The experiment
We are now in the world of ideas, even if the proposed experiment has roots in reality and can be replicated.
The subject of the experiment is the person John Doe: JD.
Let’s imagine JD running on a path, a road new, unknown.
JD can go only forward and the path is built in such way that everything looks symmetrically and the same around.
An idea would be a narrow tunnel, corridor in which suddenly JD realizes that a big threat is coming from behind. JD has no means (power, weapons) to fight back but if runs then can be a bit faster than the threat and have chances to escape.
Suddenly in front JD sees that the path splits in two.
JD checks for short time and everything seems identical; the both new paths look symmetrically and the same.
JD has no time to go on one to check it and then to come back on the other one.
Now JD has a dilemma: left or right?
When the threat is closer than what JD estimate is a safety distance then JD choose one path and runs further.
I think in reality there are people that may stay in front of that split in indecision state, but I also believe that they are a minority and most of the people will choose left or right.
We also know that are not in reality really identical things/paths if we look close enough, sometimes with instruments – but JD here has no instruments, is in hurry and for his level of perception and analysis there is no chance to make any difference between left and right side.
My question is: what makes JD to choose left or right?
The subject of the experiment is the person John Doe: JD.
Let’s imagine JD running on a path, a road new, unknown.
JD can go only forward and the path is built in such way that everything looks symmetrically and the same around.
An idea would be a narrow tunnel, corridor in which suddenly JD realizes that a big threat is coming from behind. JD has no means (power, weapons) to fight back but if runs then can be a bit faster than the threat and have chances to escape.
Suddenly in front JD sees that the path splits in two.
JD checks for short time and everything seems identical; the both new paths look symmetrically and the same.
JD has no time to go on one to check it and then to come back on the other one.
Now JD has a dilemma: left or right?
When the threat is closer than what JD estimate is a safety distance then JD choose one path and runs further.
I think in reality there are people that may stay in front of that split in indecision state, but I also believe that they are a minority and most of the people will choose left or right.
We also know that are not in reality really identical things/paths if we look close enough, sometimes with instruments – but JD here has no instruments, is in hurry and for his level of perception and analysis there is no chance to make any difference between left and right side.
My question is: what makes JD to choose left or right?
Plantwiz
Left
Flipping a coin? You have included no criteria, even God for that matter, on which JD is to make a decision. Looks like a 50-50 hope he picks the right path.
When making decisions and the two alternatives look the same, choose one and go with it - it won't be any worse than the other, given what you know about the choices.
I say he'll go in the direction that he is used to driving on the side of the road of. So like if he's British he'll go left. If he's American he'll go right. On the other hand if he's a track runner, I say he goes left overruling the above.
what makes JD to choose left or right?
I suppose it's the sum total of every experience JD has ever had and JD's physical makeup (e.g., genetics) and possibly even a bit of random chance (quantum events).
Much of what we do as a matter of exploring our perceptions is just like this dilemma. If you look at a picture, you will "choose" some point where your eyes will look first, then second, then third, etc. It's effectively never a conscious decision. Your eyes go wherever your eyes go. There are likely to be patterns that show up if many people are shown the same picture. Various pictures have features that tend to guide our attention, but it'd be interesting to see what symmetrical pictures do for us.
I feel as if I would go left. I have no idea why; that just seems to be what would happen when I think about it. I'm naturally right-handed.
Tom
I suppose it's the sum total of every experience JD has ever had and JD's physical makeup (e.g., genetics) and possibly even a bit of random chance (quantum events).
Much of what we do as a matter of exploring our perceptions is just like this dilemma. If you look at a picture, you will "choose" some point where your eyes will look first, then second, then third, etc. It's effectively never a conscious decision. Your eyes go wherever your eyes go. There are likely to be patterns that show up if many people are shown the same picture. Various pictures have features that tend to guide our attention, but it'd be interesting to see what symmetrical pictures do for us.
I feel as if I would go left. I have no idea why; that just seems to be what would happen when I think about it. I'm naturally right-handed.
Tom
ASKER
The fact that JD choose left or right is not important for the experiment.
Important is the cause that makes him take the decision.
The idea presented here is an old idea that I had in the end of a long post with hundreds of comments about “free will”. At that time was not the moment to continue.
So, when JD takes the decision is in any way his will involved?
Is everything “predestination” or “free will” is involved?
Important is the cause that makes him take the decision.
The idea presented here is an old idea that I had in the end of a long post with hundreds of comments about “free will”. At that time was not the moment to continue.
So, when JD takes the decision is in any way his will involved?
Is everything “predestination” or “free will” is involved?
No nothing is predestined. It is free will, but with possible psychological factors involved. Like if he loses his balance and starts to lean right because of it which leads him toward the right path, I highly doubt he's going to stop to go left instead.
I think CCSOFlag has it right.
If it were me I'd try to see where the path led to. It would be a very brief assessment, and probably wouldn't reveal much. If there were no obvious indication as to which path to take, then it would come down to taking that path which seemed nearer, or easier. For example, my right-handedness might play a part in a natural preference, or something like CCSOFlag said. I think it would be only a semi-conscious decision, with instincts driving me on.
If it were me I'd try to see where the path led to. It would be a very brief assessment, and probably wouldn't reveal much. If there were no obvious indication as to which path to take, then it would come down to taking that path which seemed nearer, or easier. For example, my right-handedness might play a part in a natural preference, or something like CCSOFlag said. I think it would be only a semi-conscious decision, with instincts driving me on.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Can we define "free will"?
ASKER
I ask the above question because some dictionaries define it as “the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention” and the suggestion above indicate that is always a cause, even unknown (random, quantum world, subconscious psychological) that determine JD choice – somehow as JD is never free to do it on his own will.
How free is the free will?
Up to what extent can we say that JD had chosen and not an influence pushed, forced him in an unknown way for him (to choose left or right)?
How free is the free will?
Up to what extent can we say that JD had chosen and not an influence pushed, forced him in an unknown way for him (to choose left or right)?
Viki
"Wrath of Kahn" in his post 37276775 said the same thing with his "mental flip of the coin".
This is the crux of the matter I think.
We don't know if there can be such a thing as pure, uncaused free will. It seems to me that any choice we make is the result of some kind of process. Just think how complex the brain is, and how much of its activity takes place outisde the field of consciousness. Not just the brain, but the body too. There are all kinds of processes going on all the time, but we are not conscious of the origins or details of those processes. All we know is what happens in the limited field of our consciousess, which is dominated by the ego, the sense of "I". I am this, I am that, I think this, I like that...I make choices. But this "I" is not the originator of processes. For example, ideas occur spontaneously, all the time. When we are focussed on our ideas, and a good one comes up, we say "I have an idea" or "it's my idea" as if it were the "I" that were responsible for the idea. What really happened was the idea bubbled up from the depths of the unconscious and appeared in consciousness.
When we talk about free will, we are talking about the "I" being the chooser, as if the "I" has free will.
So we have this tendancy to put everyhting down to "I", yet the processes that lead to a choice take place largely outside the field of consciousness so I don't see how we can actually have free will. I think we imagine we have free will because we imagine that "I" is the doer.
Can we define "free will"?
I ask the above question because some dictionaries define it as “the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”
I ask the above question because some dictionaries define it as “the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”
"Wrath of Kahn" in his post 37276775 said the same thing with his "mental flip of the coin".
...and the suggestion above indicate that is always a cause, even unknown (random, quantum world, subconscious psychological) that determine JD choice – somehow as JD is never free to do it on his own will.
How free is the free will?
How free is the free will?
This is the crux of the matter I think.
We don't know if there can be such a thing as pure, uncaused free will. It seems to me that any choice we make is the result of some kind of process. Just think how complex the brain is, and how much of its activity takes place outisde the field of consciousness. Not just the brain, but the body too. There are all kinds of processes going on all the time, but we are not conscious of the origins or details of those processes. All we know is what happens in the limited field of our consciousess, which is dominated by the ego, the sense of "I". I am this, I am that, I think this, I like that...I make choices. But this "I" is not the originator of processes. For example, ideas occur spontaneously, all the time. When we are focussed on our ideas, and a good one comes up, we say "I have an idea" or "it's my idea" as if it were the "I" that were responsible for the idea. What really happened was the idea bubbled up from the depths of the unconscious and appeared in consciousness.
When we talk about free will, we are talking about the "I" being the chooser, as if the "I" has free will.
So we have this tendancy to put everyhting down to "I", yet the processes that lead to a choice take place largely outside the field of consciousness so I don't see how we can actually have free will. I think we imagine we have free will because we imagine that "I" is the doer.
Interesting empircal studies have been made regarding free will. Thought the studies were quite crude, they did suggest that a proposed action of free will had already begun a split second before the person had decided to do it. I need to try to dig out information about this but I have definitelt heard about these studies from several sources. I'll post back with some links when I have them.
Remember that also that when we talk of quantum physics, we are talking about empirical science - that is certain. But what are we talking about when we talk of free will? Usually, we are talking about something subjective. It's important to be aware of the distinction.
Einstein always believed that there was an underlying reality to qunatum physics that could be imagined or experienced in some way. Bohr didn't. Bohr was strictly empirical in his approach, looking strictly at things from the outside. But Einstein wanted to vsiualise it too. What if that inner experience of quantum has the flip of the coin, the very experience of free will itself?
Remember that also that when we talk of quantum physics, we are talking about empirical science - that is certain. But what are we talking about when we talk of free will? Usually, we are talking about something subjective. It's important to be aware of the distinction.
Einstein always believed that there was an underlying reality to qunatum physics that could be imagined or experienced in some way. Bohr didn't. Bohr was strictly empirical in his approach, looking strictly at things from the outside. But Einstein wanted to vsiualise it too. What if that inner experience of quantum has the flip of the coin, the very experience of free will itself?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
You can say that quantum events are the "cause" of a choice...
You can say that, but I won't. I'm not anywhere close to giving up my free will. I won't say much other than we can't know as long as we don't understand such things.
That might change if we ever get to the point of understanding all of the quantum nonsense that seems to happen. Then maybe we will know. And maybe not. Something new and even less comprehensible might replace it.
We could propose that dark matter is the awareness field that arises around the total of living things in galaxies. It's kind of meaningless to do so, though. We simply don't know what it is and have no understanding of how it is connected to our perceptions of reality. Free will is similar. We simply don't know what it is.
Definitions can be given, but they don't help us know what it is nor if it exists.
“the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”
When I read that, I don't know any more of what free will is. To me, it's merely a description that helps us to continue talking about the same idea among us. I don't see how it helps us in recognizing if any choice is from free will or predestination (or randomness from a lower level of reality). They will all look the same to us.
Tom
You can say that, but I won't. I'm not anywhere close to giving up my free will. I won't say much other than we can't know as long as we don't understand such things.
That might change if we ever get to the point of understanding all of the quantum nonsense that seems to happen. Then maybe we will know. And maybe not. Something new and even less comprehensible might replace it.
We could propose that dark matter is the awareness field that arises around the total of living things in galaxies. It's kind of meaningless to do so, though. We simply don't know what it is and have no understanding of how it is connected to our perceptions of reality. Free will is similar. We simply don't know what it is.
Definitions can be given, but they don't help us know what it is nor if it exists.
“the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”
When I read that, I don't know any more of what free will is. To me, it's merely a description that helps us to continue talking about the same idea among us. I don't see how it helps us in recognizing if any choice is from free will or predestination (or randomness from a lower level of reality). They will all look the same to us.
Tom
Is everything “predestination” or “free will” is involved?
and
Can we define "free will"?
Depends.
I think you are correct that a definition of "Free Will" should first be defined to properly address your original question.
But how can one know if we are freely making choices based on a 'free will' basis? Perhaps we are making choices based on the which of the options is not the least desirable potential results.
Are our lives scripted?
Do we actually live?
Do we only 'think' we have 'free will' but our choices are predetermined to lead us into avoiding the choice that is least desirable?
Left.
Tails.
Whichever, I will stand with left simply because the direction doesn't truly matter.
I think the experiments I refered too earlier must have been those originally carried out by Libet in the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
I don't know what research has been carried out in this field since, but Libet is at least one attempt to study empirically an action of free will, and the result suggested what philosophers have been saying for a logn time - that free will is an illusion.
I don't know what research has been carried out in this field since, but Libet is at least one attempt to study empirically an action of free will, and the result suggested what philosophers have been saying for a logn time - that free will is an illusion.
ASKER
I found some ideas from another old thread:
1) The present experiment is about to imagine an environment where the idea of possible free will exists or not from perspective of choice/decision in case of equal chances without history of similar experiences.
2) To simplify the definition and understanding of the “free will” in the same way for everyone I propose to think like that: ““Free will” is that characteristic/aspect of the consciousness that make you responsible (put you in charge) of your decisions (actions) no matter what influences are (external, random, quantum world, subconscious psychological…) as long as the person is not aware of them”.
3) The idea of the above definition is: seems that always is something that influences JD, up to uncontrollable quantum events. Then, in a given environment based on his personality, past experiences, his limited knowledge of what is reality (awareness) JD take a decision. As long as JD feels/thinks “free” “inside” him (mind, feelings, body) then we consider it “free will” and his own decision.
4) After all, if we consider that all the time there is an influence that makes JD to choose/take a decision we can go to the limit in opposite direction: JD is never responsible of anything. How does that sound? Is not this what many lawyers use in the Court what free some criminals?
1) The present experiment is about to imagine an environment where the idea of possible free will exists or not from perspective of choice/decision in case of equal chances without history of similar experiences.
2) To simplify the definition and understanding of the “free will” in the same way for everyone I propose to think like that: ““Free will” is that characteristic/aspect of the consciousness that make you responsible (put you in charge) of your decisions (actions) no matter what influences are (external, random, quantum world, subconscious psychological…) as long as the person is not aware of them”.
3) The idea of the above definition is: seems that always is something that influences JD, up to uncontrollable quantum events. Then, in a given environment based on his personality, past experiences, his limited knowledge of what is reality (awareness) JD take a decision. As long as JD feels/thinks “free” “inside” him (mind, feelings, body) then we consider it “free will” and his own decision.
4) After all, if we consider that all the time there is an influence that makes JD to choose/take a decision we can go to the limit in opposite direction: JD is never responsible of anything. How does that sound? Is not this what many lawyers use in the Court what free some criminals?
2) To simplify the definition and understanding of the “free will” in the same way for everyone I propose to think like that: ““Free will” is that characteristic/aspect of the consciousness that make you responsible (put you in charge) of your decisions (actions) no matter what influences are (external, random, quantum world, subconscious psychological…) as long as the person is not aware of them”.
Who or what is the "you" or "I" in charge? Can we define it?
As long as JD feels/thinks “free” “inside” him (mind, feelings, body) then we consider it “free will” and his own decision.
Yes.
After all, if we consider that all the time there is an influence that makes JD to choose/take a decision we can go to the limit in opposite direction: JD is never responsible of anything. How does that sound? Is not this what many lawyers use in the Court what free some criminals?
We have knowledge of right and wrong. Suppose there is no free will and a person acts against this knowledge. Such action would indicate that there is something wrong with the functioning of that person, and therefore, society needs to do something about him/her.
I wonder if we could use the analogy of a CPU? Information is fed into it from various sources, and information is passed out from it to various destinations. If we feed in correct information, and a wrong result comes out, then we can blame the processor. It doesn't mean that the processor is evil, or has a will of it's own. But it is still the culprit and needs to be dealt with. Whether the processor is aware of a portion of it's actions, or not - it does not matter.
ASKER
"Who or what is the "you" or "I" in charge? Can we define it?"
Let's keep it simple:
- considering that people never lie. when an social event happened and the authorities ask: who did that?, then somebody answer "I", no matter if is wrong (criminal action) or good (Nobel prize, invention)
Let's keep it simple:
- considering that people never lie. when an social event happened and the authorities ask: who did that?, then somebody answer "I", no matter if is wrong (criminal action) or good (Nobel prize, invention)
In the case of such a social event like that, it is simple. "I" means the person, this body. This allows us to differentiate between one person and another. THIS person, not THAT person. Is that really helpful if we are trying to define free will? It's like saying your body decides things. It won't do.
The thing is, if you are discussing the nature of free will, you can't keep it simple. You have to delve into the meaning of the words you are using. You made a good definition of free will above - you said "“Free will” is that characteristic/aspect of the consciousness that make you responsible (put you in charge) of your decisions (actions) no matter what influences are (external, random, quantum world, subconscious psychological…) as long as the person is not aware of them”.
Now, I'm just asking who this "you" is who is in charge. Which part of the person? The brain? The mind? The thoughts? The Ego? Or something else? Can you put your finger on it?
The thing is, if you are discussing the nature of free will, you can't keep it simple. You have to delve into the meaning of the words you are using. You made a good definition of free will above - you said "“Free will” is that characteristic/aspect of the consciousness that make you responsible (put you in charge) of your decisions (actions) no matter what influences are (external, random, quantum world, subconscious psychological…) as long as the person is not aware of them”.
Now, I'm just asking who this "you" is who is in charge. Which part of the person? The brain? The mind? The thoughts? The Ego? Or something else? Can you put your finger on it?
ASKER
Does it really matters to go into details as long as that part "you" is attached to the body that we can identify?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I have a problem with the above conclusion.
I do not say that is necessary wrong logic behind, but maybe my definition is wrong.
I am a bit confused and thinking with loud voice I am about to say: somebody turn the light on!
The confusion comes from the fact that I have arguments pro/cons to your conclusion.
First, when I said:
“Does it really matter to go into details as long as that part "you" is attached to the body that we can identify?”
I had in mind a unity of person: body, mind, feelings, consciousness and beyond. All of them together define that person.
Is obviously that deciding things do not belong to the body.
Then you ask who is that “I“who decides.
Now you remember me of East yogi thinking: they meditate somewhere in a cave to find enlightenment and one of the questions on which they meditate is: who am I? Then they answer themselves: I am not the body, I am not the feelings, I am not the mind (the difficult one)….and after long time (seems who is lucky) they find the peace of mind and realize they are the Great Self - part and united with the Absolute (God). Then, they tell us that we have to experience that in order to understand and the words cannot contain it. In few words, their conclusion is: part of Absolute.
From Biblical point of view:
Genesis 2:7
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
So, again we have “something” in us which is coming from God and that is the Spirit from God.
Additional to that there is our soul (consciousness, mind and feelings – our psychic) shaped by our experiences and all together form our personality.
When you say “I” - you do not differentiate between all these, they are together.
Scientific, when you say “I” – you may tell me what is it, but for me is “all elements” of your personality together.
I also understand the part with the need to split and differentiate in order to know who/which part of our personality is choosing/ deciding in the end.
Can be our feelings? Or only our mind?...
The experiment from Wikipedia indicates that delay in measuring the EEG signals against the people actions and put a question mark.
Well, there are some explanations: we have reflexes for things that we learn and repeat.
Additional, why do we have to put an equal sign between our mind and our brain? We do not have to.
Let’s imagine the mind as the operational system, or general speaking the software. The brain is the hardware. The only thing here is the relation between brain and mind (interactive – neurons synapses changing, so hardware changes depending by software) related with the rest that makes us a whole “I”. Just to point to the fact that a memory event has usually attached also a feeling.
I understand in such way:
- there are decisions that we take consciously – like you give “focus” to a window in a multitasking system.
- and there are decisions in “background”, our co-processor takes care of that – and these perhaps are not yet measurable in the way how experiments from Wikipedia were described.
So, when you take a decision, that “I” goes usually trough your mind (that makes some calculations pro/cons for the rest of the parts that is aware of as part of “I “and estimate/balance the consequences).
The above rule, I imagine, does not apply when the results are known or estimated to be known without any new effects/impact over what minds sees as “I”.
One idea to find the answer to the main question in the main subject would be to define the conditions prior choosing moment for JD in such way that everybody from here who gives an answer that points to an influence to include that influence in a neutral state. Logic like: “everything that you say will be used against you” or “the negation of all philosophy is a philosophy”
In other words, the participants will help to create the experiment, the initial considerations and then may remain only that “I” alone to be identified.
Well, for such idea seems that we have to stop at unpredictable quantum events.
My problem is with the statement: “If we believe we have free will, then we have free will.”
I have some arguments to sustain that, but now I would like to focus on the opposite direction.
A “thing” you have or not – that is my problem. The way how the statement sounds remember me of some paradoxes, as for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Could you explain in details next paragraph:
“In the first case, this witness would be a passive observer which somehow believed it were controlling things but in fact wasn't; and in the second case, this witness would be able to initiate processes and to choose things independantly of all causes and conditions.”
Why do you need that “witness”?
We can say that in our mind each one has a different reality and that is what makes the paradox above a paradox – there is not an absolute reality, but only the one from our mind.
But we do not live only in our mind. The mind is connected with the rest otherwise we would be as an autistic.
So, in 3D when an event happened, just happened no matter if we are or not witness to that.
Can we say that also about the events from our psychic, as “free will”? Or: not because a “witness” is needed and is not present?
I do not say that is necessary wrong logic behind, but maybe my definition is wrong.
I am a bit confused and thinking with loud voice I am about to say: somebody turn the light on!
The confusion comes from the fact that I have arguments pro/cons to your conclusion.
First, when I said:
“Does it really matter to go into details as long as that part "you" is attached to the body that we can identify?”
I had in mind a unity of person: body, mind, feelings, consciousness and beyond. All of them together define that person.
Is obviously that deciding things do not belong to the body.
Then you ask who is that “I“who decides.
Now you remember me of East yogi thinking: they meditate somewhere in a cave to find enlightenment and one of the questions on which they meditate is: who am I? Then they answer themselves: I am not the body, I am not the feelings, I am not the mind (the difficult one)….and after long time (seems who is lucky) they find the peace of mind and realize they are the Great Self - part and united with the Absolute (God). Then, they tell us that we have to experience that in order to understand and the words cannot contain it. In few words, their conclusion is: part of Absolute.
From Biblical point of view:
Genesis 2:7
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
So, again we have “something” in us which is coming from God and that is the Spirit from God.
Additional to that there is our soul (consciousness, mind and feelings – our psychic) shaped by our experiences and all together form our personality.
When you say “I” - you do not differentiate between all these, they are together.
Scientific, when you say “I” – you may tell me what is it, but for me is “all elements” of your personality together.
I also understand the part with the need to split and differentiate in order to know who/which part of our personality is choosing/ deciding in the end.
Can be our feelings? Or only our mind?...
The experiment from Wikipedia indicates that delay in measuring the EEG signals against the people actions and put a question mark.
Well, there are some explanations: we have reflexes for things that we learn and repeat.
Additional, why do we have to put an equal sign between our mind and our brain? We do not have to.
Let’s imagine the mind as the operational system, or general speaking the software. The brain is the hardware. The only thing here is the relation between brain and mind (interactive – neurons synapses changing, so hardware changes depending by software) related with the rest that makes us a whole “I”. Just to point to the fact that a memory event has usually attached also a feeling.
I understand in such way:
- there are decisions that we take consciously – like you give “focus” to a window in a multitasking system.
- and there are decisions in “background”, our co-processor takes care of that – and these perhaps are not yet measurable in the way how experiments from Wikipedia were described.
So, when you take a decision, that “I” goes usually trough your mind (that makes some calculations pro/cons for the rest of the parts that is aware of as part of “I “and estimate/balance the consequences).
The above rule, I imagine, does not apply when the results are known or estimated to be known without any new effects/impact over what minds sees as “I”.
One idea to find the answer to the main question in the main subject would be to define the conditions prior choosing moment for JD in such way that everybody from here who gives an answer that points to an influence to include that influence in a neutral state. Logic like: “everything that you say will be used against you” or “the negation of all philosophy is a philosophy”
In other words, the participants will help to create the experiment, the initial considerations and then may remain only that “I” alone to be identified.
Well, for such idea seems that we have to stop at unpredictable quantum events.
My problem is with the statement: “If we believe we have free will, then we have free will.”
I have some arguments to sustain that, but now I would like to focus on the opposite direction.
A “thing” you have or not – that is my problem. The way how the statement sounds remember me of some paradoxes, as for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Could you explain in details next paragraph:
“In the first case, this witness would be a passive observer which somehow believed it were controlling things but in fact wasn't; and in the second case, this witness would be able to initiate processes and to choose things independantly of all causes and conditions.”
Why do you need that “witness”?
We can say that in our mind each one has a different reality and that is what makes the paradox above a paradox – there is not an absolute reality, but only the one from our mind.
But we do not live only in our mind. The mind is connected with the rest otherwise we would be as an autistic.
So, in 3D when an event happened, just happened no matter if we are or not witness to that.
Can we say that also about the events from our psychic, as “free will”? Or: not because a “witness” is needed and is not present?
ASKER
On the other hand we have born reactions.
When for instance a life threat appears then we choose/decide faster than our mind think.
What part of “I” does it?
When for instance a life threat appears then we choose/decide faster than our mind think.
What part of “I” does it?
ASKER
I red a bit about “I” from psychological point of view on some pages:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28social_science%29
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201006/who-am-i
In the last page I found this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwsq_XLHLT0
Then a question came into my mind:
Are we again here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvuH8cbkuvM ?
Is like we turn in circles and no matter we discuss it ends here.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28social_science%29
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201006/who-am-i
In the last page I found this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwsq_XLHLT0
Then a question came into my mind:
Are we again here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvuH8cbkuvM ?
Is like we turn in circles and no matter we discuss it ends here.
ASKER
Based on the quantum logic then: with the “witness” that Jason210 mention above seems that we have the same problem as Heisenberg had: with his presence, the witness may influence JD “free will” and without his presence we do not know if JD has a “free will”.
I always believed in deterministic Einstein’s view, maybe because seems safe and natural to us at microscopic level. Of course quantum theory is proved real, but I am thinking like this sometimes:
- the world described by Bohr and Heisenberg at atomic level make sense when from the same dimensions, the matter interacts with matter to create experiences and finds its laws.
- the world described by Einstein, even if thinking of determinism comes from macroscopic level, can be seen as logic if consider that intelligent life can be in other dimensions, inaccessible to matter, as described in religions: the spiritual world, but not in metaphorical way.
If there is a world with intelligent beings that can exists in a dimension not detectable from our world (but the other way yes) and the structure and the laws of that world govern our material world then we can see our world as deterministic with causes in the spiritual world.
Aide the above spiritual comments, I just watched a nice documentary from discovery science that worth to be seen: Through the Wormhole - How does the Universe work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZpj3bDjfYw
I always believed in deterministic Einstein’s view, maybe because seems safe and natural to us at microscopic level. Of course quantum theory is proved real, but I am thinking like this sometimes:
- the world described by Bohr and Heisenberg at atomic level make sense when from the same dimensions, the matter interacts with matter to create experiences and finds its laws.
- the world described by Einstein, even if thinking of determinism comes from macroscopic level, can be seen as logic if consider that intelligent life can be in other dimensions, inaccessible to matter, as described in religions: the spiritual world, but not in metaphorical way.
If there is a world with intelligent beings that can exists in a dimension not detectable from our world (but the other way yes) and the structure and the laws of that world govern our material world then we can see our world as deterministic with causes in the spiritual world.
Aide the above spiritual comments, I just watched a nice documentary from discovery science that worth to be seen: Through the Wormhole - How does the Universe work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZpj3bDjfYw
Why do you need that “witness"?
Who is you? Notice how it always comes back to that. Again, its the same as the we, the I, the me, the my. Isn't that the witness?
Who is you? Notice how it always comes back to that. Again, its the same as the we, the I, the me, the my. Isn't that the witness?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
What definition of the „free will“do you consider?
If you take the one that I proposed above, then:
“ JD could choose based on past memory. (free will)
JD could choose based on an influential unseen force. (not free will)”
- then the second statement is not true.
If you consider a general “free will” – that was always discussed in different posts – then in our defined/known world, I think does not exists. Then the first statement cannot be true: the past memories and experiences shaped JD’s personality that will influence him in a certain way – so is not an “absolute” free will and never can be in such way.
It is as you would ask: what made/influenced the first man to have the first thought? Or deeper: what is the initial cause for everything? I think you can forget it – you will end in religious view: alpha and omega = God.
If you take the one that I proposed above, then:
“ JD could choose based on past memory. (free will)
JD could choose based on an influential unseen force. (not free will)”
- then the second statement is not true.
If you consider a general “free will” – that was always discussed in different posts – then in our defined/known world, I think does not exists. Then the first statement cannot be true: the past memories and experiences shaped JD’s personality that will influence him in a certain way – so is not an “absolute” free will and never can be in such way.
It is as you would ask: what made/influenced the first man to have the first thought? Or deeper: what is the initial cause for everything? I think you can forget it – you will end in religious view: alpha and omega = God.
I agree with you and the 5th paragraph of my post starting with "For the above example to be free... " has done a poor job of explaining it to everyone. It states that for it to be truely free it cannot be bound by the laws of the physical universe. 'I' would have to have an 'other worldly' 'orthogonal' 'other dimensional' 'alpha axis' component that was a creative force.
It comes down to whether you think the universe is a closed system or an open system that can have external input.
I choose one that is an open system, but that by no means makes it true, 'I' may very well be the sole product of the machinery of the universe.
I however don't find it useful in my life to believe this, so I choose not to believe it. I explain this with two possibilities below. In both I believe myself to have free will.
CLOSED SYSTEM
If I am machinery then I make this choice to believe I have free will based on my memory of how it is more helpful to someone to believe they are the controlling force in their lives than to believe they have no input in their lives. Since I have been programmed for wanting things that are selfishly good for myself I choose this. It would be ironic since this same person (me) also believes that the truth is of more value than a lie. It would be a lie because in this instance I am machinery and don't have free will.
OPEN SYSTEM
However, if the the truth is, 'I am not only machinery', then all becomes consistent because the 'truth' of the universe and that which helps me would be congruent. Namely, I do have free will and my belief that 'I' (the observer) have a controlling influence on what happens in my life are now compatible.
It comes down to whether you think the universe is a closed system or an open system that can have external input.
I choose one that is an open system, but that by no means makes it true, 'I' may very well be the sole product of the machinery of the universe.
I however don't find it useful in my life to believe this, so I choose not to believe it. I explain this with two possibilities below. In both I believe myself to have free will.
CLOSED SYSTEM
If I am machinery then I make this choice to believe I have free will based on my memory of how it is more helpful to someone to believe they are the controlling force in their lives than to believe they have no input in their lives. Since I have been programmed for wanting things that are selfishly good for myself I choose this. It would be ironic since this same person (me) also believes that the truth is of more value than a lie. It would be a lie because in this instance I am machinery and don't have free will.
OPEN SYSTEM
However, if the the truth is, 'I am not only machinery', then all becomes consistent because the 'truth' of the universe and that which helps me would be congruent. Namely, I do have free will and my belief that 'I' (the observer) have a controlling influence on what happens in my life are now compatible.
My question is: what makes JD to choose left or right?
Why does anything need to make him choose? Perhaps he just goes left today, because on the last trail he opted for right?
Perhaps there is nothing more or less relavent and it is simply a matter of chance rather than choice?
And maybe he's hungry and just thought left sounded good and short and possibly will reach the cake?
Or maybe he's been through here before and already knows that both the right and left path join up again in a half mile and therefore his choice doesn't matter, he simply needs to make one.
ASKER
I think you did not read the comments between.
1st sentence/question: there are no previous similar experiences.
2nd sentence: if it is a chance, then could you enter please more in details and comment it. I do not understand chance for such situation.
3rd sentence: sounded good referring to what in his mind?
4th : it is his first time there
And the idea is that everything that you would say I would like to include, if it is possible, in the initial conditions in such way that we can eliminate it and to see what is left.
So far we are stuck at quantum world and there is no chance at the moment to go beyond it with the present thinking and mental analysis.
1st sentence/question: there are no previous similar experiences.
2nd sentence: if it is a chance, then could you enter please more in details and comment it. I do not understand chance for such situation.
3rd sentence: sounded good referring to what in his mind?
4th : it is his first time there
And the idea is that everything that you would say I would like to include, if it is possible, in the initial conditions in such way that we can eliminate it and to see what is left.
So far we are stuck at quantum world and there is no chance at the moment to go beyond it with the present thinking and mental analysis.
if we believe in telepathy or linking of souls or global consciousness (all things outside of the physical realm as we know it) (experiential evidence for this but nothing repeatable yet as far as I know) then
we could say that someone else made us make the choice because the influence (thought, feeling, Extra-sensory-perception) may have come from outside ourselves.
In the case of a global consciousness, JD could account for the choice as an accumulation of all consciousness and their memories at that moment.
we could say that someone else made us make the choice because the influence (thought, feeling, Extra-sensory-perception) may have come from outside ourselves.
In the case of a global consciousness, JD could account for the choice as an accumulation of all consciousness and their memories at that moment.
ASKER
@Jason210
“Who is you?”
Or generally “I”.
Why are you not satisfied with the definition from psychology?
I posted a link above http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
that says:
“This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self” (Bee 1992).”
Therefore “I” or “You” is an entity that sense a distinction, separation from others and is aware of “self”.
But if you do not like that, then I remember a metaphorical one: Plato’s Chariot Allegory or the parable mentioned by Gurdjieff. I will tell you the essence, what I remember.
“I” is portrayed as: a carriage with horses and a driver.
The carriage is the body.
The horses are the feelings.
The driver is the intellect, the mind.
“I” is a whole, all together.
Now, if you want deeper in a religious direction, if you ask about the soul, the spirit from God that was put in us then: that is not seen, is the Master inside the carriage, is the last part of “self”, but you cannot identify it because you cannot see it.
But the mind needs a reference, a symbol and cannot agree and from here your repeated question about “I”.
Looking at the answers/comments so far – some very interesting – I think the consequences of the answers are more important than the direct answers.
One important consequence is: seems that in reality JD, any of us, cannot have a “neutral” position.
If you agree then that means a lot.
“Who is you?”
Or generally “I”.
Why are you not satisfied with the definition from psychology?
I posted a link above http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
that says:
“This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self” (Bee 1992).”
Therefore “I” or “You” is an entity that sense a distinction, separation from others and is aware of “self”.
But if you do not like that, then I remember a metaphorical one: Plato’s Chariot Allegory or the parable mentioned by Gurdjieff. I will tell you the essence, what I remember.
“I” is portrayed as: a carriage with horses and a driver.
The carriage is the body.
The horses are the feelings.
The driver is the intellect, the mind.
“I” is a whole, all together.
Now, if you want deeper in a religious direction, if you ask about the soul, the spirit from God that was put in us then: that is not seen, is the Master inside the carriage, is the last part of “self”, but you cannot identify it because you cannot see it.
But the mind needs a reference, a symbol and cannot agree and from here your repeated question about “I”.
Looking at the answers/comments so far – some very interesting – I think the consequences of the answers are more important than the direct answers.
One important consequence is: seems that in reality JD, any of us, cannot have a “neutral” position.
If you agree then that means a lot.
@viki2000,
Yep, I read the question and read he 'hadn't been there before'.
However, maybe that exact location maybe is first time, but maybe that situation isn't the first time. Each experience is always a first time. Even going to bed and getting up, we can only do that one time per time. We may do it the same way each time, but the event is unique.
Point was, maybe JD is used to first time events and simply goes a direction without much thought as to why. One time left, second time right, next time right...no real reason.
Yep, I read the question and read he 'hadn't been there before'.
However, maybe that exact location maybe is first time, but maybe that situation isn't the first time. Each experience is always a first time. Even going to bed and getting up, we can only do that one time per time. We may do it the same way each time, but the event is unique.
Point was, maybe JD is used to first time events and simply goes a direction without much thought as to why. One time left, second time right, next time right...no real reason.
Or generally “I”.
Why are you not satisfied with the definition from psychology?
I posted a link above http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
that says:
“This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self” (Bee 1992).”
Why are you not satisfied with the definition from psychology?
I posted a link above http://www.simplypsychology.org/self-concept.html
that says:
“This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self” (Bee 1992).”
So do you believe that science explains everything? If you do, you are mistaken. Science is methodical way of accumulating empircal knowledge. An experiment is a means of testing scientific theories. You present this thread as if it is an experiment, but actually it is not an experiment at all. It is an enquiry into consciousness, and being. Whenever I try to point you in that direction, you come back with statements like the one above. It's rather like saying why are we not satisfied with the definition of consciousness from science? Simply because the most important aspect of consciousness is non-conceptual.
What use is it if our will is free or not? So long as we believe it is free, does it matter? So long as we have the sense of being free, does it matter? If so why does it matter? It what way will this knowledge benefit us? Does it have any use?
ASKER
I do not believe the present science explain everything.
And about future science there are at least 2 opinions: people believe that moments are coming when the things impossible today will be possible in future at different levels and various domains.
My personal believe is that science will have an end in a way difficult to understand now for us. But that is a another story.
I presented the present topic as experiment for 2 reasons:
1) Can be replicated and according with our scientific technology I think the best guest to find the result will be based on probabilities.
2) You are right, it is about consciousness, it is about what remains as "I" when as initial conditions are modified continuous in such way that we eliminate everything what we can eliminate. For now we stop at unpredictable quantum world.
In what way is useful for us?
It is about the way how we see things and treat situations when we extrapolate the thinking behind the experiment seen as ideal conditions.
And about future science there are at least 2 opinions: people believe that moments are coming when the things impossible today will be possible in future at different levels and various domains.
My personal believe is that science will have an end in a way difficult to understand now for us. But that is a another story.
I presented the present topic as experiment for 2 reasons:
1) Can be replicated and according with our scientific technology I think the best guest to find the result will be based on probabilities.
2) You are right, it is about consciousness, it is about what remains as "I" when as initial conditions are modified continuous in such way that we eliminate everything what we can eliminate. For now we stop at unpredictable quantum world.
In what way is useful for us?
It is about the way how we see things and treat situations when we extrapolate the thinking behind the experiment seen as ideal conditions.
I think it's been suggested in various posts here. I agree with it. That the idea of "free will" means there must be something outside the system that is doing the choosing, something that is unaffected by the universe. Yet clearly such a something must be able to affect the system without being affected by it. So to an observer in the universe, actions of free will would be intrinsically unpredictable. It's an interesting thought to ponder.
It is about the way how we see things and treat situations
I don't know if there is free will or not. I tend to think not. Suppose some of our actions are intrinsically unpredictable, or random as they must appear if free will exists. Then doesn't this mean that we are controlled by that?Is there a controller or not? If so, who is controller? Is it "I"?
ASKER
I like your thoughts above. I will think at them.
Now, I would like to challenge with other ideas related with the consequence that I noticed in my previous above post.
If there is all the time an influence over our thinking and we cannot be in a neutral position then:
- I heard many times people saying that we should not teach religion in schools; schools should be neutral, based only in science, ethics and morals.
- I heard parents saying that will not guide their children to any religion and when the kids are grown up they will decide what is good for them.
- I heard people saying that they prefer to be ignorant towards any religion ideas.
- ….and so on…
Now, based on the fact that we cannot be neutral, meaning as a child, during our education time in our “growth” period if there is no religion then is something else.
We cannot say that is an empty space, an empty box saved for later in case we decide for one religion or another.
Does not mean that we reduce the chances for children to understand and get close to religion?
Does not make them easy in such way atheists?
The questions here refer to global view, counted probabilistic and not particular situations.
Now, I would like to challenge with other ideas related with the consequence that I noticed in my previous above post.
If there is all the time an influence over our thinking and we cannot be in a neutral position then:
- I heard many times people saying that we should not teach religion in schools; schools should be neutral, based only in science, ethics and morals.
- I heard parents saying that will not guide their children to any religion and when the kids are grown up they will decide what is good for them.
- I heard people saying that they prefer to be ignorant towards any religion ideas.
- ….and so on…
Now, based on the fact that we cannot be neutral, meaning as a child, during our education time in our “growth” period if there is no religion then is something else.
We cannot say that is an empty space, an empty box saved for later in case we decide for one religion or another.
Does not mean that we reduce the chances for children to understand and get close to religion?
Does not make them easy in such way atheists?
The questions here refer to global view, counted probabilistic and not particular situations.
based on the fact that we cannot be neutral...
When was that "fact" established? (Note that I agree with the thought. I just think of it more as a "belief" than a "fact".)
Does not mean that we reduce the chances for children to understand and get close to religion?
Does not make them easy in such way atheists?
Neither of those seem totally true to me, though they are written apparently to imply a degree of probability.
If those were true, I would expect that it would have been difficult for religions to ever have been invented in the first place. In place of understand and get close to religion, I might put understand and get close to {the school's or the parent's} religion.
OTOH, I can see some validity to the thoughts with thinking of them as "reducing" or "making easier". The reduction of social pressure should lessen chances.
But OTOOH, those who then arrive at a religious stand would do so by personal choice and conviction rather than from simply bowing to pressure. Personally, I think that could be a good thing.
Tom
When was that "fact" established? (Note that I agree with the thought. I just think of it more as a "belief" than a "fact".)
Does not mean that we reduce the chances for children to understand and get close to religion?
Does not make them easy in such way atheists?
Neither of those seem totally true to me, though they are written apparently to imply a degree of probability.
If those were true, I would expect that it would have been difficult for religions to ever have been invented in the first place. In place of understand and get close to religion, I might put understand and get close to {the school's or the parent's} religion.
OTOH, I can see some validity to the thoughts with thinking of them as "reducing" or "making easier". The reduction of social pressure should lessen chances.
But OTOOH, those who then arrive at a religious stand would do so by personal choice and conviction rather than from simply bowing to pressure. Personally, I think that could be a good thing.
Tom
This is going away from the original question but not entirely. It addresses viki2000 two posts ago.
This became rather long so the conclusion is at the top and bottom and the rest is expansions to explain my position.
__________________________
Imagine spending the little bit of money it would take to teach a 'belief's of the world' class, with teachers that have all been through the course themselves and are open to discussing all beliefs. That would be mind opening in my opinion, and I'd like to do the experiment so that I can observe the results. Anyone not willing to even do the experiment is living outside the realm of science because either they do Not doubt the perfection of the current education system or they do not observe the imperfections in the social and technical skills within the people leaving the education system.
__________________________
religion is not so different from a set of basic beliefs like: This sky is blue. Separating it from other beliefs makes it look like there can be a hole, but in reality EverythinG in our heads is a belief and we are constantly 'adding to' or modifying those beliefs.
It is more like building a pyramid of beliefs in our minds. We can keep adding to the pile of stone or reducing the pile without necessarily leaving holes. Some stones can be made of sand (less true) and others of granite (truth) while most of it is limestone (mostly or functionally true ... gets us by .. like pie is 3.1415926 ... it is true enough for most practical applications). (some famous book said "it serves you to build on rock not sand" possibly the same metaphor used here as it is consistent with it.)
religion is merely a set of beliefs and rituals done based on those beliefs. While it is true that we all need beliefs to be functional, I don't think it is true that we need a certain set of beliefs that fall into that category of religion in order to be functional.
We can be neutral on any issue that has not been brought before us ... like the fork in the road. JD would have been neutral on the issue of which way was the best to go before the option was presented to him. He may not have made a prescient decision that 'if I come upon a fork I believe the best way to go is left'. In the question above JD is only making beliefs when observation demands it.
If I'm never forced to ponder a higher power (or non-physical things) and what its properties may be, then I would not require a belief in this regard to continue functioning.
However, I do agree that most of us ponder this question and since it is something most of us ponder at one point it would be wise for a schooling system to explore all the different ways than man has pondered the questions regarding our purpose, existence and the possibility of things beyond the physical. If we did this rationally, perhaps we would understand our non-physical observations better and find new ways of communicating about them.
Example: Carl Jung studied dreams and how they relate to mental issues. Even though he could not setup a traditional double blind experiment he was able to make the patient's biased observations extremely useful in the helping of patients, even though he needed their help to interpret the data. He possibly would have been less helpful to his patients, and thus all of society, had he not studied their internal observations of the world through their sub-conscious dreaming.
Since everyone has experiences that go beyond the physical (consciousness, thought, dreams, intuition, feelings) it would be illogical to ignore them, even though experiential observations cannot always be replicated in a scientific experiment that is consistently reproducible. There are observations that we make every day that go beyond that which science can reproduce. This is our unique perspective including: feelings, pain, joy, our take on the world around us. To discount that which is observable would be illogical (assuming we value being logical/rational http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc (6:00 mark epistemic rationality it is a good talk but 51 minutes))
I've come to the belief that religion, if taught in a school would best serve the students if it was a discussion on the attributes of all religions of the world and perhaps delving into the unique perspectives already held by the students. Atheism is one of those beliefs, based as all religions are, on past observations. Everyone chooses what they believe based on what they think serves them best. This is true even if the reason it serves them best is because it allows them to blend in with others.
I think it would be irrational for schooling to only be based on scientifically observable things. To base schooling on this would mean that one person's belief structure is 'right'. The belief system/religion of atheism along with its rituals of double blind experimentation do serve them well in certain aspects of their lives, but to assume that all people will value them in the same way is irrational.
It is even ILLOGICAL to stick with a system of scientific experimentation only, because within the world of scientific study, there is a thing called research and a researcher is supposed to doubt all theories (I know not all people agree on this, but it is healthy). Without this attitude towards research we would be stuck with theories that do not explain all observations, when new observations contradict old scientific facts.
Therefore it is also illogical to stick with only scientific training in schools when 'new' observations show that other factors in a child's life will significantly determine, how they will grow, and how valuable they are to society. To reduce education to scientific experiment and 'facts' as we know them now is possible, but why would we limit ourselves to only observe one type of thing.
Perhaps it may be helpful to talk about how things make students feel. Perhaps, writing stories on the feelings of dreams and social interactions and beliefs of how things work outside this dimension may be of some social value. Perhaps talking about the choosing of thoughts and meditation on those thoughts may be of use. Perhaps a little bit of introspection (inner observation) would lead to some understanding that is outside the domain of science.
How student A interacts with others is unique and those social interactions and observations I think are more useful than all the facts remembered from schooling. To find ways to interact socially that are helpful to both the student and their peers is a worth while experiential experiment.
It would be great if we all knew a little about why others believe what they do and then were FREE to believe whatever serves us without fear of consequences if we should merely voice those beliefs.
Why would you harm someone that believes differently than you? I could see wanting to share your beliefs and want them to choose the ones that helps them the most. By explaining why you think your belief would be more helpful to the other. Then allow them to freely choose based on their unique perspective on the world.
To think you are 'right' or there is one 'right' set of beliefs is irrational because we can observe that different people can look at the same painting/music/building/pe
Therefore to think limiting education to one dimension of our reality is wise would be irrational.
If you think that parents, families and friends do a good job of education in all other beliefs and social skills, then we probably don't need to include any of this in our education system.
Imagine spending the little bit of money it would take to teach a single 'belief's of the world' course, with teachers that have all been through the course themselves and are open to discussing all beliefs. That would be mind opening in my opinion, and I'd like to do the experiment so that I can observe the results. Anyone not willing to even do the experiment is living outside the realm of science because either they do not doubt the perfection of the current education system or they do not observe the imperfections in the social and technical skills within the people leaving the education system.
This became rather long so the conclusion is at the top and bottom and the rest is expansions to explain my position.
__________________________
Imagine spending the little bit of money it would take to teach a 'belief's of the world' class, with teachers that have all been through the course themselves and are open to discussing all beliefs. That would be mind opening in my opinion, and I'd like to do the experiment so that I can observe the results. Anyone not willing to even do the experiment is living outside the realm of science because either they do Not doubt the perfection of the current education system or they do not observe the imperfections in the social and technical skills within the people leaving the education system.
__________________________
religion is not so different from a set of basic beliefs like: This sky is blue. Separating it from other beliefs makes it look like there can be a hole, but in reality EverythinG in our heads is a belief and we are constantly 'adding to' or modifying those beliefs.
It is more like building a pyramid of beliefs in our minds. We can keep adding to the pile of stone or reducing the pile without necessarily leaving holes. Some stones can be made of sand (less true) and others of granite (truth) while most of it is limestone (mostly or functionally true ... gets us by .. like pie is 3.1415926 ... it is true enough for most practical applications). (some famous book said "it serves you to build on rock not sand" possibly the same metaphor used here as it is consistent with it.)
religion is merely a set of beliefs and rituals done based on those beliefs. While it is true that we all need beliefs to be functional, I don't think it is true that we need a certain set of beliefs that fall into that category of religion in order to be functional.
We can be neutral on any issue that has not been brought before us ... like the fork in the road. JD would have been neutral on the issue of which way was the best to go before the option was presented to him. He may not have made a prescient decision that 'if I come upon a fork I believe the best way to go is left'. In the question above JD is only making beliefs when observation demands it.
If I'm never forced to ponder a higher power (or non-physical things) and what its properties may be, then I would not require a belief in this regard to continue functioning.
However, I do agree that most of us ponder this question and since it is something most of us ponder at one point it would be wise for a schooling system to explore all the different ways than man has pondered the questions regarding our purpose, existence and the possibility of things beyond the physical. If we did this rationally, perhaps we would understand our non-physical observations better and find new ways of communicating about them.
Example: Carl Jung studied dreams and how they relate to mental issues. Even though he could not setup a traditional double blind experiment he was able to make the patient's biased observations extremely useful in the helping of patients, even though he needed their help to interpret the data. He possibly would have been less helpful to his patients, and thus all of society, had he not studied their internal observations of the world through their sub-conscious dreaming.
Since everyone has experiences that go beyond the physical (consciousness, thought, dreams, intuition, feelings) it would be illogical to ignore them, even though experiential observations cannot always be replicated in a scientific experiment that is consistently reproducible. There are observations that we make every day that go beyond that which science can reproduce. This is our unique perspective including: feelings, pain, joy, our take on the world around us. To discount that which is observable would be illogical (assuming we value being logical/rational http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc (6:00 mark epistemic rationality it is a good talk but 51 minutes))
I've come to the belief that religion, if taught in a school would best serve the students if it was a discussion on the attributes of all religions of the world and perhaps delving into the unique perspectives already held by the students. Atheism is one of those beliefs, based as all religions are, on past observations. Everyone chooses what they believe based on what they think serves them best. This is true even if the reason it serves them best is because it allows them to blend in with others.
I think it would be irrational for schooling to only be based on scientifically observable things. To base schooling on this would mean that one person's belief structure is 'right'. The belief system/religion of atheism along with its rituals of double blind experimentation do serve them well in certain aspects of their lives, but to assume that all people will value them in the same way is irrational.
It is even ILLOGICAL to stick with a system of scientific experimentation only, because within the world of scientific study, there is a thing called research and a researcher is supposed to doubt all theories (I know not all people agree on this, but it is healthy). Without this attitude towards research we would be stuck with theories that do not explain all observations, when new observations contradict old scientific facts.
Therefore it is also illogical to stick with only scientific training in schools when 'new' observations show that other factors in a child's life will significantly determine, how they will grow, and how valuable they are to society. To reduce education to scientific experiment and 'facts' as we know them now is possible, but why would we limit ourselves to only observe one type of thing.
Perhaps it may be helpful to talk about how things make students feel. Perhaps, writing stories on the feelings of dreams and social interactions and beliefs of how things work outside this dimension may be of some social value. Perhaps talking about the choosing of thoughts and meditation on those thoughts may be of use. Perhaps a little bit of introspection (inner observation) would lead to some understanding that is outside the domain of science.
How student A interacts with others is unique and those social interactions and observations I think are more useful than all the facts remembered from schooling. To find ways to interact socially that are helpful to both the student and their peers is a worth while experiential experiment.
It would be great if we all knew a little about why others believe what they do and then were FREE to believe whatever serves us without fear of consequences if we should merely voice those beliefs.
Why would you harm someone that believes differently than you? I could see wanting to share your beliefs and want them to choose the ones that helps them the most. By explaining why you think your belief would be more helpful to the other. Then allow them to freely choose based on their unique perspective on the world.
To think you are 'right' or there is one 'right' set of beliefs is irrational because we can observe that different people can look at the same painting/music/building/pe
Therefore to think limiting education to one dimension of our reality is wise would be irrational.
If you think that parents, families and friends do a good job of education in all other beliefs and social skills, then we probably don't need to include any of this in our education system.
Imagine spending the little bit of money it would take to teach a single 'belief's of the world' course, with teachers that have all been through the course themselves and are open to discussing all beliefs. That would be mind opening in my opinion, and I'd like to do the experiment so that I can observe the results. Anyone not willing to even do the experiment is living outside the realm of science because either they do not doubt the perfection of the current education system or they do not observe the imperfections in the social and technical skills within the people leaving the education system.
ASKER
I am sorry I have no time to discuss more the matter.
Sometimes I thought that what we define as "free will" is in fact a mirror in physics of the Heisenberg unpredictable principle.
Sometimes I thought that what we define as "free will" is in fact a mirror in physics of the Heisenberg unpredictable principle.