Is your death predetermined?

[marty]

Do you believe that when your time is up it's up and nothing can change that, or do you believe that you are in complete controll?

[SothArtist]

I believe in science and positive attitude to help sustain life

[galleryseek]

i don't "believe" or invest faith in anything. i think its stupid for people to blindly invest faith within a religion, and i also think its stupid for people who view the world in a total athiest perspective. fact is, we don't know, we can only assume / speculate. so rather than investing faith in either idea and proclaiming to think i ..know.., i take the neutral stance.. agnostic.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by marty
Do you believe that when your time is up it's up and nothing can change that, or do you believe that you are in complete controll?

This is a classic "false dichotomy."

First off, you can be "in complete control" (or whatever CAN be controlled) and yet have no viable alternatives from which to choose. One is limited by what is possible even when one is in control, unless one is God.

Anyway, here's the thing: Free will is impossible. It's a concept that makes no sense. Look at it this way: If the laws of physics apply to the world, they are deterministic on the gross level and random on the subatomic level. Neither determinism nor randomness seem to support free will because there obviously can be no free will in a deterministic world. However, suppose determinism did not apply, and the world were randomized. What use would free will be in a world where the predictions determinism allows could not be relied upon?

[Libertine]

I believe I have a headache.

[RedShoe]

I do not know when I will die, but I do think it will be from a very violent car crash.

I have very very vivid slow motion dreams of my crashing in violent car crashes. And I daydream about it sometimes. In my daydreams I often see myself dying in the wreck.

[SothArtist]

heh who ever said RedShoe's sig was hypnotic was right. That rocks

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by RedShoe
I do not know when I will die, but I do think it will be from a very violent car crash.

I have very very vivid slow motion dreams of my crashing in violent car crashes. And I daydream about it sometimes. In my daydreams I often see myself dying in the wreck.

In case you didn't know you can't click your sig. I see the url on mouseover but no clicky clicky.

[quiet]

Originally posted by stocktrader23


In case you didn't know you can't click your sig. I see the url on mouseover but no clicky clicky.

it works for me.

[marty]

People always told me that it wasn't my time when I came close to dying.

Just wondering if there is such a thing as "My Time"?

[AWW - Kevin]

Originally posted by quiet


it works for me.

not woking for me !

[helis]

Originally posted by marty
Do you believe that when your time is up it's up and nothing can change that, or do you believe that you are in complete controll?

i dont belieave in fate we make our own future and we can change it but one thing i dont think we can change is our time here...i think the second we are created there is a expiry book with our names and dates ay.....

eitherway live life the best you can thats all we can do

my anyway

[bhutocracy]

fate and destiny are repugnant constructs that allow people to make excuses for what they do or don't do in their lives. Even though determinism is sound, I reject it merely because it allows me to excuse my actions and relegate responsibilities as a fated response set in stone since the big bang.
The is no "my time" there is just "shit that happens".

[KRL]

On the surface of things, you have the constant ability to modify and adust your life direction. How you modify your life continuously determines things that will happen to you and others, since your modifications impact other lives outward from your sphere of influence. This is the domino principle.

If I decide to go out and drive slowly, I am changing the time forces on every person driving behind me. This action on my part has the possibility to change what happens to these people. For example one driver might get pissed off and go speeding ahead and go through a red light and crash and die. Another driver who my slow driving delays, might be saved from being in a car accident because he is prevented from reaching that impact point in time.

You do have free will, but under quantum mechanics you actually do not. If I live a healthly lifestyle I increase my odds of living longer. That doesn't mean I will though, because the wild card is death by accident or incident. These you can protect yourself from by living carefully, but regardless sometimes even then death can happen in a situation beyond your control. This is the being in the wrong place at the wrong time principle. But is it really?

Now, in contradiction to the illusions illustrated above are the time space quantum physics factors. If the universe has no outside than it is just an "is". There is no beginning, nor an end, it just is. To our senses time passes, however it is passing within a space which remains fixed. Yet time can not pass in a fixed universe, which the universe appears to be, based on the mechanics of quantum gravity, because time as we understand it contradicts itself within the fixed state of the universe and therefore cancels and negates its own being of motion and becomes a fixed entity with a beginning and ending that is in actuality one and the same therefore becoming an "is" also. If time in actuality has no beginning and no end, it just "is" which means destiny is just "is" also, because destiny is directly related to causality and they become one and the same like time and space are and the Universe itself is.

This quantum logic then creates a probelm for the concept of free will. If the universe is fixed space, and time as we see it is really not true motion, but rather just an illusion and a false sensation of motion operating within a relative state of fixed time space, then free will is not possible because causality becomes a fixed state too since it must operate transparently within the quantum physics of the whole and therefore without a beginning and without and ending. Causality and effect form an intertwined relationship under this logic where effect is attributable to causality and causality is attributable to effect, because you can not have one occur without the other. This negation in essence means we can not possess free will because reaction to the action is the same dynamic force as the action to the reaction operating in truth without time-space as a factor in the equation.

If I drop a glass on the floor it will break. Do I have the free will to change that? On the surface you would yes. However if I don't drop it, it will not break, but then by not causing it to break I have not in reality exercised free will because by not breaking the glass the event of the glass breaking did not occur because it was not meant to be. By not occuring though, the glass therefor remained intact and that was the mandated destiny because it was not possible to occur since the cause was not created which therefore means it could not have occured. So no matter what action is chosen, the reaction is predetermined because a specific reaction can only occur with its initiating yet free will negating corresponding action.

The essence of this quantum logic relating to predetermination thereby means everything is predetermined unto itself because we are operating within the physics of a Universe in truth that is absent of time and space because they are one and the same. So no matter what you do, you are only initiating what was to be because what was not to be did not occur because it could not. This forms the logical basis for the inherent belief in religions that life is eternal. Indeed it is because you can not die where time and space exist upon themselves as one and the same since your birth is your death and your death is your birth. Your past present and future are only illusions because they are like the Universe itself, an "is". No matter how you chop the "is" up within the whole it will still be the whole.

I think I need an aspirin now.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by galleryseek
i don't "believe" or invest faith in anything. i think its stupid for people to blindly invest faith within a religion, and i also think its stupid for people who view the world in a total athiest perspective. fact is, we don't know, we can only assume / speculate. so rather than investing faith in either idea and proclaiming to think i ..know.., i take the neutral stance.. agnostic.

An atheist is merely someone with no theistic belief.

Your assumption that all atheists deny the existence of God is wrong. Not having a belief in God and denying his existence are two very different philosophical positions.

[LeeNoga]

I agree with JoeSix. They are 2 different things.

[FlyingIguana]

Originally posted by marty
Do you believe that when your time is up it's up and nothing can change that, or do you believe that you are in complete controll?

you're never in complete control, but you can minimize the chance of death with how you live.

[ADL Colin]

Why do so many non-believers call themselves agnostic? Agnosticism is all the rage these days.

Ask the same person who claims to be agnostic whether they believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris or the tooth fairy and you'll get an emphatic "no".

You don't believe. Well, no shit you might be wrong. One doesn't normally take the time to profess "I might be wrong" for every single belief (or lack thereof) that is held.

Q. "Do you believe cattle are being mutilated by alien visitors?"
A. "Ummm, No. but I'm really not 100% sure so I'm really agnostic".

Why is non-belief in a creator any different intellectually than non-belief in lawn gnomes coming to life? Why not go all the way? I deny the existence of God. So there.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin
Why do so many non-believers call themselves agnostic? Agnosticism is all the rage these days.

Philosophical fence sitting has always been the rage.

Could also have something to do with the stigma attached to publically proclaiming yourself as an atheist in the USA.

atheist = commie = unAmerican person

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Colin
Why do so many non-believers call themselves agnostic? Agnosticism is all the rage these days.

Ask the same person who claims to be agnostic whether they believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris or the tooth fairy and you'll get an emphatic "no".

You don't believe. Well, no shit you might be wrong. One doesn't normally take the time to profess "I might be wrong" for every single belief (or lack thereof) that is held.

Q. "Do you believe cattle are being mutilated by alien visitors?"
A. "Ummm, No. but I'm really not 100% sure so I'm really agnostic".

Why is non-belief in a creator any different intellectually than non-belief in lawn gnomes coming to life? Why not go all the way? I deny the existence of God. So there.

Without going into detail (have too much of a headache at the moment), the strongest form of agnosticism isn't just about a single interpretation of God, but rather about a far wider range of spiritual and metaphysical concepts bundled together, including any possible but non-existent ones.
The alternatives to it can be summarized as "nothing exists that I cannot know, with the help of science, and that I know for sure" or "X exists, I know what it is, I know what it does, although I can not see or prove it - ever". Both are rather foolish, in my opinion, since although one can safely assume that the common religious concepts are incorrect (ridiculous, actually), saying so about every possible non-physical/spiritual concept is quite arrogant, to say the least.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


Philosophical fence sitting has always been the rage.

Could also have something to do with the stigma attached to publically proclaiming yourself as an atheist in the USA.

atheist = commie = unAmerican person

I didn't say "in the USA".

If agnosticism has ALWAYS been the rage, it couldn't be a particularly American insitution given the short history of the US, could it?

I'm not quite sure the intended audience of the self-proclaimed agnostic is Bible thumping Christians, are you?

Mr. Huxley is rolling over in his grave.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by KRL
On the surface of things, you have the constant ability to modify and adust your life direction. How you modify your life continuously determines things that will happen to you and others, since your modifications impact other lives outward from your sphere of influence. This is the domino principle.

If I decide to go out and drive slowly, I am changing the time forces on every person driving behind me. This action on my part has the possibility to change what happens to these people. For example one driver might get pissed off and go speeding ahead and go through a red light and crash and die. Another driver who my slow driving delays, might be saved from being in a car accident because he is prevented from reaching that impact point in time.

You do have free will, but under quantum mechanics you actually do not. If I live a healthly lifestyle I increase my odds of living longer. That doesn't mean I will though, because the wild card is death by accident or incident. These you can protect yourself from by living carefully, but regardless sometimes even then death can happen in a situation beyond your control. This is the being in the wrong place at the wrong time principle. But is it really?

Now, in contradiction to the illusions illustrated above are the time space quantum physics factors. If the universe has no outside than it is just an "is". There is no beginning, nor an end, it just is. To our senses time passes, however it is passing within a space which remains fixed. Yet time can not pass in a fixed universe, which the universe appears to be, based on the mechanics of quantum gravity, because time as we understand it contradicts itself within the fixed state of the universe and therefore cancels and negates its own being of motion and becomes a fixed entity with a beginning and ending that is in actuality one and the same therefore becoming an "is" also. If time in actuality has no beginning and no end, it just "is" which means destiny is just "is" also, because destiny is directly related to causality and they become one and the same like time and space are and the Universe itself is.

This quantum logic then creates a probelm for the concept of free will. If the universe is fixed space, and time as we see it is really not true motion, but rather just an illusion and a false sensation of motion operating within a relative state of fixed time space, then free will is not possible because causality becomes a fixed state too since it must operate transparently within the quantum physics of the whole and therefore without a beginning and without and ending. Causality and effect form an intertwined relationship under this logic where effect is attributable to causality and causality is attributable to effect, because you can not have one occur without the other. This negation in essence means we can not possess free will because reaction to the action is the same dynamic force as the action to the reaction operating in truth without time-space as a factor in the equation.

If I drop a glass on the floor it will break. Do I have the free will to change that? On the surface you would yes. However if I don't drop it, it will not break, but then by not causing it to break I have not in reality exercised free will because by not breaking the glass the event of the glass breaking did not occur because it was not meant to be. By not occuring though, the glass therefor remained intact and that was the mandated destiny because it was not possible to occur since the cause was not created which therefore means it could not have occured. So no matter what action is chosen, the reaction is predetermined because a specific reaction can only occur with its initiating yet free will negating corresponding action.

The essence of this quantum logic relating to predetermination thereby means everything is predetermined unto itself because we are operating within the physics of a Universe in truth that is absent of time and space because they are one and the same. So no matter what you do, you are only initiating what was to be because what was not to be did not occur because it could not. This forms the logical basis for the inherent belief in religions that life is eternal. Indeed it is because you can not die where time and space exist upon themselves as one and the same since your birth is your death and your death is your birth. Your past present and future are only illusions because they are like the Universe itself, an "is". No matter how you chop the "is" up within the whole it will still be the whole.

I think I need an aspirin now.

That's a nice, detailed explanation of determinism. It also fails to negate the concept of free will.

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Colin


I didn't say "in the USA".

If agnosticism has ALWAYS been the rage, it couldn't be a particularly American insitution given the short history of the US, could it?

I'm not quite sure the intended audience of the self-proclaimed agnostic is Bible thumping Christians, are you?

Mr. Huxley is rolling over in his grave.

My point was that many non believing Americans call themselves agnostics rather than atheists because it is more acceptable to be an "agnostic" in such a traditionally Christian nation such as the USA.

Wasn't it "godless" communism that used to inspire such terror in middle America back in the 1950's?

[NoCarrier]

I refuse to be controlled like a puppet.

Destiny concept = No

[Danny_C]

Well, I'm a little late in this thread... I agree 100% with Unseen World, Bhutocracy, and Joe Sixpack.

There is no free will, as explained by Unseen World. I tend to take the Lockian viewpoint that there's no action without cause. We don't make arbitrary decisions in anything. Even our most unconcious small physical movements are done for a reason. We're nothing more than products of our environments and genetics.

On the other hand, as bhutocracy said, we can't use this lack of freedom as an excuse for our crimes and our laziness.

And, as Joe Sixpack said, atheists are NOT dogmatists. The essence of atheism is open-mindedness. We reject dogma rather than (as most people perceive us) accepting a dogma opposite that of the accepted norm.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


My point was that many non believing Americans call themselves agnostics rather than atheists because it is more acceptable to be an "agnostic" in such a traditionally Christian nation such as the USA.

Really? Interesting. Anyone that is a US citizen and is agnostic, please tell us why you are agnostic. Are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs in front of Christians?

Why do people in Australia call themselves "agnostic"?

Christianity in the US is in decline just like in every other western nation. The ARIS poll shows a drop of 9.5% in people professing themselves to be Christian in the US in just the past ten years.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack


Wasn't it "godless" communism that used to inspire such terror in middle America back in the 1950's?

And the Australian National anthem was ?God Save the Queen? until 1974. What's your point?

[Tala]

atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.




agnostic

\Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.



There is a difference. I'm agnostic simply because I can't prove that there is or is not a God. I do not deny that there might be, though, I just can't prove it.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Tala
atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
agnostic

\Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.

There is a difference. I'm agnostic simply because I can't prove that there is or is not a God. I do not deny that there might be, though, I just can't prove it.

Hi Tala,

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy or are you agnostic? Do you deny that there might be a tooth fairy?

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Tala
atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

agnostic

\Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.


There is a difference. I'm agnostic simply because I can't prove that there is or is not a God. I do not deny that there might be, though, I just can't prove it.

Although I do agree with the dictionary in this case, using a dictionary in such a debate is a bit odd. Dictionaries are written by people not specialized in such a particular subject and summarize in very few lines things about which whole libraries have been written. They also tend to make obvious mistakes rather often when describing academic or technical matters.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Danny_C

There is no free will, as explained by Unseen World.

...

We're nothing more than products of our environments and genetics.

...

On the other hand, as bhutocracy said, we can't use this lack of freedom as an excuse for our crimes and our laziness.

That is simply ridiculous. Full-blown determinism without any of the necessary adjustments, and you still try to fit in a concept of guilt?

Please, do explain how the two can co-exist.

[ADL Colin]

Punkworld,

We should at least agree on common definitions when discussing such things. Where do you recommend?

(Someone should dig up a Wittgenstein quote now)

[Tala]

Originally posted by Colin


Hi Tala,

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy or are you agnostic? Do you deny that there might be a tooth fairy?

I can say that there probably isn't one, but I can't prove it either way. So I don't believe in it.

[Libertine]

For agnosticism and atheism, I suggest the two quoted from the dictionary by Tala. Although a bit limited, they are the most commonly used interpretations.

For free will, determinism and responsibility - well, going into detail would take away all the fun from watching this debate.

[Tala]

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.

Is God able but not willing? Then He is malevolent.

Is He both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?

Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

[FlyingIguana]

Originally posted by Tala
The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.

Is God able but not willing? Then He is malevolent.

Is He both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?

Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

i like that. i've always said anyone who has all that power and still lets his 'children' suffer is one sick individual.

if there is a god and he's so powerful, then how did he fuck up the earth? is this the best he could come up with?

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Tala
The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.

Is God able but not willing? Then He is malevolent.

Is He both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?

Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

We can't even agree on what is evil and what is not on GFY. How could a god act in such a way as to be consistent with everyone's personal view of what is good and what is evil?

I might see the bombing of the WTC as evil. Someone else might see it as good, "the will of God".

[Nysus]

*points gun to your head*

It depends. Do you love me??

Cheers,
Matt

[Danny_C]

Originally posted by punkworld


That is simply ridiculous. Full-blown determinism without any of the necessary adjustments, and you still try to fit in a concept of guilt?

Please, do explain how the two can co-exist.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe we have true free will (only the illusion of free will) because nothing that happens is without cause. We do make decisions, but those decisions are based on judgment that comes from experience and genetics.

BUT, there's an inherent problem in acknowledging that fact - people will use their "lack of free will" as an excuse for their misdeeds. If everyone were to accept that there is no free will, then the courts would be filled with people saying they had no choice. The lack of free will becomes the very cause that perpetuates more misdeeds.

So sometimes we have to set aside our philosophies for the sake of practicality. I didn't mean to say we could have it both ways... that would be ridiculous. I'm only saying that although I lean toward believing one thing, I think it's more practical to live our lives by the assumption that we do have free will.

[Que?]

The only thing you can be sure of is that with every day that passes you are one day closer to meet the grim reaper, muah-ha-ha-ha

[Scootermuze]

I can't get into the predetermined thing.. nor do I feel that I have total control... I feel that we are all at the mercy of surrounding circumstances..

People leaving the house.. or wherever.. one second sooner or later may have prevented most deaths caused by drunk drivers..

I think that paths.. or patterns are set that cause an end result..

If your great great great great grandfather had looked left instead of right, he wouldn't have seen that cute little gal that he ended up marrying, which resulted in so many other lives coming into existence.. including yours..

Every action causes a reaction.. But to think that each of these actions/reactions are pretermined, would keep even someone like God pretty busy if ya think about it..

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Danny_C


I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe we have true free will (only the illusion of free will) because nothing that happens is without cause. We do make decisions, but those decisions are based on judgment that comes from experience and genetics.

BUT, there's an inherent problem in acknowledging that fact - people will use their "lack of free will" as an excuse for their misdeeds. If everyone were to accept that there is no free will, then the courts would be filled with people saying they had no choice. The lack of free will becomes the very cause that perpetuates more misdeeds.

So sometimes we have to set aside our philosophies for the sake of practicality. I didn't mean to say we could have it both ways... that would be ridiculous. I'm only saying that although I lean toward believing one thing, I think it's more practical to live our lives by the assumption that we do have free will.

Ah, that sounds a lot better.

However, what do you consider "true" free will? Is true free will the freedom to decide what you do or to decide what you will?

Since the freedom to decide what you will leads to infinite regression, this does not seem like a viable option. Besides that, it also makes very little sense as a concept (if you would have the freedom to decide what you will, apparently your will is not "you", but rather the will behind it - or the ones behind that - and that supposes the existence of a soul or other kind of homunculus).

Now, the freedom to decide what you do, or in other words to do what you will, is something different altogether. It doesn't rely on something outside of cause and effect. Ofcourse, what - or maybe who - you are determines what your will will be. But isn't that the key element of free will? Making decisions based on who and what you are, what you think and what you feel?
The difference between free will and normal causality seems to consist of the conscious part of decision-making, the rational or emotional factors that eventually lead you to action or lack thereof.

One could even argue that causality is what makes free will possible, for two different reasons.
The first is that without causality, will or desire and action could not be coupled. Your choosing to do something would not affect your actions, and would thus be of no value. Causality is what makes it possible to make a decision, along with the actions that follow from it.
The second reason for causality being vital to free will is perhaps even more important. When you make a decision, it is usually based on a consideration of a range of factors, including both rational and emotional ones. If causality would not exist, and these would thus have no effect on your decisions and actions, you would only have randomness, which is contradictory to will.

Another argument in favor of free will, although slightly shady, is that free will undoubtedly plays a role in the decisions you make. Not just the concept of free will, but actually experiencing it. When you make a decision, and you are in doubt between two options, what you are experiencing is free will. That doubt, that duty to make either of both decisions is what free will is.

The mistake that determinists make is that they try to comprehend a concept that talks about mind and consciousness with science and physics. However, that is like explaining Shakespeare's Othello in terms of just paper and ink - you will miss the essence of the matter that way.

The truth is that free will is an inescapable reality of experience. Even if you would believe that free will would not exist, you would still be forced to make decisions in freedom, since there is no deterministic prediction of what will happen that you can use. You will still have to decide whether to breathe or not, whether to eat or not, whether to sleep or not - and even doing nothing would be a choice. So, living by the assumption that there is no free will is not just unpractical, it is impossible. There is no way to put it into practice, since even if you don't believe in free will you will have to assume that it exists in every action you take.

So, saying that free will does not exist because physics have causality, laws of nature and atoms is like saying love does not exist because biology has endorfines and hormones, or that fear does not exist because biology has adrenaline and nerves. It is completely missing the point and talking about a whole different level of existence.


<small>Note: Ofcourse, it is necessary to drop the dumb religious idea of free will, which is based on the assumption that a soul exists which is separate from the body and which controls your mind like it is some machine. But that was a stupid idea to begin with, which in reality said more about schizophrenia than it did about free will.</small>

[WiredGuy]

Alcohol poisoning will likely be the cause for mine, not sure when. The constant liver pains can't be good.

WG

[marty]

The movies Final Destination (I & II) showed that if you somehow cheated the death that had been planned for you, an even nastier one could be just around the corner.

I'm just contemplating the possible reality of the concept.

Is there such a thing as "Now it's your time to die"?

[Danny_C]

Punkworld:

It's a complex and interesting debate. It reminds me of the Cartesian idea that I could be nothing more than a brain in a vat. This could all be a dream. So we can't prove anything through real-world experience, because it could be that none of it is real. But any good pragmatist will point out that this kind of pontification is useless in the real world, and gets us nowhere. Humanity, they would argue, can only move forward if we utilize our senses (flawed and fallible as they are) as tools to guide us toward truth. Just as in this debate, there is room for both sides to be perfectly legitimate. Descarte was right - we could be dreaming all of this. Our senses could be deceiving us. But until we have something better than our own senses to work with, it would be stupid for us not to trust them.

This is the same kind of argument. Any number of arguments can be levelled against the concept of free will, but where will that kind of pontification get us?

I mentioned the "illusion of free will". Although I call it an illusion, that perception of free will is what pushes us forward as a species. It's what gives us motivation and spurs creativity. Pragmatists would argue that the only definition of reality we have is the reality we perceive - because that's the only reality that does us any good.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by Danny_C
Punkworld:

It's a complex and interesting debate. It reminds me of the Cartesian idea that I could be nothing more than a brain in a vat. This could all be a dream. So we can't prove anything through real-world experience, because it could be that none of it is real. But any good pragmatist will point out that this kind of pontification is useless in the real world, and gets us nowhere. Humanity, they would argue, can only move forward if we utilize our senses (flawed and fallible as they are) as tools to guide us toward truth. Just as in this debate, there is room for both sides to be perfectly legitimate. Descarte was right - we could be dreaming all of this. Our senses could be deceiving us. But until we have something better than our own senses to work with, it would be stupid for us not to trust them.

This is the same kind of argument. Any number of arguments can be levelled against the concept of free will, but where will that kind of pontification get us?

I mentioned the "illusion of free will". Although I call it an illusion, that perception of free will is what pushes us forward as a species. It's what gives us motivation and spurs creativity. Pragmatists would argue that the only definition of reality we have is the reality we perceive - because that's the only reality that does us any good.

Well, while I agree with that to a certain extent, I think it is important to note that assuming the absence of free will would lead to a logical contradiction, simply because mankind can not look into the future and thus will always have to make choices without knowing beforehand what those will be. That also means that - ironically - the theory of absence of free is about as unscientific as possible. It doesn't make predictions, but only explains things after the fact, much like religions do.

Free will might be called an illusion when looked at it in terms of atoms, molecules and causality, but in my opinion those are in an entirely different domain. They can co-exist, as long as you make a clear distinction between the domains.