Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Res Ipsa]

Long responses are, in my opinion, nothing to apologize for. The more you describe your reality, the easier it is for me to understand it. I’ll respond fully tomorrow. But what gives me the biggest insight into your thinking is the first sentence of your response. Why can’t you see it any other way?

Thought experiment: define objective reality as what your God would perceive if he existed. Now, assume he stops existing. How does objective reality change?

If objective reality is independent of your existence, why isn’t it independent of God’s?

The answer to the first question is dependent on the answer to the second and third. I don’t see the second question as having a definition that I can determine from where I sit. Why? Because if God does exist I think it would be a safe assumption to think that this God is in and through all things and the creations would on some way be dependent on His existence and power to create and maintain the ‘system’. So taking God out of the picture takes away the prime mover of all things.

That’s a problem. So I don’t see the thought experiment as being one that can be definitively answered in any way that has staying power. You’re pulling God out at the outset. You can only observe what is ‘there’. But you are not able to observe what would or wouldn’t be there if God wasn’t the prime mover. It could be that nothing would be there/here.

Answer to the fist question is from the viewpoint of my thought processes that are limited by my understanding. I make more or less a subjective determination that there is a prime mover.

I’m a fan of the anthropic principle. The universe, at least from where we sit, seems to be fine tuned for life as we know it.

Regards,
MG

Let's come about it from a slightly different angle. Your brain is capable of imagining all kinds of things. It can imagine things that are inconsistent with your constructed reality. For example, it can imagine what would happen if gravity simply stopped working. You can read a fictional story or watch a fictional movie and imagine worlds that are contrary to your constructed reality. You can imagine a being that can twiddle the control knobs that determine the values of fundamental attributes but is powerless to create a world without yersina pestis.

My little thought experiment is simply an exercise in imagination, not dissimilar to acts of imagine you probably do dozens of times a day. What is it about this exercise in particular that makes it impossible for you to do it. Why can't your brain think about it without immediately running to several new arguments to claim it can't be real: prime mover, fine tuning, the anthropic principle.

Why aren't you able to imagine an objective reality that your brain simply cannot reliably access? Why can't you imagine an objective reality independent of any objective observer? Why do you rush to disprove the thought experiment without actually trying to work through it?

This is what I mean by taking constructivism seriously. You take its assumptions seriously and do your best to think through the consequences of those assumptions.

Assume the existence of an omnicient being. Not your God. Just an an omniscient being. It perceives the universe with 100% accuracy -- no distortion. There is no distinction between its subjective reality and objective reality. Now, imagine that it ceases to exist. Just like you imagined that you cease to exist. What changes?

[MG 2.0]

The answer to the first question is dependent on the answer to the second and third. I don’t see the second question as having a definition that I can determine from where I sit. Why? Because if God does exist I think it would be a safe assumption to think that this God is in and through all things and the creations would on some way be dependent on His existence and power to create and maintain the ‘system’. So taking God out of the picture takes away the prime mover of all things.

That’s a problem. So I don’t see the thought experiment as being one that can be definitively answered in any way that has staying power. You’re pulling God out at the outset. You can only observe what is ‘there’. But you are not able to observe what would or wouldn’t be there if God wasn’t the prime mover. It could be that nothing would be there/here.

Answer to the fist question is from the viewpoint of my thought processes that are limited by my understanding. I make more or less a subjective determination that there is a prime mover.

I’m a fan of the anthropic principle. The universe, at least from where we sit, seems to be fine tuned for life as we know it.

Regards,
MG

Let's come about it from a slightly different angle. Your brain is capable of imagining all kinds of things. It can imagine things that are inconsistent with your constructed reality. For example, it can imagine what would happen if gravity simply stopped working. You can read a fictional story or watch a fictional movie and imagine worlds that are contrary to your constructed reality. You can imagine a being that can twiddle the control knobs that determine the values of fundamental attributes but is powerless to create a world without yersina pestis.

My little thought experiment is simply an exercise in imagination, not dissimilar to acts of imagine you probably do dozens of times a day. What is it about this exercise in particular that makes it impossible for you to do it. Why can't your brain think about it without immediately running to several new arguments to claim it can't be real: prime mover, fine tuning, the anthropic principle.

Why aren't you able to imagine an objective reality that your brain simply cannot reliably access? Why can't you imagine an objective reality independent of any objective observer? Why do you rush to disprove the thought experiment without actually trying to work through it?

This is what I mean by taking constructivism seriously. You take its assumptions seriously and do your best to think through the consequences of those assumptions.

Assume the existence of an omnicient being. Not your God. Just an an omniscient being. It perceives the universe with 100% accuracy -- no distortion. There is no distinction between its subjective reality and objective reality. Now, imagine that it ceases to exist. Just like you imagined that you cease to exist. What changes?

I think there is a place for imagination. But when evidence and imagination hang in the balance and evidence seems to come out on top, imagination takes a back seat. That, of course, is something that we each have to work out in our own minds. I’ve decided that all things being considered, a creator God is not unreasonable. That being so I would go back to what I’ve said earlier in this thread in regards to the concept of God being in and through all things and that to imagine a universe existing independent of God is more or less a non sequitur.

As I’ve already said, I think, I’m perfectly OK with your conclusions in regards to the nature of reality and have no compunction to prove to you otherwise. Because I can’t.

I would be interested, however, in understanding why drumdude, yourself, and others seem to have a problem with free will. Is there a correlation between having somewhat of an antipathy towards free will and being a non religionist?

I’m a bit confused and lacking in understanding on this point. Religionists tend towards free will. Is it the case that most non religionists steer away from free will? If so, why?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

The movies my pop into my head and I can make a list of them. That’s memory. If I’m asked to name the top five movies from my list as being my favorites, that’s free will.

I'm talking about something different, please follow with my example and don't change it. The scenario is not "choose 5 movies from the ones you recall." The scenario is, "what is the first movie that pops into your head when I ask you to name one?"

Lets change it and make it the first Asian person that pops into your head. You likely don't have a list of your favorite Asian people, so it sidesteps you thinking this is about choosing your favorite.

What Asian person's name popped into your head? How did you choose that name, and not some other name? If you chose that name deliberately, what name were you thinking of before the first name popped into your head?

Do you see the issue? There can't, by definition, be a list of names you are choosing before a name pops into your head. Because the name popping into your head precedes conscious choice.

There are experiments with functional MRIs which even demonstrate this empirically. The MRI machine can see them settle on a choice before the conscious/higher reasoning part of the brain is even aware of it.

Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness. Activity patterns in anterior frontopolar cortex (BA 10) were temporally the first to carry intention-related information and thus a candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124546

[Res Ipsa]

Let's come about it from a slightly different angle. Your brain is capable of imagining all kinds of things. It can imagine things that are inconsistent with your constructed reality. For example, it can imagine what would happen if gravity simply stopped working. You can read a fictional story or watch a fictional movie and imagine worlds that are contrary to your constructed reality. You can imagine a being that can twiddle the control knobs that determine the values of fundamental attributes but is powerless to create a world without yersina pestis.

My little thought experiment is simply an exercise in imagination, not dissimilar to acts of imagine you probably do dozens of times a day. What is it about this exercise in particular that makes it impossible for you to do it. Why can't your brain think about it without immediately running to several new arguments to claim it can't be real: prime mover, fine tuning, the anthropic principle.

Why aren't you able to imagine an objective reality that your brain simply cannot reliably access? Why can't you imagine an objective reality independent of any objective observer? Why do you rush to disprove the thought experiment without actually trying to work through it?

This is what I mean by taking constructivism seriously. You take its assumptions seriously and do your best to think through the consequences of those assumptions.

Assume the existence of an omnicient being. Not your God. Just an an omniscient being. It perceives the universe with 100% accuracy -- no distortion. There is no distinction between its subjective reality and objective reality. Now, imagine that it ceases to exist. Just like you imagined that you cease to exist. What changes?

I think there is a place for imagination. But when evidence and imagination hang in the balance and evidence seems to come out on top, imagination takes a back seat. That, of course, is something that we each have to work out in our own minds. I’ve decided that all things being considered, a creator God is not unreasonable. That being so I would go back to what I’ve said earlier in this thread in regards to the concept of God being in and through all things and that to imagine a universe existing independent of God is more or less a non sequitur.

As I’ve already said, I think, I’m perfectly OK with your conclusions in regards to the nature of reality and have no compunction to prove to you otherwise. Because I can’t.

I would be interested, however, in understanding why drumdude, yourself, and others seem to have a problem with free will. Is there a correlation between having somewhat of an antipathy towards free will and being a non religionist?

I’m a bit confused and lacking in understanding on this point. Religionists tend towards free will. Is it the case that most non religionists steer away from free will? If so, why?

Regards,
MG

You will always be confused and lacking understanding of those kinds of issues because you are unwilling to do what is required for understanding. I believe your desire for more understanding and empathy is sincere, but you appear unwilling or unable to make any effort to actually do what Brooks suggests in his book. I’ve been trying to explain to you an important aspect of my worldview. You haven’t even tried to understand. You’re so caught up in defending your own constructed reality, you won’t even try to imagine what a different worldview would look like. You know how to type the right words, but it’s just talk.

I can imagine your worldview. Heck, I once lived in roughly the same socially constructed reality that you do now. I can move right inside that reality and conduct a million thought experiments in it. Why can’t you reciprocate?

My thought experiment in no way contradicts your assumption that it is not unreasonable to believe in a creator God. The only way it could is if what you really mean is that it is unreasonable not to believe in a creator God. So, this most recent excuse for not being willing to participate just doesn’t hold water.

Here’s my guess. Thinking about the existence of a an objective reality that you can’t personally access makes you feel uncomfortable in some way. If that’s true, maybe hold the thought experiment in your mind and sit with the discomfort. Be curious about it. Don’t rush to find excuses not to think about it.

As for this conversation I’m stepping off. When you start using emotionally loaded terms to describe something you’ve already admitted you don’t understand, I see no potential for productive communication.

Take care. Maybe we’ll make more progress next time.

[MG 2.0]

Maybe we’ll make more progress next time.

Sharing of ideas and reasons for positions is progress in understanding various ways of approaching the world and realizing that even though we’re in the same room we are going to see things differently. I appreciate the fact that you have a particular world view and that you would consider it to be ‘progress’ to have me accept that your particular version of reality is correct.

Religionists do it also.

I think that as a rule religionists and non religionists are going to pretty much talk past each other. But I think, be that as it may, it is a good thing to try and gain understanding and appreciation for the ‘other’ and what makes them tick.

This has always been an interest of mine. Thanks for the conversation.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Res Ipsa,
Sometime, maybe on a new thread, I would be interested in your thoughts in regards to my inquiries concerning free will.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The movies my pop into my head and I can make a list of them. That’s memory. If I’m asked to name the top five movies from my list as being my favorites, that’s free will.

I'm talking about something different, please follow with my example and don't change it. The scenario is not "choose 5 movies from the ones you recall." The scenario is, "what is the first movie that pops into your head when I ask you to name one?"

Lets change it and make it the first Asian person that pops into your head. You likely don't have a list of your favorite Asian people, so it sidesteps you thinking this is about choosing your favorite.

What Asian person's name popped into your head? How did you choose that name, and not some other name? If you chose that name deliberately, what name were you thinking of before the first name popped into your head?

Do you see the issue? There can't, by definition, be a list of names you are choosing before a name pops into your head. Because the name popping into your head precedes conscious choice.

There are experiments with functional MRIs which even demonstrate this empirically. The MRI machine can see them settle on a choice before the conscious/higher reasoning part of the brain is even aware of it.

Recently, we demonstrated using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that the outcome of free decisions can be decoded from brain activity several seconds before reaching conscious awareness. Activity patterns in anterior frontopolar cortex (BA 10) were temporally the first to carry intention-related information and thus a candidate region for the unconscious generation of free decisions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124546

I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve read some of that research. But the way I see it, you’re describing the precursors to ‘remembering’, not the underlying nature of free will.

Free will is, by in large, a separate matter in some respects.

Regards,
MG

[doubtingthomas]

I would be interested, however, in understanding why drumdude, yourself, and others seem to have a problem with free will. Is there a correlation between having somewhat of an antipathy towards free will and being a non religionist?

Do calvinists believe in free will?

Just because something appears to possess free will doesn't necessarily mean it actually does. Do you agree?

[drumdude]

I'm talking about something different, please follow with my example and don't change it. The scenario is not "choose 5 movies from the ones you recall." The scenario is, "what is the first movie that pops into your head when I ask you to name one?"

Lets change it and make it the first Asian person that pops into your head. You likely don't have a list of your favorite Asian people, so it sidesteps you thinking this is about choosing your favorite.

What Asian person's name popped into your head? How did you choose that name, and not some other name? If you chose that name deliberately, what name were you thinking of before the first name popped into your head?

Do you see the issue? There can't, by definition, be a list of names you are choosing before a name pops into your head. Because the name popping into your head precedes conscious choice.

There are experiments with functional MRIs which even demonstrate this empirically. The MRI machine can see them settle on a choice before the conscious/higher reasoning part of the brain is even aware of it.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124546

I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve read some of that research. But the way I see it, you’re describing the precursors to ‘remembering’, not the underlying nature of free will.

Free will is, by in large, a separate matter in some respects.

Regards,
MG

If you think of all the scenarios where you've chosen between two equally desirable choices, let's say between two items on a menu at a restaurant- and you make a split second decision- you should be able to feel that it's the same as "precursors to remembering."

The way that you settle on a decision is the same way that you think remembering works. It seems like you agree with me that there are many elements that your mind doesn't control via this concept of free will. You just have a sacred space that you would like this not to apply to. You asked why we want free will to not exist - I think you have a larger issue of wanting free will to exist in spite of good evidence and thought experiments which suggest otherwise.

[Rivendale]

I would be interested, however, in understanding why drumdude, yourself, and others seem to have a problem with free will. Is there a correlation between having somewhat of an antipathy towards free will and being a non religionist?

Do calvinists believe in free will?

Just because something appears to possess free will doesn't necessarily mean it actually does. Do you agree?

We are free to to do we want but are not free to choose what we want.