The set of things which “might be true but we don’t have evidence to support them” is infinite. The only practical way to decide what is LIKELY to be true is to find the ones that are supported by evidence. Otherwise, we have to believe that ALL of the things which MIGHT be true are equally true. And that’s not only nonsensical, it’s would mean we would run around in circles.

However, “no evidence of black swans” does not equal “evidence of no black swans” (The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb)

Of course, as you say, this is just one of the things that I differ with Ayn Rand on.

I’ll have to go read the ending of War & Peace! Being a Napoleon fan, I’ve never been able to get very far into the book.

Incidentally, you will love the very ending of War and Peace, where Tolstoy gives a somewhat turgid, but ultimately eloquent and, I think philosophically sound, exposition of the idea that we have no free will.

I agree with you that we seem to have the illusion of free will UNTIL – you stop and think about it. Then it’s readily apparent that we don’t. Even the slightest observation of how thoughts appear in our consciousness will reveal that they appear spontaneously – we don’t “ask” them to appear. And I also agree with you that people seem to value this apparent free will but this is, IMHO, another mistake. Living without the illusion is FAR superior to living with it. There is less stress, less guilt, less fear, less anger – surely that’s a better way to live!

This works beautifully with the legal/penal system as well, since that is one more source of memes and influences that shape our behavior, and which we in turn cultivate and engineer in order to reach whatever goals other influences inspire us to seek, etc and so forth…

Best wishes!

And “no free will” also doesn’t mean people don’t learn or can’t be dissuaded from doing something if faced with consequences. The brain still grows new neuronal connections. All we’re saying is that you don’t consciously CONTROL those connections, they happen autonomously.

http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=33/land_of_now.htm

Stan

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

My favourite is an excellent article by Robert Gulack, titled “Free Will: The Last Great Lie” at:

http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm

I know it’s the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy, but it turns out the Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson were skeptical about free will.

Stan

Re IAO131′s post, I’m not sure, but I think he’s referring to recent work by John-Dylan Haynes and his team, which suggests that a decision to do something occurs up to 7 seconds before we’re aware of it. A recent issue of New Scientist mentioned it briefly:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826525.600-machine-detects-our-decisions-before-we-know-them.html

That, plus Libet’s work plus cause-effect plus the absence of a separate self that have uncaused thoughts, has led me inexorably to believing that we don’t have free will.

Stan

You keep saying that you can “adjust” thoughts. But these “adjustments” are themselves thoughts. Do you decide to think these “adjustment” thoughts?

I’ll try to break it down for you as simply as I can (although I know from our lengthy email conversations that no matter how simply I break it down, you will spin off into other tangents):

Thoughts appear spontaneously in your mind. You don’t think “I’m going to think a thought now” – and then think a thought. They just happen. Even these so-called “adjustments” that you refer to are just thoughts that appear spontaneously in your mind. You don’t have a prior thought to think them. And those prior thoughts don’t have prior thoughts. If you tried to make that argument, you’d end up with turtles on top of turtles.

I’m sure you’re aware of this recent study in Nature Neuroscience: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.2112.html

Do you know of other articles that study free will?

IAO131
( ThelemicStudies.com )

What do you think?

-_-

jason.lol

By this I mean to state that by the nature of “free will” or what we mean when we say “free will” one can, by that definition, brings ones own free will into and out of existence…This is the paradox Charlie was looking for. [above]

Wow bloging to myself about my thoughts is fun.

weird.

j

Also, most recent studies of brain activity show that conciousness exists within mind “states” literally states of mind…so the science your relying on to make your judgement is not really the right type of experiment to prove or disprove free will.

I Just listened to you rant for an hour about the CIA. You were engaging in a self dialogue, refering to memories, maybe accessing a book, feeling emotions, reacting to those emotions, all while being aware of doing this…then…adjusting accordingly. This is the will being free. Again, it’s not omnipotant, but it is a type of freedom.

I can tell you that I can control my thoughts..can you disprove this? of corse not..so lets get on to more important issues…oh…you are!

Good for you Boy! Keep up the good work.

jasonious

Re literature – I’d recommend “I Am That” by Nisargadatta Maharaj or “Pointers” by Ramesh Baksekar. Neither are scientific – both are from the advaita school of hinduism. Also check out The Advaita Show on TPN.

Here’s where you are wrong – you say the thinker “adjusts” their thoughts and you are giving them credit for that adjustment. What you fail to see is that the “adjustment” is, itself, a thought, and that this “adjustment” thought arises spontaneously, just like every other thought. You don’t go “Oh I think I’ll think a thought”. It just happens. You are not in control.