Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will

Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will

The video pretty much speaks for itself.

Richard Dawkins is hypocritical (or you could say, inconsistent) in regard to causality for a couple of reasons:

One, the idea doesn't normally fit the public perception of reality because of ongoing religious and capitalistic propaganda campaigns. The Major Media tell the public a thousand times over and a thousand different ways that they are free. Religion reiterates the message and says individuals are free to believe or not believe. Therefore, Richard would have a mad mob on his hands if he started trying to convey ideas that were too radical to fit the average person's perception. Besides, he is trying to show religious superstition for what it is in the light of science. To also tackle a subject as complex as methodological naturalism would completely undermine his present efforts. Furthermore, opponents of the idea of causality often use reductio ad absurdum in their arguments, such as, you are reading this now because The Big Bang caused you to read it. And logical fallacies are effective even though they are fallacious.

Two, emotion overrules logical thought. We are all inconsistent in this regard. When Richard becomes overly emotional concerning any issue, the fight or flight response overrides thought and behavior. I guess the Buddhist practice of emotional detachment yet quiet passion would be advantageous in such instances.

Richard Dawkins has his priorities. He doesn't want to get sidetracked on the free will issue when the subject would be equivalent to discussing the probability and consequences of a round earth 3,000 years ago.

For more on the free will versus psychological causation issue, visit http://www.naturalism.org/

Also for free ebooks on various subjects, visit http://www.facts4u.com/free/ (links to audio books too)

• Category

  Education

[slartibartfats]

The error made here is to neglect the fact that physics, which currently only allows determinism (or randomness), is not quite complete. Agreed that there is no ghost in the machine but the conscious part of the machine (the brain) is not deterministic: we do have free will, it is no illusion.

[unseenstrings]

@slartibartfats, no, your error is making a sweeping generalization without proving your point. In fact, the definition of free will would need to be given before you can claim it exists. I have stated the definition a number of times herein; and I have given valid argument to show why such "free will" cannot exist. Besides, consciousness is the consequence of processes that you are not conscious of. That fact alone pops your imaginary bubble of free will.

Naturalism Org

[pandasftuw]

So does this theory reject any form of enviromental impact on the person? I'm not a science major but from what I've experienced I feel as if nurture and enviroment has more of an impact on a person, does this coincide with dawkins theory?

[unseenstrings]

if you're interested in Dawkins' perspective on whether or how much environment should be considered, then listen to some lectures by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Neurological Sciences, SU, which can be found at YT, StanfordUniversity Channel. Or watch him speaking, starting at 9:14 in the video, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | Official Release | 2011 (watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w). I would imagine Dawkins and Sapolsky see eye to eye in the regard to what causes the brain and thus the person

[unseenstrings]

And allow me to add this fact: No gene created itself. It was created and evolved as the result of environmental factors. The process is called "natural selection." The story doesn't stop there. Add that fact to what Jesus had to say in Mark 4:3-9. "Weeds" in the vicinity of a seed, the nourishment available during critical stages of growth, and other environmental factors--inevitably determine the specific development of the seed, regardless of whether it is of plant or human origin. Epigenetic

[NightmareCinemaChild]

His science books are really, very interesting you know.

[oliveguss]

dawkins you are a bell end. simple as that.

[unseenstrings]

@patrckhh20, one last tidbit: In the great majority of cases, individuals don't have sex to have babies. They have sex because of a specific WANT being experienced. And they do not choose to experience the WANT. The WANT is the consequence of instinctive mechanisms, with babies following as a consequence of striving to satisfy the WANT. In fact, the human race would go extinct without instinct. But, of course, we pretend that only nonhumans have instinct. We paint imaginary pictures with words.

[unseenstrings]

@patrckhh20, and as far as "transcendent meaning or worth" is concerned, you must ask by what criterion you are judging meaning or worth. And you must ask whether this criterion is the boundaries established by some ideology you have acquired because of your particular indoctrinations or other experiences. And you must ponder whether someone with a different ideology--say for instance Buddhism--would have the same limitations as you in regard to "transcendent meaning or worth."

Naturalism Org

[unseenstrings]

Likewise, the degree of internal stimulation being experienced by the fruitfly and the awareness of available options (from previous learning experiences) determines the path the fruitfly takes to get whatever it might WANT. Even an organism as simple as a fruitfly can adapt to varying and sometime unusual circumstances. My dogs don't automatically poop on the floor for the same reason a baby learns not to poop in his pants. Yet both my Chihuahuas and the baby poop as a consequence of instinct.