Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

Nothing has it. It is a shortcut to describe a concept, but that concept does not technically exist. "Will" as a concept only appears because it is impossible for a human to predict another human accurately, except in very limited circumstances. In reality, humans, and everything else above the QM level, are perfectly predictable given infinite information.

Would you say that our will is an illusion, but one that is necessary for humans to survive and flourish, good for our well-being?

 

[Willamena]

Nothing has it. It is a shortcut to describe a concept, but that concept does not technically exist. "Will" as a concept only appears because it is impossible for a human to predict another human accurately, except in very limited circumstances. In reality, humans, and everything else above the QM level, are perfectly predictable given infinite information.

That's a fine definition of "will," and it should include our ability to predict ourselves as well.

And it would seem to describe something that exists. Technically.

 

[Autodidact]

If we are a meat machine and the process is bound by cause and effect, the laws of the physical universe, what makes the choice?

Us. That whole process = us making a choice.

If the result is inevitable, where is a choice made?

I don't know that it's inevitable.

Can a proton choose whether or not to cross a membrane? Can a synapse choose whether or not to fire? The process may be what we call choice, and it looks like choice or will because the input is too complicated and the wiring too little understood to make predictions or anticipate the outcome, but seriously, where is there true option, under some kind of conscious control, at any step of that process?

I have always thought, since reading IIRC Epicurus, that it makes absolutely no difference to anything whether all of life is predetermined or not.

Notice, as soon as you say, "conscious control," you are picturing that little person again sitting in the cab of the meatmobile, controlling it. As soon as you can really, truly eliminate that way of thinking about it, then you may be better able to see it as I do. Yes, "we" have free choice. "We" = that entire process. That's what we mean by "us" choosing. Yes, even though we are purely physical.

Although I don't know that I've ever gotten anyone else to see it my way! :areyoucra

Even if it pans out that due to quantum mechanics there is fuzziness that translates to randomness in chemical reactions (now wow - that's going to blow the mind of a lot of chemists!), there is no 'tiny invisible man' sorting out the random events, shuttling the ones he likes into the process - is there? Where is the conscious control there?

Remember, there is no separate conscious to control. The actual chemical electrical process = choice. When we choose something, certain neurons have to fire, etc. Choosing is itself a biological process, involving our brain.

Exactly. How is that wiring changed? - By the sensory input it receives. Let me say that again. How is that wiring changed? - By the sensory input it receives. See, you read that sentence twice and now that neural network is stronger than if I just typed it once.

Yes, that's right.

If there is no "I" there is no "you" to consciously change what you think and what you think about. "You" are a meat machine, bound by the laws of cause and effect.

Yes, I'll agree with that. Did you think you could somehow escape them?

Yes, you said that and I see the practicality in that. Seriously, I'm not sure what else we have.

Our inability to predict just means that there are too many variables, many of them unknown, and the machinery is just too complex. And as we just discussed above, the machinery changes as it is used.

Maybe. It may have something or other to do with the lack of certainty/predictability at the heart of it, the quantum processes.

Although truth to tell I'm not very good at science and don't actually understand quantum mechanics except in the vaguest way, so I could be way off. I have an idea that you can't really say a quantum particle is at location going y speed, you just have a sort of cloud of probabilities, which is shaped a bit like a globe (?).

Yes, we can make a lot of predictions about behavior because of the dependability of cause and effect, although human choices are one of the areas where we are most in the dark.

But isn't it interesting, we think we have little captains turning the wheel of our ship, but in the end our actions really are rather predictable, which brings that notion into question.

I don't think we've yet addressed how any meat machine can have will, free or otherwise.

Well, do you think your cat does?

I am going by the idea that we are fully meat machines. I put "I" and "you" in quote marks when I am trying to get at exactly what it is that chooses anything, at any level.

Just as long as you remember that in Autodidactism, you ARE the meat machine.

 

[lunamoth]

How is faith relevant to the question?

We grow a pair and choose. You've chosen to interpret the world as a big machine, and yourself a meat machine in it. I choose to interpret the world as if I have a soul. Frankly, thinking that I have a soul and that I have will and so can choose is more consistent with how I live my life than the idea that I am a meat machine and all of my choices are illusion, and ultimately not rational because they are only based upon evolutionarily carved instincts for survival.

Actually, in meat machine world I have no choice but to believe I have a soul, and you have no choice but to believe that you don't.

From the perspective of soul-world, however, I respect your choice. You've set your sails and are captain of your ship. So much better than just letting the wind blow you around. I've learned a lot from our conversations.

 

[Autodidact]

Rhetorical question: Why should I choose to accept the morals of those around me? Obvious answer: because it is of benefit to myself or those I care about in the long run.
New question: Do we consider it virtuous when we choose good (what is morally right or acceptable) because it benefits ourselves, either directly or indirectly?

I do. And I think my friends all us Aristotelians do. I think of virtue as the science of happiness, happiness as the purpose of our lives, and virtue the best way to achieve it.

 

[lunamoth]

U

Although I don't know that I've ever gotten anyone else to see it my way! :areyoucra

Auto, I do understand what you are saying, but what you are saying is inconsistent. On the one hand you say that we are the process and that process can, somehow, make choices.

But on the other hand you also say that we are the meat machine, no magical bits, and we are locked into the chain of cause and effect (with perhaps the exception of added randomness due to QM, which neither of us understand).

In Autodidactism, where do we have control of the process so we can actually alter outcomes?

I can accept the idea of a meat machine world, no master at the helm. I really do get that. But then will disappears.

 

[lunamoth]

I do. And I think my friends all us Aristotelians do. I think of virtue as the science of happiness, happiness as the purpose of our lives, and virtue the best way to achieve it.

Practically speaking, I would agree. Aristotle was nothing if not practical.

 

[lunamoth]

The actual chemical electrical process = choice. When we choose something, certain neurons have to fire, etc. Choosing is itself a biological process, involving our brain.

Do we choose before or after the neurons fire? What causes the neurons to fire?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can accept the idea of a meat machine world, no master at the helm. I really do get that. But then will disappears.

I think it depends on what you mean by "will". If will MUST be magical, then of course, you're right. If the soul is ONLY allowed to be made of heaven-stuff, and it's not allowed to be made of real stuff, not allowed to have any moving parts, then sure, there's no soul. But who decided that's how a soul must work? After all, a thing which is made of magical non-stuff which can't be seen or touched, with no parts, which takes up no space, which occupies no particular location here or there ..... such a thing is hard to distinguish from a non-existent thing.

If we do not assume from the start that "will" or "thinking" or "the self" must be magical, then sure, these things can exist in a "meat machine world". Even though they are both ultimately made of quarks and leptons, there are still enormous differences between a cat (say) and an atom. There are real physical differences, in the way they process information, which give rise to behavioral differences. And, we know from our own human experience, physical differences in the way brains/computers process information can give rise to different degrees of consciousness and awareness. You don't have to believe in anything magical to recognize that sleepwalking feels different, and is physically different at the level of the brain, and to therefore say a person lacks "free will" while they are sleepwalking.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, I do understand what you are saying, but what you are saying is inconsistent. On the one hand you say that we are the process and that process can, somehow, make choices.

But on the other hand you also say that we are the meat machine, no magical bits, and we are locked into the chain of cause and effect (with perhaps the exception of added randomness due to QM, which neither of us understand).

Well, I guess I'd say we're both, because at no point is our physical being static;it's always processing. So we're a physical being that is actively doing stuff. e.g. breathing. Lungs, bronchial tubes, etc., flexing, filling. All of that, the body doing its thing; that's me.

In Autodidactism, where do we have control of the process so we can actually alter outcomes?

All over, quite a lot. Just remember that we = cells, neurons, synapses, etc. A process of synapses doing stuff = us making a decision.

I can accept the idea of a meat machine world, no master at the helm. I really do get that. But then will disappears.

I guess, if you think of will as a separate, incorporeal, abstract thing. I think of will as the process of me making a decision. Which is, at base, corporeal.

 

[lunamoth]

I think it depends on what you mean by "will". If will MUST be magical, then of course, you're right. If the soul is ONLY allowed to be made of heaven-stuff, and it's not allowed to be made of real stuff, not allowed to have any moving parts, then sure, there's no soul. But who decided that's how a soul must work? After all, a thing which is made of magical non-stuff which can't be seen or touched, with no parts, which takes up no space, which occupies no particular location here or there ..... such a thing is hard to distinguish from a non-existent thing.

If we do not assume from the start that "will" or "thinking" or "the self" must be magical, then sure, these things can exist in a "meat machine world". Even though they are both ultimately made of quarks and leptons, there are still enormous differences between a cat (say) and an atom. There are real physical differences, in the way they process information, which give rise to behavioral differences. And, we know from our own human experience, physical differences in the way brains/computers process information can give rise to different degrees of consciousness and awareness. You don't have to believe in anything magical to recognize that sleepwalking feels different, and is physically different at the level of the brain, and to therefore say a person lacks "free will" while they are sleepwalking.

Excellent points, Mr. Spinkles. It seems like it must be 'real' to have any impact. I don't see any distinction between will and free will. Obviously we are not free to do anything at all, and we are largely impacted by our environment, our biology, our experiences. The sleepwalker may be using will, but it is perhaps in response to dreams and memories, rather than sensory input from the outside world. I really do not know much about it.

My focus in this thought process is on whether or not we can make choices, or if choice is an illusion.

Autodidact has me thinking about emergent properties, and trying to figure out how that might explain meat machines with will, meat machines that can make choices that are not illusion.

 

[Autodidact]

Do we choose before or after the neurons fire? What causes the neurons to fire?

There is no we apart from the neurons firing. Neurons firing = us deciding. Um...I think you're getting past my limited knowledge of neuro-science. Sensory stimuli?

 

[Autodidact]

We grow a pair and choose. You've chosen to interpret the world as a big machine, and yourself a meat machine in it. I choose to interpret the world as if I have a soul. Frankly, thinking that I have a soul and that I have will and so can choose is more consistent with how I live my life than the idea that I am a meat machine and all of my choices are illusion, and ultimately not rational because they are only based upon evolutionarily carved instincts for survival.

Actually, in meat machine world I have no choice but to believe I have a soul, and you have no choice but to believe that you don't.

From the perspective of soul-world, however, I respect your choice. You've set your sails and are captain of your ship. So much better than just letting the wind blow you around. I've learned a lot from our conversations.

I've never thought that people can choose their beliefs, and find the idea that we can rather odd.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Nothing has it. It is a shortcut to describe a concept, but that concept does not technically exist. "Will" as a concept only appears because it is impossible for a human to predict another human accurately, except in very limited circumstances. In reality, humans, and everything else above the QM level, are perfectly predictable given infinite information.

Just because we don't see an order in QM doesn't mean there isn't one. Logically speaking, there must be. There is a natural symmetry in the macro world, which is comprised of QM, so of course there is an order in the quantum world.

That fact that the Chaos Theory states a visible system of dynamics and us not being able to put a constant, non-variable mathematical value on it shows that free will exists. Our mental state at the chemical, quantum level is not truly predictable to any but the person, which is manipulated by independent actions not of random nature.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, I guess I'd say we're both, because at no point is our physical being static;it's always processing. So we're a physical being that is actively doing stuff. e.g. breathing. Lungs, bronchial tubes, etc., flexing, filling. All of that, the body doing its thing; that's me.

This is starting to sound quite a bit like process philosophy. I'm starting to think we are much closer on this topic than it seemed, but we are using different language to describe it.

All over, quite a lot. Just remember that we = cells, neurons, synapses, etc. A process of synapses doing stuff = us making a decision.

This strikes me as very mystical. Let's press it just a bit more.

To make it simpler, lets say we are an AI computer, but without the ability to change our own programming to adapt to the learned information. So we are ignoring the constant rewiring that goes on in our brain.

If in two separate tests we put the same information into the computer, will it give different results?

I guess, if you think of will as a separate, incorporeal, abstract thing. I think of will as the process of me making a decision. Which is, at base, corporeal.

I would say that will implies that we can make a choice that is not predetermined by factors outside of our control.

 

[lunamoth]

There is no we apart from the neurons firing. Neurons firing = us deciding. Um...I think you're getting past my limited knowledge of neuro-science. Sensory stimuli?

So, what we think of as 'us deciding' is really the outcome of neurons firing due to reasons that we do not control.

As far as I know, the only things that make neurons fire are sensory stimuli (and feedback control mechanisms that also, ultimately, are the result of environmental stimuli).

 

[Autodidact]

So, what we think of as 'us deciding' is really the outcome of neurons firing due to reasons that we do not control.

No, us deciding really IS the nuerons firing. Not the outcome. That's us. We're the neurons. We're firing. That's us deciding.

 

[lunamoth]

No, us deciding really IS the nuerons firing. Not the outcome. That's us. We're the neurons. We're firing. That's us deciding.

Neurons firing in response to environmental stimuli which we do not control.

Choice/decision implies will - you have defined it that way yourself. I see no place in the above statement for choice or control. The us deciding is mindless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We grow a pair and choose. You've chosen to interpret the world as a big machine, and yourself a meat machine in it. I choose to interpret the world as if I have a soul. Frankly, thinking that I have a soul and that I have will and so can choose is more consistent with how I live my life than the idea that I am a meat machine and all of my choices are illusion, and ultimately not rational because they are only based upon evolutionarily carved instincts for survival.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. "Evolutionary" does not necessarily imply "not rational".

And I don't think your response really answers my question. I asked how you would tell the difference between "meat world" and "soul world". It seems to me that your answer is that we can't tell the difference, but we have to choose anyhow.

It seems to me that you're just appealing to wishful thinking: you want to live in "soul world", so you decide to live on that basis.

 

[lunamoth]

It seems to me that you're just appealing to wishful thinking: you want to live in "soul world", so you decide to live on that basis.

And that soul-world matches my experience.