What do you believe in?

[Jbombard51]

I believe that religion, at the very least, was the earliest form of government.  It has offered protection from internal and external threats, gave a reason to the unexplainable, comfort in grief, and many other comparisons that could be TL;DR material. 

Marriage originated from religion, and religion defines it as man and woman. Ok. So our current government recognizes the religious sanctity of marriage as it should,

Whatever spectrum of LGBT you fall under, you should not try to force your beliefs onto traditional marriage as per religious beliefs, as doing so is infringing on others' beliefs.  Separation of church and state is a 2 way street -- ok. So you want to legally bind yourself to another person? Do so in another way. Let's use civil union as an example. Gay or straight, this should be an alternative option for the legal purposes which married couples benefit from. This should be recognized by the government as a parallel to marriage in all legal regards.

There, that was easy.

[Piotr]

I believe that free will exists in the same domain as fractals.

I.e. we may pretend we understand gravity interactions but that doesn't stop us from not having a clue where the third one is

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Newtonian Physics we can very accurately describe what gravity does and measure it very precisely.  Even if we don't understand "How gravity works" we have a very good idea about "What gravity does".

Not at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

[Coffee Vampire]

"Let's back away from the homosexual argument"

...after my rant on homosexual marriage.

[Kareason]

Simply put, if you understand the central nervous system (CNS)

Well. We don't

Perhaps not completely, but how about the action of neurons and action potential?

I wouldn't go there as you will stop at quantum level where determinism dies horrible death. But more so because it's like claiming that you understand V12s because you have seen a screw.

So, nobody understands anything because of reductionist theory?  I've seen more than just a screw, I'm a Biomedical Engineer.  You don't have to know particle physics to understand that when you flick a switch, your light bulb turns on, but it helps.  By your argument nobody in the field of chemistry knows anything.  Nobody in the field of medicine knows anything because they don't completely understand the workings of the smallest parts of their field.

But I DO think that if free will exists at all, that it does live in the domain of quantum theory.  Mainly because that's one of the stones unturned by science.

Oh, and when I'm referring to determinism, I'm referring to a closed system that is strictly governed by rules, even those we may not understand.  I'm not saying (necessarily) that the universe is predictable by an omniscient observer.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Jester. I hold a MS in Microbiology and a BS in Histology.

[BlackJester]

...
Now for you homosexuality advocates. You have no right to the term marriage. It is a religious term adopted by the masses and used to refer to any union between consenting adults. Well it's not it describes a vow/ union between a man and a woman.
Now on that note everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning that consenting adults should have the ability to civil union under the law (government). If they want to be happy/ unhappy legally together then more power to them. The first admendment allows for this to take place because of seperation of church and state and does not legally allow the law (government) to deny two people to have a legal union because of a single word.

I like the idea of separating marriage from government recognized civil union.  Except to clarify that "marriage is a vow/union between people as recognized by church/religion X".  We should allow churches to define who they allow to marry.  If Church A says "we only allow 1 man and 1 woman" fine, if church B says "we only recognize 1 man and 1 man" that's their religious prerogative and should be accepted as well.
Otherwise, I'm with you.  Too bad there is little separation of church and state in most places, since the state is voted in by the religious.

[BlackJester]

Not at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

#badanalogy Guilty as charged.  But I don't think defeating my analogy defeats my point.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Jester. I hold a MS in Microbiology and a BS in Histology.

Thank you.

The following has both religious and philosophical implications, so I think it may have a home here:

You raise your arm.  What happened, biologically?
The muscles in your shoulder and arm contracted.  What made that happen?
They were stimulated by the nerve endings innervating them.  What made that happen?
They received stimuli from nerves in your spine.  What triggered that?
Stimuli - reaction, Stimuli - reaction........
But what made the first one fire?  At what point did it go from an original pure thought (action) in your mind to a series of neural reactions leading to motion (reaction)?

I only see two options:
a) Consciousness is part of the body, and there are no biological actions.  All neurons are reacting to stimuli and don't fire without reacting a potential (there may be the odd "misfire", but I don't think we can consider that "a thought", more of a hiccough.)  So, we are all ultimately reacting and do not act.

b)  Consciousness exists separately from the body.  It is not bound by the laws of the physical universe and so is free to choose one action over another.  It acts upon the biological stuff, triggering the first, or many, neural impulses required for action.  The body responds and the arm is lifted.

My question is, if the latter, how?  If the consciousness can manipulate the physical world, why not other things in our world?  Why can't my consciousness move some electrons in my iPhone to make calls?  (i can't, I've tried. )  Or maybe I just need more practice. 

[Dudecore]

Free will is similar to the immortal soul. Both of them need to exist preceding our need for both of them.

To put it simply, if all humans are born with an immortal soul that creates who we are, and lives on after were dead, then how biologically can such a thing exist. Do species preceeding us also have immortal souls? Do animals have souls/freewill?

What do any of these things act like without this extra attribute. What would someone without a soul/freewill act like?

[Dudecore]

How can one claim to have freewill given how much you can't actually control. Using David Hume's is-ought argument, how can anyone claim that they COULD have done something different, given what actually occurred?

Freewill only exists given your feeling (meaning the general you) that you are the true author of your own thoughts and intentions. But genetic factors, upbringing, social factors and luck make up a gigantic portion of who you actually are. I could ask "how come you're not middle-aged, balding, and bankrupted by the death of a spouse?" and in which way can you attribute freewill choices to that? (lifted from Sam Harris' "Freewill")

[BlackJester]

How can one claim to have freewill given how much you can't actually control. Using David Hume's is-ought argument, how can anyone claim that they COULD have done something different, given what actually occurred?

Freewill only exists given your feeling (meaning the general you) that you are the true author of your own thoughts and intentions. But genetic factors, upbringing, social factors and luck make up a gigantic portion of who you actually are. I could ask "how come you're not middle-aged, balding, and bankrupted by the death of a spouse?" and in which way can you attribute freewill choices to that? (lifted from Sam Harris' "Freewill")

I SO gotta read Harris!

[Dudecore]

Very good book, and an extremely quick read. About 300 pages or so. Amazon has it for cheap. It's like a long essay.

"on being certain" by Robert burton is another great read. It's concerning lapses in reason based on what we know about neuroscience.

[BlackJester]

I believe that free will exists in the same domain as fractals.

I.e. we may pretend we understand gravity interactions but that doesn't stop us from not having a clue where the third one is

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Newtonian Physics we can very accurately describe what gravity does and measure it very precisely.  Even if we don't understand "How gravity works" we have a very good idea about "What gravity does".

Not at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

Just read this, and I'm not sure what your argument is?  It looks as though the problem, though complex, has a solution.

[Coffee Vampire]

How can one claim to have freewill given how much you can't actually control. Using David Hume's is-ought argument, how can anyone claim that they COULD have done something different, given what actually occurred?

Freewill only exists given your feeling (meaning the general you) that you are the true author of your own thoughts and intentions. But genetic factors, upbringing, social factors and luck make up a gigantic portion of who you actually are. I could ask "how come you're not middle-aged, balding, and bankrupted by the death of a spouse?" and in which way can you attribute freewill choices to that? (lifted from Sam Harris' "Freewill")

Interesting take. It makes me think of the question: What is a criminal? It makes you rethink death sentances...or even prison. If most of why people do things is not under their control, should they even be punished?

Free will is a complicated subject and a vey interesting one.

I don't ever care about it. I live my life as if I can control what I do. If someone else is pulling the strings, whatever. It doesn't matter to me. Yet the funny thing is that I love to think about it.

I would make a thread about it but my upbringing is preventing me. jester?

[BlackJester]

Interesting take. It makes me think of the question: What is a criminal? It makes you rethink death sentances...or even prison. If most of why people do things is not under their control, should they even be punished?

Free will is a complicated subject and a vey interesting one.

I don't ever care about it. I live my life as if I can control what I do. If someone else is pulling the strings, whatever. It doesn't matter to me. Yet the funny thing is that I love to think about it.

I would make a thread about it but my upbringing is preventing me. jester?

Criminals should be prevented from criminal acts.  There is a social imperative to protect it's members, it's behavioral and seen all over the animal kingdom, no "soul" required.  Through social evolution, we recognize certain acts as harmful to the whole, and so we convey that message by discouraging them and trying to prevent them from reoccurring.  Prison isn't always a good deterrent, not everyone in jail is guilty, the system has flaws, because it is operated by flawed humans.  But it's what we got.

The beauty of it is, you can easily live your life without questioning free will and be happy.  It's just a**holes like me who like to question: "Am I truly happy, or am I just experiencing happy inducing chemicals?  Who/what am I?"
Just do what you feel in your heart to be right and true and you should, for the most part, be fine.

[BlackJester]

I would make a thread about it but my upbringing is preventing me. jester?

Sorry, make a thread about what?  What's stopping you?  Are you not a "free agent of your desires"? 

[Coffee Vampire]

A thread about free will. And yes my upbringing and luck just don't seem to be letting me make a thread about it! (and maybe a bit of laziness )