What is free will?

[Quantum Quack]

Who designed the processes in question is irrelevant. If you think it important then take it to its logical conclusion in the religion forum about intelligent design, as that is what you are suggesting.
Otherwise, for the discussion on freewill, it is sufficient for the thermostat to be simply an example of a process.
But no doubt, with your insatiable desire to talk more crap, you'll kick up a fuss and try to claim that it is of great significance, while either never actually offering an explanation as to why it is significant, or providing an explanation that is laughable at best.
But, as ever, I look forward to being proven wrong.
What? Too nasty for you?

you have proved yourself wrong...
and you are not interested in a discussion that has a greater truth as an ambition. Simply trolling for some perverse pleasure...

Deliberately setting up and maintaining a cross purpose discussion speaks volumes of your character and personality both of which you consider to be an illusion.

 

[iceaura]

But the driver chooses from imaginary alternatives.

The driver chooses from their existing capabilities, as observed.

And I will happily tell you for the twenty-first time that I am paying attention to physical reality, a reality that is, as assumed, deterministic, predetermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom.

It is not assumed to lack nontrivial freedom by me. I do not make that supernatural assumption - you do.
And in doing that - making that supernatural assumption - you have willfully overlooked the degrees of freedom possessed in reality by the driver making decisions. You refuse to acknowledge them.

Then you similarly deem Socrates to be mortal as an assumption.

That was a conclusion - it was argued to, not from. That's the opposite of your use of the supernatural criterion, as we just saw and has been quoted many times in your "different outputs from the same inputs" reasoning among other postings.

I have labelled the alternatives as counterfactual, not the capability of imagining them.

Yes. And that is why I pointed out that these capabilities are observed facts, whether they are imagined or not (and they often are not, in real life, something you also got cornered into denying above - those assumptions are crippling your ability to reason in many ways).

- - - I'm quite happy to conclude that the freedom I'm interested in, the non-trivial kind, doesn't exist. The supernatural has no place in my consideration.

Five sentences back you were assuming it didn't exist, not concluding.
Right there, in those two sentences, you contradicted yourself: you were happy to conclude that the freedom you were interested in was the "non-trivial" - supernatural, as established - kind; then you claimed the supernatural had no place in your consideration.

This is, as noted, becoming comical.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I've been asked to try mediating.
iceaura,
What do you think is central to your disagreement with Sarkus?

Sarkus,
What do you think is central to your disagreement with iceaura?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

This is the best thred about free will that Sciforums has ever had... an i thank everbody for ther partisipattion cause its the difernt ponts of view thats causin it to be so informative.!!!

 

[Sarkus]

The driver chooses from their existing capabilities, as observed.

Yes, and lacking non-trivial freedom, as explained.

It is not assumed to lack nontrivial freedom by me. I do not make that supernatural assumption - you do.

My bad - the "predermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom" should have been worded so as to be clear they were the conclusions from the assumption of determinism. Apologies if that has further confused your confusion on the matter. More accurate phrasing of what was intended would be: "I am paying attention to physical reality, a reality that is, as assumed, deterministic, and thus predetermined, and lacking non-trivial freedom."

And in doing that - making that supernatural assumption - you have willfully overlooked the degrees of freedom possessed in reality by the driver making decisions. You refuse to acknowledge them.

I have acknowledged that freedom throughout, as have others, recognising it as a trivial notion of freedom. If referring to it as a trivial notion is to a refusal to acknowledge it, a willful overllooking, then we are clearly sciforums members divided by a common language.

That was a conclusion - it was argued to, not from.

Ah, you finally seem to recognise the difference, then.

That's the opposite of your use of the supernatural criterion, as we just saw and has been quoted many times in your "different outputs from the same inputs" reasoning among other postings.

Reasoning, yes. Assumption, no. Baby steps, iceaura. Baby steps. You've just shown you're at least starting to recognise the difference in conclusion and assumption, so let's take it slowly. Don't want to rush you.

Yes. And that is why I pointed out that these capabilities are observed facts, whether they are imagined or not (and they often are not, in real life, something you also got cornered into denying above - those assumptions are crippling your ability to reason in many ways).

Noone has ever disputed that the ability to imagine alternatives is an observed fact. Noone. You are arguing against yourself, iceaura, because you're certainly arguing points that noone have ever disagreed with.
The disagreement is whether those alternatives are genuine or simply imagined. Whether there is any (what Baldeee and I at least consider) non-trivial notion of freedom within the system. You say yes, I say otherwise.

Five sentences back you were assuming it didn't exist, not concluding.
Right there, in those two sentences, you contradicted yourself: you were happy to conclude that the freedom you were interested in was the "non-trivial" - supernatural, as established - kind; then you claimed the supernatural had no place in your consideration.

Yes, poorly worded this once, and I have provided you with a clearer and phrasing that more accurately describes things. So I would suggest you work with that revised phrasing.

 

[Sarkus]

self deterministic vs deterministic....hmmmm yep... self-determination is indeed self deterministic....therefore readily has a place in a deterministic universe.

You haven't answered the question: do you think self-determination is deterministic or non-deterministic?

it is deterministic over all... do you dispute this?

If self-determinism is deterministic, then a determnistic universe with self-determinism within it would indeed be deterministic. If self-determinism is non-deterministic then the universe is non-deterministic.

Humans are also self deterministic.

Do you think self-determination is deterministic or non-deterministic?

Does being self deterministic invalidate the overall determinism you are obsessed with?

If you are claiming self-determinism to be deterministic then no. If you are claiming self-determination to be non-deterministic then there is no deterministic universe, and you are claiming the universe to be non-deterministic.
But you still then need to show how a non-trivial notion of freedom exists in such a univere. Just saying "non-determinism" is not an answer.

Given your profound inability to use logic honestly with out lying to yourself and others I seriously wonder how you will probably answer yes to my question.

Seriously, QQ, report me. You've accused me of lying. You clearly think I'm dishonest. So report me. But you won't, because you know you're just talking utter crap, and all that's happened is that your posts have been ripped apart and exposed for the drivel they are.

You seem to constantly come up with the same repetitive BS which could lead a reader to believe you actually are having enormous trouble in understanding what you are actually writing.

I'll leave readers to their own conclusions on the matter, QQ.

But you know exactly what you are writing and attempting to achieve... don't you?

Yes, thanks. Do you not write knowing exactly what you are writing and attempting to achieve?

you have proved yourself wrong...

Care to actually explain why you think that, or are you just going to continue to post unsupported claims?

and you are not interested in a discussion that has a greater truth as an ambition. Simply trolling for some perverse pleasure...

Deliberately setting up and maintaining a cross purpose discussion speaks volumes of your character and personality both of which you consider to be an illusion.

So report me, QQ. There's the "report button", just below this post. Press it, enter the details of your complaint, and let the mods slap me down for the lying, the dishonesty, and the trolling that you are accusing me of. You'll presumably be able to provide them with all the evidence they could possibly need, so prolific is my lying and dishonesty, so I guess I'll just wait here and quake in my boots for the inevitable, shall I?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If self-determinism is deterministic, then a determnistic universe with self-determinism within it would indeed be deterministic. If self-determinism is non-deterministic then the universe is non-deterministic.

yep that is what I said.
But you will probably lie and state then that I am discussing your version of determinism and that freewill is logically impossible... when you know full well that I am not.....yes?
but of course I am not referring to your version of determinism that disallows the obvious observable fact that self determinism exists in a full symbiotic relationship with determinism generally.

We humans simply self-determine what has been other wise determined, for our own benefit and self interest.

If you are claiming self-determinism to be deterministic then no. If you are claiming self-determination to be non-deterministic then there is no deterministic universe, and you are claiming the universe to be non-deterministic.

So we agree finally... what a journey.... torturous to say the least.
So you agree, that self determination can be other wise worded as self -deterministic? ( just to confirm )

and you immediately follow with this nonsense...:

But you still then need to show how a non-trivial notion of freedom exists in such a univere. Just saying "non-determinism" is not an answer.

Why would we agree that it is self deterministic and then accuse me of stating that it was "non-determinism"?

so do you agree or not...

 

[Quantum Quack]

and you are claiming the universe to be non-deterministic.

OMG you simply can't help yourself can you... Please explain your incompetence?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Recipe:
draw a circle on a sheet of A4
then draw a small circle any where with in that circle
add two labels:
determinism to the small circle
determinism to the larger circle
then add the word "Self" with a hyphen to the word determinism in the small circle.
Bake for 20 minutes and
Presto you have a deterministic universe with self determinism included....

easy man... real easy....

 

[Quantum Quack]

However, it is the issue of pre-determination that leads you to think "in-determinism" is at play. ( Ignoring the QM micro implications etc. for the moment) if self determination is present which it truly is...

This is understandable given that the logic or rational is actually quite difficult to convey.... and best perhaps explained using a parable or two as part of the journey...

 

[Capracus]

We humans simply self-determine what has been other wise determined, for our own benefit and self interest.

You’ve now crossed iceaura’s supernatural line, by stating that humans have the capacity to defy accepted natural law. Your idiotic conception turns reality on it’s head, where all universal material behavior must bend to the will of human beings. Go ahead and prove this genius theory by willing yourself to be Jeff Bezos’s next wife.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You’ve now crossed iceaura’s supernatural line, by stating that humans have the capacity to defy accepted natural law. Your idiotic conception turns reality on it’s head, where all universal material behavior must bend to the will of human beings. Go ahead and prove this genius theory by willing yourself to be Jeff Bezos’s next wife.

nothing super natural is being considered.

The only thing being turned on it's head is a 3000 odd year bit of "stuck in a logic rut" BS that every philosopher in the world has been and is trying to solve.

and now thanks to your stupidity and asinine attempt at ridicule.... I'll think a bit more before deciding to give you the solution....

Nasty person you.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

You’ve now crossed iceaura’s supernatural line, by stating that humans have the capacity to defy accepted natural law.

Just because you can't acknowledge your own intellectual limitations you believe that the solution will defy natural laws. Your own close mindedness is more about defying natural laws than anything I might write.

Your idiotic conception turns reality on it’s head, where all universal material behavior must bend to the will of human beings.

Conflated with out realizing that if you cling to failed concepts then you are doomed to repeat them.

Go ahead and prove this genius theory

not tonight darling I have a head ache from dealing with.....posters that can't think laterally and out of the box that they are "self-determined" to stay inside of.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

You’ve now crossed iceaura’s supernatural line, by stating that humans have the capacity to defy accepted natural law. Your idiotic conception turns reality on it’s head, where all universal material behavior must bend to the will of human beings. Go ahead and prove this genius theory by willing yourself to be Jeff Bezos’s next wife.

Do you or anyone want a solution to your "in-determinism" problem or not?

 

[Capracus]

nothing super natural is being considered.

No, nothing supernatural about giving humans wizard-like capabilities.

The only thing being turned on it's head is a 3000 odd year bit of "stuck in a logic rut" BS that every philosopher in the world has been and is trying to solve.

Yeah, that pesky notion of logic that’s led most scientists to conclude that we live in a deterministic reality.

and now thanks to your stupidity and asinine attempt at ridicule.... I'll think a bit more before deciding to give you the solution....

Solution to what? Demonstrating the magic of self determination?

Nasty person you.....

What, becoming Mrs. Bezos too much of a challenge for your all powerful human will? Mind over matter, isn’t that your solution?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yeah, that pesky notion of logic that’s led most scientists to conclude that we live in a deterministic reality.
Solution to what? Demonstrating the magic of self determination?
What, becoming Mrs. Bezos too much of a challenge for your all powerful human will? Mind over matter, isn’t that your solution?

My solution DOES NOT violate anything.
That is how i know it to be the correct solution.
In fact it is fundamentally necessary for all those laws to work.

 

[Capracus]

My solution DOES NOT violate anything.
That is how i know it to be the correct solution.

Assuming that human will supersedes the known deterministic behavior of universal elements violates the accepted laws of physics. That's how I know your solution is based on ignorance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Assuming that human will supersedes the known deterministic behavior of universal elements violates the accepted laws of physics. That's how I know your solution is based on ignorance.

But it doesn't
Some people believe in the impossible, some believe in the possible. You believe that the only way to solve the puzzle is to claim free will to be an illusion. This is because your view of cause and effect is way too narrow and missing one vitally important characteristic or attribute.

According to wiki a version of it is being practiced currently in Germany, UK, EU, and yes even the USA.

However according to Google it has never been applied to this particular issue.. so I am going to coin it, mint it and have it framed....

edit: not quite true... someone posted to a forum in 2005 making inconclusive reference to it.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

But it doesn't
Some people believe in the impossible, some believe in the possible. You believe that the only way to solve the puzzle is to claim free will to be an illusion. This is because your view of cause and effect is way too narrow and missing one vitally important characteristic or attribute.

According to wiki a version of it is being practiced currently in Germany, UK, EU, and yes even the USA.

However according to Google it has never been applied to this particular issue.. so I am going to coin it, mint it and have it framed....

edit: not quite true... someone posted to a forum in 2005 making inconclusive reference to it.

Well let me say this about you'r last few posts... i know what you mean cause ive been thar myself:::

When i was about 5 an slowly ridin my tricycle… i woud watch the right rear wheel an wonder what was makin it turn… it made sinse to me that the front wheel turned when i worked the peddles… but it realy puzzled me as to why the rear wheel woud also move… an i got the idea that if i took off the rear wheel that i woud find what made it turn… so i got a pair of adjustable pliers an went to work gettin that pressed-on nut off… an after many painful pinches to my hand from the pliers slippen off the nut… i finally got it off… an i was realy excited as i slowly pulled the rear wheel from the axial cause i knew that the answr woud be revealed… so sure… that i actually saw what it was… which was a dark translucid smoky-like substance which flowed from the axel downward onto the floor… an then it just disapeared… an i was just as puzzled as ever.!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm going to start another thread so that google will pick it up and lay it out there..
Should be fun.
I'll post the link here when i have it

there you go:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/