By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wind Shlavitor on 10 July 2009
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

OK, I've read it now, and here's the low down:
I disagree with your assertion about randomness (basically that it doesn't happen on the macro scale), although you may be able to show me wrong here. 
I disagree that your "scientist" would think he could perfectly predict everything if he knew all the positions/forces/etc. (due largely to the above disagreement). 
I disagree with your reasoning about free will, because IMO your argument boils down to saying that our physical brains are not subject to causality.  (If that's what the hypothetical scientist was looking at to try to predict your mind, then clearly that's where you say the consciousness resides, right?) 

Oh, and I normally have great stamina for debates -- just ask appolose.  (Oh wow, over three months!  Kind of depressing actually...)  But for some reason this one just ... eh. 

P.S.  You may find this interesting.

 

Well, the issue is still debated among scientists, so I guess my assertions were for the more extreme ones. There's always different opinions about stuff that's unsure ( So maybe my assertions were useless )
On the other hand, if it's not predictable, and the source not understood (like Genetic drift and quantum physics), then what they perceive as 'randomness', could possibly be something else that just isn't constant or predictable - Even ID could be a possibility at that level, or just plainly a force or law of physics that's just not understood and thus assumed to be random, as it could affect genetic variances in not understood speficic ways, wouldn't you agree? 

I am sorta backing down from certain assertions because I realize I'd have trouble tying the theory of evolution to those assumptions.  But in my opinion(yes Ill say that now), the probabilities of life coming from non-life and the extent of change in organisms up to this point, are way too low for us to settle with simply random chance + time(about 4.5 billion years they say) & natural selection.

 

Alright, well I won't bore you with much of my thoughts on free will then, here's a quote from Charles Darwin himself, with a comment from someone else:

“…one doubts existence of free will every action determined by hereditary constitution, example of others or teaching of others. (…man…probably the only [animal] affected by various knowledge which is not heredetary & instinctive) & the others are learnt, what they teach by the same means & therefore properly no free will."


In his private musing on the question of free will, Darwin came to the conclusion that human free will is an illusion, and that all of our actions (and, by extension, our thoughts and intentions) are the result of our “hereditary constitution” and “the example…or teaching of others.”

Academic evolutionary biologists, have followed Darwin’s lead and asserted that human free will is an illusion. Most philosophers disagree, asserting that free will is the principle difference between humans and non-human animals...

 

So I dunno what to tell you. Darwin thinks it's just an illusion, so basically you have no free will.. you're just a robot with the 'illusion' of choice. So, you can blame all your stupid choices on evolution, since you don't really have any real choice.

I just.. disagree with that.

I'm not claiming anything about where the conciousness resides. It does appears to me that it is affected by causality, but in by no means ruled by it.