Definitionally predetermined accounts for all knowledge, therefore there are no unknowns from a perspective of perfect knowledge.
What is free will?
- Thread starter fess
- Start date
Who's knowledge?
All existing knowledge.
Eh ok....
That's false. Selves are part of the universe, predetermined like anything else, and as selves could easily be self-determining to some extent. That would be simply an account of the process by which their behavior was determined.
The freedom of will of the universe is not the topic here.
Sure. Most capabilities of complex decisionmaking entities are never expressed. So?
His determined nature, as Usain Bolt, would - almost certainly, we haven't checked - include the capability of running faster in the right circumstances.
Sure. And they exist. The capabilities suited to a driver approaching a traffic light, for example, would include the capability of stopping, and the capability of going - depending on the color of the light.
What's your point?
The driver does not possess perfect knowledge.
That does not make a temporal sequence run backwards, or reverse the order of cause and effect.
Exactly. So quit yakking about imagination, or illusion, or whatever.
So?
The driver approaching the light has the capability of stopping, and the capability of going: both. Simultaneously. That is the observed physical reality of the driver's nature, as predetermined by the universe, before the light shows up.
Try to focus. It's not that complicated.
Actually..... regardless of the colour of the light . He can stop or go anytime he self determines.
He cannot - by presumption of the thread and the example - self determine to react other than as he must in reaction to the color of the light. His decisions are part of the universe and subject to deterministic natural law.
Just noticed this post. You crack me up, QQ. I look forward to whatever happens when something is reported.
But here's a compromise proposal: you stop throwing faecal matter around, and I'll stop calling you out for throwing faecal matter around. Sound acceptable to you?
It seems you have a trend going, QQ: give up addressing any issues raised, avoid answering any questions, ignore any rebuttals, and simply cast unsupported aspersions. I.e. you're flinging yet more of the brown stuff.
It's also rather funny that you're trying to take the high ground yet fail to realise the quicksand you're standing in. Probably a result of the accumulated crap you've been producing.
Anyhoo, your post isn't worthy of a better response from me. You've simply admitted, at least to me, that you have nothing to offer the discussion but a desire to further your post count.
Tell you what: go read another textbook or wiki article that you don't actually understand but think will be good to throw into the mix. It's always a laugh to see what FM you'll come up with next to start flinging around.
I thought I would post this story to show those who can read and comprehend it the issue of co-determination and why a thermostat is a false analogy.
We have a slow moving shallow stream that a farming man is wading in.
The water passing through the man's legs can only do what it does according to determining laws of physics that govern the flow of water.
The water has no choice to consider, is is entirely passive to it's pre determinations.
The water has no will or ability to determine itself.
Pre- Summary:
The farming man though, standing in the middle of this passively flowing stream of water thinks for a while and then proceeds to walk up stream, against the flow of the water.
He is proactively and deliberately by choice, moving against the flow of the streams predetermination.
Not only is he standing, defying gravity, he is also walking against the determination of the water.
He had chosen to defy the universes determination and co-determine the streams water flow as it is disturbed past his legs.
He eventually comes to where he PLANNED ( predetermined himself) to be and started to build a dam to block the flow of water.
He builds his dam and completely blocks the flow of the water to provide irrigation for his crops.
Pre summary:
Combined:
The farming man gets home at the end of the day and thinks to himself how the day went as he predetermined it to be in an act of co-determination.
We have a slow moving shallow stream that a farming man is wading in.
The water passing through the man's legs can only do what it does according to determining laws of physics that govern the flow of water.
The water has no choice to consider, is is entirely passive to it's pre determinations.
The water has no will or ability to determine itself.
Pre- Summary:
- River water is entirely passive to any determining factors.
- River water can only react and not act.
- River water is entirely predetermined by determining factors, such as gravity, temperature, slope of land, quantity, source, etc...
The farming man though, standing in the middle of this passively flowing stream of water thinks for a while and then proceeds to walk up stream, against the flow of the water.
He is proactively and deliberately by choice, moving against the flow of the streams predetermination.
Not only is he standing, defying gravity, he is also walking against the determination of the water.
He had chosen to defy the universes determination and co-determine the streams water flow as it is disturbed past his legs.
He eventually comes to where he PLANNED ( predetermined himself) to be and started to build a dam to block the flow of water.
He builds his dam and completely blocks the flow of the water to provide irrigation for his crops.
Pre summary:
- The man is using his will to be proactive in determining how he responds to other wise determining factors.
- The man is both reacting and acting.
- The man is both determined by external determining factors, and self determined by his own learned abilities such as being able to stand against gravity and walk in the stream and build his dam to irrigate his crops.
- The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of human freewill is false.
- The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of passive universal determinism is true.
Combined:
- We can clearly demonstrate Co-determination.
The farming man gets home at the end of the day and thinks to himself how the day went as he predetermined it to be in an act of co-determination.
- The course of the stream has been permanently changed
- The man's crops get irrigated.
A man laying down raises his clenched fist against gravity, and gets to his knees and then stands up and exclaims:
"I defy your natural law!"
...and walks away under his own steam...using his own energy going where HE wants to go, thinking "Ah ... such is LIFE".
He does not defy natural law when he does that.
The point is: he doesn't have to. There is no role for the supernatural in this discussion of freedom of will - we have stipulated to its absence. This is a science forum.
Of course not. But he has chosen to defy the predermining that gravity naturally offers and what is more he was predetermined to do it. (If one subscribes the notion that every thing is predetermined. )
Of course, for freewill to be evidenced, which is abundently observable, it must be supernatural if one agrees to Sarkus, Baldee and Cap's interpretation of determinism.
It is an inevitable out come of the pseudo logic being used.
It always starts with an "if".... remember that...
If we knew more about natural law we could have a more informed discussion, but we don't, so the word "if" is a big word.
If we knew more about natural law we could have a more informed discussion, but we don't, so the word "if" is a big word.
The ancient tradition of standing stones at burial sites is a testament to how important being able to stand against gravity is. (survive) IMO.
What a useless rant!It seems you have a trend going, QQ: give up addressing any issues raised, avoid answering any questions, ignore any rebuttals, and simply cast unsupported aspersions. I.e. you're flinging yet more of the brown stuff.
It's also rather funny that you're trying to take the high ground yet fail to realise the quicksand you're standing in. Probably a result of the accumulated crap you've been producing.
Anyhoo, your post isn't worthy of a better response from me. You've simply admitted, at least to me, that you have nothing to offer the discussion but a desire to further your post count.
Tell you what: go read another textbook or wiki article that you don't actually understand but think will be good to throw into the mix. It's always a laugh to see what FM you'll come up with next to start flinging around.
Learning to stand, defying the pull of gravity, is a fundamentally important part of leaning to be self-determined.
No. Their interpretation of determinism is not the key - their interpretation of freedom is.
Standing depends on the pull of gravity. It does not defy gravity, but rather employs it. One cannot stand on a small satellite in orbit, for example, without special gear to replace the function of gravity.
To me it is pretty straight forward. Gravity forces a dead person to just lie there....a healthy living person can defy gravity and learn to stand. Let's face it, gravity wants you dead.... ( chuckle)
Sure we work with it to balance our standing... true...
Topic : What is freewill.
We are not born self determined. We are born with the potential to learn how to self determine and learn we must if we seek to survive.
We are not born self determined. We are born with the potential to learn how to self determine and learn we must if we seek to survive.