romansh

On another thread Minsocal asked Where am I connected? In an unfolding universe the answer would be everywhere. Just that some connections are closer or more immediate. The pattern that was your cat has faded to beyond recognition or definition of a cat. Condolences Minsocal by the way.

My experience is the judicial system is fairly logical given the axioms it works in. But one is allowed to question the axioms, don't you think? Who is flattening religious expression? This to me seems a broad rhetorical statement. The Hobby lobby quite reasonably have taken a legal (and no doubt political) approach to their concerns. But are we not allow to ask, why a religious approach is allowed to over-ride what is essentially a medical issue? This is what the more secular world is asking?

Regarding transfusions While letting courts decide is a reasonable option, you avoided my question(s), do you think individuals have the right to deny medical insurance to their employees for procedures they disagree with on moral grounds?

Dutch I am not as familiar as I could be with the ins and outs of US healthcare system and all its legal vagaries. My apologies. If a particular procedure is considered a bona fide medical tool then why should an employee and family be prevent from having access because of the employer's beliefs? If an employer objected to blood transfusions on religious or moral grounds would you object? I find the whole thing around health care in the States a mess. So my question is would we allow every quirky belief or morality to have a veto? Presumably in the name of diversity? If businesses were private organizations run for members then bakers could do what they like, so long as it is in within the laws, statutes and constitution. If the business is open to the general public then I would expect them to treat people with dignity and with a reasonable degree of equality.

Even what we call dead and inanimate unfold.

Valid point Soma .... but not for one moment do I believe these are intrinsically separate. As a scientist I can find myself being mislead that the contents of my solution are intrinsically separate from the beaker. Some times it is a useful approximation sometimes it is a miserable fail. To iterate ... the things I take apart are not intrinsically separate.

I would add it the same family of lobby groups that block a more inclusive universal health care and then handcuff Obama care. You apostate you Dutch.

I find it strange hoping for at one ment and then divvying things into bits and pieces like, mind, body, soul and god.

If the States had a national health service, should individuals within that service apply their beliefs to people they are serving? Is not the employer acting as an agent on behalf of the state?

The problem with metaphors, their interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. We may try and get the original author's intent, but who is to say that is the most accurate interpretation?

The more I think about the concept of sin the more bemused I get. I suspect the concept of sin that is promulgated in western society by the more orthodox Christian denominations has mislead society more than any other aspect of its teachings. The original sin, I think, was to think in terms of sin. OK I know there is a logic problem here, but I think most will get my drift. Genesis three shows us 'the' or a way, the Bible is peppered with references to not to judge. And yet our society remains judgemental.

Obviously 'addiction' is a chemistry that over-rides our body's chemistry. Some might argue quite accurately, I think, that I am addicted to the topic of free will. Is my body chemistry addicted to discussing the subject, I think so. Could I somehow break that addiction? Again I think so, but only by developing another one. Also a matter of semantics ... free will itself is not about the ability to choose. We do so all the time. But it is about whether there is some intrinsic self that is independent of cause making those choices.

The interesting thing genetics (and evolution in general) is a reflection of the environment and experience itself is also very much the environment. Other things might be the way atoms and fundamental particles interact. So "I" becomes an interesting pronoun.

I must admit I like the story of the fall too. But I don't think anyone here is changing the laws of nature ... I'm just asking that we understand them. Our (at least for most of us) understanding of nature is predicated on cause and effect. I don't think consciousness is any different. It would appear our consciousness is very much a historical introspection. Albeit a very recent introspection. Thinking in terms of good and evil is a pragmatic way of looking at things ... but I don't think the laws of nature actually concern themselves with good and evil. To get back into the "garden of Eden" perhaps we should stop thing in terms of good and evil.

Another version of Galen Strawson's argument http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/your-move-the-maze-of-free-will/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

So is it a fair translation to say you don't know whether there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? And what about, do you think there are any parts of you that are independent of cause? You said the universe is not responsible for anything. Are you saying you are a self-made man? (This brings the wag's addendum to mind) Thereby relieving God of an almighty responsibility. How about this and responsibility? http://www.naturalism.org/strawson_interview.htm So the universe and how it unfolds is somehow independent of free will? can we clarify what this discussion is about?

Again you don't answer my question Dutch, what part of you is actually free from cause? If the answer is nothing or I don't know fair enough. Whether a limited being can know the full extent of the universe is irrelevant to the question of free will and how the universe actually unfolds. If the answer is I don't know a belief in free will becomes interesting. If the answer is nothing then we are not talking about free will per se. Regarding novelty and new ... does evolution create novelty and new creatures? If so, does that mean evolution itself or the universe unfolding has free will? Novelty and new might be important, but that does not mean they are tied to an absence of cause. There is something about the concept of free will of an independent intrinsic actor that comforting to humans.

Yes there are many fragments to this ... all I want to know is which bits of you if any are independent of cause. You say you will not use responsibility ... yet you say the universe is not responsible? You must be using the moral sense of responsible, but you were not going to use moral either. It is difficult I understand. I have no problem with the use of evolution and the universe unfolding ... though I did not really understand the remainder of the paragraph. I never claimed indeterminism is a result of incomplete knowledge. But on the whole it is smoke smoke screen that gets in a way of fruitful conversation. You are speaking to an agnostic here Dutch ... I don't even know what can be known. As for the concept of random here is a nice essay on the subject. At the bottom of the page there is link Can you behave randomly? ... interesting if you have an hour to spare. Not quite what I said but that is OK for now. Yes I agree you are at an intersection of causes ... the question remains do you believe you are a free agent that is somehow independent of those causes whether they be classical or quantum? Again yes you make choices but the choice that you make is it independent of the antecedent causes? Yes we can read that into Jesus' teachings we can also read that we should not judge .. ie parse into good and bad. You can read that into the fall as well. Satisfaction is a red herring here. Here you fall into for me what is a fairly common response to the argument. Because Laplace was wrong, determinism is false; then we can consider libertarianism as true. It is not the number of choices that are available to an organism simple or complex that is at issues here ... it is the underlying mechanism. I agree a complex organism will have a more complex mechanism. No freedom here that I can see. And yet we can predict the near future with some limited success. A quick look at my work calendar will allow me know what is coming (not in absolute certainty) ... And I predict the Palestinian Israeli conflict will continue for some years with the normal ups and downs. The fact that we can't predict accurately is interesting, but irrelevant to free will. You are arguing for a two hundred year old Laplacian understanding of free will. We have moved on. Again which part of you is independent of cause so we can study that bit in a bit more detail?

Computers having free will? I think this is my point ... we can define free will into existence. Your computer is influenced by its environment (cultural and societal settings) and its construction. It certainly is cable of making choices ... take a look at the Boolean logic available in the spreadsheet. The computer responds to its environment. But is it free of cause ... I would say no.

Either sense ... though more the first one. I had it in the back of my mind ... I certainly did not exclude it from our discussion. Did you? Plus I would have hoped that when doubting the concept of morality the second sense of responsibility becomes more prominent or self evident. I was thinking more that understanding of how the universe unfolds leads to acceptance (as opposed to apathy. I can still dislike actions and be an activist for a cause, just that I am accepting of my opponent. I copied you question verbatim Dutch. I also answered it. Perhaps you could have a go at answering it? I must admit I would answer no to your question. In both cases the universe is responsible for the organism, complex or simple. If you and Mr Coyne think your will is free from chance and necessity then fine. Chance does nothing to free the will. Now if you could have a go at answering the my question. Which bit of you is free from cause?

Dutch ... what we do when hold a portion of an endless list of interconnected hierarchies accountable is draw an arbitrary boundary within that endless list. I will admit it is a useful boundary ... but arbitrary nonetheless. Responsibility has two meanings ... there is the moral responsibility that we assign to one another and responsible in the sense of the sun is responsible for much of life on Earth or an electrical short was responsible for the fire. That you think some of us don't see the richness of evolution and that we ignore creativity and novelty is a strange position to take. Now I have tried to answer your questions perhaps you could answer mine for a bit. Which bit of you is free from cause and effect?

Dutch Does a more complex organism have more free will than a simple one? I don't think so. Its behaviours can be more complex that's all. An bacterium responds to inputs ... so do I. Morality? If we have no free will then the concept of morality seems to be a non sequitur. That does not mean I don't feel the relevant emotions like guilt shame pride etc that evolution has endowed me with a capacity for. Evolution has endowed me with the capacity to see the colour blue. I don't have to believe blue exists intrinsically. Regarding mediation in the school environment ... is it the teacher who should be held accountable for a lack of skills to deal with a wayward pupil. Perhaps it is the principal for not providing the training or the government for not providing the funding. In each case we draw an arbitrary boundary of where we think the blame lies and who to hold accountable. Or we can try fixing the perceived problem. I agree we tend to live compatibilist lives ... interestingly it does not have to be that way.

Joseph Have I always not believed in free will? Definitely not. Did my belief in free will affect my ability to explore reality ... I think so. I never put my scientific scrutiny to the subject because I had an unconditional belief. So did my past belief (in free will) prevent my exploration? Obviously the answer is no ... but it certainly did inhibit that exploration.

Does a city with all it's inhabitants have free will, for it is far more complex than one person?

Perhaps it is not a dubious assumption? Dutch Now we shift our attention to intent. Here' s a question, do we actually have intent or do we confabulate? It is much like the old philosophical question ... The red chair I am looking at, is it actually red? Are our intents any more free of cause than are our choices? Without cause and effect (chemistry and physics) would we have an intent (will)? Is there any part of you that is not a result of cause and effect? If the answer is no, then the ramifications of this are worth exploring. If your answer is yes, then I would be interested in hearing more about this. We dance around saying we have "limited" free will ... What in fact we are doing is changing the definition and not paying attention to cause and effect.