Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 04:06 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Because sentient life can chose not to exact order (determinism) out of chaos (randomness).

Big Grin

Basically your saying you know you have free will because you have free will. How circular.

No, you have no basis for that conclusion. If you believe you do, then demonstrate the logic.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
Your making the assumption that we can choose to support your stance that free will exists.

(09-12-2013 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Because sentient life can chose not to exact order (determinism) out of chaos (randomness).

To accept free will you must believe at any point in the past, you could have done something other than what it is you did. But at the moment of, and moments prior to, making the decision, your brain was in a set state. That state lead to the decision you made. The only way you could have made a different decision was if your brain had been in a different state.

It doesn't matter if that state is brought about by randomness, cause and effect, or a mixture of the two. You didn't choose it. It just happened. Your just watching it happen, and when the choice is made you feel like it was you, the conscious entity, that made the choice.

If you accept that there couldn't possibly have been any other outcome, because that's what happened, welcome to the world of no free will.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
09-12-2013, 04:34 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 04:21 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Your making the assumption that we can choose to support your stance that free will exists.

(09-12-2013 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Because sentient life can chose not to exact order (determinism) out of chaos (randomness).

To accept free will you must believe at any point in the past, you could have done something other than what it is you did.

Yes, and I do accept that at any point in the past, I could have done something other than what it is I did.

Quote:But at the moment of, and moments prior to, making the decision, your brain was in a set state. That state lead to the decision you made. The only way you could have made a different decision was if your brain had been in a different state.

This is theoretical, and can not be demonstrated to be true. If, for example, on the contrary we accept that our brain is in a constant state of flux instead of a fixed state as you imply, then it leads to a decision by choice of free will.

Quote:If you accept that there couldn't possibly have been any other outcome, because that's what happened, welcome to the world of no free will.

I do not accept that because, in hindsight, I can still see the other choices I could have made, and hence there could have been different outcomes.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 04:51 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 04:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:But at the moment of, and moments prior to, making the decision, your brain was in a set state. That state lead to the decision you made. The only way you could have made a different decision was if your brain had been in a different state.

This is theoretical, and can not be demonstrated to be true. If, for example, on the contrary we accept that our brain is in a constant state of flux instead of a fixed state as you imply, then it leads to a decision by choice of free will.

No, it isn't. At any one given moment, the brain is in a set state. There is no flux of anything when there is no flux of time. The brain is clearly in a state of flux as time progresses, I am not contesting that.

EDIT: I might see your problem with the first part. More accurately: The state of flux of brain states leading up to the decision was a certain way. There was not a superposition of states.

(09-12-2013 04:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:If you accept that there couldn't possibly have been any other outcome, because that's what happened, welcome to the world of no free will.

I do not accept that because, in hindsight, I can still see the other choices I could have made, and hence there could have been different outcomes.

We can imagine outcomes other than what happened, yeah. But that doesn't bare any weight on whether those outcomes could have been a reality. A ball rolling down a hill is the exact same. We can drop it and imagine, or calculate even, the possible ways in which it may reach the bottom.

Ball:
A small bump here and it will change course. Does it make sense to ask what the ball chose to do? Of course not. The ball didn't choose to alter it's course, it had to. If it had not, it would have defied the very laws of physics.

Person:
A last minute thought, and we change our mind. We didn't chose to have that thought appear, it just did. We don't choose how the thought effects our decision, it just does.

Do you think there is a reality in which the ball took a different path under identical conditions?

If so, how could that be possible? If not, how is a human being any different? (besides complexity, which only means there is more difficulty in making an accurate prediction)

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
09-12-2013, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 05:40 PM by Free.)
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 04:47 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 04:34 PM)Free Wrote:  This is theoretical, and can not be demonstrated to be true. If, for example, on the contrary we accept that our brain is in a constant state of flux instead of a fixed state as you imply, then it leads to a decision by choice of free will.

No, it isn't. At any one given moment, the brain is in a set state. There is no flux of anything when there is no flux of time. The brain is clearly in a state of flux as time progresses, I am not contesting that.

For your position to go any further, you must now demonstrate that time actually exists.

But I will not put that burden on you, as both of us know it is not possible to prove the existence of time.

However, since we cannot prove the existence of time, then there cannot be "any one given moment" as you imply. But again, let's for the sake of argument allow you the "one given moment" scenario and proceed.

Can you demonstrate that at any one given moment, the brain is in a set state? I understand that it is a completely logical thing to accept, but considering the diverse aspects of the human brain how is it possible for all the innumerable things in our brain to be on a synchronized pattern so as to qualify for your proposed "set state?" While one thing is set, another is in flux, and so on.

Are you proposing that every single thing in the universe "stops" moving at every instance of the tick of the clock so that everything is in a set state? If that were the case, then nothing could begin to move again because there would be no catalyst- not with everything being frozen in time.

No. Everything cannot be in a set state at any given point in your proposed time-line, for if it was then there would be nothing to compel anything to start moving out of the set state to go forward. All would be frozen in time.

I'm afraid the logic does not agree with a set state. For everything to be shut down and locked into a set state would be the end of the entire universe. Nothing could move again, or change one iota, if all things were in a set state at the same time.

And that is why the brain cannot be in a set state at any "given point in time." If it was, it could not continue forward into time. Parts of it are always in flux to ensure its forward progression.

And if you have paid attention to what I have said above, then you will have noticed that I have demonstrated logically that time cannot actually exist.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 05:38 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 04:47 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  No, it isn't. At any one given moment, the brain is in a set state. There is no flux of anything when there is no flux of time. The brain is clearly in a state of flux as time progresses, I am not contesting that.

For your position to go any further, you must now demonstrate that time actually exists.

The duration and passing of events is time. You can't deny events have duration and that things come to pass, so time is a justified concept in this argument.

I would argue that time exists, because we can measure changes in the duration of events that typically don't change. Like for the clock ticking on a GPS satellite. Would you like to say we can't demonstrate space and gravity exists either?

(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you demonstrate that at any one given moment, the brain is in a set state? I understand that it is a completely logical thing to accept, but considering the diverse aspects of the human brain how is it possible for all the innumerable things in our brain to be on a synchronized pattern so as to qualify for your proposed "set state?" While one thing is set, another is in flux, and so on.

Your jumping to the side here. There is no need for things to be synchronized. A neuron in your brain is either firing, or it is not (some neurons such as the ones that mediate touch have varying levels of being on/off, you can count those as well, although I'm not sure they are in the brain). The state I am talking about is the combined state of all the neurons, whether they are firing or not (or to what degree if those neurons exist in the brain). You don't need to create fences to jump, the concept is simple.

(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you proposing that every single thing in the universe "stops" moving at every instance of the tick of the clock so that everything is in a set state? If that were the case, then nothing could begin to move again because there would be no catalyst- not with everything being frozen in time.

Nothing is moving in a photo, there is no flux. That is the moment in time I am referring to. There is a set state in that photo. No passing of time means no flux of any kind. Time doesn't appear to stop and go in the real world, but that's still irrelevant to the current conversation. When you stop the flux, and look, that is the set state in that moment of time. In a picture of you, there was a thought or two going through your mind, and multitudes of background processes. There is no flux in states when time itself isn't passing (Aka when we remove the aspect of duration).

If you really still have an issue with me using time this way, then...

The changing state (changing in what I wonder?) of the brain before a decision is made is one way, not a multitude of ways. There isn't a cluster of neurons firing and not firing at the same time. One flux from being introduced to the decision to making it. Your saying this could have been different.

How could it be different? In what sense does it make sense to say the ball chose to follow the path it took.

(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  And if you have paid attention to what I have said above, then you will have noticed that I have demonstrated logically that time cannot actually exist.

No, you didn't. You stated that if time stopped and started (ticked) it would cause everything to halt. Ignoring the possibility that momentum is conserved from tick to tick. Even so, time likely isn't granular like this.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
09-12-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 05:38 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  For your position to go any further, you must now demonstrate that time actually exists.

The duration and passing of events is time.

That is not how time is defined. You are merely speaking of how things fluctuate and change. All things change from one state of existence to another, and they do so throughout eternity.

Quote:You can't deny events have duration and that things come to pass, so time is a justified concept in this argument.

Your perception is common, but limited. You view objects as though they are individualized, when in fact they are merely part of the whole. Nothing ever passes away, since we cannot add nor subtract one single atom from the universe. Energy to matter, and matter to energy, a constant state of flux.

Things merely change shapes, but nothing ever passes away in the grand scheme.

Quote:I would argue that time exists, because we can measure changes in the duration of events that typically don't change. Like for the clock ticking on a GPS satellite. Would you like to say we can't demonstrate space and gravity exists either?

The "time" you speak about comes forth from the invention of devices that give us measurements. Let's for example, take away all those devices, the earth, the sun, and the entire solar system. Now, let me place you where our earth used to be and ask you a question:

What time is it?

What? You don't know what time it is? Why not? Because it no longer exists to you. Hence, the "time" you are speaking of is a creation of humankind, but the time I am speaking of was never created, it just always was. But we don't call it "time."

We call it eternity.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you demonstrate that at any one given moment, the brain is in a set state? I understand that it is a completely logical thing to accept, but considering the diverse aspects of the human brain how is it possible for all the innumerable things in our brain to be on a synchronized pattern so as to qualify for your proposed "set state?" While one thing is set, another is in flux, and so on.

[quote]
(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  Are you proposing that every single thing in the universe "stops" moving at every instance of the tick of the clock so that everything is in a set state? If that were the case, then nothing could begin to move again because there would be no catalyst- not with everything being frozen in time.

Nothing is moving in a photo, there is no flux. That is the moment in time I am referring to. There is a set state in that photo. No passing of time means no flux of any kind. Time doesn't appear to stop and go in the real world, but that's still irrelevant to the current conversation. When you stop the flux, and look, that is the set state in that moment of time. In a picture of you, there was a thought or two going through your mind, and multitudes of background processes. There is no flux in states when time itself isn't passing (Aka when we remove the aspect of duration).

Are you sure nothing is moving in the photo? Not an atom is active? All the neutrons, protons, and electrons have stopped moving? I'm afraid your photo analogy is indeed a false analogy comparison to what we are speaking about here.

In order to stop the flux, you must stop the entire universe, and we both know that is impossible. Not one single thing can be in a state of flux in the entire universe in order for your set state to be a reality.

Quote:The changing state (changing in what I wonder?) of the brain before a decision is made is one way, not a multitude of ways.

Can you demonstrate any evidence to support this?

Quote: There isn't a cluster of neurons firing and not firing at the same time. One flux from being introduced to the decision to making it. Your saying this could have been different.

How could it be different? In what sense does it make sense to say the ball chose to follow the path it took.

Ah-ha! A ball is not sentient and has no ability to make choices. This is yet another bad comparison. Recall what I said earlier:

"Because sentient life can exact order(determinism) out of chaos (randomness)."

And ...

"Because sentient life can chose not to exact order (determinism) out of chaos (randomness)."

Quote:
(09-12-2013 05:07 PM)Free Wrote:  And if you have paid attention to what I have said above, then you will have noticed that I have demonstrated logically that time cannot actually exist.

No, you didn't. You stated that if time stopped and started (ticked) it would cause everything to halt. Ignoring the possibility that momentum is conserved from tick to tick. Even so, time likely isn't granular like this.

I'm afraid that if momentum were to exist as you described, then you yourself must agree that something is always in a state of flux ie; the momentum.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
You got your genetic make-up. That determines a lot of how you react to things. In some emotions (reactions to genetic memories) are strong, in some not so much. This affects how you act and react. If offered a risky but possibly profitable (in whatever way, not necessary financially) choice in life, it is in your genes whether you take that risk or not. You never really make a decision. The things you instinctually fear or love are based on genetics.

Then you got your experiences. When confronted with a choice, your brain pulls all of them and compares them to the present situation and chooses a path according to that. Is that choice a choice, or is it predetermined by the way your life happens to have been so far?

So you got your hardware inputting, and you have your software inputting.

Most of the time this settles the shit and you don't really choose what to do, it is predetermined by your genes and experiences thus far.

I do think there are rare times when your brain is not able to form instant inputs and then you get to improvise. But I also think that most choices are predetermined.

Freedom - that's another animal. It means that no one interferes with the way your hardware and software conduct themselves.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
09-12-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 06:22 PM)Dom Wrote:  You got your genetic make-up. That determines a lot of how you react to things. In some emotions (reactions to genetic memories) are strong, in some not so much. This affects how you act and react. If offered a risky but possibly profitable (in whatever way, not necessary financially) choice in life, it is in your genes whether you take that risk or not. You never really make a decision. The things you instinctually fear or love are based on genetics.

Then you got your experiences. When confronted with a choice, your brain pulls all of them and compares them to the present situation and chooses a path according to that. Is that choice a choice, or is it predetermined by the way your life happens to have been so far?

So you got your hardware inputting, and you have your software inputting.

Most of the time this settles the shit and you don't really choose what to do, it is predetermined by your genes and experiences thus far.

I do think there are rare times when your brain is not able to form instant inputs and then you get to improvise. But I also think that most choices are predetermined.

Freedom - that's another animal. It means that no one interferes with the way your hardware and software conduct themselves.

Judging by your first response in this thread, and then comparing it to this post above, it would appear as though you have slightly swung from Option 1 on the scale below to Option 3.

Quote:1. Determinism exists, therefore Free Will does not exist.

2. Randomness exists, therefore Free Will does exist.

3. Both Determinism & Randomness both co-exist, and therefore Free Will exists in a limited capacity.

Your post above seems to indicate that you are now accepting the possibility of Option 3.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:07 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
I'm seeing a lot of mental gymnastics.

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  That is not how time is defined. You are merely speaking of how things fluctuate and change. All things change from one state of existence to another, and they do so throughout eternity.

Wiki Wrote:Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.

I'm not sure how time is defined in your world but that is the definition of time.

All my argument requires is a meager understanding of the concept of time which is change. You are going on tangents which have nothing to do with my argument.

"All things change from one state of existence to another"

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said a state of the brain at one moment. You understood this and yet your being intentionally dense for the sake of your argument.

If I was going to play this game like you, I'd tell you that you must prove eternity exists.

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You can't deny events have duration and that things come to pass, so time is a justified concept in this argument.

Your perception is common, but limited. You view objects as though they are individualized, when in fact they are merely part of the whole. Nothing ever passes away, since we cannot add nor subtract one single atom from the universe. Energy to matter, and matter to energy, a constant state of flux.

Things merely change shapes, but nothing ever passes away in the grand scheme.

Again, your going off on a completely unrelated, irrelevant tangent. I never said anything about energy disappearing from the universe. People pass, eclipses pass, the sun shall pass. Things pass. This doesn't mean the energy composing those things disappears from existence. Try staying on topic.

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I would argue that time exists, because we can measure changes in the duration of events that typically don't change. Like for the clock ticking on a GPS satellite. Would you like to say we can't demonstrate space and gravity exists either?

The "time" you speak about comes forth from the invention of devices that give us measurements. Let's for example, take away all those devices, the earth, the sun, and the entire solar system. Now, let me place you where our earth used to be and ask you a question:

What time is it?

What? You don't know what time it is? Why not? Because it no longer exists to you. Hence, the "time" you are speaking of is a creation of humankind, but the time I am speaking of was never created, it just always was. But we don't call it "time."

We call it eternity.

Another tangent. No you call it eternity, which you haven't demonstrated exists. I've never heard a single person call it eternity but you. So I'm quite sure that should be singular. The concept of time I am using is the passage of events, the changing of physical parameters in the universe. Which exists, irrefutably. Things change. This is called time. Eternity is infinite or unending time. All your doing is adding in unnecessary terms. Why? to sound clever?

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Nothing is moving in a photo, there is no flux. That is the moment in time I am referring to. There is a set state in that photo. No passing of time means no flux of any kind. Time doesn't appear to stop and go in the real world, but that's still irrelevant to the current conversation. When you stop the flux, and look, that is the set state in that moment of time. In a picture of you, there was a thought or two going through your mind, and multitudes of background processes. There is no flux in states when time itself isn't passing (Aka when we remove the aspect of duration).

Are you sure nothing is moving in the photo? Not an atom is active? All the neutrons, protons, and electrons have stopped moving? I'm afraid your photo analogy is indeed a false analogy comparison to what we are speaking about here.

In order to stop the flux, you must stop the entire universe, and we both know that is impossible. Not one single thing can be in a state of flux in the entire universe in order for your set state to be a reality.

Tangent 3 (4? 5? I lost count). Any analogy is flawed when you get ultra-neurotic about the details. I am speaking of the image of the photo, not the photo itself, the particles that make it up. Another pointless detour to derail the argument.

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:The changing state (changing in what I wonder?) of the brain before a decision is made is one way, not a multitude of ways.

Can you demonstrate any evidence to support this?

Things in the macro world are never observed to take two paths at once, to be in multiple states at once. A neuron is a macro object. In constant communication (unending interactions) with it's environment (the cells around it).

(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: There isn't a cluster of neurons firing and not firing at the same time. One flux from being introduced to the decision to making it. Your saying this could have been different.

How could it be different? In what sense does it make sense to say the ball chose to follow the path it took.

Ah-ha! A ball is not sentient and has no ability to make choices. This is yet another bad comparison. Recall what I said earlier:

"Because sentient life can exact order(determinism) out of chaos (randomness)."

And ...

"Because sentient life can chose not to exact order (determinism) out of chaos (randomness)."

You mean in the phrase where you use circular reasoning? Yeah I got that already. We have free will because we can choose.

What makes a conscious being any less subject to the laws of the universe than a unconscious ball?

Quote:No, you didn't. You stated that if time stopped and started (ticked) it would cause everything to halt. Ignoring the possibility that momentum is conserved from tick to tick. Even so, time likely isn't granular like this.

I'm afraid that if momentum were to exist as you described, then you yourself must agree that something is always in a state of flux ie; the momentum.
[/quote]

Re-read that, it's incoherent. When nothing is happening, there is nothing happening. Momentum could be remembered by the system (like say by having a momentum vector attributed to it),There would just be momentum vector awaiting the next tick to move the particle by the set amount corresponding to the magnitude and direction of the vector.

What makes a conscious being any less subject to the laws of the universe than a unconscious ball?

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: