This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

William Lane Craig's 5 Reasons to Believe In God

#111cyclonekrusePosted 4/15/2013 2:13:31 PM
DarkContractor posted...
But regardless, even if something 'feels' a way we have still successfully demonstrated that it is in fact not that way (to share my own personal experience, the determinism of my thoughts is not something i notice until i think about the subject, similar to your refrigerator humming analogy)

This goes back to the same question. The difference in phenomenological feeling exists. If there is no difference between the two in terms of control, then why does it feel like there is?

I'm not denying the possibility that this feeling is too just one of an illusory difference. It's entirely possible. Plausible, even. It would make sense with us being biological systems that are subject to physical laws, etc. However, the explanation for why it happens is lacking. And since I constantly experience it on a very personal level, it's hard to discount that evidence.

No, you're presuming that consciousness has to do with it.

It's very hard for me to see how free will is possible without consciousness, so yes I presume consciousness has something to do with it.

And it's hard to see what consciousness is without free will. The picture that paints is of someone who is shackled in front of a TV, being forced to watch and listen (and smell and so on) everything with 0 control whatsoever. Again, entirely possible, but that doesn't really jive with my experience. I don't feel like a passive participant in life.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#112DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 2:58:40 PM
I think you misunderstood. Why do you think the statement you made follows from the logic of the arguments I've presented?


A lack of relevance. I've asked you to tie source of consciousness to thought flow like 50 times.

You seem to be arguing for behaviorism. That, like B.F. Skinner's pigeons, an external stimulus will result in a predictable output. But strict behaviorism has since fallen to the wayside due to the rise of cognitive theory. It's fairly clear that there is a cognitive component to our behavior. Our internal state does matter.


that internal state is shaped by the environment though, lol.

But of course our brains react to the environment. How useful would our decisions be if they had no relation to what was going on around us? I think maybe you expect too much from free will. It does not have to be completely divorced from the environment. It just needs to not be entirely determined by the environment.


How would it not be?
That's not entirely true. If I want to think about Mozart, I can then predict that my next (conscious) thoughts will be about Mozart.


How did you realize that you want to think about Mozart? When did you make the decision to make a thought about how you wanted to have a thought about Mozart?

Which does raise an interesting thought (ironically unbidden). Let's say that you're trying to remember Mozart's first name. For some reason, "Ludwig" comes into your consciousness. You know that's not right and reject it. For some time, you wrack your brain for the answer. Images of sheet music and memories of different musical scores stream through your consciousness. Finally, you "see" an image of a wolf and "Aha! It's Wolfgang."


Yeah "Aha! It's Wolfgang!" is a thought. Knowing the validity is a thought.

"Now, this situation is similar to Harris' though experiment. But it teases apart something I feel he overlooked. Sure, the thoughts that came into consciousness may have been somewhat beyond control. But who/what was providing the impetus to go searching your memory banks for the correct answer. Who/what kept at it when a known wrong answer surfaced? Who/what rejected the answer in the first place?"
Nueroprocesses, again we can establish a cause and effect relationship based on this. Consistently certain parts of the brain light up for certain thoughts. We don't know why it creates them but the relationship is there. The 'who' is silly. We are but the summary of our thoughts, our experiences, etc.

"Even if it's just your brain doing these things, it's not like something besides "you" are doing it."

I am not the brain. I am the culmination of the thoughts.

"And you can look at one of his statements from another angle. He points to the lack of being able to determine why a certain thing didn't have the opposite effect on someone. Why, he asks, did thinking of eating Japanese last night make you choose Japan rather than to say you want to think of something new? But that's the way it has to be if we are to have free will. If we could perfectly predict something like that, it would in fact squeeze out the possibility of free will."

He's not commenting on the ability to predict something like that (in theory it could be, if we all the data at hand). He's asking how does an individual 'flip' to the other.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#113DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/15/2013 3:08:11 PM

This goes back to the same question. The difference in phenomenological feeling exists. If there is no difference between the two in terms of control, then why does it feel like there is?

I'm not denying the possibility that this feeling is too just one of an illusory difference. It's entirely possible. Plausible, even. It would make sense with us being biological systems that are subject to physical laws, etc. However, the explanation for why it happens is lacking. And since I constantly experience it on a very personal level, it's hard to discount that evidence.


Because of a quark of, how you put it the fork in the road analogy.

As for consciousness, I don't know what causes consciousness. But the source of it does not affect my free will.

It's very hard for me to see how free will is possible without consciousness, so yes I presume consciousness has something to do with it.

And it's hard to see what consciousness is without free will. The picture that paints is of someone who is shackled in front of a TV, being forced to watch and listen (and smell and so on) everything with 0 control whatsoever.


But we don't have free will. I'm not arguing that we don't have consciousness (I think we do, I think therefore I am). Yes, free will necessitates consciousness but the inverse is not true. Here is an example as such. There's not even a logical connection to a scenario in which consciousness WOULD necessitate free will. (Or do I simply not have the freedom to conjure one in my mind? I'd like to think my next thought to be such a scenario but unfortunately...)

I don't feel like a passive participant in life


So?
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#114cyclonekrusePosted 4/15/2013 7:20:18 PM
DarkContractor posted...
A lack of relevance. I've asked you to tie source of consciousness to thought flow like 50 times.

Now you have me really confused. You were talking about throwing out general relativity because it can't explain QM. That's not a lack of relevance. They're both concerned with the same thing, though on different scales. How does a lack of relevance come in here?

that internal state is shaped by the environment though, lol.

I think you define "environment" over broadly. You include both external and internal processes in the "environment" it seems like.

How would it not be?

Another argument from ignorance on your part.

Also, it seems like you're suggesting that my internal state ought not influence or determine my actions if one has free will. But if I have free will then my desires, memories, and biases are all going to take a part in my actions. After all, they are all a part of what makes me "me." You seem to be suggesting that we all must espouse an will entirely free from influence for it to be "free will." I don't agree with that.

How did you realize that you want to think about Mozart? When did you make the decision to make a thought about how you wanted to have a thought about Mozart?

Knowing every reason for everything I do doesn't strike me as necessary for me to have free will. So I don't see that it matters. The point is that I was able to predict what I was going to think about after a fashion.

Yeah "Aha! It's Wolfgang!" is a thought. Knowing the validity is a thought.

But you approach knowing that it's the right answer differently. It's phenomenologically different. Which is odd if it's just a thought like all the others. Why does it feel different? You're not answering that.

The 'who' is silly. We are but the summary of our thoughts, our experiences, etc.

And yet if the summary of our thoughts and experiences affects our decisions, then it's not "us" making those decisions?

I am not the brain. I am the culmination of the thoughts

Which means you're no one. You're a ball rolling down a hill, nothing more. After all, your thoughts are completely determined by the not-you brain which is wholly describable under biology (even if we aren't fully privy to that explanation). It's just a complex game of Mouse Trap that causes our actions.

He's not commenting on the ability to predict something like that (in theory it could be, if we all the data at hand).

There's that deterministic assumption creeping in again.

He's asking how does an individual 'flip' to the other.

Up to that individual, really.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#115cyclonekrusePosted 4/15/2013 7:32:48 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Because of a quark of, how you put it the fork in the road analogy.

You're going to have to do better than "quirk."

It's just as valid to say that free will is a quirk of the indeterminism of QM.

But we don't have free will. I'm not arguing that we don't have consciousness (I think we do, I think therefore I am). Yes, free will necessitates consciousness but the inverse is not true. Here is an example as such. There's not even a logical connection to a scenario in which consciousness WOULD necessitate free will.

What's the point of consciousness without free will? I understand that there doesn't "need" to be a point. We could all be chained in our heads forced to watch the goings-on of life with no ability to do anything about it. But I do wonder what possible point there is to consciousness without free will.

So?

It was a comment on how my (and probably your) experience doesn't jive with what your saying here.

Just as an aside, I could never be a determinist. And if determinism is true, then I didn't choose to not be a determinist--I didn't have any other option.. But if determinism is false, then I'm right. So I'm either right or I can't be faulted for being wrong. Don't be discouraged if you don't convince me of anything. If you're right I didn't have a choice not to be convinced anyway. :)
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#116DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/17/2013 5:45:36 PM

Just as an aside, I could never be a determinist. And if determinism is true, then I didn't choose to not be a determinist--I didn't have any other option.. But if determinism is false, then I'm right. So I'm either right or I can't be faulted for being wrong. Don't be discouraged if you don't convince me of anything. If you're right I didn't have a choice not to be convinced anyway. :)


If determinism is true you could wake up tomorrow and have no choice but to be one :P But in light of this, it seems a declaration of impasse is in order, unless there are any points in particular you'd like to see me respond to.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#117cyclonekrusePosted 4/18/2013 4:44:43 PM
DarkContractor posted...
If determinism is true you could wake up tomorrow and have no choice but to be one :P But in light of this, it seems a declaration of impasse is in order, unless there are any points in particular you'd like to see me respond to.

Only that this is the kind of result that I think is unavoidable for determinists. You can never (reasonably) be upset at other people for not being convinced by some argument. If it's not in the cards, it's not in the cards no matter what you say.

That's not to say that it's impossible to convince someone of something. Or that you, as a predetermined being, have any choice to argue or not argue a point. But it does put a less hopeful spin on things to my eye.

At the very least, if someone says "I believe X and there's nothing you can do to convince me otherwise" then you're stuck. You can't fault them for being dogmatic (they had no choice in the matter) and if they're being honest there, you can't possible convince them they're wrong. So what do you do?

(Note I'm not saying there's nothing that would convince me we don't have free will. Something possibly could--I just haven't seen that argument yet. I'm speaking more generally here.)
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#118DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/19/2013 6:05:28 AM
From: cyclonekruse | #117
DarkContractor posted...
If determinism is true you could wake up tomorrow and have no choice but to be one :P But in light of this, it seems a declaration of impasse is in order, unless there are any points in particular you'd like to see me respond to.

Only that this is the kind of result that I think is unavoidable for determinists. You can never (reasonably) be upset at other people for not being convinced by some argument. If it's not in the cards, it's not in the cards no matter what you say.

That's not to say that it's impossible to convince someone of something. Or that you, as a predetermined being, have any choice to argue or not argue a point. But it does put a less hopeful spin on things to my eye.

At the very least, if someone says "I believe X and there's nothing you can do to convince me otherwise" then you're stuck. You can't fault them for being dogmatic (they had no choice in the matter) and if they're being honest there, you can't possible convince them they're wrong. So what do you do?

(Note I'm not saying there's nothing that would convince me we don't have free will. Something possibly could--I just haven't seen that argument yet. I'm speaking more generally here.)



right, so then we'd be wasting each others time by continuing, it seems. Nothing else you wanted me to comment on? Good debate.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#119UnfairRepresentPosted 4/27/2013 12:09:11 PM
DarkContractor posted...


3. Objective Morality - Without God, there is no objective morality. The naturalistic atheist must automatically concede the position that morality is but a product of evolution. Yet we know in our hearts that of course killing is wrong, of course stealing is wrong, and we know it intrinsically and objectively, and so God must be the one writing his objective morality onto our hearts.


I hear religious people make this argument all the time and I never understand how they can say it with a straight face, it's so fundamentally stupid,
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#120DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 4/27/2013 12:27:55 PM
From: UnfairRepresent | #119
DarkContractor posted...


3. Objective Morality - Without God, there is no objective morality. The naturalistic atheist must automatically concede the position that morality is but a product of evolution. Yet we know in our hearts that of course killing is wrong, of course stealing is wrong, and we know it intrinsically and objectively, and so God must be the one writing his objective morality onto our hearts.


I hear religious people make this argument all the time and I never understand how they can say it with a straight face, it's so fundamentally stupid,


seriously. I mean, not only is this not evidence of the supernatural (in fact breakthroughs in evolutionary psychology are about to pull the rug out from under that one), but plenty of people have different sets of morality. Hell, we all know we shouldn't kill? Really? Are you telling me that a ruthless, cold killing has never existed? If WLC tried to make that argument in Saudi Arabia, he'd get ****ing stoned for apostasy, lmao
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya