A scientist says we have no free will

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would expect the parents to intervene a lot more if this is a playground. They are watching children brutalize other children.

Yes, that is a very difficult aspect to reconcile with a belief in a benevolent God.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Because you can't truly predict what a person is going to do until they do it. I'm sure there have been occasions where you planned to do something and then changed your mind at the last minute. Somethimes people act totally out of character. Good people sometimes go bad and sometimes evil people repent.

I can’t predict a lot of things.  That doesn’t mean they are random.  It could mean I don’t know that much….which is a given in my view.

[tagriffy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, that is a very difficult aspect to reconcile with a belief in a benevolent God.

Nevertheless, I do like your idea. It seems to me that it describes constraints on free will very well. We are physically limited beings, so we're not going to fly under our own power simply because we will it. Our socioeconomic status at birth partly determines the kinds of choices we have at all. Past choices can either open or close future choices. Free will operates within constraints, most of which we don't even consciously realize.

[tagriffy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can’t predict a lot of things.  That doesn’t mean they are random.  It could mean I don’t know that much….which is a given in my view.

In the context of predicting the future with any degree of specificity, they may as well be random. And with literally billions of decisions being made every second, exact predictions become harder and harder to make.

[Nofear]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Maybe because it seems like nothing more than a definitional issue?

You should totally email Dr. Sapolsky and let him know that you solved one of his decades old problems in 30 seconds. I'm sure it will be a huge relief to him.

[teddyaware]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Congrats on proving the story of Eden and the Fall to be completely false I guess.

How so? Do you disagree with the prophet Levi’s masterful discourse? At the heart of the fall of man narrative lies the very embodiment of every principle the prophet Lehi expounded concerning the absolute necessity of there being opposition in all things in order for all things, including God, to exist…

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Nephi 2)

Without the eternal principle of opposition in all things being built into the very framework of Eden at its creation, there could have been no justifiable and wise reason for the creation of the earth and man. This is why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed in the garden by God, in opposition to the the tree of life. And it’s also why the destructive spiritual intelligence called the devil, who stands in diametric opposition to God, was allowed to enter the garden to interact with and tempt Adam and Eve. Without allowing for opposition in all things, all things would vanish away into nonexistence.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2) 

Without real freedom of choice (not the illusion of freedom of choice championed by the spiritually blind cynics) it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to be authentically righteousness and happy.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

In order for an existence that can only be affirmed on the eternal principle of diametric opposition in all things to continue, all opposition must be real, not some sort of fake, illusory opposition that only seems to be real. Those who reject the reality of the principle of true opposition in all things are just looking for excuses to not have to obey God.

Edited October 26, 2023 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Most of the Second Coming prophecies are couched in vague language that could mean just about anything anyway. IMO, Mark 13:32 is the only reliable Second Coming prophecy.

Cool!   I can get rid of about 90 percent of the books on my bookshelves, then.  What am I going to do with the extra space?

[The Nehor]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:05 AM, teddyaware said:

How so? Do you disagree with the prophet Levi’s masterful discourse? At the heart of the fall of man narrative lies the very embodiment of every principle the prophet Lehi expounded concerning the absolute necessity of there being opposition in all things in order for all things, including God, to exist…

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. (2 Nephi 2)

Without the eternal principle of opposition in all things being built into the very framework of Eden at its creation, there could have been no justifiable and wise reason for the creation of the earth and man. This is why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was placed in the garden by God, in opposition to the the tree of life. And it’s also why the destructive spiritual intelligence called the devil, who stands in diametric opposition to God, was allowed to enter the garden to interact with and tempt Adam and Eve. Without allowing for opposition in all things, all things would vanish away into nonexistence.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2) 

Without real freedom of choice (not the illusion of freedom of choice championed by the spiritually blind cynics) it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to be authentically righteousness and happy.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

In order for an existence that can only be affirmed on the eternal principle of diametric opposition in all things to continue, all opposition must be real, not some sort of fake, illusory opposition that only seems to be real. Those who reject the reality of the principle of true opposition in all things are just looking for excuses to not have to obey God.

In the Garden there was no knowledge of good and evil and the way you were stating these as absolutes there could be no choice in partaking of the fruit. In fact the Garden should have ceased to exist due to the lack of this opposite.

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cool!   I can get rid of about 90 percent of the books on my bookshelves, then.  What am I going to do with the extra space?

Legos!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

You should totally email Dr. Sapolsky and let him know that you solved one of his decades old problems in 30 seconds. I'm sure it will be a huge relief to him.

Clearly he disagrees. But I think he's got it all wrong. I'm 100% with Sam Harris on this particular one. The well-being of conscious creatures is the only thing that matters when considering morality. I don't see how determinism or free will enter into it. If a robot is conscious, it's well being matters. Define bad as the the worst possible suffering for everyone. Define good as moving away from this. Where is the problem? I mean Dr. Sapolsky can do what he wants, but just because he declares something a problem doesn't make it so.

Edited October 26, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CA Steve]

Seems like there is some sort of contradiction in a study that claims there is no free will. 

Did the author have a choice in how the study was published?

 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Seems like there is some sort of contradiction in a study that claims there is no free will. 

Did the author have a choice in how the study was published?

 

There is no inherent contradiction between a universe with no free will and a study in such a universe reaching a correct conclusion.

Edited October 26, 2023 by The Nehor

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

...just because he declares something a problem doesn't make it so.

Quite agreed. I disagree fundamentally with his conclusion as well. Nonetheless, I personally find your "solution" flippantly simplistic with ill defined terms (e.g. consciousness) but that can be another discussion for another day. I'm not so inclined to pursue it with you at this time.

[CA Steve]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is no inherent contradiction between a universe with no free will and a study in such a universe reaching a correct conclusion.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quite agreed. I disagree fundamentally with his conclusion as well. Nonetheless, I personally find your "solution" flippantly simplistic with ill defined terms (e.g. consciousness)

Oh please. Biologists who have dedicated their lives to studying “life” can’t agree on a definition for the term. That doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about “life” in very meaningful ways. Same with “good”, “bad” and “well-being”. 

18 minutes ago, Nofear said:

but that can be another discussion for another day. I'm not so inclined to pursue it with you at this time.

👍

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Who is the man in this case?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Define bad as the the worst possible suffering for everyone. Define good as moving away from this. Where is the problem?

Where does this put euthanasia?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where does this put euthanasia?

Same place as it exists currently. A difficult grey area balanced by the lived pain, hope or lack thereof for a better future, and the net impact on the lives of those to be impacted. A decision best made by those closest to the decision with guardrails applied by the state. 
 

Anyone that claims to have morality figured out is selling something or looking for money (imnsho). I’ve not met someone in real life that disagrees with the framework I laid out above, but implementation is a whole bunch of disagreements. For starters, lack of agreement on the existence of an immortal soul, makes the calculus for well-being, hard to pin down. 

[Nofear]

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Where does this put euthanasia?

As the best way to prevent human harm.

*Looks at Asimov’s Laws of Robotics*

Oh no, here we go again.

Edited October 27, 2023 by The Nehor

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As the best way to prevent human harm.

*Looks at Asimov’s Laws of Robotics*

Oh no, here we go again.

And here I was thinking of appealing to Hari Seldon for predicting human behaviour. 

[tagriffy]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:25 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Cool!   I can get rid of about 90 percent of the books on my bookshelves, then.  What am I going to do with the extra space?

Buy good books? 😁

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Buy good books? 😁

I hope.  (I have too many in my reading queue as it is.  [Sigh]  Oh, well! )

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:23 AM, Nofear said:

Good meme, but the line actually was, "Life is pain, Highness.  Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Sorry to be pedantic.