keep this up and this thread will surpass Star Trek vs Star Wars thread...
(proof free will exists..)(if it didn't this thread would have ended pages ago)
(proof free will exists..)(if it didn't this thread would have ended pages ago)
The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
Ah, if only any of that were true.
One could also argue that the inability of people not to post in this thread is evidence of a lack of freewill?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that the idea of free-will is fundamental to how human beings naturally understand and interpret their own behavior and the behavior of others. Arguably it's most important in ethics.
People think of other people (and themselves as well) as agents, as beings capable of acting, as beings to which the idea of moral blame is applicable.
If people are just puppets, if all of their behavior is fully determined by the details of their external environment, by things other than themselves in other words, then there's an obvious difficulty in explaining how a human being can be said to be responsible for anything.
Last edited:
@ Sarkus, You claimed that "nothing" was a non issue , that it didn't "exist" as such. I responded by mentioning unconsciousness and how this is evidence of the experience of "nothing".
Do you you still deny that "nothingness" is not available to the human experience?
I fulfilled your request for demonstrable evidence of nothing and you have made every effort to avoid that evidence.
And if that is not enough try the existence of death and how that relates to the issue...
[no I am not going to do the work for you...you gotta work stuff out for yourself you know!]
Do you you still deny that "nothingness" is not available to the human experience?
I fulfilled your request for demonstrable evidence of nothing and you have made every effort to avoid that evidence.
And if that is not enough try the existence of death and how that relates to the issue...
[no I am not going to do the work for you...you gotta work stuff out for yourself you know!]
Perhaps in animals the capacity to work with nothing in a way that is cognizant is diminished. Perhaps if animals were more significantly aware of "death" they may exhibit a greater ability to act freely.
Personally I tend to feel that humans chronically underestimate their own position in the universal scheme of things and how reflected and manifested in every human body/mind is the entire universes structural, laws, physics and life, from ex-nihilo to the temporal manifestation of time and existence itself.
IMO there is no doubt that free will is pre-wired into the human form no doubt about it at all, and what is more it is not a perceptive illusion as the genesis of freewill strikes at the very core of universal structural integrity. It is little wonder that humans have historically subscribed to the notion that freewill, life, consciousness, unconsciousness, death and theistic notions are all associated.
"Ya gotta realize that zero, nothing , zilch, oblivion, unconsciousness is the only absolute universal constant we have."
so IMO we are not just talking about a biological perception but an outcome of that universal constant.
Easy to explain... if people are just puppets... then they are not responsible for anythang.!!!
and that issue has haunted the religious nutters for eons...and it appears it still haunts the scientists as well...
Compare:
Religious doctrine:
"I didn't do it.. God made me do it!"
Scientific doctrine:
"I didn't do it my hormones made me do it!"
bah!
You see, if we agree that freewill is an illusion of cause and effect we are basically blaming the universe for our decisions. How is this any different to blaming a God for the same thing?
The only difference is the title, either universe [Pantheistic] or God..[theistic]. a linguistic conceit as Sarkus may claim... [chuckle]
Last edited:
Your response was critiqued appropriately in my posts above. Your example was shown to be woefully inadequate by being nothing but a conceit of language: you require the impossibility of being able to experience when in a state of non-experience, and you deem it possible purely through, as explained, a linguistic conceit.
But since when has explaining valid objections to your argument ever stopped you from posting the same line again and again, and never a hint from you of actually addressing those valid objections.
Ah, yes, we now move from the ability to experience "nothing" when unconscious to the ability to do "nothing" when dead.
You providing another example with the exact same issues as before does nothing to counter the objections raised. So I guess you'll just trot out the same lines again... and again... and again... without ever actually addressing anything. Sorry, by actually addressing "nothing".
ok...Your response was critiqued appropriately in my posts above. Your example was shown to be woefully inadequate by being nothing but a conceit of language: you require the impossibility of being able to experience when in a state of non-experience, and you deem it possible purely through, as explained, a linguistic conceit.
But since when has explaining valid objections to your argument ever stopped you from posting the same line again and again, and never a hint from you of actually addressing those valid objections.
Ah, yes, we now move from the ability to experience "nothing" when unconscious to the ability to do "nothing" when dead.
You providing another example with the exact same issues as before does nothing to counter the objections raised. So I guess you'll just trot out the same lines again... and again... and again... without ever actually addressing anything. Sorry, by actually addressing "nothing".
so you believe the universe is entirely responsible for ALL of your choices?
Fair enough... you really need to post your position in the religion fora... [chuckle]
Conflated:
God = C&E
Intelligent evolution
Intelligent design
omnipresent influences
cause and effect... [passive universal intelligence]
OMG... God is real!
hallelujah!
Im nether... so mayb thats why it dont haunt me
Who/what started life as we know it... thats whare the blame belongs... any clue.???
eh... off topic
eh... off topic
Im just teasing you :wave:
Reverse that and you have the evolution of intellegence.
Yet other animals are not saddled with the insanity of the human mind. Certain animals do demonstrate an awareness of death, for example, elephants and chimps.
Given the enormity of human superstition that wraps itself around the idea that humans are important, I would think we tend to exaggerate it.
99.9% (or more) of that structure and law went into the evolution of all DNA, whether meaningless little cells or big sulking primates.
The same could be said about pond scum, or the molecules that make up a dirt clod. That is, they can be regarded as spectacular examples of the recombination of materials that formed out of the Big Bang.
From our ape-like ancestors who had the will to survive, the will to reproduce and defend their brood, and all the complex and difficult things they did as all other simians did before them, and back down the tree to its root in jellyfish where the neuron (probably) first evolved . . . then back up to the flatworms who evolved primitive brains; then at some point after that, certainly by the time birds appeared, there was first a creature to sense its altricial (helpless) young. There is little in nature that compares to the will to protect the brood.
It actually strikes at the core of neurons, particularly the complex interactions they produce when integrated together.
Although now that the historical attribution of brain functions to superstitious causes has been overturned by science, we can now turn our attention to the facts and evidence available to us.
"Ya gotta realize that zero, nothing , zilch, oblivion, unconsciousness is the only absolute universal constant we have."
so IMO we are not just talking about a biological perception but an outcome of that universal constant.[/QUOTE]
Except for incidental phenomena, the cosmos stopped influencing the outcome of life after biological organisms first appeared. When neurons first evolved, they merely endowed primitive cnidaria with reflex responses -- just enough to close the umbrella around prey via tactile stimulation. When they integrated in planaria as ganglia, they enabled the centralized coordination of body systems. This was the beginning of a new level of evolution -- the evolution of the sentient brain. As you see, the external world has virtually no effect its development, other than the same pressures to fill every niche that were always present as purely biological interactions.
Yes strong determinism may not be true... but do you thank the "small indeterminacies" have causes... or are random... an how do you define "possibility-space".???
What determines what the "onboard data-processors" goals and purposes are... other than influences from the causal chain.???
I am aware of what wiki has to say on the matter. Was there something you intended to highlight that supported your position, or was it intended to show that you have finally understood the section on Language and Logic?
yes the seemingly more intelligent self determining of animals do demonstrate some awareness of death however perhaps if they were more aware of death than they are their self determining intelligence would be greater? Or is one directly related to the other.
ie. "
the more self determined the more aware of death" or is it "the more aware of death the more self determined", or is it a direct relationship of both coinciding... hmmmm...or none at all...
Maybe the need to avoid death is an evolutionary driver for self determining intelligence?
Interesting thought that is... hmmm...worth some research perhaps...
If I was to guess at a rough scale for self determination I would place
elephants at about 5/100
chimps at about 10/100
Most humans at about 40/100
Some humans at about 50/100
once we start traveling the stars
then humans would rate closer to 70/100
but our poor elephants , if they are not extinct by then, would still rate 5/100
...just stir-ing....
Last edited:
Only if you fail to understand what I mean by that term, despite me explaining it previously.
nah! just posted to support the post I made about the limitations of language on this subject...It appears that I have not been the only one:
I believe Aristotle was referring to the fact that Parmenides had concluded logically that movement was impossible. [As Zeno of Elea was also interpreted as saying] by the same school of thought. [Plato and ilk]
In my opinion Parmenides is quite correct except he failed to consider the temporal nature of cause and effect, nor did he consider that movement can only be determined relative to non-movement [ the vantage point from which we perceive from inside out heads [re: Peter Lynds, paper on Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity]
It could be contended that the ability to perceive the passage of time [ relative movement ] would be impossible unless viewed from a perspective of absolute rest. Absolute rest as you know is not possible according to Minkowski/Einstein space time and related theoretics and once the reviewing scientists realized Peter Lynds was contradicting Einstein they discredited his work after acclaiming it. ahh! Scientific politics! [*unqualified opinion only]
... and the only "thing" that can be at absolute rest is zero dimensional...[ in this space time paradigm in vogue at the moment ]
nah! you are just saying the same thing as the religions did or do except the religious people are clever enough to evangelize the belief that our "apparent" freedom/freewill is due to the grace of a God, which consolidates the notion of being agents, self responsible for our actions and choices.Only if you fail to understand what I mean by that term, despite me explaining it previously.
Last edited: