[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Kamog:
Some people say that only humans are self-aware and animals are not. According to them, a dog is not capable of introspection - it is able to learn and react to situations, but it does not know that it is doing so. I think that there is no way to confirm if this is true or not. Intuitively, it does not seem right that humans are special and fundamentally different from other life forms.

If humans have free will, then do dogs have free will? How about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, if we say that humans have free will, then all life forms must have it also.

If it is possible to arrange a collection of atoms in such a way as to have free will (as in a human brain), then in theory it must also be possible to construct a machine that has free will.

I agree with you Kamog.

We humans often make the mistake of defining attributes in human terms.

It is obvious that animals do not have our self-awareness.

Now, it could be a matter of degree or they may have a self-awareness which is fundamentally different from ours.

So, just because they do not share our "type" of self-awareness, does not mean they lack self-awareness.

The above comments also apply to the concept of free will.

[Suicide Junkie]

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

quote:

---

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.

---

I thought about free-will and determinism a lot. There are pros and cons on each side.

Basically, I have resolved it for myself on a practical basis.

If determinism is in effect, then it doesn't matter what I do. It is all foreordained.

So, I might as well conduct my life as if free will was the opererative principle.

If I am right (free will), then I have tried to exercise free will. If not, it doesn't matter since my attempt to exercise free will was foreordained.

[Baron Munchausen]

The whole discussion about 'determinism' vs. 'free will' assumes that cause and effect it true. There is a traditional logical error called 'Post Hoc' (Latin 'After here') which is essentially about assuming cause and effect. Just because event B always follows event A does not 'prove' that event B is caused by event A. They could both come from a single common cause that you are not able to see. David Hume observed that even in the physical world of the senses you cannot see the cause of one object moving another by physical contact. You can observe the event but there is nothing in sensory data that tells you how and why it happens.

As you are finding with the discussion of time, it's a bit difficult to get a handle on a universe that doesn't rely on linear time. But regardless of what the universe 'really is', if what we perceive as 'time' is not real the whole issue of 'determinism' vs. 'free will' is moot. Our 'will' could very well be included in whatever force(s) create the universe as a whole (from whatever 'external' perspective these forces act from) and so we have pre-determined ourselves by our own freewill.

[ March 22, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Suicide Junkie]

If determinism is in effect, then it doesn't matter what I do. It is all foreordained.

So, I might as well conduct my life as if free will was the opererative principle.

I completely agree there.

[tbontob]

Baron, I couldn't agree with you more about time.

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.

And that may not be true.

And to take this discussion into a completely different direction, some proponents suggest time is an illusion.

They claim the past, present and the future already exist in a kind of omni-present. It is just that our perspective is riveted on the present and gives us the experience of discovering the future.

Can't say I really understand it, but it is a interesting concept.

[ March 22, 2003, 22:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.

Aside from errors, such as where there is a third-event cause, isn't that part of the definition?

If not, how is cause defined?