You seem to be equating the word LUCK (that you can't control what happens to you) with the word RANDOM, which some use to describe the idea that things happen for no reason (impossible) or that the reasons are too complex to undrstand (possible).
Most online dictionaries, if you would care to reference them, define luck in terms of chance...and genetics really is a lottery. Therefore DNA is the result of luck.
@HedgehogRebellion ok i guess ur right on the definition im just trying to point out that in ur theory u stop at a certain point. u dont go further into how the brain works so if u go far enough u would get to the atom and elementary particles which cannot be predicted
@emptybookreader Thank you. I will always conceed someone else's point when they are right and I appreciate your acceptence of my usage of the word luck.
As for your other point I think I understand the tac you are following but I am not sure if it applies. Many things in this world all have different natures, yet they are made of the same atoms. MY understanding of quantum physics is that logic breaks down at the subatomic level, but our universe...Im sure we can agree,,,
@emptybookreader ...forgive me...I rare;ly go this long...OUR UNIVERSE has certain regularities based on physical laws. So just because that underlying our neuronal systems there are quarks and nuetrinos does not invalidate a thourough examination of how those systems work...any less than the fact that my bottles of Scotch and Drambuie are made of electrons and protons invalidates my quest for the perfect Rusty Nail! Do you follow my reasoning?
@HedgehogRebellion i already said i agree with u that objects on the large scale are largely unaffected by the randomness of particles. did u read part 1 to the comment i posted? i think i already explained it maybe u only read "part 2:" but i mean the very meaning of determinism is that everything is set in a path which cant be changed. which we know isnt true because u cant ignore even the smallest of things. maybe the correct term for u is psychological determinism?
@HedgehogRebellion yeah but i mean it doesnt have to be tested just as schrodingers cat doesnt have to either. its a scenario than could exist. it relies on the ideas of the universe we have so it can be mentally tested with a possible situation. its like saying what if a fighter jet was traveling 3 miles per hour and at the same time 40 miles per hour underwater. we dont have to test it because we base the conclusion on the knowledge we know. and the conclusion is that it would be impossible.
@HedgehogRebellion part 2: u accept the uncertainty principle right? if u do it would make no sense to call urself a determinist. thats all im really trying to say
@emptybookreader You know what? Send me a Friend request or a contact request or whatever its called these days (Ive tried and I dont know how). I want to do a little more research on Uncertainty but for the next month I have to study for my CMA exam. Im not sure whether you are not making your points flow together or whether I lack enough knowledge to properly address your points. You seem to be pretty sharp so lets stay in touch.
Let's say someone decides that they are going to cheat destiny and raise their right hand. So they look on the "FUTURE TV" and see that they have raised their right hand. But the DECSION to try and cheat destiny was becausethey had a defiant nature. And here we go back into my model.
Now, you have raised some INTERESTING points...but until a scenario like this could happen in reality we can take no evidence from it, only conjecture.
@emptybookreader No, seriously...I'm almost insulted! This is way beyond surreal. Do you really...REALLY...think for one second that a guy with an argument as elaborate as mine is going to suddenly dissuaded by nothing more than you espousing your opinion? Get real.
Can I ask you a question...exactly WTF were you thinking that my response would be when I read your post? This ought to be priceless.
@HedgehogRebellion its been widely accepted by physicists for decades look up the uncertainty principle. its not meant to be insulting its just lack of knowledge on ur part
1) Indetermanancy of particle behaviour does not necessarily translate well into psychological dynamics
2) Einstein quoted "God does not play dice" in response to Heisberg
3) Sir Karl Popper bagged on their methodology
Now getting back to business, why dont you look at my earlier post and be the first guy to find a weak link in my armor. Except you won't...people have been trying for 3 years..and failing for 3 years. Everybody loves truth until its time to face up to it.
@HedgehogRebellion einstein later gave up the idea of determinism and later accepted it so dont give an earlier quote when he was reluctant to accept it. if u mean "disproved" by "bagged" watch a modern tv show on the science channel or read a book about it its been tested and approved. and i agree that things on the very large scale are unaffected by the uncertainty principle for the most part but it ultimately gets rid of determinism. and if u could predict the future free will could exist
@HedgehogRebellion by mentioning the word "luck" in your theory u have contradicted urself. determinism is the absence of luck making the world set in an absolute path that cannot be changed. i dont have to attack the structure of ur argument u proved urself wrong to begin with.
@HedgehogRebellion part 2: because without randomness in the universe, it would be possible to predict the velocity and position of every atom and, with the knowledge and technology to do this, one could predict the future with absolute certainty. if we had this technology and were able to see the future, we would be able to change it. if the future showed that u would raise ur left hand, u would be very able to raise ur right hand instead under ur own free will.
I used to think more like the caller, but now I'm more in line with Jeff. This is really discussion based in semantics - it depends on how exactly you define free will. It's a really interesting discussion to have though.
There is the Free Will experiment. If I can by my will and my will alone change the future then I shall accept that Free Will exists. I can choose which sock to put on first if I wish to. I can choose to wait another five minutes or not. And I can choose what I say here. And so can you. That's enough for me to make choices as if they matter.
@chucknorris136 But is that really relevant to anything? Outside of "for the sake of argument", does it matter? We still know we can affect things by our choices.
@w35m4n We can call that free will, even though it isn't. It's all about how you define free will. I guess I'm talking about the same kind of free will as the caller and we are talking about "ultimate free will". Yes, you can basically "choose" which sock you put on first, but it's not ultimately a free choice because the action is already determined for you. It's the illusion of free will.
You choosing your sock depends on a number of factors. It could be that that particular sock is attractive or that you want to choose the less attractive one to try to prove that you have free will. Ultimately however, it depends on the circumstances and thus there is no true free will.
Compatibilism exist so laws of punishment can be "right" and believing in good and bad by excluding the relative perspective of events outcome. These dudes are kinda stupid, but still atheists... lucky for them in other words. But they are still in the region of the religion of free will. And by the way, Daniel Dennett is someone only fools finds truthful. His arguments always ends at a point at which it could keep on, but he sees it as a true end or source of an event.
--resume-- would make a different "choice". The one they chose
is all they get, the result, Now, is unary, it has only one
state, the one it made for you in this life. Thus: What will be will be! If we were actually free to think any damned thing we wanted we would decide we'd rather be in some pleasing faery-
land and walk around in delusional rags talking to shopping carts,
which we see as a mental disorder. If we were free to think
whatever, on whim, coherent reality could NOT even EXIST!
Gentlemen: You cannot change the tiniest thing that you truly
believe by an act of will(whim). You can lie and SAY you did,
but nobody will believe you, because THEY know THEY can't EITHER! That means you have NO "free will". The great majority
of physicists admit that Determinism is indisputable. Quantum
Mechanics is much mis-used in this regard by pop-science/pop-philosophy writers who know little about it. The fact is, that nobody GETS to play it over and see if they or electrons --cont--
@rstevewarmorycom I disagree, and it isn't indisputable as you say because there is evidence supporting both, it isn't completely one sided. I agree that yes, a person's choices are limited by their genetic programming, by their neuro-chemical stimuli, and they are limited by what they experience within their environment, but when a person is weighing two decisions equally and bases them as both being equally valid, it forces them to utilize free will.
@rstevewarmorycom Alright, from researching it for several hours today, I understand it better and agree with you more. It's determined by how the millions of synapses function, the genetics of the individual, the neurochemical responses, and the way the individual reacts to external stimuli (ie the environment).
Therefore, a person's behaviour could all be determined, but not unless you had a supercomputer which could do the incredibly complex calculations related to all of those reactions.
@rstevewarmorycom Okay, then I would ask where the evidence is to that statement because what you're referring to now is fate.
Fate-the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed.
And whether time is an illusion or not, it doesn't mean in similar circumstances people will always react the same. If that's your definition of determinism, then I call bullshit from lack of evidence.
@rstevewarmorycom And another thing I might add, I find it funny that you would argue something which is unable to be proven or tested. You could argue that humanity has only one predestined course, but unless you have a time machine handy that can send you back without creating a paradox, there's pretty much no way you prove that everything is based on fate. You cannot make people go through identical circumstances twice without them using memory to bias their result.
@rstevewarmorycom In any case, from disagreeing with you I had to look it up and cross-reference my evidence, which led me to new evidence, which led to me gaining a better understanding of it and shifting my opinion. Therefore, thanks. =)
@rstevewarmorycom Let's suppose you got lost in the woods and you found a path and decided to follow it, the path then later forked into a bunch of different directions but you still had no idea where you were or where each path might lead. In a situation like that, since your environment is unknown it is negated as an influencing choice, since your neuro-chemicals aren't familiar they do not bias the choice, and unless your brain has a preference to a direction, the result would be randomness.
I have to agree with the called here. Free will is an illusion created by the lack of understanding all the parameters involved in the decision making process, which is what he seems to be implying.
@PostITnoteGUY said, "Under determinism you can't choose anything"
Yes you can. The Mars Rover chooses a path or action based on previous learning experience and internal instructions. Sure the choice is causally determined. But the choice wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for that specific rover and the particular environmental circumstances it had previously been exposed to. The same holds true for human "choice"
Causality is not a thing to interact with. It is a type of relationship.
Consciousness is not a thing but a sensation produce by a functional brain. A blind person would be unconscious of visual input. A person who wasn't born blind would only be conscious of visual sensory input stored in memory, which would be less accurate than actual sight.
Logically speaking, causality, which is not a thing but the relationship between cause & effect, and consciousness, which is not a thing but a sensation experienced by most organisms with a brain & senses, cannot interact.
@unseenstrings I fail to see why causality and consciousness cannot interact. I understand that they cannot interact directly, but I think that there is some sort of interaction between them, simply because both have an effect in the reality.
@xkioxx causality is not a thing but a relationship between things. And consciousness is not a thing but a state of a thing. Talking about consciousness interacting with causality is nonsensical. We can talk about a thing being in a state of consciousness. And talk about that thing being in a causal relationship with other things. Is that what you mean?
You're not the first to approach me with that misconception. For you, where did those ideas come from or what stimulated them into existence?
@unseenstrings What I meant was that if causality interacts with reality and consciousness interacts with reality too, exists some interaction between them - through the reality (and by reality I mean things). So yes, I think that things being in a state of consciousness and things being in a causal relationship with other things is what I'm talking about. Although I prefer avoid "consciousness" when I'm talking about things.
@xkioxx, YT User, 10sodot has a video titled "Sam Harris on The Illusion of Free Will" v=iu6iO3ci7qU) which may clarify the issue for you. Also, YT User, DoubleDutchPolitics has one titled, "Sam Harris Explains The Dilemmas Of Free Will" (watch?v=06GGoIWbW4A).
Now, when I received an email with the comment that I now realize you've removed, I replied to it. So even though you've removed the comment, what follows is to be considered a clarification of my initial point:
@xkioxx, well what I mean is consciousness doesn't interact with reality. Both consciousness and unconsciousness are particular states of organisms interacting with other organisms and things within reality, but not with reality itself. (Besides, how does one react with reality? That implies the possibility of reacting with unreality--which means what? Praying to the Easter Bunny? Would one really be interacting with anything besides a figment of the imagination? Could such be proven otherwise?)
Marriage is a relationship. A couple can interact with each other, but how can they interact with marriage when marriage is merely a description of their relationship? "Unmarried" is also a form of relationship. One can have an unmarried couple interacting with each other and with the married couple. But neither couple interact with the marriage nor the nonmarriage, because such are not things but relationships between things. Likewise, causality is merely a relationship between cause and effect
@unseenstrings But if the couple interacts with each other they are interacting with their relationship indirectly, and that's my point. Their consciousness lead to their actions and their actions can change their relationship, therefore exists a interaction between them, wich, of course, isn't direct. Why is that consciousness doesn't interact with things if it interacts with the organism that interacts with other organisms? It doesn't?
@xkioxx, a couple wouldn't be interacting with their relationship. They would be interacting with one another. And that interaction would indicate the type relationship they have. The relationship is not an actual thing but the relation of the couple to one another. It is not a thing but the way something is.
The unconscious brain gives rise to a state called consciousness. Thus, the unconscious brain would be driving the actions and interactions of the conscious "mind" (watch?v=iu6iO3ci7qU).
@unseenstrings I see, now I understood what you mean. But I don't see why it's relevant, things can still alter the states of consciousness, meaning that the couple cannot change the marriage itself but they can alter their relationship for anything else than marriage. Just semantics.
I think that you sent the wrong video in this last comment.
@xkioxx, the video was one pt 1 of 3 I previously suggested but one which I assumed you hadn't watched because of your line of reasoning.
One could say calling dark-brown, brown is "just semantics." Yet, the wording is very important for clarifying and conveying information. (Remember the 3 C's of communication?)
Certain things have the potential to alter brain-states, and consciousness is a brain-state. A state the couple is in (marriage/consciousness) is not a thing in and of itself.
Now if you're fixated with the idea of consciousness "interacting" with anything, I can only assume you get the notion from freaks of metaphysics claiming consciousness interacts with quantum physics. Whereas, the instrument within Schrödinger's Box that is detecting whether the cat is dead or alive is not conscious. And the cat doesn't magically change states from that previously recorded by the instrument when a conscious observer looks in. Religion isn't exclusive to freaks with Holy Books.
I apologize but I did send you the wrong video link. Why don't you watch?v=dodTNPp12rg and watch?v=NHEryas3ByA
Also, dead and alive are states just like marriage and consciousness are states. Live organisms interact and the decomposition of dead organisms I guess can be considered a form of interaction. But "dead" isn't interacting with anything because it is a state of a thing and not a thing itself. Should a couple get a divorce, their state would change from a married state to a divorced.
@rstevewarmorycom, just a bit of trivia: When I was growing up, my mother and father were quick to use the Woulda Coulda Shoulda nonsense. Then on the other hand, my father would say that before judging another man, one should walk a mile in his shoes. My mother would tell me not to judge other people too harshly because I don't know exactly what the life's experiences of those people were to have them acting and thinking as they do. The human brain is capable of holding two conflicting beliefs.
@rstevewarmorycom, DasAmericanAtheist has a video titled, "God from Experience." In it he reflects on some childhood memories. Then he added, "At least that is what I think now, here, some two decades later." He went on to say, "I'm the sum of my experiences. But somewhere between the story of me, and me, there is a tremendous fiction--a pseudoautobiography.... My insights into myself are not me looking at me, but me looking at someone I know intimately." That seems to fit what you're saying.
@rstevewarmorycom, I suspect our "sense that things might have worked out differently" is based on feelings other complex organisms also have--feelings that reinforce not repeating past "mistakes." But we use human language to "justify" what we feel.
Language is so bound to imagery and emotion that not even the most staunch philosopher can isolate himself from the effect.
I know my granddaughter intimately but my "knowledge" is more or less a pseudobiography. She sometimes seems a stranger
@unseenstrings I understand, and I don't think you're wrong but I assumed that it wasn't about semantics because you seems to disagree with the guy who bring the "causality and consciousness interaction" thing, when seems to me that he was only pointing to this kind of interaction between certain things and brain-states causing alterations of consciousness.
Was just semantics (and I don't say in the way that wording isn't important, it's just that it isn't about what I was thiking that was).
@unseenstrings The ideia of consciousness interacting with things was just about some things having the potential to alter brain-states, and changes of the brain-states will cause change of consciousness. I REALLY didn't want to mean all that metaphysics crap.
@xkioxx but when you talk about "consciousness" interacting with things you are in a very subtle way promoting metaphysical crap. You do realize it is not uncommon for people to have blackouts and still function don't you? Some drunks do it on a regular basis. Do you talk about unconsciousness interacting with things? It would make just as much sense as saying consciousness does.
When someone is confused and misunderstanding you, bear in mind language ain't math. Be clear, concise, & coherent
What about the Mars rover? When you talk about it do you talk about synthetic consciousness interacting with things?
Consciousness doesn't and can't interact with anything. Consciousness is merely awareness. And your awareness will determine how you respond in most instances. However, awareness isn't a thing but a state of a thing (the brain), like good health. Do you talk about your awareness and/or your good health interacting with things?
@unseenstrings Well, perhaps, I think that I could make a better word choice. But I wasn't talking about the metaphysical garbage because I explained that wasn't a direct interaction. Again, the point is that things can alter the brain-state and this alteration in the brain-state changes the consciousness, being this change OF the consciousness and not IN the consciousness and that your awareness will determine your actions and your actions will modify things.
@xkioxx, my point was, that may have not been your intention, but that was one possible interpretation of your comment.
Bear in mid the 3 C's of communication: Clear, Concise, and Coherent. (I have seen the third C written as cohesive and also consistent. Basically it means we need to make sure the ideas are logically connected)
Hmmm. Just a thought. Consciousness, in a sense, is analogous to the tides. Do the tides exist? Sure. Not as a thing but as an effect.
@unseenstrings Also, unconsciousness interacting with things would NOT "make just as much sense as saying consciousness does", this assumption is wrong. The word unconsciousness is used to describe the absence of the stuff called consciousness, and the absence of a stuff cannot interact.
@xkioxx LOL. You surely are making a joke? I mean, surely you realize consciousness is not "stuff?" Maybe that is where your confusion is coming from. Remember, consciousness is merely a state of the brain just as unconsciousness is. They both refer to brain states. Neither one of them are "stuff." The brain is stuff. The brain can be in a state of health or malfunction. The brain can be in a state of consciousness or unconsciousness. It can be asleep or awake. But none of these states are stuff
@unseenstrings I'm not proposing nothing like "you can make your own reality". I only use the word to represent the "things" which you were talking about, now I see that was a bad choice of words.
I'm sorry for the removed comment, I thought that the my argument deserved a better explanation. And I agree with you in the whole free will thing I just disagree in this specific point.
No the question isn't "whether in the bounds of nature it is rigid mechanics or whether there is some lubrication provided by quantum physics?" Automatically you biased the discussion by making it "determinism" vs "free will." You see, disproving determinism does not prove free will. And no such argumentation is put forth when discussing nonhuman brains or other complex physical systems. Disputed philosophical arguments are only injected into discussions of the brain of the human animal. Why?
The question should be, "Does the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the individual's brain have anything to do with his (or her) choice behavior?" Can changing the neuroanatomy or physiological chemistry of the brain have any effect on choice behavior? How does the individual's brain come to have the particular neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry it possesses? Where do desires come from? Where do "wants" come from? Where does love come from? What about belief and perception?
Think about the absolute strongest conviction you have at this moment. Can you decide now that when you awake in the morn that you shall believe just the opposite of what you presently believe, & that belief be just as strong as your present belief, & that choice be realized? No you can't. And do you know why? Well it is because free will is an illusion. You can choose what you want, what you believe, or what you desire; but you do not create for yourself your wants, your belief nor your desires
And twice you spelled "I'm" without an apostrophe (Im).
Ad hominem fallacies are illogical arguments. They are the type of argument used by naive little kids against one another.
Saying you could explain may work as a bluff for those who are easily bluffed. But I don't buy your BS. Explain to me how a choice or a belief can be free from the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the brain?
Oh, by the way @FatRakoon, you should be arguing with Richard Dawkins, not me. My argument was based on something he said, i.e., "Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy & physiological chemistry were different." Watch my video, "Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will" (watch?v=8LE4uu49SU8).
Spelling is a fault of mine when typing. I type things as I think them and sometimes I fix the error sometimes I cant be arsed. The NG / GN issue however I cannot see due to dyslexia but the argue / argument was a mistake as I did type down "Thats a stupid one to argue" and I adjusted that, but left the E, and the Im / I'm is something that I keep seeing on here anyway and so I thought if I cant beat them, I'd join them.
Well, @chefshitpiece, I reckon that is pretty much the gist of the matter. A person can be in an accident that drastically changes her appearance, but she will still be recognized for who she is based on the mindset and personality she possesses. However, should she happen to be in an accident that doesn't change her appearance but does change her mindset and personality, then people who know her will likely say, "she is not the same person"
@rstevewarmorycom, 1st what OS and text editor are you using? Your formatting is weird. If you are using Windows, or if you know how to compile source to suit another OS, then may I recommend Notepad++. It will give a precise character count, word wraps, and spell checks. And with the proper plugin, it will read back what you've written. Best of all, its freeware.
I cannot say that when something happens it was always going to happen. I totally agree with Richard Feynman (watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is)
@rstevewarmorycom Feynman was talking about absolute certainty. Carl Sagan likewise had a few things to say about people who claimed absolute certainty. He suspected the primary motivation for the Holocaust could be traced back the absolute certainty of individuals. I guess the only thing Feynman and Sagan were absolutely certain about was that they were not absolutely certain about anything other than not being absolutely certain. What °/% of certainty do you have regarding Many Worlds theory?
Remember the three meanings of determinism I mentioned? 1) Philosophy: The doctrine holding that events are inevitably determined by preceding causes. 2) Science: The doctrine that all occurrences in nature take place in accordance with natural laws. 3) Physics: The principle in classical mechanics that the values of dynamic variables of a system and of the forces acting on the system at a given time, completely determine the values of the variables at any later time. Is your meaning different?
@rstevewarmorycom, that was a song written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans and sang by Doris Day (Que Sera Sera)
Determinism is a word. It is used to represent a mental construct. The mental construct existing in two individual's minds aren't necessary the same when the word determinism is spoken or heard. Besides, Collins English Dictionary indicates determinism has different meaning in different disciplines. We have philosophical meaning, general scientific meaning, and meaning for physics.
I really don't know what you're implying. I don't know if you mean that determinism is merely happenstance. I don't know if you mean just the opposite, i.e., determinism is predestination. I don't know if you're playing with words to imply that what happens by chance will seem to be causally connected to past events. And I really don't know what all this speculation has to do with trying to understand scientifically why the stream runs downhill or why the human brain functions in a certain way.
@rstevewarmorycom, I put it this way: If the gazelle decides to get a drink of water and gets attacked and eaten by the hidden lion, it was the gazelle's decision that resulted in the lion's decision. The gazelle's decision was the result of causal processes as was the lion's. Yet we can never learn the causal factors involved in the decision-making process of either animal by stopping the discussion at the decision. Your perspective of determinism seems to do this and "free will" does for sure.
We know a car-crash at an intersection was likely caused by the decisions of the driver/s involved. But does that mean we shouldn't try to understand the few causal factors we are capable of understanding in order to do something to curb future crashes?
I certainly appreciate your logical argument for determinism. But my point is that PHILOSOPHICAL arguments concerning determinism when trying to understand human choice are as superfluous as such is while trying to understand fluid mechanics.
@rstevewarmorycom, peers are external to us. But the inherent mechanism that results in our conformity is within us. We call it "peer pressure" when an internal mechanism results in us striving to meet or exceed the perceived expectations of peers.
When hungry, we instinctively salivate at the sight or smell of food. But we also unconsciously tend to salivate at the sound of plates being placed on the dinner table. The mechanism was internal but the response was stimulated by external factors
As you say we cannot lift ourselves into the air by tugging away at our own belt. Nor can we lift ourselves by our bootstraps. Those things within us CANNOT change us, as you say. But sufficient external factors can alter our perception and change the way we are. Every change that we have ever experience from the time of birth was the result of external factors. When we WANT to change, we do not choose to experience the WANT. We experience the WANT as a result of unconscious factors to external
Free will may well be an illusion, though if that is the case, the illusion is real. It is a fact that on a fundamental level, our cells of which we are comprised, have no free will or consciousness - that is not to say however that our cells are not aware.
If free will didn't exist, then our understanding of potential and possibility might as well get thrown out the door. I think that both aspects of free will and determinism exist - that is to say that we have a will - and that is all that really matters. On the individual stimulae level, the cells in our brain have neither consciousness or free will, when they coalesce new structures and functions emerge, though this does not mean that all of a sudden we have 'free will' either....
I don't know that we humans have Free Will...depending how the term is defined. It is clear that we make decisions, but what is not clear are the factors [all of them] which go into the making of those decisions.
I do believe though that...roughly speaking...to the extent that our behaviour is predictable, we do not have free will....to the extent that our behaviour is not predictable, we do have free will.
If I can predict your behaviour, what does that say about your Free Will?
Its both. Its Determinism AND Free Will. Picking one is being one dimensional in your thinking and the universe is not one dimensional. Dimensional of course, being a human perception. It's forward AND backwards.
@AllenQuatermain2de While free will and determinism as concepts are distinct, that is not to say that one doesn't emerge from the other. Our brains cells do not have 'free will' to do what they do, they do their jobs when it is appropriate and possible for them to do so. Though when coalescence occurs, new structures and functions become evident - so what is to say that 'free will' can not emerge from deterministic factors? As such, both would be said to exist together simultaneously.
@StephenWebb1980 i think that free will most definitely has its "roots" in determinism, but only the illusion of free will. given the fact that free will and determinism are two different concepts that hold mutually exclusive views, they cannot both exist simultaneously, at least not in the same way.
@AllenQuatermain2de Are the 'roots' of a tree not that which the tree needs in order to exist? What I mean to say is that in order for free will to exist [if it does] it would most certainly have a deterministic quality about it, because the very cells that fuel our perception and idea of self are solely deterministic - this is inescapable, I'm not saying that we have 'free will', what I am saying is that IF we did, it would be inextricably intertwined with deterministic processes.
@AllenQuatermain2de I personally think that free will is one of the greatest mind tricks ever. Free will is the ego, and ego has a tendency to distort reality. People believe in it because they want to feel as though they have the power to choose. I think that we have a will but it most certainly is not free. This is not to say that I believe solely in determinism however. Social Justice also has a stake in the matter because for some reason people think it impossible to justify...
@AllenQuatermain2de ...punishment or reward without there being the power for people to choose which path they desire. I don't think that this is a strong argument for Social Justice however. Mainly because even if everything were completely deterministic, there would still be those who value Justice and those who commit crimes - the consequences would be the same as within a world with free will. I don't think the world would be any different either way....
@AllenQuatermain2de ...Justice is dealt based on what actually occurs, not what has the potential to occur. So its a complete nonsense when pro free will people state that Justification of ruling is dependent upon whether or not we have the potential to do something [as in the ability to choose right way from wrong way].
QUOTE = "Justice is dealt on what actually occurs"
Except in the UK where you can get done "With intent"
Can get caught with guns and ski masks and even a plan on how and where to rob a bank and you can be on the way to the bank, but you cannot get done unless you actually do the deed.
However, you get caught with some cannabis and you get done "With intent to supply" so you get done on that and the posession which is a double sentence!
@FatRakoon Well, here in the US they will also apply such charges, I see your point - though if the initial crime hadn't taken place they wouldn't have reason to attempt such [insane though they are] charges. In order for the fifth domino in line to fall, the first has to be pushed and the proceeding 4 follow...Potential is a very important factor - but for potential to be there, there must be a vehicle for it to be carried out first.
Its both. Its Determinism AND Free Will. Picking one is being one dimensional in your thinking and the universe is not one dimensional. Dimensional of course, being a human perception.
It doesn't matter whether determinism is true or indeterminism is true, we are NOT free regarding the freedom necessary and required for moral responsibility ... How you want to thus define "free-will", is your choice BUT, it cannot be valid unless it is attached with moral responsibility..Thanks
Video caller is right. Compatibalism doesn't make sense. Freewill is freewill. If you translated the intuitive, subjective experience of freewill into a metaphysical reality, it would mean human beings are the magical first cause of an entirely new series of cause and effect, and that nothing can causally determine your choice in any matter. A whole host of options and motivations might be presented to you, but at the end of the day you can do anything that is humanly possible.
Yeah its the mini god problem with compatibalism people are able to start off thier own causal chains without being subject to events that happened previously. This makes free will purely random.
The way atoms behave, which no human brain, animal brain, rock, or element has control over (they're what's being controlled) is what determinism equates to. No one has control of the way atoms operate, so everyone (& everything) is the puppet of atoms. Atoms, then = God, Fate, Karma, Existence, etc.
Free will is starting to sound like a product of a particular stage of development in childhood. At what point do we sense conciousness and begin to make decisions. Predetermination can only be demonstrated with quantum theory, a comparison at a fixed point of time with actions commited among all demensions. Currently not possible at the level of science we know.
These two guys have no idea about this issue.... Again, there is no evidence NO EVIDENCE that quantum mechanics has any bearing on our decisions.... There is lots of evidence that it does not though....
Furthermore, there are two ways to look at free will, one is origination (you create yourself or you can act outside of your nature) and the other is agreeableness (you agree with your nature) Agreeableness is compatibalism and origination is strong free will. Agreeableness has some flaws though
Again, Dee doesnt know what he is talking about. Committing the humunculus fallacy wont get you very far. Hey Dee, it has nothing to do if an ego exists that can pull the levers in your brain because then you would have to show how the humunculus is not composed of unconscious parts that obey physical law. In other words, you are positing that some entity exists in your brain that is not reducible to physical law.
The only intelligent thing Ive ever heard Dee do is yell at Xians about hell.
Compatibalists are pussies who cant accept reality.... And then they complain about religious belief.... Hypocrites in that respect really. Although David Hume was a compatibalist and he was a fucking bad ass mother fucker.... So no biggie really.
I have a problem with the quantum-mechanics argument that Jeff and Russell give. Saying "quantum mechanics is our current model to describe particles" implies "nothing is determined" is I think ludicrous because quantum mechanics is just a mathematical model of ónly particles. Also, because I see mathematics as a 'modelling language' I fail to see how one could infer anything about anything the model is NOT describing.
The only good argument I have heard to suggest we have free will is the fact that the Universe does not operate in one direction, ie it is a feedback system. We are part of the universe and not its object; our decisions feed back into the universe and have an effect on the universe. We can set evolutionary programs, ie feedback programs which are identical but progress differently, we do not know or at least I am not aware why this happens.
Through a dialectic, we can perfect the truth in our own minds, and help others who have waded away from the stream of life and into these seemingly nonsensical waters. When we have finished teaching others (and ultimately ourselves) the truth regarding causation, then may we be liberated from this weighty mental burden? we will all have to wait and see!
@blacknganga The mistake made both by the determinists and the protagonists of unlimited free will is that they have imagined man to have only two possible roads before him: either all his acts must be attributed exclusively to God, so that he then loses all freedom and becomes determined in his acts, or we are obliged to accept that his volitional acts derive from an independent and unbounded essence, a view entailing the limitation of God's power. ...
@1tabligh The problem has everything to do with this one fact: the words "free" and "will" should never have been coupled for use in the general vocabulary of the English language. I give you this 1 challenge: define for me your term "free will".
However, the fact that wehavefree will does notaffect the comprehensiveness of God's power, because He has willed that we should freely take our own decisions, in accordance with the norm and law He has established.
From one point of view, man's acts and deeds can be attributed to him, and from another point of view, to God. Man has a direct, immediate relationship with his own deeds, while God's relationship with those deeds is indirect, but both forms ...
@1tabligh Also, it concerns me that you are using the term God instead of "God". There are many gods, so why does this word feature so heavily in your side of this discussion? Are you Christian? Are you Jewish?
The Prophet is related to have said: "God wished that things should take place through causes and means, and He decreed nothing except by means of a cause; He, therefore, created a cause for all things." ...
@1tabligh ..............so you are talking about the god of Islam..........I fail to see how your comments are at all related to the discussion at hand. The term "free will' means nothing at all to me. The use of the term "free will" signifies to me that the speaker is confused and wishes to spread their confusion like pestilence. I shall again put my request to you: concisely state (your) definition of "free will".
@blacknganga Our choice and free will come to form the last link in a chain of causes and means that result in the performance of an act on our part.
The Quranic verses which relate all things to God and depict them as arising from Him are concerned with proclaiming the pre- eternal will of the Creator as the designer of the world and explain- ing how His power embraces and penetrates the entire course of being. ...
@blacknganga How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@blacknganga Are you stupid? ....This is not "science", this is philosophy.
_______
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate ....
nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter? ...
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory ....
realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
How is that for YOUR "Are you stupid? ....This is not "science", this is philosophy."?
I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for science and polemics with your "Fuck off you dumb nutter. Go suck on a big fat cock! Go put your cock inside another man 'till he blows, you moron."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain. ...
@blacknganga You are simply trying to impress people with your complex logic. Ok, prove to me concisely in less than 100 words you know what this debate is about. Clue: it has nothing to do with theology.
His power extends through every part of the universe, with no exceptions,butGod's unchallenged mightdoes notdiminish the freedom of man. For it is God Who makes free will a part of man, and it is He Who bestows it upon him. He has made man free to follow the path of his own choosing, and He holds no individual or pe
You seem to be equating the word LUCK (that you can't control what happens to you) with the word RANDOM, which some use to describe the idea that things happen for no reason (impossible) or that the reasons are too complex to undrstand (possible).
Most online dictionaries, if you would care to reference them, define luck in terms of chance...and genetics really is a lottery. Therefore DNA is the result of luck.
Feel free to try again any time you like.
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion ok i guess ur right on the definition im just trying to point out that in ur theory u stop at a certain point. u dont go further into how the brain works so if u go far enough u would get to the atom and elementary particles which cannot be predicted
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader Thank you. I will always conceed someone else's point when they are right and I appreciate your acceptence of my usage of the word luck.
As for your other point I think I understand the tac you are following but I am not sure if it applies. Many things in this world all have different natures, yet they are made of the same atoms. MY understanding of quantum physics is that logic breaks down at the subatomic level, but our universe...Im sure we can agree,,,
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader ...forgive me...I rare;ly go this long...OUR UNIVERSE has certain regularities based on physical laws. So just because that underlying our neuronal systems there are quarks and nuetrinos does not invalidate a thourough examination of how those systems work...any less than the fact that my bottles of Scotch and Drambuie are made of electrons and protons invalidates my quest for the perfect Rusty Nail! Do you follow my reasoning?
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion i already said i agree with u that objects on the large scale are largely unaffected by the randomness of particles. did u read part 1 to the comment i posted? i think i already explained it maybe u only read "part 2:" but i mean the very meaning of determinism is that everything is set in a path which cant be changed. which we know isnt true because u cant ignore even the smallest of things. maybe the correct term for u is psychological determinism?
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader Yeah, sorry...I missed that. So what your saying is:
IF there is no randomness in the universe
THEN it should be possible to tell what everyone will do
BECAUSE we can predict the physical movements they will make
The next point goes:
IF we can see this future
THEN we can choose to change it...so it is not really determined?
My first response would be that knowledge of the future WOULD BE one of the detrerministic events that shapes the action. Let me elaborate...
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion yeah but i mean it doesnt have to be tested just as schrodingers cat doesnt have to either. its a scenario than could exist. it relies on the ideas of the universe we have so it can be mentally tested with a possible situation. its like saying what if a fighter jet was traveling 3 miles per hour and at the same time 40 miles per hour underwater. we dont have to test it because we base the conclusion on the knowledge we know. and the conclusion is that it would be impossible.
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion part 2: u accept the uncertainty principle right? if u do it would make no sense to call urself a determinist. thats all im really trying to say
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader You know what? Send me a Friend request or a contact request or whatever its called these days (Ive tried and I dont know how). I want to do a little more research on Uncertainty but for the next month I have to study for my CMA exam. Im not sure whether you are not making your points flow together or whether I lack enough knowledge to properly address your points. You seem to be pretty sharp so lets stay in touch.
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion yeah sure i enjoy talking about this kind of stuff
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader
Let's say someone decides that they are going to cheat destiny and raise their right hand. So they look on the "FUTURE TV" and see that they have raised their right hand. But the DECSION to try and cheat destiny was becausethey had a defiant nature. And here we go back into my model.
Now, you have raised some INTERESTING points...but until a scenario like this could happen in reality we can take no evidence from it, only conjecture.
With respect...I stand by my theory.
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
Our lives reflect our decisions
Which in turn are based on our values.
Which are in turn based on our personality.
WHich is found in our Pre-Frontal cortex.
Which is shaped by our DNA.
Which is the luck of the draw.
I am a Hard Determinist.
Except unlike other Determinists I actually have a valid argument.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion determinism doesnt exist its been proven
emptybookreader 1 month ago
@emptybookreader Prove it.
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
@emptybookreader No, seriously...I'm almost insulted! This is way beyond surreal. Do you really...REALLY...think for one second that a guy with an argument as elaborate as mine is going to suddenly dissuaded by nothing more than you espousing your opinion? Get real.
Can I ask you a question...exactly WTF were you thinking that my response would be when I read your post? This ought to be priceless.
HedgehogRebellion 4 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion its been widely accepted by physicists for decades look up the uncertainty principle. its not meant to be insulting its just lack of knowledge on ur part
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader
1) Indetermanancy of particle behaviour does not necessarily translate well into psychological dynamics
2) Einstein quoted "God does not play dice" in response to Heisberg
3) Sir Karl Popper bagged on their methodology
Now getting back to business, why dont you look at my earlier post and be the first guy to find a weak link in my armor. Except you won't...people have been trying for 3 years..and failing for 3 years. Everybody loves truth until its time to face up to it.
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion einstein later gave up the idea of determinism and later accepted it so dont give an earlier quote when he was reluctant to accept it. if u mean "disproved" by "bagged" watch a modern tv show on the science channel or read a book about it its been tested and approved. and i agree that things on the very large scale are unaffected by the uncertainty principle for the most part but it ultimately gets rid of determinism. and if u could predict the future free will could exist
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@emptybookreader Fine and well. Can you attack the structure of my thoery or not?
HedgehogRebellion 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion by mentioning the word "luck" in your theory u have contradicted urself. determinism is the absence of luck making the world set in an absolute path that cannot be changed. i dont have to attack the structure of ur argument u proved urself wrong to begin with.
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
@HedgehogRebellion part 2: because without randomness in the universe, it would be possible to predict the velocity and position of every atom and, with the knowledge and technology to do this, one could predict the future with absolute certainty. if we had this technology and were able to see the future, we would be able to change it. if the future showed that u would raise ur left hand, u would be very able to raise ur right hand instead under ur own free will.
emptybookreader 3 weeks ago
I used to think more like the caller, but now I'm more in line with Jeff. This is really discussion based in semantics - it depends on how exactly you define free will. It's a really interesting discussion to have though.
mahmoudyzadeh 1 month ago
There is the Free Will experiment. If I can by my will and my will alone change the future then I shall accept that Free Will exists. I can choose which sock to put on first if I wish to. I can choose to wait another five minutes or not. And I can choose what I say here. And so can you. That's enough for me to make choices as if they matter.
George4943 2 months ago
@George4943 But all those things are already determined.
chucknorris136 1 month ago
@chucknorris136 But is that really relevant to anything? Outside of "for the sake of argument", does it matter? We still know we can affect things by our choices.
w35m4n 1 month ago
@w35m4n We can call that free will, even though it isn't. It's all about how you define free will. I guess I'm talking about the same kind of free will as the caller and we are talking about "ultimate free will". Yes, you can basically "choose" which sock you put on first, but it's not ultimately a free choice because the action is already determined for you. It's the illusion of free will.
chucknorris136 1 month ago
@chucknorris136
You choosing your sock depends on a number of factors. It could be that that particular sock is attractive or that you want to choose the less attractive one to try to prove that you have free will. Ultimately however, it depends on the circumstances and thus there is no true free will.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
Compatibilism exist so laws of punishment can be "right" and believing in good and bad by excluding the relative perspective of events outcome. These dudes are kinda stupid, but still atheists... lucky for them in other words. But they are still in the region of the religion of free will. And by the way, Daniel Dennett is someone only fools finds truthful. His arguments always ends at a point at which it could keep on, but he sees it as a true end or source of an event.
gr0gg0 3 months ago
--resume-- would make a different "choice". The one they chose
is all they get, the result, Now, is unary, it has only one
state, the one it made for you in this life. Thus: What will be will be! If we were actually free to think any damned thing we wanted we would decide we'd rather be in some pleasing faery-
land and walk around in delusional rags talking to shopping carts,
which we see as a mental disorder. If we were free to think
whatever, on whim, coherent reality could NOT even EXIST!
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
Gentlemen: You cannot change the tiniest thing that you truly
believe by an act of will(whim). You can lie and SAY you did,
but nobody will believe you, because THEY know THEY can't EITHER! That means you have NO "free will". The great majority
of physicists admit that Determinism is indisputable. Quantum
Mechanics is much mis-used in this regard by pop-science/pop-philosophy writers who know little about it. The fact is, that nobody GETS to play it over and see if they or electrons --cont--
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom I disagree, and it isn't indisputable as you say because there is evidence supporting both, it isn't completely one sided. I agree that yes, a person's choices are limited by their genetic programming, by their neuro-chemical stimuli, and they are limited by what they experience within their environment, but when a person is weighing two decisions equally and bases them as both being equally valid, it forces them to utilize free will.
Xadreos 3 months ago
@Xadreos No, it is completely one sided. The simple unavoidable
fact is that we cannot change our ideas, that instead, our ideas
change and we cannot control how they change External influence
or internal processes not subject to control change them. If we could
change our beliefs by will(whim) we could genuinely believe we were
anywhere else we wished and causation would be non-existent and
all flow of events would become random and disrupted, nothing could
be certain, and nothing repeatable.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@Xadreos The "decisions" that "we" make are not "made" by
us, as we do not decide their content, rather we buy and own
them as "ours" after the fact, after we can do nothing about them,
and are forced to either accept them or else suffer dissolution
of our identity, which would simply then put us as someone else,
and somewhere else. If you could change your own mind, this kind
of reality would not be possible, because we could choose to
believe unreservedly we were someone/where else we weren't.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@Xadreos That's just decision, it's not free will. What you decide
is beyond your control. It is based on things that are external to you,
your experiences now and in the past. When you decide, it is brain
chemistry "thinks" you, otherwise there are exceptions to physical
laws governing atoms and molecules in your brain, and that is
superstitious nonsense. Now if you claim that "you" ARE your brain
chemistry, fine, but you could NOT have made a different decision,
nor even wished to do so.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Alright, from researching it for several hours today, I understand it better and agree with you more. It's determined by how the millions of synapses function, the genetics of the individual, the neurochemical responses, and the way the individual reacts to external stimuli (ie the environment).
Therefore, a person's behaviour could all be determined, but not unless you had a supercomputer which could do the incredibly complex calculations related to all of those reactions.
Xadreos 3 months ago
@Xadreos No, no, no, no. "Determinism" has NOTHING to do
with "how to determine" a future mental state or outcome. It
refers ONLY to the future being already existent in the future,
and being what always will have happened by a given time.
It means that all of time is pre-Determined in advance. In QM
it is the same as saying that all times exist at once, and the
flow of time is just awareness's way to keep everything from
happening at the same time. Time is an illusion.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Okay, then I would ask where the evidence is to that statement because what you're referring to now is fate.
Fate-the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed.
And whether time is an illusion or not, it doesn't mean in similar circumstances people will always react the same. If that's your definition of determinism, then I call bullshit from lack of evidence.
Xadreos 3 months ago
@Xadreos Fate is an old-timey word with poor definition.
There are NO identical circumstances, so nobody can ever
do anything more than once. But what they did was what they
were always going to do forever. Their actions don't have to
be predictable to be determined.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom And another thing I might add, I find it funny that you would argue something which is unable to be proven or tested. You could argue that humanity has only one predestined course, but unless you have a time machine handy that can send you back without creating a paradox, there's pretty much no way you prove that everything is based on fate. You cannot make people go through identical circumstances twice without them using memory to bias their result.
Xadreos 3 months ago
@Xadreos The problem of measurement is partly one of not
actually being able to reproduce a circumstance exactly, so
that observation is possible only in the instance that something
is observed and only once. The maddening thing about that is
that then nothing can be tested, since it cannot be reproduced.
But this also means that whatever happens has always been
going to happen.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom In any case, from disagreeing with you I had to look it up and cross-reference my evidence, which led me to new evidence, which led to me gaining a better understanding of it and shifting my opinion. Therefore, thanks. =)
Xadreos 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Let's suppose you got lost in the woods and you found a path and decided to follow it, the path then later forked into a bunch of different directions but you still had no idea where you were or where each path might lead. In a situation like that, since your environment is unknown it is negated as an influencing choice, since your neuro-chemicals aren't familiar they do not bias the choice, and unless your brain has a preference to a direction, the result would be randomness.
Xadreos 3 months ago
@Xadreos "Your" brain is NOT "yours". It doesn't do what you
want, and you don't even want what you want to want, instead
your thoughts "think you up" and you have no power over them,
because without them there is NO "you". at ALL. Your notion of
free-will/self-control comes from the abstraction of reflecting
upon yourself reflecting, which happens by generating multiple
models of ourselves in the mind. We do NOT have the power to
be other than we are, or to change what we are.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@Xadreos ONLY external processes and influences, or else
internal cogitations can do that, and over them we have no
power. Our mind changes, whether we might like it or not,
and we simply like it after the fact because we are then the
mind which changed and believes the new beliefs. Our liking
these new beliefs now had no control over changing our beliefs
before these beliefs were changed to their new state. What
changes us we call external to us, what cannot change us we
call internal!!!
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
Im studying possitive spychology -_-
mrdiaz0108 7 months ago 2
I have to agree with the called here. Free will is an illusion created by the lack of understanding all the parameters involved in the decision making process, which is what he seems to be implying.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 8 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY said, "Under determinism you can't choose anything"
Yes you can. The Mars Rover chooses a path or action based on previous learning experience and internal instructions. Sure the choice is causally determined. But the choice wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for that specific rover and the particular environmental circumstances it had previously been exposed to. The same holds true for human "choice"
Causality is not a thing to interact with. It is a type of relationship.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
Consciousness is not a thing but a sensation produce by a functional brain. A blind person would be unconscious of visual input. A person who wasn't born blind would only be conscious of visual sensory input stored in memory, which would be less accurate than actual sight.
Logically speaking, causality, which is not a thing but the relationship between cause & effect, and consciousness, which is not a thing but a sensation experienced by most organisms with a brain & senses, cannot interact.
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings I fail to see why causality and consciousness cannot interact. I understand that they cannot interact directly, but I think that there is some sort of interaction between them, simply because both have an effect in the reality.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx causality is not a thing but a relationship between things. And consciousness is not a thing but a state of a thing. Talking about consciousness interacting with causality is nonsensical. We can talk about a thing being in a state of consciousness. And talk about that thing being in a causal relationship with other things. Is that what you mean?
You're not the first to approach me with that misconception. For you, where did those ideas come from or what stimulated them into existence?
unseenstrings 8 months ago
Comment removed
xkioxx 8 months ago
@unseenstrings What I meant was that if causality interacts with reality and consciousness interacts with reality too, exists some interaction between them - through the reality (and by reality I mean things). So yes, I think that things being in a state of consciousness and things being in a causal relationship with other things is what I'm talking about. Although I prefer avoid "consciousness" when I'm talking about things.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx, YT User, 10sodot has a video titled "Sam Harris on The Illusion of Free Will" v=iu6iO3ci7qU) which may clarify the issue for you. Also, YT User, DoubleDutchPolitics has one titled, "Sam Harris Explains The Dilemmas Of Free Will" (watch?v=06GGoIWbW4A).
Now, when I received an email with the comment that I now realize you've removed, I replied to it. So even though you've removed the comment, what follows is to be considered a clarification of my initial point:
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@xkioxx, well what I mean is consciousness doesn't interact with reality. Both consciousness and unconsciousness are particular states of organisms interacting with other organisms and things within reality, but not with reality itself. (Besides, how does one react with reality? That implies the possibility of reacting with unreality--which means what? Praying to the Easter Bunny? Would one really be interacting with anything besides a figment of the imagination? Could such be proven otherwise?)
unseenstrings 8 months ago
Marriage is a relationship. A couple can interact with each other, but how can they interact with marriage when marriage is merely a description of their relationship? "Unmarried" is also a form of relationship. One can have an unmarried couple interacting with each other and with the married couple. But neither couple interact with the marriage nor the nonmarriage, because such are not things but relationships between things. Likewise, causality is merely a relationship between cause and effect
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings But if the couple interacts with each other they are interacting with their relationship indirectly, and that's my point. Their consciousness lead to their actions and their actions can change their relationship, therefore exists a interaction between them, wich, of course, isn't direct. Why is that consciousness doesn't interact with things if it interacts with the organism that interacts with other organisms? It doesn't?
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx, a couple wouldn't be interacting with their relationship. They would be interacting with one another. And that interaction would indicate the type relationship they have. The relationship is not an actual thing but the relation of the couple to one another. It is not a thing but the way something is.
The unconscious brain gives rise to a state called consciousness. Thus, the unconscious brain would be driving the actions and interactions of the conscious "mind" (watch?v=iu6iO3ci7qU).
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings I see, now I understood what you mean. But I don't see why it's relevant, things can still alter the states of consciousness, meaning that the couple cannot change the marriage itself but they can alter their relationship for anything else than marriage. Just semantics.
I think that you sent the wrong video in this last comment.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx, the video was one pt 1 of 3 I previously suggested but one which I assumed you hadn't watched because of your line of reasoning.
One could say calling dark-brown, brown is "just semantics." Yet, the wording is very important for clarifying and conveying information. (Remember the 3 C's of communication?)
Certain things have the potential to alter brain-states, and consciousness is a brain-state. A state the couple is in (marriage/consciousness) is not a thing in and of itself.
unseenstrings 8 months ago
Now if you're fixated with the idea of consciousness "interacting" with anything, I can only assume you get the notion from freaks of metaphysics claiming consciousness interacts with quantum physics. Whereas, the instrument within Schrödinger's Box that is detecting whether the cat is dead or alive is not conscious. And the cat doesn't magically change states from that previously recorded by the instrument when a conscious observer looks in. Religion isn't exclusive to freaks with Holy Books.
unseenstrings 8 months ago
I apologize but I did send you the wrong video link. Why don't you watch?v=dodTNPp12rg and watch?v=NHEryas3ByA
Also, dead and alive are states just like marriage and consciousness are states. Live organisms interact and the decomposition of dead organisms I guess can be considered a form of interaction. But "dead" isn't interacting with anything because it is a state of a thing and not a thing itself. Should a couple get a divorce, their state would change from a married state to a divorced.
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings Precisely. The world that Determinism determines
is the world of opened Schrodinger's Catboxes. (;->) If the cat shits
in the box you don't know it till you open it, but all instants are made
of these already opened Catboxes. If things ever could have been
different, it didn't "happen". "Happen" MEANS that it didn't. Woulda
Coulda Shoulda is nonsense, like your mother told you.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, just a bit of trivia: When I was growing up, my mother and father were quick to use the Woulda Coulda Shoulda nonsense. Then on the other hand, my father would say that before judging another man, one should walk a mile in his shoes. My mother would tell me not to judge other people too harshly because I don't know exactly what the life's experiences of those people were to have them acting and thinking as they do. The human brain is capable of holding two conflicting beliefs.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings One of the peculiarities of human exiostence is
the fact that we can have a sense that things might have worked
out differently before now, whereas we only experience one life and
one long train of outcomes that are unary, they are one of a kind and
offer no alternatives. Our hypothetical inner nature is obviously an
improvement in us that was important, it just doesn't, however,
mean that it should always be believed or used for every old thing.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rstevewarmorycom, DasAmericanAtheist has a video titled, "God from Experience." In it he reflects on some childhood memories. Then he added, "At least that is what I think now, here, some two decades later." He went on to say, "I'm the sum of my experiences. But somewhere between the story of me, and me, there is a tremendous fiction--a pseudoautobiography.... My insights into myself are not me looking at me, but me looking at someone I know intimately." That seems to fit what you're saying.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, I suspect our "sense that things might have worked out differently" is based on feelings other complex organisms also have--feelings that reinforce not repeating past "mistakes." But we use human language to "justify" what we feel.
Language is so bound to imagery and emotion that not even the most staunch philosopher can isolate himself from the effect.
I know my granddaughter intimately but my "knowledge" is more or less a pseudobiography. She sometimes seems a stranger
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings In the final analysis, we know no one but ourselves.
The lives of others from their own perspective are so unbelievably
different from ours, that what we think we know about them is actually
nothing but self-knowledge, knowledge about our way of looking at
others.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@unseenstrings I understand, and I don't think you're wrong but I assumed that it wasn't about semantics because you seems to disagree with the guy who bring the "causality and consciousness interaction" thing, when seems to me that he was only pointing to this kind of interaction between certain things and brain-states causing alterations of consciousness.
Was just semantics (and I don't say in the way that wording isn't important, it's just that it isn't about what I was thiking that was).
xkioxx 8 months ago
@unseenstrings The ideia of consciousness interacting with things was just about some things having the potential to alter brain-states, and changes of the brain-states will cause change of consciousness. I REALLY didn't want to mean all that metaphysics crap.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx but when you talk about "consciousness" interacting with things you are in a very subtle way promoting metaphysical crap. You do realize it is not uncommon for people to have blackouts and still function don't you? Some drunks do it on a regular basis. Do you talk about unconsciousness interacting with things? It would make just as much sense as saying consciousness does.
When someone is confused and misunderstanding you, bear in mind language ain't math. Be clear, concise, & coherent
unseenstrings 8 months ago
What about the Mars rover? When you talk about it do you talk about synthetic consciousness interacting with things?
Consciousness doesn't and can't interact with anything. Consciousness is merely awareness. And your awareness will determine how you respond in most instances. However, awareness isn't a thing but a state of a thing (the brain), like good health. Do you talk about your awareness and/or your good health interacting with things?
Consciousness interacting is "pop" psych BS.
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings Well, perhaps, I think that I could make a better word choice. But I wasn't talking about the metaphysical garbage because I explained that wasn't a direct interaction. Again, the point is that things can alter the brain-state and this alteration in the brain-state changes the consciousness, being this change OF the consciousness and not IN the consciousness and that your awareness will determine your actions and your actions will modify things.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@unseenstrings The psychic crap is about consciousness itself modifying the reality. I'm pretty sure that I never said anything like this.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx, my point was, that may have not been your intention, but that was one possible interpretation of your comment.
Bear in mid the 3 C's of communication: Clear, Concise, and Coherent. (I have seen the third C written as cohesive and also consistent. Basically it means we need to make sure the ideas are logically connected)
Hmmm. Just a thought. Consciousness, in a sense, is analogous to the tides. Do the tides exist? Sure. Not as a thing but as an effect.
Hmmm. Is gravity a thing?
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings Also, unconsciousness interacting with things would NOT "make just as much sense as saying consciousness does", this assumption is wrong. The word unconsciousness is used to describe the absence of the stuff called consciousness, and the absence of a stuff cannot interact.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx LOL. You surely are making a joke? I mean, surely you realize consciousness is not "stuff?" Maybe that is where your confusion is coming from. Remember, consciousness is merely a state of the brain just as unconsciousness is. They both refer to brain states. Neither one of them are "stuff." The brain is stuff. The brain can be in a state of health or malfunction. The brain can be in a state of consciousness or unconsciousness. It can be asleep or awake. But none of these states are stuff
unseenstrings 8 months ago
@unseenstrings I'm not proposing nothing like "you can make your own reality". I only use the word to represent the "things" which you were talking about, now I see that was a bad choice of words.
I'm sorry for the removed comment, I thought that the my argument deserved a better explanation. And I agree with you in the whole free will thing I just disagree in this specific point.
xkioxx 8 months ago
@xkioxx Being aware of what you think is not determining what
you think. What sees that you think this or that is not the believer
that believes this or that. It sees the believer. The way consciousness
works is to abstract the self as another entity and then witness it.
Definitionally it can't do both as the same entity or then the phrase:
"I am watching myself" would have no meaning. Consciousness
is not what decides, we mistake it for that, but it is merely the
Witness.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
I completely agree with the caller!
ANDREWSABAT 9 months ago
No the question isn't "whether in the bounds of nature it is rigid mechanics or whether there is some lubrication provided by quantum physics?" Automatically you biased the discussion by making it "determinism" vs "free will." You see, disproving determinism does not prove free will. And no such argumentation is put forth when discussing nonhuman brains or other complex physical systems. Disputed philosophical arguments are only injected into discussions of the brain of the human animal. Why?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
The question should be, "Does the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the individual's brain have anything to do with his (or her) choice behavior?" Can changing the neuroanatomy or physiological chemistry of the brain have any effect on choice behavior? How does the individual's brain come to have the particular neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry it possesses? Where do desires come from? Where do "wants" come from? Where does love come from? What about belief and perception?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Think about the absolute strongest conviction you have at this moment. Can you decide now that when you awake in the morn that you shall believe just the opposite of what you presently believe, & that belief be just as strong as your present belief, & that choice be realized? No you can't. And do you know why? Well it is because free will is an illusion. You can choose what you want, what you believe, or what you desire; but you do not create for yourself your wants, your belief nor your desires
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings
What? Are you for real? Thats a stupid arguement, and for many reasons.
Im not going to explain why because for you to say such a stupid thing, its clear that you will be too stupid to understand anythign I say.
you are a complete moron. Im sorry but you are.
FatRakoon 1 year ago
@FatRakoon:
"arguement" is spelled, argument.
"anythign" is spelled, anything.
And twice you spelled "I'm" without an apostrophe (Im).
Ad hominem fallacies are illogical arguments. They are the type of argument used by naive little kids against one another.
Saying you could explain may work as a bluff for those who are easily bluffed. But I don't buy your BS. Explain to me how a choice or a belief can be free from the neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry of the brain?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Oh, by the way @FatRakoon, you should be arguing with Richard Dawkins, not me. My argument was based on something he said, i.e., "Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy & physiological chemistry were different." Watch my video, "Steven Pinker & Richard Dawkins on Free Will" (watch?v=8LE4uu49SU8).
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings
Spelling is a fault of mine when typing. I type things as I think them and sometimes I fix the error sometimes I cant be arsed. The NG / GN issue however I cannot see due to dyslexia but the argue / argument was a mistake as I did type down "Thats a stupid one to argue" and I adjusted that, but left the E, and the Im / I'm is something that I keep seeing on here anyway and so I thought if I cant beat them, I'd join them.
And thats not what I was pulling you up on at all
FatRakoon 1 year ago
@FatRakoon Who cares.
infinitebeenie 8 months ago
@FatRakoon That's not argument, that's ranting ignorance.
If you can't be intelligent, then go away.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@unseenstrings You are your brain.
chefshitpiece 11 months ago
Well, @chefshitpiece, I reckon that is pretty much the gist of the matter. A person can be in an accident that drastically changes her appearance, but she will still be recognized for who she is based on the mindset and personality she possesses. However, should she happen to be in an accident that doesn't change her appearance but does change her mindset and personality, then people who know her will likely say, "she is not the same person"
Your brain was not freely chosen.
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 11 months ago
@unseenstrings No, that's a misunderstanding of Quantum
Theory. No matter how things happen, no matter whether
they are otherwise in other adjacent universes, only one outcome
occurs in this one, and that is all that is needed to realize that
we had no control over how our beliefs changed or how a decision
is made quite involuntarily by us in the deep chemistry of the brain.
It need not be Newtonian, it need not be caused in any manner, it
needs only to have occurred and it is what happened.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, 1st what OS and text editor are you using? Your formatting is weird. If you are using Windows, or if you know how to compile source to suit another OS, then may I recommend Notepad++. It will give a precise character count, word wraps, and spell checks. And with the proper plugin, it will read back what you've written. Best of all, its freeware.
I cannot say that when something happens it was always going to happen. I totally agree with Richard Feynman (watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is)
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings I'm just typing it into the entry window on the fly.
I define always going to happen as identical with having happened,
or else it wouldn't have. In the Many Worlds Interpretation, the only
alternate happening would constitute another different instance of
this universe. Once we have something happen, which one we are
in is determined, thus, Determinism.
That Feynman quote is unrelated to any of this, by the way, he is
talking about not knowing, which is fine and exciting.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Feynman was talking about absolute certainty. Carl Sagan likewise had a few things to say about people who claimed absolute certainty. He suspected the primary motivation for the Holocaust could be traced back the absolute certainty of individuals. I guess the only thing Feynman and Sagan were absolutely certain about was that they were not absolutely certain about anything other than not being absolutely certain. What °/% of certainty do you have regarding Many Worlds theory?
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Remember the three meanings of determinism I mentioned? 1) Philosophy: The doctrine holding that events are inevitably determined by preceding causes. 2) Science: The doctrine that all occurrences in nature take place in accordance with natural laws. 3) Physics: The principle in classical mechanics that the values of dynamic variables of a system and of the forces acting on the system at a given time, completely determine the values of the variables at any later time. Is your meaning different?
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings Determinism is simply what happened. If it
happened then you cannot have changed it because it was always
going to have happened. And if it did not happen, then it wasn't
what was going to happen. At ANY and EVERY future point, everything
that happened previously did happen and can't be changed, or else
that instant could not be. It's not a matter of cause and effect, that
does not matter, it is simply that "what will be will be", or else it won't,
and it will be something else.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, that was a song written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans and sang by Doris Day (Que Sera Sera)
Determinism is a word. It is used to represent a mental construct. The mental construct existing in two individual's minds aren't necessary the same when the word determinism is spoken or heard. Besides, Collins English Dictionary indicates determinism has different meaning in different disciplines. We have philosophical meaning, general scientific meaning, and meaning for physics.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
I really don't know what you're implying. I don't know if you mean that determinism is merely happenstance. I don't know if you mean just the opposite, i.e., determinism is predestination. I don't know if you're playing with words to imply that what happens by chance will seem to be causally connected to past events. And I really don't know what all this speculation has to do with trying to understand scientifically why the stream runs downhill or why the human brain functions in a certain way.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings Yep. Doris Day. And yep, many people are
confused about Determinism and think it means they can't
be held liable for their actions or don't really control anything.
If you decide to do something, then you do decide, but if you
don't decide, then you don't, and whichever one you decide
you are NOT in control of, external circumstances and your
previous experiences cause those. As I said before, what can
change us we define as external to us, that is the real definition
of external.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, I put it this way: If the gazelle decides to get a drink of water and gets attacked and eaten by the hidden lion, it was the gazelle's decision that resulted in the lion's decision. The gazelle's decision was the result of causal processes as was the lion's. Yet we can never learn the causal factors involved in the decision-making process of either animal by stopping the discussion at the decision. Your perspective of determinism seems to do this and "free will" does for sure.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
We know a car-crash at an intersection was likely caused by the decisions of the driver/s involved. But does that mean we shouldn't try to understand the few causal factors we are capable of understanding in order to do something to curb future crashes?
I certainly appreciate your logical argument for determinism. But my point is that PHILOSOPHICAL arguments concerning determinism when trying to understand human choice are as superfluous as such is while trying to understand fluid mechanics.
unseenstrings 3 months ago
@unseenstrings While what is internal to us is defined as those
things that CANNOT change us, because they ARE us, our beliefs.
Like trying to lift yourself into the air by your belt.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom, peers are external to us. But the inherent mechanism that results in our conformity is within us. We call it "peer pressure" when an internal mechanism results in us striving to meet or exceed the perceived expectations of peers.
When hungry, we instinctively salivate at the sight or smell of food. But we also unconsciously tend to salivate at the sound of plates being placed on the dinner table. The mechanism was internal but the response was stimulated by external factors
unseenstrings 3 months ago
As you say we cannot lift ourselves into the air by tugging away at our own belt. Nor can we lift ourselves by our bootstraps. Those things within us CANNOT change us, as you say. But sufficient external factors can alter our perception and change the way we are. Every change that we have ever experience from the time of birth was the result of external factors. When we WANT to change, we do not choose to experience the WANT. We experience the WANT as a result of unconscious factors to external
unseenstrings 3 months ago
Free will may well be an illusion, though if that is the case, the illusion is real. It is a fact that on a fundamental level, our cells of which we are comprised, have no free will or consciousness - that is not to say however that our cells are not aware.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@StephenWebb1980 A light circuit is "aware". If you turn it on
it "senses" this and turns on. But it is NOT Self-aware. That
requires a cogitative mind that models the self in the world.
If free-will is a "real" illusion, then realize that we may also NOT
believe in free will, and that too would be beyond our control.
However our actions due to those beliefs would be different.
If we think everyone decides what to believe and therefore what
to do and how to live, we may live differently.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
@StephenWebb1980 Differently that is to believing that people are
changed only by external influences, that is. In the former case we
viciously punish alcoholism and alcoholics, in the latter we use our
influence and vote for laws that restrict or ban alcohol, and we vote
for laws that mandate compulsory treatment. If we do both, and if
we permit alcohol sales, especially to alcoholics, then we are
engaging in schizophrenic sociologic nonsense, such as this
society is famous for.
rstevewarmorycom 3 months ago
If free will didn't exist, then our understanding of potential and possibility might as well get thrown out the door. I think that both aspects of free will and determinism exist - that is to say that we have a will - and that is all that really matters. On the individual stimulae level, the cells in our brain have neither consciousness or free will, when they coalesce new structures and functions emerge, though this does not mean that all of a sudden we have 'free will' either....
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
NIN intro music. w00t.
LithiumLogica 1 year ago
I don't know that we humans have Free Will...depending how the term is defined. It is clear that we make decisions, but what is not clear are the factors [all of them] which go into the making of those decisions.
I do believe though that...roughly speaking...to the extent that our behaviour is predictable, we do not have free will....to the extent that our behaviour is not predictable, we do have free will.
If I can predict your behaviour, what does that say about your Free Will?
kshackleton 1 year ago
Its both. Its Determinism AND Free Will. Picking one is being one dimensional in your thinking and the universe is not one dimensional. Dimensional of course, being a human perception. It's forward AND backwards.
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
@NebunLaCap "Picking one is being one dimensional"
any actual arguments for this assumption?
"Picking one is being one dimensional in your thinking and the universe is not one dimensional."
you're using the word "dimensional" in 2 different ways, the word doesn't apply to the universe in the same sense it applies to our way of thinking.
"Its both. Its Determinism AND Free Will"
and this is possible how? given the fact that determinism and free will are 2 opposite things.
AllenQuatermain2de 1 year ago
@AllenQuatermain2de While free will and determinism as concepts are distinct, that is not to say that one doesn't emerge from the other. Our brains cells do not have 'free will' to do what they do, they do their jobs when it is appropriate and possible for them to do so. Though when coalescence occurs, new structures and functions become evident - so what is to say that 'free will' can not emerge from deterministic factors? As such, both would be said to exist together simultaneously.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@StephenWebb1980 i think that free will most definitely has its "roots" in determinism, but only the illusion of free will. given the fact that free will and determinism are two different concepts that hold mutually exclusive views, they cannot both exist simultaneously, at least not in the same way.
AllenQuatermain2de 1 year ago
@AllenQuatermain2de Are the 'roots' of a tree not that which the tree needs in order to exist? What I mean to say is that in order for free will to exist [if it does] it would most certainly have a deterministic quality about it, because the very cells that fuel our perception and idea of self are solely deterministic - this is inescapable, I'm not saying that we have 'free will', what I am saying is that IF we did, it would be inextricably intertwined with deterministic processes.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@AllenQuatermain2de I personally think that free will is one of the greatest mind tricks ever. Free will is the ego, and ego has a tendency to distort reality. People believe in it because they want to feel as though they have the power to choose. I think that we have a will but it most certainly is not free. This is not to say that I believe solely in determinism however. Social Justice also has a stake in the matter because for some reason people think it impossible to justify...
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@AllenQuatermain2de ...punishment or reward without there being the power for people to choose which path they desire. I don't think that this is a strong argument for Social Justice however. Mainly because even if everything were completely deterministic, there would still be those who value Justice and those who commit crimes - the consequences would be the same as within a world with free will. I don't think the world would be any different either way....
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@AllenQuatermain2de ...Justice is dealt based on what actually occurs, not what has the potential to occur. So its a complete nonsense when pro free will people state that Justification of ruling is dependent upon whether or not we have the potential to do something [as in the ability to choose right way from wrong way].
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
@StephenWebb1980
QUOTE = "Justice is dealt on what actually occurs"
Except in the UK where you can get done "With intent"
Can get caught with guns and ski masks and even a plan on how and where to rob a bank and you can be on the way to the bank, but you cannot get done unless you actually do the deed.
However, you get caught with some cannabis and you get done "With intent to supply" so you get done on that and the posession which is a double sentence!
UK Laws - you gotta love them.
FatRakoon 1 year ago
@FatRakoon Well, here in the US they will also apply such charges, I see your point - though if the initial crime hadn't taken place they wouldn't have reason to attempt such [insane though they are] charges. In order for the fifth domino in line to fall, the first has to be pushed and the proceeding 4 follow...Potential is a very important factor - but for potential to be there, there must be a vehicle for it to be carried out first.
StephenWebb1980 1 year ago
Its both. Its Determinism AND Free Will. Picking one is being one dimensional in your thinking and the universe is not one dimensional. Dimensional of course, being a human perception.
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
It doesn't matter whether determinism is true or indeterminism is true, we are NOT free regarding the freedom necessary and required for moral responsibility ... How you want to thus define "free-will", is your choice BUT, it cannot be valid unless it is attached with moral responsibility..Thanks
n920gl 1 year ago
Video caller is right. Compatibalism doesn't make sense. Freewill is freewill. If you translated the intuitive, subjective experience of freewill into a metaphysical reality, it would mean human beings are the magical first cause of an entirely new series of cause and effect, and that nothing can causally determine your choice in any matter. A whole host of options and motivations might be presented to you, but at the end of the day you can do anything that is humanly possible.
crowbs90 1 year ago
@crowbs90
Yeah its the mini god problem with compatibalism people are able to start off thier own causal chains without being subject to events that happened previously. This makes free will purely random.
percyth11 1 year ago
/watch?v=3kXXbjEBTMs
vspqbd 1 year ago
The way atoms behave, which no human brain, animal brain, rock, or element has control over (they're what's being controlled) is what determinism equates to. No one has control of the way atoms operate, so everyone (& everything) is the puppet of atoms. Atoms, then = God, Fate, Karma, Existence, etc.
chastultz3 1 year ago
Free will is starting to sound like a product of a particular stage of development in childhood. At what point do we sense conciousness and begin to make decisions. Predetermination can only be demonstrated with quantum theory, a comparison at a fixed point of time with actions commited among all demensions. Currently not possible at the level of science we know.
kittykatBflat 1 year ago
According to Dee and other compaibalists, robots have free will.....
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
These two guys have no idea about this issue.... Again, there is no evidence NO EVIDENCE that quantum mechanics has any bearing on our decisions.... There is lots of evidence that it does not though....
Furthermore, there are two ways to look at free will, one is origination (you create yourself or you can act outside of your nature) and the other is agreeableness (you agree with your nature) Agreeableness is compatibalism and origination is strong free will. Agreeableness has some flaws though
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
Again, Dee doesnt know what he is talking about. Committing the humunculus fallacy wont get you very far. Hey Dee, it has nothing to do if an ego exists that can pull the levers in your brain because then you would have to show how the humunculus is not composed of unconscious parts that obey physical law. In other words, you are positing that some entity exists in your brain that is not reducible to physical law.
The only intelligent thing Ive ever heard Dee do is yell at Xians about hell.
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
@tempemonkey2323 - So, what is the atheist view of free will and how is it supported?
TodaysThought 1 year ago
Compatibalists are pussies who cant accept reality.... And then they complain about religious belief.... Hypocrites in that respect really. Although David Hume was a compatibalist and he was a fucking bad ass mother fucker.... So no biggie really.
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
I have a problem with the quantum-mechanics argument that Jeff and Russell give. Saying "quantum mechanics is our current model to describe particles" implies "nothing is determined" is I think ludicrous because quantum mechanics is just a mathematical model of ónly particles. Also, because I see mathematics as a 'modelling language' I fail to see how one could infer anything about anything the model is NOT describing.
But I'd love to hear comments about my opinion.
Styhn 1 year ago
The only good argument I have heard to suggest we have free will is the fact that the Universe does not operate in one direction, ie it is a feedback system. We are part of the universe and not its object; our decisions feed back into the universe and have an effect on the universe. We can set evolutionary programs, ie feedback programs which are identical but progress differently, we do not know or at least I am not aware why this happens.
47saeed 1 year ago
When reading the comments i see that no one has bothered to lookup compatibilism by Daniel Dennett:
/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E&feature=related
/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE&feature=related
omnissient 1 year ago
things can only have 1 possible outcome....i guess these guys cant be perfect either
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
Wishful thinking helps, wishful thinking helps, the sun will rise tomorrow, i wish the sun rises tomorrow.
Achilles9924 1 year ago
Through a dialectic, we can perfect the truth in our own minds, and help others who have waded away from the stream of life and into these seemingly nonsensical waters. When we have finished teaching others (and ultimately ourselves) the truth regarding causation, then may we be liberated from this weighty mental burden? we will all have to wait and see!
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga The mistake made both by the determinists and the protagonists of unlimited free will is that they have imagined man to have only two possible roads before him: either all his acts must be attributed exclusively to God, so that he then loses all freedom and becomes determined in his acts, or we are obliged to accept that his volitional acts derive from an independent and unbounded essence, a view entailing the limitation of God's power. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh The problem has everything to do with this one fact: the words "free" and "will" should never have been coupled for use in the general vocabulary of the English language. I give you this 1 challenge: define for me your term "free will".
blacknganga 1 year ago
However, the fact that wehavefree will does notaffect the comprehensiveness of God's power, because He has willed that we should freely take our own decisions, in accordance with the norm and law He has established.
From one point of view, man's acts and deeds can be attributed to him, and from another point of view, to God. Man has a direct, immediate relationship with his own deeds, while God's relationship with those deeds is indirect, but both forms ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Also, it concerns me that you are using the term God instead of "God". There are many gods, so why does this word feature so heavily in your side of this discussion? Are you Christian? Are you Jewish?
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga Are you Christian? Are you Jewish?
_______
I am a Shiite Muslim!
"free will".
The Prophet is related to have said: "God wished that things should take place through causes and means, and He decreed nothing except by means of a cause; He, therefore, created a cause for all things." ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh ..............so you are talking about the god of Islam..........I fail to see how your comments are at all related to the discussion at hand. The term "free will' means nothing at all to me. The use of the term "free will" signifies to me that the speaker is confused and wishes to spread their confusion like pestilence. I shall again put my request to you: concisely state (your) definition of "free will".
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga Our choice and free will come to form the last link in a chain of causes and means that result in the performance of an act on our part.
The Quranic verses which relate all things to God and depict them as arising from Him are concerned with proclaiming the pre- eternal will of the Creator as the designer of the world and explain- ing how His power embraces and penetrates the entire course of being. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Go blab your fundamentalist stuff elsewhere, it has no relevance to the topic at hand.
blacknganga 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blacknganga How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh You mutter is not at all related to the topic. Go and spout this stuff somewhere where it is.
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance under your stupid pretext ...!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
You look at the world with one eye *closed* and, are unable to answer the questions!
Brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Fuck off you dumb nutter. Go suck on a big fat cock! Go put your cock inside another man 'till he blows, you moron.
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga Fuck off you dumb nutter. Go suck on a big fat cock! Go put your cock inside another man 'till he blows, you moron.
_____
Is science too heavy for you to comprehend?
The argument of an IGNORANT!
A wise man first thinks and then speaks and a fool speaks first and then thinks.
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a wise man's tongue is under the control of his mind.
Ever heard "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Are you stupid?
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga Are you stupid? ....This is not "science", this is philosophy.
_______
Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists. Your claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
Some people try to propagate this fantasy in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.
How is that for YOUR "Are you stupid? ....This is not "science", this is philosophy."?
1tabligh 1 year ago
I would discuss this issue if you can marshal well founded cogent arguments, which I will admit, otherwise you have no right to interpolate without a ken for science and polemics with your "Fuck off you dumb nutter. Go suck on a big fat cock! Go put your cock inside another man 'till he blows, you moron."
It does not behove you to talk in the strain that you do! Never use any impropriety, nor retort aggressively.
I thought you are very forbearing, dignified, ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
reasonable and of mature intellect. But you are harsh and touchy. You dont't listen to my talk very attentively. You should invite my arguments, so much so that when I have exhausted my armoury and I think to have silenced you, you, with a brief resume, stultify all my reasoning and dumfound me, so that I am left without a plank to answer the arguments of your personage. If you are of this company, then talk to me in the same strain. ...
You still don't get it, do you? ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
I have already in my inbox more then 8500 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!
What makes you think, you are a special wannabe monkey?
No wasting time!
Talk science otherwise clock off!
How is that for YOUR "Fuck off you dumb nutter. Go suck on a big fat cock! Go put your cock inside another man 'till he blows, you moron."?
Brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh This is not "science", this is philosophy. You obviously haven't grasped any of the main concepts of this debate.
blacknganga 1 year ago
@blacknganga You are simply trying to impress people with your complex logic. Ok, prove to me concisely in less than 100 words you know what this debate is about. Clue: it has nothing to do with theology.
blacknganga 1 year ago
His power extends through every part of the universe, with no exceptions,butGod's unchallenged mightdoes notdiminish the freedom of man. For it is God Who makes free will a part of man, and it is He Who bestows it upon him. He has made man free to follow the path of his own choosing, and He holds no individual or pe