And how pray tell do they arrive at their interpretation of freewill?
Given that they do not believe that freedom exists at all in their deterministic soup.
After all, does a thermostat have freedom? (sarc)
What is free will?
- Thread starter fess
- Start date
Given that they do not believe that freedom exists at all in their deterministic soup.
After all, does a thermostat have freedom? (sarc)
We work with it to stand. Without gravity, we cannot stand. Standing is not defying gravity, but using it.
If you set up human freedom of will as a defiance of natural law you've trapped yourself in the mind/body split, a world of billiard ball materialism redeemable only by miracle. That's a blind alley of long defunct reason, and in conflict with observation of physical fact. This is a science forum.
For the fiftieth fucking time: They assume it. They don't arrive at it, they begin at it. It's a premise of their arguments, and a foundation of their view of the world.
Last edited:
Oh, how do we use it, say to get out of a chair and stand up.?
Why do we need to apply effort to do so?
Just curious...
Does a rocket use gravity to reach escape velocity as it heads into orbit?
Why does it take energy to do so?
What does effort have to do with it?
If you try to stand up out of a chair in zero gravity, you will simply float away - you will not be standing, at the end of your attempts. At best, you will be hanging unto the chair to hold your feet on the floor. You might be upside down from where you started.
Human beings are physical entities, by assumption on this forum - they have no supernatural powers. They cannot defy natural law.
Last edited:
I thought you wrote that this is science forum?
Sorry...my bad
If you have a point, just post it. These guessing games are not communicating.
That makes at least 5 posters... next?
Not talking about zero gravity.
Why apply effort to defy gravity if we are using gravity as u r claiming?
When a man gets out of his chair to stand up he has to apply energy to do so... why?
No.
Because it is subject to natural law, like other physical entities. In this case, Newton's Laws of Motion are the usual formulation of the natural law involved.
Because he is a physical entity subject to natural law he cannot defy.
We don't. We apply effort - in the usual formulations of the natural laws involved it's called "work" - to do stuff in accordance with natural law. We defy no natural laws, cast no magic spells, perform no miracles, none of that.
Now: what are you trying to say?
The energy applied is to counter the pull of gravity.
The effort a man applies to get out of his chair is to counter the pull of gravity.
The man applies energy to defy gravitational pull.
Ok?
Don't worry Ice it not your fault.
I get this sort of BS every time I introduce something new, a new approach or idea or reasoning. Every time and not just in this forum either.
I suggest that a man defies gravity when he stands up.
and bingo I get slammed as being irrational.
I suggest even to James that zero is not an ordinary number that it has special attributes that other numbers do not have ( 6 or 7 years ago) bingo.... just nonsense...he says. Even though zero is fundamental to the equivalence function in maths.
I suggest co-determination as a solution to the dilemma of freewill and determinism. Again slammed by nonsense...
I think I could count maybe 20 odd issues that all end the same....
It happens in real life too...it never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous it gets sometimes...
edit: The last time I mentioned this defiance of gravity, Sarkus even started a thread on it in the physics and math fora just to attempt ridicule me.... hee hee... that went well hey? ( about 8 years ago I think)
So far you have described a man acting in complete accordance with natural law - he cannot magically lift himself out of a chair in a gravitational field without doing work, etc. Your motive in describing this man's actions remains unknown - I have no clear idea what you are trying to say.
Selves being part of a determined universe, like every other part of that determined universe, have their entire behavior determined by that universe. There is no self determination by any part, it would violate the intrinsic nature of such a universe.
But the will of the universe is. The will, course, expression, how ever you want to characterize it, is the main issue at hand. There is no separation of “wills” between the universe and its contents. As goes the universe, so go its associated elements, humans being one of countless others. The will of the universal whole is no more free than its constituent parts.
But the degree that they may be expressed for any given moment is predetermined, there is no potential for more or less expression for any moment, only what has been predetermined.
Under the right determined circumstance. Bolt does not get to choose the speed, that is predetermined.
The determined action of the driver can only happen one way, there is no one way or the other.
The point is that while an organism may have a potential range of capabilities, when it comes to a determined circumstance there is no longer a potential range, there is only the specific action that the predetermined circumstance dictates.
That’s why the driver imagines the existence of possibilities or alternatives. From the perspective of perfect knowledge there are no possibilities, only specific determined outcomes.
Your issue was that existence of capability was denied before the time of decision. Perfect knowledge of a determined reality allows for the state of capability to be known before it is realized. It also allows for the state of past action to be known from the present or future.
Now you’ve just validated my position, that no matter what the driver is aware of, or imagines in regards the nature of its choices, those choices were not freely made, but were in fact predetermined eons ago by determined universal evolution.
Then you agree that there are never actual alternatives present regarding the determined action of the driver.
Right, that is the perspective of the driver, but not that of universal whole. The driver may perceive that they may have options regarding the given circumstance, but the perspective of the whole shows that there is not. That’s why the driver’s perception is illusory.
I am just responding to your incredible posted comment:
a real doozy if you don't mind me sayin"
a real doozy if you don't mind me sayin"
I didn't say you were irrational. I pointed out you were wrong. He's completely subject to the pull of gravity, along with all other natural law, and without it he cannot stand up. He is defying nothing.
Ok.. are you saying that he uses gravity to get up out of his chair.
How does he do it? What has he been drinking cause i want some.....
Yep. That is the longstanding stipulation - just as I posted it, in fact.
That is false. You are contradicting yourself - first you claim the universe has determined the entire behavior of the self, then you try to claim the gamut of behaviors involved in its self-determination is a violation of some kind of "intrinsic nature".
Apparently you think the universe is not allowed to set up drivers with multiple capabilities, or determine their capabilities as observed. I have no idea why. We observe the universe has no trouble doing exactly that, after all - why would anyone claim it cannot?
Again: We are not discussing the freedom of will of the universe. Try to focus, eh?
The driver is the entity in question.
And "perspective" is not involved.
For what we all hope is the last time: what the driver "perceives" or "imagines" or whatever is completely irrelevant. It is beside the point. It is not involved in the example at hand. Let it go - it doesn't matter. Focus.
We observe that Bolt gets to choose the speed - that capability of Bolt's is predetermined by the universe. That is part of Bolt's predetermined nature, which is part of the process by which the universe determines the speed. This is observed, physical, reality.
You correctly assert that the universe predetermines the speed. Now we see how the universe does that. It predetermines an entity - Usain Bolt - with certain capabilities, including that of choosing its speed of foot according to circumstances (circumstances the universe will provide).
? Still hung up on that?
You continue to bang on about what the driver is "aware" of, as if it were relevant.You continue to post this strange non-sequitur of an "argument", that everything being predetermined means there is no freedom of choice.
Again: There is no conflict between that predetermination and non-supernatural freedom in the driver. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive - you have presented no reason to think that. (At least, none you will acknowledge - to the reader, you are obviously assuming that freedom of choice would have to involve a supernatural ability to defy the determination of natural law - but that remains, apparently, invisible to you.)
That would mean denying both physical observation and reasoning according to natural law. I don't do that.
Physical observation of the driver's physical nature shows the simultaneous presence of mutually exclusive capabilities - to stop, to go - and the ability to choose among them in accordance with whatever color the traffic light displays in the future. The driver's perception of their capabilities is not involved, and in the example it is completely unknown - no "illusion" is involved in this example.
And the perspective of "the whole" is irrelevant (as well as being meaningless, btw - there is no such thing). We are not discussing the freedom of the universe. We don't care whether the universe has freedom of will. It's not on the table. Let it go.
Last edited:
No. I said he needs gravity to stand - I was replying to your post. If he wanted to launch himself at the ceiling he wouldn't need gravity.
And you still haven't told us what you are talking about.
No response visible. Did you forget?
Cross purposes.
He certainly needs gravity to work against that's for sure. With out gravity there would be nothing to defy or resist when standing and while standing...