kx000
Valued Senior Member
Thought that he opened it? How does one think they have done something before it has been done?
Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
Thought that he opened it? How does one think they have done something before it has been done?
you mean as in laboring under the illusion of free will?
that would render this thread pretty much moot then would it not?
Please, go away and learn English. Thought that he chose.
Moot? We have no choice but to participate!
kx000
Valued Senior Member
God doesn't do business like that. It makes little difference to God if this science project called man works out.
God did not make him think this is what he wanted, the man willed and this thread is now in existence.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Im not trying to convince anyone. I am not a preacher.
No, you're someone who is either too lazy or too ignorant to bother supporting empty declarations.
It's quite simple: if there is no free will then what we do isn't a choice. We're simply doing what we were intended to do.
It's quite simple: if there is no free will then what we do isn't a choice. We're simply doing what we were intended to do.
If there IS freewill then we do have a choice.
So what is it about his choice that begs the question of freewill?
jan.
Oh dear.
Let's take it from the top:
You: If you chose to open this thread, then ye.
Me: What if he didn't "choose" but simply thought he did?
There is no evidence that he chose to open the thread.
If you assume free will then you can assume it was a choice.
If you assume not then it wasn't a choice but a foregone conclusion that he would do so.
And so far it hasn't been proven either way.
egad..there should be a Forum titled 'Free Will discussions'..
someone usually starts a new thread at least once a month about it..
how many forums has this been discussed in?
haven't we discussed it to death yet??
does free will exist if one can't resist the desire to start a new thread on free will?
@Crunchy Cat --
I tend to go along with Thomas Hobbes in postulating the free will is a freedom from some, but not all, physical constraints in regards to our decision making. So while we may not be able to spontaneously decide to fly without mechanical assistance, we are absolutely free to choose from our available decisions.
@Jan --
But did I choose or do I merely think that I chose? Do I have free will or merely the illusion of free will? This is a legitimate question because, like most questions, experience alone can not answer it. If I am merely under the illusion of free will there would be absolutely no way for me to determine this merely by experience.
However this doesn't mean that we're entirely blind on the subject. Neurology, for example, has found that our actions with regard to movement are not subject to conscious decision the way that our experience would indicate they are. The bits of the brain responsible for movement light up under an fMRI a split second before the "decision" to move is registered by the brain. Also, under close and careful scrutiny the sense of self, the "I" in "I think" and "I feel", has an alarming tendency to disappear. This is something that various yogis and spiritualists have been describing for centuries and we've now confirmed that their experiences are due to a shut down of the "ego center" of the brain.
I don't know if this is an argument against the existence of free will or not, but it's sure not evidence for it.
But wouldn't free will necessitate that our brain processes, our ability to think and choose, be free from the physical law of cause and effect? Else it wouldn't be free at all and would be deterministic by nature.
Actually the definition of reality is irrelevant to my question as my question is essential for accurately defining reality in the first place.
If free will exists(premise), then does it necessitate a non-physical component to reality(question)? Regardless of one's personal beliefs about reality, this requires a yes or no answer. Deliberately being vague is an avoidance tactic, nothing more.
I tend to go along with Thomas Hobbes in postulating the free will is a freedom from some, but not all, physical constraints in regards to our decision making. So while we may not be able to spontaneously decide to fly without mechanical assistance, we are absolutely free to choose from our available decisions.
@Jan --
But did I choose or do I merely think that I chose? Do I have free will or merely the illusion of free will? This is a legitimate question because, like most questions, experience alone can not answer it. If I am merely under the illusion of free will there would be absolutely no way for me to determine this merely by experience.
However this doesn't mean that we're entirely blind on the subject. Neurology, for example, has found that our actions with regard to movement are not subject to conscious decision the way that our experience would indicate they are. The bits of the brain responsible for movement light up under an fMRI a split second before the "decision" to move is registered by the brain. Also, under close and careful scrutiny the sense of self, the "I" in "I think" and "I feel", has an alarming tendency to disappear. This is something that various yogis and spiritualists have been describing for centuries and we've now confirmed that their experiences are due to a shut down of the "ego center" of the brain.
I don't know if this is an argument against the existence of free will or not, but it's sure not evidence for it.
But wouldn't free will necessitate that our brain processes, our ability to think and choose, be free from the physical law of cause and effect? Else it wouldn't be free at all and would be deterministic by nature.
Actually the definition of reality is irrelevant to my question as my question is essential for accurately defining reality in the first place.
If free will exists(premise), then does it necessitate a non-physical component to reality(question)? Regardless of one's personal beliefs about reality, this requires a yes or no answer. Deliberately being vague is an avoidance tactic, nothing more.
@Gustav --
I'm attempting to generate discussion, not two or three sides belting their viewpoints as loudly as possible. Your hostile tone isn't exactly conducive to that. Besides, framing philosophical questions about matters which are traditionally held to be theological involves a lot of piddle as otherwise people tend to get more than a bit pissy, more pissy even than you.
I'm attempting to generate discussion, not two or three sides belting their viewpoints as loudly as possible. Your hostile tone isn't exactly conducive to that. Besides, framing philosophical questions about matters which are traditionally held to be theological involves a lot of piddle as otherwise people tend to get more than a bit pissy, more pissy even than you.
hehe
yes, it necessitates a non-physical component to reality
i call this a soul
it also necessitates a second non-physical component to reality
i call this a troll
what, the savior crap?
stop primping then kiddo
yes, it necessitates a non-physical component to reality
i call this a soul
it also necessitates a second non-physical component to reality
i call this a troll
what, the savior crap?
stop primping then kiddo
Last edited:
Decisions made by the will would have to depend on something, for choice; otherwise nothing would be chosen and nothing would ever happen, not even just continuing instead of not or doing something else.
The will collapses scenarios of consequences the best it can from what one has become. A soul would not help, but just be a further dependency, unless it is a seen as a mini-first cause, and then it would be worthless, as it has no input to give. Besides, there is no basis for a soul. What about random? Maybe good for a tie, but senseless and worthless the rest of the time, plus what would be behind the random to regulate it?
The will collapses scenarios of consequences the best it can from what one has become. A soul would not help, but just be a further dependency, unless it is a seen as a mini-first cause, and then it would be worthless, as it has no input to give. Besides, there is no basis for a soul. What about random? Maybe good for a tie, but senseless and worthless the rest of the time, plus what would be behind the random to regulate it?