infinitesimally small so goddidit.

That is about as simple as it gets.

You call God. Mr perfect? The most perfect known being we could ever possibly imagine, all-powerful, all-knowing is the start? That somehow makes absolutely > 0 < sense. If everything needs a cause, so does god. If you think god was the first cause.. why on earth would the first cause be the most complex thing? It's like human beings inventing a calculator before we were able to solve what 1+1 is ....
The "law of cause and effect" isn't a "law". It's just a logical thing. You see that everything around you has a cause, therefore you conclude that everything there is MUST have a cause as well. True? Maybe. However this form of logic leads us to assume that the most complex thing that has ever existed couldn't possibly be the start of it.

How is new information proof of the existence of god? I write a book, therefore god exists? Yes, pure logic.
About the chance thing. The odds of it happening by chance is close to 1. The chance of X* happening over an infinite amount of time is close to 1. The chance that some random perfect being just happens to exist and created all of this is close to 0 and the chance does not get bigger over an infinite amount of time. Unless you are proposing that their is a chance of a God spawning?

The chance of an all-perfect being at the start of everything is close to 0. The chance of a universe forming by chance over an infinite amount of time is close to 1.

That's about as simple as it gets.

* as long as X has a chance

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 235:

So are you trying to argue that genetic information is not passed from generation to generation by way of DNA?

I was trying to dispel the notion that DNA acts according to its "knowledge" (application of information). Where DNA acts according to its physical properties, there's no inherent "knowledge" as is so often implied when some use the term information. I fear some will conflate the term knowledge here as a conscious act.

[olavisjo]

You call God. Mr perfect? The most perfect known being we could ever possibly imagine, all-powerful, all-knowing is the start? That somehow makes absolutely > 0 < sense. If everything needs a cause, so does god. If you think god was the first cause.. why on earth would the first cause be the most complex thing? It's like human beings inventing a calculator before we were able to solve what 1+1 is ....
The "law of cause and effect" isn't a "law". It's just a logical thing. You see that everything around you has a cause, therefore you conclude that everything there is MUST have a cause as well. True? Maybe. However this form of logic leads us to assume that the most complex thing that has ever existed couldn't possibly be the start of it.

How is new information proof of the existence of god? I write a book, therefore god exists? Yes, pure logic.
About the chance thing. The odds of it happening by chance is close to 1. The chance of X* happening over an infinite amount of time is close to 1. The chance that some random perfect being just happens to exist and created all of this is close to 0 and the chance does not get bigger over an infinite amount of time. Unless you are proposing that their is a chance of a God spawning?

The chance of an all-perfect being at the start of everything is close to 0. The chance of a universe forming by chance over an infinite amount of time is close to 1.

That's about as simple as it gets.

* as long as X has a chance

I like the way you reason.
You mention "infinite". It is impossible for the natural world to exist for an infinite amount of time for several reasons, one of which is entropy. Science has shown that energy flows from useful to useless forms. So if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time in any form it would have arrived at a state of "heat death" a long time ago. So there must exist some supernatural law that allows entropy to be reversed, a free lunch.
So we can conclude that something supernatural does exist.
There are only three possible conditions of existence. If we were to take an inventory of all that exists in all dimensions we would find.
A. Nothing exist.
B. A finite amount of stuff exists.
C. An infinite amount of stuff exist.
We can rule out A because we are having this conversation.
B is a little harder to rule out, but we can do so intuitively by just saying why would our inventory of all that exist be X and not Y. There is just no reason why an arbitrary amount of stuff would just happen to exist.
So we are left with C.
It is very hard to wrap ones mind around the infinite. Just imagine if you and I get into space ships that can move a lot faster than the speed of light and we move in opposite directions for an infinite amount of time, how far away from each other could we get before we arrive at the edge of the universe and what would be beyond that?
So if the infinite can exist, why would this infinite not be aware of us, why would he not be able to manipulate our universe the way we manipulate the computer in front of us? Why would he not be able to give us the ability to write a novel?

But I do agree with you, that an infinite God makes no sense, and I am fairly confident that I will never truly understand that concept, but it is the only possibility. So I just accept it.