The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

The "being petty" was referring to Quantum Quack's last post.
Not your initial comment, which was duly noted and clarification put forth.
To have him subsequently pick out a single line rather than read the explanation as a whole I consider to be petty.
And rather pointless on his part.
I accept that of you, and your posts highlighting the matter were fairly worded.
However I find Quantum Quack's subsequent posts on the matter to have ulterior motives.
Such as a desire to score points.
Although he will undoubtedly plead innocence.

You are being paranoid and over sensitive...
please clarify the line you reckoned I took out of context.
I was merely agreeing with NMSquirrels concern that he posted #:

post #512
sounds like you are getting into the realm of Politically Correct.. or spin doctors.
make your premise fit the conclusion.. etc..

my post #513

Probably unintended but this reeks.. sorry!

referring to yours

post#511
It may be that no definition will get to the conclusion required.

then and only then do you offer an explanation with post #514

Why does it reek?
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

It's called problem-solving.
If I want to know what is required to get something to the top of a building, I can start with some fairly rudimentary equipment (i.e. premises).
E.g. a ladder.
When analysis shows that it is impossible to get something to the top of the building with that equipment (e.g. the ladder is insufficiently tall), all I have in fact done is show that it is impossible if I start with that equipment.
So I change equipment.
Then reassess whether it is now possible.
In that way I can understand what is required to get something to the top of a building.
It might be that my change in equipment is too much and that I didn't need everything.
So I begin to work out exactly what might be required to reach the top of the building.
And from there one can establish what is necessary.

So no, it does not reek.
It merely approaches the question from a different angle.
By asking what might be required for freewill to be genuine.
And from that to what is necessary for freewill to be genuine.
If what is necessary can be shown also not to be possible (given our understanding of the universe) then we would have learnt that genuine freewill itself is impossible.

and now you have the irrational accusation levied at me that I somehow knew of your explanation before you posted it...

I do hope you realize that some people actually take fora reading time seriously and note the sequence of events accordingly.

and changing reality to fit the outcome stinks! Sorry but that idea just throws the scientific method out the window .... however, in all fairness, from what I gather from your explanation quoted above, you are suggesting a process I would call brainstorming, that is apply abstracted premises to explore possibilities and this has significant merit when attempting to problem solve intractable issues such as this one.
Example : God can indeed exist as long as we change that which we use to define him [ it]

But the fact that it is possible for a God to exist in a physical sense doesn't necessarily mean that he does. That is up to the scientific method to sort out. [ to the best of it's ability]
As far as point scoring is concerned your post and subsequent posts have handed them to me on a platter. I didn't have to do anything...

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't.
It does nothing to tackle any a priori assumptions you might hold about the nature of freewill.
The only result will be that you, rightly or wrongly, reinforce your preexisting views.

Well ... in all the discussion I have read on this issue of freewill being an illusion of cause and effect not once has any one dealt with the reality of an "empty chair" or a blank piece of paper, or a empty canvas sitting in front of a painter, or a blank form field used to post a comment in a sci forum.

The only reason that the issue of "absence or emptiness or nothingness" can not be addressed properly here is because the fear that you may actually have to grant merit to the argument and grant me some points. A severe form of intellectual envy if you really want to get into it. Or the fact that movement is only possible if there is nothing present to prevent it for happening.

headlines:

The long running [over 100 years with no head way made] debate on the nature of freewill
suddenly takes a massive turn with the posts offered at sciforums.com by... blah blah blah...​

and personally I don't give a rats arse about either...scoring points or actually contributing to the future of this debate. My primary concern is in other matters to do with communication more than content. How "self-esteem" paranoia is driving the desire to "block" or obstruct progress.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus

Within a system the COG is "caused" by the bonding of the various atoms.

And what pray tell manifests the COG of those "various" atoms?
And what pray tell causes the "bonding" between atoms?
take a guess!

 

[Baldeee]

Well ... in all the discussion I have read on this issue of freewill being an illusion of cause and effect not once has any one dealt with the reality of an "empty chair" or a blank piece of paper, or a empty canvas sitting in front of a painter, or a blank form field used to post a comment in a sci forum.

Maybe when you can show the reality of "nothing" then people will start to take you seriously.

The only reason that the issue of "absence or emptiness or nothingness" can not be addressed properly here is because the fear that you may actually have to grant merit to the argument and grant me some points. A severe form of intellectual envy if you really want to get into it.

Wow.
You have a serious inferiority complex.
And an overinflated sense of significance of your notion.
For which you have no coherent argument in support.
As Sarkus pointed out to you on number of occasions, you jump from claim to conclusion.
And even your claim seems baseless.

So yes, it is highly likely that people dismiss your notion here out of intellectual envy.
Because we dont want to give you points.
You believe that if it makes it easier for you.

and personally I don't give a rats arse about either...scoring points or actually contributing to the future of this debate. My primary concern is in other matters to do with communication more than content. How "self-esteem" paranoia is driving the desire to "block" or obstruct progress.

If you have no interest in contributing to this thread, why post?
Start a new thread if you have other aims.
But of course, always think that people who counter your claims do so out of some "self-esteem" paranoia or a desire to block you and block progress.
Rather than because your notions are flawed or simply unsupported.
I find your attitude here rather immature.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe when you can show the reality of "nothing" then people will start to take you seriously.
Wow.
You have a serious inferiority complex.
And an overinflated sense of significance of your notion.
For which you have no coherent argument in support.
As Sarkus pointed out to you on number of occasions, you jump from claim to conclusion.
And even your claim seems baseless.

So yes, it is highly likely that people dismiss your notion here out of intellectual envy.
Because we dont want to give you points.
You believe that if it makes it easier for you.

If you have no interest in contributing to this thread, why post?
Start a new thread if you have other aims.
But of course, always think that people who counter your claims do so out of some "self-esteem" paranoia or a desire to block you and block progress.
Rather than because your notions are flawed or simply unsupported.
I find your attitude here rather immature.

if your counter claims made sense then I am all ears... go for it


I believe the issue of "nothing, absence etc" is pivotal to the further understanding of this issue of freewill being a cause and effect illusion or not. This I am extremely confident of.

well... go for it... let's see where it leads.
Go on use that "empty" form field and post your contra?

and possibly describe how enabling to your self determination the "blankness" of that form field is to you?
I have already posted heaps in support of the reality of nothingness. blankness, emptiness, zero, void, oblivion unconsciousness... what more do you need?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I have already posted heaps in support of the reality of nothingness. blankness, emptiness, zero, void, oblivion unconsciousness... what more do you need?

oK a fresh start.!!!

Give an example of how "nothingness" gives rise to free will.!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

oK a fresh start.!!!

Give an example of how "nothingness" gives rise to free will.!!!

answer this question for yourself:

Does the blank form field you are filling in to respond to this post in any way determine what you type into that field?
What ramifications are there to the answer you derive and agree with?

 

[Motor Daddy]

The guy on the radio was just talking about the difference between animals and humans, in that humans can make up their mind to change their body and animals can't/don't. For example, we can decide to eat less and lose weight, or we can decide to get stronger, and we start working out. Do animals do that?

So it made me wonder if the reason is that we have language in our heads and they don't. If they did have language in their head, ie, they think in language, then it seems like it would be almost sure that their language would have the concept of "stronger" and they would think to get stronger, and do it. But they don't, do they?

We do, though! So we have "free will" to choose to get stronger, or lose weight. Do they have "free will" in that way if they can't choose to "get stronger"?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Give an example of how "nothingness" gives rise to free will.!!!

answer this question for yourself:

Ha... QQ has the answrs... but he ant tellin... :wave:

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ha... QQ has the answrs... but he ant tellin... :wave:

no point me tellin...been there done that, if you can't work it out for yourself it goes nowhere... [ nature of understanding is to be able to work it out for yourself]
and besides that, I ain't got no answers but only more questions to offer than those already asked. Ancient Greek, Parmenides asked some of the right questions as did Zeno IMO.
so:

Answer this question for yourself:

Does the blank form field you are filling in to respond to this post in any way determine what you type into that field?
What ramifications are there to the answer you derive and agree with?

We are really talking about the blankness of the form, the empty space waiting for content and how it is only you who can determine what that content is, therefore one can conclude that you are self determining the content with out any influence from the blank form other than it's utility. You are working with a blank slate and that's the point about "nothing ness and how every choice we make is an act of creation or creative improvisation. Now if you have the nouse and the inclination to extend a little have a think about the old paradox "Ex-nihilo" and how the above may in some way relate to "out of nothing comes something"

 

[Sarkus]

@Sarkus

And what pray tell manifests the COG of those "various" atoms?
And what pray tell causes the "bonding" between atoms?
take a guess!

The COG is merely the apparent point in a system through which gravity appears to act. It is manifest through the aspects of atoms that give them mass, and their subsequent interaction with gravity. Each atom has its own COG, but it is the combined effect and interaction of those molecules that give it the apparent property of having a single point through which gravity can be said to act for that system.

As for what causes the bonding, that would be the electrostatic force of attraction between nuclei and electrons etc. As for the mechanism, that would depend on which type of bonding you're referring to: covalent, ionic, dipole, hydrogen etc.

So how was my guess?

If you think "nothing" is somehow involved, please feel free to enlighten.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe the issue of "nothing, absence etc" is pivotal to the further understanding of this issue of freewill being a cause and effect illusion or not. This I am extremely confident of.

To the point that that is more or less all you have to support it: your confidence.

I have already posted heaps in support of the reality of nothingness. blankness, emptiness, zero, void, oblivion unconsciousness... what more do you need?

You have posted nothing other than displays of your confidence and, as mentioned previously, a linguistic conceit to infer the existence of "nothing". You have also failed to show how you go from your claim, unsupported as it is, to the notion that freewill is anything other than illusory. Even accepting that "nothing" exists, all you have argued is that there exist genuine options (I.e. genuine by dint of their being "nothing" preventing us from moving into that space) yet you continually fail to show how the decision in which empty space to move is made, and is "free". You just continue to jump to that conclusion.

So, as seemingly is always the case, you have an unsupported claim and then jump from there to your conclusion.
And all you have behind it is confidence and an array of people who have pointed out flaw after flaw after flaw.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The COG is merely the apparent point in a system through which gravity appears to act. It is manifest through the aspects of atoms that give them mass, and their subsequent interaction with gravity. Each atom has its own COG, but it is the combined effect and interaction of those molecules that give it the apparent property of having a single point through which gravity can be said to act for that system.[

sure a Lagrangian point or culminate Center of gravity and that culminate point has what dimension?
or stick to classical meanings and ask what are the dimensions of Lagrangian points in a two or more body system.

The hard cold logic is that if it is of 3 dimensions it has a center and if it is of mass which it has to be to have 3 dimensions then that center is a center of gravity. Apply the method of exhaustion that Zeno or Parmenides used [ and Isaac Newton and Heisenberg did too I might add ] and discover for your self that there can be only one ultimate conclusion.

As for what causes the bonding, that would be the electrostatic force of attraction between nuclei and electrons etc. As for the mechanism, that would depend on which type of bonding you're referring to: covalent, ionic, dipole, hydrogen etc.

So how was my guess?

just that guesses... [chuckle]

 

[Quantum Quack]

To the point that that is more or less all you have to support it: your confidence.
You have posted nothing other than displays of your confidence and, as mentioned previously, a linguistic conceit to infer the existence of "nothing". You have also failed to show how you go from your claim, unsupported as it is, to the notion that freewill is anything other than illusory. Even accepting that "nothing" exists, all you have argued is that there exist genuine options (I.e. genuine by dint of their being "nothing" preventing us from moving into that space) yet you continually fail to show how the decision in which empty space to move is made, and is "free". You just continue to jump to that conclusion.

So, as seemingly is always the case, you have an unsupported claim and then jump from there to your conclusion.
And all you have behind it is confidence and an array of people who have pointed out flaw after flaw after flaw.

well if you can't understand a simple idea like the blankness of a form field that you use to post with, then I am sorry but you are in over your head...

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sakus,
It's the same logic that surrounds the notion that the center of an infinite space is any where you choose (it) to be.

it is you and what makes you you that is doing the choosing but you are free to choose a center any where. Thus the reality of self determination can be logically established.

 

[Sarkus]

sure a Lagrangian point or culminate Center of gravity and that culminate point has what dimension?
or stick to classical meanings and ask what are the dimensions of Lagrangian points in a two or more body system.

The hard cold logic is that if it is of 3 dimensions it has a center and if it is of mass which it has to be to have 3 dimensions then that center is a center of gravity. Apply the method of exhaustion that Zeno or Parmenides used [ and Isaac Newton and Heisenberg did too I might add ] and discover for your self that there can be only one ultimate conclusion.

The only conclusion to reach is that you are looking to show that an abstract notion such as a COG has no physicality, or exists as a zero-dimensional point, and thus trying to use that in support of the notion that "nothing" exists.
If you can't see this as a logically flawed notion on your part from the outset then it would explain why you continue to peddle such examples.

just that guesses... [chuckle]

The scientific community eagerly await your "answers" then.

 

[Sarkus]

@ Sakus,

It's the same logic that surrounds the notion that the center of an infinite space is any where you choose to be.

No it's not. There is no centre to an infinite space. It can be set arbitrarily, so it is not where one chooses to be, but where one chooses it to be.

it is you and what makes you you that is doing the choosing but you are free to choose a center any where. thus self determination is established.

And you so succinctly show how that you jump from claim to conclusion with nothing in between.
You speak nothing of how the decision is reached. The "self-determination" being more than mere appearance is nothing but an a priori assumption on your part and you beg the question.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The only conclusion to reach is that you are looking to show that an abstract notion such as a COG has no physicality, or exists as a zero-dimensional point, and thus trying to use that in support of the notion that "nothing" exists.
If you can't see this as a logically flawed notion on your part from the outset then it would explain why you continue to peddle such examples.
The scientific community eagerly await your "answers" then.

hmm... well maybe I am wrong... how big do ya reckon it is? You know, the center of mass point? [cog point]

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sakus,
No it's not. There is no centre to an infinite space. It can be set arbitrarily, so it is not where one chooses to be, but where one chooses it to be.
And you so succinctly show how that you jump from claim to conclusion with nothing in between.
You speak nothing of how the decision is reached. The "self-determination" being more than mere appearance is nothing but an a priori assumption on your part and you beg the question.

you don't seem to grasp the fact that it is irrelevant as to how a decision is reached. The decision is reached by the self making it and that is all that matters.
The causal chain stops with us and then it is up to the self determiner to make [create] what he wishes of it. [aka freewill]
Whether or not a person takes advantage of their freedom to choose is also irrelevant. The freedom of a blank form field for example, is there whether you wish to make use of that freedom or not. We humans a quite happy about choosing our oppressions - causes [eg. rules of logic, math, science language, legal, domestic relationships, mother inlaws etc] for without oppression, self-restraint, self-control, we would be totally insane.

 

[Quantum Quack]

deleted : repeat post