Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What things should not be known?
Perception is subjective, which means, it is the observer who interprets the information in his/her own unique way.
How do they know something is from the past or that no one else can see it? These are subjective experiences, no?
We all know things from the past. When we look at the sun, we see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. That's an objective statement, because the experience is the same for all observers.
Check out Anil Seth.
Ever watched the ABC series PSYCHIC KIDS , Wednesdays ? Probably not .
In this series those parents who couldn't fathom what these children experienced , now do .
Just saying
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I can guarantee that nobody can fathom what "information" anyone perceives and how they process that information. The brain in a vat can receive and process all sorts of information unbeknown to anyone else.
We live in a SR world.
If the brain functions at "quantum level" it is entirely possible to have experiences at that level, but even then it would be natural and nor supernatural. Problem is you can't get past QM. QM is an unseen world, but not supernatural.
Migrating geese use the earth's magnetic field for navigation. If a human had such abilities, they'd be considered as having supernatural abilities. If geese use it, it isn't supernatural. It's an evolved survival mechanism, no?
Whales (bats) use sonar for navigation. If a human had such abilities, they'd be considered as having supernatural abilities. If whales and bats use it, it isn't supernatural, is it?
It's an evolved survival mechanism, no?
Point is that what we consider extraordinary (supernatural) abilities in humans is common in the rest of the universe. Variations in species and brain functions allow for the evolution and interpretations of all sorts of subtle (unseen) influences. But never "supernatural".
But at no time is it possible for a natural organism to experience supernatural phenomena. They are by definition outside the physical (mental) experience of natural organisms.
We have not evolved the proper physical abilities to work in that reality. Don't forget, the claim is not that these abilities are natural abilities. The claim is that the abilities and experiences do not belong in this reality at all. A contradiction in terms.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If it is sensory it cannot be supernatural. It is an evolved ability.
If it is outside sensory ability, then it is pure fantasy, a product of the imagination.
You can't have it both ways.
To your first statement , It is an evolved ability .
To my second statement , is my point .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You cannot evolve supernatural abilities. They are useless as a survival mechanism (witness Jesus)
What scientifically acceptable value does "imagination" have, other than on an experimental or fictional level?
If I can imagine Pink Unicorns, does that mean they exist in reality, or do they belong in that "supernatural" plenum?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Of course. If you can imagine something and it makes you happy and intolerant and you can assert that you know you are right because it makes you feel good and indeed superior how can it not be so...or you could argue that your made up reality is not more precious than truth and that that reality is merely a subjective analysis of your personal fantasy but of course now elevated to being fact...that would be crazy... and those constructs that rely upon unevidenced fantasy are just..how can I put it..just BS...fancy of course..well no doubt I express an uninformed opinion but.... I imagine there is a god, a creator, and as my feel good meter is off the chart I know that I am right and the call from others for fancy "evidence" or "proof" just shows how right I am...how could I be wrong? There can be no better guidance than that offered by the ability to imagine god and to know all he or it is thinking all its thoughts all it wants and dictates. Although a mere mortal I am so happy god tells me everything..how do I know? Well I just know and as I feel strongly I can not be mistaken. Only a fool could think that imagining god and knowing its attributes was ..is not possible or indeed that the little thing talking to us at all times...is not all you need to know....except when we fall and become the miserable humans that should be punished with an eternity in hell..could not be anything other than god talking to me...and still although knowing hell is the only alternative I do not forget..God loves you.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
That post needs a tidy up but works best as is.
Alex
Alex
In aligning with the thread title...is free will possible? I'd say it's possible, but is it probable? Maybe that is where the talking past one another began...
If my choices feel like my own, if I perceive free will as actually happening...then, it could be possible. Just my opinion.
If my choices feel like my own, if I perceive free will as actually happening...then, it could be possible. Just my opinion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOL.....it works for me.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Of course ..the thread..back on track...free will exists outside a religious context, which of course in a nonsense, but free will is limited by the routine daily grind stuff..you have no free will to stop working if you have a mortgage and don't want to be cast out. Well you do but what choice will you make? Free will is governed by reality.
Such is reality far distant from any notion of ancient goat herders who did not know where the Sun went at night.
Focus upon reality it holds truth even if it cuts off notions irrelevant to the daily grind. Pragmatism is the only free will.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The problem for religion is...on the one hand God has it all worked out..all predetermined and that fits the crazy notion of a god of course..but all that means is there can not be free will as everything is already determined and as such there can be no free will..all must have their lines which they must deliver. On the other hand re free will..it's existence means no god..simple..but don't claim God exists because you choose to work to pay the bills.
Nonsense nonsense and more nonsense but let's discuss it as to do so it gives some reality for the BS to reside.
All the talk analysis etc brings god front of mind but how much better to show God exists..or not..god god ex primarily in the discussion of his existence with which he has no basis at all...what does God wear to dinner...forget that let's ask what basis does this BS offer to deserve rejection let alone sensible discussion.
Alex
Nonsense nonsense and more nonsense but let's discuss it as to do so it gives some reality for the BS to reside.
All the talk analysis etc brings god front of mind but how much better to show God exists..or not..god god ex primarily in the discussion of his existence with which he has no basis at all...what does God wear to dinner...forget that let's ask what basis does this BS offer to deserve rejection let alone sensible discussion.
Alex
A will that is free is impossible. If something will then that is determined by definition. To state what will (this will, that will) is determined. 
the same could be said for the pseudo science of hard determinism which leads to all sorts of contradiction.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
More over everyone thinks they are right.
And perhaps they are..except if they disagree with me. Just copying the mob.
So nice to see that you are still here as you have always been one of my favorite authors.
It is funny you know..I never feel that smart but coming back I realise that while away I regressed . Such a brilliant crew here.
Alex
(Except for things like size, number of toes, possession of certain capabilities, etc.)
Yep. Something I have been trying to beat into the heads of the deluded materialists here for months now.
Apparently that simple fact is easier to say than to think - they say that, and then they turn around and claim the capabilities humans possess are not "genuine", that human decisions are controlled step by step by a "universe" outside themselves and other than themselves, etc.
They say, in other words, that human control and "universe" control are separate and different things. That our observation of human control and decision and choice and capability and willed action and so forth is 99% illusory, because it's really "the universe" that determines what the human does (somehow - they tend to be bit vague on the subject of methods and means)
And they often pivot like that in the space of a sentence or two.
To repeat: Human beings are the means by which the universe makes the choices and determines the outcomes we see humans - often via acts of choice and willed behavior - make and determine. Among the characteristics, features, abilities, etc, determined by the universe to be possessed by this means, this tool if you will, is the ability to choose among various capabilities it possesses according to criteria it harbors internally, and act according to that choice by an effort of will. We observe this characteristic, feature, ability, etc, as a physical fact of human existence and behavior - objectively recorded and measured, replicable, demonstrated in the lab and in the world. We measure it - humans vary in the strength and reliability of their will to act according to their choice, in the variety and adequacy of the capabilities from which they can choose, etc. (They also vary in height and eye color, which for some reason nobody here denies. Go figure.).
They are observed physical capabilities, the facts of the matter. Their existence can be verified in mechanically compiled data sets - no human involved prior to evaluation.
They exist whether anyone imagines them or not, in other words. Humans often choose between them unconsciously.
The deluded materialist's denial of their existence is a prime example of the crippling effects the supernatural assumption can have.
Imagine what has to have happened to the thinking process of someone who claims - outright - that a driver approaching a traffic light lacks the capability of stopping if 1) the light will be green when they reach it and 2)they will choose to go if the light is green? That the capabilities of a driver going down a busy city street appear and disappear block by block with each new light they approach, according to choices they will make in the future?
For example on this forum and thread: That was one of the central features of the illustration - driver approaching light - that was missed by those who insisted on rewriting it - usually to make room for a vague and essentially meaningless comfort vocabulary ("genuine", etc.), always to avoid acknowledging that their determinism as assumed here conflicts with supernatural freedom only - that it is irrelevant to any discussion of freedom of will that has begun by excluding the supernatural.
Every discussion of free will or freedom of will on this forum within the past couple of years has begun by excluding the supernatural, by premise, by granted assumption.
So every post here that describes the determinism assumed here as conflicting with free will, freedom of will, etc, is therefore simply a waste of bandwidth, a confused irrelevancy - at best a preliminary to an actual discussion of freedom of will on this forum. They could be erased without any effect on a discussion of freedom of will here except the reduction of noise.
Which could begin at any time.
.
Last edited:
Your characterization of what is universe, and what is human is the key flaw in your argument. Your continued employment of the narrow perspective that views the human as an overly distinct member of the whole seems to cloud your perception of the actual unity that exists between all universal constituents. There is no border between you and the rest of the universe, the universe is embedded in every element of your being. For the sake of elementary analysis one can perspectively imagine such boundaries, but the reality is that due to the inherent unity assumed to to exist in the universal whole, such distinctions on a universal scale are pointless.
By compartmentalizing universal action into that of the universe vs that of humans, you invite the same distinctions to be applied in regard to the behavior of all universal entities. For example, it’s not the human performing thought, it’s done by a collection of neurons that are perspectively distinct from the human whole. Or, it’s not all of the neurons, but only a distinct set that actually performs the essential action to produce thought. You could continue these distinctions all the way down the material chain into the quantum realm, with innumerable claims of functional responsibility. But why bother, since it's actually the collective action of all universal elements that determines the actions of any of it’s parts and the whole.