Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Perhaps no true free will. But a choice is available. The consequences of the choices make them cost…
*snip

Good post. Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Regards,
MG

Thanks

[MG 2.0]

I’m still curious. Why is it that non religionists tend towards seeing the world through the lens of no free will?

I’ve brought this up a number of times now and I don’t think I’ve seen a response.

Regards,
MG

There may be a certain amount of discomfort, although I don’t know that for a fact, in divulging reasons for a lack of belief/confidence in free will. Would this answer produced by Pi A.I. dovetail or come close to why many (I assume…I could be wrong) on this board might be either antagonistic or apathetic towards the idea of free will?

Non-religionists, particularly those who identify as materialists or physicalists, often lean towards determinism or the belief that there is no free will because their worldview is grounded in the idea that everything in the universe, including human thought and behavior, can be explained by physical laws and processes.

Here are some reasons why this perspective might lead them to question the existence of free will:

1. Materialist view: If the universe is made up solely of matter and energy, and everything operates according to physical laws, then there may be no room for a separate, non-physical entity like free will.

2. Neuroscience: Many non-religionists look to neuroscience to explain human behavior. If our thoughts and actions are just the result of chemical reactions in the brain, then it can be argued that free will is an illusion.

3. Deterministic view: Some non-religionists believe that the future is already determined by the past, and that our actions are just the result of a long chain of cause and effect.

If the shoe does fit it would seem as there should be no reason to not put it on.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I'm a female MG.

Oops! My bad. Thanks for letting me know.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

You're throwing out an A.I. wall of text (with little or no commentary on your own) and asking people to debate it.

[MG 2.0]

You're throwing out an A.I. wall of text (with little or no commentary on your own) and asking people to debate it.

I’m finding that in some respects A.I. is providing value in accessing information that can then be used for further commentary and introspection. Up to this point I think it’s been useful for that purpose although I would disagree that I haven’t had commentary or made use of the A.I. quotes in order to elaborate on the points I’m attempting to make. I haven’t seen that anyone else has made much use or commented on the content of the source material. In many ways A.I. is more or less a game changer in locating and getting valuable input and commentary on important and not so important subjects.

I don’t see it as a “wall of text” at all.

You can choose to comment or not on the content of the material contained in the A.I. retrieval process. I find it valuable. Understandably we my not see eye to eye on this matter.

Regards,
MG

[Imwashingmypirate]

I'm a female MG.

Oops! My bad. Thanks for letting me know.

Regards,
MG

No worries.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Maybe an A.I. should become a member and post at its own will. That would be interesting. Lol. Who wants to be an A.I. (don't look shades) [whisper="sockpuppet"] where they only post and respond with A.I. responses? That would be an interesting experiment.

Edit: also, I forgot what we were talking about. I was planning to sleep.

[MG 2.0]

Maybe an A.I. should become a member and post at its own will. That would be interesting. Lol. Who wants to be an A.I. (don't look shades) [whisper="sockpuppet"] where they only post and respond with A.I. responses? That would be an interesting experiment.

Edit: also, I forgot what we were talking about. I was planning to sleep.

From Pi A.I.:

Using A.I. research to provoke discussion and commentary on message boards can be worthwhile for several reasons:

1. Generating diverse perspectives: A.I. can provide insights and perspectives that might not have been considered by human participants, leading to a richer and more diverse conversation.

2. Identifying trends and patterns: A.I. can analyze large amounts of data and identify patterns that may not be immediately apparent to humans. This can help guide the discussion and uncover new insights.

3. Encouraging engagement: A.I. can help keep the conversation going by asking questions, posing hypotheticals, or suggesting new topics for discussion. This can encourage participants to engage more deeply with the subject matter.

It is just another tool as we have discussions on various topical issues. Nothing to be fearful of or reject outright. At least in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

[Imwashingmypirate]

I’m still curious. Why is it that non religionists tend towards seeing the world through the lens of no free will?

I’ve brought this up a number of times now and I don’t think I’ve seen a response.

Regards,
MG

I didn't see this question originally.
I'm not sure how true this is. But if I imagine this is the case I could visualise the following...

From my perspective, free will is a term derived from religion, derived from the will of God. So the definition of free will resides in a religious perspective holding an element of religious meaning. Non religious people seem to repel all things religious just automatically. Lol. Kind of tongue in cheek.

The problem I find is in the definition of what free will is. It isn't entirely clear. There is a sense that free will is a gift given from God. And in religion, we are often told that we have free will, free choice, agency, whatever word you want to use but with the expectation that we use our free choice to follow the rules and fit into the rules (actually removing that free will in a way) of the religion.

So why would a person without faith in something higher not see free will? That would depend on what they think free will is.

If it is a freedom given by a deity making us above that of the animal kingdom but you don't believe in that deity then that rules that out.

If it is a series of choices in life, then would it be called free will?

I'm not sure they don't visualise free will and probably just oppose the idea because it is derived from religion. I did catch a glimpse of something but I'm struggling to pull it out of my brain.

There is also the maybe slightly more cynical element a person of no faith might have. No purpose. Choice is irrelevant in a world where the outcome of choice doesn't really matter beyond the current existence (there it is. This is what I was trying to pull out).

[Imwashingmypirate]

Maybe an A.I. should become a member and post at its own will. That would be interesting. Lol. Who wants to be an A.I. (don't look shades) [whisper="sockpuppet"] where they only post and respond with A.I. responses? That would be an interesting experiment.

Edit: also, I forgot what we were talking about. I was planning to sleep.

From Pi A.I.:

Using A.I. research to provoke discussion and commentary on message boards can be worthwhile for several reasons:

1. Generating diverse perspectives: A.I. can provide insights and perspectives that might not have been considered by human participants, leading to a richer and more diverse conversation.

2. Identifying trends and patterns: A.I. can analyze large amounts of data and identify patterns that may not be immediately apparent to humans. This can help guide the discussion and uncover new insights.

3. Encouraging engagement: A.I. can help keep the conversation going by asking questions, posing hypotheticals, or suggesting new topics for discussion. This can encourage participants to engage more deeply with the subject matter.

It is just another tool as we have discussions on various topical issues. Nothing to be fearful of or reject outright. At least in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

You aren't the only person that shares responses from A.I. to assist in conversation. But this is the first time I've personally seen someone get upset about it.