…and this is a 
In more ways than one. You know I mocked his weird decision to sell an edited version of Darwin's Origin with a long-winded creationist introduction just this morning…and he's already edited the ad to include a quote from me.
"It's like a book with multiple personality disorder -- two parts that absolutely hate each other; an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century." PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris
Now he has put out a call for someone to write a foreword for his very bad anti-atheist book. It seems to me that if he thinks it is appropriate for an idiot creationist to write an introduction to one of the most influential books in science, he needs a similar mismatch for his brain-dead little book…which means he needs a smart atheist to write that foreword.
I nominate ERV.
Comments
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 23, 2009 7:15 PM
Hitchens would do nicely.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 23, 2009 7:16 PM
I'd love to help Ray, but I am not a qualified psychiatrist.
Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 7:16 PM
Is he legally allowed to use your words without your permission to sell something?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 7:19 PM
Oh, yeah. Or Owlmirror.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 7:20 PM
I nominate the entire text of the essay titled "For dedicated bibliophiles only".
Come on. It's perfect, and already written. The quote in the ad will only leave them panting for the rest of it.
Plus, it would be a very bizarre move on Comfort's part, which may be par for the course.
Posted by: George | June 23, 2009 7:27 PM
Does anybody listen to what Ray says except as a joke? When he did the banana routine, I thought it was hysterical and perhaps the lead into a X-rated ending (too bad because his whole design thing missed a good one there.)
Posted by: littlejohn | June 23, 2009 7:27 PM
Ooh! Ooh! Choose me! I'm completely batshit crazy. I'll write anything. I'll get comatose drunk, then drop acid and hit myself over the head with a hammer first! Hell, that's how I start my day anyway. Pick me! Pick me!
I see the unicorn! I can catch it this time! The unicorn... Where am I?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 23, 2009 7:31 PM
@Truthspeaker...
Don't you mean child psychiatrist?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 23, 2009 7:39 PM
I'm willing to write the forward for Mr. Comfort's book:
I trust my check will be arriving shortly.
Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 7:45 PM
Or...
Jerry Coyne
Larry Moran
Dan Dennett
Just please don't tell Michael Ruse.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | June 23, 2009 7:45 PM
I'd offer, but my attempt would end up reading a lot like Mark Anthony's speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. ("The noble Comfort hath told you Darwin was a nutball, and Comfort is an honest man.")
Posted by: Southern Comfort | June 23, 2009 7:48 PM
That would be like asking someone to endorse Sham Wow.
Just think about it, chamois (shammies) have been around for close to 100 years and yet that Sham Wow guy on TV advertises them as if they were something new and exciting. $19.95 sounds like a bargain until you find you can get them at Wal-Mart for about a dollar or two apiece. It's just a gimmick and Ray sells religion with gimmicks. He has used a clown outfit, a gorilla outfit (really), fake money and any other gimmick he can including his rip off of Origin of Species.
Posted by: Matt | June 23, 2009 7:49 PM
Is anyone else not surprised that Comfort uses quotes and material without approval...?
Posted by: Joseph Hewitt | June 23, 2009 7:57 PM
ERV would be perfect, although I expect that the foreword would end up being two paragraphs of abuse followed by five pages of "LOL! Tits or GTFO!"... it'd be hard to come up with a better foreword for Comfort, really.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 23, 2009 8:02 PM
Yet another occassion on which I wish the great Bill Hicks was still alive - I'd love to see what he'd have to say about a lying Jesus-soaked scumbag like Ray Comfort.
Ditto George Carlin.
Posted by: Dr. Right | June 23, 2009 8:08 PM
As a fellow creationist and normal person, I would gladly write the foreward to this unique opportunity. I would definitely mention how darwninists have "evolved" from scientists with thick glasses and messed up hair and a long beard to a violent, anti-Chrsitian bigot society hellbent on forcing homosexual European socislist dicatatorship down everyone's throat and calling ti "progress".
I guess we realy haven't evolved much further than monkeys afterall. Just look at violent leftwing extremists who worship darwin and trees.
I can prove evolution is not entirely true within context of my first statement. Scientists STILL have beards, thick glasses, and messed up hair - now they have a bigoted anti-Christain attitude to go along with their looks and demented personalities.
Posted by: KeithB | June 23, 2009 8:09 PM
Jason Rosenhouse would be good too, he has the cred.
Oh, and Comfort is not quoting any more of PZ than PZ quotes of him. I am sure it all falls under fair use.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 8:18 PM
Dr. Right #16 wrote:
Cool! Where?
Posted by: Kobra | June 23, 2009 8:19 PM
I think anyone who reads Pharyngula on a fairly consistent basis is more than qualified to write the foreword to Comfort's book. Or anyone with an IQ above 50 who doesn't suffer from delusional reasoning or groupthink poisoning. (I doubt "groupthink poisoning" is a real psychological term, but let's just roll with it.)
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 8:23 PM
Rather than the Foreward, I'd like to make the dedication;
"Dedicated to the author, who is the greatest living symbol of evolution's egregious retrogression."
Posted by: thickslab | June 23, 2009 8:24 PM
Lame troll is lame.
Posted by: Anon | June 23, 2009 8:28 PM
"Now" he has? That post is last year's.
Posted by: Reed | June 23, 2009 8:28 PM
I'd say this was a perfect opportunity for sock-puppet Poetry, but really, who could out-Poe Ray Comfort ?
Posted by: Kobra | June 23, 2009 8:28 PM
A homosexual European socialist dictatorship? Does that mean we get gay/lesbian strippers cosplaying as Josef Stalin and making sure everyone at the party get some action? I'm confused about that part.
The "down everyone's throat" part is pretty clear to me, though. Apparently Dr. Blight is fascinated with fellatio.
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | June 23, 2009 8:30 PM
Very lame
Posted by: Martin | June 23, 2009 8:31 PM
I call Poe on Dr. Right.
Posted by: Martin | June 23, 2009 8:33 PM
I call Poe on Dr. Right.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 23, 2009 8:34 PM
Man, he churns out more books than Georgette Heyer. Of course, the books are just reworking of his banana theme.
I am sure ERV will recommend you PZ for the dubious honor.
And the title, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence..."
Ray Comfort wouldn't know evidence if it slapped him in the face.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 8:39 PM
I'd like to see what the consensus is here on the following:
Is the universe a closed system of physical cause and effect? Such that what is happening now is the result of a series of causes going at least back to the Big Bang (perhaps with some quantum rolls of the dice thrown in)? If so, are a person's actions and thoughts, in the final analysis, the result of the causal chains in the closed causal physical system?
I'd be interested to know whether there is a variety of opinion on this among the commenters here, or whether there is, instead, a general consensus.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 23, 2009 8:41 PM
I agree with Martin's Poe comment. He writes to well and the misspellings and typos look intentional (or he took a typing course from the Rev. BDC!).
Who reads Comfort's crap, anyhow? It this like an "Anti-atheist Chicken Soup for the Soul" series of books?
Posted by: Nightsky | June 23, 2009 8:48 PM
Me am Bizarro Atheist! This am science book!
Posted by: John Harshman
|
June 23, 2009 8:49 PM
Why not PZ?
But there may be a problem. According to the announcement, this book is going to be published in Jan/Feb 2009. According to my calendar, we're well past that data. Yours?
And indeed a little search finds that the book is already available on Amazon. There's a forword, a preface, and an introduction, all listed in the table of contents. But there are no author names listed, and I can't see the actual text.
So did Ray manage to get anything from an atheist, and if so who was it?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 8:51 PM
Matteo #29 wrote:
Partly yes, but mostly no. What does it mean to talk about the "final analysis" -- the one true explanation? Physical explanations are only one type or level of explanation. Events can be explained in multiple ways which are fully compatible with each other.
Posted by: Rob Bos | June 23, 2009 8:55 PM
Yeah, check out the date on the ERP post, too - late 2008.
Bit slow on the uptake there, Dr. Myers. :)
Posted by: Guy Incognito | June 23, 2009 8:56 PM
I thought this guy wrote the foreword.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 23, 2009 8:59 PM
a violent, anti-Chrsitian bigot society hellbent on forcing homosexual European socislist dicatatorship down everyone's throat and calling ti "progress".
Oh, if only it were true.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 9:01 PM
Thank you, Sastra. I think when I say "final analysis" this is compatible with what you mean when you say "Events can be explained in multiple ways which are fully compatible with each other." If I am understanding you, this means that an interlocked causal chain back to the Big Bang would be a valid way of looking at it, although there are other higher-level ways to describe things. Of course, the closer in time we get to the Big Bang, the less higher-level things there are to describe or use as elements in explanation, since we're getting closer and closer to "mere" fundamental particle physics.
Would it then be fair to say that our eventual thoughts and actions are somehow implicit in what was going on in earlier times, say the particle physics "era" close to the Big Bang?
Posted by: PA | June 23, 2009 9:09 PM
Methinks Matteo is laying some kind of trap. Careful Sastra.
Posted by: ERV | June 23, 2009 9:09 PM
Ya, this is a little late, but you can still get an AUTOGRAPHED copy of 'You can lead an atheist to evidence' for $22.95 WITH a copy of 'The Atheist Bible' AND 'The Charles Darwin Bible' from World Nut Daily!!!
LIMITED TIME AVAILABILITY GO GO GO GO!!!
Posted by: freija.o | June 23, 2009 9:11 PM
I clicked on that link to that retard book's ad and I just couldnt believe what I see.... origin of species with "special instruction"??? I really dont know what to say about that nutwhack ray comfort...
Posted by: Qwerty | June 23, 2009 9:15 PM
ERV, I'll wait awhile and get them on Amazon for about $.09 each when people realize these are a load of rubbish. Oh, wait... I don't think I want to waste the 27 cents.
Posted by: ERV | June 23, 2009 9:20 PM
Qwerty, you cant shop for crap.
OH LOOK! 3 copies of Timecop for $18!!!
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 9:21 PM
Hi PA,
Not laying a trap. But I really do want to know how you guys think about this stuff. The answers given might lead to further questions. I would like to avoid this becoming about "traps" and "gotchas".
Do you agree with Sastra's answer, or do you have a different take on the question?
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | June 23, 2009 9:22 PM
This just furthers my theory that RayRay is a black flag troll trying to make Christians look bad. Why would he bother letting the opposition completely undermine his message at the beginning of the book if he wasn't a troll? You'll all look back at this one day and finally see the dots connecting.
Posted by: Mobius | June 23, 2009 9:33 PM
Ray Comfort needs some help
???
This is news?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 9:33 PM
Matteo #37 wrote:
Not really. That is, the word "implicit" is rather strange here, since the physical causal chain is not only one mode of explanation, but a rather trivial one at that point. This sounds too much like "greedy reductionism" -- trying to explain too much, too fast, and at too low a level.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 9:50 PM
Sastra #46 wrote
Yes, "greedy reductionism" is something to guard against.
Perhaps "implicit" carried a connotation of "explanatorially implicit". What I meant was "causally implicit". In other words, if we could "reverse the tape", would we find anything in the immediate physical causes of today's thoughts or actions that weren't caused by what was going on in that earlier "particle era" (excepting quantum mechanical "dice rolls" between then and now)? I'm speaking of the causality itself, rather than how we might explain or conceptualize it.
Posted by: Matt Pickard | June 23, 2009 9:54 PM
The only "scientist" that comfort will allow to write an introduction for his book will be at the very least someone who believes there is a middle a ground between science and religion, or most likely, Behe from the DI.
I'm calling it now.
Posted by: Dr. Fill | June 23, 2009 10:09 PM
"I'm calling it now" reminds me of the blond joke where the blond bets on a sports rerun hoping for a different outcome.
Posted by: Optimus Primate | June 23, 2009 10:13 PM
I would definitely buy a copy if ERV did the foreword!
Just let me go through and put in the apostrophes, please? :)
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 10:14 PM
Matteo #47 wrote:
I'm not sure. I suspect that earlier "particle era" would be rather sensitive to those quantum mechanical 'dice rolls,' for one. I also think that there are so many contingencies that it wouldn't take many butterflies to amplify effects over time.
As it is, talking about our thoughts being ultimately "caused" by events at the Big Bang seems too simplistic. It's too far back. They wouldn't be 'caused' in any way we would consider meaningful. If we "reversed the tape" exactly I suppose we would unwind everything backwards, and if we started up the tape again exactly as before, we'd get the exact same results, but again, I'm not sure how exact we could get.
If we just assume that it's exactly exact, then that looks like an analytical truth. What do you think?
Posted by: eddie | June 23, 2009 10:20 PM
Matteo, I can't speak for anyone else so I've no idea of the consensus, but the way I see it:
There's such a vast array of possibilities when you are looking at complex systems like people, societies, that the probability landscape is all but flat. Therein lies the possibility of choice, free will, even. It's only when you zoom right in to look at the minutest of parts of a system that you see a series of either-ors and stark differences between outcomes. It's essentially the classical/quantum distinction.
There's also chaos; the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, which means that slight differences in earlier outcomes can make large differences in later outcomes. And emergence: The whole of the system _is_ greater than the sum of it's parts. So, even though you can look at an outcome and see a complete and clear train of causes and effects, its impossible (for some reasons practically and for others in-principle) to predict the same chains of cause and effect into the future.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | June 23, 2009 10:45 PM
Matteo,
I am pretty much with the other commentators here - there are too many stochastic events which have forced events to be the way they are, and if they were different, so too would be our present.
For a wildly implausible example lets consider the meteor which seems to have been implicit in wiping out the dinosaurs. If it had collided with another meteor in space millions of years before it eventually hit earth, it might have missed, and the history of life on earth would be vastly different to what it is now. If a star that it had passed by close to had suddenly emitted a strong solar wind, this might have reduced the meteor's mass, causing it to miss earth at a later date - or strike earlier. Going backwards, what caused the collision or the solar flare?
There seems to me to have have been too many probabalistic events for things to unfolded exactly the same way twice, unless every chemical / physical or probabalistic interaction was to unfold exactly the same way.
Interesting topic though.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 10:52 PM
Sastra #51 wrote:
If we just assume that it's exactly exact, then that looks like an analytical truth. What do you think?
Yes, the "analytical truth" is what I'm asking about. At that level, the causality would be what it is, regardless of our ability to measure it or make meaningful statements about it, or have a concept of it. I'm not really asking whether we can "do" anything with the causal chain, scientifically speaking, but more asking about the "being" of the chain, which is a more analytical or philosophical question.
My opinion is that if one holds that our thoughts and actions are generated solely by a physical process (regardless of what conceptual level we use to describe the process), then it would be reasonable to assert that our thoughts and actions were, in fact, causally implicit in the history of the universe since its beginning. This is all analytically speaking, of course; it is not possible to actually "trace" these causes.
Posted by: TheLoneIguana
|
June 23, 2009 11:17 PM
Do we get to write a new forward to the bible? Fair's fair.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 11:18 PM
Eddie,
I certainly agree that chaos plays a large role in making systems unpredictable, thereby enabling them to display what looks like freedom, but isn't chaos more a question of knowledge than causality? After all, if we knew what all of the initial conditions in fact were with a precision that perfectly reflected their definite state of existence, and had the ability to perform calculations with the required precision, wouldn't we find that the system was operating with strict causality, with nothing in the output that wasn't already causally present in the input? Such knowledge is not, of course, possible, but isn't the causality-in-itself present in a chaotic system no different in principle to that present in a non-chaotic system? This assumes classical rather than quantum physics, of course. But even if quantum indeterminacy is thrown in, it doesn't seem to me that chaotic systems are causally different than non-chaotic systems, at the most fundamental level of causality.
Posted by: Matteo | June 23, 2009 11:29 PM
Your Mighty Overload #53 wrote:
This is all true. My question is more along the lines of: given the history that actually occurred, were present thoughts and actions causally "baked right in", so to speak, in the earlier causes?
Posted by: Eric | June 23, 2009 11:29 PM
It is criminal how Ray weaves his "Special Introduction" into the Origin of Species along with his specially constructed timeline in order to give the appearance of authenticity. He evens includes contemporaneous drawings to add to the patina to gain the confidence of the reader. This is the most disgusting piece of disingenuous work I have ever seen. It's a shame the copyright has expired.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | June 23, 2009 11:30 PM
TheLoneIguana;
Why would we get to do that? Origin of Species is not our holy book.
Maybe someone could write a book about Ray Comfort's childhood - I'm thinking "Origin of speciousness" for a title.
Posted by: Olorin | June 23, 2009 11:33 PM
PZ: "Now he has put out a call for someone to write a foreword for his very bad anti-atheist book."
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for someone to write a hind end for this book? (Would that be a pygilog?"
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 23, 2009 11:50 PM
Hey! Pick me!
I would say that his propensity to poke fun at others is proportional to their propensity to return the favor. What next . . .?
Tommy?
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 11:51 PM
PZ wrote
Yup, he did (I checked).
Clear evidence that PZ looms large in the minds of demagogic creos.
'Tis amusing.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 23, 2009 11:57 PM
I'm really serious! Pick me! I've written some incredibly bad books. The booze and acid have worn off, but the mushrooms and peyote are starting to do their thing. I'm currently performing a trepanation on myself to get rid of the evil spirits, but which I mean cheap whiskey. Damn, woman, get me a fresh battery for this drill! And a martini! This procedure is bound to make be better equipped to rite suf fer ray commmmfert ouae dapou eando? qepouvjm pqweim qpoejq; pmqp qpu5 qqqqqq vote republican aou r. aome
Posted by: John Harshman
|
June 23, 2009 11:58 PM
I'm curious as to why Matteo picked this particular thread to begin a discussion of the ultimate nature of reality, free will vs. determinism, and such. Does he pick threads at random? Was his choice ordained by the distribution of quarks and antiquarks in the first femtosecond of the big bang? Or does he exercise undetermined free will when he hijacks a thread? Just asking.
Posted by: Serious Smoggy Batzrubble | June 24, 2009 12:04 AM
A Draft Introduction (with an attempt to write at a similar level to the god-deluded one) to:
You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think.
Dear Friends,
Mr Comfort’s title to this book got me thinking about my old horse, Senora. She was a smart horse, Senora was. She’d seen a lot in her time and she’d learned to think for herself better than most horses. One time, out riding the range, Senora and I got caught in an awful dust storm. By the time it cleared we were hopelessly lost, and parched. I wasn’t sure we were going to make it home, and then in the distance I saw a tiny curl of smoke. “Fire, girl,” I croaked. Senora snorted softly. As we got closer we saw that the smoke was coming from a sad little bush smouldering away for no apparent reason. Next to the bush, in a crevice under a rock was a small pool of water. “It’s a miracle girl,” I croaked. “Come and drink!” I slid down off the saddle and grasped the reins to lead her to the pool. But instead of being eager to drink, as I’d expected she would be, Senora whinnied and pulled desperately away. Every time I tried to get her to drink she refused. In the end I gave up and went to quench my own thirst, which was dang near insatiable. I dropped on my knees and crawled towards the pool, but before I could throw myself forward into the little pool Senora knocked me out of the way and prevented me from getting any closer.
That’s when I sat down and did what I should have done first and tried thinking. Senora sensed something I had ignored; this place was all wrong. I looked again at the bush, it wasn’t burning, as I’d thought, it was giving off some sort of noxious vapour. I edged closer to the pool and cautiously dipped the end of my rope in it. The rope began giving off vapour too. Now, I don’t know to this day what was in that pool that I was about to throw myself into, but it sure weren’t good water.
As you read Mr Comfort’s book, remember that evidence can be like water, some of it quenches thirst and saves your life, and some of it can be downright lethal. Not everything that passes itself off as evidence stands up to close scrutiny.
As you would expect, given that I am for the purposes of this book Mr Comfort’s trophy atheist, he and I have diametrically opposed views on which water is lethal. In my view, Mr Comfort wants to scare you into believing in his religion. He’s going to tell you tales of hell and judgement and damnation, and it is my belief that he’s going to contort evidence to support his particular worldview. But hey, you’ve got a brain, you don’t have to take his word, or mine. The honest truth is that most atheists I know really want you to think, but they want you to do it for yourself, not allow someone else to force their ideas upon you. Read books, take courses, listen to opposing viewpoints. The culture into which you were born doesn’t have to define you. I was born into a Christian home and so I grew up a Christian (until I started thinking and realised I didn’t believe any of it). Demographics indicate that if I’d been born in India I’d have been Hindu. And likewise, if Mr Comfort had been born in Iran, this book would be a desperate attempt to convert you to Islam.
I imagine that Mr Comfort will see this introduction as another tool for pushing his message. So let me make it clear that I am completely opposed to his beliefs and what he stands for. Why write this then? Because I share one belief with Mr Comfort, and that is that sometimes you have to stand up and witness for what you believe in. And I believe that we humans are happier, healthier, safer, more moral and kinder to each other when we don’t have religions distorting our lives.
So the point of my introduction is to encourage you to make sure you drink good healthy water and equally that you demand the very best evidence. You don’t have to drink from Mr Comfort’s poisoned little well—things aren’t true just because he prints them in a book with a few cartoons and diagrams. To help you remember that you are allowed to think for yourself, just remember my horse Senora—her name is an anagram of ‘Reason’.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 24, 2009 12:09 AM
Matteo:
But you can't assume classical physics and - inescapably - classical determinism. So why go there?
Perhaps so, but does it matter? What is the most fundamental level of causality? Quantum determinism, which is inherently probabilistic, rather than fixed? If so, then the future - that is, our present and recent past as projected from the distant past- could only be approximated, to some degree of accuracy about which we can only speculate.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | June 24, 2009 12:17 AM
Isn't it obvious? Matteo is a master of irony. This is, after all, a thread about Ray Comfort.
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 12:20 AM
John Harshman #64 wrote:
Thanks for asking. I asked in this thread because at the time I was interested in starting the conversation, it was the most recent (or maybe second most recent) post. If there was something uniquely valuable about this thread that hijacking has harmed, then my apologies.
So what is your answer to the question? Was it an ordained choice I made? Could I have done otherwise, or was it physically determined?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 12:23 AM
I have feeling that Ray was actually born to Jewish parents (in New Zealand) but converted at some point.
That aside, I'd suspect that, had Ray been born (and remained) in Iran and attempted to do to the teachings of Islam what he does to those of Christianity, he'd have had the shit kicked out of him so often that he'd have shut his stupid mouth years ago.
Posted by: BathTub | June 24, 2009 12:31 AM
Yeah this is the request for someone to write an intro for You can lead and Atheist...
Posted by: eddie | June 24, 2009 12:33 AM
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I do recall one particular troll admiting that his pastor had sent him here as some kind of punishment. I hope that Matteo's choices are his own. What's the point of worrying about free will if you live subservience.
I think this is why it's only the religious that worry so.
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 12:35 AM
Kseniya,
Whether or not the past causes leading up to the present were quantum mechanical, the deeper question remains: are my actions and thoughts in the present caused by a chain of physical causes? Certainly, there were in the chain plenty of quantum mechanical events that were unpredictable in principle before they occurred, but given the ones that did occur, are my thoughts and actions now determined?
Posted by: Loc | June 24, 2009 12:37 AM
To me, it appears Matteo has ulterior motives. However, he asked a question and I'll play. I'm with Kseniya. We can only give broad, approximate projections of the recent past or near future based upon the data currently at hand.
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 12:44 AM
Loc,
The question is not one of epistemology, i.e. what we can predict or know, but one of ontology. My question is not about predicting the future or retrodicting the past, but whether or not thoughts and actions in the present are, in fact, determined by the actually existing chain of physical causes (whether known or not) stretching into the past.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 12:44 AM
Matteo @72, current understanding is that quantum mechanics is probabilistic, not deterministic.
Posted by: H.H. | June 24, 2009 12:50 AM
I don't think Matteo has ulterior motives, since this is a valid question I've seen discussed without much resolution. I think he's driving at the idea of consciousness and free will, which in a deterministic Universe, would be largely illusionary.
Matteo, for my part, I don't think consciousness or free will are illusions, but I don't think turning to supernatural explanations are warranted (or supportable). Quite frankly, consciousness is still largely an unanswered question in neuroscience, but I think it will ultimately by explained by purely materialistic processes. Exactly how--well, we don't know yet. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know," which seems to me to be the only possible honest answer at this point.
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 12:50 AM
John Morales,
Quantum events that are in the future are probabilistic, but ones that have already taken place are no different than classical events. Either way, the questions asked in #72 and #74 are still on the table.
Posted by: Loc | June 24, 2009 12:51 AM
Matteo,
Your question to me does seem like it is "retrodicting the past." In order to know whether or not our thoughts and actions in the present are determined by the actual physical causes stretching from the past, we would need to understand ("know") all the physical causes leading to them. To my understanding, QM prohibits that.
To me, the question is nonsense. So why do you want to know this?
Posted by: eddie | June 24, 2009 12:55 AM
It's very simple, this 'emergence'. Take the example of the car.
The car is a collection of relatively simple subsystems; brakes, steering and so on. Many identical cars are made but they don't all go the same place. That's because there is no predestination as to when the engine starts or when to steer one way or another.
To think that every journey is predetermined by the car maker is just silly.
And besides, cars don't make baby cars ;-)
Posted by: DLC | June 24, 2009 12:59 AM
You've all missed the obvious choice... Smoggy Batzrubble!
Or, barring that, how about Cuttlefish ?
Some nice poetry about how Ray's short of brains today ?
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 1:09 AM
Loc--
You make an excellent point. It seems that it cannot be known via scientific observations that physical determinism is true with respect to our thoughts and actions.
Still, though, if our thoughts and actions are not determined by purely physical causes, what are they determined by? Asserting chaos won't help for reasons I've given earlier. Quantum mechanical causes might be unpredictable, but they are still physical. Moreover, unless quantum mechanical events are coordinated in some spooky way, the dice throws they add to the picture don't really seem to allow thoughts and actions to be "free" from physical causation. It could be that we cannot "show" the physical causality, but does that mean it is not there?
Posted by: Loc | June 24, 2009 1:23 AM
Matteo,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I believe our thoughts are purely physical events (including chaos). Whether or not they are determined is quite a different question. Probability plays a larger role the farther we get away from the now in either direction.
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 1:33 AM
H.H. #76 wrote:
What you mentioned in the first paragraph is definitely in the back of my mind, but I really am interested in hearing what people have to say. Yours is a good comment. "I don't know" is not something I see very often on the internet, but it is certainly a humble attitude (one which Richard Feynman often recommended).
What do you imagine a reconciliation between a non-illusionary free will and a purely materialistic process could possibly be, though (I don't worry about consciousness being illusory because you gotta be conscious to have illusions ;-) )? There seem to be various ways that unpredictability would make us seem to be free without necessarily being free, which puts us back to a merely illusionary free will. Whether a purely materialistic process occurs by classical determinism or quantum dice rolls, it seem that either way, material processes are pushing us around rather than we, ourselves, acting from freedom.
Posted by: meschlum | June 24, 2009 1:46 AM
On the QM bit:
Two issues, one fundamental to QM, one conceptual.
1) Heisenberg.
Enough said?
Fine. It doesn't matter if it's the past or the future, you cannot know the position and momentum of a particle beyond a limit.
So your perfect map of the past cannot be precise enough to predict the present, at the quantum level. This invalidates the underlying premise, that a perfect predicting mechanism is possible. It isn't.
Which leads us to...
2) 'Initial conditions'
We've established that no physical model of the past and present universe can allow perfect predictions of the future.
Let's forget that.
Quantum mechanics is probabilistic. This means that you cannot predict when a quantum event will occur. That C14 atom might decay now, or remain put for a billion years. There is no way to tell.
Plus, particles emerge from the vaccum, all the time.
So your snapshot at time T = Bigbang + epsilon does not tell you:
- When each particle involved is going to decay.
- When new particles are going to form and do their stuff.
- A lot more, if you are looking at the nanoscale.
In order to predict Now from the snapshot, you need to list *everything* that happens from start until Now - epsilon. And then roll the dice anyway.
That's if you're recording each event, or have some miraculous record of them - and by 1) even that record isn't enough.
So we cut things down even more. The brain is not an atom, it's large enough for conventional physics, chemistry, and biology to apply.
Let's.
Take your perfect snapshot of the universe, with all the history behind it if you want (it doesn't help: as far as QM cares, Last Thursdayism is just fine). We can't predict the next quantum events.
But we know how often they occur, and what usually happens. So we can predict how brains will respond, given current conditions. On a large scale, given insane processing power.
Until the buildup of quantum events leads to something unexpected happening. Then... you still have an excellent model of what the brain will do, but the prediction quality is deteriorating.
How fast?
No idea. Some things are very slow - see astronomy. Some things are very fast - see QM. Brains are in between, but tend a bit more on the small side. Their trajectories are not entirely dictated by headdesks, after all.
So knowing the recent past, and a lot of processing power, gives you a passable short term picture of the future. On the physical level, for individual human behavior, deeper past data has rapidly decreasing utility. On the social level, for groups of humans, history is useful.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 24, 2009 2:10 AM
I see what Matteo is getting at - and it's true, the probabilistic nature of QM is irrelevant, because he's not talking about prediction, but rather only about that which has actually occurred - and I assume we all agree that the past is immutable.
I've agreed with H.H. on this before (many months ago) and I will do so again - I really don't know, either, but the illusion of free will is good enough for me, because the causality (if there is any) occurs far below the threshold of what I'm able to detect. It's analogous to the granularity of spacetime, which we can effectively view and treat as a continuum (even though it isn't, quite).
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | June 24, 2009 3:07 AM
Matteo;
It is important to remember that thoughts are dependent upon the structure of the brain, not on the identity of the individual atoms that comprise it (as far as we know). It should make no difference to substitute one set of atoms for another, provided the configuration doesn't change.
I would suspect that if we knew the complete structure of someones brain, and we had the knowledge to understand how structure relates to function, then we should be able to build and train a computer program which may very well be able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what someone will think, in any given situation.
However, our brains are always dealing with imperfect information, and we have information mingling and getting confused with each other. For example, I would rather suspect that loan officers make different decisions on their good days and their bad days. Of course, good days and bad days can be contingent on a range of biotic and abiotic variables, so I think, for now, we could not hope to be able to model a brain, nor to fully answer the question that you posed.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 24, 2009 3:30 AM
I, personally would have to answer this question with a "no." The conditions that existed at (or very near to) the Big Bang have no bearing on what I decide to have for breakfast on any given day. Now, I suppose you could sort of make the case that organic chemistry predetermines my options, but the actual decision I make between bacon (!) and eggs, or oatmeal is determined solely by my mood at the time.Posted by: Reynold | June 24, 2009 4:04 AM
From Comfort's ad:
...exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything,...
For Christ's sake! We've been going over that again and again on that idiots's blog! He still refuses to correct that statement. He's been spanked on this more than once.
It's ironic: Ray regularly gets beat down on his own blog by people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.
Because of that, his blog is actually one of the more educational ones out there, even on a par with the ones on science blogs. Only on Scienceblogs, it's the poster who gives out the information, while on Ray's blog, it's the poster (Ray) who has to get educated by his commentators!
Posted by: Asa | June 24, 2009 4:15 AM
Just in case you guys missed comments #34 and #35
THE BOOK WAS ALREADY PUBLISHED!
.... and I found that out after writing my poetic forward...
Posted by: MartinB | June 24, 2009 5:59 AM
@Matteo
Concerning Free Will and Determinism - let's reverse the argument to clear up things: Imagine you were *not* constrained by past events to write your post at the time you did. Would this be "free will"? Would it not rather mean that, if I placed you twice in exactly the same situation, the outcome might be different? This then would imply that the outcome of your decision is somehow random (since there is nothing determining it). After all, your decisions are based on something (your personality, character, whatever), and this something should determine them.
All this is written much more clearly by Dan Dennett in "Freedom evolves" - strongly recommended reading.
Posted by: Haruhiist | June 24, 2009 6:01 AM
I still can't believe Comfort actually regards PZ's comment as a 'raving review'. How can he view it as anything other than a complete smackdown on the quality of his foreword (the only thing he wrote himself)?
@Matteo:
I'm going to assume you want to discuss the existence of free will, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's assume we can view the state of the universe in time frames. In order to investigate whether the state of the mind depends on previous states of the universe, one does not need to consider the entire universe or even its previous states.
For one mind, it should be sufficient to consider its current state (including the state of the body it resides in) and the state of anything that will give it input in the next frame. (this is assuming that events that do not affect the mind and its body don't need to be considered.
Furthermore, it's not necessary to consider quantum states. Positions and interactions of molecules and the potentials of neurons might suffice.
I would say that it is more fruitful to ask if this knowledge is enough to predict the next state of the mind. If it is, then it should clearly be deterministic, even if we can't predict its state a few hours away.
This would mean that free will as most see it doesn't exist, but I think that's a pointless definition of free will anyway. If your will isn't determined by you current state and the input you receive only, can you still call it your own will?
I hope this makes sense to you, I might have oversimplified matters, but this is how I look at it:)
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 6:36 AM
Matteo @77, quite so. I answered hastily, and missed your note that you weren't talking about prediction but explaining the present in terms of the past.
Now I feel embarrassed :(
@72, you wrote
What basis is there for expecting it to be otherwise? Or, rephrased, is that not the natural null hypothesis?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 6:46 AM
I second MartinB's recommendation of Freedom Evolves.
I assume we all agree that the past is immutable. - Sastra
Not sure about that. According to the uncertainty principle, particles do not have exact position-momentum, and I think that would mean that just as the future is not completely determined by the present state of the system, neither is the past. If the universe is a closed system, there is no other way of picking out one of the "possible" pasts as the real one. However, IANAPhysicist.
Matteo,
Presumably your worry is that if the material universe is a closed system, we're not "really" free. What would it mean to be "really" free, and how would a non-material reality interacting with the material one achieve that? Suppose you have a "soul" in which decisions are really taken. Now, how are decisions taken in the soul? Either they are predetermined (and you're not "really" free) or they are decided by chance (and you're not "really" free), or... what? Just waving your hands and saying "they are taken by free will" won't do. You need to give a coherent account of what being taken "by free will" means.
Posted by: Andy | June 24, 2009 7:54 AM
2008? Okay. That was interesting. Is there a fluctuation in the space-time continuum or something? It sure felt like it for a minute there.
Posted by: qbsmd | June 24, 2009 9:25 AM
Threads around here drift quite a bit, and I, for one, find this topic is more interesting than the original post.
My answer would be yes; the universe is a closed causal system. Using a many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, I would say that given perfect knowledge of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, one could calculate the state of every possible universe we could find ourselves in. Of course, this is impossible for multiple theoretical and practical reasons.
I have never really understood what anyone means by free will. I think that people try to behave in a way that will produce results they want, avoid results they don't want etc, but have quite a few imperfections in that process. This works whether people are causal and deterministic or not. Does free will mean one could have made a different decision based on exactly the same choices and information? Or to make a decision that one knows can only have bad results?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 24, 2009 9:53 AM
Matteo #68 wrote:
I'll also add to the recommendations for Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves, because the way this question is phrased is setting off alarm bells for me. There are layers of implication which can be unpacked in the concepts which lie within phrases like "could have done otherwise" and what it means for our thoughts and actions to be "determined."
What often happens is that the person asking this question implicitly takes themselves mentally out of the deterministic stream, and in the scenario becomes, not an actor, but something which is only acted upon. But this is not the way to view it.
Dennett is a compatibilist: he argues that determinism and free will are not only compatible, but that the 'free will worth wanting' actually depends on determinism.
"Free Will is real, but it is not a preexisting feature of our existence, like the law of gravity. It is also not what tradition declares it to be: a God-like power to exempt oneself from the causal fabric of the physical world. It is an evolved creation of human activity and beliefs, and it is just as real as such other human creations as music and money. And even more valuable. From this evolutionary perspective, the traditional problem of free will can be broken into some rather unusual fragments, each of some value in illuminating the serious problems of free will, but we can undertake this reexamination only after we have corrected the misdirection implicit in their traditional settings.” (Freedom Evolves, pg. 13)
Knockgoats #93 wrote:
Actually, that was Kseniya at #85.
Posted by: Frank Habets | June 24, 2009 10:12 AM
I'd like to write the foreword, but I don't want to get too close to Comfort.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 10:35 AM
Sastra@96, Ksenya@85,
Apologies for the misattribution.
Sastra, I'd taken Dennett to be saying that determinism is irrelevant to free will. The contrary position would seem to imply (not that this means it's wrong) that if the physical world is indeterministic at quantum level, we don't have "free will worth wanting".
I can't see how "free will worth wanting" would depend on determinism, as long as the outcomes of our actions are sufficiently predictable on the scale at which we act. In practice, even if the universe is deterministic at bottom, we have to act in a world where many events appear to be random in the sense that there is no lawlike explanation for them - who we meet as we walk along the street, whether a fly lands in my eye or just beside it as I'm cycling, whether a cosmic ray causes a particular mutation in one of my cells, etc. I think it makes most sense to think of free will as the capability to strive for, and sometimes achieve, our goals, despite this constant "battering" by random happenstance.
Posted by: howlingmadhowie | June 24, 2009 12:17 PM
i think ziztur would be perfect: http://www.ziztur.com/
Posted by: Ziztur | June 24, 2009 12:36 PM
It would be really entertaining to write the forward for a book that has already been published and already has a forward, of which I have reviewed to such a length that my review contains more text than the actual book.
That's right. Myself and a few guest bloggers wrote an equivalent 200 or so pages of response to Ray's 130 page little book. It was fun!
Posted by: Olorin | June 24, 2009 12:42 PM
PZ: "Now he has put out a call for someone to write a foreword for his very bad anti-atheist book."
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for someone to write a hind end for this book? (Would that be a pygilog?"
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 12:54 PM
Folks, I am honored to find so many thoughtful responses to the question.
What I am seeming to find in the responses is a rejection of the idea that there could be anything "outside" the physical causal stream (from the point of view of any conceptual level we might choose in thinking about the causality: neurophysiology, say, or the various tendencies imposed by heredity and environment).
It seems that Dennett, if he really wants to stick to physical determinism (which is what compatibilism would imply he has to do), could only hold out for the illusion of free will.
Knockgoats #98, I like the way you put this:
"I think it makes most sense to think of free will as the capability to strive for, and sometimes achieve, our goals, despite this constant "battering" by random happenstance."
NominalEgg #87 wrote:
"The actual decision I make between bacon (!) and eggs, or oatmeal is determined solely by my mood at the time."
Would that be a testimony to a real free will, or an illusory one?
Knockgoats #93 wrote:
"Presumably your worry is that if the material universe is a closed system, we're not "really" free. What would it mean to be "really" free, and how would a non-material reality interacting with the material one achieve that? Suppose you have a "soul" in which decisions are really taken. Now, how are decisions taken in the soul? Either they are predetermined (and you're not "really" free) or they are decided by chance (and you're not "really" free), or... what? Just waving your hands and saying "they are taken by free will" won't do. You need to give a coherent account of what being taken "by free will" means."
Which is a tough thing to do, of course. However, I do note that when people speak of the "illusion of free will", or they say, "even if it's all physically determined, I feel like I have free will and that's what matters", they must, in fact, be referring to some sort of intuitive understanding of what free will would have to be, if indeed it were real. For example, I cannot speak of illusory snakes, say, without having some idea of a real snake.
It is not necessarily the case that such an intuition can provide or drive a coherent account of just what it means in some scientific sense, but it does seem that the intuition is there. In fact, don't the various objections to the concept testify to an intuitive understanding of what "free will" would have to be, if it did exist? The objections give reasons why this thing couldn't really exist, but don't the objections attempt to shoot down some intuitive, if "naive" understanding/intuition that is already in the mind? Everyone in this thread who has referred to the term already seems to have this intuitive idea already, so perhaps there isn't a necessity to find a way to communicate that which is already known in some sense?
I am not trying to be sophistic here, but is it not possible that the idea/intuition of free will (whether illusory or not) is something axiomatic to rationality, and hence not something we should expect to be able to derive or explicate through rational argumentation? An analogy to mathematics: we do not expect to undertake a theorem-proving process to arrive at axioms.
None of this is to argue that free will must be taken as real, but it is to argue against the accusation that because it cannot be given some precise "scientific" definition, then there is nothing useful to be said about it.
I find that there have been all sorts of insightful comments about it by the thread participants, even though no one has given "the" formal definition we are all working from.
Posted by: Lurky | June 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Matteo:
Interesting subject.
I wholeheartedly suggest you read Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves, which is a great book about determinism and free will.
Posted by: Lurky | June 24, 2009 1:24 PM
Matteo:
Interesting subject.
I wholeheartedly join the others in suggesting Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves, which is a great book about determinism and free will.
"For example, I cannot speak of illusory snakes, say, without having some idea of a real snake."
But you can speak of unicorns and dragons without having some idea of a real unicorn or dragon?
The way I see it free will might be illusion or not, but there's no way we or anyone can tell the difference. Then again I could be talking about my arse here, but do I have a choice? (Ha!)
Posted by: Matteo | June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
"But you can speak of unicorns and dragons without having some idea of a real unicorn or dragon?"
We probably cannot speak of them without having some idea of what they would be like if they were, in fact, real. I was not arguing for the reality of free will, but only for the reality of the idea of free will, an idea that exists in some intuitive, but not necessarily expressible, detail, even though no one has laid out some sort of precise scientific definition.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
June 24, 2009 2:10 PM
i suppose a scientist would be best, but i'd really enjoy reading what thunderf00t (of "why do people laugh at creationists?" fame) would have to say there.
i'd also find a smackdown by john shelby spong immensely gratifying. it'd be really amusing to see a reasonable religious person with years of theological study and authority beat up a fundie like comfort on just the religious matters.
Posted by: Alexis
|
June 24, 2009 3:06 PM
Work quickly. Time is of the essence: From the web site: "Any takers? If we use it, I will make sure you get attribution. The book is due out Jan/Feb. 2009, so you will need to be quick. Thanks."
Posted by: BeamStalk | June 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Erv said.."Qwerty, you cant shop for crap.
OH LOOK! 3 copies of Timecop for $18!!!"
This why ERV needs to do it. Plus I want to see TITS or GTFO! in a Ray Comfort book.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 24, 2009 3:58 PM
I'm surprised he doesn't trim your quote so that it reads:
"...a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century." PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 24, 2009 4:16 PM
I'm jealous, but not so jealous as to fail to realize that ERV is just exactly the right choice.
She'll be more scientific than I would.
Inspired choice. Divinely inspired, you might say.
Posted by: Lyle | June 24, 2009 5:10 PM
I went to Amazon.com and read a sample of Ray's book. The book should be titled, "You can lead an atheist to this book, but you can't make him think that I am serious."
When the used copies of this book gets below $1 I might buy it just because it is so funny. I'll check at my local library so that I don't have to pay anything to laugh at Ray's "evidence".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 5:13 PM
I have the book. Trust me, it's not worth what I paid for it.
It was free, straight from the creationist himself.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 5:40 PM
Matteo,
I do note that when people speak of the "illusion of free will", or they say, "even if it's all physically determined, I feel like I have free will and that's what matters", they must, in fact, be referring to some sort of intuitive understanding of what free will would have to be, if indeed it were real.
But I don't regard free will as an illusion; it's just not the sort of thing you think it is, and it is completely compatible with a causally closed material universe. My free will is my capability to act flexibly and determinedly in pursuit of goals I have chosen, to reflect on those choices, to follow a train of thought or imagine a scenario. It is limited: I cannot will myself to be able to fly (except in dreams). It may be damaged by diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or by stroke or traumatic brain damage. To some extent it can be enhanced through practice. Read Freedom Evolves!
I am not trying to be sophistic here, but is it not possible that the idea/intuition of free will (whether illusory or not) is something axiomatic to rationality, and hence not something we should expect to be able to derive or explicate through rational argumentation? An analogy to mathematics: we do not expect to undertake a theorem-proving process to arrive at axioms.
I'm not clear what it could mean for something to be "axiomatic to rationality".
The fact that we don't prove axioms does not mean we do not assess them rationally. A particular set of axioms may turn out to be logically inconsistent - and this can be far from obvious (consider Russell's demolition of Frege's foundations for set theory). Or it may (outside pure mathematics) lead to conclusions about the world that conflict with empirical evidence (e.g. "The Bible is literally true"). Or it may just turn out not to lead anywhere very interesting. Our intuitions are not in general a good guide to whether a concept or axiom is useful - consider Aristotelian physics, with its thoroughly intuitive (but wrong) ideas about "impetus".
Posted by: eddie | June 24, 2009 9:52 PM
Here's where I think the consensus breaks down: In #86, Your Mighty Overload said;
What I was trying to get at, with my car example above, was that a system can be non-deterministic simply by virtue of it's complexity. As with the car, the brain has developed as a tructure that is capable of thinking all sorts of thoughts. Every thought is not designed in from the start, just as every journey is not designed into the car. At this level, free will and determinism are not in conflict.
Of course, if you really want to get your teeth into a problem, ask how such emergent-capable systems can arise from purely deterinistic chemistry and biology. Clue: The answer starts with an N and ends with atural Selection.
Posted by: Robin Lionheart
|
June 25, 2009 12:13 PM
Now I get it. Ray actually believes that ridiculous Expelled propaganda, and thinks universities are in the business of banning books, just like repressive religious groups. So his solution is to inject his memes into the one book universities wouldn't dare ban, since Darwin's the secularists' bible and all.Posted by: Robin Lionheart
|
June 25, 2009 12:15 PM
Now I get it. Ray actually believes that ridiculous Expelled propaganda, and thinks universities are in the business of banning books, just like repressive religious groups. So his solution is to inject his memes into the one book universities wouldn't dare ban, since Darwin's the secularists' bible and all. Co-opt and corrupt!Posted by: John Morales | June 29, 2009 7:09 AM
Sigh. Matteo has vanished.