One important distinction is that MITRE is a non-profit organization, unlike most DoD contractors. They are setup that way so that they can provide non-biased consultation.
MITRE has been pushing Open Systems for some time. When I was working for them 8 years ago I was prototyping software in their Open Systems lab.
Could be that he was suggesting that nature itself, at its foundation, is not mechanized. We believe this because of the uncertain nature of quantum theory. If this is what he was suggesting, I would have to agree with him. As a mystic, I do not believe reality is ultimately mechanical.
So what, we don't know exactly how the brain works. Does that mean it is necessarily not reproducible?
No, of course not. Based on the above statement, it isn't necessarily reproducable and it isn't necessarily not reproducable. Furthermore, the possibility of strong AI cannot be proven or disproven. My intuition tells me, however, that the human mind is not a machine and cannot be emulated with an algorithm. This is largely due to a strong belief that I have freewill.
Never understimate the power of an inquisitive human building on the knowledge of all humanity. Human society is the most complex machine in the universe, but I have no doubt in my mind with enough study even a simple human brain is capable of reducing it to symbols.
Depends what you mean by reduce it to symbols. Formalizing human behavior with language is not difficult. Doing it with absolute consistency and accuracy is another matter.
I agree with your optimism about the capability of the human mind, but I disagree with you on your assumption that the mind can be decoded. Suggesting the human mind is a formal system limits its capacity to what is definable within that formal system. The formal system places definite boundaries on what the mind can and cannot do. In my opinion, the potential of the human mind exceeds that of any formal system.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have shown us that any formal system is inherently incomplete. From studying them, I now have the perspective that formal systems are simply temporal structures that we invent as a utility to reason and communicate. All formal systems, as proven by Godel, are incomplete and vulnerable to contradiction.
As a computer programmer, I am continually creating formal systems. Each program I write is a formal structure. Languages and mathematics are all formal structures. It is my opinion that consciousness creates form, but it is not itself formal.
Please explain. I assume you understand uncertainty as it relates to quantum physics. If the best thing we can do is model quantum processes with probabilities, it is very possible there may be a wealth of activity behind these processes, but we currently have no means to observe it.
I agree with you 100%. My impression, however, is that most people have a totally unrealistic expectation of AI. I encounter these expectations on a regular basis. People expect AI to be able to intelligently figure out processes that they themselves are unable to formalize.
One website for you. babelfish.altavista.com. While it might goof up occasionally, it generally translates well enough for me to get a good idea of the contents.
It is not really much better than using a English to Whatever dictionary to translate something. The program is computing the translation--it does not understand what the contents of what it is translating are.
Also, computers *have* been getting better at turing tests (though only for limited domain interactions).
What is the formal distinction between something being conscious and not being conscious? If consciousness can be formalized (modeled with an algorithm), then this distinction must be formalizable. The turing test is about as fuzzy of a distinction as you can get.
Hell, if a computer can play chess, thats abstract enough "thinking" for me.
Computer chess algorithms are not even close to what is needed for human intelligence. As far as game algorithms go, with chess there is a fairly limited set of possible outcomes to traverse and there is no hidden information. This type of "thinking" is right up a computational system's alley.
When you speak of abstract throught, you're automatically applying a set of logical "filters" that have to do with evaluating the intellegence of humans whith whom you interact and "opponents" with whom you must contend.
No, the distinction between human intelligence and computer intelligence IS abstract thought. It separates self-reference from self-awareness, syntax from semantics and referencing from understanding. Without abstract thought, programs will only "compute" things. They will not think like we do.
Bottom-line: machines keep getting smarter, but the problem of CONVINCING A HUMAN that you are smart means having some sort of survival and/or communication skills. Those problems are probably still 5-20 years off and involve massive learning simulations that will take years to evolve a suitable program. In the end, we'll probably be able to cut down on the time it took nature to create a human brain by a factor of several million, and improve on it substantially (removing a lot of the archaic reflexive responses, and replacing them with the ability to work in very large groups without breaking down, etc).
On what basis are you suggesting that computers keep getting smarter? I admit they keep getting faster, but they are only as "smart" as their algorithm. If you run a program on a faster computer, it comes up with the same stupid answer, only faster. Algorithms may be improving, but not at the rate the hardware is improving. Neural nets and fuzzy logic have been around for a long time.
If you knew your biology well enough, you would realize that people are nothing more than a series of extremly complex chemical reactions set into motion by enzymes, unless by some chance we all have a "soul". This can and will be modeled by software someday.
It is naïve for you to suggest that this is understood with certainty. We are a long ways away from decoding the brain, and there are many theories that imply that the brain is actually a magnifier for quantum processes. For example, it is believed that the microtubules in the neuron's cell structure may be chambers that can amplify quantum processes to the point that they impact macroscopic processes in the brain. If this turns out to be the case, then we may never be able to decode the brain. For the past century physics has hit a barrier as far as our being able to understand how and why things work at the quantum level. There could be an ocean of mechanics and means behind this quantum barrier, but we may never have the capability to see it.
I think we are going to look back a hundered years from now and say how silly we were to ever believe computers could think like we do.
How is a computer program ever going to adopt abstract thinking and creativity? Is a computer program ever going to invent mathematics without previous knowledge of it just because it finds it to be a useful utility for solving problems?
Heck, if someone could write a decent language translation program I might think there is a hope.
As long as game engines provide a flexible enough API for building specialized modules for specific games, I think it will fly. The goal should be to make the engines modular enough, so that developers will be able to enhance specific aspects of the underlying engine without a major rewrite.
On what principles do we base our ethics concerning AI? If one day we do have AI that either matches or surpasses our own behavior and intellect, do we give computer software "rights"? Or, more importantly, if we do demonstrate that our human brains are nothing more than computational algorithms, how do we avoid having our rights reduced to that of computer programs?
I am talking about the application of Occam's razor to theory and evidenvce, not merely the possibility to explain the evidence.
What? In what way do you apply Occam's razor to the evidence that does not seek out an explanation of the evidence?
The influence on the outcome is used merely a concept in a thought experiment -- its significance is in causing the impossibility to observe something, not in actual influence on the experiment, that is without an attempt to observe is nonexistent.
Wrong. The observer genuinely influences the outcome based on what the observer chooses to measure. We cannot know for certain a particles position and momentum at the same instant. By choosing to measure the position precisely, we force more uncertainty in the momentum, and visa versa.
I already have very little interest in this debate as long as it is littered with your emotional outbursts.
I would like to challenge this statement. Please point out my emotional outburst in my comment in question. It seems to me that you assume anyone who is religious bases their opinions on emotion and not logic. On the other hand, I can only interpret your arguments against religion as emotionally driven because I cannot identify more than a shred of logic in them. You spout ideas that are shallow and unfounded and discuss topics with authority of which you only have a peripheral knowledge.
I claim that politicians are not necessarily good philosophers, and that politicians' desisions do not automatically validate all philosophical doctrines and beliefs that those politicians supported.
I would not consider "not necessarily" and the "not automatically" to be strong commitments to your point of view. You are backpedaling.
Only if "common sense" is to consider philosophy and politics to be one and the same.
Not one in the same, but very much related. You have a way of twisting my words to squirm your way out of a pin.
You have made your own definition of "mechanical" based on your belief, and then used it to "prove" this belief. This is why your argument is circular -- your definitions already contain your desired outcome.
What are you talking about? I conceded that my belief could not be proven before you accused me of a circular argument. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do.
The self-awareness is a property of the structure that those particles reflect -- the nature of the particles is irrelevant
Irrelevant? According to a materialist, every outcome of the "self-awareness" is driven by the nature of those particles. Otherwise you would be suggesting that our consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics.
I do not choose my location to express the approval or disapproval of various beliefs and tradition of societies and policies of governments.
I don't believe it. What exactly are your criteria for where you live that are not at all based on the beliefs, traditions and policies of where you live?
Of course, it was. What do you think, was the whole Cold War about?
I don't disagree that there was any propaganda, but to assume that all cultures are equal and any difference is the result of a misrepresentation of the culture is ignorant.
Because it sucks more now, and because I am a programmer, so I have nothing to do in a country with infrastructure destroyed by misguided "free market" proponents.
Uh huh, sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of the people, right? After all, you seem to believe the peoples' philosophies and values do not make an impact on the success or prosperity of their society. What makes a society successful then? Blind luck?
No, I just think, a religious person has religion placed above any other possible source of ethical norms or morals.
Religion is not above morality; it is a study of morality. I can only interpret your statements in that you have very ignorant, hateful, and juvenile view of religion.
Consequence to the person is not the only consequence of the person's actions. Indeed I do not expect the fear/expectation of consequences to himself to be a base of a moral decision -- one can not make a moral choice unless he is considering the consequences of his action beyond his person.
Agreed. This is what religion is all about. Why would an atheist make a moral choice that does not in any way benefit them?
I also have no idea where "eternal" part came from -- atheists do not believe that any part of them is eternal
I know.... That is the point. Atheists believe that no part of them is eternal, and therefore, they have no eternal motive (or no motivation for eternal consequences).
A truly moral person may need guidance, but certainly has no use for sticks and carrots held by a supernatural being.
You are changing your story. At first you said religious people can do what ever they want because they will always get saved in the end. Now you are claiming that they need to be moral in order to get the "carrot". Which one is your honest misconception of religion? Your arguments are contradictory. You are simply spouting any anti-religious rhetoric you can think of.
And the country that they have created is mostly filled with things other than virtue
You can say that about any culture. Relatively speaking, the US has been the leader in freedom and civil liberty for the past few centuries. Do you not believe freedom and liberty are virtuous?
in fact everything even remotely good that happened here (from abolition of slavery to various developments in art and science) was the result of long and painful struggle of various groups of people against the establishment
I am curious what developments in art and science you are talking about.
In any case, the founders of this country did not introduce slavery. Slavery was prevalent in all modern cultures during that time. Slavery and anti-civil liberties were not part of their revolutionary change. Instead, the revolt against slavery and anti-civil liberties was a revolt against a tradition that had been around for thousands of years.
True secularization of the political life and the society as a whole will be one of those things.
When I was younger, I was an agnostic. Several years ago I started reading philosophy and made the following observations:
- Atheistic philosophers were generally malevolent and aggressive (such as Nietzsche and Marx) - Theistic philosophers were generally thoughtful and rational (such as Pascal, Kant, and Descartes)
I have since came to my own conclusions that a society must be spiritual in order to be healthy.
There is an infinite number of possible theories that describe same things as quantum mechanics does, but only one has minimal amount of assumptions -- what happens to be quantum mechanics. So unless there is something that contradicts quantum mechanics and complies with "alternative" theory, there is no point in even considering it.
You should really become more informed on quantum theory. You are confusing the evidence (quantum mechanics) with the interpretation (copenhagen, many-worlds, pilot wave, etc.). Physical evidence is meaningless from a philosophical perspective unless you interpret it. You seem completely unaware of different interpretations of quantum mechanics and their significance.
Observer does not have to have consciousness, and does not have to be present -- theory deals with possibility of observation of things that do or don't exist.
You understand that in quantum theory, the observation influences the outcome of the experiment, right?
This is a lot of emotionally-charged words with no content except a claim that religious people have some kind of wisdom that no one else can see.
I am going to lose interest in this debate quickly if this is the best feedback you can give me.
Again, those people were not philosophers, weren't qualified to place those ideas into laws
Are you suggesting that politics and philosophy are unrelated? That ideas do not influence political motivations? This is an absurd stance you are taking. It lacks common sense.
By commonly accepted definitons everything that moves is described by mechanics
If this is a commonly accepted definition, you should be able to provide me with a reference. The motion of material bodies is just part of it. It is really concerned with the forces and interactions between those bodies.
Your definitions of "mechanical" and "not mechanical" seem to exist just to distinguish between things that you believe, can be described by science and things that you believe, can't be described by science, so you have made a circular argument that means nothing.
What am I trying to prove that would be a circular argument? You are correct in stating by belief that there exists some aspect of reality that is not mechanical and cannot be explained by science. If you recall, I stated my beliefs could not be proven, so I would not try. Please try to keep up.
Self-awareness requires complex organization that most of things don't have
In a materialist view, self-awareness is simply experiencing particles bouncing around in your head. However, the dynamics of those particles would be controlled by laws of physics. How can someone be held accountable for the laws of physics?
I have lived in a post-Stalin Soviet Union, and it was a good example of a society where religion was neither co-operating with a government's ideology, nor was an important part of people's lives.
Where do you live now? If you live in the US, why not go back to the former USSR? Wouldn't you prefer a secular society to a religious one?
for me it only means that propaganda in US was more successful than in USSR
Oh right. It is all propaganda. The Soviet Union was really a paradise. Like I said, if it is not that bad over there, why not return?
If the outcome of their actions may be excused by devotion to religion, religion trumps deeds, and not the other way around -- a person that does not believe in religion, or disrespects it is considered to be less moral than a believer no matter what, good samaritans nonwithstanding.
This is a ridiculous perception of religion. You seem to think that if a person is religious, they have lost all interest in a moral, prosperous society.
The only incentive is person's own judgment -- and for an atheist there is no possibility to amend it becsuse there is no god behind his back that can forgive the sins if the person prayed hard enough.
You seem to have missed my point. You are claiming that a religious person can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are going to heaven. How is this different from an atheist? They can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are maggot food. Your argument is illogical. According to your premise, neither the theist nor the atheist has a reason to act moral or immoral--the eternal consequence is the same either way.
I don't even understand all this fascination with details of life of founders of this country
No, I wouldn't expect that you do. You do not seem to have any appreciation for the revolutionary ideas they had, and for the virtuous country they created.
Mathematics is a tool used by humans -- just like a language is not "contained" in things that it describes, mathematics is not "contained" in nature, it merely provides a tool useful for understanding of nature by humans
I agree. Mathematics is a language used to describe nature. However, this begs the question, how is it that mathematics can consistently describe nature? This goes back to my original point that nature is mechanical. Because it is mechanical, we can use math to describe it. I find it ironic that you used quantum mechanics as an illustration of the narrowness of my notion that nature is "mechanical".
You certainly don't understand what quantum mechanics is talking about. Not only things are random, but the theory was created by dealing with a problem that came down to the following: not only "hidden variables", "pure randomness" or even "divine intervention" can't describe things, but mere possibility of any observer (even if the observer is god himself), being able to collect knowledge and predict exact parameters for a particle (position and speed, energy and time, location after passing through something) means that process will not happen as it is observed.
Once again you are talking about a specific interpretation of quantum. You are apparently not even aware of any hidden variable interpretations. The most well known is David Bohm's pilot wave interpretation (also known as Bohmian Mechanics).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
Many theoretical physicists do not take the interpretation seriously, but it is a well-known theory. Ironically, John Bell (of Bells Theorem) was actually an enthusiastic supporter.
For science that is based on the idea that everything that exist, can be observed somehow, it means that those things actually don't exist, and we can merely have choice which of things see as more or less precise.
The rest of your message seems geared around the Copenhagen interpretation, although that is not even the most commonly accepted interpretation among theoretical physicists and cosmologists (the most commonly accepted interpretation among this group is the "many worlds" interpretation).
(experiment with particles and holes produces diffraction -- even if particles can't interact, one can send a single electron per second, and after all electrons are collected on a photograph, it will still show a pattern!),
I am well aware of the double-slit experiment. You do not need to waste time describing well known quantum experiments.
Of course, there is always another explanation -- instead of all that, someone/something supernatural actually messes with each particle to produce an effect that matches the theory, but considering the number of particles in the universe, this gives the word "micromanagement" the whole new meaning.
I am curious of how you can not be religious and still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation? The implication is that there is something about our consciousness as an observer that affects the outcome of a quantum event. It seems to imply that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, but rather matter and energy is derived from consciousness. In this sense, the material world is born of, or derived from the mind (or spiritual world).
But this is why it's an accepted scientific practice to treat all theories that have nothing to support themselves but lack of ptoof of nonexstence, as a complete and utter bullshit.... Not once in millennia of their history all religions in the world actually produced a single valid explanation for some natural phenomenon
If you expect religion to provide you with scientific knowledge, it is no wonder you are not religious. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Religion is a study in wisdom, just as biology is a study in knowledge. The notion that science and religion are incompatible is bogus. Asking for material proof of something immaterial is asking for the impossible.
The founders of this country weren't philosophers concerned with this question, and certainly this was the last thing on their agenda. And even if they were, it would be quite irrelevant -- personal belief that politicians have is not something that everyone in the country should follow, especially if those politicians specifically put it into the laws that government should not mandate religious beliefs.
I could overwhelm you with religious quotes from the founders if you like. Their religious notions of freewill were very much part of their ideal for this country.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
"The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Q. Adams
Weather has no self-awareness, so it neither can have free will
First of all, I believe that self-awareness (which is different from self-reference) is not possible in a completely mechanical system. This is not provable, however, so I will leave it at that.
Secondly, what difference does it make if something is self-aware if it is always caused by external events? In the materialist view of the Universe, everything is part of a massive chain of cause and effect. Everything bad would be the fault of natural laws, not an individual entity. Let us use a computer program analogy. If the laws of nature could be captured in a computable algorithm, there would be no piece of that algorithm that is specific to an individual. All laws of physics are invoked universally across all matter (data).
Non-religious people believe that same ethical norms and morals are a part of tradition that all societies -- religious or secular, are based on.
Just out of curiosity, which secular societies are you basing this on? (Hopefully not Stalin's Soviet Union)
non-religious people have no choice but to judge themselves and others by their deeds
Are you suggesting that religious people don't judge themselves and others by their deeds? Why would an atheist be compelled to judge someone more so than a theist? I would assert that the opposite is true. Atheists tend to believe in relative morality, while religious people believe in absolute morality. Atheists believe that people are victims to their personal circumstance or condition. For example, the popular secular thought now days is that criminals are either genetically less fortunate, or were not given the beneficial environment that successful people have had, and should therefore, not be judged for their actions.
Therefore, given all other things equal, non-religious people feel more obligation to follow their ethical norms than religious people, they have no morally acceptable alternative while religion offers it
What a bogus argument. First of all, most religious people do not think they have a free ticket to perform whatever immoral acts they want. Secondly, even if they did, how would it make them less moral than an atheist? You are suggesting that there is no eternal incentive for religious people to act morally--they can always just ask for forgiveness later. So what is the atheist's eternal incentive to act morally? There isn't one either. In otherwords, they would both have an "either or...it doesn't matter" proposition.
(ex: child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, people that certainly knew a lot about religion).
I would suggest that you decouple religious ideals and religious establishments. This is precisely what the founders of our country did. They showed considerable hostility for the current institutions of religion, but cherished the ideals and virtue of religion itself. If my daughter goes to a crappy school, it does not mean that education is not valuable as an idea.
I do not know of any physical explanation for "free will", in fact, most definitions tend toward the circular, perhaps you have a consice one to offer?
It is my contention that a natural explanation is not possible. That is, natural in the sense that it can be expressed with mathematics. If freewill could be modeled mathematically, it wouldn't exactly be free.
The essential question is "Is the sensation of free will an illusion?"
You are absolutely correct. That is the essential question. I believe there are two positions on this: the materialist position (it is an illusion), and the mystic position (it is truly free).
I propose that random and "chosen" is just a matter of point of view anyway, and indistinguishable.
I'm not so sure. If I walk into McDonalds and have to roll a dice to determine what to order (1= #1 meal, 2= #2 meal, 3= #3 meal, etc.), that is not exactly the same thing as walking into McDonalds and choosing a meal out of free volition. It is my contention that randomness cannot explain freewill in the sense that most people consider freewill.
Do you have a religious explanation/justification of a belief in free will?
As far as quantum is concerned, I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. This interpretation certainly has some serious religious implications.
In general, I feel that our will is dependent on a supernatural agent. By supernatural, I mean that it is not bound to mathematical representation and description. However, at the same time we are driven by material desires and needs. In a sense, we are both captain and slave to our own ship (to borrow a phrase from someone else).
Nature has nothing to do with mathematics -- mathematics is a tool that is used to represent the laws of nature.
I don't understand your point. It seems to me you just contradicted yourself. You are correct in stating that mathematics is used to describe nature (from counting sheep to predicting comet trajectories), but I do not follow the purpose or meaning of the statement "Nature has nothing to do with mathematics". If there is no relationship between the two, how can mathematics be a tool in understanding nature?
It merely demonstrates that religious people's arguments are based on extremely primitive view of science.
Is modern science's view of nature primitive? People of the year 3100 might think so. Your statement is irrelevant. Religion is used to describe the metaphysical; that which is outside the scope of material observation.
Uncertainty definitely demonstrates that even with infinitely correct knowledge it's impossible to predict the outcome of any process, therefore claiming that nature without god is too "deterministic" for their tastes is wrong and pointless.
First of all, your statement assumes a specific interpretation of quantum. The empirical realm of quantum science is simply data. It is the interpretation of that data that carries us over into philosophy. You need to explain to me an interpretation of "uncertainty" that does not either:
A. Involve phenomenon that cannot be described with mathematics (i.e. supernatural)
B. Involve phenomenon that is purely random
C. Involve determinism that is unknown to us because of "hidden variables"
I would categorize those that interpret uncertainty under category (A) to be religious in a spiritual or mystic sense. I would classify those that interpret uncertainty under category (B) or (C) as materialists who are also, generally, atheists. Do you disagree? Is there any other possible interpretation that does not follow one of these categories?
Even though quantum mechanics has little to do with free will, in quantum mechanics the whole point of the theory is that outcome is unpredictable without any agent involved.
Once again you are moving away from empirical data and into what your personal philosophical beliefs are. What experiment has shown there is not any agent involved?
Mathematics has nothing to do with it -- again, as an example, there is shitload of mathematical formulas describing various things in quantum mechanics even though quantum mechanics itself deals with probabilities and not actual events.
Hmm...I'm not sure what to make of this. If quantum mechanics does not have anything to do with actual events, how do we conduct experiments that deal with quantum mechanics?
There is a theorethical possibility to duplicate human's action by...
Let's not get into a semantic argument on the definition of freewill. You have just pinpointed the philosophical difference between the "religious" view of freewill and the "materialist" view of freewill.
The only thing that all this may contradict with, is religious view of human free will, as opposed to scientific one, and your emotional attachment to the former, as opposed to the second.
I would not classify the second one as "scientific" as, once again, science only gives us empirical data. I would prefer to refer to it as the "materialist" view. You have taken the typical position that atheists assume the intellectual high ground because you believe science agrees with their position. This is simply not the case. It is not scientifically evident that supernaturalism and mysticism do not exist. Atheists have a belief system, just like everyone else.
Which view of freewill do you believe the founders of this country had? Do you think it influenced their ideology in forming the foundations of our country?
The materialist's view of freewill is destructive to our way of life. How can we have more freewill than the weather does? Do we ever put the weather on trial for its behavior?
The secular movement in this country is moving us away from judgment and towards rehabilitation. It is undermining the moral fiber from which this country was made great and destroying the sense of duty and accountability.
"Mechanical" is a very narrow idea about laws of nature.
Please explain. Laws of nature are reducible to mathematical relationships of cause and effect, yes? Here is the definition of mechanical that I am using (pulled from Dictionary.com):
Interpreting and explaining the phenomena of the universe by referring to causally determined material forces; mechanistic.
For example, in quantum mechanics you can't even get a deterministic answer about the position and speed of an object.
Heisenburg's Uncertainty doesn't help a materialist explain freewill. Pure randomness cannot lead to freewill. If my decisions are based on dice rolls, how am I exercising freewill? In order for quantum mechanics to account for freewill, there would have to be an uncaused agent realizing the outcome. That agent would be supernatural because it would be outside the scope of mathematical determination.
As a side note, I personally feel a materialist has an awkward belief system if they believe in pure randomness anyway--it seems to me a materialist is obligated to believe in "hidden-variables" with regards to an interpretation of quantum.
More relevant to this, there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent a system as complex as human to be able to make decisions
The ability to commit to an action does not imply freewill was involved. If my sprinkler system "decides" to turn on at 10am, that does not mean it was not a determined event. If the weather "decides" to rain today, does that mean the weather has freewill?
Of course an atheist can believe in free will, or not. You do not need a God in order have free will, you are as likely to have it yourself as for there to be a God to give it to you. An atheist will go with the evidence like anyone will, given time.
I guess I should have phrased the question "on what grounds can an atheist believe in freewill". I have argued with many atheists that do believe in freewill, but they are unable to provide a scientific explanation for it. Freewill and materialism contradict each other.
Most people that believe in atheism do not understand its logical consequences.
BTW: I am generalizing atheists as materialists. This is not always accurate, although I have found it to be true 99% of the time.
As far as your bible quotes go, there are enough passages that can be pulled out to backup just about any point you want to make. I've always found Bible quotes to be a very weak platform for philosophical arguments, whether you are a Christian or an atheist. The only notable Christian philosopher that was a determinist that I can think of was St. Augustine. There will always be exceptions, but in general, the religious almost always sit in the freewill camp.
As far as quantum physics are concerned, I really do not think the uncertainty principle will help you. A materialist is obligated to believe in statistical randomness which is not really grounds for freewill. Rolling a dice to decide what decision I am going to make does not constitute what most people would consider freewill.
With regards to Sir Isaac, I know his works heavily influenced the determinism philosophy, but I remember him questioning determinism as an explanation for human will. Do you have a source that with regards to your assertion that Newton did not believe in freewill?
There certainly is a plethora of atheists on the web preaching their belief that the US was founded as an anti-religious country. It is true that the majority of the founders of this country disliked the current establishment of the Christian church and its dogma. They certainly did not want the church meddling in the affairs of the government. This was a revolutionary idea, and they fought hard to establish it.
However, the founders were far from being atheists. Many of these quotes you will find on various atheist web sites are reflective of the founders attempting to keep the church away from running the government. There are plenty of quotes to show that the founding fathers were religious and did believe in God:
George Washington:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
"It is impossible to rightly govern . . . without God & the Bible."
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all the religion of Jesus Christ."
John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions unbridled by morality and religion."
"Religion & virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."
"Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever."
"No power over the freedom of religion . ..[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."
James Madison:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."
John Quincy Adams:
"The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
"No book in the world deserves to be so unceasingly studied, and so profoundly meditated upon as the Bible."
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
As far as English Common Law is concerned, Thomas Jefferson was not exactly accurate in that letter he wrote. King Alfred the Great was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought. He borrowed heavily from SS. Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome.
King Alfred the Great:
"Alfred's Law Code was no ordinary catalogue of West Saxon customary law. It was a synthesis, carried out under the king's direction, of the legal practice in several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, introduced by a scholarly preface which already bears all the hallmarks of Alfred's interest in historical issues and in the Christian wisdom of Late Antiquity."
And finally, the Constitution of each of the 50 States acknowledges and calls upon the Providence of God for the blessings of freedom.
Free will can be described as a phenomenon caused by laws of nature
How can free will possibly be explained by the natural laws? Natural laws are based on causality. If you believe that all of reality is mechanical, then you must believe every act of will is purely based on genetic and environmental factors. There would be nothing free about it--it would all be determined.
Religion adds an element of mysticism into reality. This permits a free agent within our will that is not directed by mathematical certainties.
The belief in God reflects the belief in free will and self-determination. The rejection of religion and the acceptance that all of reality is based on natural mechanics implies a deterministic view of the world and the denial of free will. Free will and self-determination are at the heart of our political and judicial systems.
To say that our government cannot endorse an establishment of religion is correct. To say that our government cannot endorse the existence of religion is entirely different and will only serve to destroy our government's foundations.
Also, the general connotation of the word "God" does not imply a specific religious establishment, as "Alah" or "Shiva" do.
Slashdot Mirror
One important distinction is that MITRE is a non-profit organization, unlike most DoD contractors. They are setup that way so that they can provide non-biased consultation.
MITRE has been pushing Open Systems for some time. When I was working for them 8 years ago I was prototyping software in their Open Systems lab.
Could be that he was suggesting that nature itself, at its foundation, is not mechanized. We believe this because of the uncertain nature of quantum theory. If this is what he was suggesting, I would have to agree with him. As a mystic, I do not believe reality is ultimately mechanical.
No, of course not. Based on the above statement, it isn't necessarily reproducable and it isn't necessarily not reproducable. Furthermore, the possibility of strong AI cannot be proven or disproven. My intuition tells me, however, that the human mind is not a machine and cannot be emulated with an algorithm. This is largely due to a strong belief that I have freewill.
Depends what you mean by reduce it to symbols. Formalizing human behavior with language is not difficult. Doing it with absolute consistency and accuracy is another matter.
I agree with your optimism about the capability of the human mind, but I disagree with you on your assumption that the mind can be decoded. Suggesting the human mind is a formal system limits its capacity to what is definable within that formal system. The formal system places definite boundaries on what the mind can and cannot do. In my opinion, the potential of the human mind exceeds that of any formal system.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have shown us that any formal system is inherently incomplete. From studying them, I now have the perspective that formal systems are simply temporal structures that we invent as a utility to reason and communicate. All formal systems, as proven by Godel, are incomplete and vulnerable to contradiction.
As a computer programmer, I am continually creating formal systems. Each program I write is a formal structure. Languages and mathematics are all formal structures. It is my opinion that consciousness creates form, but it is not itself formal.
Please explain. I assume you understand uncertainty as it relates to quantum physics. If the best thing we can do is model quantum processes with probabilities, it is very possible there may be a wealth of activity behind these processes, but we currently have no means to observe it.
I agree with you 100%. My impression, however, is that most people have a totally unrealistic expectation of AI. I encounter these expectations on a regular basis. People expect AI to be able to intelligently figure out processes that they themselves are unable to formalize.
It is not really much better than using a English to Whatever dictionary to translate something. The program is computing the translation--it does not understand what the contents of what it is translating are. What is the formal distinction between something being conscious and not being conscious? If consciousness can be formalized (modeled with an algorithm), then this distinction must be formalizable. The turing test is about as fuzzy of a distinction as you can get. Computer chess algorithms are not even close to what is needed for human intelligence. As far as game algorithms go, with chess there is a fairly limited set of possible outcomes to traverse and there is no hidden information. This type of "thinking" is right up a computational system's alley.
No, the distinction between human intelligence and computer intelligence IS abstract thought. It separates self-reference from self-awareness, syntax from semantics and referencing from understanding. Without abstract thought, programs will only "compute" things. They will not think like we do. On what basis are you suggesting that computers keep getting smarter? I admit they keep getting faster, but they are only as "smart" as their algorithm. If you run a program on a faster computer, it comes up with the same stupid answer, only faster. Algorithms may be improving, but not at the rate the hardware is improving. Neural nets and fuzzy logic have been around for a long time.
It is naïve for you to suggest that this is understood with certainty. We are a long ways away from decoding the brain, and there are many theories that imply that the brain is actually a magnifier for quantum processes. For example, it is believed that the microtubules in the neuron's cell structure may be chambers that can amplify quantum processes to the point that they impact macroscopic processes in the brain. If this turns out to be the case, then we may never be able to decode the brain. For the past century physics has hit a barrier as far as our being able to understand how and why things work at the quantum level. There could be an ocean of mechanics and means behind this quantum barrier, but we may never have the capability to see it.
I think we are going to look back a hundered years from now and say how silly we were to ever believe computers could think like we do.
How is a computer program ever going to adopt abstract thinking and creativity? Is a computer program ever going to invent mathematics without previous knowledge of it just because it finds it to be a useful utility for solving problems?
Heck, if someone could write a decent language translation program I might think there is a hope.
As long as game engines provide a flexible enough API for building specialized modules for specific games, I think it will fly. The goal should be to make the engines modular enough, so that developers will be able to enhance specific aspects of the underlying engine without a major rewrite.
Dr Wallace:
On what principles do we base our ethics concerning AI? If one day we do have AI that either matches or surpasses our own behavior and intellect, do we give computer software "rights"? Or, more importantly, if we do demonstrate that our human brains are nothing more than computational algorithms, how do we avoid having our rights reduced to that of computer programs?
I am talking about the application of Occam's razor to theory and evidenvce, not merely the possibility to explain the evidence.
What? In what way do you apply Occam's razor to the evidence that does not seek out an explanation of the evidence?
The influence on the outcome is used merely a concept in a thought experiment -- its significance is in causing the impossibility to observe something, not in actual influence on the experiment, that is without an attempt to observe is nonexistent.
Wrong. The observer genuinely influences the outcome based on what the observer chooses to measure. We cannot know for certain a particles position and momentum at the same instant. By choosing to measure the position precisely, we force more uncertainty in the momentum, and visa versa.
I already have very little interest in this debate as long as it is littered with your emotional outbursts.
I would like to challenge this statement. Please point out my emotional outburst in my comment in question. It seems to me that you assume anyone who is religious bases their opinions on emotion and not logic. On the other hand, I can only interpret your arguments against religion as emotionally driven because I cannot identify more than a shred of logic in them. You spout ideas that are shallow and unfounded and discuss topics with authority of which you only have a peripheral knowledge.
I claim that politicians are not necessarily good philosophers, and that politicians' desisions do not automatically validate all philosophical doctrines and beliefs that those politicians supported.
I would not consider "not necessarily" and the "not automatically" to be strong commitments to your point of view. You are backpedaling.
Only if "common sense" is to consider philosophy and politics to be one and the same.
Not one in the same, but very much related. You have a way of twisting my words to squirm your way out of a pin.
You have made your own definition of "mechanical" based on your belief, and then used it to "prove" this belief. This is why your argument is circular -- your definitions already contain your desired outcome.
What are you talking about? I conceded that my belief could not be proven before you accused me of a circular argument. Stop accusing me of things I didn't do.
The self-awareness is a property of the structure that those particles reflect -- the nature of the particles is irrelevant
Irrelevant? According to a materialist, every outcome of the "self-awareness" is driven by the nature of those particles. Otherwise you would be suggesting that our consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics.
I do not choose my location to express the approval or disapproval of various beliefs and tradition of societies and policies of governments.
I don't believe it. What exactly are your criteria for where you live that are not at all based on the beliefs, traditions and policies of where you live?
Of course, it was. What do you think, was the whole Cold War about?
I don't disagree that there was any propaganda, but to assume that all cultures are equal and any difference is the result of a misrepresentation of the culture is ignorant.
Because it sucks more now, and because I am a programmer, so I have nothing to do in a country with infrastructure destroyed by misguided "free market" proponents.
Uh huh, sure. But it doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of the people, right? After all, you seem to believe the peoples' philosophies and values do not make an impact on the success or prosperity of their society. What makes a society successful then? Blind luck?
No, I just think, a religious person has religion placed above any other possible source of ethical norms or morals.
Religion is not above morality; it is a study of morality. I can only interpret your statements in that you have very ignorant, hateful, and juvenile view of religion.
Consequence to the person is not the only consequence of the person's actions. Indeed I do not expect the fear/expectation of consequences to himself to be a base of a moral decision -- one can not make a moral choice unless he is considering the consequences of his action beyond his person.
Agreed. This is what religion is all about. Why would an atheist make a moral choice that does not in any way benefit them?
I also have no idea where "eternal" part came from -- atheists do not believe that any part of them is eternal
I know.... That is the point. Atheists believe that no part of them is eternal, and therefore, they have no eternal motive (or no motivation for eternal consequences).
A truly moral person may need guidance, but certainly has no use for sticks and carrots held by a supernatural being.
You are changing your story. At first you said religious people can do what ever they want because they will always get saved in the end. Now you are claiming that they need to be moral in order to get the "carrot". Which one is your honest misconception of religion? Your arguments are contradictory. You are simply spouting any anti-religious rhetoric you can think of.
And the country that they have created is mostly filled with things other than virtue
You can say that about any culture. Relatively speaking, the US has been the leader in freedom and civil liberty for the past few centuries. Do you not believe freedom and liberty are virtuous?
in fact everything even remotely good that happened here (from abolition of slavery to various developments in art and science) was the result of long and painful struggle of various groups of people against the establishment
I am curious what developments in art and science you are talking about.
In any case, the founders of this country did not introduce slavery. Slavery was prevalent in all modern cultures during that time. Slavery and anti-civil liberties were not part of their revolutionary change. Instead, the revolt against slavery and anti-civil liberties was a revolt against a tradition that had been around for thousands of years.
True secularization of the political life and the society as a whole will be one of those things.
When I was younger, I was an agnostic. Several years ago I started reading philosophy and made the following observations:
- Atheistic philosophers were generally malevolent and aggressive (such as Nietzsche and Marx)
- Theistic philosophers were generally thoughtful and rational (such as Pascal, Kant, and Descartes)
I have since came to my own conclusions that a society must be spiritual in order to be healthy.
There is an infinite number of possible theories that describe same things as quantum mechanics does, but only one has minimal amount of assumptions -- what happens to be quantum mechanics. So unless there is something that contradicts quantum mechanics and complies with "alternative" theory, there is no point in even considering it.
You should really become more informed on quantum theory. You are confusing the evidence (quantum mechanics) with the interpretation (copenhagen, many-worlds, pilot wave, etc.). Physical evidence is meaningless from a philosophical perspective unless you interpret it. You seem completely unaware of different interpretations of quantum mechanics and their significance.
Observer does not have to have consciousness, and does not have to be present -- theory deals with possibility of observation of things that do or don't exist.
You understand that in quantum theory, the observation influences the outcome of the experiment, right?
This is a lot of emotionally-charged words with no content except a claim that religious people have some kind of wisdom that no one else can see.
I am going to lose interest in this debate quickly if this is the best feedback you can give me.
Again, those people were not philosophers, weren't qualified to place those ideas into laws
Are you suggesting that politics and philosophy are unrelated? That ideas do not influence political motivations? This is an absurd stance you are taking. It lacks common sense.
By commonly accepted definitons everything that moves is described by mechanics
If this is a commonly accepted definition, you should be able to provide me with a reference. The motion of material bodies is just part of it. It is really concerned with the forces and interactions between those bodies.
Your definitions of "mechanical" and "not mechanical" seem to exist just to distinguish between things that you believe, can be described by science and things that you believe, can't be described by science, so you have made a circular argument that means nothing.
What am I trying to prove that would be a circular argument? You are correct in stating by belief that there exists some aspect of reality that is not mechanical and cannot be explained by science. If you recall, I stated my beliefs could not be proven, so I would not try. Please try to keep up.
Self-awareness requires complex organization that most of things don't have
In a materialist view, self-awareness is simply experiencing particles bouncing around in your head. However, the dynamics of those particles would be controlled by laws of physics. How can someone be held accountable for the laws of physics?
I have lived in a post-Stalin Soviet Union, and it was a good example of a society where religion was neither co-operating with a government's ideology, nor was an important part of people's lives.
Where do you live now? If you live in the US, why not go back to the former USSR? Wouldn't you prefer a secular society to a religious one?
for me it only means that propaganda in US was more successful than in USSR
Oh right. It is all propaganda. The Soviet Union was really a paradise. Like I said, if it is not that bad over there, why not return?
If the outcome of their actions may be excused by devotion to religion, religion trumps deeds, and not the other way around -- a person that does not believe in religion, or disrespects it is considered to be less moral than a believer no matter what, good samaritans nonwithstanding.
This is a ridiculous perception of religion. You seem to think that if a person is religious, they have lost all interest in a moral, prosperous society.
The only incentive is person's own judgment -- and for an atheist there is no possibility to amend it becsuse there is no god behind his back that can forgive the sins if the person prayed hard enough.
You seem to have missed my point. You are claiming that a religious person can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are going to heaven. How is this different from an atheist? They can act immoral without worrying about an eternal consequence--either way they are maggot food. Your argument is illogical. According to your premise, neither the theist nor the atheist has a reason to act moral or immoral--the eternal consequence is the same either way.
I don't even understand all this fascination with details of life of founders of this country
No, I wouldn't expect that you do. You do not seem to have any appreciation for the revolutionary ideas they had, and for the virtuous country they created.
Mathematics is a tool used by humans -- just like a language is not "contained" in things that it describes, mathematics is not "contained" in nature, it merely provides a tool useful for understanding of nature by humans
I agree. Mathematics is a language used to describe nature. However, this begs the question, how is it that mathematics can consistently describe nature? This goes back to my original point that nature is mechanical. Because it is mechanical, we can use math to describe it. I find it ironic that you used quantum mechanics as an illustration of the narrowness of my notion that nature is "mechanical".
You certainly don't understand what quantum mechanics is talking about. Not only things are random, but the theory was created by dealing with a problem that came down to the following: not only "hidden variables", "pure randomness" or even "divine intervention" can't describe things, but mere possibility of any observer (even if the observer is god himself), being able to collect knowledge and predict exact parameters for a particle (position and speed, energy and time, location after passing through something) means that process will not happen as it is observed.
Once again you are talking about a specific interpretation of quantum. You are apparently not even aware of any hidden variable interpretations. The most well known is David Bohm's pilot wave interpretation (also known as Bohmian Mechanics).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
Many theoretical physicists do not take the interpretation seriously, but it is a well-known theory. Ironically, John Bell (of Bells Theorem) was actually an enthusiastic supporter.
For science that is based on the idea that everything that exist, can be observed somehow, it means that those things actually don't exist, and we can merely have choice which of things see as more or less precise.
The rest of your message seems geared around the Copenhagen interpretation, although that is not even the most commonly accepted interpretation among theoretical physicists and cosmologists (the most commonly accepted interpretation among this group is the "many worlds" interpretation).
(experiment with particles and holes produces diffraction -- even if particles can't interact, one can send a single electron per second, and after all electrons are collected on a photograph, it will still show a pattern!),
I am well aware of the double-slit experiment. You do not need to waste time describing well known quantum experiments.
Of course, there is always another explanation -- instead of all that, someone/something supernatural actually messes with each particle to produce an effect that matches the theory, but considering the number of particles in the universe, this gives the word "micromanagement" the whole new meaning.
I am curious of how you can not be religious and still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation? The implication is that there is something about our consciousness as an observer that affects the outcome of a quantum event. It seems to imply that consciousness is not derived from matter and energy, but rather matter and energy is derived from consciousness. In this sense, the material world is born of, or derived from the mind (or spiritual world).
But this is why it's an accepted scientific practice to treat all theories that have nothing to support themselves but lack of ptoof of nonexstence, as a complete and utter bullshit.... Not once in millennia of their history all religions in the world actually produced a single valid explanation for some natural phenomenon
If you expect religion to provide you with scientific knowledge, it is no wonder you are not religious. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Religion is a study in wisdom, just as biology is a study in knowledge. The notion that science and religion are incompatible is bogus. Asking for material proof of something immaterial is asking for the impossible.
The founders of this country weren't philosophers concerned with this question, and certainly this was the last thing on their agenda. And even if they were, it would be quite irrelevant -- personal belief that politicians have is not something that everyone in the country should follow, especially if those politicians specifically put it into the laws that government should not mandate religious beliefs.
I could overwhelm you with religious quotes from the founders if you like. Their religious notions of freewill were very much part of their ideal for this country.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
"The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Q. Adams
Weather has no self-awareness, so it neither can have free will
First of all, I believe that self-awareness (which is different from self-reference) is not possible in a completely mechanical system. This is not provable, however, so I will leave it at that.
Secondly, what difference does it make if something is self-aware if it is always caused by external events? In the materialist view of the Universe, everything is part of a massive chain of cause and effect. Everything bad would be the fault of natural laws, not an individual entity. Let us use a computer program analogy. If the laws of nature could be captured in a computable algorithm, there would be no piece of that algorithm that is specific to an individual. All laws of physics are invoked universally across all matter (data).
Non-religious people believe that same ethical norms and morals are a part of tradition that all societies -- religious or secular, are based on.
Just out of curiosity, which secular societies are you basing this on? (Hopefully not Stalin's Soviet Union)
non-religious people have no choice but to judge themselves and others by their deeds
Are you suggesting that religious people don't judge themselves and others by their deeds? Why would an atheist be compelled to judge someone more so than a theist? I would assert that the opposite is true. Atheists tend to believe in relative morality, while religious people believe in absolute morality. Atheists believe that people are victims to their personal circumstance or condition. For example, the popular secular thought now days is that criminals are either genetically less fortunate, or were not given the beneficial environment that successful people have had, and should therefore, not be judged for their actions.
Therefore, given all other things equal, non-religious people feel more obligation to follow their ethical norms than religious people, they have no morally acceptable alternative while religion offers it
What a bogus argument. First of all, most religious people do not think they have a free ticket to perform whatever immoral acts they want. Secondly, even if they did, how would it make them less moral than an atheist? You are suggesting that there is no eternal incentive for religious people to act morally--they can always just ask for forgiveness later. So what is the atheist's eternal incentive to act morally? There isn't one either. In otherwords, they would both have an "either or...it doesn't matter" proposition.
(ex: child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, people that certainly knew a lot about religion).
I would suggest that you decouple religious ideals and religious establishments. This is precisely what the founders of our country did. They showed considerable hostility for the current institutions of religion, but cherished the ideals and virtue of religion itself. If my daughter goes to a crappy school, it does not mean that education is not valuable as an idea.
I do not know of any physical explanation for "free will", in fact, most definitions tend toward the circular, perhaps you have a consice one to offer?
It is my contention that a natural explanation is not possible. That is, natural in the sense that it can be expressed with mathematics. If freewill could be modeled mathematically, it wouldn't exactly be free.
The essential question is "Is the sensation of free will an illusion?"
You are absolutely correct. That is the essential question. I believe there are two positions on this: the materialist position (it is an illusion), and the mystic position (it is truly free).
I propose that random and "chosen" is just a matter of point of view anyway, and indistinguishable.
I'm not so sure. If I walk into McDonalds and have to roll a dice to determine what to order (1= #1 meal, 2= #2 meal, 3= #3 meal, etc.), that is not exactly the same thing as walking into McDonalds and choosing a meal out of free volition. It is my contention that randomness cannot explain freewill in the sense that most people consider freewill.
Do you have a religious explanation/justification of a belief in free will?
As far as quantum is concerned, I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. This interpretation certainly has some serious religious implications.
In general, I feel that our will is dependent on a supernatural agent. By supernatural, I mean that it is not bound to mathematical representation and description. However, at the same time we are driven by material desires and needs. In a sense, we are both captain and slave to our own ship (to borrow a phrase from someone else).
Nature has nothing to do with mathematics -- mathematics is a tool that is used to represent the laws of nature.
...
I don't understand your point. It seems to me you just contradicted yourself. You are correct in stating that mathematics is used to describe nature (from counting sheep to predicting comet trajectories), but I do not follow the purpose or meaning of the statement "Nature has nothing to do with mathematics". If there is no relationship between the two, how can mathematics be a tool in understanding nature?
It merely demonstrates that religious people's arguments are based on extremely primitive view of science.
Is modern science's view of nature primitive? People of the year 3100 might think so. Your statement is irrelevant. Religion is used to describe the metaphysical; that which is outside the scope of material observation.
Uncertainty definitely demonstrates that even with infinitely correct knowledge it's impossible to predict the outcome of any process, therefore claiming that nature without god is too "deterministic" for their tastes is wrong and pointless.
First of all, your statement assumes a specific interpretation of quantum. The empirical realm of quantum science is simply data. It is the interpretation of that data that carries us over into philosophy. You need to explain to me an interpretation of "uncertainty" that does not either:
A. Involve phenomenon that cannot be described with mathematics (i.e. supernatural)
B. Involve phenomenon that is purely random
C. Involve determinism that is unknown to us because of "hidden variables"
I would categorize those that interpret uncertainty under category (A) to be religious in a spiritual or mystic sense. I would classify those that interpret uncertainty under category (B) or (C) as materialists who are also, generally, atheists. Do you disagree? Is there any other possible interpretation that does not follow one of these categories?
Even though quantum mechanics has little to do with free will, in quantum mechanics the whole point of the theory is that outcome is unpredictable without any agent involved.
Once again you are moving away from empirical data and into what your personal philosophical beliefs are. What experiment has shown there is not any agent involved?
Mathematics has nothing to do with it -- again, as an example, there is shitload of mathematical formulas describing various things in quantum mechanics even though quantum mechanics itself deals with probabilities and not actual events.
Hmm...I'm not sure what to make of this. If quantum mechanics does not have anything to do with actual events, how do we conduct experiments that deal with quantum mechanics?
There is a theorethical possibility to duplicate human's action by
Let's not get into a semantic argument on the definition of freewill. You have just pinpointed the philosophical difference between the "religious" view of freewill and the "materialist" view of freewill.
The only thing that all this may contradict with, is religious view of human free will, as opposed to scientific one, and your emotional attachment to the former, as opposed to the second.
I would not classify the second one as "scientific" as, once again, science only gives us empirical data. I would prefer to refer to it as the "materialist" view. You have taken the typical position that atheists assume the intellectual high ground because you believe science agrees with their position. This is simply not the case. It is not scientifically evident that supernaturalism and mysticism do not exist. Atheists have a belief system, just like everyone else.
Which view of freewill do you believe the founders of this country had? Do you think it influenced their ideology in forming the foundations of our country?
The materialist's view of freewill is destructive to our way of life. How can we have more freewill than the weather does? Do we ever put the weather on trial for its behavior?
The secular movement in this country is moving us away from judgment and towards rehabilitation. It is undermining the moral fiber from which this country was made great and destroying the sense of duty and accountability.
I hope you don't mind if I don't retype this...
6 562
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=34925&cid=377
Please explain. Laws of nature are reducible to mathematical relationships of cause and effect, yes? Here is the definition of mechanical that I am using (pulled from Dictionary.com): For example, in quantum mechanics you can't even get a deterministic answer about the position and speed of an object.
Heisenburg's Uncertainty doesn't help a materialist explain freewill. Pure randomness cannot lead to freewill. If my decisions are based on dice rolls, how am I exercising freewill? In order for quantum mechanics to account for freewill, there would have to be an uncaused agent realizing the outcome. That agent would be supernatural because it would be outside the scope of mathematical determination.
As a side note, I personally feel a materialist has an awkward belief system if they believe in pure randomness anyway--it seems to me a materialist is obligated to believe in "hidden-variables" with regards to an interpretation of quantum.
More relevant to this, there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent a system as complex as human to be able to make decisions
The ability to commit to an action does not imply freewill was involved. If my sprinkler system "decides" to turn on at 10am, that does not mean it was not a determined event. If the weather "decides" to rain today, does that mean the weather has freewill?
Of course an atheist can believe in free will, or not. You do not need a God in order have free will, you are as likely to have it yourself as for there to be a God to give it to you. An atheist will go with the evidence like anyone will, given time.
I guess I should have phrased the question "on what grounds can an atheist believe in freewill". I have argued with many atheists that do believe in freewill, but they are unable to provide a scientific explanation for it. Freewill and materialism contradict each other.
Most people that believe in atheism do not understand its logical consequences.
BTW: I am generalizing atheists as materialists. This is not always accurate, although I have found it to be true 99% of the time.
As far as your bible quotes go, there are enough passages that can be pulled out to backup just about any point you want to make. I've always found Bible quotes to be a very weak platform for philosophical arguments, whether you are a Christian or an atheist. The only notable Christian philosopher that was a determinist that I can think of was St. Augustine. There will always be exceptions, but in general, the religious almost always sit in the freewill camp.
As far as quantum physics are concerned, I really do not think the uncertainty principle will help you. A materialist is obligated to believe in statistical randomness which is not really grounds for freewill. Rolling a dice to decide what decision I am going to make does not constitute what most people would consider freewill.
With regards to Sir Isaac, I know his works heavily influenced the determinism philosophy, but I remember him questioning determinism as an explanation for human will. Do you have a source that with regards to your assertion that Newton did not believe in freewill?
the religious ideals this country is based on are that there are no religious ideals this country is based on
Are you suggesting this country is based on atheism? Are freewill and self-determination not religious ideals? Can an atheist believe in freewill?
However, the founders were far from being atheists. Many of these quotes you will find on various atheist web sites are reflective of the founders attempting to keep the church away from running the government. There are plenty of quotes to show that the founding fathers were religious and did believe in God:
As far as English Common Law is concerned, Thomas Jefferson was not exactly accurate in that letter he wrote. King Alfred the Great was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought. He borrowed heavily from SS. Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome.
And finally, the Constitution of each of the 50 States acknowledges and calls upon the Providence of God for the blessings of freedom.
Free will can be described as a phenomenon caused by laws of nature
How can free will possibly be explained by the natural laws? Natural laws are based on causality. If you believe that all of reality is mechanical, then you must believe every act of will is purely based on genetic and environmental factors. There would be nothing free about it--it would all be determined.
Religion adds an element of mysticism into reality. This permits a free agent within our will that is not directed by mathematical certainties.
The belief in God reflects the belief in free will and self-determination. The rejection of religion and the acceptance that all of reality is based on natural mechanics implies a deterministic view of the world and the denial of free will. Free will and self-determination are at the heart of our political and judicial systems.
To say that our government cannot endorse an establishment of religion is correct.
To say that our government cannot endorse the existence of religion is entirely different and will only serve to destroy our government's foundations.
Also, the general connotation of the word "God" does not imply a specific religious establishment, as "Alah" or "Shiva" do.