I agree ... it's just that there seems to be a war against free will nowadays. Some scientists think that determinism is unavoidable, and that we live in a pool-like sort of universe. That is, when the universe came into being, the way that the "cue ball" hit it made its history and outcome 100% predictable ... and I have a problem with that view.

Is it really a "war against free will" or just three guys talking about one of the dumbest theories ever proposed? Using phrases like "war on free will" causes the uninformed to believe the determinists have solid backing which could lead them to pick a side without any thought. Next time, refer to the other side as "the three weird guys from Peoria who try to talk up determinism". Not so difficult to rebuff now, right?

 

Is it really a "war against free will" or just three guys talking about one of the dumbest theories ever proposed? Using phrases like "war on free will" causes the uninformed to believe the determinists have solid backing which could lead them to pick a side without any thought. Next time, refer to the other side as "the three weird guys from Peoria who try to talk up determinism". Not so difficult to rebuff now, right?

Thank you, for clarifying your point of view. But I truly believe there's a faction of scientists (and a rather important one) who have a huge problem with free will. Deep down, I think that the subject itself has theological connotations, and they probably see it too, and that's why they don't like it. So yes, a phrase like "war on free will" qualifies as hyperbole, but I don't think such scenario is too far away into the future from truly happening.

 

Thank you, for clarifying your point of view. But I truly believe there's a faction of scientists (and a rather important one) who have a huge problem with free will. Deep down, I think that the subject itself has theological connotations, and they probably see it too, and that's why they don't like it. So yes, a phrase like "war on free will" qualifies as hyperbole, but I don't think such scenario is too far away into the future from truly happening.

As a mathematician and avocational scientist, I believe that the foundations for free will are weak. However I don’t believe in determination either. As much in science and life, there is a spectrum. Much of life IS deterministic. But there are also elements of free will mixed in.

Free will determined what “pink tube” we take in the set of infinite possibilities. Free will comes from the consciousness that defines us as an organism; the set of possibilities comes from the deterministic universe.

So I’m this recurring argument, we are both right and wrong. Wrong for not recognizing the spectrum. Right in that both free will and determinism are components of our lives.

 

As a mathematician and avocational scientist, I believe that the foundations for free will are weak. However I don’t believe in determination either. As much in science and life, there is a spectrum. Much of life IS deterministic. But there are also elements of free will mixed in.

Free will determined what “pink tube” we take in the set of infinite possibilities. Free will comes from the consciousness that defines us as an organism; the set of possibilities comes from the deterministic universe.

So I’m this recurring argument, we are both right and wrong. Wrong for not recognizing the spectrum. Right in that both free will and determinism are components of our lives.

Interesting point of view. You are right in that in order to have free will, consciousness is requires. Or at least that's the way I understood your argument. Inanimate objects have no consciousness, and therefore no free will, and are therefore part and subject of the chain reaction of existence itself. So, we are beings who have been gifted the ability of free will, who live in a deterministic universe. That's at least my point of view.

 

So, I'll have to assume that determinists don't complain when the waitress gets their order wrong.

 

So, I'll have to assume that determinists don't complain when the waitress gets their order wrong.

No, they might get upset. That comes from the free will component of life. But the deterministic universe reacts differently than if the customer remained calm. There are two “pink tubes” that originate in that event. Two probabilistic outcomes.

The important thing to note that both possible outcomes exist. One’s choice determines which outcome you will see.

 

No, they might get upset. That comes from the free will component of life. But the deterministic universe reacts differently than if the customer remained calm. There are two “pink tubes” that originate in that event. Two probabilistic outcomes.

The important thing to note that both possible outcomes exist. One’s choice determines which outcome you will see.

So, determinists believe one's free will determines the outcome? Sounds like Determinists need to develop some messaging that differentiates them from the Free Will crowd or someone might confuse who is who.

 

So, determinists believe one's free will determines the outcome? Sounds like Determinists need to develop some messaging that differentiates them from the Free Will crowd or someone might confuse who is who.

I have no response.

 

I have no response.

If I didn't believe in free will I would have predicted that you either would or wouldn't have a response. But your "I have no response" is hedge I wasn't expecting - a response that claims you have no response. Brilliant.

 

If I didn't believe in free will I would have predicted that you either would or wouldn't have a response. But your "I have no response is hedge I wasn't expecting, a response that claims you have no response. Brilliant.

I’m your huckleberry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Tragedy

Nietzsche claims life always involves a struggle between these two elements, each battling for control over the existence of humanity. In Nietzsche's words, "Wherever the Dionysian prevailed, the Apollonian was checked and destroyed.... wherever the first Dionysian onslaught was successfully withstood, the authority and majesty of the Delphic god Apollo exhibited itself as more rigid and menacing than ever." And yet neither side ever prevails due to each containing the other in an eternal, natural check or balance.

In contrast to the typical Enlightenment view of ancient Greek culture as noble, simple, elegant and grandiose, Nietzsche believed the Greeks were grappling with pessimism. The universe in which we live is the product of great interacting forces; but we neither observe nor know these as such. What we put together as our conceptions of the world, Nietzsche thought, never actually addresses the underlying realities. It is human destiny to be controlled by the darkest universal realities and, at the same time, to live life in a human-dreamt world of illusions.

The issue, then, or so Nietzsche thought, is how to experience and understand the Dionysian side of life without destroying the obvious values of the Apollonian side. It is not healthy for an individual, or for a whole society, to become entirely absorbed in the rule of one or the other. The soundest (healthiest) foothold is in both. Nietzsche's theory of Athenian tragic drama suggests exactly how, before Euripides and Socrates, the Dionysian and Apollonian elements of life were artistically woven together. The Greek spectator became healthy through direct experience of the Dionysian within the protective spirit-of-tragedy on the Apollonian stage.

Age old questions deserve age old answers, struggling with these has been shredded by many, apparently we still ask with no resolution.

Myself, neither poses or claim to poses it’s like struggling to hold water in your hands.

kv

 

A very interesting article related to what's being discussed at this moment.

 

A very interesting article related to what's being discussed at this moment.

I only read through one paragraph. Lack of contextual speed read. But, first take away supports a hard shell defense.

Good job as always, confound the wise and learned.

kv

 

A very interesting article related to what's being discussed at this moment.

Sorry, I don't find it very interesting at all. I would classify it with most other Scientific American Articles - trite.

I'd imagine it is written by a literature/English major who realized she couldn't make money with that degree so she continued on to graduate school in something like a "Master of Arts in Environmental Science". Then she realized that an MA is way different than a Masters of Science in a science. So, continuing on to a degree in journalism since there is no such career as a "literaturer" or an "Englisher" and most jobs in Environmental science are associated with environmental cleanup but those jobs are all had by Hydrologists and environmental ENGINEERS. So, back to school in Journalism. Sorry, I couldn't make that stuff up - I cheated. I looked at her LinkedIn profile.

Anyhow, the author's attempt at writing about science is really a 6-paragraph "article" with no references that just links to other trite pay-to-view articles in scientific American.

 

​

 

Can you believe what you see on the web?

Spoiler

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drone-video-bear-snow/

 

​

 

Wonderful news but why would someone withdrawal every penny that they own? On top of that not put it in a secure place immediately? I am 57 years old, I suspect I am fortunate enough to have naby times more money than that man. While losing $2000 would be upsetting, it would not be the end of the world for me but not once in my life have I ever had $2,000 in cash on me.. I freak out when I have a large check. When I sold my old house, I deposited the check within 20 minutes of receiving it.

You hear these stories a lot where people lose a large amounts of cash. You have to wonder what they are thinking.

I had a boss who lost $5000 in cash. He says he didn't know how it happened and I still don't understand how he could have let it happen. One day I found his crack rocks in a little baggy and when I told people about it he said I planted it and framed him. People eh?

 

LA, cleaning up the homeless for the 'Big Game'.

 

Researchers at MIT have developed a substance that is stronger than steel but as light as Plastic.

It can be easily manufactured in large quantities, and the use cases range from lightweight coatings for cars and phones to building blocks for massive structures such as bridges, according to Michael Strano, the Carbon P. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT and the senior author of a new study.

“We don’t usually think of plastics as being something that you could use to support a building, but with this material, you can enable new things,” he said in a statement from MIT. “It has very unusual properties and we’re very excited about that.”
The material is several times stronger than bulletproof glass, and the amount of force needed to break it is twice that of steel, despite the fact that the material has only about one-sixth the density of steel, according to MIT.

Edited: !

 

Researchers at MIT have developed a substance that is stronger than steel but as strong as Plastic.

Surely you meant to write "as light as Plastic" ?