Posting this because I think it’s an interesting examination of the overlap (or lack thereof) between atheists and general skeptics. It’s worth remembering that the term ‘atheism’ only means a rejection of theistic beliefs; non-theistic beliefs that are nonetheless irrational and unsupported by evidence are not relevant to the term. And yet one can easily see why there is an overlap between these two communities and why many atheists scoff at other atheists who profess belief in things like astrology, ghosts, reincarnation, etc.
I’m definitely one of those who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, but I’ve certainly met atheists who do. It’s worth remembering the two groups aren’t synonymous.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m definitely one of those who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural, but I’ve certainly met atheists who do.
Oh that’s nothing, there was a regular on DalNET IRC’s #Atheism who believed in heaven. She was adamant both that there was no god and that there was a heaven. Strange lady.
So this was…what, a deist Heaven? How did “the universe” determine who got in and who didn’t? What was her position on souls? Hell?
Methinks there were too many holes in that one’s colander, if you take my meaning.
Don’t ask me to defend her, I can’t do that. Yes, she was not all there.
Neo-Platonism could give you a heaven without a deity in the traditional sense. Ironically, Plotinus’ work has been almost entirely co-oped as a Greek replacement for the Judaic foundation of Christianity by most modern Christians.
Honestly, it’s my first time hearing about Neo-Platonism, but from a brief Wikipedia-fueled pseudo-education about the subject, my first impression is that “the One” seems like an archaic product from a time when our species’ best philosophy was still somewhat indistinguishable from religion. I would agree it seems to essentially be the deist notion of “God.” And “returning to the One” does sound like Heaven and reincarnation like Purgatory. I can see why the Christians leapt on it.
Still, how many people subscribe to that particular religious/philosophical belief structure today? I honestly think it’s more likely the woman in question subscribed to some New Age bullshit.
Almost certainly the case for the woman in question, I just think Neo-Platonism is fascinating.
While Neo-Platonism is not directly represented in most Christian teaching, it is very much the lens through which most Christians have read and thought about the Bible for well over a thousand years.
Ever hear someone explain evil as simply the absence of good? Plotinus.
The existence of an immortal soul as a spiritual essence distinct from the body? Plotinus
The idea the spiritual things are good and physical are bad? Plotinus.
Most Christians accept these ideas all at face value even though they don’t come from the Bible.
On his podcast, The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, professor Peter Adamson notes that Plotinus is probably one of the top 5 most influential minds in Western thought and yet he’s largely unknown.
Personally, I believe it’s because of how Christian’s glommed onto Greco-Roman thought and incorporated it into their own beliefs.
Got the podcast’s title saved in a notepad file now, and I’ll definitely check it out later. Thanks for the reference.
Learning opportunity. We all have our blindspots.
There was something I noticed about myself a little while back. When I take my family to the beach about every half an hour or so I will make sure I get the entire family in one spot so I can see them. And the reason why I do that is because I think on some level that if I can see them all nothing bad can happen.
So yeah this isn’t exactly a rational belief. No plans to stop doing it however haha.
DalNET
Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in many years.
I used to be on IRC constantly.
Before I even open the article: bad title. Without no context or restriction, “Atheists” conveys “Atheists in general; for all intents and purposes, all Atheists”. This sounds like bullshit from a distance (and it is). A better way to convey the findings would be to put “some”, “many”, “a few” etc. before “Atheists”, but plenty media sources give no fucks about being accurate or correct.
And did the writer really share a fucking print screen as source???
A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation
Plenty people in Brazil label themselves “Atheists” while being more accurately described as either Monotheists or Pan[en]theists. For example, people who say “I don’t believe in gods, I believe in one God”, or who’d rather not be associated with institutionalised religions; the later is specially relevant, I think, because they tend to gravitate towards new age and syncretic religions. So depending on the methodology, and how this data is being contrasted with people who pay taxes to other governments, data regarding Brazil may or may not be useful.
The study also found that non-believers are not all nihilistic, moral relativists, or unable to appreciate the inherent value of the world around them.
That’s roughly on the same level as saying “the study found that not all Jehovah’s Witnesses hate your Sunday morning sleep”. This sort of generalisation is expected to be false, at least for some members within the group; as such, the “not all” is not a piece of news, it’s rubbish.
So everybody chill out — across the spectrum, we all tend to believe in the uncanny.
And here the author bites his own generalisation fallacy.
While I understand your complaints and admit that the author of the article strays too far into a tone that discredits atheists than I’d personally like, that’s not the view I share and not the reason I posted it. Also, plenty of headlines adhere to the convention of “[x group] thinks [this]” without meaning all members of that group. Whether or not you think that’s a shitty editorial standard, it’s not unique to this article.
Understood within the context I’m trying to present it and to the audience I’m presenting it to, I felt this article was a worthwhile contribution to the forum. I’m sorry if you disagree.
that’s not the view I share and not the reason I posted it
I understand it - no assumption taken about your view; I was criticising the text itself.
Also, plenty of headlines adhere to the convention of “[x group] thinks [this]” without meaning all members of that group. Whether or not you think that’s a shitty editorial standard, it’s not unique to this article.
Not only a shitty editorial [lack of] standard, but also breeding grounds for misinformation. The fact that it’s more common makes it actually worse, as it lowers the awareness of people to point it out and say “wait a minute, this is bullshit!” at those headlines.
I’m sorry if you disagree.
There’s no reason to apologise for sharing a text, or for seeing some disagreement on anything. If I were to put words on your mouth (Reddit style), I’d be the one at fault; not you. And disagreements are to be expected, not to be taken as an offence.
Other points regarding the text (such as how lack of a certain belief doesn’t prevent people from being irrational) were already addressed by other comments, so I simply didn’t mention them.
Yeah I disagree. Your article should be titled “we found one random dude on earth who claims to be an atheist and believes in ghosts”. Also I don’t care that other “journalists” do this, the standard is good behavior not other people.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean you are immune from superstition. It means that you don’t believe in a single type of superstition.
deleted by creator
As you can see in the above graph, up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers.
So, significant, no doubt, but still a minority.
The general population, however, continues to believe in these phenomena at a much higher rate than non-believers.
Seems, the superstitious atheists just haven’t fully arrived yet.
Removed by mod
I think I fall into this category, but it’s complicated. How much I believe in the supernatural depends on how much the belief will benefit me in the moment. Most of the time, it only goes as far as making jokes, coping with grief, and explaining weird but mundane occurances. There are a few beliefs where I’m more into them, such as the idea of reincarnation, but I’m still aware that there’s no scientific evidence to support them and that “brains are weird” is the best explanation for them. In the end, it’s about what helps me feel better, and only me. When I mysteriously lose an object, sometimes it’s fun to say a ghost moved it. When I’m sad about the passing of a pet, imagining their spirit frolicking in pet heaven is comforting. I don’t really believe in these things with my whole heart. Sometimes it’s just nice to pretend.
With respect, I’m not sure I agree that you fall into the category of atheists who have supernatural beliefs. You seem to be saying that you entertain supernatural ideas conceptually for their utility to you in the moment, but that you don’t actually Believe (capital ‘b’) they’re true, even in that moment. I’ve had moments of what I call “uncanny coincidence,” in which two events seem connected in a way that goes against everything I know about how reality works (e.g. a friend calling precisely in the moment I’m thinking about how I haven’t heard from them in years). When something like that happens, I do have thoughts like, “wow, that’s weird, it’s almost like they read my mind or God’s real and is connecting me with my long-lost buddy,” but I don’t really believe them. Likewise, every time I contemplate my own death and try to imagine what my thoughts will be when it’s moments away and I’m staring oblivion in the face, I can’t escape the notion that—despite my firm belief that my brain will just stop working and my stream of consciousness will stutter and then stop completely—I will be terrified at my own ignorance of what is about to happen, what I’m about to experience. As much as my higher brain is thoroughly convinced that my experience will end and there is no “darkness” that follows it, a baser, more intuitive part of my brain still acts as though my consciousness will persist somehow and thus I feel afraid. Does that fact that I feel fear betray my professed belief and mean I lack conviction in them? No, it just means my brain is a complex system and not all of it is capable of accepting an unintuitive idea like the absence of my own mind.
I don’t mean to miscategorize you though, so if you feel I’ve misunderstood you, please correct me.
lolnope
Believing that there are things that our current knowledge and science can’t observe and measure is not the same as believing in what the article is calling “the supernatural”.
Up until quite recently we couldn’t detect or measure gravity waves, that did not make them “supernatural” and NOW we can detect and measure them, and even tell what direction they came from.
There are certainly STILL things that we cannot detect and measure, but, as always, we will learn and explain the “mystery”.
I said I didn’t believe in God, not ghosts!
Then what the fuck is a ghost?
Many atheists I’ve spoken to still believe in free will, which is a faith based belief with no scientific basis. So I’m not too surprised that some of them also believe in ghosts and shit.
I’m a determinist myself, but my understanding from reading/listening to some articles and interviews with professional philosophers on the subject is that the concept of free will as the layperson tends to think of it doesn’t actually have much utility in philosophy discussions and that professional investigations of it have generally settled on some version of “it’s complicated” and “you’re asking the wrong question.” I don’t pretend to have a sophisticated understanding of it and it’s been a long time since I looked the issue up, but I’m not sure I would put people who believe in free will in the same “faith-based believers” category I would use for people who believe in ghosts.
I would. I generally need a reason to believe something. If there’s not a reason, and you believe it anyway, it’s faith. The fun thing about the free will debate is that there is only contrary evidence. So believing in free will is a lot like believing in flat earth. They have an intuitive understanding that they have free will in the same way a flat earther has an intuitive understanding that the earth is flat. It meshes with the subjective experiences that have shaped their schema. When information contradicts a persons schema, they tend to ignore it, and will cling to their belief regardless of contrary evidence. They’ll look for free will like it’s the god of the gap, hoping somehow that it’s hiding in quantum effects that they don’t understand. The kicker though is that people who believe in free will don’t choose to believe in free will. Because they don’t have free will, no one does. Everything that happens is a direct result of preceding events, even your thoughts and beliefs. It’s all cause and effect. I agree though that it is the wrong question. Even though on the macro scale humans don’t have free will, on the micro scale of a human life all of those variables are hidden from us and we have to act as if we had free will. Even though every decision we make is the product of hidden interactions. This makes believing in free will a very useful belief. Should we believe in things because they are useful, or should we believe in things because they are true.? Whatever answer you come up with to that question, just remember that it was the only answer you COULD have come up with, being the person that you are now in the circumstance that exist presently.
You’re kind of preaching to the choir, but I would also add that there’s a difference between the philosophical rejection of a belief in free will and the more pragmatic “belief” even determinists must engage with whenever we make a choice. Again, I’m no philosophical expert on the subject, but this was a key point of discussion for philosophers in the articles I read. If we’re all acting in accordance with the idea that we have free will, even if we believe otherwise in a more cerebral sense, what impact does that lack of belief really have on the world or even just our lives? There’s the argument that, if we truly live in a determinist reality, should we even be punishing criminals for the harm they do to society as opposed to just imprisoning them for safety purposes and trying to reform them? Does that mean all determinists should be prison reformists who think punishment has no place in the criminal justice system? I certainly don’t subscribe to that philosophy, but do reject the idea of free will.
Anyway, my overall point is simply that the philosophical question of whether or not free will exists is a lot more complicated than the question of whether or not ghosts exist, and that it’s not just about the evidence for/against it, but also about the role such a belief (or lack thereof) plays in our moment-to-moment lives.
I think that the thing that makes the issue sticky isn’t that believing in ghosts and believing in free will is fundamentally different, it’s that ghosts lie outside the common individuals experience while everyone has at some point or another probably believed that they have free will. One idea is no less magical than the other, there is just as much evidence for ghosts as there is for free will. A decision is like a software black box, information goes in and a result comes out, the process that’s happening in the code is hidden so we ascribe to it the name “Free Will”. But in our case it’s not 30 year old software code that no one understands anymore, the processes that are at work are heuristic. We subconsciously absorb information and that information is filtered through our heuristic biases which are a result of genetics and life experience, then we get our result.
Now let’s say you traveled back in time to redo some fateful decision. The caveat is that you’ll be inhabiting your past body and can’t bring your future memories with you. All the variables that you used to make the decision would be the same, and as a result you would make the same decision.
I think that the thing that makes the issue sticky isn’t that believing in ghosts and believing in free will is fundamentally different, it’s that ghosts lie outside the common individuals experience while everyone has at some point or another probably believed that they have free will.
I’m saying that is what makes them fundamentally different. A ghost is an external phenomenon that we can gather objective evidence about and nothing in our experience intrinsically violates that evidence. By contrast, while we can gather objective evidence about people’s decision-making processes, and in the future may even be able to “see” ourselves making decisions in an MRI machine or its future equivalent, we’re still faced with the existential paradox of experiencing “free will” and having to “submit” to the illusion if that’s all we think it is. That paradoxical experience is a sticking point that makes the question of whether free will exists very different from that of whether ghosts exist.
I managed to recall and find one of the articles I read years ago on this subject that convinced me that the subject of free will was not as simple as I’d thought it was. I want to be clear: I’m still firmly in the determinist camp, but I now appreciate the complexity of the issue on a level that I don’t fault people who maintain a belief in free will on the same or even just similar grounds that I would someone who believed in any other superstition. In fact, I don’t think it’s even appropriate to call belief in free will a superstition; it’s a much more nuanced (at least in those who have bothered to give it the requisite amount of thought) philosophical stance that I happen to disagree with.
I think that people who believe that they have seen ghosts probably experience a similar existential paradox. They too would have the subjective experience that creates dissonance with reality as they know it. So I don’t really think it’s all that different at all, it’s just that you don’t have the interference of that subjective experience. Thank you, I appreciate the link and will read it with interest. I’ve heard many arguments for free will, but they often fall into the same traps as religion. I would also like to thank you for responding so thoughtfully in this thread. This has been a refreshing little discussion.
Fair enough. I appreciate your input as well and am happy to agree to disagree.
deleted by creator
Could you elaborate, why do you believe that free will doesn’t exist? You could also give me some reading materials. I’m a skeptic, I’m an atheist, I do think that free will exists.
I can round some stuff up. I don’t need a reason to believe that free will doesn’t exist, I need a reason to believe that free will DOES exist. Belief follows evidence. Not the other way around. Here is a good video by a fellow free will denier and physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: https://youtu.be/TI5FMj5D9zU She goes pretty in depth on your lack of free will.
Belief follows evidence.
Rational belief follows logic based on evidence. There are things you can infer.
Could you elaborate, why do you believe that free will doesn’t exist?
I’m another person, may I offer ‘my’ reasoning?
(Free) will is a decision making process, generating a decision as it’s output. Basically, it’s an algorithm (arbitrarily complex).
How can this algorithm generate it’s output? It can …
- Use available data to determine a decision (deterministic)
- Use a source of randomness to make a decision (random)
- Combine #1 and #2 (randomized deterministic)
I cannot conceive or imagine any other option. Granted, this is an argument from ignorance. But I think however ‘free will’ works, it can be boiled down to one of these three approaches, or nested sub-algorithms which again build from these three ingredients.
And none of that resembles what we mean when we say ‘free will’. Is it free if it is determined? Is it will if it is random?
How is ‘free will’, fundamentally, different from algorithms available to computer games?
For example, if I choose burger over pizza for lunch, my brain taps into available data (my taste preferences, what I ate recently, how I expect to feel after eating either choice, …) and does it in a fuzzy way which involves some randomness. I arrive at a choice which I want, because I prefer it (in a random margin). I could have chosen otherwise, if the data had been different to change my decision, or if the random influence tipped the scales the other way.
Maybe it just feels like being in control because we cannot tell the result of the calculation until the calculation has finished. Weighing the options and settling for a decision is that process.
I love discussing this, so please challenge my view, you’re welcome!
If the subjective illusion of free will is not distinguishable from actual free will, does it matter?
Whether you decide that it matters or not, it was the only decision you could have made knowing what you know and being who you are at the moment you made it.
If believing in a faith based idea doesn’t matter does that mean we should adopt the belief?
deleted by creator
Do you really find it convincing that quantum randomness and unpredictable errors could give humans free will?
deleted by creator
Belief is opt in, not opt out. There’s no reason to believe that free will exists, so I don’t believe that free will exists. I’m not going to believe that freewill exists by default, and wait for it to be debunked. That’s basically pascal’s wager. I’m going to NOT believe in freewill until I have a reason to. There’s no reason to believe that free will is hidden in quantum physics, so I don’t believe that free will is hidden in quantum physics. Quantum effects can be random and unpredictable, but it doesn’t mean they’re “free will” and you have no reason to think that they are free will. You have a desire to have free will, which is understandable because everyone wants to believe that they have agency, but it doesn’t make it true. you can’t just say “something something quantum physics” and call it a day. That’s just appealing to the god of the gap, you’re just swapping out “god” for free will. Both of these things are equally unlikely to exist. While it’s true that we cannot predict errors in complex systems, it doesn’t mean that those errors are unpredictable. It means we can’t predict them. When we’re a Kardishev type 3 civilization we’ll probably have that sorted out too. We don’t know if free will is possible, and the reason that we don’t know if it is possible is because there is no evidence to support it. So unless someone can come up with a functional model that explains a process by which free will might occur in the real cosmos, I’m not going to believe in free will. It’s not even a choice, it’s determinism.
The fact that it’s a binary decision doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily a default fallback answer. If there’s not enough evidence to conclude either opinion, then there’s just not enough evidence.
You’re free to believe in a lack of free will, of course, but as far as I’m aware, it’s not a substantially more well-founded belief than a belief in a lack of free will. I guess I just don’t see a reason for having such a militant attitude about it.
Since there is nothing to indicate that freewill exists, I don’t see why we should entertain the idea that it does. That’s it. That is not militancy. Our past creates our present, our present creates our future. There is no reason to believe that humans are some magical exception in an otherwise deterministic universe. If you believe that we are, that’s faith. It’s fine though, you can believe in freewill if you have to. It’s not like you have a choice in the matter.
You missed the point. Either you don’t have the ability to choose to believe… Or free will exists. The argument is moot in this context.
If you don’t have free will, the argument is irrelevant. If you do, then it matters but the argument is invalid due to false premise.
Consciousness is not bound by physical laws. Just like a computer game can allow you to use magic or have superpowers or whatever the game designer desires, completely independent of reality. The consciousness exist in a virtual reality construct of the mind, and is not bound by the simple rules of physics.
This allows free will to exist, although we don’t yet understand exactly how.
I respect philosophers of consciousness such as for instance Daniell Denett, who has progressed my understanding of consciousness a lot.
He does not believe in free will, which has become a much more popular opinion the past couple of decades, and which I was pretty convinced about too. But as Daniell Denett says, it is a very convincing illusion.
I have come to believe that it’s like the moon landing, the reason it is so convincing, is because it’s true.
I’d say there is evidence either way, so you can’t say it’s without evidence, I also pose the claim that Quantum physics unpredictability is irrelevant to the existence of free will. That is not what free will or consciousness arises from.
But you are right we cannot prove truly free will exist, and maybe it comes down to definition. Because we cannot have freedom to think that which we are incapable of imagining. But we are free to think we can fly, and then build a flying machine.
Consciousness is an emergent property of underlying factors and is absolutely subject to physical laws. Have you ever gone to a dentist and taken gas? Your consciousness and its processes were altered during that time specifically because your consciousness is inextricable linked to your body. There is no mind over matter because mind is matter. What you’re talking about is metaphysics. We’re not ghosts crammed into a meat robot. Our consciousness emerges from our body like a flower blooms on a bush and if you poison the bush the mind is poisoned too.
You are confusing the concepts, consciousness obviously arises from brains, and brains are subject to physical laws. But the consciousness exist in a virtual reality constructed by the brain.
So while the brain is dependent on physical laws to work, it’s the same with a computer game, that relies on the computer to work, but both are disconnected from reality in the way they work.
Computer games work through software, this allows software to function way beyond the mere concept of transistors switching.
In much the same way, our brains have layers, where although our consciousness is tied to the physical properties of the brain, it is not tied DIRECTLY to it. If it was tied directly, it would be an automaton without consciousness, and couldn’t for instance have memory or learn.
However this works, there is a sort of “shim” between consciousness and the physical brain. Just like in a computer there is are drivers, API and software on top of the hardware, before you get the final result of for instance a computer game or an AI.
What you’re talking about is metaphysics.
Absolutely definitely NOT! I don’t claim we have souls or any other nonsense of that sort.
No. Your consciousness is an emergent property of your physical brain, and your consciousness is in fact subject to the same physical laws as it’s substrate. There is no decoupling the two. One emerges from the other. Believing that your mind is decoupled from your body, and acts independently from it, is a metaphysical belief for which there is no evidence, in fact, there is contrary evidence.
Your video game analogy is flawed for a number of reasons, but let’s see if we can work with it. You imagine that there is a software/hardware relationship between the mind and brain and that is not true. You mind and brain developed with eachother and are inseparable. You can’t remove the mind from the brian and you can’t remove the brain from the mind. Software is installed into a computer from by an outside force. You have to download it, or stick in a DVD if you’re old like me. It requires an outside agent, and if your mind is software, who is that agent? Is it god? Is it Steve Jobs ghost? Have we reinvented religion?
If your mind is a computer game (which it isn’t) then all the things you see on your screen, the magic, the monsters, etc. All of those things are deterministic. It’s a set collection of ones and zeroes running through a processor and reacting predictably to the outside stimulus. Your video game experience is an emergent property of ones and zeroes being process on a silicon chip. You cannot separate the video game experience from the silicon chip any more than you could separate the mind from the brain.
You say you believe that the mind is “Connected” to the brain but not “Directly”, then what is the nature of that connection and on what are you basing that belief? If the mind does not does not reside in the brain, where does the mind reside?
Your consciousness is an emergent property of your physical brain,
True
You mind and brain developed with eachother and are inseparable
True
You can’t remove the mind from the brian
True
Software is installed into a computer from by an outside force.
True, but the brain is way more sophisticated, and works more like an FPGA with self modifying code. The brain reprograms itself when it learns, and although that reprogramming is physical. the virtual reality constructed by the brain is not. Just like a simulation is independent on what hardware it is running on, you can simulate whatever disregarding whether it runs on one computational machine or another. The simulation is dependent on the hardware to run, but how it runs is not. Very basically you can simulate water without having any water in the machine.
The way your mind works is like a virtual machine, you have created a model in your brain of the reality you live in. In your brain you are able to manipulate that reality to predict outcomes, without doing anything to the actual reality. That’s basically exactly the same as a virtual reality, which is where my Computer game analogy comes from. Because computer games too are simple forms of virtual realities.
But further than that, you can also imagine things that are not real, and create new concepts that never existed before. That because the consciousness is not limited by reality.
You say you believe that the mind is “Connected” to the brain but not “Directly”
Not exactly, but close enough, depends on how “mind” is defined. The mind is definitely tied to the brain, the consciousness is what we may consider the highest function of the mind. The mind constructs a virtual reality, and our self consciousness exist in that virtual reality, and nowhere else. The mind is actually the shim, or middle layer or connection between brain and consciousness. Consciousness is absolutely dependent on the brain to work, but it is not directly dependent on the brain in how it works. The exact same number of neurons in 2 different brains can work very similarly from a physical perspective. But the consciousnesses and minds can be night and day apart. Like the mind is the “programming” of the brain, and our consciousness is a result of that programming.
Sorry that my answer is so long. I’m trying to express the idea as clearly as I possibly can.
Well guess it depends on what you mean by free will. If you mean it as agency then yes it clearly exists, I have more agency than a slave. If you mean in that a human behavior is not fully predictable then yes as of right now you still have it. If you mean in the supernatural sense then well there really is no evidence to support that.
There’s no reason to believe that you have agency. The slaves beliefs, attitudes and decisions are dictated by their circumstances, and those circumstances determine the slaves actions. You have different circumstances, but your decisions are no less governed by them. There is no “natural” fee will vs. “Supernatural” freewill. The idea that you have freewill, at all, is supernatural and faith based, yet many atheists do seem to believe in it anyway. Which was the topic of OPs link.
Removed by mod
No. I’m saying that no one has any agency. Zero agency for anyone. Everything is the direct result of the moment that came before it. This includes your reaction to events, your thoughts, your feelings, your unseemly implication, and the actions you take in your life. If you would like to cause me to modify my view then you’d need to come up with a functional theory that explains how human beings are the exception in an otherwise deterministic universe and free will is possible. If I lost the comforting illusion of agency it would probably suck. Not having agency doesn’t mean we don’t suffer. That is a false dichotomy. Whatever circumstances we find ourselves in, be they good or bad, our reaction to those circumstances would be deterministic.
Fine you are redefining agency to suit your argument.
Ok what is the difference between a sex slave and me? What word do you want to redefine for that concept?
They are describing a wholely deterministic universe (one we don’t currently know the math for). If the universe is 100% deterministic, freewill is an illusion and the argument is moot. If it is not deterministic, the freewill probably exists and this argument is stupid.
Either free will exists it you are deterministically defined to believe it does. It’s a stupid argument, but still valid.
Ok what is the difference between a sex slave and me? What word do you want to redefine for that concept?
For me free will is like quasi-particles: it’s bullshit, but it’s still useful bullshit so it gets a pass. Specially because, for all intents and purposes, we do not understand what motivates a specific individual to take a specific decision.
You mean virtual particles? I’m not a quantum physicist, but I believe that virtual particles are a math trick for describing the behavior of quantum fields, Quasi-particles describe an excitation of fermions. I think. We’re getting to the edge of my knowledge there. As far as I know though, no one actually BELIEVES in virtual particles. They know it’s a trick to make calculations easier.
Even very rational people are heavily invested in their faithful belief in free will. It’s useful sure, but that’s not a reason to believe in something. It’s got to be true too.
Quasiparticles and virtual particles are different. Both would work here, but I’ll use quasiparticles for an example. (Also note that the explanation is extremely oversimplified.)
Imagine that you have a chunk of some semiconductor. It’s neutral, so it has the same number of protons and electrons.
Now let’s say that you remove one of the electrons. Since an electron is negative, now the crystal is positively charged, by +1. And there’ll be a hole where the electron used to be. But the electrons that stayed behind won’t sit pretty: they’ll see that hole, where that electron used to be, and they’ll say “IT’S FREE REAL STATE!”. One of them will migrate to that hole, filling it but creating a new hole elsewhere; another electron will migrate to the new hole, creating yet another hole elsewhere; so goes on.
You have two ways to describe this:
- As if each of those individual electrons was moving to the hole, filling it, while creating a new hole elsewhere. Lots and lots and lots of electrons.
- You pretend that the “hole” is actually a positively charged particle, moving around.
The first way is a descriptively more accurate explanation of reality, but it’s a hassle. The second one is kind of bullshit; but it works, since the make-believe particle behaves a lot like a real particle would. It’s useful.
Free will is in the same bag. Descriptively, our decisions depend on a very messy interaction between millions, perhaps billions of variables; some from nature, some from nurture. As such, free will is bullshit; it doesn’t refer to anything real. But it’s still useful as a concept when dealing with ethics, morals, law, and other matters, so it gets a pass.
Even very rational people are heavily invested in their faithful belief in free will. It’s useful sure, but that’s not a reason to believe in something. It’s got to be true too.
That’s a fallacy called “appeal to authority”, given that the truth value of a proposition (in this case, “free will exists”) does not depend on who utters it (in this case, some “very rational people”).
Didn’t they say the same thing about fields, potential energy, imaginary numbers? Just a math trick.
