« The "Christmas story" is just one of many stories, and not the best | Main | Once again, I praise a New Year's resolution of... nothing »

December 29, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If we could exploit your most bright° inner Self
we would see that we inflicted amnesia and temporal handicaps on your self with good argument(s)

Even if we could exploit a nanogram of that° during an actual nanosecond , we would understand and agree


777

Given what we know about genetics, conditioning, suggestibility, biases, and the fact that most decisions are made unconsciously before we know it, believing in free will is as irrational and emotional as believing in God. The act of weighing options and considering alternatives is as likely to prove disastrous as advantageous. It's an ability we humans have that makes us more clever than other animals, but not more free. The catastrophic effect on our environment that our cleverness has brought about is not evidence of freedom, but of deliberate limitation.

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you Brian for your site. I've been an infrequent visitor but I've found your posts, especially your posts on death, the terror of non-being, and the way we try to reconcile our consciousness with our foreknowledge of our pending doom and find a way to keep going (was it Samuel Beckett who said, "I can't go on. I'll go on."?). It's proven as helpful to me as anything else I've come across.

Enjoy your inquisitiveness too. Keep up the great work.

Wow Mr X
with your
"The catastrophic effect on our environment that our cleverness has brought about is not evidence of freedom, but of deliberate limitation. -

As Sawan said :
Devaluation upon devaluation of a devaluation , . . a million to the power of billion times
kidding : HE said 5 times, .... ( between the regions )
but it's much more

777

-

When someone uses the term “free will” I apprehend the term in the sense used in Christian theology, a. concept I think arose when too many Scholastics had too much time to contemplate the majesty and nature of the deity who knows how everything ends. All this contemplation created for them a dilemma: how do you reconcile the freedom she granted us with her foreknowledge of the outcome?

It seems to me this is an example of Emmerson’s observation that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

"What Nahmias has done is redefine free will to the much-diluted compatibilist definition"

Or confused it with conscious volition.

"And yes, I am familiar with the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.However, as much wiser minds than mine have said, indeterminism doesn't support free will; rather, it implies the lack thereof, since random behavior is the opposite of intentional action"

Rational behaviour is directed towards a goal, not driven by a cause.

Rational behaviour is directed towards a goal, not driven by a cause.


Can there be an effect without a cause? Why would you have a goal if you were content to stay where you are? What moves one in a particular direction toward a specific end if not an idea of something better?

"Can there be an effect without a cause? "

Determinists believe there cannot be, indeterminists believe there cannot be. Indeterminists believe there can. As for the facts...the science summarizes as "it's complicated".

"Why would you have a goal if you were content to stay where you are? What moves one in a particular direction toward a specific end if not an idea of something better? "

Why would I object to be driven by a goal if it is mine? How can it be mine if it were set at the big bang?

Ok, let me try to understand it. Nahmias believes free will exists. But actually, it doesn't. So far, so good. But then we must conclude that Nahmias has no free will. Therefore, he actually never had any choice regarding writing his article (and getting it published on Scientific American). Further, he has no choice when it comes to his "concluding" that free will exists. Is that correct? Doesn't it all look a little bit, say, weird...?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.