Is Everything Predetermined?
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
- Status
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Can you please rephrase that ? I don't understand what you mean by that.
Well, according to Physicists Leon N. Copper and Deborah Van Vechten og the Brown University in 1969 they proclaimed that consciousness was lame without a collective group. Apparently, we need additional information from sources to be able to make sense of reality. One man is not enough.
We know that collective consciousness exists. The influence of the many determine the actions of the few. For instence, you can have a large group of people listening to Robbie Williams, and they all fall into the same quantum states.
The is an influence on a grand scale, and it is collective in much this sense of things. But where am i going with this?
Your environment depends on the way everybody else is acting, and usually, if you are conscious of this, you will be inexorably influenced by this. But this has nothing to do wth choice. It is something of a phenomena really.
Why do you think so many Germans rallied to Hitlers cause? Why do peace protestors have such an influence on world organizations? Why does the mood of a classroom depend on the nature of one nauty boy?
This is like a great sea of consciousness. We are never aware of our profound connections to other people, ad usually how they influence our own thoughts and feelings, but in the end, we are all subject to cause and effect, even on a macrosopic level. But even this level has profound relationships; these tiny statistical averages we call ''atoms''.
These atoms and molecules arrange themselves so that a field of consciousness can arise... Just so that a pool of collective thought can arise, and if they do, which they must, then we must now ask a question:
1. Are they on a preplanned course?
Because if they are, then the free consciousness is an illusion.
We know that collective consciousness exists. The influence of the many determine the actions of the few. For instence, you can have a large group of people listening to Robbie Williams, and they all fall into the same quantum states.
The is an influence on a grand scale, and it is collective in much this sense of things. But where am i going with this?
Your environment depends on the way everybody else is acting, and usually, if you are conscious of this, you will be inexorably influenced by this. But this has nothing to do wth choice. It is something of a phenomena really.
Why do you think so many Germans rallied to Hitlers cause? Why do peace protestors have such an influence on world organizations? Why does the mood of a classroom depend on the nature of one nauty boy?
This is like a great sea of consciousness. We are never aware of our profound connections to other people, ad usually how they influence our own thoughts and feelings, but in the end, we are all subject to cause and effect, even on a macrosopic level. But even this level has profound relationships; these tiny statistical averages we call ''atoms''.
These atoms and molecules arrange themselves so that a field of consciousness can arise... Just so that a pool of collective thought can arise, and if they do, which they must, then we must now ask a question:
1. Are they on a preplanned course?
Because if they are, then the free consciousness is an illusion.
Do you mean Pascal's Wager? That's a false dichotomy since there could hypothetically be gods which reward atheism.
Do you think free will is also a false dichotomy?
That's why I am the biologist and not you. You are not going to impress me with denial of biological dogma.
The whole debate can basicall be settled in four sentences.
1. Free will is exterted by thought.
2. Free will is only possible if thought is not contrained.
3. the brain generates thought
4. the function of the brain is to restrain thought.
ergo, no free will.
Obviously the evolutionary function of the brain is to make sure the organism has a good chance of reproducing; i am refering to function regarding the free will problem.
And if you don't believe me give me an example of free will and I will demolish it and show it is an example of restrained behaviour or thought.
Last edited:
1. Free will is exterted by thought.
2. Free will is only possible if thought is not contrained.
3. the brain generates thought
4. the function of the brain is to restrain thought.
That is very logical.
1. seems correct, if what we know as free will is indeed true.
2. again, that depends on what you define as free.
3. Yes.
4. I'm not sure what you mean. The brains function is to express thought, not restrain it.
2. Free will is only possible if thought is not contrained.
3. the brain generates thought
4. the function of the brain is to restrain thought.
That is very logical.
1. seems correct, if what we know as free will is indeed true.
2. again, that depends on what you define as free.
3. Yes.
4. I'm not sure what you mean. The brains function is to express thought, not restrain it.
A blinding light.
Indeed, it seems to us that the brain functions to express thought. And it does! However, it functions to express only certain thoughts. It functions to restrict thought, by allowing certain paths of thought that are useful to a certain level.
The brain is not finite. It has to distribute its resources. It does this by limiting patterns until the patterns become strong; learning. Many of these patterns are scripted. Some will always happen. Some will often happen. Some will never happen. The structure of the brain(as in physical structure and developmental constraints) is one that is restrained.
One might even argue that it is impossible to have an original thought, and indeed nobody ever had a true original thought.
Where is the free will in that? Nobody is capable of thinking outside the box, the box being your brain, the limiter of thought; the giver of restrained thought.
Plato and others with more than the common vision.
Yes you are correct it was Pascal, not Gauss (I work from my memory usually and got my great mathematician mixed up in this case.) Thanks for the correction.
Also thanks for noting this possibility of Gods who reward independent / evidence based / thought that concludes they do not exist.
Do you think (if they do exist) and I were to pray that they do, I would disqualify myself from their rewards by praying to them? I think I should "play it safe" and not pray to any Gods, until the nature of God (or Gods) is better established. What do you think? :shrug:Not completely sure what you are asking but there is a "dichotomy" IMHO between two mutually exclusive possibilites:
(1a) humans are actually extremely sophisitcated "biological robots" evolved by nature and 100% controlled by the way their existing physiology (primarily their neural / sensory tranducters interact with their enviroment and how the internal bio-chemical processes reflect up their way up thru the various levels one can use to describe the brain etc to eventually produce neural impulses (mainly in that part of the brain called the motor cortex and passing thru cerebellum for routine actions) which radiate to various mussels of the body and result movements.
All this can be automatic or if "thought like" processing is envolved, there are many other parts of the brain envolved, but generally, as many studies have shown, Sperious is at least correct here in that the major of these "thought-like" process activities are inhibitory and usually not even consciousness has access to these inhibitions. (Dr.Libet's experiments have been very important in helping this be realized. For example, Libet, via electrodes contacting parts of the brain was able to tell when subject would decide something, even before the subject was conscious that the decision was already made within his brain.)
(1b) Same as (1a), except part of the brain, very likely the parietal lobes, is while that human is not in deep sleep, is running a real-time simulation of the sensed environment and of the sensed body and creating the "self" with its perceptions. As this "self" is only an information process, 100% non-material, the laws of nature that apply to all material object, brain included, do not completely govern* it. I.e. Genuine free will may be possible and yet consistent with the laws of nature.
In both versions of (1) there are no "miracles" and (1a) & (1b) together form one half of a mutually exclusive dichotomy.
(2) Same as (1a) but at least sometimes, miracles do occur, so that thanks to this "miraculous outside intervention" by some unspecified agent (calling it a soul or God is the normal terminology) does occur. This is a "gift" that allows, when it occurs, exceptions to the usual rule of every molecule in the body by the laws of nature. I.e. "free will" in this POV is the diviation from strict very-advanced biological robot behavior of (1a) but as it is caused by the outside agent, it does seems, to me, strange to call it "human free will."
------------------
*Indirectly they generally still do as their evolutionary development has insured this is the normal case (no halucinations,etc) I.e. in the real-time simulation, "correct laws of nature" are normally enforced so one does not "think" they can safely walk out the 10 floor window etc. I.e. even though you and your perceptions, in my POV, are only information being processed in the world's most advanced computer, the logic of the program running reflects the laws of nature you have experienced while growing up (and probably some that came with your genetic endowment - for example all human babies fear falling - do not need to learn that can have adverse consequences.)
PS to SperiousM:
I am still waiting for your to explain how your high-level structures "over ride" the lower levels more basic neuro-transmitter effects in the one example I mentioned (Parkinson disease). Or even how you can AT THE HIGH STRUCTURAL LEVEL ONLY even explain Parkinson disease. I.e. until you do, it is clear you are wrong about the dominance and adequacy of the "structural level" to understand the functions of the brain.
Last edited by a moderator:
So free will does not exist.
What do you know? When you prove it to the world that free will does not exist- sure I will accept it..
One of Prince_James' posts showed free will doesn't exist or something. I'm not going to go find it as you guys seem perfectly capable of arguing here over the existance or non existance of free will/deterministic thought.
So I will leave that choir to you.
Yeah though...
Does seem certainly like I can make my actions appear entirely free. What are these axioms or whatever to do with my choices. Have you explained for example how this is so?
I don't believe you have although I am not going to load my head which is already chalk full of thought and suffering with more bull. If you explain it in a better detail, that would be fantastic but you will not or ever could. If you could you would do it.
I haven't read the rest of the thread and I won't until I see something good.
Anyway, thanks for trying to show me that free will doesn't exist:shrug:
Hi existabrent,
Well, it is a very difficult thing to prove, if it can be proven at all. It turns out that it would be much easier to prove we have free-will, rather than trying to disprove it. There is no other way i can see to explain this, than to use a deductive analogy:
(I shall leave all the complications of the observer effect out of this, and the apparent lack of physical defined matter before the first conscious observer)...
1. Before there was life, there was just particles.
2. If we believe particles are random, then they randomly created the first life.
3. Life, such as humans think, thus thought must arise also out of the particles, because they do not simply arise from no where
4. If all the above is true, then 2. heavily influences 3. as it is stating that the random acts of particles are bringing into existence random thoughts, which are dilluding the observer, making her think they are independant of matter and totally unique to the ''observers choice''
There is another way to look at this, but it changes very little of the outcome, but it does hammer another nail into the ''non-free will theory.''
1. Before there was life, there was just particles
2. If we believe particles are predetermined, then they where meant to create the first life
3. Life, such as humans think, thus thought must arise also out of the particles, because they do not arise from nowhere
4. If all the above is true. then 2. heavily influences 3. as it is stating that determined acts of particles are bringing into existence predetermined thoughts, which are dilluding the observer, making her believe they are random to the choice to have emotions
Either way, determined or not, there is a viable arguement to show that we do not experience free-will.
Reiku :m:
Well, it is a very difficult thing to prove, if it can be proven at all. It turns out that it would be much easier to prove we have free-will, rather than trying to disprove it. There is no other way i can see to explain this, than to use a deductive analogy:
(I shall leave all the complications of the observer effect out of this, and the apparent lack of physical defined matter before the first conscious observer)...
1. Before there was life, there was just particles.
2. If we believe particles are random, then they randomly created the first life.
3. Life, such as humans think, thus thought must arise also out of the particles, because they do not simply arise from no where
4. If all the above is true, then 2. heavily influences 3. as it is stating that the random acts of particles are bringing into existence random thoughts, which are dilluding the observer, making her think they are independant of matter and totally unique to the ''observers choice''
There is another way to look at this, but it changes very little of the outcome, but it does hammer another nail into the ''non-free will theory.''
1. Before there was life, there was just particles
2. If we believe particles are predetermined, then they where meant to create the first life
3. Life, such as humans think, thus thought must arise also out of the particles, because they do not arise from nowhere
4. If all the above is true. then 2. heavily influences 3. as it is stating that determined acts of particles are bringing into existence predetermined thoughts, which are dilluding the observer, making her believe they are random to the choice to have emotions
Either way, determined or not, there is a viable arguement to show that we do not experience free-will.
Reiku :m:
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
there is no way we can objectively judge if we have free will or not. Testing free will is impossible. What is humanely possible is to write tonnes of sophistry meaning and prooving nothing. That's for forums are for, after all
wtf.
At least I am bringing some honesty to the discussion maybe.
How is it not possible.
It is entirely objective if we have free will or not.
These tomes of sophistroy?
Gee man you must be one hell of a depressed guy or whatever. Seriously though. It proves a whole lot. All you got to do is to find that meaning for yourself.
At least I am bringing some honesty to the discussion maybe.
How is it not possible.
It is entirely objective if we have free will or not.
These tomes of sophistroy?
Gee man you must be one hell of a depressed guy or whatever. Seriously though. It proves a whole lot. All you got to do is to find that meaning for yourself.
Interesting approach, and I tend to agree with the conclusion, but this argument does not really exclude free will of the form described in my essay or very briefly as (1b) in my last post (72).
To clearly see this is the case, start with fact that the particles can not think, follow the same four steps, and then conclude that thinking is impossible, does not exist.
The very nature of evolution is that it can and does produce more complex things (by "trial and error") from more simple things. Your agrument does not exclude the possibility that evolution has produced both "thought" and/or "free will."
despite this observation I again state that I tend to think genuine free will does not exist, but (1b) and my essay's discussion show that it is at least possible (can be consistent with nature's physical rules) that it may.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status