What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2013, 02:42 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 02:36 AM)absols Wrote:  it is funny how everyone is now consciously rejecting free will for what it became all evil wills

they fancy that by killing freedom truth they would gain smthg to invest in whatever powers they got on everything to force more directly for their eternal ass out

they think from the illusion that truth freedom is only objective, so if they stay out of everything while forcing it by uniting their powers as one out of everything, truth freedom cant do a thing

while truth freedom is objective only bc of objective rights, but truth freedom is infinite superiority so only powerful in free spaces, as if they could fancy of avoiding becoming more physical then physics

[Image: 158447__UNOPT__.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-09-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 02:36 AM)absols Wrote:  it is funny how everyone is now consciously rejecting free will for what it became all evil wills

they fancy that by killing freedom truth they would gain smthg to invest in whatever powers they got on everything to force more directly for their eternal ass out

they think from the illusion that truth freedom is only objective, so if they stay out of everything while forcing it by uniting their powers as one out of everything, truth freedom cant do a thing

while truth freedom is objective only bc of objective rights, but truth freedom is infinite superiority so only powerful in free spaces, as if they could fancy of avoiding becoming more physical then physics

Will no one rid me of this trolling parasite?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 05:38 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 05:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 02:36 AM)absols Wrote:  it is funny how everyone is now consciously rejecting free will for what it became all evil wills

they fancy that by killing freedom truth they would gain smthg to invest in whatever powers they got on everything to force more directly for their eternal ass out

they think from the illusion that truth freedom is only objective, so if they stay out of everything while forcing it by uniting their powers as one out of everything, truth freedom cant do a thing

while truth freedom is objective only bc of objective rights, but truth freedom is infinite superiority so only powerful in free spaces, as if they could fancy of avoiding becoming more physical then physics

Will no one rid me of this trolling parasite?

[Image: troll-b-gone.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-09-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
If you have no expectations you cannot be disappointed. The same is true if you are expecting the worst.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 07:40 PM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(24-09-2013 07:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 06:33 AM)absols Wrote:  in truth, whatever one say to another concerning himself is a reality of self truth first

that is why in truth, anyone normal see how it cant mean another geniunly but in common sense, and that is why everyone understand satanic ways being not right nor to existence facts

and that is why when i call u shit, i lean on absolute truths and rights while all is meant to b said the evil worse it is
but even in my life, i couldnt mean evil but by realizing superior rights as the reference of my reality being

while u calling me shit looking, without any justification, nor any right superiority doing, is the proof of the evil u r absolutely forever
proving how u have no connection with reality sense and conception at all while ur claim of being states is too loudly opposite to present right facts

that's tellin' em.
ur shitty kitty superior shits obvious shits
evil shits ur kitty poops forever
ur brain IS shitty kitty shits u r right facts poops kiity shits loudly

lol

Thumbsup

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 10:03 PM
What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
Practical all human interactions presume free will. In holding people accountable for their actions, we presume
that they have a choice how to act. It seems strange to pronounce that man has no free will, and not live accordingly.

I do not belief that nature is deterministic. It has never been observed. Nature approximately obeys certain laws, but it also seems inherently unpredictable. measurements in physics always have small errors, and due to complexity (the butterfly effect) such small errors will have large effects eventually. Also, quantum mechanics suggests that nature is not deterministic, and that the state of nature at a given moment cannot be completely known.

Within such an nondeterministic world, free will has its place. Human behavior is fundamentally unpredictable. We can predict it only to some extent. Another person cannot predict my behavior because that person would not even be able to measure the
current state of my brain. For that person, my behavior seems somewhat random. The unpredictable part of my behavior is my free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
25-09-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Practical all human interactions presume free will. In holding people accountable for their actions, we presume
that they have a choice how to act. It seems strange to pronounce that man has no free will, and not live accordingly.


Human tradition is a poor basis for determining facts about reality. It was long considered both 'common sense' and 'tradition' to believe that the world was flat and at the center of creation. Both turned out to be wrong. There is no reason to assume that the concept of 'freewill' cannot be another inherently flawed concept in the light of our growing scientific understanding.


That is not to say that you don't hold a person accountable for their actions to an extent. A killer isn't responsible for all of the influences, his chemical levels in his brain, his genes, or the structure of his brain; all things that influenced his decision to kill. However that individual must still be locked up for the safety of others. What this does do however is eliminate the aspect of retribution from our justice, because once you see and understand the line of causation it becomes much harder to hate that person for things they had no control over. So ironically enough the best way to have a Jesus-like sense of forgiveness is to understand the nature of our apparently deterministic universe and the lines of causation.



(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I do not belief that nature is deterministic. It has never been observed. Nature approximately obeys certain laws, but it also seems inherently unpredictable. measurements in physics always have small errors, and due to complexity (the butterfly effect) such small errors will have large effects eventually. Also, quantum mechanics suggests that nature is not deterministic, and that the state of nature at a given moment cannot be completely known.


This does not show that the universe is not deterministic, but rather that calculating it and predicting it with our incomplete models and limited computing power is not 100% accurate at this point. But just because we can't arrive at an answer in practice, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer in principal. Given sufficiently accurate explanatory models and computing power, we should be able to predict those things; we just currently lack the ability to do so right now. There is every reason to think we live in a deterministic universe, and the inability to predict all of it's outcomes is a poor argument against that.



(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Within such an nondeterministic world, free will has its place. Human behavior is fundamentally unpredictable. We can predict it only to some extent. Another person cannot predict my behavior because that person would not even be able to measure the
current state of my brain. For that person, my behavior seems somewhat random. The unpredictable part of my behavior is my free will.


But there is no good reason to believe we live in a non-deterministic universe, outside of your own desire to deny living in such because you don't like the logical consequences of living in such a reality. You are now equating 'freewill' not with control over your thoughts and brain, but rather with unpredictability; and here we can agree. If you cannot predict what your brain (or soul) will do next, then I say you don't have absolute freewill. You've just redefine 'freewill' to mean something other than what 'freewill' has traditionally meant in an effort to save the idea, even if you have to kill the idea to save the name.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 04:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 04:52 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Practical all human interactions presume free will. In holding people accountable for their actions, we presume
that they have a choice how to act. It seems strange to pronounce that man has no free will, and not live accordingly.

I do not belief that nature is deterministic. It has never been observed. Nature approximately obeys certain laws, but it also seems inherently unpredictable. measurements in physics always have small errors, and due to complexity (the butterfly effect) such small errors will have large effects eventually. Also, quantum mechanics suggests that nature is not deterministic, and that the state of nature at a given moment cannot be completely known.

Within such an nondeterministic world, free will has its place. Human behavior is fundamentally unpredictable. We can predict it only to some extent. Another person cannot predict my behavior because that person would not even be able to measure the
current state of my brain. For that person, my behavior seems somewhat random. The unpredictable part of my behavior is my free will.

Quantum mechanics' uncertainty deals with what we can measure and know in a moment about a system. Regardless of the fact that in no sense does the addition of randomness to the world add free will, QM is not required to be random. There could be hidden variables that if we were to become knowledgeable of would turn QM away from the days of only determining probabilities of something happening. I don't think this will happen because we can't probe deep enough yet.

Also, not being able to know what someone will do next has nothing to say in the argument for free will. It only goes to show the complexity of the brain and our limited methods of calculating.

The unpredictable you. The non routine goings and comings. I might agree with you if there was no unknowns to you. You can't predict all actions you are going to take, we are somewhat blind to the future (beyond plans and speculation). We only come to be aware of a decision when it is made for us.

The present is all we have, the gift is thinking it was self induced.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(25-09-2013 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Human tradition is a poor basis for determining facts about reality. It was long considered both 'common sense' and 'tradition' to believe that the world was flat and at the center of creation. Both turned out to be wrong. There is no reason to assume that the concept of 'freewill' cannot be another inherently flawed concept in the light of our growing scientific understanding.
Because we have no proof that free will does not exist, there is no reason to drastically change our way of life because of the possibility that it does not exist.
If science proves that there is no free will, I would accept it.
Quote:That is not to say that you don't hold a person accountable for their actions to an extent. A killer isn't responsible for all of the influences, his chemical levels in his brain, his genes, or the structure of his brain; all things that influenced his decision to kill. However that individual must still be locked up for the safety of others. What this does do however is eliminate the aspect of retribution from our justice, because once you see and understand the line of causation it becomes much harder to hate that person for things they had no control over. So ironically enough the best way to have a Jesus-like sense of forgiveness is to understand the nature of our apparently deterministic universe and the lines of causation.
That is an interesting thought.
(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I do not belief that nature is deterministic. It has never been observed. Nature approximately obeys certain laws, but it also seems inherently unpredictable. measurements in physics always have small errors, and due to complexity (the butterfly effect) such small errors will have large effects eventually. Also, quantum mechanics suggests that nature is not deterministic, and that the state of nature at a given moment cannot be completely known.
This does not show that the universe is not deterministic, but rather that calculating it and predicting it with our incomplete models and limited computing power is not 100% accurate at this point. But just because we can't arrive at an answer in practice, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer in principal. Given sufficiently accurate explanatory models and computing power, we should be able to predict those things; we just currently lack the ability to do so right now. There is every reason to think we live in a deterministic universe, and the inability to predict all of it's outcomes is a poor argument against that.
[/quote]
There is no proof that the universe is completely deterministic. If we could completely predict everything then that would be a proof. I also do not see how
you could prove that the universe is deterministic otherwise. So again, most of our daily lives presumes that there the world is not deterministic. It presumes
that there are different possibilities for the future. So there is no reason to change
our lives because of the possibility that the universe is deterministic.
Quote:But there is no good reason to believe we live in a non-deterministic universe, outside of your own desire to deny living in such because you don't like the logical consequences of living in such a reality. You are now equating 'freewill' not with control over your thoughts and brain, but rather with unpredictability; and here we can agree. If you cannot predict what your brain (or soul) will do next, then I say you don't have absolute freewill. You've just redefine 'freewill' to mean something other than what 'freewill' has traditionally meant in an effort to save the idea, even if you have to kill the idea to save the name.
Because there is a lack of proof that the universe is deterministic, my desire to live in a non-deterministic world is good enough to presume that it is non-deterministic.
The same holds for free will. You cannot prove that I do not have free will. If you could completely control my actions, then that would be a proof. I do not see how
you would prove that I do not have a free will otherwise. Since I like to have free will, that is what I will believe, that is ... until you prove to me that I do not have free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
26-09-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: What, Exactly, is "Free Will?"
(26-09-2013 09:48 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Human tradition is a poor basis for determining facts about reality. It was long considered both 'common sense' and 'tradition' to believe that the world was flat and at the center of creation. Both turned out to be wrong. There is no reason to assume that the concept of 'freewill' cannot be another inherently flawed concept in the light of our growing scientific understanding.

Because we have no proof that free will does not exist, there is no reason to drastically change our way of life because of the possibility that it does not exist.
If science proves that there is no free will, I would accept it.


Yes we do, and I've been over it before. Neurology makes it quite clear, even now, that our subconscious and decision making faculties can be subtly influenced in statistically significant ways. fMRI has also allowed us to monitor a subject's brain and be able to tell what choice they are going to make, sometimes seconds before the subject is consciously aware of their choice. This is all evidence that destroys our traditional concept of absolute freewill.




(26-09-2013 09:48 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That is not to say that you don't hold a person accountable for their actions to an extent. A killer isn't responsible for all of the influences, his chemical levels in his brain, his genes, or the structure of his brain; all things that influenced his decision to kill. However that individual must still be locked up for the safety of others. What this does do however is eliminate the aspect of retribution from our justice, because once you see and understand the line of causation it becomes much harder to hate that person for things they had no control over. So ironically enough the best way to have a Jesus-like sense of forgiveness is to understand the nature of our apparently deterministic universe and the lines of causation.

That is an interesting thought.


It's the logic that arises from the premises when they're taken to their conclusions.


(26-09-2013 09:48 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 10:03 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I do not belief that nature is deterministic. It has never been observed. Nature approximately obeys certain laws, but it also seems inherently unpredictable. measurements in physics always have small errors, and due to complexity (the butterfly effect) such small errors will have large effects eventually. Also, quantum mechanics suggests that nature is not deterministic, and that the state of nature at a given moment cannot be completely known.

This does not show that the universe is not deterministic, but rather that calculating it and predicting it with our incomplete models and limited computing power is not 100% accurate at this point. But just because we can't arrive at an answer in practice, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer in principal. Given sufficiently accurate explanatory models and computing power, we should be able to predict those things; we just currently lack the ability to do so right now. There is every reason to think we live in a deterministic universe, and the inability to predict all of it's outcomes is a poor argument against that.

There is no proof that the universe is completely deterministic. If we could completely predict everything then that would be a proof. I also do not see how
you could prove that the universe is deterministic otherwise. So again, most of our daily lives presumes that there the world is not deterministic. It presumes
that there are different possibilities for the future. So there is no reason to change
our lives because of the possibility that the universe is deterministic.

Wow, you're basically identical to a theist using the 'god of the gaps' to argue for the existence of their god. 'Science doesn't know 100% for sure, therefor I can cram my cherished belief in there'. Also what you are asking here is the same as every creationist that complains there are no 'transitional fossils', then when presented with one, claim that there are now only 2 more gaps to be accounted for. They want a continuous and unbroken line of fossils, or else it's not good enough for them; failing to realize that fossils are only one small piece of the evolutionary puzzle.

Even if we're not in a 100% deterministic universe, neuroscience has already made it more than abundantly clear that our brains are influenced by things beyond our control and do many things without our conscious control. If you want to claim that 'freewill' exists because there exists something outside of the brain that is immune to outside influence that we have control over, then it's up to you to present evidence for that phenomena.



(26-09-2013 09:48 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 11:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But there is no good reason to believe we live in a non-deterministic universe, outside of your own desire to deny living in such because you don't like the logical consequences of living in such a reality. You are now equating 'freewill' not with control over your thoughts and brain, but rather with unpredictability; and here we can agree. If you cannot predict what your brain (or soul) will do next, then I say you don't have absolute freewill. You've just redefine 'freewill' to mean something other than what 'freewill' has traditionally meant in an effort to save the idea, even if you have to kill the idea to save the name.
Because there is a lack of proof that the universe is deterministic, my desire to live in a non-deterministic world is good enough to presume that it is non-deterministic.
The same holds for free will. You cannot prove that I do not have free will. If you could completely control my actions, then that would be a proof. I do not see how
you would prove that I do not have a free will otherwise. Since I like to have free will, that is what I will believe, that is ... until you prove to me that I do not have free will.


There is evidence, but you just bury your head in the ground and pretend not to see it. Try refuting the findings of neuroscience, present evidence that shows that our current understating of the brain is flawed and that the entire scientific community is wrong. Please do. Until then, I'll take the educated and informed opinions of trained neuroscientists over your uneducated armchair denials.

Also I'll 'prove' you don't have freewill when you can 'prove' that the Invisible Intangible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. Go on, I'll wait. But you can't do that, because you cannot 'prove' a negative. Same logic applies to freewill. There is every reason to believe that we live in a deterministic universe, there is no observable mechanism we have been able to observe that would allow our brains (and thus our consciousness) to sidestep this. All you have in support of your calim to freewill is a simple desire, but no real evidence. Just the screeching of 'nuh uh' from the hilltop while stomping your feet in consternation.

You've been presented with evidence that refutes your uninformed and baseless assertions, and you've provided nothing in return. Sorry but your claim is groundless and not at all compelling; and thus according to the burden of proof and simple logic I do not have a reason to change my position, but lacking proper justification for your beliefs, you do.


Seriously, go watch one or both of the Sam Harris videos that were presented earlier; or any of the other provided links to information. You simply aren't looking at the evidence, and ignorance is a poor defense for your position.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: