Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

Everyday!
I have something called squirrel theory - squirrels just go about gathering their nuts. day in, day out. Nothing seems to bother them, except crossing a road or a natural bird of prey, of which they are oblivious. No destiny there - cause and effect. But they seem quite content (who knows maybe they are starving).

Humans do not ascribe to squirrel theory. They have to pick everything apart. There is an upside to that, as we are possibly the most adaptable species ever. But it may be only human ego to think that. In paleontology the billion year rock record shows many species rise to great success, to even dominate......and then fall. Tens of examples.

Squirrels are very crafty, and they do learn. I've spent much much time watching, stalking, and hunting squirrel. But yes it does seem to be all cause and effect based around food, mating, nest building, and survival.

I'm afraid we will be one of those examples sooner than we think.

I would say that animals share many of the issues we have. Put yourself in their paws for a moment. Think of all the fears you had as a child because of your limited understanding of cause and effect, eg. animals and small children are afraid of the thunder - they sense the power but don't realise it's harmless.

We hear birds singing and the chances are that it's a bird telling another bird to f* off. We say "Isn't that beautiful?".

I can't relate to the thunder, I was never scared of it and my 3 dogs aren't either, but we live in tornado alley so big storms are pretty regular here. I was terrified of fire as a small kid after watching a house burn down. It wasn't the fire itself that scared me, but the thought of my house burning down. Fear of the unknown. Not the cause or effect, but the ending result.

How about the butterfly effect? Sort of like a butterfly fluttering in China results in mass floods in Texas. Cause and effect on a scale that could only be attributed to cosmic confluence.

The universe has an attitude.

The butterfly effect is more of a domino effect than anything. The butterfly flaps its wings in China. The ripple caused by the flapping creates turbulence that effects the atmospheric conditions in its specific local. The conditions then change...yadda yadda yadda...a flood in Texas. This is a slippery slope and is an unacceptable reason for accepting something as factual in an argument. Just because that butterfly flaps its wings, in no way does it absolutely mean that there will be a flood in Texas. It makes for cool movies though.
 
Right.

I'm not religious, I don't think things 'happen for a reason' or any other such nonsense. Sorry guys, I just don't buy it.

The existence of reality as we see it is the consequences of millions of small incidents, all happening by chance within a few defined rules that we call 'physics'. Sometimes the effects are macroscopic (Classical Physics) and sometimes they are microscopic and counter-intuitive (Quantum Physics).

To say that there is a 'plan' in place by observation of two seemingly-unrelated events affecting each other is - simply - wrong. The history of evolution (for instance) is made up of a series of 'mistakes', dead-ends, inefficiencies, chance mutations and adjustments to profound alterations in environment yet we're here with millions of other species and in many cases are traceable back to millions of years ago. If anybody tries to use a teleological argument against evolution you can, quite frankly, go home and then read about the evolutionary trace of the human eye before you even consider using that as a tired, clichéd example.

In fact, all teleological arguments can sod off. If you need to see some plan in everything, so be it but there's no evidence of such a plan and the onus of truth is upon those making the supposition.

Also, read about the 'Babel Fish' paradox. It's hilarious. This thread has been irritating me for days and I'm not going to sugar-coat my response, as uncompromising as it is.
 
Duncan, surely the great mysteries are worthy of a whole lot more investigation than being passed off as "chance events"?

Not all "chance events" are equal. Some "take" and some don't. The universe and the earth have tendencies. They tend to produce life - and humans. Our existence is proof of that fact.

Imagine the first replicating cell. Was that a truly random event or was there something underneath - an underpinning fabric of reality based in other dimensions - that was trying to replicate? That was driving towards replication? Towards life?

After all, having replicated once, why would the cell do it again? To me, the start of life seems dynamically like the Big Bang - something new springing forth from a wellspring of potential energy. The urge to replicate and survive is surely echoed throughout all life.

Why would a creature with human capacities appear? Human mental abilities appear to be overkill in evolutionary terms. Obviously there's an evolutionary arms race with human brains - smart people are today's alphas. Rationalist attitudes say that our search for meaning and spiritual tendencies are by-products of the mental gear we inherited through natural selection - mere curios and artefacts rather than reflections of our deeper nature.

Maybe so, but that's surely not certain.

Science and spirituality routinely talk at cross purposes. Religion and spirituality is certainly full of mythology, but they are practical tools when working with subjective reality. Great power and comfort comes from faith, belief, confidence, creative imagination, placebo effects, hypnosis, etc. We don't understand the whys or hows of mind-over-matter, but we instinctively know how to use it - if our rational minds don't get in the way.

Why wait for science to catch up when you can access our mental capacities now via mysticism? Who cares if something is based on mythology or science if it works? Whatever methods we use only need last a lifetime, not pass the test of eternal verities.

Having said that, I do not believe religion has any place in public policy, other than the freedom of people to hold their own beliefs. Spirituality's value is in the subjective realm and it will continue to be useful until science catches up and enables us to control those aspects of mind.

One day we won't need spirituality because we will always be capable of peak performance and always be in the zone, we will be able to routinely and fully unlock our skills and potentials and we will be capable of mentally controlling and regulating illness and pain and we will be in a contant state of bliss /peak experience. Until then, we don't have the smarts because we haven't scientifically cracked the code, but we can still use our instinctive equipment.

To quote the famous brilliant Donald Rumsfeld poem:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Sorry about straying from "destiny", but Duncan and I are good at going offtopic :)
 
Why would a creature with human capacities appear? Human mental abilities appear to be overkill in evolutionary terms. Obviously there's an evolutionary arms race with human brains - smart people are today's alphas. Rationalist attitudes say that our search for meaning and spiritual tendencies are by-products of the mental gear we inherited through natural selection - mere curios and artefacts rather than reflections of our deeper nature.

I can't help but wonder if there aren't life forms so much more advanced than us that we don't even realize they exist, because we either don't have the senses to perceive them or they're entwined with things we consider "laws of the universe."

For instance, if you step on an ant, it doesn't know you exist. It doesn't even know it exists. But some force came in and ended its existence. What if things that happen to us, that we cannot perceive a reason for, are things being manipulated by a higher life form?

Someone pass the weed....
 
Grea, I like you an awful lot but I'm going to have to disagree.

My look at reality is cold and stark. I see no spirituality, I see nothing but chance events. I see no purpose or meaning and no evidence to demonstrate to the contrary. I hear and see beautiful things and accept that there are plenty of things that humanity just doesn't know about life, the Universe and everything.

I don't believe in destiny. I don't really believe anything. I may as well be a nihilist apart from the a priori harshness of the Cogito. Human mental abilities appear from chance.

The abyss stares back.

Meanwhile, I listen to Beethoven.
 
Not all "chance events" are equal. Some "take" and some don't. The universe and the earth have tendencies. They tend to produce life - and humans. Our existence is proof of that fact.

Imagine the first replicating cell. Was that a truly random event or was there something underneath - an underpinning fabric of reality based in other dimensions - that was trying to replicate? That was driving towards replication? Towards life?

Look up the Miller-Urey experiment and Panspermia. The conditions for life had to exist before life itself. If life is such a constant in the universe, how come we haven't found any anywhere else, even locally?

After all, having replicated once, why would the cell do it again? To me, the start of life seems dynamically like the Big Bang - something new springing forth from a wellspring of potential energy. The urge to replicate and survive is surely echoed throughout all life.

That is what life does, plain and simple. Without the urge to survive and replicate, there would be no life. This is constant for everything, including the universe. Galaxies, suns, planets, nebula, etc. all are born and will eventually die, resulting in something else. Surely our current universe isn't the first, and it certainly wont be the last. Remember energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just repurposed.

Why would a creature with human capacities appear? Human mental abilities appear to be overkill in evolutionary terms. Obviously there's an evolutionary arms race with human brains - smart people are today's alphas. Rationalist attitudes say that our search for meaning and spiritual tendencies are by-products of the mental gear we inherited through natural selection - mere curios and artefacts rather than reflections of our deeper nature.

Why would a creature of any form or intelligence appear? To think we are special in a world full of life is rather selfish in my views. Just because we humans are more aware does not make us any better than, say, a cockroach. They have been here a whole lot longer than we have, will be here longer, and can evolve and adapt at will. Natural selection will favor the roach over the human.

Why wait for science to catch up when you can access our mental capacities now via mysticism? Who cares if something is based on mythology or science if it works? Whatever methods we use only need last a lifetime, not pass the test of eternal verities.

Because some of us want answers, not an uneducated guess as to why things work like they do. I can accept that things work and we don't know why, but cannot accept a screwball idea to fill the void until the correct answer is revealed.

Spirituality's value is in the subjective realm and it will continue to be useful until science catches up and enables us to control those aspects of mind.

So then why do we continue to lie to ourselves until science catches up? Again, if something works but you don't know why, that's okay. Would you rather discover the correct answer and be amazed at it once it gets here, or be disappointed in yourself for believing in something that wasn't true?

One day we won't need spirituality because we will always be capable of peak performance and always be in the zone, we will be able to routinely and fully unlock our skills and potentials and we will be capable of mentally controlling and regulating illness and pain and we will be in a contant state of bliss /peak experience. Until then, we don't have the smarts because we haven't scientifically cracked the code, but we can still use our instinctive equipment.

So if we don't destroy ourselves first, we will all eventually become god-like? Seriously, no matter how hard I try, the pain in my knee just wont go away, and all the mental regulation in the world wont keep gravity and friction from destroying it a little more each time I move it.

In a nutshell, we aren't special. We walk around everyday fooling ourselves and each other, thinking we are more than we really are, and that the ultimate goal is somewhere beyond our existence. In reality, the ultimate goal is to just survive.
 
Right.

I'm not religious, I don't think things 'happen for a reason' or any other such nonsense. Sorry guys, I just don't buy it.

In fact, all teleological arguments can sod off. If you need to see some plan in everything, so be it but there's no evidence of such a plan and the onus of truth is upon those making the supposition.

That in and of itself is an expression of freewill, and as far as our God is concerned, as far as I understand, it is your right. You have decided. I still remain uncertain. I cannot say for certain one way or the other, but either way, hell or no hell...whatever. I still like the philosophy that a certain deity gave us with his words.
 
I can't help but wonder if there aren't life forms so much more advanced than us that we don't even realize they exist, because we either don't have the senses to perceive them or they're entwined with things we consider "laws of the universe."

For instance, if you step on an ant, it doesn't know you exist. It doesn't even know it exists. But some force came in and ended its existence. What if things that happen to us, that we cannot perceive a reason for, are things being manipulated by a higher life form?

Someone pass the weed....

Funny thing that we associate deep thought with being wasted :) It's as though sensible, right-thinking people with correct priorities don't waste time with difficult trivia like understanding the nature of reality and the extent of delusionality built into our cultural norms.

I think ants would know they exist, in a similar way as we know we exist when we are infants. There's no existential rumination, of course, but ants certainly know enough of their own existence to recognise danger to themselves and battle like heck to survive - just as we do. They can also differentiate between their nest mates and "foreigners".

How we would come across to ants ... in terms of scale, maybe like an earthquake, twister or cyclone. I've done some cartoons on this topic:

anim_ant-hail.jpg


anim_cockroach-autopsy.jpg


Hmm, this is a more common theme in my toons than I realised ...

phil_fleas.jpg


anim_fish-existential.jpg



I see no purpose or meaning and no evidence to demonstrate to the contrary. I hear and see beautiful things ...

If nothing you have come across has provided you with evidence of meaning, what would a world look like with apparent evidence of meaning?

It reminds me of a comment quoted by Richard Dawkins, where a scientist asked a friend:

"Why do you suppose it was natural for man to assume the sun went around the Earth rather than the Earth was rotating?"

His friend replied, "Obviously it just looks as though the sun is going around the Earth".

Lichtenstein replied, "Well, what would it look like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

It's a trippy thought ... almost as trippy as wondering what a life with hard, measurable evidence of meaning would be like ...
 
Look up the Miller-Urey experiment and Panspermia.

Even with Panspermia, you still need that first replication.

The conditions for life had to exist before life itself. If life is such a constant in the universe, how come we haven't found any anywhere else, even locally?

Haha - got me there. Obviously, I don't know any more than anyone else and life is so far only found on Earth, but its existence cannot be denied! I don't think it's any more of a fluke than the fact that stars and planets form. They only form if conditions are right too.

Personally, if I was a betting gal I'd put money on us discovering microscopic life in the water tables under the Martian surface. As 8 said, there could also be forms of life out there that we are unable to recognise or detect.

Why would a creature of any form or intelligence appear? To think we are special in a world full of life is rather selfish in my views. Just because we humans are more aware does not make us any better than, say, a cockroach. They have been here a whole lot longer than we have, will be here longer, and can evolve and adapt at will. Natural selection will favor the roach over the human.

Everyone on this forum plays music. No cockroaches play music. Do you need more?

Today's computers are better than those developed in the 1960s. In the same way we are better than cockroaches.

When it comes down to species survival, bacteria will kick cockroaches' sorry spiky asses (apart from the fine specimen in my avatar). They are the most resilient and successful creatures as a group.

I can accept that things work and we don't know why, but cannot accept a screwball idea to fill the void until the correct answer is revealed.

That's why I reject pure rationalism, which is another screwball idea that pretends to know. Rationalism must be tempered by acknowledgement of the mysteries rather than to brush them under the carpet because they are inconvenient. That's as bad as religion ignoring inconvenient scientific observation, eg. evolution.

So then why do we continue to lie to ourselves until science catches up? Again, if something works but you don't know why, that's okay. Would you rather discover the correct answer and be amazed at it once it gets here, or be disappointed in yourself for believing in something that wasn't true?

I think you need some specific examples so you can trust me a bit more ... really, I am not a mad religious voodoo child, Mr IP.

Let's take the lie of optimism in sports. Sportspeople have faith that they will win every game, even when the evidence is against them. But they need that attitude to perform at their peak. How about the lie of the placebo effect? We use this lie constantly - it is an essential part of drug testing. Or should we wait until we understand it better?

Take another example - religiosity amongst underprivileged, uneducated people. Often religion is their only comfort in unimaginably difficult lives. We can't tell these people to wait until we have the solutions to rational manipulation of brain dynamics to produce dopamine - they need their salve now. Religion fills the void (despite its many odious aspects). Humans have a lot of evolving to do and in the interim we will devise bandaid solutions to keep us going.

So if we don't destroy ourselves first, we will all eventually become god-like? Seriously, no matter how hard I try, the pain in my knee just wont go away, and all the mental regulation in the world wont keep gravity and friction from destroying it a little more each time I move it.

I think we will become more true to ourselves, more in control, less subject to blundering, which is the trend so far.

Humans have achieved great amounts of control of ourselves and environment as compared with other animals, but nowhere near our potential. We go to rehab, diet, take nicotine substitutes, have misunderstandings, temper tantrums, forget things, go into denial, etc etc - endless examples of us not being in control.

As time goes on, those of us who are safe from the coming mass population correction will gain greater mastery through our ever closer link with machines. And I think that will be special ...
 
Even with Panspermia, you still need that first replication.

That's why I mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment. They were able to create amino acids in a lab using only water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and electricity. It was to simulate the earths atmospheric conditions when earth was still young and lifeless. As we know, amino acids are essential for life. Panspermia just adds more fuel to the fire.

Haha - got me there. Obviously, I don't know any more than anyone else and life is so far only found on Earth, but its existence cannot be denied! I don't think it's any more of a fluke than the fact that stars and planets form. They only form if conditions are right too.

Personally, if I was a betting gal I'd put money on us discovering microscopic life in the water tables under the Martian surface. As 8 said, there could also be forms of life out there that we are unable to recognise or detect.

Are you familiar with the Drake equation?

Chances are if there is life outside our solar system we will never know. But if inside our solar system it exists, I would either go the Mars route or possibly Europa.


Everyone on this forum plays music. No cockroaches play music. Do you need more?

Today's computers are better than those developed in the 1960s. In the same way we are better than cockroaches.

When it comes down to species survival, bacteria will kick cockroaches' sorry spiky asses (apart from the fine specimen in my avatar). They are the most resilient and successful creatures as a group.

Cockroaches might not play music, but they can develop immunities to chemicals and pestacides as required. They also learn when they need to re-colonize due to irate humans! By no means are they dumb. But they have also had more time to evolve than we have.

I was wondering what that was in your avatar. I thought maybe it was a wasp or hornet.

Let's take the lie of optimism in sports. Sportspeople have faith that they will win every game, even when the evidence is against them. But they need that attitude to perform at their peak. How about the lie of the placebo effect? We use this lie constantly - it is an essential part of drug testing. Or should we wait until we understand it better?

Take another example - religiosity amongst underprivileged, uneducated people. Often religion is their only comfort in unimaginably difficult lives. We can't tell these people to wait until we have the solutions to rational manipulation of brain dynamics to produce dopamine - they need their salve now. Religion fills the void (despite its many odious aspects). Humans have a lot of evolving to do and in the interim we will devise bandaid solutions to keep us going.

I know nothing of sports other than I like watching it, but wouldn't it be a bit pathetic if the coach said "You can't win this game. So lets go out there and try not to suck too badly!"

I would say the placebo effect is no different than a psychosomatic response, except its a positive reaction instead of a negative one. No lie required, just insert an idea.

I have no comment about the religious. They have the freedom to believe what they want, no matter their social status. I just wish that all the ones I run into knew how to have an objective discussion without getting mad or telling me I'm going to hell.

I think we will become more true to ourselves, more in control, less subject to blundering, which is the trend so far.

I sure hope so. Perhaps you have a better outlook on modern society than I do.

As time goes on, those of us who are safe from the coming mass population correction will gain greater mastery through our ever closer link with machines. And I think that will be special ...

Mass Population Correction. I like that. If it comes in my lifetime, the machine I will probably form a lifetime bond with will surely have a trigger!


If my destiny was predetermined, and my free will is not mine and it really isn't free, whomever decided my fate was incredibly drunk at the time.
 
Oh, so there's no God because he doesn't exist. He doesn't show himself, there's no proof, etc.

What about human rights? They sure as hell don't exist either. You have no rights.

As a matter of fact, everything around me is just a figment of my imagination. An illusion. When the dreamer wakes up, everyone of the made up people disappears.

"Ahooh, Gojira, you are so powerful"

Seriously, the "no proof" argument is really wearing thin in the 21st century. If someone died and there's no evidence, does that mean he was never alive?

. Just because that butterfly flaps its wings, in no way does it absolutely mean that there will be a flood in Texas. It makes for cool movies though.

Isn't that the beauty of it? Something so insignificant being altered that it has earth-shaking consequences. You could put it down to chaos theory or a higher power, I'm just stressing that there's isn't necessarily linearity between cause and effect.

Did the domino fall the other way? Freak happening or divine intervention. It's a sticky subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about human rights? They sure as hell don't exist either. You have no rights.

As a matter of fact, everything around me is just a figment of my imagination. An illusion. When the dreamer wakes up, everyone of the made up people disappears.

The thing that confuses me with "everything is an illusion" and the holographic principle etc is that if a piano drops on your head from a first storey balcony it makes no difference whether you perceive it or not ...
 
I'm just stressing that there's isn't necessarily linearity between cause and effect.

The reason a butterfly effect is a non-acceptable form of reason is because cause and effect are linear. Like I said earlier, it is a slippery slope. A slippery slope is fallacious in reasoning, because it tries to take a random series of events and link the first to the last. You can't do that logically.

If you heard me tell my kid that if they left their matchbox cars on the stairs we would be homeless, you would probably think I was nuts. But yet if they leave their cars on the stairs, I could fall down the stairs. If I fell down the stairs, I could break my neck. If I broke my neck, I could spend months in the hospital. If I spend months in the hospital, I could lose my job. If I lose my job, I don't get a paycheck. If I don't get a paycheck, I can't pay the bills. If I can't pay the bills, we will get evicted. If we get evicted, we will be homeless.

In no way does leaving toy cars on the stairs guarantee homelessness. This is why the butterfly effect is fun, but not a good argument. Too many ifs.
 
Seriously, the "no proof" argument is really wearing thin in the 21st century. If someone died and there's no evidence, does that mean he was never alive?

There's no such thing as 'proof' either. There's inference and evidence, supported hypothesis and theories but never proof - except for one a priori logical principle. Proof means that there is absolutely no way to refute the claims and if you actually study critical thinking, there is almost always a way to cast doubt upon a supported hypothesis or theory.

If we have no evidence to say somebody existed, then we have no reason to believe they existed. Why would you assume they did? What would constitute as evidence? I, for example, believe that Jesus Christ actually existed because there is a wealth of supporting evidence but I don't believe that he was the son of God.

Your existence isn't an illusion - it's the only thing that's absolutely and objectively true. It's called the 'cogito'. I suggest you look it up. However, there is no absolute way to 'prove' (in the true sense of the word) that anything you observe, see, touch, feel or experience is real. One draws a line between practical proof of reality based upon communicated interactions, etc. but actually there is no way to definitively prove that anything outside us exists. As somebody that has in the past suffered from psychotic episodes (hallucinations, visual and auditory) I can assure you that not all you see or hear is necessarily real.

No, there is no such thing as objective human rights. They don't necessarily exist. They are a construct made by humans for practical reasons. They certainly didn't exist before humans. Why the Hell would you use that as an example? Are you trying to say they're woven into the very fabric of the Universe? Bollocks. It's a terrible example if you're trying to demonstrate a point. In the same way, there is no such thing as objective morality, ethics, culinary practise, law, politics...
 
What if it fell in the middle of a forest and nobody heard it?...

But there's always "someone" in the forest to, if not hear it, at least sense it. Certainly the plants will notice in their planty way and the and bugs under the tree as it falls will certainly hear it!
 
Cockroaches might not play music, but they can develop immunities to chemicals and pestacides as required. They also learn when they need to re-colonize due to irate humans! By no means are they dumb. But they have also had more time to evolve than we have.

Yeah, they're dumb. They don't need to be smart because their physical abilities are so strong.


I would say the placebo effect is no different than a psychosomatic response, except its a positive reaction instead of a negative one. No lie required, just insert an idea.

Agree. It's strange how our physical body can be so affected by our thoughts.


I sure hope so. Perhaps you have a better outlook on modern society than I do.

Mass Population Correction. I like that. If it comes in my lifetime, the machine I will probably form a lifetime bond with will surely have a trigger!

I like modern society. Sadly, at some stage billions will die and there's no other way things can possibly turn out as far as I can tell. The Earth will really transform in the next 50 years. Baby Boomers and Gen Xs are very lucky to be born when we were. The last few generations have enjoyed a golden age of prosperity. There may be other golden ages in the future, but I suspect not for a long time.

I guess that's kind of destiny.
 
Look at some drummers acting like we know something. I love this thread Uncle Larry. Are we divine? Did we take a left turn somewhere, fall from "Grace" or Cosmic awareness that we are Gods ourselves...and now we're quarantined from some universal podcast? Maybe there are millions of planets with more advanced life. Maybe we're overdue for a genetic upgrade.
I would definitely want Polly-Non to be one of my mentors (and personal trainer!).
 
The reason a butterfly effect is a non-acceptable form of reason is because cause and effect are linear. Like I said earlier, it is a slippery slope. A slippery slope is fallacious in reasoning, because it tries to take a random series of events and link the first to the last. You can't do that logically.

Well...I don't know. Logic and argument aren't the same thing, and contemporary rhetorics aren't as formal as logic, by design. Technically, the slippery slope fallacy doesn't really try to connect random series of events. The problem is the assumption of evidence for the worst possible outcome. The primary problem there is bad faith, not inherent consequence - which, I'd like to note, suggests a deterministic mechanism.

And considering the strong hint of panpsychism and anthropo-skepticism in this thread, I don't think causality should be assumed; I mean, you can assume for the purposes of your argument, but you'll never agree to terms. Non-causality in metaphysics and epistemology are pretty well-established (and still current), so statements like "we can all assume cause and effect" aren't really true for all metaphysical systems. If you think that all information or matter is similar, or that all is reducible to information or a matter, then cause and effect disappears or becomes only correlative.

Lively discussion. Good stuff.
 
Back
Top