People like believing in determinism. Makes the world safe and
all of their decisions not their problem. Thing is: While I
think that "a lot of" life isn't our UNFETTERED choice, _some of
it_ is. That's enough for me to say "yes, we have free will".
Some? We don't. Maybe even most. But 100% no free will? Sorry.
Insufficient evidence. = *IF* But we don't. Even _if_
determinism is true, we *can't* go at the speed of light. That's
a fiction. Your premise is fictional. It is not factual. == Yes
they can. Question: What prompted the
choice-before-the-conscious awareness of the choice? Which
computer can predict what I'll be thinking next Thursday?
Yesterday at 3pm? None. WHEN we have the technology to match the
theory, I'll buy it. THEN we can develop court systems that are
NO FREE WILL judicial systems. Right now, a no-free-will
argument is too dangerous to be practical. = You're living in a
fantasy land Naveed. You believe it's scientific but it's not.
Get pragmatic. So full of "If"'s and thought experiments and
fantasies. It's a resurrection of Calvinism in a novel form. ==
I have it. You want to say I don't? Define it. You want to
believe you don't have it? Go ahead. == I'm not denying the
relativity of time. I'm denying the deterministic assumption.
Also, determinism was wrecked in the late 20s/30s quantum
physics. It's over. Determinism lost. == The relativity of time
solidifies determinism? You expect me to travel to impossible
speeds to come to this conclusion, speeds that would kill any
experimental procedure from ever being possible to agree with
you? Sorry. Science fiction. Good for making the math work and
function but as factual basis for reality? Sorry. Even if true,
it's useless information. == Set in stone. How can you set
something in stone and then cry butterfly effect? Chaotic
systems, complexity theory: Ever hear of those? "We're only
experiencing it play out." Dude, quantum physics can't even
handle few-bodied systems properly and you're placing the weight
of your decision-making as pre-determined and out of your hands?
QM is good for what it's good for. QM makes for terrible
chemistry: that's why we have chemistry. QM makes for terrible
biology: that's why we have biology. You want to skip past
everything and go straight to the math, then generalize upon the
rest of reality based on that? You apparently don't seem to
realize JUST HOW MANY GAPS their are at present and will be for
a very long time to come. I envy your faith. I'm a practical
man. == We *do* know QM. It's VERY WELL STUDIED and very
practical. Don't let the Science promoters get you hooked into
the "ooh it's spooky" stuff. It's not spooky at all. It's a very
practical, pragmatic system and very functional. Determinism is
God-under-another-name. Sorry. You can have your deterministic
Universe. Einstein wanted it: He didn't get it. Einstein lost
that battle. You gotta go to the late 1920s and beyond to get up
to speed. It's not spooky. == Ok on that level: it's hard to be
what I'd call "unfettered" - unrestrained action without
societal consequence. Thing is: You CAN show up to your job
interview naked. Nudist colony they'd expect it. But at the
local sub shop they'd probably call the cops. == You're behind
on the science and fixated on God. I never talked about God
except to compare your belief in a deterministic 19th century
universe to equivalent to a bible thumper faith-only true
believer. Feynman was awesome but he played up the spookiness
for effect. A lot of them do. I'm friends with a number of
people who work in or are going to school for QM, including
George Ellis, the Theoretical physicist who called this
conference a month ago or so: == That's George Ellis with his
hand on his head. That's what my hand is doing right now on my
head trying to get a simple point across to you Naveed. Check
out the conference titles - the stuff they talked about in it.
In short, get with the program and away from the science
promoters. You gotta get past Feynman and get to 2016 here. ==
Naveed, you've decided and you're not budging from your
decision. That's fine. I was a determinist for a time 'til I
realized I had my head in the clouds and had to face
here-and-now. Mapping something on paper does not make it so.
Being able to predict SOME things doesn't mean being able to
predict ALL things. If it brings you comfort to believe in
determinism, go ahead, Naveed. But your arguments are stale and
unconvincing. I'm sorry. == my position is similar. I don't
honestly know if it's 'free' or not but since there's no way to
predict my thought next tuesday afternoon, no matter HOW MANY
COMPUTERS we throw at my brain and life, it might as well be
free will. Our legal system depends on it and it's practical.
Belief in no-free-will is impractical. Potentially dangerous. I
go with "free to choose". When I see a list of options, I try to
find the one they don't offer. Keeps me feeling free enough. A
little contrarian. Works for me. I encourage a little anarchy in
everybody. == I already know I can't convince the convinced
Naveed. Your position is fixed. As you're likely a good person
with good intentions, I don't have a problem with it. BUT: I
have known people who have the same position as you. Same
justifications - from the same books and speakers, scientists
and philosophers. It justifies their bad behavior. Often very
bad behavior. It's impractical. Even I believed it, I'd keep it
to myself unless I had a good reason to promote it. Promoting no
free will, if nothing else, is socially irresponsible imo. Is
that an argument against it on a purely logical basis? No. But
again, the dangers of no-free-will are the same as the dangers
of a Roman Catholic going to the confessional for forgiveness,
repeating the offense, going to the confessional again,
repeating the offence: No accountability. Bad stuff. Just bad.
== I'm familiar with a single guy who is doing most of the
public talking - David Eagleman - a VERY popular and prolific
author on the subject. Seen his videos. Have friends that are
devotees of his stuff. Also seen competition. Eagleman's voice
is usually the only person people mean when they talk about
Neurolaw though, unless they're actually in Neurolaw or are
concerned that maybe the popular guy could be going down the
wrong path. == "We cannot hide the evidence in order to feel
comfortable, " I'm not hiding evidence here. You are. You're
willing to overlook "the world today" to promote a future world
that may never arrive. I have my eyes wide open. You're living
in future Utopias. They're nice places and I hope you're right.
But public policy adopted too soon based on these ideas will
fail miserably. Too soon. Dream as you wish to dream, but it's a
dream right now. == Sir Thomas More - lots of people believed
the Utopia was 'right at hand', all full of "if only"s. Did they
help build a better tomorrow? Some? Likely. But Utopian dreams
followed irresponsibly without proper recognition of the
fragility of these perfected dreams fail. No evidence that a
Utopia will succeed just because people believe a few great
motivational speakers speaking convincingly about potential
futures. ==
