The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
oh no..we solved the free will debate..
thread closed...
thread closed...
Is the defiance you speek of caused by random events... cause an effect... or somptin else.???
the cause of life is.... hmmm... How much money do you have to spend?
Ok... so the basis of you'r argument about free will is rooted in what you thank the cause of life is... so why wont you discuss it.???
Last edited:
No one does any such thing. The principle is that nothing can defy the laws, irrespective of what those laws are, and whether our understanding of them at present is correct or not.
You are the one trying to show that we defy the laws, but it is you who is doing so by assuming that the laws as currently understood are correct, and thus violation of that understanding would, from your position, would be tantamount to a victory. Your inability to do that aside, even if the current understanding is incorrect, the principle is that there is still an underlying law, and all you would have done is shown that the current understanding is incorrect, not that we are able to defy the natural laws.
But you're still struggling with showing how life defies the law of gravity, and instead merely argue along the lines of us evolving to overcome gravitational forces. Rather a different matter. At least its a difference that most people can see.
I have a law that says life will evolve to stand up against the laws of gravity.. does that mean I win or does that mean I loose... [thinking liars paradox,
]oh I understand what you are saying and in principle you end up with the issue of not being able to transcend your own senses and of course this makes the whole issue dead end. IMO.
I might add even if I could show that animated life would have to defy the basic and natural principles/law of gravitational attraction to evolve and become animated I still wouldn't really achieve a damn thing... not here any way. So no victory no matter what is deemed successful.
You may feel that you need to compete or that this is some sort of "tear down" "king of the castle" bullsh*t but I certainly don't.
well define the difference you see because for life to evolve so that it could over come gravitational attraction means it had to defy the laws of gravity to do so... starting with a lump of inanimated carbon or whatever substance you wish to choose describe how it manages to evolve to defy the laws of gravity to eventually evolve to stand up by use of self will...in the form of a human being?
nothing to discus as I don't know what causes life to evolve... does any one?
An interesting thought occurred:
Is the number and value of zero, just as illusion-ary as freewill? ... funny that.. should have thought of it before and really got up Sarkus's nose.... [ chuckle]
eh? What was that Sarkus?
Zero value doesn't exist yet it is probably the most important number and value we need and use every day.
A+B = C
because
C-(A+B) = 0
All values are relative to zero yet zero doesn't exist to be related to.
Freewill falls into the same category of paradox IMO..
therefore I would extend to suggest that the evolution of life, self animation etc, is due to a fundamental paradox.
A paradox I already know to exist and can be demonstrated using a simple high school lab experiment. It is also, in part, the issue that won Heisenberg the Nobel with the Uncertainty Principle.
So proving a fundamental paradox is real in this universe is a relatively easy exercise but a damn hard one for people to accept.. [the logical mind has great difficulty accommodating the reality of a paradox. Yet humans are masters at being paradoxical, IMO]
Is the number and value of zero, just as illusion-ary as freewill? ... funny that.. should have thought of it before and really got up Sarkus's nose.... [ chuckle]
eh? What was that Sarkus?
Zero value doesn't exist yet it is probably the most important number and value we need and use every day.
A+B = C
because
C-(A+B) = 0
All values are relative to zero yet zero doesn't exist to be related to.
Freewill falls into the same category of paradox IMO..
therefore I would extend to suggest that the evolution of life, self animation etc, is due to a fundamental paradox.
A paradox I already know to exist and can be demonstrated using a simple high school lab experiment. It is also, in part, the issue that won Heisenberg the Nobel with the Uncertainty Principle.
So proving a fundamental paradox is real in this universe is a relatively easy exercise but a damn hard one for people to accept.. [the logical mind has great difficulty accommodating the reality of a paradox. Yet humans are masters at being paradoxical, IMO]
Last edited:
I think I touched on that earlier..
food..
as amoeba's (terms subjective to correct usage) we run around collecting food to sustain us, when that food source runs out we 'evolve' to utilize another source of food, if that source requires tools (arms, legs, etc) we adapt and evolve the means to procure that food.
think you misquoted yourself..
one does not CAUSE the other...
[What definition of free will is everyone using? Here is one definition.
Those who can argue contrary to the consensus have free will over social constraints. Atheists, one could argue, have more free will over theological constraints since they are not constrained by this morality. We are not physically chained, so we have physical free will. Mental constraints are harder to overcome because, unlike the collective ones, above where one can group learn, one needs to know about themselves, as a unique entity, to know what chains even exist you need to be free of.
Those who can argue contrary to the consensus have free will over social constraints. Atheists, one could argue, have more free will over theological constraints since they are not constrained by this morality. We are not physically chained, so we have physical free will. Mental constraints are harder to overcome because, unlike the collective ones, above where one can group learn, one needs to know about themselves, as a unique entity, to know what chains even exist you need to be free of.
but it is in evolving to the rudimentary level of amoeber-ship that is in contention... not so much what happens after life first appears but the transition from non-organic to organic.
hee hee...
the statement was about equivalency and you are right zero does not cause equivalency but certainly validates and confirms it.
$10 = $10
because when you subtract $10 from $10 you end up with no $'s
$10-$10 = 0
So your argument is: "You can't explain the specifics of how life first evolved... therefore life defies the law of gravity!" ??
I'm speechless.
Every time I think you hit a new low in terms of logical thinking, you manage to surprise me.
Ok... but do you believe that life as we know it was caused by an intelligent entity.???
well you know, I am full of surprises!
and you ain't seen nothin' yet...especially when I know you have no ability to maintain context when discussing anything that stresses you out...
please review the context of the post you chose to ridicule.
and I never said nor needed to say that I know what causes or what exact processes are required for life to evolve. [personally I never consider the universe to be anything else BUT alive any way and it always a has been ALIVE - but that's another thread and ration-al therefore the issue of life evolving in a Universe already alive is silly]
All I need to know is that under the natural determining forces of gravity for self animated life to evolve it Must be able to "stand up in defiance of gravity..." by self will. [applying my thoughts to yours and most scientists universal paradigm of living and non-living, not mine]
It is in the evolution of this ability that is the big trillion dollar question, not that it would be necessary for the evolution of inorganic substance to defy gravity..for surely it would have to have defied gravity to evolve this ability to defy gravity ... well duh!
May be the logic it too axiomatic for you?
innate universal intelligence, universal consciousness, universal awareness, is another thread topic...
what you really want to ask if I read between the lines well enough is:
Do I believe there is a creator God as per traditional human thinking [bearded guy sitting up in the clouds called heaven type creator God?] No, would be my answer.
any way, who gives a f*ck what I think....
Opinion and Hint, my paradigm:
If the human will actually exists as a physical requirement of this universe [ which it appears to be] then there can only be one will, it is only the existence of egoistic existentialism [ separation due to self awareness ~ Eviction from Eden analogy - Old testament] that creates the sense of individual will.
Now if there is only one will then that one will is by virtue of it's singleness "free" as it has the capacity as "one will" to defy all influences it decides to defy. It is only when that one will is existentially shared that that freedom is reduced as the wills compete to become the one will [ Will to Power, God complex, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)]
So it is little wonder that mankind has moved towards the belief in a monotheistic religious paradigm as it, humanity, intuitively knows that they are sharing the "single will" resource.
and of course I am not going to bother defending my paradigm here...so take it or leave it..
The way this "universal consciousness" works is an essential element to you'r belief that free will occurs in spite of cause an effect... so it coudnt be more on topic.!!!
Is free will a necessity for the purpose of this "universal consciousness" you believe in... or do you believe that life as we know it has no universal purpose.???
Edit:::
Jus so you will know... i hadnt read what you added to you'r post above before i made this post.!!!
No prollem... cause you'r over-all paradigm is irrelevent to me... i was jus qurious as to why it caused you to believe that free will occurs... but what i see is more of the same... wit no explination as to how this "one will" makes decisions which are separate from a causal chain... ie... you simply have a belief that free will exists.!!!
if that is what you wish to believe go for it...
or are you saying your ability to believe is somehow different to mine?
Your mere existence is subject to belief, didn't you know...?
Do you know you exist or do you believe you exist. and if you know you exist do you believe what you know?
do you know that science will tell you that cause and effect are an illusion?
A temporal mirage! So what does that make you and the choices you make?
Freewill is as illlusionary as reality is...so to say that freewill is an illusion is actually saying zip, because it is all a temporal illusion?
Therefore freewill is as real as real is...
Unless you wish to believe that reality is ...uhm... real?
I rode you'r merry-go-round to try an see if you actualy had an argument... but you got zip.!!!
Have you looked at your contribution?
QQ has done all the work, and all you've done is asked pointless questions, and offered nothing.
Fraid ur the one who has got zip!!!
jan.