What is free will?

[Quantum Quack]

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?

They say this because they believe that the universe has some sort of monopoly on what that unique predetermined choice is...
Of all the predetermined choices in the actors awareness only one is unique and this is predetermined by the universe and not the actor.
This is why I brought up the hind sight fallacy issue.
For it is only after the choice is taken that the universe claims it to be uniquely predetermined. It can not be claimed to do so before hand but only in hindsight.
This leads to an impossible to falsify situation.

However if one argues that all possible choices are not only predetermined but unique as well then any choice the actor makes is unique and so freedom of choice is actually irrelevant to the universe and only relevant to the actor.

I am still hunting down the exact terms used for this logic or reasoning fallacy but as yet have not found it...

 

[Quantum Quack]

No response visible. Did you forget?

nope

I am just responding to your incredible posted comment:

iceaura said: ↑

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.

a real doozy if you don't mind me sayin"

I also keep print screen files.

 

[Quantum Quack]

iceaura,
Do you still think I am wrong? ( test)


Can you provide a print screen showing your quote as missing so we can show that the post has been tampered with?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You may recall the good old days of Alpha####numeric and his team of sciforums destroyers... hence the print screens

 

[Sarkus]

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)

You mean this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/defying-gravity-and-the-laws-of-physics.141147/?
Your recollection of it is rather blinkered, methinks. It was 5 years ago, and there was no attempt to ridicule, just to see if others had a better way of explaining why you were wrong. Most, after initially telling you you were talking rubbish, just wanted the thread scrapped because the idea of defying gravity (e.g. by standing up) was/is so ridiculous, and a thread on the matter unwarranted in the maths forum.
But hey, you remember it how you want.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You mean this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/defying-gravity-and-the-laws-of-physics.141147/?
Your recollection of it is rather blinkered, methinks. It was 5 years ago, and there was no attempt to ridicule, just to see if others had a better way of explaining why you were wrong. Most, after initially telling you you were talking rubbish, just wanted the thread scrapped because the idea of defying gravity (e.g. by standing up) was/is so ridiculous, and a thread on the matter unwarranted in the maths forum.
But hey, you remember it how you want.

well you did post it in the math forum didn't you.....tut tut tut....
It was fun actually ....
I rememebr this bit I wrote..

yes.. please my 7 year old grandson and his younger bro would love to know what you have to say...
"How come we can stand up and a rock can't?"

and I do not for a minute think that because you may not be able to answer the question you should feel humiliated by being asked it...

And you know what? ... you still can't provide a straight forward answer can you?

How come we can stand up ( and defy gravitational pull ) and a rock can't?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You mean this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/defying-gravity-and-the-laws-of-physics.141147/?
Your recollection of it is rather blinkered, methinks. It was 5 years ago, and there was no attempt to ridicule, just to see if others had a better way of explaining why you were wrong. Most, after initially telling you you were talking rubbish, just wanted the thread scrapped because the idea of defying gravity (e.g. by standing up) was/is so ridiculous, and a thread on the matter unwarranted in the maths forum.
But hey, you remember it how you want.

You see you interpreted the claim as defying natural law... where I was simply claiming the defiance of gravity.

Two very different things, and you were so enraged by your own incorrect interpretation you posted it to the math forum and made more a fool of your self then I.
You still can not discern the difference between law of gravity and and the effects of gravity... can you?

edit: I need to find the actual thread Sarkus has quoted from to verify his quote in the thread he has linked to, before saying much more.

He may actually have a point for a change....

 

[Quantum Quack]

ok I verified the quote Sarkus was using to start that thread... and note one of my the following responses:
note the date of the thread was way back in 2014
"Quantum Quack, post: 3175444, member: 13925"]Of course nothing can avoid the effects of gravity. The question is in the terms "to defy" or "act in defiance of",. This is not saying the same thing as to neutralize or destroy gravitational attraction. self animated life is not being claimed to have some sort of "anti-gravitational ability" this is because there is a cost associated with our ability to CHOOSE to stand up and defy the otherwise natural outcomes of the laws associated with gravitational attraction. We CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to do so...and CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to continue doing so.. etc.

We are able by force of will, employ our energy to deliberately work against the natural or normal attraction of gravity, thus the term defy is quite appropriate IMO.
We have apparently evolved from non-animation to self-animation and to do so means at some point, life would have had to defy the laws of gravity to do so. However to do so it must have utilized self determination as with out it the word "defy" becomes inappropriate. IMO [which is why to minimize confusion, I limited the claim to one involving humans.]

If you feel the need to complain about my usage of words and their definitions then I would suggest that before you go on a campaign as you have this time, you seek clarification of that word usage.

It is also fair to add that IMO the existence of gravitational forces does not determine our choices however it does significantly influence them.
[ are you able to realize the distinction between influence and determine?]

I still stand by my words in 2014...
It is also worth noting that any one who supported my argument was subsequently banned from the forum. Coincidence perhaps....but those days were strange times at sciforums if I recall...

 

[Sarkus]

well you did post it in the math forum didn't you.....tut tut tut....

When discussing the law of gravity, the Physics/Maths forum seemed as good a place as any.

And you know what? ... you still can't provide a straight forward answer can you?

How come we can stand up ( and defy gravitational pull ) and a rock can't?

It was answered adequately at the time. There was no need for me to answer it at the time. We don't defy gravitational pull. A rock doesn't. If you're asking why a rock doesn't stand up its because it doesn't have the systems that might allow it. But neither defy gravity.

You see you interpreted the claim as defying natural law... where I was simply claiming the defiance of gravity.

You don't think gravity is part of what's natural???
And just using "defiance" instead of "defy" doesn't alter the issue: defiance of gravity is demonstrated by that which defies gravity.

Two very different things, and you were so enraged by your own incorrect interpretation you posted it to the math forum and made more a fool of your self then I.

I admire your ability to be so oblivious.

You still can not discern the difference between law of gravity and and the effects of gravity... can you?

I can, QQ. The effects of gravity are those things described by the law of gravity. Do you understand the difference?

But hey, my objective here was not to rehash old threads, nor to open your old wounds. You mentioned the old thread, and your rather unusual recollection of it piqued my curiosity. That was all. I'll leave you to the same debate with iceaura, if he so wishes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You don't think gravity is part of what's natural???
And just using "defiance" instead of "defy" doesn't alter the issue: defiance of gravity is demonstrated by that which defies gravity.

so you have a problem with the word defiance... ok..
What word would you choose to use to describe the act of standing up in a gravitational field strength of 1G?

the point remains the same....
Human beings can counter the force of gravity and stand up.
And they can only do this by deliberately choosing to do so by applying energy using their will.
If you can explain it any better go ahead....

 

[Michael 345]

What defies the law of gravity in a free will discussion?

 

[Baldeee]

so you have a problem with the word defiance... ok..
What word would you choose to use to describe the act of standing up in a gravitational field strength of 1G?

"Standing up"?
Oh, okay, that's two words.
Me bad.

the point remains the same....
Human beings can counter the force of gravity and stand up.
And they can only do this by deliberately choosing to do so by applying energy using their will.

Humans can do so without needing to do so deliberately.
Sitting on a thumb tack could well make one stand up with no thought whatsoever.
No will involved.

Asimo can stand up, walk, even run.
The "dogs" from Boston Robotics are freaky in what they can do (look them up on YouTube... Uncanny Valley or what!)

But what are you trying to claim with this "gravity-defying" example of standing up?
Is it just evidence for the will?
If so, that's not answering the question of the nature of the freedom within that process, is it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sitting on a thumb tack could well make one stand up with no thought whatsoever.
No will involved.

No it wouldn't. It would make you move away from the thumb tack but standing from a sitting position is not a reflexive reaction. It takes a decision and deliberate application of energy to stand up. To flinch on a thumb tack would also take energy something a cog or a thermostat can't do.

But what are you trying to claim with this "gravity-defying" example of standing up?

the using an inorganic machine to emulate human freewill is a false analogy.

Show me a thermostat that can counter gravity at will to prove it is an appropriate analogy.
In fact show how a thermostat can make a choice when in fact it has been repeatedly stated it can't.
False analogy with out question.
The contradiction:
Determinists believe that any choice other than the one taken is counterfactual and in this case Sarkus is using a thermostat that can not even make a choice as support for his position.

Can a thermostat make a choice? Nope.
False analogy...

 

[Quantum Quack]

If so, that's not answering the question of the nature of the freedom within that process, is it?

perhaps you could attempt to argue both sides of the debate and see how objective you are...

You never know... you might surprise yourself... and others...with your ...uhm.... reflexive brilliance...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Objectivity:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

[Quantum Quack]

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?

The problem with unresolved lying is that you get to live with it for the rest of your life...


btw thermostats can not lie.

 

[iceaura]

Of all the predetermined choices in the actors awareness only one is unique and this is predetermined by the universe and not the actor.

It is predetermined by the universe via the actor, who is part of the universe. The actors awareness is irrelevant.

Do you still think I am wrong? ( test)

Of course. Quite obviously - you go on to reveal that getting up out of the chair and "standing" were identical in your thinking, where the differences between standing and other ways of departing from the chair were central to my point - so the source of your mistake was identified.

Meanwhile, although you have yet to inform your readership what exactly you are talking about, you have left some hints - apparently you regard acceleration counter to that of a gravitational field as a "defiance" of gravity, as if gravity were issuing commands. This looks like the standard metaphorical mistake - thinking of natural law as one thinks of human law, as some kind of command.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is predetermined by the universe via the actor, who is part of the universe. The actors awareness is irrelevant.

nonsense!

Of course. Quite obviously - you go on to reveal that getting up out of the chair and "standing" were identical in your thinking, where the differences between standing and other ways of departing from the chair were central to my point - so the source of your mistake was identified.

..and you decided to claim so using a zero gravity environment as a false analogy.... and then lied about it....

Regardless of your deliberate obfuscation ... he has to apply energy to counter the gravitational pull...thus co-determining with gravity the events he deliberately chooses to determine. ( eg. standing up , walking, going for run etc )

Believe it or not this discussion is not about finding error in other peoples posts, it is about a common goal, that being "What is Free Will".

If you wish to discuss this issue fine, if you simply wish to find fault then go for it.
I am interested only on the goal of this thread and tearing someone down because of misinterpretation or self esteem issues is not what I am about.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Being able to lie is actually a key issue for freewill....
With out this ability whether the lies are "white" of more nefarious, there is no freedom.
Can a thermostat lie?
Can a cog in a machine lie?
Can a human being deliberately lie? (Rhetorical)

Can a deterministic universe lie?

So go ahead lie your pants off and prove my point....
But be warned, even white lies can prove ...uhm....problematic.

 

[iceaura]

The problem with unresolved lying is that you get to live with it for the rest of your life...

When you are wrong - as at present - you offend like that to no purpose.

Can a deterministic universe lie?

The one we are taking as an example includes many entities - all of them part of said universe, and therefore determined in their nature and actions - that do in fact lie.
The freedom of will of the universe is irrelevant here, of course. It's not a thread topic.

nonsense!

Now you declaring an observation of a physical reality, the deterministic reality stipulated to as the basis of the entire thread, to be nonsense. One would expect some kind of careful and persuasive argument, for such a counterintuitive and extraordinary declaration.

Especially one central and key to the nature of freedom of will. My contention that freedom of will - if it exists, as I think it does - must be and is an observable feature of the entity possessing it and exist in accordance with natural law, is labeled nonsense for no presented reason. Why?

..and you decided to claim so using a zero gravity environment as a false analogy....

One way to tell when a poster has begun to sputter, mentally, is that their sentences become muddled strings of mismatched words - they stop making sense as written. That's an example. The more closely and carefully one reads it, the less sense it makes - there is literally no way to tell what I am supposed to have claimed, for example. That appears to be self defense - it protects the writer from being held to account for their assertions, as nobody can tell what they are.

It's too common here, especially in conjunction with accusations of lying and so forth. IMHO.