jakelafort

Have a great week!!

“You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.”

So I’m devil’s advocate for both sides, now.

For believers in free will, I ask, do you believe you have power over determinism, or is determinism not even a thing?

For those arguing against free will, is there any harm in others believing in it?

I’m not on the fence. I don’t believe it exists in an absolute sense, but I’m happy to ride as if it…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Somebody asks you do you believe? Have the integrity to say yes or no. And if asked for an explanation don’t go all cock and bull jive turkey circumlocution and obfuscation.

Seems to me that all JP was saying is that for him, stating a belief in God is hypocritical unless he can actually fully walk the walk of what a truly d…[Read more]

I was asked recently why I have no interest in reading anything else that JP writes, especially his new book about Catholic Jesus (roughly speaking!!). I replied that he may have had some opinions worth consideration in the past but not since he was ‘Deephacked Choprafied’.

_Robert_ wrote:
Oh, damn, too late

JP has become a parody of himself.

I’m reminded of a quote Google can’t find so I’ll have to paraphrase it, but JP reminds me of it:

“There’s no difference between the avant-garde and a parody of the avant-garde.”

A parody of Jordan Peterson is indistinguishable from Jordan Peterson.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior post.

Maybe, but my point is, that there’s evidence for its existence. If I had no free will, I could not respond to contingent, random circumstances by deliberating and picking and choosing.

Is this “ev…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Everything obeys rules, but that doesn’t in itself imply complete determinism.  My free will is constrained by rules: I will never be able to do exactly what I like.  As for the rest, I can employ free choice.

You talk about free will in a way that presupposes its existence. That’s what I accused you of in my prior pos…[Read more]

@Robert I wouldn’t classify JP as an atheist. I didn’t see the Sam Harris one I’ll have to watch that. I guess I view him completely differently because i watched his lectures so I understand the framework from where he’s coming and there are many things I took away from his lectures that I still use and remember to this day. I think he gets it…[Read more]

@Simon he used to be a professor and clinical psychologist. His lectures are all over YouTube. This article looks like it’s talking about his new book, and even just reading it I can tell what it’s about because I’ve seen his lectures. The person who wrote that article clearly had a bias against him which you can tell immediately. They took a pag…[Read more]

I read the article about Jordan Peterson and I really don’t agree with it. I’ve listened to a lot of his stuff and read some of his other books and I think that article is a really bad representation of who he actually is and what he actually says. Just my opinion.

Here’s why emergence is bogus when used to defend free will.

In legitimate examples of emergence, the phenomenon preexists the explanation. The flocking of birds or schooling of fish are an emergent phenomenon. Emergence, based on a set of rules so simple even fish and small birds can obey them*, explains the behavior. Flocking and schooling was…[Read more]

Well, it (the squirrel) has to respond to real events in real time, so I’m guessing it has free will.

The squirrel does not respond as if it were giving careful consideration to its next move. It reacts to real events in real time. That reaction is entirely instinctive. That instinct is highly tuned and the reaction is faster than any c…[Read more]

I like the feeling of free will. I enjoy some optical, and maybe some other illusions, too. Is believing in free will potentially harmful to one’s self or others? It’s not like believing in God, then forcing others to also believe.

Loopy thought: Must not the feeling of free will at least be a product of determinism? A legitimate product of…[Read more]

I’m starting to see “emergence” as a kind of “God of the gaps” type of argument. When all else fails in many disputes, they trot out “It’s an emergent property.”

In other words, as in the religious person who presupposes that God exists, and whose incredible shrinking proposition is running out of supportive arguments, who then resorts to “If I…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:
How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

Absolutely. Nothing new here, not sure, did I misuse the word emergence? Free will couldn’t emerge, except as a theoretic…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
How do you account for free will in a way that rescues the “free” part of free will and attaches it to the “will” part of free will without violating the scientific laws of the universe?

Absolutely. Nothing new here, not sure, did I misuse the word emergence? Free will couldn’t emerge, except as a theoretical or philoso…[Read more]

“Emergence” is defined as a property of a whole not present in its parts. So, emergence is an epiphenomenon, like a rainbow or mirror reflection.

Notice that rainbows and mirror reflections are, in a sense, not real and are accounted for in terms of sufficient conditions.  Conditions describable deterministically

In other words, you can explain…[Read more]