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, 10:05 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 09:07 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  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.

It's too bad that you failed to read your own Wiki article completely, as you would have noticed that the view you supplied above is just 1 view of 2. Below, is the continuation of the very same article in which "time" is described according to what I have been saying here all along:

"This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

In the quote above it says that time is "not a thing." So what does "not a thing" mean to you? "Not a thing" means "nothing." Non existence.

Quote:
Quote:"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.

Since I have posted information using your very own Wiki source against you, how certain are you that it is me and not you who is being intellectually dense for the sake of your argument?

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

Eternity is the default position since we cannot determine the origin of existence. When people make a claim such as that the Big Bang is the origin of existence, they must prove it or else it remains a theory. If they cannot prove that the Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter etc, then time itself cannot be demonstrated to have an origin.

This leave us with no origin of time at all, and with no origin, all you have left is eternity.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

I am on topic, but unfortunately you seem incapable of following the train of thought.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  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?

But the concept of time that you are using is just that ... a concept. Like I said, if you take away the earth, sun, solar system, and stick you into outer sapce you would not have the first clue what time it was. Time would cease to exist for you, because your "concept" would no longer be applicable.

Time is a creation of human kind. It's measurements are all creations. On another world it would be measured differently according to that planet's environment, and a different concept would be created.

But at the end of the day all you are doing is sticking a 12 inch ruler into eternity in an effort make a little sense of something that you cannot even begin to understand.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

And for the 3rd time you seem incapable of following a rather elementary train of thought. You failed to acknowledge that my point was that your analogy was false when compared to the context of this discussion.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 06:04 PM)Free Wrote:  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.

I have already challenged you to prove there was any circular reasoning and you ignored it the first time. So, I will challenge you again and ask you to display the reasoning and logic to support your claim of circular reasoning.

Somehow I expect you to run from it again.

Big Grin

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

Because if I decide i want to move to the left and oppose the oncoming force I can do it, while a ball cannot make that decision.

Quote:
Quote: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.

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.

Ummm ... if momentum is being remembered by the system, then how could nothing be happening?

Even in your scenario, something is happening. Your theory is hopelessly flawed here.

As contrary as this sounds, there is no such thing as nothing.

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, 10:37 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. 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.

Free will is an experiment that can be repeated over and over again. I make free decisions again and again.

I certainly would say that I could have chosen otherwise in the past, but before you criticize me, define what you mean by "could have".

Your assumption of determinism seems to be based on deterministic models in physics, though quantum physics is usually interpreted as a
nondeterministic model.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 11:31 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  It's too bad that you failed to read your own Wiki article completely, as you would have noticed that the view you supplied above is just 1 view of 2. Below, is the continuation of the very same article in which "time" is described according to what I have been saying here all along:

"This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

In the quote above it says that time is "not a thing." So what does "not a thing" mean to you? "Not a thing" means "nothing." Non existence.

Might as well put up the entire paragraph if your going to quote the opposing view.

Wiki Wrote:Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21]

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

The difference in the rate of passage through time can and is measured daily by satellites with respect to those on Earth. Time is is a property of our universe. Obviously not an object, or event, or thing. Just like how blue is not a thing.

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Eternity is the default position since we cannot determine the origin of existence. When people make a claim such as that the Big Bang is the origin of existence, they must prove it or else it remains a theory. If they cannot prove that the Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter etc, then time itself cannot be demonstrated to have an origin.

This leave us with no origin of time at all, and with no origin, all you have left is eternity.

Alright, I accept that.

For free will, the default should be withholding belief. In what other area do we interpret things in any other way besides succumbing to forces, and reacting to stimuli based on how the organism is wired? None. We are the exception because of our conscious first class seat. We are bias because it feels like we are the one that makes the choice. When we already know this isn't the case, but some people can't seem to live without at least one fairy-tale.

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I am on topic, but unfortunately you seem incapable of following the train of thought.

Going on a tangent about how energy doesn't disappear from the universe is on topic when I'm taking about how things change, how there is a duration to events, and how events come to pass? Head examination pending i hope... Hobo

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  But the concept of time that you are using is just that ... a concept.

Which is all I need.

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I said, if you take away the earth, sun, solar system, and stick you into outer sapce you would not have the first clue what time it was. Time would cease to exist for you, because your "concept" would no longer be applicable.

Events would still occur, things would still change. My concept of time is entirely in one piece. Your talking about time on a watch.

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Time is a creation of human kind. It's measurements are all creations. On another world it would be measured differently according to that planet's environment, and a different concept would be created.

The time you keep bringing up is, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  And for the 3rd time you seem incapable of following a rather elementary train of thought. You failed to acknowledge that my point was that your analogy was false when compared to the context of this discussion.

The analogy is fine. Nothing is happening in the image, it's a snapshot of a moment of time. I don't see the disconnect between this point and your understanding. "But the particles!"

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You mean in the phrase where you use circular reasoning? Yeah I got that already. We have free will because we can choose.

I have already challenged you to prove there was any circular reasoning and you ignored it the first time. So, I will challenge you again and ask you to display the reasoning and logic to support your claim of circular reasoning.

Somehow I expect you to run from it again.

Big Grin

I already addressed this.

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

You assume you have choice, a choice to do things one way or another, and that both of these could be a reality [Aka free will]. Choice is assumed (not demonstrated) to support free will. Circular. Drinking Beverage

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Because if I decide i want to move to the left and oppose the oncoming force I can do it, while a ball cannot make that decision.

And of course there are no forces that dictate the evolution of particles in your brain... Thumbsup

(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Ummm ... if momentum is being remembered by the system, then how could nothing be happening?

Even in your scenario, something is happening. Your theory is hopelessly flawed here.

What is a computer doing being it boots? or a program before it runs? nothing.
It still knows what to do when it boots. Bowing

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 11:54 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 10:37 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Free will is an experiment that can be repeated over and over again. I make free decisions again and again.

I certainly would say that I could have chosen otherwise in the past, but before you criticize me, define what you mean by "could have".

Your assumption of determinism seems to be based on deterministic models in physics, though quantum physics is usually interpreted as a
nondeterministic model.

I just see decisions as the result of prior causes (our experiences), our genes (which play a large role in the shape of our body and brain), and a dash of randomness. None of which imply freedom of choice. No matter how convincing the brain is at making it seem that way. The brain is a master-deceiver.

I see no real forks in the road, the multitude of paths are illusions. There is one course. I just don't know if it's determined or if it's being shaped by randomness.

After living with the belief that free will is an illusion all I can feel is that I am watching events play out. Either there truly is no free will or the mind is a magical thing, convincing me I'm watching a movie as I go along freely choosing my own path Tongue

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 08:04 AM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(08-12-2013 11:10 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I cannot speak for Sam Harris, but I, for one, definitely have a free will. So far, no one has proven otherwise.

Well except for Libet and all the subsequent experiments that call it into question. Don't get me wrong, I think there is some sorta "free will", I'm just not at all sure I'm the one who has it. Or at least not what I typically think of as "I".

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-12-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(10-12-2013 08:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 11:10 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I cannot speak for Sam Harris, but I, for one, definitely have a free will. So far, no one has proven otherwise.

Well except for Libet and all the subsequent experiments that call it into question. Don't get me wrong, I think there is some sorta "free will", I'm just not at all sure I'm the one who has it. Or at least not what I typically think of as "I".

What the experiments show is that there is a difference between making a choice
and being aware of making a choice. But I can see how this relates
to the definition of "I". In a very narrow sense, "I" may only refer to all
my conscious deliberations. But in my opinion "I" is much more than that.

For example, if I play a song that I know well on the piano, I don't have
a single deliberate thought. The melody flows out of my fingers without
any deliberation about which note to play. Can I then really say that it is me
who is playing the piano? In my opinion, "yes". Although playing the melody
at that moment is not a result of a deliberation on that particular moment, my
fluency on the piano is the result of years of deliberate practice. My unconscious self has been conditioned by my conscious self. For this reason,
I think it is fair to say that some of the unconscious decisions we make,
are in fact our decisions.

My definition of free will is close to what is considered "free will" in law.
The law holds a person responsible for your actions, unless you can show
that you did not have a choice: your actions were determined by external
circumstances. For example, if you shot somebody and the police has
proof that you did it, you will be arrested. You may claim that you had
no choice. But unless you give a reason why you did not have choice
(for example self-defense, insanity etc.) the court will presume you
are guilty. It is the same with free will. Your actions are your
free will, unless they have external causes. And most of the time,
external forces do not completely explain our actions, so we do have
free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 11:31 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  It's too bad that you failed to read your own Wiki article completely, as you would have noticed that the view you supplied above is just 1 view of 2. Below, is the continuation of the very same article in which "time" is described according to what I have been saying here all along:

"This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

In the quote above it says that time is "not a thing." So what does "not a thing" mean to you? "Not a thing" means "nothing." Non existence.

Might as well put up the entire paragraph if your going to quote the opposing view.

Wiki Wrote:Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21]

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

The difference in the rate of passage through time can and is measured daily by satellites with respect to those on Earth. Time is is a property of our universe. Obviously not an object, or event, or thing. Just like how blue is not a thing.

I completely understand the concept of time. However, my point to all this is that time itself is a sentient beings attempt to make sense of eternity by creating a snipet of eternity and drawing a time-line in an effort to bring order to chaos. In effect, this creation we call time is how we force Determinism to exist within Randomness. Therefore, since you have already agreed to accept that eternity exists as per your post below, and since you also already agree that time is a concept, then you should have no problem accepting that sentient life imposes time into eternity in an effort to exact Determinism from Randomness.

What this means is that certain forms of Determinism are a creation of humankind also. Mind you, not all Determinism is created by humankind, for Randomness can accidentally create it as well. But understand that neither Determinism nor Randomness exist as truly separate entities. Think of them both as kind of a "primordial soup," in which they are fluid in their nature, entwined in all things.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Eternity is the default position since we cannot determine the origin of existence. When people make a claim such as that the Big Bang is the origin of existence, they must prove it or else it remains a theory. If they cannot prove that the Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter etc, then time itself cannot be demonstrated to have an origin.

This leave us with no origin of time at all, and with no origin, all you have left is eternity.

Alright, I accept that.

Well then ... that's good!

Quote:For free will, the default should be withholding belief.

How does one withhold belief when the ability to make choices is self-evident, at least it is on the surface? Since we cannot demonstrate with any degree of conclusiveness that free will does not exist, then that which is self-evident should be the default position. After all, it is something we can actually see and experience as occurring. It is a measurable and detectable manifestation.

Hence, since we cannot disregard it based upon any unproven theories, we must accept it's existence as the default position according to the current state of our knowledge.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I am on topic, but unfortunately you seem incapable of following the train of thought.

Going on a tangent about how energy doesn't disappear from the universe is on topic when I'm taking about how things change, how there is a duration to events, and how events come to pass? Head examination pending i hope... Hobo

The point of my speaking about how energy doesn't disappear from the universe was in relation to your comments about how things "pass away." For you to use the term "pass away" implies a non-existence, and my point was that nothing ever trully passes away, it merely changes forms from matter to energy and vice-versa. Hence why I said that not a single atom can be added or subtracted from the universe ( a figure of speech really, because an atom smasher demonstrates otherwise, but still the point exists).

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  But the concept of time that you are using is just that ... a concept.

Which is all I need.

A concept that sentient life creates in an effort to bring Determinism out of Randomness.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Like I said, if you take away the earth, sun, solar system, and stick you into outer space you would not have the first clue what time it was. Time would cease to exist for you, because your "concept" would no longer be applicable.

Events would still occur, things would still change. My concept of time is entirely in one piece. Your talking about time on a watch.

Yes, I am speaking about such things as a watch, and other things that sentient life creates to exact Determinism out of Randomness. Yes, events will still occur even without humankind or any sentient life's involvement. This is because Determinism can come from Randomness naturally.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Time is a creation of human kind. It's measurements are all creations. On another world it would be measured differently according to that planet's environment, and a different concept would be created.

The time you keep bringing up is, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

It is entirely relevant to what you are talking about. Time is a creation which is exacted from either sentient life or Randomness.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  And for the 3rd time you seem incapable of following a rather elementary train of thought. You failed to acknowledge that my point was that your analogy was false when compared to the context of this discussion.

The analogy is fine. Nothing is happening in the image, it's a snapshot of a moment of time. I don't see the disconnect between this point and your understanding. "But the particles!"

The analogy is horrible. It is no different than a statue that was created two thousand years ago, and it still stands today. What does it demonstrate? All it demonstrates is yet another example of sentient life exacting Determinism from Randomness. We create a time-line and take snapshots of events within our own creation. We stick a ruler into eternity and try to make sense of eternity. But the point is, we created it all.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I have already challenged you to prove there was any circular reasoning and you ignored it the first time. So, I will challenge you again and ask you to display the reasoning and logic to support your claim of circular reasoning.

[quote]Somehow I expect you to run from it again.

Big Grin

I already addressed this.

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

You assume you have choice, a choice to do things one way or another, and that both of these could be a reality [Aka free will]. Choice is assumed (not demonstrated) to support free will. Circular. Drinking Beverage

It's not an assumption when it is self-evident. Choice is not assumed when it is self-evident. And as I mentioned earlier, until some conclusive evidence is demonstrated to contradict the existence of free will, then the default position is that it exists. There's nothing circular about it.

In fact, your argument is circular because of your assumptions are based upon unproven theories. Since none of your theories can be demonstrated to be true, and thus disregarded, then all you are really saying is something to the effect of, "Free will cannot exist because Free will cannot exist."

And that is what circular is.

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Because if I decide i want to move to the left and oppose the oncoming force I can do it, while a ball cannot make that decision.

And of course there are no forces that dictate the evolution of particles in your brain... Thumbsup

No one says there isn't. So your point is ... what? That the evolution of the brain is predetermined and that there is no way any such thing as a random variable can influence it? Really?

Quote:
(09-12-2013 10:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Ummm ... if momentum is being remembered by the system, then how could nothing be happening?

Even in your scenario, something is happening. Your theory is hopelessly flawed here.

What is a computer doing being it boots? or a program before it runs? nothing.
It still knows what to do when it boots. Bowing

What are they both doing? They are "being." They are existing. And even when they start up, any number of things can happen randomly. But understand this; neither has anything to do with momentum, so this comparison is fallacious. You are speaking about something that has "potential," not something that can be compared to the momentum you spoke about earlier.

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
10-12-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(09-12-2013 07:18 PM)Free Wrote:  
(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.

Just barely. And not even sure of that, as when you move into the fully conscious part of the mind, there will still be a drawing on innate and learned factors. The difference is that there will be a more creative use of these.

Mind you, all these decisions are still totally unique to you, which I think is what people mistake as free will or choice. Only you have the unique DNA you carry, based on the evolution of your direct ancestry. And only you have the exact set of life experience to draw from. So, whether there is an actual choice or not, your decisions will always be uniquely yours.

[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
10-12-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(10-12-2013 11:06 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 07:18 PM)Free Wrote:  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.


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

Just barely. And not even sure of that, as when you move into the fully conscious part of the mind, there will still be a drawing on innate and learned factors. The difference is that there will be a more creative use of these.

Mind you, all these decisions are still totally unique to you, which I think is what people mistake as free will or choice. Only you have the unique DNA you carry, based on the evolution of your direct ancestry. And only you have the exact set of life experience to draw from. So, whether there is an actual choice or not, your decisions will always be uniquely yours.

To me at least, it's rather obvious that the conscious mind is the first thing to observe and experience all external influences. Using our conscious mind as being the "first contact" with eternal influences, we then make judgements and choices regarding the external influences and then file it away into the subconscious for future reference.

My point is "first contact." The employment of Free Will is initiated at first contact, and we consciously make decisions and judgments before we file those decisions and judgments away into the unconscious mind.

Now, it is entirely possible for those "files" in the unconscious mind to influence the conscious mind, but it should be understood that those "files" originated and were initially judged and decided upon consciously first, from the moment of first contact.

Bearing that in mind, this demonstrates yet another example of how free will is utilized because the initial contact with all eternal influences happens on a conscious level, and it is on this conscious level where the initial choices are employed.

All we are doing after that is simply filing away our conscious choices into the unconscious mind for future reference.

Hence, it makes no sense at all that the unconscious mind gives us no ability to make choices when it was the conscious mind that made the choice and then filed it away in the first place.

Consider

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
10-12-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: Freedom of Choice VS Freedom Of Will (Yes this is seriously a dilemma)
(10-12-2013 11:49 AM)Free Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 11:06 AM)Dom Wrote:  Just barely. And not even sure of that, as when you move into the fully conscious part of the mind, there will still be a drawing on innate and learned factors. The difference is that there will be a more creative use of these.

Mind you, all these decisions are still totally unique to you, which I think is what people mistake as free will or choice. Only you have the unique DNA you carry, based on the evolution of your direct ancestry. And only you have the exact set of life experience to draw from. So, whether there is an actual choice or not, your decisions will always be uniquely yours.

To me at least, it's rather obvious that the conscious mind is the first thing to observe and experience all external influences. Using our conscious mind as being the "first contact" with eternal influences, we then make judgements and choices regarding the external influences and then file it away into the subconscious for future reference.

My point is "first contact." The employment of Free Will is initiated at first contact, and we consciously make decisions and judgments before we file those decisions and judgments away into the unconscious mind.

Now, it is entirely possible for those "files" in the unconscious mind to influence the conscious mind, but it should be understood that those "files" originated and were initially judged and decided upon consciously first, from the moment of first contact.

Bearing that in mind, this demonstrates yet another example of how free will is utilized because the initial contact with all eternal influences happens on a conscious level, and it is on this conscious level where the initial choices are employed.

All we are doing after that is simply filing away our conscious choices into the unconscious mind for future reference.

Hence, it makes no sense at all that the unconscious mind gives us no ability to make choices when it was the conscious mind that made the choice and then filed it away in the first place.

Consider

Well, I think it's the opposite. The unconscious makes a zillion decisions all the time without us even knowing about it - from breathing to scratching our head to putting the food in front of us into our mouth. Only when there is an issue does the conscious mind come in - like the food is too hot and we get a pain signal as alert. But we don't consciously decide every movement used in getting the food in our stomach, we have long learned how to use a fork and knife and it's automatic.

When you drive, your reactions are automatic. When something goes wrong, you're sent an adrenaline warning and pop into attention.

We call all the automatic decisions "habit".

Now let's say you are confronted with something entirely new - lets say you run into a purple dragon. Immediately your hardware sends alarms - dragons are huge and scary. So fear is a component of your decisions regarding the dragon. Your experience with dragons is confined to fairy takes and maybe monster movies. Your brain searches all these for clues and comes back with unpleasant prospects. Now you run for your life.

If we made nilly willy decisions without the base of DNA and experience, we would not be viable. Evolution created our DNA not just physically but also to help us react with fear, or pleasure, or pain and what have you. If our conscious mind were to routinely over ride our DNA and experience, we'd be screwed.

[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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: