Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, it is.

This is a good thing...the start of adventure!

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:07 pm Why did the dog cross the road? To get to the other side. Was it an action decided by free will or a reaction to a dominant desire?

Obviously it's dominant desire. But if you train a dog well, it will act on your "will", despite its own dominant desire.

What I find more interesting is henry's constant need to alter the subject of all threads he participates in. Is it will or compulsion?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:05 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:58 pm Well, that depends...

What is a photon?

It is both a particle and an electromagnetic wave. It has a dual nature, and changes to a particle upon measurement, unlike any other particle.

First ever photo showing it: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

We can only experience photons and electromagnetic resistance, so the better question is: What is reality?

Thank you for the link!
Though the authors of the article could do a better job, like explaining the colors of the image. I have no idea how to interpret the photo.
Why did they -deliberately- choose not to explain the photo itself in more detail?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:28 pm Thank you for the link!
Though the authors of the article could do a better job, like explaining the colors of the image. I have no idea how to interpret the photo.
Why did they -deliberately- choose not to explain the photo itself in more detail?

The main publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407 (Heavy reading!)

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:19 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:07 pm Why did the dog cross the road? To get to the other side. Was it an action decided by free will or a reaction to a dominant desire?

Obviously it's dominant desire. But if you train a dog well, it will act on your "will", despite its own dominant desire.

What I find more interesting is henry's constant need to alter the subject of all threads he participates in. Is it will or compulsion?

What makes you so sure that what you are calling your free will is not just a reaction to a dominant desire in the same way a dog reacts?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:35 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:28 pm Thank you for the link!
Though the authors of the article could do a better job, like explaining the colors of the image. I have no idea how to interpret the photo.
Why did they -deliberately- choose not to explain the photo itself in more detail?

The main publication: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407 (Heavy reading!)

Thanks. I found another article here explaining your article a little better:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/no-y ... e-and-wave

Turns out the first article you linked is misleading.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:37 pm What makes you so sure that what you are calling your free will is not just a reaction to a dominant desire in the same way a dog reacts?

What makes you think I am sure? If you had read the thread, you'd have seen my post from a few hours ago:

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:06 pm Murder proves the lack of free will

When a person commits a murder, he knows that the risk of him going to prison is minimum 50%. Those are very bad odds.
If you add to that, that a murder conviction in some states/countries is equal to a death sentence, it makes the descision even more stupid.
Add to that, that most people will be haunted by their fear of exposure, makes it even even more stupid.

No one in their right mind (crazy people are rarely punished with prison or death), would take such a calculated risk.
Thus they must be controlled by predetermined instincts.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:41 pm Thanks. I found another article here explaining your article a little better:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/no-y ... e-and-wave

Turns out the first article you linked is misleading.

Well done. It's a matter of search phrases really. Yours was obviously better

The first wasn't misleading, just informatively poor.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:37 pm

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:19 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:07 pm Why did the dog cross the road? To get to the other side. Was it an action decided by free will or a reaction to a dominant desire?

Obviously it's dominant desire. But if you train a dog well, it will act on your "will", despite its own dominant desire.

What I find more interesting is henry's constant need to alter the subject of all threads he participates in. Is it will or compulsion?

What makes you so sure that what you are calling your free will is not just a reaction to a dominant desire in the same way a dog reacts?

It is an interesting question you asked. It goes right into the essentials of the free-will discussion.

A human has dominant desires. Like that of eating. BUT we don't just eat all the time (or do we?). Suppose some of us don't, despite our desire to eat, because otherwise we become too fat. That is a fear. Furthermore, we are humans, meaning we (some) have an evolved ability to plan ahead and calculate the future consequences of our actions at the present. Like for instance, that if we don't stop eating all the time, we grow fat.

Some of us don't want to grow fat, and some are better able to ignore the dominant desires to eat because of the fear of growing fat.

Now, the interesting question is: How does one make the choice of eating vs. ignoring hunger (if we ignore the fact that eventually you will eat anyway, because that is our nature)?

The choice of eating is obviously controlled by our dominant desires. Our genes and the felt hunger.

But what about the choice of waiting to eat until dinner time? That involves the so-called "free choice", but what is this "free choice" made of?

What if the so-called "free choice" is made of various calculations, like "if I eat now, I grow fat", "I am too lazy to run", "I'm too lazy to make a meal, so I'll wait till someone else make me a meal" etc.

You see, all these are thoughts. And thoughts originate as a consequence of conscience, which originates in the brain, as a result of neuro-chemistry.

This neuro-chemistry is essentially classical physics. When we dive into the atomic physics, we begin to see the emergence of quantum mechanics and its probability waves, telling us that the world is fundamentally random in nature (Copenhagen Interpretation).

But this does not mean neuro-chemistry is random in nature. When you add all the probabilities of the quantum world to a macroscopic scale of the world, like that of neuro-chemistry - and hence thought-generation, we are past the quantum world. The random-like nature of quantum physics disappears.

You can go through a closed door without hurting yourself. But because the door is made of so many particles, that the probability that you won't get hurt by trying to go through the door adds to virtually zero.

The conclusion must therefore be, when there is no randomness left, the world is deterministic.
Meaning our thoughts are deterministic the way I just described them.

The reductionists win the debate.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:02 pm The random-like nature of quantum physics disappears.

Sorry, but that is false and invalid. You can't take QM out of anything. QM is everything. Everything is made of atoms and particles.

We are currently struggling to combine Newtonian laws, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into one Theory Of Everything, but they are already combined in nature. It's just our understanding that halts currently.

Seen a few interesting threads and decided to return. Didn't notice any ad hominems in the threads so now should be a good time to get in it. Though I feel much of the talking has been done already. I struggle to picture how free will doesnt exist. Especially given the fact that the forum has moral objectivists on it. I do think science and chemicals motivate, but that ultimately, we're running the show (in our own individual actions).

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:13 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:01 pm I appears as if the particles - atoms and the sub-atomic world- can all be reduced into waves of the fabric of spacetime.

Just to be clear: There are no waves, only "wave-ish" behavior. The particles are still there. The "wave-ish" behavior is called "the wave function"

I have to withdraw that statement. Particles DO emerge from waves of potential!