| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Hi everyone, some of u may remember me from such threads, as all the big questions answered, free will, is it bs?, and others. havent been here in months thought i'd drop in and say hello. Also i'd like if possible for someone to find a flaw in this logic....
If freedom is that which is with out restraint, and will is the ability to act, then free will is the ability to act with out restraint right? but we all know that there are limits to what we can do, i cant fly, or shoot fireballs from my finger tips at will. So how can there be such a thing as limited freedom? isnt that an oxymoron, nonsequetor, contradiction? Free will as most of us think of it would be the ability to make a "choice" that is not caused by something, if it was caused by something then it would just be the effect of the cause and not a free choice. Ok, so maybe you'd argue we are the cause? but what caused us to be the cause, us being the cause must be the effect of a prior cause, if not then it was just random. So in order for a choice to be free, it can have no cause, and there could be no limit on what we could "choose", but then at best we are left with a randomn choice, or more accurately a random event. Actually maybe spontanious is a more accurate word, rather then random, but then again what is the mechanism that allows this, how can anything actually be spontanious? maybe that is just another one of our conceptions based on what seems to be, but what really isnt. But anyways u cannot will randomness, or spontinaity, if u could you would be able to predict the outcome, but the inability to do so is the very definition of randomness. And with spontinatity u cant even predict when it will occur. So randomness isnt free will,and neither is a spontaneous event cause u cant will either. at best u can take a guess, or push the odds to favor one outcome over another, but can never be certain of what will be...till it is. and if something causes u to make a "choice" or take an action, then it isnt really a free choice, because it was caused. Even if u were influenced at all by something, then that something would have limited your freedom, and limited freedom is nonsense, how can that which is free be limited? so then what mystical mechanism, allows us to have the "free will" that many of us believe we have, infact our whole lives are built on this assumption. my answer? none, there is no free will because in order for there to be so, i would have to take action without cause, yet somehow have that action not be random, or even spontanious, yet be able to predict perfectly the outcome of my action, because if there was any chance that my will would not be done exactly as i intended then i really had no control, no unrestricted will,because like limited freedom, limited control makes no sense either, both are conceptions we use everyday, but in actuality have no basis in reality, just appearent reality. So how then do we have free will? i can not find a shred of evidence for its existence, yet it is generally accepted that each person has it. Causes may be subtle, or come together in a myriad of ways to form one ultimate cause that percipitates an effect, and we may not always be aware of them, or how they came about, but they are always there, every cause has an effect, every effect is also a cause that inturn has another effect ect..so on and on... if there is no cause then how did the event occur? if it was random how did we have any say in what occured? so how do we have free will? how can there be something between determinism and randomness? if there is, what is it? how did it come to be? any ideas? my opinion is ofcourse, there is none, no choice, and no freedom, and no control. They are conceptions based on the appearant reality, but have no actual basis in fact, or logic for that matter. if your up on your quantum physics then u know the world we see, is very different from the way things actually are. The only conclusion i can draw from the evidence and logic is that, in fact the only thing that is certain is that everything is uncertain. At best we can only hope that we will be lucky in how things unfold and be ok with the uncertain, but whether we wish that, and whether we can be ok with it all, is itself not up to us, we either will be caused to be one way or the other or will randomly be assigned our opinion, or beliefs. if u believe in free will now, u do so because all the circumstances, evironment, genetics, every quantum event that has occured since the begining of time makes you believe that you can believe anything u want, do anything u want, but that doesnt make it all true. it just means u cant help but be deluded, it means u cant help but be exactly what u are or where u are, at this moment, or any other. So any flaws in my arguement that you can prove logically? Oh and if your tempted to invoke god, then consider this... How can god effect the system (us, the universe ect..) without the system inturn effecting god? say god makes a choice in regard to the system, and implements it. wouldnt there be some effect of that choice/action not only on the system but god also? wouldnt god be pleased or displeased with the outcome? that would be an effect. God would in a sense be caused by the system to be please or whatever, or to take another action based on the effects of the previous action. God set rules for the system, if the rules are broken then the system cannot function as it was originally intended, so the actions god could take would be limited by the rules that god had previously put into effect, assuming god still wanted the system to function by the same rules. And wouldnt gods desire in that respect, one way or the other, be determined by how the system had previously functioned, such as whether or not it had pleased god? So it seems that even god doesnt have free will because there are limits on what god can do, assuming god wants to maintain the basic rules he initially put into place. But even that desire or lack of, would have to be caused by the previous performance of his creation. every one of gods actions will have an effect not only on the system, but on god, and will shape the next set of circumstances god finds himself in. which will inturn determine god's next choice, or more accurately action. Even for god the circumstances limit the possibilities, and gods desire counts as a circumstance, and that circumstance was caused by prior circumstances. So like you, even what god wants really isnt up to god, its determined by circumstance. God cannot be outside the system and still effect the system, because God and gods interaction with the system, is itself another system. The only other possiblity i see is that there are no "moments" no "time" there is no cause and effect, no action and reaction. No choices. Everything just is. It always has been, and always will be, And what we precieve to be time and motion, cause and effect is itself like choice, and freedom, conceptions based on our inability to see things as they actually are, to see the system at once as a whole. Even the term conception is just another conception, if that makes any sense. None of this is real, except in the same sense as a lie is true or as good as true to the person who believes it. Also responses like, if we didnt have free will everyone would just sit and watch tv till they were dead, or if we didnt have it then we couldnt be held responsible for our actions...Are not actual arguements against the logic, or possibility, they are just possible implications. Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be. Sorry this is so long but its important to me, and important to be as percise and all inclusive as possible, though really i could have tied this all in with a bunch of other stuff, but i'll spare you...this time  Thank you if you read this all, and especially if you posted a thoughtful and thought out reply.
| |||||||
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger   Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
Hey man, welcome back! I was going through some of my old threads the other day and found some of your posts, and was wondering where you went. We had a really good free will thread not too long back, I'll dig up the link in just a second.
I'm with you. Everything has a cause. It is impossible for us to be free from cause and effect. A lot of people argue that they have free will because they can make choices that aren't forced by the external situations, that THAT is free will. That might be true, but it isn't free will. When dealing with this, there is the external world, and the internal world of the mind, and they are continously interacting. There is the cause and effect chain in the external world and there is the cause and effect chain in the internal world, and the internal world (the mind) in whole is an effect of the external world, and the external world is effected by the internal world. There is an intricate interplay here every second. The day cause and effect lead to humans with our complex thought processes is the day cause and effect became so much more potent. Most arguements for free will that I have seen come about from a misunderstanding of cause and effect. I've never had one thought that was free from cause and effect, it all follows a pattern. When dealing with the mind we see how amazingly complex it is and just how much of a higher order it has... and cause and effect is forever there. Of course this completely allows for the experience of free choice and doesn't take any power away from living our life as we wish. Some proclaim "I made a choice! I have free will!", as if it is suspossed to prove that it truly exists. These are the same people who dismiss people as delusional when they claim they have heard voices from God and he told them to do a list of things....  What we experience is proven real by the fact that we experience it, this person's experiences are not real because he is delusional, and the advances in science that one usually praises, which has really shown how cause and effect work, in this one instance are meaningless? Hhhm.....We know we can be certain that we experience free will. The fact remains that we are within and a part of a system that is playing itself out. We came to be from the system and we are interacting with the system in every single moment. The system is being carried out through us, and the fact that we have developed these complex thought processes and have an individual perspective are intriguing. As the system rolls out, does it create something that can actually become conscious of the system and knowingly take the system further and further?  But I'm entirely willing to take any examples of free will free of cause and effect and point out how cause and effect is actually there.  Here is the link for the page I was telling you about. It is long but worth the read, I really developed my understanding through it. The Visionairre and Ped's posts I found very interesting as well.  Peace. 
--------------------  
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you   
 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
its a really deep subject isnt it man, i will just say i believe we have free will. I had the choice to reply, or not to reply, and i chose to reply, my choice and no one elses. i was not held at gun point. that is a human perspective on it, being ignorant of the big picture.
| |||||||
 SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone...   Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Oh, yay. Another Free will thread.
The sad thing is, if you truly believe you dont have free will and have no ability to choose, and are nothing but a sailboat in the ocean with nothing but the winds of cause and effect blowing you away, without you controlling the sails; then that's what you will get. I believe in taking responsibility and control for my own life; Free will, baby. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to adjust my sails... -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Mystical_Craven mentally illpsyc  Registered: 06/16/02 Posts: 439 Loc: Earth |
| ||||||
but what went on in your head that made you 'choose' to reply (e.g. what was the driving force behind this initial 'descision' to hit that quick reply button and write you felt needed to be said) and more importantly then that - what chain of events in your life molded your thought process in such a way to where you felt compelled to reply to a question like this...what sort of experiences have you had that have that lead up to the mind set you're at now (and how did those events initially come into play) dissect the hell out of this and keep following the paper trail back as far as you possibly can...you might be surprised at where you end up -------------------- 
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go..." T.S. Eliot
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
lol, no im not surprised. Its just the perspective you choose to have, you can see it as yes there is free will or you can see it as no there is not free will. But IMHO....there is most definitely free will. Nothing is set in stone, and things are more complex than you may realize now.
if we didnt have free will, then there would be absolutely no reason for us to be in bodies. Its all about choices, and in the end the only thing that is going to matter is the love that we had shown, for ourselves and for others and everything else. All is a test of our love, we are all on differnt paths, so different challenges, which are all the best for the each of us.
| |||||||
|
truekimbo2 Cya later, friends.   Registered: 12/08/02 Posts: 9,234 Loc: ny 
|
| ||||||
|
nothing MADE him choose to reply, the entire process led to the point at which his conscious mind got to decide.
i'm big on the idea that there is constant chaos accessible, all you have to do is not think. -------------------- You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
i totally understand what they are saying though....because if things had happened a lil differently, i may not have chosen to reply, but even then i had free will to not reply. But i think that they are focusing their perspective on that time doesnt exsist, so no matter what choice we make, it was already known and chosen already and no possible way to choose other than what is meant to be, thus not being able to have free will, because you cant, no matter what, choose other than what is just meant to be. but things get complex for the human mind, the understanding just isnt there. we have free will, dont take my word for it, do yoru own soul searching. trying to get to the bottom of this thinking logically will make your head explode and u will never get the truth. for stuff like this you need to look within, fuck the ego.
| |||||||
|
conscious Awakened Registered: 04/11/04 Posts: 12 Last seen: 21 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
ZenGecko: I know that tomorrow you will wake up in the morning. Did I just negate your free will simply because I have knowledge of your future actions? Nope... and simply because Yhwh knows all does not mean He denied you free will.
-------------------- Acid absorbs 47 times its weight in excess reality.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker  Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
What about a white child brought up in the 1930s in a family of KKKers? Can he choose to be a racist or not? Not really, until or unless some powerful life event overrides his programming.
Can he put on his left jackboot first or his right? Who cares! Most of his "real" choices are already decided by environment and circumstance. How many old people are hip-hop fans? How many young people are Sinatra fans? Why wouldn't the mix be around 50-50? You believe that you are making a decision as to what music you like, but this is an illusion. -------------------- 
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior   Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Okay, so there is no such thing as "pure" free will. This is just arguing semantics, imo.
There is no absolute, pure, free will. We have free will, but all within the parameters of our past, which has produced our present, which limits the opportunities and choices available to us. Plus, living in society limits our free will. If we're hungry, we can't walk into a grocery store and take an apple and walk out. But we DO have a certain amount of free will. I can leave California and quit law and go be a waitress in some hick town if I want. I can stop working right now, in the middle of the morning (as I am doing by writing this!), and go to the beach. I have free will to do almost anything, within the parameters of my past and present. It's the exercise of my free will within those parameters that creates my future, again creating new parameters. But I still have free will to do "almost" anything I want, within certain confines. Just semantics. And I'm really glad there's a new free will thread, too! Woo hoo! -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Go you, Skorpivo! Here's another analogy:
I so disagree! I like your sail boat analogy. I have set the course for my own life, and all I need to do is adjust the sails from time to time. I'm in "almost" complete control. If I'm not, who is? I like this, too: Fate v. Free Will 1996, 2002 Curtis Manwaring
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
I can stop working right now, in the middle of the morning (as I am doing by writing this!), and go to the beach.
*sigh* Another illusion. You are free to talk about it, but you will NEVER walk out in the middle of a trial, 'Your honor, I have to go work on my tan.' You need to make your house payment and take care of your kids. How many people have risked their job (not just take a sick day) to go to the beach even though they REALLY, REALLY want to? No, they will go to work and bitch about wanting to be someplace else. Ah, the fresh sea breeze of "free will"... --------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
Not only does it limit our choices, it also makes our choices for us. Like Craven said, it really depends on how far into the nature of things you want to look. When you bypass the individual perspective for one second you can see that there is only the system and what the system creates within itself. I am a product of the system and what is happening is an inevitable chain reaction. Cause and effect style, ya'll! We are but a drop of formless water dropped somewhere in the system, where we flow depends on the system itself. However! However! It goes deeper than that. We have this thing called consciousness, and advanced thought processes. This internal thing called a mind. It is crazy because it adds a whole fucking different dimension to cause and effect and the playing out of this system. What I mean is that isn't just one flow carrying out the chain reaction anymore. There is this whole other flow, created by the first system, and is now interacting with that system. Every single second they are interacting. Then you slap this individual perspective on this second system. It experiences the ability to make a choice. Is it actually.... making a choice? I've been thinking no.... that the system created this second part and formed it to be what it is, and each step along the way the second system is interacting the way it is PURELY by what it became by the previous interactions, and what the first system is presenting in that moment. I can definitely see this as one huge chain reaction playing out. Sure, when you have an individual perspective and you are experiencing it as it happens, I'm sure it does seem like you have control and choose. But a river can only start flowing in one moment from where it was flowing the previous moment. But I still experience making a choice, just like I experience a dream that feels so real. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian  Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
|
So who is going to stop me from going to the beach?
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.  
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Funny you should bring that up. A freind of mine was raised in a very racist family in rural Tennessee. They had a portrait over their fireplace of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first leader of the KKK. Upon joining the U.S. Marines, he encountered his first black man - his D.I. The first day in boot camp, he stared at the man with his mouth gaping is disbelief. The D.I. asked him what his problem was, to which he replied, "I didn't know you people could speak" (he had been raised with the notion that blacks were sub-human animals). The D.I. took him aside and asked him where he was from, he didn't get angry or abusive but explained to him that the real world was a bit different than what he had been told by his family his whole life. To this day he harbors great respect for that D.I. and doesn't have a prejudice bone in his body - he judges everyone as individuals (two of his business partners are black). To the best of my knowledge, he chose to re-evaluate his beliefs and then alter them based on his experiences, whereas there are others who would not do so and remain racists. Programming or choice? -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
necronomicon journeyman  Registered: 12/22/03 Posts: 95 Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Sure, free will is an illusion...but then again, I consider everything besides the fact of me being aware an illusion.
| |||||||
|
sherlockalien Stranger Registered: 03/30/04 Posts: 10 Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I believe free will is not a universal condition of the human kind.. It is to be acquired, to be sought for.
It all has to do with physics, psychology... Free will (creativity) is the initial parameter of the universe. Chaos with a pattern, creation, the essence. The physical universe we see is an illusion, the explicit order of the holographic world. The implicit order (i.e. the workings, the essence) is gradually acquired with intelligence. Each type of matter/life is more intelligent than the other, less limited, more towards free-will. Minerals, then singled-cell organisms, then invertebrates, reptiles, mammalians, and finally us. We have all the steps before, plus some additions. In a normal state, we are automatons, with a little more choice (or more complex dinamics) than other animals. A free will as is mentioned in the bible, or other mystic/religious traditions (forget about your ideas of ?pure free will?, because only the essence has it) is acquired through work. We have potentials that we dont achieve, because we dont accept they exist. We can be the masters of ourselves, like gurdjieff said, but it is not easy. There has to be self-observation done, without analysis. We need to first learn about how the machine work, to dominate it. There has to be self-remembering, meeting with our inner selves. Shrooms or psychedelics MAY be of help (and may be against it too)... We need to dominate body tensions, know our inner workings, realize our different entities that take over and say ?I? for us, but are different in relation to themselves, and are not a unity. The main thing is not to consider yourself awake, because thats what hinders you from really waking up and having free will (the possible human free will, not being the essence or god)
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Ha! I talked to my guru about this exact thing, so I have an answer! Yes, I can stop the trial and go to the beach, if that is my CHOICE! However, I will suffer the consequences, right? The judge will probably experience apoplexy, and I will probably be held in contempt. Each of us can do anything we want. We are only limited by ourselves, and our ideas of how we are limited. "I can't because...." We have free "choice". It's the consequences that prevent us from engaging in free choice. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
It's the consequences that prevent us from engaging in free choice.
That sounds incredibly free. --------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
|
Its what filters greed from creativity (generally speaking of course).
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
No, because we can still do whatever we want, if we don't mind the consequences.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I disagree. You may think that because of my previous choices, my future is clear. However, I have the freedom of choice to change my present, regardless of what happened in my past up until this moment.
I think the future of any given person is "predictable" based on his past choices and experiences, but at any moment in time, any one of us can elect to do something completely different from what we are doing. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
you guys are confusing the bars that society has on you as limiting your free will....society has nothign to do with your god given free will, you can still like and do whatever you want to, but in society you will have to deal with the consequence(if bad). it has nothing to do with the spiritual. Why are you blaming our very own society for lack of free will, you are totally missing the point. We can still do whatever the fuck we want to, there is nothing stopping you but your very own will.
its like i said it is more complex than u think. Like before we even were born we chose this life, so despite your knowledge of it, you chose to be born into whatever conditions you are in now that have shaped yoru values, you put yourself in the place of society that you are in now which have an effect on what you like, but you can change what you like, its not 'programmed' into you that you HAVE to like this or HAVE to like that....we are not fucking robots. I may like mainly ICP, but i can like ANYTHING if i want to, but i love icp becuase they are the fucking shit, the wisdom they spit behind the wicked raps is the shit, and i love it, but i also CAN love any kind of music, because if there is but 1 person in this world that likes a certain kind of music then there is a reason they like it and i try to feel the music for what it is and i can then like the music, even if it isnt my favorite i can still enjoy it, i choose to. We are all one, so if one part of me loves something, then i know i can and do love it too.(probaly over your head swami) We have free will. it is not an illusion.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Um, I totally agree with you, kotton. Read my post again. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
wasnt talkin to u, i know i replied to u and all....but it was easier to just reply to the last message i read :P sorry for any confusion
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Ok, it seems no one on the free will side has addressed the questions i posed. If u make a "choice" say between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. suppose chocolate is your favorite, if put into that situation over and over again your likely going to pick chocolate more then vanilla. so the first time u have this choice, u go for chocolate, because its your favorite, now why is it your favorite? because of the chemical interaction with your taste buds, because maybe it was the first flavor u ever had and fond memories are attached to it, maybe u think chocolate is just cooler then vanilla, none of these reasons or groups of reasons really matter the point is, there are always reasons/causes for you to take one action over another, and in that particular instance the action u took is the only one u could have given the circumstances at the time of the "choice".
Now maybe after picking chocolate a 100 times your bored with it, and want something new, the reason u want somthing knew is because your bored with it, since u've had it a 100 times in a row, this boredom is an effect of repeatedly having the chocolate, and it is also the cause or one of the cause that will now lead you to pick vanilla the next time. It appears that next time u could still pick chocolate...but u wont. because the circumstances will not let u this time. just as in the prior 100 times they would not let u pick vanilla. No one addresses the fundemental question of how u can make a choice, that is not random or spontaneous, yet also has no cause. you may not be aware of all the forces that make you to take one action or another, but they are there, if there is no cause then there can be no effect, no action. if you take a random action or even spontanious action, your will was not involved, you cant will a random or spontaneous event to occur, and unfold just as you intend it to. Both will have an uncertain outcome until the actual outcome is observed. You dont know that i'll wake up in the morning, how ever great the odds are that i will there is a chance that i'll have an anurism and die in my sleep, and no amount of willing on my part is going to stop that. If it did then i would have free will. i could will myself not to die..ever. i could will my self to fly and shoot fireballs regardless of the laws of physics, but if there is one single factor that limits my freedom then i really have no freedom at all. it doesnt matter how many choices there SEEM to be, at each moment i will be forced to choose (forced to choose? the word choose doesnt belong there, replace it with "take action") based on the current circomstances i find myself in. Nobody on the pro free will side seems to be able to address the fundemental questions of how can freedom be limited, and still be free? and how can something have no cause, yet also not be random or spontaneous, thus allowing free will. In fact random and spontaneous events generally have causes themselves. if i flip a coin and initiate the random choosing of heads or tail, i am the cause of this random event occuring, and i flipped the coin for a reason, i was caused to flip it, but i have no control over the outcome, no matter how much i will it to come up heads. even if the cause/reason was just that "i wanted to do it" there was a reason i wanted to, something caused me to want to. i could not of chosen to not want to given the circumstances at that moment, because the forces to cause me not to want to, were either to weak compared to the stronger forces that caused me to want to or they were nonexistant at that moment. And for those who think that much of this is arguing semantics your absolutely right. Words have different meanings in different contexts. We use these meanings and groups of meanings to describe our reality, but they are inadequate. We may be able to concieve of free will, we have words to describe it, but the fact that we can concieve it doesnt make it real. The truth is that most of us really dont understand all the implication of our conceptions, or of the words we use to describe something. example... Most people agree that god is perfect. but assigning that trait to god has certain implications, and your idea of what perfect means is paramount here. is perfection that which lacks nothing? is perfection that which is all good? if thats the case then by the other definition your definition is wrong, because if it lacks bad, and only has good, then it lacks something thus it is not perfect. Then u can get into what good and bad mean, or u can argue that there is no actual good or bad, only what we like or dislike. All of these are conceptions, and all of them are relative, and which ones you ascribe to determine your experience of reality. BUT WHAT IF YOUR WRONG??? no one may be right, or atleast not completely right, but that doesnt me that a right, or absolute doesnt exist. The fact is we will never know if we are right, or if there is a right, and if there is what that right is. So lets say that the words "free", or "freedom" do not mean that which is without limit, or the ability to do whatever u want without limit. There are limits ok, so the words mean something like "the ability to take whatever path/action you want out of the available paths/actions", yet there is nothing that causes you to want one action verses another, for if there were you wouldnt have any actual options, you'd just be caused to do whatever u do. Ok so lets say i find myself at a fork in the road. i can go right or left, i can stop and remain where i am for some amount of time then take a path, or i can turn around and go back the way i came, or just stand there till i die, or the end of time. luckily i have a map with me, and i know that the strip bar is down the left road, and the strip bar is where i want to go. I want to go there cause i am attracted to hot naked women, because my biology and neural chemistry and the environment in which i was raised has all come together to produce this person that is attracted to hot naked women and that causes me to want to go to the strip bar. so which path will i take? fuck, left ofcourse, i already have my dollar bills in hand, and a long shirt so no one can see my boner. NOW, it appears that i could have gone right, or stoppped for some time, or turned around, but the point is, while it may have seemed i could do those things, i wouldnt, i couldnt because all the prior and current circumstances made me go left. if you rewound time over and over and played that senerio out over and over EXACTLY how it occured the first time, i will always go left. i will go left till the circumstances are changed in a way to cause me to go right, or stop or go back, but if we are replaying it all EXACTLY as it happend the first time, then circumstances will never be different, thus i'll never take a different action from my original action, and i never could have regardless of how things appeared to me. Now maybe at the strip bar a fat chick hit me in the head with her nasty tits and traumatized me. Next time given all the circumstances at this new moment, and especially this new circumstance of being traumatized by the fat girl's tit, i "choose" as u all would say to not go to the strip bar. But i didnt choose, in order for me to choose one action over another something must cause me to take one action over another, if not then i've spontaniously or randomly or both, taken an action. And u cannot will the outcome of a random action, u cant choose/will the time a spontanious action occurs, nor predict/will the outcome with absolute accuracy in either the random or spontanious event. And if something caused me to choose, then i really had no choice, i just did what i had to do. So it doesnt matter that u had all this limited freedom, all these other paths u could have taken, because you wouldnt take them, ever as long as the circumstances were the same as the time you made your inital choice, or more accurately took your inital action. Next time circumstances may be different, thus causing a different outcome, in fact from moment to moment the circumstances will always be slightly different then the prior set of circumstances, and u always seem to have all these various options at any given moment, but u will only take the option that the circumstances dictate you take, thus u had no free choice, not even a limited free choice, because given those set of cirumstances u never would have taken one of the other appearent yet non real/accessible options. So what good are all these options if you in fact can never use them unless circumstances allow/cause you to? but whatever option circumstances cause u to take, all those other options were offlimits at that moment due to circumstance, so they werent real options at all, they were only appearant options, options that seemed to be there but were not, or atleast not accessible which is for all intents and purposes the same thing, since either way at that moment u couldnt avail yourself of one of those options. Your limited freedom sounds a lil to limited since in fact it only allows 1 action. the action the circumstances dictate. So even if freedom can be limited, what is the point of calling it freedom when its actually limited to one choice, one option. Really calling them a choice or option is wrong, since thise things imply that there is atleast one other of themselves. u cant have 1 choice and it still be an actual choice, same for options. So u only have the freedom, the ability to choose, the only choice u can choose given the circumstances at that moment. Thats some shitty ass freedom. instead of calling it freedom or limited freedom why not just call it, "that which u must do at this moment given the circumstances"? ok sure thats a bit longer, but its way more accurate. Because as we now know our original conception of what freedom is, was wrong, just an illusion, just like all those illusionary "choices", "options" we IMAGINED we had. None of our conceptions actually existed except in the same way that a lie is true, or as good as true as long as its believed. But its only that way for the believer, it doesnt apply to the rest of us nondeluded people, but free will is something we are all supposed to have, yet not one person that believes we have it, can explain how the fruits of this free will come to be without a cause, and with out being random and/or spontanious, which would not allow the will to come into things at all. So how do we have free choice when our choices are not caused, not random, not spontanious? How do we have free will when we arent even sure our will will be done as intended till after the choice to exercise that will has been made? Really when i say "will" dont i mean "desire"? i say i dont desire to take option b over option a because if i take option b it will cost me more money then option A. But if i dont take option A i'll die, and i dont want to die, i'd rather pay the money then die. So what im really saying is "Rather then die i want to pay the money and live. We say we do things we dont want to do, but thats not true, we always do what we want, we may not want it the most but we want it the most out of the options that we SEEM to have. And there is always a reason/cause for us to want that option more then another. what we want is an effect of that cause, and the action that is taken because of what we want, is an effect of the cause which was wanting. Even if i have two options, like in the case of our fork in the road analogy, i may not even be able to exercise that choice. say i choose to go right...damn i tripped on a rock and was taken to the hospital which was back the way i came, and i didnt get to make my free choice that is somehow still free eventhough i cant exercise it. hmmm...fuck, this free will of mine is useless, its like i really dont have it at all. Damnit!! Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice to be. Edited by ZenGecko (04/13/04 06:34 AM)
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
what good is having another "choice" if at that moment in those circumstances you will never choose it? you cant choose it, because u werent allowed, so really u never had it, just the illusion u had it. really that what all this boils down to.
Sincerely That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I can't read that post, ZenGecko, but I'm sure it was a good one. I am allergic to long unbroken paragraphs. I have to close the thread or I will start sneezing all over my computer screen.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
u chose this life as it is. now your living it for the lessons that it brings.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
ZenGecko writes:
If freedom is that which is with out restraint, and will is the ability to act, then free will is the ability to act with out restraint right? No, that is omnipotence. See your own counter argument below: but we all know that there are limits to what we can do, i cant fly, or shoot fireballs from my finger tips at will. How about changing the phrase "free will", with which so many play semantic games, to "volition". So how can there be such a thing as limited freedom? isnt that an oxymoron, nonsequetor, contradiction? No. It is recognizing reality. No matter how much you may want to, you can't shoot fireballs from your fingertips. That doesn't alter the fact that you can wiggle your fingers at will. So in order for a choice to be free, it can have no cause... Incorrect. The cause is you. Ok, so maybe you'd argue we are the cause? but what caused us to be the cause... Irrelevant. What is important in determining whether you have the capacity to act volitionally is not how you came into existence, but whether or not once in existence you can act volitionally. So in order for a choice to be free, it can have no cause... Incorrect. See above. ... and there could be no limit on what we could "choose"... Incorrect. See above distinction between volition and omnipotence. ... but then at best we are left with a randomn choice, or more accurately a random event. A volitional act is not necessarily random. Actually maybe spontanious is a more accurate word, rather then random, but then again what is the mechanism that allows this... I don't know. But not knowing how something occurs is not the same as denying it occurs. So randomness isnt free will,and neither is a spontaneous event cause u cant will either. Correct. An act of volition is neither random nor predetermined. at best u can take a guess, or push the odds to favor one outcome over another, but can never be certain of what will be...till it is. Incorrect. I know when I type the word "volition" carefully, that "volition" will appear on my screen. Of that I am certain. ...and if something causes u to make a "choice" or take an action, then it isnt really a free choice, because it was caused. Correct -- if something other than you makes the decision. But something other than you doesn't make the decision -- you do. Even if u were influenced at all by something, then that something would have limited your freedom... Incorrect. You prefer chocolate to vanilla because your past experience with the two flavors has influenced you to normally opt for the chocolate if given a choice. Yet your freedom to choose vanilla has been in no way "limited". You are still as free to choose the vanilla as the chocolate. ...and limited freedom is nonsense, how can that which is free be limited? Sophistry. You are playing semantics. so then what mystical mechanism, allows us to have the "free will" that many of us believe we have, infact our whole lives are built on this assumption. I don't know. Yet I have volition. Let's pretend we are living five hundred years ago. I ask you "What mystical mechanism turns grape juice into wine?" Neither of us can answer. Does that mean wine doesn't exist? my answer? none, there is no free will because in order for there to be so, i would have to take action without cause... But you don't. You take action because you choose to. Your choice to act is the cause of the action. If you choose not to act, no action is carried out. yet somehow have that action not be random, or even spontanious, yet be able to predict perfectly the outcome of my action You are setting the bar too high. You toss a dart at a dartboard fifty feet away. You are aiming for the bullseye, yet miss it by three inches. This doesn't change the fact that you volitionally tossed a dart rather than sticking it into your left eyeball. ...because if there was any chance that my will would not be done exactly as i intended then i really had no control... Perfect control is not the same thing as volition. ... no unrestricted will,because like limited freedom, limited control makes no sense either... Of course it does. Again you are setting the bar too high. The fact that when you attempt to draw a flower your lack of fine muscle control and less than flawless artistic technique results in something which resembles a starfish more than it does a daffodil doesn't mean you cannot draw. You just cannot draw perfectly. both are conceptions we use everyday, but in actuality have no basis in reality, just appearent reality. Your grasp of the concepts is faulty. So how then do we have free will? I dunno. I dunno how LSD makes me see funny stuff either. i can not find a shred of evidence for its existence... The best evidence I can offer you is your own post. Who forced you to write it? Causes may be subtle, or come together in a myriad of ways to form one ultimate cause that percipitates an effect, and we may not always be aware of them, or how they came about, but they are always there, every cause has an effect, every effect is also a cause that inturn has another effect ect..so on and on... if there is no cause then how did the event occur? It matters not what events in your past led to your interest in debating free will. What matters is you chose to debate it. You didn't have to write out your post. if it was random how did we have any say in what occured? Randomness is not the point. We've both agreed on that already. so how do we have free will? That is an entirely different question from "is there free will"? how can there be something between determinism and randomness? I dunno. There just is. my opinion is ofcourse, there is none, no choice, and no freedom, and no control. You had better hope you never end up on trial for something. That excuse won't get you far. They are conceptions based on the appearant reality, but have no actual basis in fact, or logic for that matter. Volitional action need not be justified by logic. It is ostensively demonstrated. As a matter of fact, that is the only way it can be demonstrated. if your up on your quantum physics then u know the world we see, is very different from the way things actually are. At a subatomic level, yes. That doesn't change the fact that if you drop a glass off the top of a tall building onto a rock, the glass will shatter. it also doesn't change the fact that you can choose to drop the glass or not. The only conclusion i can draw from the evidence and logic is that, in fact the only thing that is certain is that everything is uncertain. Then think again. If you poke yourself in the testicles with a machete, you will bleed. That is a certainty. At best we can only hope that we will be lucky in how things unfold and be ok with the uncertain, but whether we wish that, and whether we can be ok with it all, is itself not up to us, we either will be caused to be one way or the other or will randomly be assigned our opinion, or beliefs. If you believe someone is inside your head randomly assigning opinions to you, why bother asking anyone to try to change them? if u believe in free will now, u do so because all the circumstances, evironment, genetics, every quantum event that has occured since the begining of time makes you believe that you can believe anything u want, do anything u want... No, I believe in volitional action because I can demonstrate it to myself at any time. it just means u cant help but be deluded, it means u cant help but be exactly what u are or where u are, at this moment, or any other. Again, if you believe that, why bother taking the volitional action of composing such a lengthy post asking people to disagree with your own personal delusion? So any flaws in my arguement that you can prove logically? Just the ones I've outlined above. Oh and if your tempted to invoke god, then consider this... Good thing I'm not tempted to invoke God, then, because this is getting boring. I will exercise my volition and stop now. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Ok your mostly wrong but atleast your trying..
Anything labled CORE, is a fundamental aspect of my arguement, if a logically consistant counter proof cannot be given, then my premis must be accepted as valid. 1. my definiton of freedom... Your right about it being the same as omnipotence. That was kinda the point, to illustrate how many dont fully understand even thier own conception of what the word means. many people assume they can make any choice they want with out restriction, others, more sane others admit there are limits to what we an do at any given time. *CORE But u have failed to tackle this arguement... How could there be free will if in the exact same set of circumstances i will always perform the same action? You may be the cause of your action, but that is itself the effect of prior causes/circumstances. So at the time you made this supposed choice, you were infact compelled to do what you did because of the circumstances at that moment. *CORE If you cant make a different choice, when circumstances are exactly the same, then u dont have free will, its that simple. There is no getting around it. 2. you say we have volition...ok here is the definition just so we are clear. NOUN: 1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision. 2. A conscious choice or decision. 3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will. ETYMOLOGY: French, from Medieval Latin voliti, volitin-, from Latin velle, vol-, to wish. See wel-1 in Appendix I. OTHER FORMS: vo?lition?al ?ADJECTIVE vo?lition?al?ly ?ADVERB * CORE My arguement is that the idea of choice is itself a dellusion/illusion. In order to have a choice i have to have free will. If we could somehow replay a "choice" i had made over and over, the circumstances surrounding that choice being the same each time. i should if i have volition, or free will, be able to choose something different. But i wont, no matter how many times u replay it, if everything is the same each time, i will always perform the action i did the first time, and the time after, so on and on... IF u disagree with that premis then provide a logically consitant proof to the contrary. 3. ok u quoted me and responded like this... So in order for a choice to be free, it can have no cause... Incorrect. The cause is you. Ok, so maybe you'd argue we are the cause? but what caused us to be the cause... Irrelevant. What is important in determining whether you have the capacity to act volitionally is not how you came into existence, but whether or not once in existence you can act volitionally. * CORE My reply: Irrelevant? its anything but. This is a fundamental point of contention. If i cause an action, and something else caused me to cause that action, then me causing the action was infact an effect of that prior cause. I was caused to be the cause. Since i was caused to be the cause i had no control over whether i was the cause or not. That is the very meaning of the word cause. Maybe my understanding of the word is lacking, i dont know, but if we can agree that the word cause, used in the context "i was caused to do this..." is not equal to the sentence.. "i was caused to maybe or maybe not do this" then my definiton is adequate to illustrate my point. *CORE If your caused to do something, even if its being caused to be another cause you had no "choice". You cant be caused and have a choice at the same time, the two are mutually exclusive. 4. Me: how can there be something between determinism and randomness? You: I dunno. There just is. *CORE Thats fair,u dont know, but if u dont know then you can not refute my argument. This question illustrates one of the fundemental premises my argument is based upon. If something is determined, then thats the same as predestined. Things will unfold a certain way and there is nothing that can be done to alter that. thats what determinism is. There is no room for free will, choice, volition if that is how things actually are. *CORE Ok so maybe our reality is not determined. So what is it? its randomn, its indetermined. All indetermined means is there is no fixed outcome. If you replayed an event in an indertiminate universe there is a chance do to random fluctuations that it may not unfold as it did previously. *CORE If there was no cause for this, then it was random or spontanious, neither of those allow for volition, you cannot choose the outcome of a random action. you can not will a spontaneous event to occur at a certain time. Thus neither of these allow for free will, and if everthing is predetermined, as it is in a deterministic universe then you have no choice, or volition either, because what is going to happen is exactly what MUST happen. *CORE In order for you to refute my arguement against free will/volition..you have to put forth another possibility other then a determined or indetermined universe, Assuming that my arguement concerning those is logically consistant. because neither of these allow for volition as i have just illustrated above. If my arguement is not logically consistant it is your duty to explain logically how it is not so, and to put forth an alternate logically consitant proof in favor of your position. You say you have volition because you can demonstrate it, such as choosing to respond to this post, tpying the word volition carefully and always having it appear on the monitor.. Now chances are each time you attempted to exercise your volition and perform these action you will succeed. But you are wrong in stating that you know the outcome with complete accuracy. Example: You've chosen to post a response to this post at this time. Your just about to type it out and you suddenly die of an anurism. Where did your volition go? no where because u never actually had it to begin with. *CORE You say u can make a choice, but if the anurism prevents you from exercising that "choice" then what good was having a choice? how was it really a choice at all? You can choose and choose all u want, but you are still going to do the only thing that circumstances allow you to do, no matter how forceful your faculty of will/volition is. Here is a good portion of your post... "At best we can only hope that we will be lucky in how things unfold and be ok with the uncertain, but whether we wish that, and whether we can be ok with it all, is itself not up to us, we either will be caused to be one way or the other or will randomly be assigned our opinion, or beliefs. If you believe someone is inside your head randomly assigning opinions to you, why bother asking anyone to try to change them? if u believe in free will now, u do so because all the circumstances, evironment, genetics, every quantum event that has occured since the begining of time makes you believe that you can believe anything u want, do anything u want... No, I believe in volitional action because I can demonstrate it to myself at any time. it just means u cant help but be deluded, it means u cant help but be exactly what u are or where u are, at this moment, or any other. Again, if you believe that, why bother taking the volitional action of composing such a lengthy post asking people to disagree with your own personal delusion? So any flaws in my arguement that you can prove logically? Just the ones I've outlined above." None of these responses are logical arguements that refute my own agruement. You say you can prove your volition by choosing to respond to this post, but if something causes you to take an action there is no choice, *CORE you can not be caused and choose at the same time. They are polar opposites. If im wrong in this assumption explain how. If u cant then your argument has no merit. I responded to that statement because it was the one that most closely resembled a logical arguement. But refutations such as... "Again, if you believe that, why bother taking the volitional action of composing such a lengthy post asking people to disagree with your own personal delusion?" Are not actual refutations at all. i did what i did because given the circumstances at the time i could do nothing else. thats my point. *CORE Given the same set of circumstance you will always perform the same action, if circumstances change you will peform the action that the new circumstances dictate. simply put "you will do what u are caused to do" if you dont then you've taken some random or spontaneous action, but as i've demonstrated such actions exclude the possibility of volition, Just as being caused to do something robs you of your choice/volition also. *CORE So explain to me how u can be caused and choose to do something at the same time, given that the two are completely exclusive of each other, thus allowing for free will. If u agree with me on that point, that one doesnt allow for the other, and instead argue that free will/volition some how resides in randomness or spontanity, then explain to me how you can exercise your will over these types of events given that the very nature of these kinds of events excludeS the possibility of them being influenced by will/volition. Or is the general understanding of thier natures completely wrong? if so, then how, why? *CORE If u can choose the outcome of a random event, then really there is no such thing. If you can predict the moment a spontaneous event will occur then again there is really no such thing. they are just events that occur, neither random nor spontaneous. So we've ruled out randomness and spontanity as allowing free will/volition. All that is left is determinism, but the very nature of that exludes volition. How can you have volition in a system that is compelled to unfold in one particular way, and in only that way? *CORE CORE CORE!!! So none of these systems allow for free will, so in order for volition to exist there must be another possible type of system. What is that system? how does it function in a way as to not be spontaneous, random or determined or any combination of the 3? If u can give a logically consistant proof for such a system then you will have refuted my arguement against free will, not only that u will have discovered an entirely new aspect of reality. Arguements such as "i can choose to post or not to post thus i have free will, are not logically consistant counter proofs, since i am arguing that choice/volition itself is a fantasy, and not an actual aspect of reality, just a human conception, an idea. *CORE In order to provide a counter proof you will have to explain the mechanisms that allow for volition, and especially the mechanism that allows for a system that is neither determined or indetermined yet something else inbetween and/or completely different from either/both. If you cant come up with these, and explain their nature in a logically consistant way then u have no valid counter arguement, and are only left with basically saying "I think your wrong, but i dont have a logical reason for believing that." I will try to edit my previous post to be easier to read. I have been trying to indent, but it doesnt seem to work. I'd really like to choose for it to work, but seeing as the circumstances wont allow that choice to be realized, i guess i really cant choose at all. Sincerly, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Oh i forgot to address the stuff about quantum physics...
At the quantum level there appears to be randomness, yet it is not for sure that this is the case, there may be an underlying order. But either way, the quantum level is a fundamental foundation on which our macro world operates. If there is randomness then when u drop the glass the pieces will shatter in a random and unpredictable way, much like the way water droplet splashes in an unpredictable way. Though the effects of the quantum realm may be subtle in the macro realm, they are there none the less, and current experiments are pushing the boundaries at which quantum forces intrude on the macro world. This still leaves us with only three possibilities concerning the nature of reality, it is determined, random or spontaneous, all of which by their very definitions logically exclude the possiblity of free will/choice/volition. For such things to be true there must be a fourth possible reality that some how is not determined, not random and not spontaneous, or even any combination of the 3. if this is the case then please someone describe the nature of this 4th reality and how this is possible? If i am caused to be the person i am at this moment by all the prior circumstances that led to this moment, such as quantum events, evironment and genetics, how can any action i take now not be an effect of those causes? how can it not be the enevitable outcome of all that came before? if it was a random or spontaneous action how did i exercise my will or volition in regards to it, since the nature of such events as generally understood, does not allow room for will or volition. If i am wrong in this understanding, then how so? and by what mechanism is volition then allowed in such an event? Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
yeah, to say people are wrong is as fundamentalist as it gets
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
My apologies, let me rephrase....
In my opinion he is wrong.
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette  Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
WB zen!!!
I have some questions, hopefully you can help me out "My arguement is that the idea of choice is itself a dellusion/illusion. In order to have a choice i have to have free will. If we could somehow replay a "choice" i had made over and over, the circumstances surrounding that choice being the same each time. i should if i have volition, or free will, be able to choose something different. But i wont, no matter how many times u replay it, if everything is the same each time, i will always perform the action i did the first time, and the time after, so on and on... IF u disagree with that premis then provide a logically consitant proof to the contrary." let's look at this because this is a senerio that brings a whole new pitch to the ballgame. It looks like here you are also describing fate. Is this the case? Is everything happening the way it is "supposed" to happen? but then you said descriing determinism... "CORE Thats fair,u dont know, but if u dont know then you can not refute my argument. This question illustrates one of the fundemental premises my argument is based upon. If something is determined, then thats the same as predestined. Things will unfold a certain way and there is nothing that can be done to alter that. thats what determinism is. There is no room for free will, choice, volition if that is how things actually are." isn't that the same as your evidence above? "Arguements such as "i can choose to post or not to post thus i have free will, are not logically consistant counter proofs, since i am arguing that choice/volition itself is a fantasy, and not an actual aspect of reality, just a human conception, an idea." please correct me if I'm wrong, this would mean then that we "experience" the idea (power even?) of free will? can free will be experienced while at the same time being under the influence of cause and effect? you know, so we don't go insane if you can help me under stand this, I have an even better question for you, but I must understand first so I can get a good idea of what you REALLY mean -------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
iamhimheisme jesus christ  Registered: 10/28/03 Posts: 258 Loc: where i dont wan Last seen: 16 years, 19 days |
| ||||||
no one knows anything about the future, theres only probability and possibility. i agree with those who say that free will is merely an illusion. cause and effect govern our day to day lives more than anything else. it is a persons upbringing and his/her life experiences that form the individual. simply because that person makes decisions does not imply free will is being excercised. id imagine that in any given situation where a person is forced to decide and act, he/she will choose to do what he/she believes will result in the best outcome. up until this point his/her idea of what is best has been constantly developing through the interactions and experiences of everyday life. now, while he/she seems to be making a choice, it is instead past experience that a) helps to picture the ideal outcome and b) helps to form a course of action in order to force this ideal outcome. free will  (its a good concept, just doesnt seem to fit) tired and im out
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
*claps for PinkSharkMark*
I very much liked your answers. Thank you for taking the time to respond to ZenGecko. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
-applauds PinkSharkMark as well-  -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
It's rather silly that people choose to argue that they have no free will. Pinky addressed things quite nicely. Some of your arguments are rotten to the CORE. Such as,
"*CORE In order to provide a counter proof you will have to explain the mechanisms that allow for volition" One does not have to explain 'the mechanisms' gravity to know that a rock will fall when dropped from a cliff. My Bullshit Alarm goes off in this forum more than in any other. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Thank you for your kind words, Frog, Skorp, and Evolving.
ZenGecko, I don't have the time or the inclination righ now to go into point by point your last post in which you attempt to clarify your opinion. A quick read of it yields no new arguments, just a rehash of the ones you have made here before. One of your main points seems to be that since we cannot today explain to your satisfaction the exact mechanism by which free will (volition) operates, there is therefore no such thing as free will (volition). As I pointed out with my observation of grape juice transforming to wine, the fact that a phenomenon is at present not fully explainable does not invalidate the existence of that phenomenon. Until you grasp that fact, there is no point whatsoever in my elaborating on it. Luminous stars existed before twentieth century physicists proposed plausible theories to explain their luminosity. Rocks fell from mountainsides before the theory of gravity was proposed. Etc. etc. You also seem bent on dismissing the evidence of your own senses. I repeat, the existence of volitional action cannot (and need not) be proven through logic. You seem not to grasp the function of logic. In order to utilize logical tools, you must have something upon which to utilize them. When I say that volition can only be demonstrated ostensively, I mean just that. I have also pointed out the errors in your logical chain, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Finally, quantum physics need not necessarily have anything to do with volition. I have seen here time and time again people get all wrapped up in quantum physics and confuse themselves mightily. It is a "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Quantum physics is applicable to subatomic particles, not to organized macrostructures. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
2Experimental Registered: 01/15/03 Posts: 18,073 |
| ||||||
|
"Quantum physics is applicable to subatomic particles, not to organized macrostructures"
Sorry to jump into the debate with no previous say so, but how can we know the limits of quantum psysics? Science is only begining to understand the possibilities here, and there is a strong possibility quantum physics has a MUCH larger role then we think it does. I.E. COntrolling everything from energy flow to food digestion. Weak argument because it is all speculation )
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
2Experimental writes:
Sorry to jump into the debate with no previous say so, but how can we know the limits of quantum psysics? Quantum physicists say that quantum effects exist at the subatomic level. No quantum physicist will say that (for example) just because the vast majority of an atom is empty space -- or just because an electron is not so much a wave or a particle or a wavicle or a collection of quarks as an expression of probability, for that matter -- that this means you can pass a coin through a sheet of lead so long as you carefully line everything up. Now, it may be that quantum physicists are wrong. But that's beside the point in the context of this discussion anyway. If it turns out some years down the road that volition does in fact have its origin in some quantum physical phenomenon, all well and good. It would finally give ZenGecko the "mechanism" he is searching for. But ZenGecko is doing more than just saying we don't as yet know the mechanism by which volitional acts arise, he is saying there is no such thing as volition, then trying to invoke straw man arguments involving quantum physics to support his contention. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
TrueBrode Stranger  Registered: 11/03/03 Posts: 287 |
| ||||||
|
I agree with you.
Logically, you've got it, though it's impossible to pinpoint every single cause, and therefore impossible to (dis)prove the existence of something acausal.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I'm never responding to a "free will" thread again except by proxy, through Pinky.
Thank you again, Pink, for sharing your thoughts. All I can think is "yes!" when I read your responses. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
I wouldn't think of your future as clear at all. Every single day people are experiencing new moments and thinking new thoughts and this whole system keeps churning and moving on with time. Cause and effect isn't something that says "You've been a bad person, you will never change your ways", or what have you. What I am saying, of course, is that who you were inevitably creates who you are in this moment. Who you have been interacts with what is outside of you and change occurs, and that moment leads right into the next moment and it keeps going. There is no choice. There is an intricate chain of cause and effect continuing onward. Has anyone actually sat down and started observing how their mind works? There isn't some point in time where some entity stops and makes a choice. Someone says "Hey man, want a beer?"  After some recollection you say "Ja, I want a beer". Why, now doesn't that just come right out and suggest choice? Me, "I", as in, this individual perspective, I said "Ja" and wow! I made a choice! Sure, if you treat yourself as one single faceted perspective totally seperated from the outside world and free from influence of that said world. Man, I'm glad I don't give my ego THAT much credit! We are a small package encapsulated off of one system. We came about from that system. Our interactions with this system in each moment COMPLETELY rely on our previous interactions. What is put into us in those previous moments creates the action we "take" in this moment. We of course can only "take" the action that the previous moments define for us to take, and the interaction that is created in this moment between our little package with its experiences from the previous moments and the "outside" system then set up the next moment. In each moment there is an interchange between this "inside" system and this "outside" system and that automatically flows into the next moment... thus the chain reaction continues. Oh, but I chose to reply, didn't I? If you want to break the reality view into very simple, concrete terms, than ja, I "chose" to reply. He saw a reply to his in the free will thread. He realized that he had points he felt he needed to make. Of all the many choices he could have made in this moment, he chose to reply. Wow that is completely incomplete! Interaction is continous. There is no freedom from the steady flow of time. Where you have been put you where you are now and the combination of "who you have been" plus "where you are now" then create "who you are" in the next moment. This is ceaseless! Never-ending! Put a liquid brain with some sensory devices at the source of a stream and I am sure it will feel it is in control as well. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
Edited by fireworks_god (09/24/25 06:14 AM)
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Yes, I agree with freedom of choice. Or with free will, as described by Pinky.
It's clear, to me, what my future is, as long as something doesn't happen in the meantime, like my death.
I agree that even though I'm on this pursuit, anything could happen in the meantime that could knock me off this path. Death, disability, death of one of my children, etc. But I am not going to sit around waiting for the worst, or assuming the worst will happen. I understand it "could" happen, but it probably won't, and therefore I think my future is pretty clear.
I disagree. You are basically arguing that there is no free will. That there is only the predetermined future, based on what has happened to us in the past. I think the past narrows our options down, at times, but we still have free will. Look, I decide to be a lawyer. So I'm not going to go to school to be a doctor, right? That's a choice eliminated due to my previous choice to be a lawyer. But something else you are saying is that based on past experiences, it's predetermined that I am the person I am now and will go on to make decisions based on my past. I disagree again. Explain to me the difference between these two scenarios: First scenario: A young girl is molested during childhood, she grows up to be an alcoholic, drug user, and prostitute, as MOST incest survivors will do. According to your beliefs, it was predetermined that she would become an alcoholic, drug user, and prostitute, because of what happened to her in previous experiences. Second scenario: A young girl is molested during childhood, she grows up to be a doctor and a valuable asset to society, as very few incest survivors will do. This would be inconsistent with your beliefs. Why didn't she become an alcoholic, drug user, and prostitute, because of what happened to her in previous experiences? This would be the most typical choices based on her childhood. What caused this second person to become a doctor? Could it have anything to do with free will, free choice, to choose not to be an incest survivor, and instead to choose to make something of her life? So, I disagree that people's futures are predetermined based on past experience, or in the second scenario, she wouldn't have gone on to be a doctor. I have to respond to the rest later. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
well hey now I want to reply to this post
but why??? maybe it's because I just saw a couple of people think they solved a REALLY old philisophical question. the core reason I'm posting is (not because I can, I always could) it's because I read something that made me say "Oh! I could say this..." but what about that thought? wasn't that mine? didn't I jsut make that up. surely that wasn't dependent on something....or is it? see I think what is happening is we are confusing the experience to choose too free-choice. evolving said bullshit alarm. why??? have you never heard that word before evolving? of course you have! so that first time you heard that word had an effect (or maybe even many other times), and you saying those words in the post is the result. you experienced the choosing of the words "bullshit alarm" by typing it down. but your experience of choosing was jsut another result of one or many causes. what i think I see is being said is that everything that is done is a cause or an effect, or both. does that make sense to anyone? -------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
"you can still like and do whatever you want to"
so now, why do you like what you like to do? odd quetion but THINK! isn't what you like dependent on many factors? or are we to say what we do and don't like is inherently in us. like we were born with it. so am I to say that I was born to like broccoli, but hate carrots? I hated carrots because I got them shoved dowen my throat one time. that was the cause, and me not liking htemn is the effect. if you search hard enough, you will find a cause to every action, and a result of that action. no matter how small. even if it's your own tastebuds, how your tastebuds accept food in a favorable or unfavorable fasion depends on many factors? do they not?? are you free from cause and effect? -------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
And I agree with the experience of freedom of choice, and I recognize that said experience of the freedom of choice is created by the narrowing down of a lot of understanding by the ego, in order to create the illusion of a uniform entity seperate from the system it is in and any thought that doesn't fit in with the ego's immediate demands. I recognize that this issue is much more complex and multi-leveled than meets the eye, and that if there was a simple answer easily stumbled onto, that the debate on this subject would not continue on for ages with the people involved holding such a wide variety of opinions on the matter, featuring a wide variety of facets (or the lack of variety of facets and levels thereof).
Ja, I am basically arguing that there is no such thing as free will, only the experience of it. And I think I am also saying that the future is predetermined. The past just doesn't narrow down our options "at times", the past dictates what we will do in the moment. The action carried out by me in THIS moment was carried out by what position I was in during the PREVIOUS moment. Time flows continously and the chain reaction continues.
How is the second scenario inconsistent with my "beliefs"? Who said that being molested was inevitably going to flow into her being an alcoholic, drug user, a prostitute, or all of the above? Those are they typical choices? Tell me, to bring it to a deeper level, WHY are those the typical choices? What variable brought forth the difference between the girl in scenario one and the girl in scenario two? Neither just up and decided which direction they went in. Different experiences and thoughts brought forth the difference. Your example says nothing and proves nothing that concerns the ideas I am putting forth... they sort of support it if you look at it at a deeper level. You say that according to their past "THIS" should have happened, but instead, "THAT" happened, and that points towards free will existing. It sounds to me like they were two girls that had a similar experience but had other experiences that led them where they ended up. I don't know, maybe one of them had a caring relative that guided them and instilled in them that negative experiences don't mean you are stuck in some preconceived notion of who they are "suspossed" to be. There is nothing that said that their future was predetermined by ONLY that incident. Keep looking deeper......  Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
TheShroomHermit Divine Hermit of the Everything  Registered: 02/19/02 Posts: 7,575 Loc: border of Canada Last seen: 2 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I think your using the concept that existence travels a linear path. In the end, there is only one outcome... We don't know what choices we are going to make, but looking back it's easy to say "I was going to do that"
The point I'm trying to make is your using the idea of a linear path to say we don't have choices. But because we don't know the future we are still free to choose.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Fireworks, I just disagree that we don't have free will. Maybe I'm stuck in a delusional blind spot that prevents me from seeing what you are able to see, but I don't see how it's been predetermined that I would be where I am today. I will have to go look into this some more, but it sounds as if you are saying I am a puppet on a string. I can't believe that.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
This entire debate is really just revolving around different perspectives, that's all it really is. Perspectives.
I can shift my perspective and believe that Humans are nothing but mere biological robots. I can view the world as a dark sad twisted negative cesspool--which I don't. I can think of life as a majestically beautiful journey--which I do. I can see from Determinist's perspectives that we're merely control-less sailboats being blown around by the winds of cause and effect in the ocean of life--although I don't agree. I can see from the view of Free-willers that ultimately we are volitionary-thinking human beings and have free will--which I do. Who's to say that only one of those perspectives is right and all the rest are wrong? So to you non-free willers out there; If you feel validated in believing that there is no volition and free will is an illusion, then nobody's stopping you. Go for it. Just keep in mind--you're taking only ONE of many perspectives. I just finished the book "Seeds of Greatness" two days ago and the last entire chapter, was entirely about how perspective plays a vast role in the secret of success. It was a beautiful ending--it actually made me cry, in awe. Anyways, these are my final thoughts, more or less...on this subject. PinkSharkMark, keep kicking ass! 
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I'm going to go with you, Skorp, and with PinkSharkMark, and then bow out of this conversation.
I do have one last question, though. If our future is predetermined, this means we are merely puppets. Who is maneuvering the strings? Because what you are saying is that I am just an actor acting out a part that was written for me and none of what I do is of my own volition. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Ok, first i'll reply to what kaiowas said:
1. Yes, i am basically describing fate. Determinism and fate are basically the same things, in either what happens is the only thing that could have happened at a given moment. Both have a fixed predetermined outcome due the whatever initial state the system started in. 2. yes the second arguement has quite a bit in common with the one above it. in my posts i have provided many different variations on the arguements to illustrate that no matter how u put it, u still get the same outcome. Determinism doesnt allow for volition, nor does randomness and/or spontinaity. So to refute me u must put forth a logical way for one or more of these to allow volition, or you must put forth an alternate logically consistant possibility. 3. I am not saying that one can not believe they have free will, or claim to experience it. I am saying that the belief is false, and not founded in logic, atleast when applied to absolute reality. It is true for the believer but only in the same way that a lie is as good as true to the person who believes it. But in actuallity it is still a lie. Finally in response to those who applaude Pink and who state that my arguements are BS. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that Pink did not provide a logically consistant counter arguement, nor show how my arguements are not logically consistant. And simply saying my arguement is BS is not a refutation of the arguement itself, just an opinion, an unsupported opinion at that. Oh and as far as dropping a rock, and knowing it will hit the ground, u cant know that with absolute certanity, u can know it with 99.99999999999999% accuracy but there is always the chance that the the law of gravity is wrong in some way, even scientists will tell you that none of their theories are known with out doubt to be absolutely correct. And what if u toss the rock in the air, and someone catches it at the very moment when it was between the transition from rising to falling? Your prediction that the rock was going rise then fall to the ground was incorrect. In fact to know with absolute accuracy if a rock would fall when dropped from a cliff you would have to know and understand the mechanisms of gravity in every detail, and it could be argued that not only would u have to know that, but to be absolutely sure you would have to understand how the system itself functions in every detail, and be absolutely accurate in that knowledge, and somehow KNOW you were absolutely correct. If you agree with the premises that determinism does not allow for volition, and nor does randomness and/or spontinatity, And you wish to refute my arguement then u must put for another possibility, while at the same time showing that none of the possiblilities i put forth are actually the way things are, but instead your new one is. If u do not agree with one or more of my premises then u must in a logically constant manner illustrate how it is false. If u cannot do either of these then u cant refute my arguement, istead you are simply stating an opposing opinion, which as i said you are entitled to do, but it doesnt seem right to dress it up as an actual refutation of my argument, when in fact it is just an opinion, not a proof. For those that think logic is a dirty word or something, maybe it is not perfect, but along with math,it is the closest thing we have to an accurate description of the absolute reality of whatever we are trying to describing. I can claim to be god, i can really believe that, and for all intents and purposes it will be true to me, but not you, maybe not anyone else. But logic and math are the closest we have yet been able to get to absolute truth. Are there things that are true yet beyond logic? i dont know, all im saying is that no one has yet come up with a logically consistant counter arguement to mine. I am willing to admit the possibility that ultimate reality is not founded on causation, but if it isnt, and it isnt random, nor spontaneous, then what is it? and how does it allow for free will/volition? What if everything is ONE, and that one thing is the only thing, and our reality is just an aspect of that reality, and we are just a part of that one thing, ok fine, but if there is one thing, and only one thing or no thing at all, then how does that ultimate reality allow for personal volition. How can i make a choice and someone else make the opposite choice if we are fundamentally the same thing? How did either of us have volition? How did the ONE have volition? Maybe there is multiverse in which all possibilities are realized each in its own seperate universe. If that is the case then again how do i have personal volition if the cause of these other universes are do to determinism, randomness or spontinaity? If these are not the mechanisms that cause the multiverse then by what mechanism does it come to be? and how does that mechanism allow for volition? Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
If your whole arguement for volition is not based in logic then, i can not argue with you. But if that is the case all you are saying is that your belief in volition is just that, a belief, not a fact.
If you assume to tell me that i have volition and wish to demonstrate that as a fact, not a belief to me, then u have to put forth a logical proof, and u have not done that. I believe i have, but it is true that i nor anyone can ever know that with absolute accuracy, just a high degree of it at best. So that leaves us with serveral possibilities, either my proof is wrong and your assumption is right, but you are unable to support it logically, thus giving me no reason to change my opinion. Or you are right, and have proved in a logically consistant way that u are right, and i refuse to believe it because i choose to, yet am somehow unaware i've made this choice,yet still had the volition to make it somehow even though i didnt know i had volition. Odd that the definition of volition is conscious choice, yet i was not conscious of my choice, yet still had volition. That makes no sense to me but as u said volition is not founded in logic. Or I am right, have proved i am right and u simply refuse to believe it because you cannot help but do so given the circumstances. Or Facts do not exist at all, and the only reality is the subjective reality of our personal experiences. Or there is an ultimate reality in which none of this is absolutely true and only exists as conceptions, and the truth of the ultimate reality is something all together different, but not simply a subjective reality. It is something we have not yet concieved of. So basically this all leaves us exactly where we started. With the arguements that free will exists, or doesnt exist, and the arguements trying to define exactly what those concepts mean in the first place. So the question is unsettled, except maybe on the subjective personal level. Or maybe the subjective level is all there is. Many of those who agree with me will still agree, and many of those who disagree will still disagree, and maybe some people changed their position because they chose to or because they had to given the circumstances. Yet none of us will ever know for sure who was right and who was wrong, at least not at this moment, but some of us will believe we do, or maybe some of us WILL KNOW exactly what has occured and others will just think they do. Maybe i had to start this thread, maybe i chose to. Maybe u had to reply or maybe you chose to. Whats odd is i think i believe i want to believe in free will/volition, and if i do indeed have it, it seems that i should just be able to choose to believe. Yet though i am conscious of my desire to choose to believe i am still unable to believe, ofcourse my belief in that desire could be a delusion. But how could i consciously choose to believe in a delusion that prevents me from having the conscious ability to choose what i believe? it seems that if i have free will i can somehow be consious of having it with out being aware i'm consious of having it. I think your right Pink, Free will/volition definately is not founded in logic, if it exists. Sincerely, That which is, and consiously thinks he has no choice but to be, but may in fact consiously be choosing to be unconsious of his conscious belief in the opposite.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
thank you.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Your right kotton, but the real question/s is if one of the perspectives in fact represents an ultimate objectively true reality, or if neither do, and is there another possibility that does? Or is ojective reality just an illusion itself?
Sincerely, Eh fuck it.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
you will know when u die, think u can wait :P
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
LOL, now thats another question entirely. Is there an after life? if so what is the nature of such an existance? Does it occur in this universe or another, or in another diminsion of this universe or another universe? or in something completely different then a universe all together?
Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but be.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
this means we are merely puppets
Every woman that I have ever talked to says that regular shaving of her legs is a pain in the ass. Do you agree? If yes, then show a quantum bit of free will and stop. Much less work and more "natural". I am totally counting on YOU to demonstrate this choice-making ability. If you cannot, then I cannot believe in free will. Come on frog, take the Swami "Hairy Leg Challenge". 
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
Well, you are where you are today because of where you were yesterday. I also wouldn't say a puppet on a string. More a stream of water flowing where the terrain inevitably takes it, based on where it began its travels.... but with another dimension of flow within the flow of water (thoughts) that also direct the flow. I haven't given a very detailed, quality example because of the length of time and labour that would have to be put into it. However, I have found the perfect example and if these next couple of days play out right, I will craft it. You say you just cannot believe it. Mind if I ask why? The ideas I propose allow perfectly well for the experience of choosing freely and in fact even explain why we have that experience. It isn't as if you are giving anything up by letting your mind take in the ideas and really examine them... there is no awful consequences for doing so. I as well think it is a beautiful thing that I can choose which music I want to put on, when I want to eat, who I want to develop a loving relationship with, and where I want to go with my life. I embrace that and live life to its fullest. But I do understand how there isn't actually a choice I am making and it just a continous flow of thoughts directly dependant on what was going on the moments before and what has been put in me. I have to go now, but I'll be back later. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
ZenGecko writes:
Finally in response to those who applaude Pink and who state that my arguements are BS. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that Pink did not provide a logically consistant counter arguement... Incorrect. I suggest you re-read my first post. ... nor show how my arguements are not logically consistant. Incorrect. I suggest you re-read my first post. I pointed out the errors in your reasoning. You choose -- volitionally -- not to acknowledge them. And simply saying my arguement is BS... I didn't just say it, I responded in great detail to your multiple errors, point by point, line by line, phrase by phrase in some cases, so there could be no confusion about just what point I was addressing. I didn't dodge any of the issues, I didn't paraphrase or twist or distort or misinterpret any of your statements. I even used concrete examples to illustrate a point rather than hide behind the subterfuge of multisyllabic words. I admit I stopped at the point where you were pre-rebutting the "invocation of God" response, but only because I am an atheist and I wasn't invoking God as a mechanism for free will anyway. Just what more do you want? If you feel my points are invalid, you are of course free to volitionally continue to feel that way despite evidence to the contrary. ...is not a refutation of the arguement itself, just an opinion, an unsupported opinion at that. Your 'argument" that there is no such thing as free will is an opinion, and an unsupported opinion at that. I pointed out that your "support" is contradicted by observable reality. *I* can ostensively demonstrate volition in action. You cannot demonstrate the lack of it. And what if u toss the rock in the air, and someone catches it at the very moment when it was between the transition from rising to falling? Your prediction that the rock was going rise then fall to the ground was incorrect. What has the accuracy of your prediction of a rock's flight path got to do with volition? What is relevant is that you --of your own volition -- tossed the rock into the air, and some other human -- of his own volition -- caught it. No one forced you to toss the rock into the air -- you could have dropped it or held onto it or put it down gently. No one forced the other human to catch it -- he could have watched it sail by or hit it with a baseball bat. What clearer example of volition in action do you require? In fact to know with absolute accuracy if a rock would fall when dropped from a cliff you would have to know and understand the mechanisms of gravity in every detail, and it could be argued that not only would u have to know that, but to be absolutely sure you would have to understand how the system itself functions in every detail, and be absolutely accurate in that knowledge, and somehow KNOW you were absolutely correct. Again, just what does this have to do with deciding whether or not there is such a thing as volition? The only relevant part of that whole lengthy paragraph is that you volitionally dropped a rock off a cliff. If you agree with the premises that determinism does not allow for volition, and nor does randomness and/or spontinatity, And you wish to refute my arguement then u must put for another possibility... Incorrect. I need put forth no other possibility in order to observe that volition exists. Let's go back to the transformation of grape juice into wine. You say "It is the work of demons." I say, "Nay, no demons are involved. 'Tis but the work of time." Both of us are wrong. It is the work neither of demons nor of time, but of yeast. If there is no yeast in the juice no amount of time will transform the juice into wine. The fact that the village idiot sitting on the wall listening to us has no third theory to explain it doesn't change the fact that the even village idiot knows that grape juice sometimes becomes wine and he knows likes to drink wine. ...while at the same time showing that none of the possiblilities i put forth are actually the way things are, but instead your new one is. Every philosopher since the dawn of time with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot before putting it on his foot has eventually come to the conclusion that predeterminism cannot account for volition. You yourself have come to the same conclusion! So why must I prove -- again -- that which we both already stipulate? The same holds true of randomness. If our actions were truly random, it would be impossible to type "volition" -- instead we would be typing qhgpodur4t pqretybn 4398hh. Again, even you have come to the same conclusion, so there is no need to disprove it -- it is stipulated. Since we both agree that volition can be explained neither by predetermination nor by randomness, yet we are both self-evidently capable of acting volitionally -- using our dialogue here as undeniable proof of that capability -- then we agree that volition is the result of neither predetermination nor randomness, but something else -- something at present unknown to either of us. But you seem instead determined to tie yourself up into increasingly recursive knots over the whole thing. "I can't explain it by determinism, nor by randomness, therefore it can't exist." What hubris! What egotism! "I cannot be certain that a rock dropped off a cliff will fall, even though no rock in the history of mankind dropped off cliff has ever failed to fall, therefore there is no such thing as volition." What irrelevance! What a red herring! If u cannot do either of these then u cant refute my arguement... Sigh. I don't need to do either of those things. All I have to do is act volitionally. I don't have to disprove your argument with words, I can disprove it with actions. I can toss a rock into your lap, for example. For those that think logic is a dirty word or something, maybe it is not perfect, but along with math,it is the closest thing we have to an accurate description of the absolute reality of whatever we are trying to describing. I have no objection to logic -- used properly. You are not using logic properly. For an extremely long time, logic said that bumblebees couldn't fly. Nevertheless, bumblebees flew. No one -- and I mean no one -- could deny the fact that all the known laws of aerodynamics logically proved that bumblebees could not fly. The bumblebees didn't know that, of course, so they flew. Are there things that are true yet beyond logic? i dont know, all im saying is that no one has yet come up with a logically consistant counter arguement to mine. Because no counter argument is required. All that is necessary to refute your argument is for someone to act volitionally. It is apparent on the face of it that your argument is as faulty as the argument that bumblebees can't fly. No human has to argue against you, observable reality has already done that. I am willing to admit the possibility that ultimate reality is not founded on causation, but if it isnt, and it isnt random, nor spontaneous, then what is it? and how does it allow for free will/volition? To ask what the mechanism of volition may be is a completely different question than asking if volition exists. What is the mechanism? Beats me. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
The Sun revolves around the Earth. It is clearly evident when you look into the sky. You remain in one fixed point, as does the rest of everything on the ground, but yet the Sun moves as the day goes by. It is clearly observed. It requires an outside perspective outside of your own experience to realize that the Sun does in fact, NOT revolve around the Earth, but that the Earth is the one doing the revolving. Even though our own experience and observation suggests that the Sun revolves around us. Anyone that has not received and does not comprehend the logical explanation that will show that the Earth is actually revolving around the Sun will continue to take their "obvious" experience that the Sun is revolving around us as the truth. A deeper analysis shows that it is NOT the truth. A perfect example of how our own experience can suggest something as real, despite the fact that it is not actually true. It is impossible to verify an experience as true and actually occuring with the experience itself. I saw God and he spoke to me. I heard His words and surely knew that it was God. I can PROVE that it was God that spoke to me, and that I actually had heard any voice at all, by the fact that I had the experience. Sorry, but no, you cannot prove an experience with the experience itself. That is illogical. When I wake up from my dreams, the experiences in that dream are put into context and are shown that they did not actually occur in reality. When I wake up from my individual experience with logic and an outside perspective, I can see that I cannot assume that I am actually making free choices, that I am not exactly acting out of volition. I see the Sun revolve around me but yet I know with logic and perspective that I am actually revolving around it. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
I would argue that it is you who does not understand what logic is, or how to implement it, but thats not going to get us anywhere because you'll never believe it, just like i'll never believe that the supposed flaws u pointed out in my logic are indeed flaws.
Im only going to respond to a portion of your post, because the rest of it, infact probably all of it, i've refuted to my satisfaction in my previous posts, even if it was not to your satisfaction. in your post... Me:Are there things that are true yet beyond logic? i dont know, all im saying is that no one has yet come up with a logically consistant counter arguement to mine. YOU: Because no counter argument is required. All that is necessary to refute your argument is for someone to act volitionally. It is apparent on the face of it that your argument is as faulty as the argument that bumblebees can't fly. No human has to argue against you, observable reality has already done that. Your refutation of my arguement is to say it is faulty because u observe a reality in which u have volition. But my whole arguement is actually that your observed reality is false, so u cant use your observed reality to refute the arguement, u must come up with a reason why your reality is not false, the same way i lined out the arguements for why it was false. Saying its true because YOU believe it is true is not an arguement, its just an opinion. ME: If you agree with the premises that determinism does not allow for volition, and nor does randomness and/or spontinatity, And you wish to refute my arguement then u must put forth another possibility... YOU: Incorrect. I need put forth no other possibility in order to observe that volition exists. You say that my arguements are refuted by observable reality, but in fact my whole arguement is that your oberved reality is a dellusion,(yes im restating my arguement yet again) and i gave my reasons why. Thats like me saying "Look that tree over there is green! and you who happen to be color blind say "No its not!" then i say "prove it" and you say "the proof is, it doesnt look green to me, and since it doesnt look green to me, it cant be green for you either regardless of what you believe" And you will consider that proof enough even if i offer all kinds of scientific evidence as to why it is green, colors being a result of the wavelength of reflected light, bla bla bla, but you'll never believe me because regardless of my evidence, it doesnt look green to you. This i think illustrates the fundamental point we are at odds on. You say you can demonstrate volition, by responding to this post, throwing a rock or whatever. And i say that none of those acts are a proof of volition, they are just whatever action you were caused to do at that moment. If you cant see that saying "look i've chosen to respond to your post thus demonstrating my volition, but i dont know by what means we are allowed volition" is not an actual refutation of my arguement, when my arguement itself is that this act you've performed is not volition, because of all the reasons i stated earlier, THEN there is no point in continuing this. Ofcourse this is just my opinion, like your opinion is that the peformance of an act and claiming it was a volitional act, is itself proof that the act came from volition. Because thats what your saying. Your saying look i've acted with volition thus proving i have volition, when my whole arguement is that the act was not volition in the first place. Thats like saying look 2+2=5 because 5 is what i've written down as the answer. It doesnt matter that it isnt logical, or i that i cant explain why it equals 5. 5 is what i wrote so 5 must be the correct answer. Your answer of 4 is obviously wrong because as you can clearly see that the observable reality is that i've written down 5. This is the structure of your arguement. I personally dont see how the absurdity of it escapes you but it seems too. Ofcourse this is just my interpretation of your arguement, which in all probablility u will not agree with, so once again we are left with differing opinions unlikely to be resolved. You will probably put forth some arguement as to why im wrong, i probably wont even except it as a valid arguement, just as u will likely not except any counter arguement i make as valid, because we have completely different ideas of what logic is, and how to apply it, and what constitutes proof and what doesnt, and i am content to leave it at that, if you are. Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be. Ofcourse you wont agree with that, even it it is my observed reality.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Oh i didnt notice this in fireworks post at first be he basically put forth another example of your basic arguement pinky.
"A perfect example of how our own experience can suggest something as real, despite the fact that it is not actually true. It is impossible to verify an experience as true and actually occuring with the experience itself. I saw God and he spoke to me. I heard His words and surely knew that it was God. I can PROVE that it was God that spoke to me, and that I actually had heard any voice at all, by the fact that I had the experience. Sorry, but no, you cannot prove an experience with the experience itself. That is illogical. " You can not use your belief that an experience was valid and true to prove that the experience was valid and true, you have to give reasons why it is that way other then just saying, its true because thats what happened. Ofcourse thats just my opinion, though i dont understand how any reasonable person could argue with it. Sincerely, Bla bla bla.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
yes. all there is, is love. life is an illusion, space and time are nonexsistent.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Come feel my legs, Swami. You will see that I exercise free will every day. I think I'll take a picture of them, real close up, and post it. Free will lives! -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I can't believe free will doesn't exist because if it didn't, why hasn't anyone shown proof that we don't exercise free will? All you have shown me so far is your words that evidence your opinion that free will doesn't exist.
Show me the proof that I am not acting of my own free will every minute of the day. Don't use your words. Show me the evidence.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
*searches for some responses Frog herself has made when faced with the same point regarding some of her own beliefs* What do you mean, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around! Where is your proof? Your proposal is ludicrous! We will lock you up now! If you are looking for some sort of undeniable proof from me, you aren't getting it. All I am offering is a perspective from which I have formed out some ideas on the subject, and from which free will really does appear to be an illusion. I'm not concerning my entire life with this, and I'm not writing a book. All I have are thoughts from a perspective that I am trying to honestly make as encompassing as possible... it is your own responsibility to try to look at things from said perspective. If you want to put together a similar perspective, the best way would be to consider the same things as I am considering and thinking about. There is no way I would be able to get out more than 50% of the thoughts that structure this perspective.. let alone the associated feelings and subconscious connections to memories and past thoughts. If I was writing a book I would, of course, tie in every necessary detail needed for one to, say, get an 80% similar perspective. Your pathway to my perspective is what has been said in these threads. I try to offer as much as I possibly can with the time I have in a manner that gets my point acrossed as much as possible..... Clear your mind of other perspectives and construct this one. If you are quoting every sentence of my post and replying to it from your own set-in-stone perspective, you aren't set out to understand what others are saying. Understanding others involves taking a perspective outside of your individual perspective (technically, subdividing and expanding your own perspective  ), just like it took taking an outside perspective from ones own experiences to discover the Earth was revolving around the Sun.But ja..... I have a headache and need a shower. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Come feel my legs, Swami.
Aw shucks! *Swami blushes bright red* 
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Another perspective:
Non-Free-Willers: We are at History's mercy. People in middle: We may feel ourselves to be at history's mercy, but we also see ourselves as free-willed agents of the future. Free-willers: We are free-willed agents of the future. The beauty of Perspective.. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
everytime i read your name, it reminds me of the movie dumb and dumber where they are looking up that bitches number in the phone book. Dude is like "swimmy", "swammy" "swami" "oh! Sampsonite, hah, i was wayyyy off."
hahah dumb mother fuckers
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
Those are pretty general perspectives you have listed there, Skorp.
Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Or an alternative perspective: they are simply basic, sweet and short, and straight to the point.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
From some perspectives it would seem that something basic and short would belie the insane complexity of the nature of the subject, thus sort of being ineffective at conveying a strong point.
From what I picked up from those three perspectives you listed, they are dealing with the experience of making choices and living your life. Some of them are stuck in the past and some in between, others looking towards the future and striving to make it the best.... something like that.... Which all fits perfectly in with the experience of free will.... doesn't mean it is isn't an illusion, and doesn't say anything for what is going on in your mind, or why it is going on in your mind. And what I'm saying doesn't suggst in any way "sucumbing" to the past and living with no control of your life either. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
From some perspectives it would seem that something basic and short would belie the insane complexity of the nature of the subject, thus sort of being ineffective at conveying a strong point.
From one of many perspectives of which was used, the perspectives were merely recaps of other perspectives on the free-will/determinist debate in a bottom-line fashion to point out the issue of perspective itself. Hence, no reason to already spell out that which has already been accomplished by other participants of this debate.
From what I picked up from those three perspectives you listed, they are dealing with the experience of making choices and living your life. Some of them are stuck in the past and some in between, others looking towards the future and striving to make it the best.... something like that.... Depends on your perspective..
Which all fits perfectly in with the experience of free will.... Very nice Perspective, mon. doesn't mean it is isn't an illusion, Or that the notion of it being an illusion is in itself an illusion? Ahh...perspective.
and doesn't say anything for what is going on in your mind, or why it is going on in your mind. You don't wanna know what is going on in my mind... at least, from my perspective.
The whole purpose was merely demonstrating the matter of perspective, my friend.
And what I'm saying doesn't suggst in any way "sucumbing" to the past and living with no control of your life either. Did you have the perspective that the examples of perception were directed to you?
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Everyday i am more and more amazed by people capacity for dellusion, though unfortunately i can not claim to be any different, doing so would likely be a dellusion.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Witness:  Evidence of the exercise of free will.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Which is what Skorp keeps saying. It's all a matter of perspective. I am going to believe totally in free will, until someone gives me evidence of the absence thereof.
Cheers! -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
i said it was a matter of perspective in the first place on the first page, coulda ended the shit back then, lol, isnt it sad it came to the hairy leg picture, frog?
geez
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
To you, Kotton!
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Threads, like life, have a beginning and ending.
Suzuki --------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
Ja, of course everything is an issue of perspective. There are logical perspectives and narrow perspectives and Enlightened perspectives and completely ignorant perspectives.
So..... do we acknowledge the difference in perspectives relating to a subject and just leave it at that... do we try to find the "correct" perspective? Do we keep the perspective that makes us feel all warm inside? Do we seek a completely seperate perspective from reality or do we seek one that completely embraces reality? So of course, we acknowledge that the difference in opinions on this subject are coming from different perspectives..... that is the first step, that doesn't "solve" or get to the true nature of this subject. So..... where do we go from here? Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
u can either think u are some dumbass robot programmed to do specific things in this life, or you can realize you have real choices and take responsibility for your time here.
we have free will. u can change your values at anytime, they are not set in stone. and the law and society have nothing to do with restricting/limiting your free will, you choose to let it, but you must deal with the consequence, as we live in a society with ignorant MAN-MADE rules. life is what you make it.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
So..... do we acknowledge the difference in perspectives relating to a subject and just leave it at that... do we try to find the "correct" perspective?
We ought to keep in mind, this is not a new subject. This has been debated, discussed, dissected, and pondered far longer than we've been alive for. The whole entire reason no true absolute and definitive answer has taken foot, is entirely because it is all relative to one's perspectives, one's reality, and so on. Do we seek a completely seperate perspective from reality or do we seek one that completely embraces reality? Again, it is important to keep in mind, what one's perspective of reality is, isn't going to be everybody's perspective of reality. Hence, it becomes an essentially fruitless endeavor for one to argue with those who have different realities and perspectives. And nor can one necessarilly say that their perspectives and realities are any more valid and correct than what other entities' perspectives and realities are in this debate of Free-will, and vice versa. So of course, we acknowledge that the difference in opinions on this subject are coming from different perspectives..... that is the first step, that doesn't "solve" or get to the true nature of this subject. Either there is free will or there isn't--it depends on what perspective one chooses. People on both sides of the debate have already explained their premises and perspectives of what mechanics drive the force of their perspectives and arguments; and the primary difference between the two sides of this great debate is one thing--perspective. There's two primary ways to look at this subject--although one side has the majority perspective, neither side can necessarilly be absolutely proven to be wrong by evidence, or otherwise. This is reminiscent of two fleas arguing about who owned a dog.. It will always boil down to one thing: Perspective. The most logical and sensible thing to do is to simply acknowledge the fact that this is a matter of perspective, and everybody has different perspectives, and just leave it at that.. ~The End~ -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
This is true, it is definitely not a new subject. And I do agree that it still hasn't been remotely settled is that their are differences in perspective.
This is what I disagree with. I don't see it as fruitless, and I do see it more as a debate, an exchange of ideas. I do agree that no one can necessarily say that their perspective is more valid and correct, which is also why I don't understand how someone can ask for proof, and which is also why I brought up perspective in the first place. I don't consider it a fruitless endeavor, however, because this is a nexus of interacting ideas and perspectives. When people with different perspectives and thoughts on the same subject come together and start to debate and exchange, it allows one to better formulate their stance on the issue, new ideas can be developed when old ideas are seen in a new light, people who have not really contemplated on the matter are given an oppurtunity to see what others think and can begin seeking for themselves.... this is a perfect medium for advancing understanding because in order to present your ideas to others for them to understand, you yourself must run the ideas through your mind again. I also don't think that because the subject is something that we haven't been able to come to a universal understanding on, doesn't mean we should accept the differences in our perspectives and close the book on it. I think it gives us a reason to debate and work our way to fully understanding the subject and coming to a unified perspective on it. The main point you are making is a very essential one. We must all remember that this is quite the subject we are discussing, and that everyone has their perspective and we should be working to narrow the gap between these perspectives, not set our perspectives in stone and then throw shit at each other. Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
What was being pointed out when "..An essentially fruitless endeavor.." was mentioned; is that ultimately, there will always remain multiple sides to this great debate, because there will always be different perspectives, and that will never change. There are no doubts that new ideas, thoughts, exchanges and other mental pleasantries indeed can fruit from this debate, yet none of which has changed the ultimatum.
I also don't think that because the subject is something that we haven't been able to come to a universal understanding on, doesn't mean we should accept the differences in our perspectives and close the book on it. I think it gives us a reason to debate and work our way to fully understanding the subject and coming to a unified perspective on it. It is reasonable to assume that many would like a 'Unified Perspective' on many things; the primary obstacle standing in the way of such entertaining ideas is the fact that there will always be different people, different minds, and different perspectives no matter what. Therefore the most reasonable and commonsensical notion from one perspective is accept the differences in beliefs, and allow one to find their own truths, and share or debate their beliefs as they wish. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
u can change your values at anytime, they are not set in stone
Go to the P&L forum, look around and report back. --------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Do I have the free will to no longer believe in free will?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
"Where there's a will, there's a way..."
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
why.
| |||||||
|
AbrahamLincoln Stranger Registered: 04/15/04 Posts: 1 Last seen: 21 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
In response to the original poster; of course there is no free will, but you don't need all that "fluff" logic to explain it. All you need to say is that since everything in existence has a cause, then everything which is, was, or ever will be is caused by the creation of the universe, however that came about. Any choice or thought you have is caused by your genes combined with your past experiences and a few other factors. All of those things had causes too, and thus, every choice or thought any creature in the universe could ever have was set in stone at the begining of time.
Your statements on randomness are incorrect, randomness does not even exist. The outcome of a coin flip, or any other "random" event could be known before it actually occured, so long as all factors affecting the coin were known, such as gravity, velocity, angle, speed of rotation, other particles impacting the surface of the coin like air, radiation, etc. And yes that does mean it would be possible to see the future of any event, if somehow it were possible to track every single atom in the universe without affecting them. Too bad that will never be possible, because any method by which you could "read" or "track" an atom would, if only slightly, alter its course.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Wow. Don't understand this thread any more, either.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
OOISI Suburbanaut  Registered: 03/21/04 Posts: 2,738 Loc: SA Last seen: 7 days, 19 hours |
| ||||||
|
Heres my oppinon , kept simple.
God bestowed life upon us, existence such a wonderous thing. But certain people were not satisfied with existence and had to absorb out freedom because others could enjoy life and they couldnt so they decided so they got upset and decided if they cannot obtain happiness no one shall. And this present day is the result of this. But they cannot absorb all free will so there are still remnants of freedom which we still have. We can move, we can think etc So yeah part of free will has been taken away from us but they can never fully regulate everyones presense at the same time. -------------------- Im not loved because im worthy, Im loved because youre good - Matthew West (Good) You never know, when and where the shrooms will grow. Subaeruginosa Guide Tinned Fish and Seafood Ratings
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
how did they take freedom? your talking about laws being created, right?
well, if so, what was to be done about people killing and stealing and not giving a shit about it? some souls were totally consumed by ego and forgetting whats important to them, to have created laws, which did restrict free will, seemed to be the only way to control the madness. but god didnt take away the free will, it is still there, but with obstacles to evade due to consequences of your actions. Ex: you can smoke weed all u want, god dont care. but the law we live under MADE BY HUMANS says it is illegal and if your caught your ass gets slapped with probation, some fines, and maybe jail time.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
'Bout time you joined us, Abraham. We were talking about you somewhere else, I think. Would you mind explaining that sentence?
I agree with what you say about coin tosses, except that you couldn't predict each coin toss before that specific toss. You only have a 50/50 prediction. Unless you are psychic, you don't know whether it will be heads of tails on each particular toss. You only know at the beginning of all the tosses that probably 1/2 will come up heads, and 1/2 will come up tails. So no, I don't think you can predict the future. You can give an estimate, but you can't predict with certainty how the life of each individual will come out. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
we are just cogs in one big coin flipping machine. All we can do is flip the coin because must, and observe the outcome, because we must. Every result of the coin toss observed is a result of the sum total of all the coin tosses before it. Even our flipping was caused to happen by the previous flipping, and the out come of that flip.
Not unlike collapsing wave functions, thus bringing one possibility into being, to bad we dont have any real choice in which way the wave function collapses, since it was the outcome of all the other collapsed wave functions that led to us collapsing this wave function. But all those other virtual possibilities have been shown to be equally real, just not observed... so what does that mean?
| |||||||
|
The_Visionaire Torch  Registered: 02/16/04 Posts: 111 Loc: Indra's Net Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Heya
If you think in terms of time your perceptions will be too limited. Time is 'just' an order, although a rigid one. I want to stress that by my arguments in previous threads on free will, I never wanted to imply that the future was predetermined. I said that the boundaries of the infinite are not defined. I also said that creation is a non-local, non-linear system. There are no place to stand from which you would determine the outcome of such a system. To understand the system is also a part of the system. The system is only complete unto itself. Non-locality also implies that the past is determined by the future as well, and that time is by no means a steady flow from A to B. Time has its place and its limited operational domain, as has all orders. I find patterns appealing. Patterns are excellent philosophical tools. I have made points earlier on how everything (physics, time, thougth, etc.) can be described in terms of patterns as part of an order. Patterns need an ether in which to spread, however. This ether would be of a much more primary status than the patterns themselves (As the ocean is more primary than waves at the surface of it). Maybe this ocean is the sea of consciousness. This is the primary ether, or God if you will. All other manifistations in the universe could not excist without moving through this ether. The patterns are a way for pure consciousness to express itself. The more consciousness expresses itself, the more it knows of itself. We are the eyes of God, looking him right back in the face, so to speak. The pattern-world of waves and whirls is always causal, that is, patterns are continuos. No abrupt brakes is possible. But in the sea of consciousness which has no self-reference something truly new can emerge (as the equation 0=0 contains all possible equations). What happens is that when the sea of consciousness acts on the pattern-world, it does not "place" a pattern into the pool. It *plays* the patterns in the pool  . There is no brake in causality, but true creativity emerges nevertheless.
This fits into common experiences with creativity. The truly creative moments is when you lose your sense of self. When you act from your ether-aspect instead of your pattern-aspect (the very nature of the pattern-aspect is self-referential. Pattern=ego?). Then the patterns you thought were so rigid, bends softly to your mind and you ride the wave of creation. If such a thing as a free choice excist, I would rather label it a creative choice, to separate it from the discussion of whether or not it is I who choose to raise my hand etc. -------------------- There are no differences between men and gods, one blends softly causal into the other. -Frank Herbert, Dune.
| |||||||
|
Frog Warrior Registered: 10/22/03 Posts: 4,284 Loc: The Zero Point F Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Zen, I don't think this is a good analogy. No coin toss is dependent on any previous coin toss. The outcome of each toss of a coin is independent of any other coin toss, and the outcome of heads or tails is always 1/2. -------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Its accurate in the sense that the outcome is not known untill its observed, its in a state of quantum superposition, like the cat in shrodingers experiment. Until the box is opened the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, or neither alive nor dead, depending on how u wanna look at it. It remains in that state, just as the coin does, until its observed, then the outcome is determined and the wave function is collapsed, thus bringing one of the two possibilities into reality, but the other virtual unrealized possibility has been shown to be equally "real" atleast in a mathmatical sense. The only reason one is more real, (atleast to us) is because that is the one observed.
Another intresting thing is, that all these particles scientists discover like nuetrinos and stuff, may not actually of existed till we looked for them, they existed virtually but not physically or something like that, until we looked, and the looking brought them from the virtual to the real.
| |||||||
|
Phencyclidine Molecule  Registered: 06/02/03 Posts: 2,915 |
| ||||||
Shrodinger's cat was hypothetical.
Speculation.
| |||||||
|
The_Visionaire Torch Registered: 02/16/04 Posts: 111 Loc: Indra's Net Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Agreed
Schroedingers Cat was a thought experiment invented to show the ridiculousness of the standard (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum theory. David Bohm and de Broglie, however, came up with a causal theory that explains the same experimental obsevations. Bohm shake the room!
-------------------- There are no differences between men and gods, one blends softly causal into the other. -Frank Herbert, Dune.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
yes the cat experiment was just a thought experiment, but other experiments have been done that prove atleast as much as anything can be proved that the assumptions are correct. Like the two slits experiment, where a single wavelength of light is shined at two slits, thus producing a pattern similar to a bar code on a wall behind the slits, even when a single photon of light is passed thru the slits the same patter of interferance appears which means that the single photon passed thru both slits at the same time, now if you were to put cameras at each slit and do the experiment again, the cameras would only record the photon going thru one slit or the other, not both. so the way u observe changes the outcome of the experiment, creating one reality verses another in a sense. if u look at the wall then the photon went thru both slits at once and made the pattern if u look at the slits it goes thru one or the other and no patter on the wall shows up. it somehow knows that you are looking at it.
When u look at the wall the photon is in a state of quantum superposition as it passes thru the slots, allowing it for lack of a better description to be in two places at once, but when u look at the slits the wave function is collapsed at that point and it only goes thru one or the other, not both. Also it works the same way with matter, as it does with energy. So it seems that everything exist everywhere and at all times, in virtual sense, till its observed, collapsing the wave funtion and making one of the virtual possibilies real, or real to us that is. But if mathmatically the virtual is just as real, as what we call the real, then is there some ultimate observer that keeps things real even when we arent looking? Its even been suggested that the entire universe existed in a state of superposition until a consious entity made the first observation and made it real. But does it stay real when it isnt observed? has the whole universe been made real, or just the parts that were observed? And again what happens to all the virtual but equally real possibilities that weren't observed. Do the occure in other universes, or remain virtual, or are they just gone? One of the more disturbing implications of quantum theory is that if you arent looking then you cant have any idea what is happening. And then when u do look, whatever does happen is atleast in part a result of how, or when you looked. The math says the virtual possibilities are as real as the real observed outcomes, but for us only the one observed is considered real, and no one is sure what really happens to the other virtual ones. As far as actually creating particles by looking for them, that is speculation, but the experiments back up the conclusion, though that may not actually be how things are, it does fit with the observations. If this is what actually is happening, then that basically might mean that we actually create reality by observing reality, and how, and where and when we look effects the outcome thus shaping the reality. Now what is unsure is what happens to all those other potential realities, are they realized in another universe, or do the remain virtual, yet now less real, except for the fact that they arent observed, we just arent sure. damn repeated myself ;( The standard copenhagen interpretation has not been discredited, though alternate possibilities have been put forward or improvements made. The problem is that most of them build on the copenhagen interpretation or include it, or they basically make the same predictions, they just go about it in a different way. So we are left with several possible explanations that all basically predict the same or similar things and they are still trying to test them, or find ways to test some that are difficult to test. There is no definative word on exactly what theory is best, or right, or even if any of them are. We have several alternatives to the copenhagen... superstring, supersymetry, multiverse, holographic, and even more variations on those, actually some of those may be aspects of some of the other ones and not seperate theories, i cant remember right off hand. Personally i think all possible paths are realized in some kind of multiverse, or that in reality all of them coexist here, are all equally real, and are just aspects of some ultimate reality that we can barely scratch the surface of. Because we cannot percieve the system as a whole, because we are just one aspect of that system and within it, we can only percieve so much of it at once. So to us there appears to be a flow of time, motion, an unfolding of events that follows 1 path out of all the possible paths. But in reality thats an illusion or at best part of the truth but not the whole truth, and that in fact everything is just an aspect of one ultimate thing, and that thing just IS and that thing is all there IS. There is no actual unfolding of anything, its just that our limited perception only allows us to experience a limited portion, or aspect of the whole at any given moment, thus giving us a very distorted or imcomplete experience of reality. Basically i envision reality as probably being like one giant ocean, and we and everything we experience are just waves or currents in/on that ocean, but its all still just ocean, and ocean is all there is. Within the system u see the waves and currents. They come and they go, or they change or blend together or seperate, but if you could escape the system and look down from far enough away all you would see is ocean, the waves and currents wouldnt even be visable, just ocean, but even if they were visable, waves and currents are not seperate from the ocean, they are aspects of the ocean, but its all still ocean. But u cant escape and look down, because there is nowhere to go, the ocean is everywhere and the ocean is all there is. Its the only thing that is, or its nothing and nothing is all there is, really the two are equal. What is the difference between nothing and something if there is only nothingness and no something...or if there is only something and no nothingness. Whatever u call it, either way... it just is, and it is all there is. Some good books are The search for shrodingers cat, brief history of time, tao of physics, the mind of god by paul davies, lots more good ones too.
| |||||||
|
The_Visionaire Torch Registered: 02/16/04 Posts: 111 Loc: Indra's Net Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
You give a good account of the common problems related to the interpretation of QM.
You are right that the standard Copenhagen interpretation has not been discredited, but as Bohr pointed out; QM is just a computational procedure that is to yield predictions, it is not supposed to say anything about the fundamental nature of reality. This he said because it seemed like QM had reached rock bottom and there were no ways to penetrate the unspeakable realm beyond it. This is the positivistic/empiristic approach; what cannot be measured can not be spoken of, or what is not measured does not exist. The trouble with standard QM is that the matematics used to describe it (linear operators in Hilbert-space) is not fit to penetrate the deeper level. Instead of assuming such a level, and let this level explain the behaviour of our observations, standard QM postulates that there is a fundamental randomness in nature beyond the limits of the observable. This assumption was strongly opposed by Einstein; "God does not throw dice!", he said. David Bohm's theory, first known as hidden variable theory, but now commonly refered to as the ontological interpretation of QM, makes no such assumption. It will be too lengthy to go into the details of this, but in his formulation of QM, the causal chain of events is maintained. The new thing about QM as opposed to classical theory is that in addition to the classical equations of motion, you will now get a quantum potential. This quantum potential can be ignored when dealing with crude matter, but on particle level it will have strong effects. The quantum potential explains perfectly well the behaviour of particles in the double slit experiment and indeed all other observed QM effects. The Q potential is also non-local, that is, its effect is instant over all space-time, thereby trancending space time. This explains also the EPR case of entangled paricles. The quantum potential thereby points to the unbroken wholeness of the universe. The important difference between Bohm and Copenhagen is that instead of making an uncrossable border between quantum reality and the measured world, Bohm takes theory to more subtle orders instead. Measuring devices are crude apparatus. Do you think they are fit to define the borders of the unspeakable? Then I take the human mind to be a much more penetrating measuring device, because it penetrates much subtler orders, we ARE after all the universe! Sometime in the future, physics will have to deal with this.The theories you mention as alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation are not really alternatives but elaborations and extensions of standard QM. The interpretational issues at the basic level still remains. Bohm never saw his theory as a complete truth and there exists many different versions of his theory too, including multiverse theories. As for the ocean analogy, I think the ocean unfolds the patterns and the patterns is enfolded back into the sea, and that this process is the primary pulse of creation, Brahman and Athman. But as they say, Brahman is Athman and Athman is Brahman.  As for the somethingness contra nothingness i completely agree with you
-------------------- There are no differences between men and gods, one blends softly causal into the other. -Frank Herbert, Dune.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
The only thing i would take issue with in that post, is that qm doesnt have anything to say about the fundamental nature of reality.
The macro is built on the quantum, however subtle qm effects might be they do exert an influence on the state of the macro. Nearly everything on the macro scale is formed from things on the qm scale. Without the qm effects, the macro and its effects wouldnt be possible. And also experiments are pushing the boundary at which qm effects intrude into what was once considered strictly the realm of the macro. Now there may be an even more fundamental layer below qm, and it may be that what appears to be randomn reallys isnt, in fact the more i think about randomness the more it seems to really be nonsense. Im beginning to think that the causal chain is just so complex that it creates what appears to be randomness, but really isnt. That there has to be some underlying order below the qm. I guess i believe it exists in the sense that the outcomes can be unpredictable to us, since we are one aspect of the system effecting another aspect, but if you could somehow step outside the system, i think you would see that everything is unfolding in some deterministic way. If there is an unfolding at all, and that isnt just some perceptual illusion generated as result of our incomplete experience of reality not only on the whole, but even in any given moment, if moments are even real. And then there is the holographic notion that this is all all just 1's and 0's or the equivelent, there is no physical in a true sense just information. Then u gotta wonder if this reality is true reality or just a simulated reality and that somewhere out there, there is a seperate and true physical reality, or is it 1's and 0's all they way, no matter how many realities within realities there may be.
| |||||||
|
2Experimental Registered: 01/15/03 Posts: 18,073 |
| ||||||
|
"Im beginning to think that the causal chain is just so complex that it creates what appears to be randomness, but really isnt. That there has to be some underlying order below the qm."
Science, or QM, or pattern study can never figure out the random chaos of nature. There is no machine yet to perfectly mimick something 'natural' . There is no pattern to the snowflakes , or the rate black holes are expanding. "there is no physical in a true sense just information. Then u gotta wonder if this reality is true reality or just a simulated reality and that somewhere out there, there is a seperate and true physical reality, or is it 1's and 0's all they way, no matter how many realities within realities there may be" I do not think it is as complicated as you make it seem. There is the reality we are in, and that one is a pysical, time driven earthly existence. There are also existences of eternity on other levels. I do not think this Universe is all a stimulation of my mind, because it existed loooong before the first human walked the earth to contemplate 'his' existence and questions such as these...
| |||||||
|
TheShroomHermit Divine Hermit of the Everything Registered: 02/19/02 Posts: 7,575 Loc: border of Canada Last seen: 2 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
>There is no pattern to the snowflakes
-Actually, all snow flakes have 6 sides and form a fractal pattern that is geometrically expressable.\ >I do not think this Universe is all a stimulation of my mind, because it existed loooong before the first human walked the earth to contemplate 'his' existence and questions such as these... -The Universe is not dependent of us observing it. If it exists in actuality then we are able to observe it (directly or indirectly)
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
this thread can never die
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
Atleast if you wont let it. You are excercising free will. It will inevitably disappear and be buried like all those other posts. But right now, you choose for it not to suffer that fate. -------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
| |||||||
|
deff just love everyone  Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,586 Loc: clarity 
Last seen: 1 hour, 59 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Or, on account on the reactions occurring in his brain based off of genetic structure as well as past events (cause and effect), his "will" to "choose" to not let this thread die was created. You example is not necessarily one of free will, as even quoting it was the result of previous neurological causes, as is this respones of mine.
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
OH NOOO! I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE! *kills self* BTW, I'd like for you to argue with me in that suicide is not an excertion of free will (although, not a very smart one). Unless of course past expirences, previous neurological causes and/or genetic structures indicate that is the next logical step one must take in their life. -------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
Edited by psyka (06/21/04 02:28 PM)
| |||||||
|
deff just love everyone Registered: 05/01/04 Posts: 9,586 Loc: clarity
Last seen: 1 hour, 59 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Past experiences have resulted in the individual's view on life to be negative. This can be accerlated by genetic conditions such as neurochemical irregularities, which are the result of incorporating/combining the genetics from both "gene donor" parents. For example, a person is depressed based on a known neurological disorder, such as bi-polar. This was the result of the combination of genes from their father's sperm cell and mother's ovum, which were combined based on the result of them deciding to have sex at that very specific millisecond, and in those very specific conditions, as otherwise a different sperm cell could be assigned which would create a different genetic make-up. Now, this person one day is walking outside feeling depressed, when a group of people approach him, start pushing him around, mug him, whatever the case may be. This incident is the result of both parties deciding to be outside, in that location, at that moment in time, whcih itself is based off of previous causes, such as the cancellation of an appointment. Now this act towards this person "pushes them over the edge", and the thought of suicide arises. Based off of past depression and experience, the person's brain decides that it calculates, sends the signal to the muscle of the person's trigger finger, and BAM - they die. Free will is overrated.
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
|
I was bipolar, chronically depressed so I know what that hole feels like. I was supposed to take my zoloft prescription but I didnt because I actually enjoyed the sadness that I harbored (for creative purposes - it helped me write music). I wasnt depressed out of self pity or want for attention...it was just there and I couldnt escape the negative point of views in life.
On a very intense mushroom trip (my 2nd one to be exact; the first was different because I was in the presence of others) I was pushed over the edge and got a glimpse of what I could see in my future. On one hand I had the very real possibility of taking my own life, on the other I could change my perception of thought. At that moment I made my DECISION (my excertion of free will) and here I am before you today eager to expirence and eager to see what the future will hold. Its like I completely let go of these mediocre problems and worries (but in a responsible compassionate way, mind you) and it truly feels like I am blossoming into what I should become. I think within that decision I excercised free will. And I know its hard to reply to personal stories so I'll break it down in to where I think free will exists in this story. On the one hand you have life, on the other you have death. Instinct and everything your body was made to do pushes you towards the direction of self-preservation (most depression victims suffer suicidal thoughts but not very many act on these thoughts). Choosing to take your life is EXTREMELY irresponsible as your life means so much and not just to yourself, but to me it is the ultimate "fuck you," so-to-speak. Our oppressors use the image of death to push control on us, but on a personal level when one CHOOSES to take his life out of CHOICE (Buddhist monks during Vietnam*) reflects everything that NEEDS to be changed in society. Peace * also worth mentioning is these monks CHOSE to stay in Lotus position despite their bodies being engorged in flames. -------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
There seems to be much confusion between "observing" and "measuring" as the two terms are being used interchangably.
It is the act of measuring that changes something, not mere observing. If I stick a thermometer which is 72F, into water that is 38F, the thermometer will slighty warm the temperature of the water. The change will be dependent on the volume of water, the surface area, mass, index of heat transference, etc. properties of the thermometer. If the mass of water being measured is large enough the change will be negligable. If the mass of water is only a few molecules, the change will be rapid and radical. However, the mere opening and closing of my eyes to read the thermometer or look at the water will have ZERO affect on the water temperature whether it is an ocean or a single molecule. --------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Deff has it right.
its really quite simple... you dont pick the environment your born into, you dont pick the genetics your born with. Environment has been proven to actually effect the ways some genes are expressed, nutrition even plays a role. the combination of environment and genetics mold the person you are, they CAUSE you to be you, thus everything you do is just an effect of the initial causes that made you who you are. Choices dont exist, just the illusion of choice, same for freedom, atleast freedom of will. If something doesnt cause you to do something, yet you still perform an action/make a "choice" then it is a randomn or spontanious action. You can initiate a random event such as a coin toss but you cant control the out come, you cant even be sure once you decide to toss the coin that you actually will get to,(something might prevent you from exercising your "free" will) you might have an anurism and die just before. You cannot will the outcome of a random event and the initiation of the event is an effect of all the prior events leading to it, not just the events of your life, but of every life, and every thing, from the begining of time till that moment. If the action is spontaneous, well u just CAN'T decide to be spontaneous, or it isnt spontaneous at all, so again no will, no volition. Now if something isnt randomn, isnt spontaneous, and has no cause...how the fuck did it happen? and how did you conciously will it to occur? you willing something to occur is the cause, and something prior to that moment caused you to will it. So each cause has an effect, and each effect is itself a cause and so on and on and on. So for free will to be real, we need something that allows us to perform a non randomn, non spontaneous event that has no cause. And if we really have true freewill then we should be able to predict the outcome and every effect that outcome will have for all time, or else our will isnt really done. If i perform an action, and the immediate outcome is as expected then ok, but what if that same action set into motion a chain of events that kills someone, maybe even myself sometime in the future. I didnt will that person to die or for me to die, infact i would most likely not want that to happen, but i have no idea that it is even going to occur, so not much i can do. I may have caused this future event but i did so with no conscience will. If i had true free will i would make sure i only willed good things to occur, and only good things to occure because of those things for all time, but i cant do that. I dont have that kind of control...i dont have any control. At best im aware of whats happening, and what im doing, but i'm always going to do what i must do, given all the prior circumstances including environment and genetics and every quantum event, any event period leading up to that moment.. if what i do is not caused by those things then its randomn, or spontaneous, neither of which i can exert my will over. Actually randomness wouldnt apply here unless it is a fundamental aspect of the nature of reality, but either way.. no way for me to exercise my will. So again for freewill we need the ability to make a "choice" that is not randomn, not spontaneous and has NO CAUSE, yet still be able to perform the action of "choice" without ourselves being the cause, because as we've established all we are is the culmination of every event that came before any given moment, so whatever we do is an effect of the causes that caused us to be us We need a mechanism, a conception...something to allow free will....and the only thing that i can think of to call this mystical thingy is "MAGIC" In my entire life i have never seen an event without a cause, or that wasnt randomn or spontaneous, ive never seen a MAGIC event. So without proof of the existance of MAGIC there is no basis to conclude we could possibly have free will. In fact most if not all evidence says we dont. What we do have is the ability, to ignore rationality, logic and all reason, and believe in something we have no reason to believe in, other then thats the way we want things to be. The catch is...that desire is simply another effect of all the prior causes leading to the moment that desire manifests itself. So if you believe in free will at this moment, or even if you dont... You cant help but to believe it...your caused to believe it..u have no control, no free will not to believe it in that moment. Circumstances may change and thus your beliefs may change, because you are no longer the person that you were. All you really have is uncertainy, but no control over if you believe that or not, can get comfortable with it or not.So we need MAGIC, but how can we get it? what is it made of? where does it come from? and if it is real, how can we ever really be sure of that, or if we actually have it? If you invoke God here, then god caused magic, and magic caused free will and free will caused all those non randomn, non spontaneous events that have no actual cause. what the fuck? that makes no sense.... Hell maybe thats how it is...but i've got no reason to believe that. Oh and swami isnt the two slits experiment evidence that the mere act of observation can cause something to occur, since by looking at the slits, one electron/photon whatever goes thru just one slit, but if you dont look at the slits just the back wall, then it goes thru both causing the pattern of interference which wont occur when looking at the slits?
| |||||||
|
MarkostheGnostic Elder  Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida 
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Free will versus determinism, (or in Christian theology, Predestination) is a paradox that has been debated for centuries. It really matters not what you or I think about which 'mechanism' functions primarily in the universe, since an opinion is more reflective of the psychology of the thinker than of the true workings of things. We can describe things deterministically, and we can just as well illustrate free will - our 'existential' ability to choose over and against our determined animal natures. One can vacillate forever, saying that it was predetermined that I would make a certain choice, thereby rendering my free will as 'relatively' free will.
Certain streams of theological thought taken from the Bible lend support to free will, another stream to predestination. John Wesley's Methodism hailed free will as having primacy, while John Calvin's predestination formed the basis of Presbyterianism. Not to give a dissertation on church history, but these guys are historical exemplars of both theological perspectives, and theology has had more to say about this debate than philosophy has. Whether or not you ascribe to a theological belief in God doesn't even matter at this point because you are still discussing metaphysics, and metaphysics as a branch of philosophy asks "what is Reality?'' The theological answer is that Reality - Ultimate Reality - is called God. Also, God can be said to be 'with attributes' and 'without attributes,' and still remain as the 'Absolute Cause' (to use the pre-Christian Aristotle's term for God - Aristotle did write a book called 'Metaphysics' after all). A suggestion that I have is to categorically separate the metaphysics that can be attributed to the Absolute Cause Itself, which is unknown, from the metaphysics in which we as humans participate. There is a difference because we are not merely self-conscious 'nodes' in the fabric of space-time - we are human beings who derive our individual existence from the Ground of Being. It does not help to speculate on the inner life of God which known only to God (even though Patristic theology does this speculation routinely). Our 'freedom' is not defined by our ability/lack of ability to transcend physical laws. Our human freedom is primarily defined by moral freedom, and that in turn determines the thoughts we entertain and acts we do. Before you minimalize or dismiss the moral imperative as a measure of human freedom, consider this: when a red-blooded American man can tell a beautiful busty blond stripper who moved in with girlfriends next door to put her top back on before he comes over to fix their pool filter, because it would hurt his wife's feelings, THAT is an exercise of freedom, of compassionate detchment, of free will. Later. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
Huehuecoyotl Fading Slowly  Registered: 06/13/04 Posts: 10,699 Loc: On the Border |
| ||||||
|
You are on a raft on the river. The river is fate. You can walk around on the raft...that is your free will.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
"So again for freewill we need the ability to make a "choice" that is not randomn, not spontaneous and has NO CAUSE, yet still be able to perform the action of "choice" without ourselves being the cause, because as we've established all we are is the culmination of every event that came before any given moment, so whatever we do is an effect of the causes that caused us to be us "
I dont understand how people just ignore this fact. all that stuff you said mark did not address this arguement. You said "A suggestion that I have is to categorically separate the metaphysics that can be attributed to the Absolute Cause Itself, which is unknown, from the metaphysics in which we as humans participate. There is a difference because we are not merely self-conscious 'nodes' in the fabric of space-time - we are human beings who derive our individual existence from the Ground of Being." How do u know this? and what is "ground of being"? You also said... "Our 'freedom' is not defined by our ability/lack of ability to transcend physical laws. Our human freedom is primarily defined by moral freedom, and that in turn determines the thoughts we entertain and acts we do. Before you minimalize or dismiss the moral imperative as a measure of human freedom, consider this: when a red-blooded American man can tell a beautiful busty blond stripper who moved in with girlfriends next door to put her top back on before he comes over to fix their pool filter, because it would hurt his wife's feelings, THAT is an exercise of freedom, of compassionate detchment, of free will. Later." Where is your proof? "Our 'freedom' is not defined by our ability/lack of ability to transcend physical laws" i would say that is exactly what our freedom, if we have in is defined by. Every thought i generate and every act i perform has a cause, so i was caused to think something or caused to perform a particular act. I must somehow transend the physical laws of nature to be able to do these things with out cause, yet still not be randomn or spontaneous, because if they are either of those, then i cant exercise my will over them. And if there is a cause, then i was caused...i had to think or do it. Nobody on this board or in real life has been able to address my core arguements and provide a logically consistant counter proof. All their ramblings and philosophy simply amount to basically saying "Nah thats just not how it is...cant prove it, and i dont know how it really is, but your definately wrong!" or they will put forth a theory of how it really is offering little if any evidence and based on little if any logic, and their theory doesnt explain why mine must be incorrect. Most of the arguements take the form of look 2+2=5...this is obviously correct because look, "5" is what i wrote down, thats what i think it is so that must be how it is, your answer of 4 is obviously wrong because as you can clearly see i have written down 5!" Its insain, but they dress it up and it almost sounds coherent...but it isnt, and it doesnt provide a proof againts my own arguements. Some claim that free will isnt logical, but it does exist, strange that the universe and events there in..can so accurately be described by Math, which is pure logic, yet humans seeminly have this special status of not being subject to the processes that govern every single other thing around them, and are allowed to have free will. Ofcourse no one can put forth a mechanism that allows this to occur short of invoking something akin to Magic. They cant explain how it works, what its made of, or how we got it, or especially how they are sure its real, and not just some delusion...but to them atleast the arguement for free will is that they "SEEM" to have it...so they must have it" that whole look 2+2=5 crap again, since 5 is clearly what they wrote, and clearly what they see it must be correct, even if there is no evidence or logic to support that answer. Randomness isnt freewill, spontanity isnt free will, cant exert your will over either. And if your action is caused by something, then it isnt willed freely...it was Caused, its just an effect of that cause. If its none of these things, in effect a non randomn non spontaneous non caused event...how the hell does it occur short of invoking magic? How does it manage to exist exempt from the laws of nature, yet manifests itself in us a physical being that should be just as subject to those laws as the computer and desk im typing this on right now? Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
ZenGecko writes:
Nobody on this board or in real life has been able to address my core arguements and provide a logically consistant counter proof. Incorrect. The fact that you choose not to accept the validity of the arguments does not invalidate them. You go on and on about "logic", always forgetting that logic is not reality, logic is a set of mental mathematical operations performed on observations about reality. Logic doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your position is in essence that if I toss a rock into your lap, I have not demonstrated "logically" the existence of that rock. That rock may just be an illusion that we both (volitionally) agree to deem an existant. You dismiss out of hand the necessity of ostensive argument, yet at the same time build up straw man arguments totally dependent on the behavior of particles that cannot logically be proven to exist -- their existence can only be apprehended ostensively. Some would call this flaw in your argument hypocrisy, others would use the kinder term "inconsistency". You can't have it both ways, Gecko. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
fireworks_god Sexy.Butt.McDanger Registered: 03/12/02 Posts: 24,855 Loc: Pandurn Last seen: 5 months, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
In other news... everything is a complex chain reaction, there is no point in time where some sort of consciousness steps out of time and makes a choice, it all flows like a river. Every single thought we think would not have occured if the thought that preceded it was any different than how it occured. Who we are is intricately defined by external circumstances that formed us, and the interaction between who we are in the moment and what the external world (which isn't actually all that external after all
) proposes. We are only able to "make" one choice in one moment, and who we are entering that moment vs. what that moment entails equals the one choice that was destined to be "made". Of course, we still have the illusion of the ability to choose, but one glance at the structure of how it all works shows that it is indeed just an illusion. Illusion! Illusion! Illusion! Go chain reaction go!   Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
| |||||||
|
MarkostheGnostic Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
I DID address the issue, but your model is derivative of the 'dependent arisings' of Buddhist metaphysics, whether you are aware of this or not. You see yourself as a sum total of dependent psychophysical causes (Aristotle's 'efficient causes') - impersonal from at least (presumably) your formation in the womb. Your model, like much of Buddhist formulation is 'Existential' - deriving from psychophysical 'creation' - cellular, even neuronal, and for what I can discern, you probably consider human beings to be 'intellectual meat.'
The language that I used - being and ground of Being derives from Western, particularly Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. It is 'Ontological' [ontos=being]. I identify myself first and foremost as a 'being' even before I think 'embodied being' because human beinghood assumes embodiedness, but transcends embodiedness. And since it transcends embodiedness, and is transcendental in nature (I believe completely in the transcendence of the ego: the body-ego, the mental-ego, the various social egos that we assume, etc.) I also believe that we as 'beings' derive our beinghood from the Ground of Being. Individual human beings are like individual waves. Most people come into existence, grow larger, move through time, diminish and die - just like a wave. Most of us are so busy identifying with our separate, egotistical wave-identities, we plum forget that each wave derives from ONE Ocean. All of us derive from the ONE 'Ocean of Existence' (a Buddhist expression incidentally). We are all ONE in our identification with the Ocean of Existence which is the Ground of Being. Its NOT what is inherent in our wave nature, but in our connection and derivation from the Ground of Being that defines us, and the Ground of Being contains infinite possibilities. Our wave-nature is time-bound and hence limited so that infinite possibilities cannot 'manifest' in any one being, but if you are 'imagining' free will as the ability to manifest any of infinite possiblities, then you are 'imagining' the common name for the Ground of Being - GOD. Since it is impossible to have GOD's 'data base,' you really don't know if any 'imagination' that you can have is not manifest on some world at some time. You may believe that YOU are just making up random stuff out of your own egocentric little nervous system - your wave-nature - when you may well be randomly sampling existence on other worlds, dimensions, times, universes. So, are you attuned to the infinitely free will which is of GOD, and do you realize that you can't know or experience all the possibilities through one short-lived wave-nature, although all these possibilities may exist past-present-future? Absolute Freedom is of the nature of the Ground of Being, not beings. Only insofar as we come to identify with the Ground do we attain to freedom - spiritually our freedom outstrips our psychophysical freedom which is bound by the lawful limitations of space-time. Free will for the spirit, determinism for the soul [mind-body]. Both exist simultaneously in a Conjunctio Oppositorum - the paradox of human life - life in GOD and life in nature - life in spirit and life in space-time. Paradox. -------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
For what was written I agree. As dogs, cats, and monkey's do not have free will, it is an illusion to truly believe we have it. We are all bound by the same physical confines. I agree. It is unfortunate we cannot express the limitlessness of our minds. However, we as humans try to do the best that we can and that is what is important. Thank you and deff for articulating the concept for me, Peace. -------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
payka writes:
As dogs, cats, and monkey's do not have free will, it is an illusion to truly believe we have it. Not to derail the topic too far, but anyone who has ever owned a dog or a cat or a monkey will confirm that all three do indeed exhibit volitional behavior... cats especially. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
psyka Praetorian Registered: 06/09/03 Posts: 1,652 |
| ||||||
Could you give some examples, please? --EDIT Ah, nevermind. This is sort-of swaying from proving free will. However, I agree completely. It is proof that free will EXISTS and we are able to mentally expirence it but we are rather limited physically to express it. Limited free will is an oxymoron, though that is the only way to explain it. Peace
Edited by psyka (06/24/04 08:12 PM)
| |||||||
|
Huehuecoyotl Fading Slowly Registered: 06/13/04 Posts: 10,699 Loc: On the Border |
| ||||||
|
"Limited free will is an oxymoron"
No it is not. Free will is just what you can get away with...
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
well fuck, i had a nice big post half way written to respond to the latest post, but lost it so i guess i'll go with the short version, u can all breath a sigh of relief...
Pink... We are at an impass...you feel my arguements are flawed, i feel yours are flawed, i guess we just need some other authority that we both consider credible and objective enough to say which of us is right or atleast more right, and point out the errors either of us may have made. I would like to know which of my arguements are straw man arguements in your opinion, and what makes them so. Mark... We may be in the same situation, but i didnt see in your statement where you proved or explained the things i asked you too. All i saw was you saying "This is how it is" with no logic or evidence to back up those conclusions. As for what u said about the oneness of it all, our true nature whatever, from what i gathered of that i mostly agree. I have often used that ocean analogy to describe my opinion of the nature of being. We are waves, on the ocean and all there is...is ocean. Bascially we are aspects of the whole, but we are still the whole. Now i grant that the whole may very well have free will, and in that since so do we since we are the whole. But on our level of individual experience as aspects of the whole, we are subject to the will of.. or whatever circumstances the whole finds itself in at any given moment, effectively eliminating our personal free will, or volition. And it is this pratical everyday individual experience... however illusionary it might be that i am concerned with and have focused my arguements on. I must admit though that it is still hard for me to envision how the whole, or the ocean could have free will. Firstly it seems to work on logical rules, ie physics and whatnot, now our understanding of these is incomplete and likely to be so for some time if not forever, so what we are trying to get at here is the safest bet, the most likely answer because thats all we can hope for. Now the whole still finds itself in a set of circumstances at any given moment, if moments even really exist, just as we seem to/or do. If the whole is the causeless cause then the truth of the nature of being exists somewhere in the middle of that paradox and only thru direct and full experience and understanding of reality will we ever truely "get it". The question still remains though, is "it" the way it has to be or can "it" be something else, at its leisure? If it is infinite and thus effectively being all that is possible, couldnt you argue that its inability to be the impossible negates its free will? I admit thats stretching it, but i still cant understand how limited freedom is really freedom at all. instead i think this concept of freedom is just that, a conception, an illusionary one at that founded in our incomplete understanding of the nature of being, just as i think choice likely is too. If the whole is its own cause, the cause that caused itself instead of a causeless cause (assuming there is a difference) then every cause after that is just an effect of the initial cause, so basically u find yourself in a loop of causation, yet that loop still effectively eliminates free will, because the whole cant help but be subject to the loop in everything it does or is. Really i think that freedom and choice are those illusionary conceptions i spoke of based on an incomplete understanding of the nature of being, even determinism may be one, and i think that actually option C is the way it really is..and option C is something entirely different then freewill or determinism and likely beyond us, even if it is possible to directly experience the whole we are still limited by this current mode of existance, thus in life i doubt anyone even the most enlightened will ever truely "get it" and do so perfectly. But i do believe that it is possible to get damn close. In my own experience i have had moments that i can only say are nearly identicle to the descriptions of satori/kensho/enlightenment that i have heard or read of, though i will not be so bold as to claim it was indeed one of those. And if by chance they were i would still wager they were shallow, or incomplete. Some where drug induced, some through meditation, but all had that feeling of utmost "rightness" that indeed i was "getting it" "this is how it really is" but even in the midst of them i sensed that my understanding however profound, was still incomplete or at the very least tainted by this mode of existance, the mortal coil, or whatever u wish to call it. And i guess this is where i am a hipocrite because dispite my inability to prove the validity of these experiences i still believe in them, and that they are indeed possible and have some validity. Just as you free willers believe in your experience. Yours lead you to one conclusion and mine lead me to another....Neither of us can help believing other then what we believe at this moment Now if im wrong in that prove it by changing your position to one in honest and sincere agreement with my own, and do it now...cause if u cant do it now, then where is your free will? Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
MarkostheGnostic Elder Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida 
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Well, again, your position is consistently egocentric (as are all of ours, but I am [bracketing] or 'suspending' my perspective). That Free Will (i.e., the Will of GOD) operates through the laws of physics on Earth is true, but this is the only world that WE know. What I was saying is that given the possibility of numberless worlds (not merely planets) levels of created being, dimensions, sub-planes, even multiverses (you know...like the place Homer Simpson went where it rained donuts for example
), all kinds of possibilities escape our knowledge. We're just here! Did you ever read 'Flatland,' about 2-dimensional beings who live in a 2-dimensional universe - a plane? When a 3-dimensional human inserts his finger in their plane, a widening band of 'finger' beginning with a point (there is no up or down remember) spreads out before them - out of thin air! It is an epiphany for them - a breaking into their dimension from a Higher dimension - a higher world. Great book, good illustration for us ('Burning Bush,' Pillar of Fire,' and other theophanies being suggested here). Miraculous phenomena that disregard 'our' physical laws that pertain to 'our' dimensional existence, may still be outside of YOUR experience (and mine), but these things should not be evaluated on our limited experiences.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Well actually Mark it sound like we are pretty much in agreement. While i argue that for all intents and purposes on this plane we dont have any practical individual free will, i do concede that the truth is likely something wholely different then free will or determinism, or maybe even indeterminism (which only means outcomes cant be predicted, not that you have free will nessasarily) My spelling is horrible.
But anyways seems we agree, its likely option "C" "Really i think that freedom and choice are those illusionary conceptions i spoke of based on an incomplete understanding of the nature of being, even determinism may be one, and i think that actually option C is the way it really is..and option C is something entirely different then freewill or determinism and likely beyond us, even if it is possible to directly experience the whole we are still limited by this current mode of existance, thus in life i doubt anyone even the most enlightened will ever truely "get it" and do so perfectly. But i do believe that it is possible to get damn close." Sincerely, That which is...and cant help but to be. (probably...for all practical intents and purposes on this plane)
| |||||||
|
Zero7a1 Leaving YourWast  Registered: 10/23/02 Posts: 3,594 Loc: Passing Cloud |
| ||||||
|
If this were an illusory existence, that is to say, that we are only what appears to be an image of something else.
We can understand what free will is, we know that we can choose for certain things to happen. If we can understand and know what free will is in our illusion, would we not have the power in this "illusory existence" to utilize our mask of free will to determine or to seek out events... therefore proving that free will is not in fact, and illusion, but very real? -------------------- What?
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
Zero... No...Now i'll elaborate....
First im not really sure if i know what u mean when u say "we appear to be an image of something else", What i believe we are is it, and everything else is it also, but appears to often be something else..if thats what u meant then we agree on that point. But while this "it" as a whole may have free will, and we are it, so by default also have free will. Whatever will the whole has would be a collective will, atleast thats the best description i can form with words. While our individual will is ofcourse a part of this "it" ours is so small compared to the overriding will of the whole that its like trying to swim up a raging river. The total will of the whole is so overwhelming that whatever our personal will may be if we even have it would get swept along downstream like everything else. All we do or dont do is the will of the system as a whole, and everything we percieve is that will in action. Occasionally, our will may be the same as the systems but thats about the best we can hope for, that and just being aware of what is happening around us. But wether we hope for it, and how aware we are isnt up to us as individuals, its up the the system. Here is the simplest proof for my arguement againt practical free will on this level of existance... If you think we really have free will on this level, then "choose" right now to agree with me that we dont. Now here is the catch, nothing i've said or done, or anything period can cause you to change your mind and agree with me. If it does you were caused by something and had no free will. Also you can not randomnly or spontaneously agree with me, because even these events have causes or at the very least u cannot exersise your will over them. If you disagree with the nature of causes, randomness and spontinaity then u first must put forth an arguement why your views are right and why mine are wrong, then how they help to prove your arguement. You cant will the outcome of a randomn event, and the intialization of a randomn even has a cause, such as flipping a coin..u caused it to be flipped and u cant will the outcome, and something prior to that caused u to flip it. a spontaneous event probably has a cause that is not seen and happens at an unpredictable time, or it has no cause and just happens, but still unpridictably and either way u cant will the out come. So what u need is a forth possibility...and about the best one is MAGIC. no one has yet described how this 4th possiblilty has come to be, how it works, why we have it, or how we use it. How something happens with no cause, yet is still consciencely willed, yet is also not randomn nor spontaneous, But something else...all they can do it call it free will. if we make a choice then the outcome of that choice is an affect, so our choice caused an effect, we caused our choice, but something had to cause us to choose. So u might as well substitute the word "choice" for cause or effect. something caused something which had the effect of causing me to perform an action(make supposed choice) that had this effect, that effect inturn was a cause of another effect so on and on... They say its there and they offer the proof look i make choices all the time, or hey i chose to respond to this post..which are not real arguements at all, because my whole arguement is that your "choice" itself is illusion. Saying look your wrong i've got free will because i can choose to reply or not reply to this post is the same as saying look 2+2=5, because as u can clearly see i've written down 5, so 5 must be the right answer. 0 logic in that kind of arguement. So what is my proof?... if something has a cause, and if something causes you to do something, how did you freely will it to happen? how can u be caused yet free at the same time?, that is illogical (in relation to this everyday experience of reality, possibly not of the whole)(but remember we are talking about our percieved reality, and if we have pracital free will that can be INDIVIDUALY exercised on a daily basis in our current mode of existance)(it is key to keep that in mind) if it was randomn or spontaneous how did you exercise your will over it? you cant have free will without the will part. Like i said u need a fourth way for there to be free will, something that has no cause, yet is not randomn or spontanious, and u cant just say look the 4th thing is free will, you have to explain the mechanism by which it arises and is utilized in order to counter my arguement. oh and u have to be right Giving various examples of choices u make in no counter to the arguement that your choices are actually illusions, and what u did, is actually the only thing you could have done no matter how it appeared to you at the time. U did what u had to do given the circumstances of that moment, later the circumstances may be different so your action may be different.Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
CrazyShroomMan journeyman Registered: 05/30/04 Posts: 118 Last seen: 14 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
So your argument is that since you cant "choose" to shoot fireballs out of your fingers or fly, you cant "choose" to do anything else?
I think your flaw is you are trying to compare things not possible with the human body to things that are possible
| |||||||
|
Zero7a1 Leaving YourWast Registered: 10/23/02 Posts: 3,594 Loc: Passing Cloud |
| ||||||
|
So your saying if i have two choices in life... or even more... no matter which one i pick... is not really my choice?
So must one not care about the directions of ones life if they are to get somewhere? Depending on the context of your "rules" greatly effects the kind of will you percieve to have in your life. thus altering your view of free will. Maybe thats faith... i dont know. -------------------- What?
| |||||||
|
Divided_Sky Ten ThousandThin  Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 3,171 Loc: The Shining Void Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I think the existence or non-existence of free-will depends on what layer of reality you operate on. If you are in the realm of form and objects, then yes 'You' as an object, including your body and mind, have a certain amount of agency and will. However, if we operate on the more complex and obscure level of reality, there is no person to have free will and everything is chemical and mathematical. The self is the result of biological processes it cannot control.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
i'll just reply to my own post and address some of what the latest posts said...
First i didnt even really say much about how the laws of physics limit any freedom we might have...but if u wanna get into that, how can freedom be limited? the very definition of the word free does not allow for limits. If freedom is limited then it isnt freedom, and yes the laws of physics do limit our freedom. If we had true freewill we should be able to break the laws of physics. If i come to a fork in a road, i can go left, right, stop and sit there till i die, turn back and go the way i came...or atleast thats how it seems. But when i get to the fork in the road while it seems i have all these options i will actually do the only option THAT CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW. They cause me to do what i do, and as long as those are the circumstances of that moment, i will do what they dictate. So those other "choices" were not choices at all they were illusions...if they were real choices i should have been able to do them but because of circumstances i could only do what infact i did, and only that. lets turn the arguement on its head, if in fact we do have individual freewill or volition, the ability in affect to perform an action that has no cause, but involves us conscience level, then you should also be able to peform an action that has no effect. I defy anyone to do this. Everything u do has an effect, because it is the result of causes, and every effect is inturn a cause, that leads to another effect. If you can do something with out cause, consciencely, that is nonrandomn and not spontaneous then you should also be able to peform an action that has no effect. But just sitting here your effecting the entire universe, your breath moves the air, your heartbeats produce sound and motion, even if you will yourself to die, your body will decompose, friends and family will morn, there is nothing u can do or even not do, that doesnt have an effect, thus u were a cause, thus you being a cause was an effect of a prior cause. There is no way around the logic...the only counter arguement is one that ivokes something like magic or the will of God. Ok so lets look at those...magic first...well if you do something magical would magic be the cause of your action? so how did magic come to exist? something either caused it, so it is just another effect and inturn another cause, or it is its own cause, the best u can hope for is some loop of causation. Now god or gods will... God gave us free will....so god caused free will, which has the effect of causing us to peform all sorts of free actions, only how can we will something that is caused? If god caused free will then god ultimately caused you to do whatever you did. Now i've allowed for the system or god or whatever to possibly have free will, and if we are an aspect of that "one" then be default we must have free will too, because we are the "one" and it is us...but on this practical everyday experience of reality we are subject to the collective will of the system..it cant help but to overwhelm our own will. But really i think the one having free will is unlikely too..but it is beyond comprehension so i have to concede the possiblity. But the one still finds itself in a set of circumstances, and it still has the equivelent of genetics...us, and all its parts, that make it up, which effects the nature of the one, and thus influences, causes it, along with its other circumstances (likely the circumstance of being the one thing and the only thing, thus alone in a sense)to do whatever it does. Again at best we are left with a causal loop. you need a causeless cause...in order for free will to be possible, and that may indeed be the nature of the "one" so it has free will, but it doesnt trickle down to us on this level of existance because we are always subject to the will of the "one", so we have freewill in a since because the one does and we are it...but in this mode of being we cannot access it, its basically as if we dont have it, because we cant use it...so what good is it? here/now...NONE...when we are dead, and reintegrated into the "one" possibly we will get to use it then. Maybe the will of the one does trickle down to us here/now (somehow..magic?) and we get to have free will, but i have seen zero proof for that, i do see all kinds of proof for not having practical individual free will. Saying u make choices isnt proof that they are actual choices, and no one has put forth any logical evidence that supports the claim that their choice was infact a choice and not just what they were caused to do because of circumstances. If you rewind then entire universe and play it all over again up to the moment of a particular choice, and do it over and over again, u will always make the same choice over and over...or more accurately u will always do whatever you had to do the first time. the thing that circumstances made u do. now maybe due to quantum randomness or something like that you could never rewind the system and play it over again EXACTLY as it occured before, but if anything is different in this new version these new circumstances will dictate your choice, not you. Something must cause/allow you to have free will, but that means that free will is just an effect of something else, and that effect causes you to do something...thats why i find the whole concept of free will illogical and false, atleast in this mode of existance. Its just something we concieved of because circumstances caused us to concieve of, we were duped by illusionary/inaccurate/incomplete experience of reality. Its the greatest lie ever. Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
I forgot to mention one other possible way for there to be free will.
If in the system every possibility is realized somewhere, basically a multiverse, and there are all these versions of us taking the paths that we did not take here, because their cicrumstances cause them to, then u can in a sense say we have free will because we get to realize every possibility (somewhere/time)...but remember that includes all the things you'd never want to do...so well that really doesnt sound all that free either, and your again limited to what is possible so you have that whole notion of limited freedom again which is an oxymoron, so maybe along with choice, freedom is also an illusion, another conception we've created in our minds to explain how things SEEM to be...but really arent. Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be. p.s. Still no one has agreed with me without cause. if free will is staring me in the face as so many claim...why cant you exercise it and agree with me without cause, in a nonrandomn non spontaneous way? if its just a given that we have it...prove it...should be easy..and u should be able to do it right now...but u cant
| |||||||
|
CrazyShroomMan journeyman Registered: 05/30/04 Posts: 118 Last seen: 14 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
How about this, we DO have free will, we just (as living creatures) tend to make the choices that we think are the best. And yes this may depend on past events, but were past events not also our choice?
Of course we have free will, just because i wont drop everything ive done in my life to move to the beach doesnt mean i dont. Im just a living organism trying to make best for itself. Your just so convinced on this no one can show you any other way. The way you are saying it, yes it does sound like we dont have free will. But i think you are just making paradoxes with the human language, always falling back on the cause and effect system, and definitions. I have free will because i KNOW i have free will and no one can tell me different, sure things i have done or are doing affect how i make my choices, but thats ok because i chose how to live my life and i am still choosing how to live my life. Experience speaks louder than words
Edited by CrazyShroomMan (07/18/04 08:35 AM)
| |||||||
|
Floydian veteran Registered: 05/13/00 Posts: 1,022 |
| ||||||
|
Ok i've made it through most of this thread although i did skim quite a bit on the last few pages.
The two sides of the arguement seem to be this: either we are slaves to circumstance and have absolutely no control over our lives and the choices we make. Or we have a certain amount of freedom to make choices of our own volition. I tend to see it as a combo of both of these. We have the freedom to choose but circumstances (that are often totally out of our control) usually dictate the choices we make. But after reading all the arguements I'm left with one question: SO WHAT? Whether you believe we have free will or not what difference does it make? How does one's perspective on this issue effect their life? Even if this ancient debate were finally resolved and we found the true answer, would it make any difference in our lives?
| |||||||
|
Floydian veteran Registered: 05/13/00 Posts: 1,022 |
| ||||||
|
Another thought i had while readin through all the posts.
I find it interesting to see someone like ZenGecko who is so convinced he is a slave to circumstances argue so passionately. It seems to me he is attempting to get people to choose to see things from his perspective and yet doesnt believe they have the freedom to make this choice.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Interesting perspective, Floydian.
In retrospect of this debate, a certain rumination has emerged from the depths of thought which revolves around the question of what core values, core emotions, intrinsic psychological intricacies that people, and in this case, the debators, are built upon which drives them towards the specific side of the debate that they intellectually battle from. In the absence of validated facts, I have a hunch that there is a combination of raw emotions that propell people to take faith in the concept that we have no free-will; for instance, one might find comfort in the belief of determinism if they lack confidence to take responsibility for how they live their life, to take control and make their dreams come true, et cetera, et cetera. A less kinder way to put it would be "an excuse" or "cop-out". By that same token, those who believe in free-will may hold such beliefs in fear of believing they have no control over what they do and what direction they will take in their life, and so forth. Before some of you get your thongs in a bunch, I will dictate that I am not applying my observation in all concreteness to everybody, involved or otherwise. It is simply an analytical observation of the psychology behind some of the chosen paths of belief systems. 
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
no!!!! you must take a stance!!!!
hey so wait a minute since we are going out on long limbs here...how about this one?? we experience what free will is like (so we don't go crazy and so we believe in the lie of seperation from god) but we really don't have free will. hmmmmmmmmmmm       
-------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
ok first....
"How about this, we DO have free will, we just (as living creatures) tend to make the choices that we think are the best. And yes this may depend on past events, but were past events not also our choice? Of course we have free will, just because i wont drop everything ive done in my life to move to the beach doesnt mean i dont. Im just a living organism trying to make best for itself. " This means exactly that dont have free will, your always going to do what it is your nature to do, given all the circumstances (evironment/genetics) which have made you who you are, made you have the nature that you do. cause effect, cause effect.... so on and on. Next.... " I have free will because i KNOW i have free will and no one can tell me different, sure things i have done or are doing affect how i make my choices, but thats ok because i chose how to live my life and i am still choosing how to live my life. Experience speaks louder than words" If this arguement holds true, then as long as i firmly beilieve im Jesus Christ then i am. Your talking about a subjective truth here. Yes if i really believe it then in my own little world it is true, or perhaps more accurately it is as good as true, the same way a lie is as good as true to the one who believes it. But im talking about the existance of free will on an objective level in regards to our every day/current mode of existance as individuals. Now if your argueing that there is only subjective truth, well then thats another arguement, though it may pertain to this one... so if you can prove that no objective truth exists with out a doubt (that in itself would be an objective truth wouldnt it?) then you win As far as pointing out paradoxs, and semantics...these illustrate the failure of language and at times even conception, thats why i do it. But these definitions are supposed to be what we've generally agreed these words mean. But just because there is a word for it, doesnt make it real, beyond just being a conception, quite likely a misconception at that(a lie). The paradoxs may point to a truth that is beyond conception, and that truth may allow for free will, im simply arguing that all the LOGICAL evidence points to us not having any practical degree of Free will in our current mode of being. Floyd... It cant be a combination of the two..i see no logical way for the existance of limited freedom...thats an oxymoron...a nonsequiter. The definition of freedom prohibits it from being limited by its very nature...unless you define freedom as just being whatever it is you do, but thats not how we generally think of freedom, thats why i feel it along with the idea of "choice" are both just mental conceptions created because of an incomplete/inaccurate experience of reality as a whole. More then arguing whether we have these things or not..im saying that they dont even really exist, except in the same way that a lie exists. But as for the rest of what u've said... I to find it intresting that i argue so passionately...all i can say is that is my nature, arguing helps me to flesh out my own beliefs and find answers or new questions, sometimes people bring up something i've never realized, and sometimes that changes my beliefs radically...so far that has not happened in this thread, but the attempts have helped me to expand this arguement and my beliefs concerning the subject. But i cant help but do this given all the circumstances at the moment proceding my action. I have to write this post, i couldnt help myself..at best all i can do is be aware of what im doing, but the degree to which im aware isnt up to me, and hopefully i can be ok with the uncertainy of it all..but again thats not up to me. I am who i must be at this moment and could be no one else, and i do what i have to in any given moment given the circumstances. Frankly i wish i did have free will...i just cant buy into it...seems like if i really had it i should just be able to choose to believe in it...but i cant, i've tried. As for what difference it makes...not alot like u said, we are all going to do what we are going to do, and even as one who does not believe in free will i still CANT HELP BUT TO ACT as if i did much of the time...ironic, but logical given the circumstances Sincerely, That which is, and has no choice but to be.
| |||||||
|
deafpanda Stranger Registered: 05/07/04 Posts: 984 Loc: Inguland Last seen: 14 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
So what if freedom was redifined as "ability to do anything that does not violate the laws of nature"? Do you still not believe in free will?
I can't say I have strong feelings either way. There is little real evidence for either view, in my opinion, and I don't think it would make any difference either way. If it is an illusion, it is a good one. And if we don't have free will, what is the point? Life is a just a charade, a formality before some foregone conclusion. Someone who knew what determines our actions could predict what would happen at the end of everything, which would make it all a bit pointless, wouldn't it?
| |||||||
|
CrazyShroomMan journeyman Registered: 05/30/04 Posts: 118 Last seen: 14 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
Well im convinced.
Im gonna go smoke some pot and enjoy the ride 
| |||||||
|
Floydian veteran Registered: 05/13/00 Posts: 1,022 |
| ||||||
|
So all this prompted me to look up the word "freedom"/ "free" and "will" so i could have a more precise idea of what exactly we are talking about here. Of course there are several entries in my dictionary under these words, but i think these are most relevant to this arguement:
Free/Freedom 1. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. 2. the power to make ones own choices or decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy Will 1. the faculty of conscious and particularly of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions 2. power of choosing one's own actions Now with that in mind, my interperetation of the definition of "free will" is the ability to choose one's own actions without interference/constraint from within or without. Now after looking at it this way, the idea of free will is actually pretty easily dismissed. Because the human mind is irrevocably attatched to a physical world that will always exert some level of interference or constraint on ones choices (side thought: even if you experience ego loss or the apparent disolving of attatchment to the physical world under the influence of psychedelics you're still attatched to the physical world but maybe that's what makes the experience so amazing is that we get a little closer to actually attaining free will).
So i think i agree that "free will" doesnt exist. BUT I feel that just because "free will" doesnt exist doesnt mean that choice does not exist or that it is simply an illusion. We still have the ability to choose, it's just impossible to do so in a vacuum, so to speak. Meaning it's impossible to make a decision without some external or internal factor playing some role in the decision or choice. So in my eyes the non-existance of FREE will does not eliminate the WILL or choice. We still have the will to choose amoung the options presented to us in any given circumstance. When i choose which path i will take at a fork in the road, it is still ME making the decision, the choice is not made until ME, MYSELF AND I says I will take the left path or whatever. Sure it's not a "free" choice because countless variables will influence my decision. For example, I might have sensed danger from the right path for one reason or another and since i dont want to be harmed I choose the left path. But the choice still exists and I, ME yes ME made that choice. I guess a short and sweet way to sum up my perspective is we are not free but we are also not slaves. We do not rule our destiny but our destiny also does not rule us. And i think that is where most people (as well as me personally) are disagreeing with you Gecko. You seem to take it that one step further and say that choice doesn't exist and that we are helpless and have absolutely no influence over our own decisions whatsoever. I'm not completely sure if this is actually your perspective though, but this was the impression i got while reading through the thread. Anyway i find this perspective to be quite satisfying and me wonders how it will sit with others. let me know. Gotta love the dictionary for clearing up arguements like this.
Edited by Floydian (07/20/04 12:25 AM)
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Hmmm, do I spark up some Blueberry or some White Widow - decisions, decisions...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
ZenGecko enthusiast Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 285 Last seen: 3 years, 4 days |
| ||||||
|
no deaf, because then the laws of nature would limit our freedom, and limited freedom is an oxymoron, its completely illogical and false, just a misconception likely founded in our incomplete/incorrect perception of of reality as a whole.
As far as the point of it all...i dont know, my personal feeling is that the system has a will, or a purpose atleast, it may not have a free will, and all this is unfolding as the will/action of the system, so wether we believe in free will or not, we will still always do what we must do given the circumstances. Your going to get hungry, so you will eventually eat because u dont want to die, or u will let yourself die because the circumstances have made that desire stronger then the will to eat, u will alway do what u must do given the circumstances, regardless if u believe in free will or not, at best all u can do is just be aware of whats happening, how aware, enjoying it or not, isnt up to you..all u can do is be, and do whatever it is u must. and whichever if any swami will smoke will be what he had to do, he only has the illusion of choice, given exactly the same circumstances he will alway perform the same action, not choice...choice is an illusion, we just made up the whole idea of it, based on how things seem to be at first glance...or how we want them to be...we couldnt help it..it was caused to be
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
bump
--------------------
| |||||||
|
PhanTomCat Teh Cat....   Registered: 09/07/04 Posts: 5,908 Loc: My Youniverse... Last seen: 17 years, 22 days |
| ||||||
|
If a coin is tossed,
and no one sees the resultant landing before the coin is tossed again, was there ever really a coin toss result at all....? HHhhhmmmmmmm.... >^;;^< -------------------- 
"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Free will is bullshit. (  1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 ) |
 Phluck |
35,747 | 380 | 01/16/07 04:57 PM by Brugman |
|
 |
A Sound Argument for Free Will |  shroomydan |
2,970 | 17 | 10/11/04 08:21 PM by deff |
|
|
free will and insanity ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 NiamhNyx |
5,785 | 51 | 02/02/04 07:52 AM by kaiowas |
|
 |
fate - free will : paradox ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 11polakie11 |
6,066 | 42 | 05/15/03 01:34 AM by Sclorch |
|
 |
Reality and illusions and so forth... |  Sclorch |
2,770 | 15 | 06/24/02 12:32 PM by Sclorch |
|
|
materialism, determinism, and free will revisited |  Anonymous |
898 | 4 | 09/27/04 08:35 PM by deff |
|
|
Big Questions (comments on free will) ( 1 2 3 all ) |
Attackgecko |
5,074 | 49 | 04/22/07 10:23 PM by Phred |
|
 |
What is free will? ( 1 2 all ) |
 silversoul7 |
3,204 | 30 | 10/23/04 06:35 AM by fireworks_god |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 16,678 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||