4 ms·

Your views sound outdated. There is a "you" separate from "your chemicals". In the same way a character in a video game is in fact very separate from the trans

Your views sound outdated. There is a "you" separate from "your chemicals". In the same way a character in a video game is in fact very separate from the transistors that power the computer that the game runs on. They live in different worlds, by different rules and both have very different implications for life. There is a perfectly valid and functional world model that incorporates both the science and it's atoms and spirituality. Functional in a sense that people having this view can both apply their knowledge to the scientific domain (building new mechanical machines) and also to the spiritual domain, that is be truly happy and enlightened in the way the experience their own life. (Seeing yourself (factually incorrectly) as ONLY a chemical machine does not produce happiness, mission, love, etc. (nor good health for that matter, because health is affected by psychological wellbeing a lot) without a solid spiritual foundation.) Jordan Peterson has a very good video about this, something about reconciling science and religion. The point is, "Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. And can very well fit with all of the science that is known to humanity today. Free will comes not from the randomness of quantum mechanics, but from implications of the chaos theory (which has basically killed determinism as a means of understanding the human life experience).

Fyorl 9y ago
On the contrary, I find that seeing myself as only a chemical machine is a very freeing experience that leads to greater happiness and contentment. I find it strange that you can talk about concepts of 'you' being 'factually' correct or incorrect when there are very few established facts about consciousness or self - it all seems like mostly open philosophical debate from what I've seen.
- WhitneyLand 9y ago
  I don't think you are necessarily in disagreement with him. The fact we are machines doesn't mean the circuits to video game analogy is incorrect, in fact I think it's apt. If physics is about understanding the fundamental nature of matter and energy then why do we study chemistry? Because they are different abstractions that yield different insights. So the point is thinking about consciousness may be more useful that thinking about chemicals even if we understand some of the low level mechanics.
- Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
  Yes, "factual" was not the best word choice. "Factual" in that context was something like "having obvious empirical and experiential basis".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
WhitneyLand 9y ago
I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However: >>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache... >>can very well fit with all of the science that is known Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. >>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion] I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural. What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.
- Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
  >> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it. >> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.
jjaredsimpson 9y ago
You can't really define Free Will as something different and then claim it exists. Free Will has an agreed upon definition. Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation. Free Will is completely absent in a enormous number of circumstances. Are you free to stop understanding English? Are you free to not be persuaded by a logical argument you comprehend? When presented with a donut while on a diet are you free to determine your level of will power to resist? Free will conditioned on chaos theory is just jargon and ventures into "not even wrong" territory. If free will is sensitive to initial conditions then actors evolving in time are not free to choose their trajectories. If your happiness is conditioned on incorrect beliefs about your essential nature and capacities then you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong.
- WhitneyLand 9y ago
  Your response may not be as productive as you intended, it sounds a little dismissive. >>Free Will has an agreed upon definition It may have definitions, but used in isolation it's actually ambiguous as hell. Even between science and philosophy the discussions can be pretty divergent. >>you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong Quite wrong I would say. Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us, and hopefully for those around us. If a person can lead a happier life and do the most good for others only by not accepting a scientific principle then I would not discourage them from that. In fact, if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it. Some of us are just made in a way we can only worship at the alter of objective truth no matter what the cost or the pain. I don't think there's any way to change that, but I certainly don't want anyone to join the club at the expense of the most important goal we have.
  - jjaredsimpson 9y ago
    >if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it I don't see how this can be defended. It commits you potentially dangerous and unethical behavior. Suppose you were to unbelieve, "africans are humans." By not holding this belief you might be quite able to happily own and mistreat slaves. This example is extreme, but the point I'm making still stands. If ones happiness is contingent on holding false beliefs then what value is the happiness. How can self-deception through pleasure seeking mental states be elevated in opposition to engaging with objective reality? Seeking pleasure certainly does not ensure ethical behavior and in many cases explicitly conflicts with acting ethically. >Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.

Fyorl 9y ago

On the contrary, I find that seeing myself as only a chemical machine is a very freeing experience that leads to greater happiness and contentment. I find it strange that you can talk about concepts of 'you' being 'factually' correct or incorrect when there are very few established facts about consciousness or self - it all seems like mostly open philosophical debate from what I've seen.

WhitneyLand 9y ago
I don't think you are necessarily in disagreement with him. The fact we are machines doesn't mean the circuits to video game analogy is incorrect, in fact I think it's apt. If physics is about understanding the fundamental nature of matter and energy then why do we study chemistry? Because they are different abstractions that yield different insights. So the point is thinking about consciousness may be more useful that thinking about chemicals even if we understand some of the low level mechanics.
Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
Yes, "factual" was not the best word choice. "Factual" in that context was something like "having obvious empirical and experiential basis".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

WhitneyLand 9y ago

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However: >>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache... >>can very well fit with all of the science that is known Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. >>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion] I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural. What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.

Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
>> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it. >> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.

jjaredsimpson 9y ago

You can't really define Free Will as something different and then claim it exists. Free Will has an agreed upon definition. Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation. Free Will is completely absent in a enormous number of circumstances. Are you free to stop understanding English? Are you free to not be persuaded by a logical argument you comprehend? When presented with a donut while on a diet are you free to determine your level of will power to resist? Free will conditioned on chaos theory is just jargon and ventures into "not even wrong" territory. If free will is sensitive to initial conditions then actors evolving in time are not free to choose their trajectories. If your happiness is conditioned on incorrect beliefs about your essential nature and capacities then you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong.

WhitneyLand 9y ago
Your response may not be as productive as you intended, it sounds a little dismissive. >>Free Will has an agreed upon definition It may have definitions, but used in isolation it's actually ambiguous as hell. Even between science and philosophy the discussions can be pretty divergent. >>you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong Quite wrong I would say. Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us, and hopefully for those around us. If a person can lead a happier life and do the most good for others only by not accepting a scientific principle then I would not discourage them from that. In fact, if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it. Some of us are just made in a way we can only worship at the alter of objective truth no matter what the cost or the pain. I don't think there's any way to change that, but I certainly don't want anyone to join the club at the expense of the most important goal we have.
- jjaredsimpson 9y ago
  >if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it I don't see how this can be defended. It commits you potentially dangerous and unethical behavior. Suppose you were to unbelieve, "africans are humans." By not holding this belief you might be quite able to happily own and mistreat slaves. This example is extreme, but the point I'm making still stands. If ones happiness is contingent on holding false beliefs then what value is the happiness. How can self-deception through pleasure seeking mental states be elevated in opposition to engaging with objective reality? Seeking pleasure certainly does not ensure ethical behavior and in many cases explicitly conflicts with acting ethically. >Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.