Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What is freewill?

  1. #1 What is freewill? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Can Freewill be understood through logical deduction?

    If answers limit the possibilities,
    And questions are the divisions of answers,
    Then is understanding,
    The product of knowing the questions,
    That form the whole answer?

    So where would one begin,
    With a question like,
    What is Freewill?

    If the root prefers to express itself,
    Through it's branches?

    And the self prefers to express itself,
    Through it’s language?

    Then it seems that communication,
    Probably starts from a whole thing,
    And branches out through division.

    If perception is comparison of divisions,
    And the perspective of the self,
    Is a whole thing separate of the selves.

    Then what is it that the self cannot divide to compare?

    Can nothing be divided into nothings?

    And Can the what is that is there as a whole,
    Be compared to anything else?

    Imagine for a moment,
    That there is no connection to the external world,
    All sensors are inactive,
    And have never been operational.

    So there is no external input to the self.

    What decisions or choices,
    Can one make in this type of environment?

    What is there to decide between?

    And what does one choose out of the nothing?

    So what is it to be aware?

    Or what is it that we are aware of?

    Is there a distinction between the self,
    And the what it is that is there?

    Now let's add minimal sensory input,
    Just enough so that the self,
    Can have a connection,
    To the supposed external environment.

    It seems logical to deduce,
    That the only possible form of interaction,
    Would be reaction to the input,
    By making a comparison.

    And comparisons are made,
    By finding the differences between divisions,
    Whether it is this way or that way.

    Which is comparable to binary logic.
    Either no input,
    And no reaction,
    Or input,
    And reaction.

    So what are the,
    Processes and mechanisms,
    Of the human mind,
    That enables it to make Comparisons?

    To go into that,
    Lets imagine that the human mind,
    Is like a ball of yarn,
    That picks up particles,
    In between it's threads.

    The threads are the algorithm,
    And the particles are the variables.

    To know the entire algorithm,
    One must account for all of the variables.

    Because while It may be possible,
    To see where some threads lead,
    By only accounting for some variables,
    And denying the others.

    There may be a knot or a twist,
    That causes a thread,
    To lead into another direction.

    The ball of yarn analogy,
    Can also refer to the supposed external.

    The threads are the what is that is there,
    And the particles are the understanding,
    Of the what is that is there.

    Only when one can account for all the particles,
    And not deny, Avoid or Discredit any of them,
    Then one can understand the entire structure.

    One could also look at the mind,
    And the external like a puzzle.

    When something new is understood,
    A piece gets put into place.

    After awhile,
    The borders of the puzzle get filled in.

    Without restructure,
    Or going beyond the limits,
    That we have placed upon ourselves,
    Then the outside pieces,
    Cannot get into the center.

    So to understand how the mind works in it's entirety,
    We must account for all the possibilities.

    How does the self decide,
    between going one way or another?

    What happens when there is input?

    Is there ever not any input?

    So is it possible,
    That the 5 senses are like a magnet,
    And the synapses are like iron filings?

    As one interacts with the what is that is there,
    Then the chemical reactions connect,
    And link the synapses in the now time.

    Then what is memory?

    Is memory a trail of colored rice left behind?
    The leftovers of past chemical reactions,
    That appear to still be there,
    But are much less intense then the current input?

    It seems that after awhile,
    The memory gets distorted,
    And much gets written over and lost.

    But that is not to suggest,
    That there is a such thing as time.
    Because it seems likely,
    That time is relative,
    To the transference of energy.

    If no energy is transferred,
    Then nothing changes,
    And there is no conceivable progression.

    What would happen if there was a separation,
    Between algorithm and variables?

    Would the self still be able to react effectively?

    If the algorithm compares differences,
    And expresses itself onto a single thing,
    To form links of subdivisions.

    And the perceived subdivisions,
    Become part of the algorithms matrix.

    And divisions continually divide,
    As long as energy is being transferred.

    Then how long can the algorithm,
    Maintain the external state of division?

    Would perception be limited,
    To only a certain number of possible divisions,
    At any given moment?

    What determines the reaction?

    If energy travels,
    The shortest path of least resistance.

    And if the mind requires some form of energy to function.

    Then it would seem that the reaction mechanism,
    Would be governed in a similar way.

    It appears that exposure to input,
    Causes chemical reactions in the brain,
    That form links and connections through the synapses.

    So the higher frequency of exposure to similar input,
    The more conductive the pathway will be to transmit a signal.

    So The higher the frequency of occurrence,
    The less resistive those pathways become.

    How then do we appear to learn?

    It seems that there is,
    Constant input to those pathways,
    And most likely,
    They do not become narrower without change.

    So if the input is the same,
    Then the reaction will be same.

    But because division,
    Becomes a division within itself,
    There appears to be change.

    However that is not to say,
    That there is even such a thing as just division,
    Because energy transference,
    Is also responsible for recombination.

    If previous input chemical reactions,
    Leave behind trace amounts of the reaction,
    That aid in the transmission between synapses.
    And the reaction process is influenced,
    By both the current input stream,
    And the left over components,
    Of the previous state of mind.

    How would that effect the judgment,
    And decision making of the now self?

    What is the desire and focus,
    That we call freewill?

    If a comparison determines whether or not,
    Something is different from something else.
    Then it seems the focus,
    Would be on contradiction.
    That is to say,
    The focus is only acquired,
    If it contradicts with the current variables,
    Of the input stream.

    Obviously the pathways that are effected,
    By the input stream,
    Are based on the sensory input frequencies.

    So it would seem that the desire,
    Is to remain the same.

    But divisions will always,
    Be the opposite of one another.

    Because they can never be similar enough,
    In divided form to be the same.

    So the focus is channel limited to contradiction.

    Have you ever become self aware in a dream?

    What exactly were you aware of?

    If you think about it for awhile,
    Then you will probably realize,
    That you were aware of how that reality,
    Contradicted this reality.
    That is to say,
    You were aware that it was somehow different.

    What is undesirable?

    It seems that there are many words,
    That make reference to,
    The current conception of what is undesirable.

    But what is it really?

    If the self only reacts to the input,
    And it's world model or paradigm,
    Is consistent to its current state of being.

    Then what is it that causes an unbalance?

    If the supposed memory is a product,
    Of both the algorithm and the variables,
    And decisions are influenced by both the memory effect,
    Of previous states of mind,
    And the current state of mind,
    And the mind expects reality,
    To be either one way or the other.

    Then perhaps contradiction of expectation,
    Is what is undesirable.

    Which is to say,
    That all forms of the undesired,
    Suffering, pain, torment,
    Wrong, bad, foolishness, unhappiness,
    Etc... Etc.. Etc.
    Is merely the self,
    Expecting it to be different.

    Is it possible for there to be,
    A radical revolution,
    In the human thought process?

    Could one just admire,
    The what is that is there?

    Without trying to control it,
    Or understand it,
    Or compare it,
    Or even expect it to be a certain way?

    What would happen then?

    It seems that when one listens to music,
    It is most often appreciated for what it really is.

    So is it possible,
    To appreciate reality as a whole,
    For what it really is?
    And not being channel limited to contradiction?

    Where is division going?

    Is it really going anywhere at all?

    Is it possible that it only appears to change,
    Because of binary logic,
    And its divisional characteristics?

    Perhaps there is really nothing to compare to.
    And that it is a whole thing,
    That is not divided.

    Can one be aware of not being aware?

    So what does that say about life and death?

    How relevant is difference to a whole thing?

    So is there really any difference?

    Or is it the easy thing to say,
    That something is one way or the other?

    So if One believes that the self,
    Only knows the surviving self,
    Or the self of the now that has always been.

    Then what becomes the desire?

    What would be the path of least resistance?

    Is it to continually fight and struggle,
    By noticing contradiction and dividing,
    The what is that is there?

    Or accepting reality for what it really is?

    It appears that if there is,
    A such thing as division,
    Then it can only sustain itself,
    Until it divides.

    So if the self requires division,
    To sustain itself,
    And divisions continually divide,
    And the ability to react to input,
    Still requires perception of difference.

    How long can the divided self sustain itself?

    It would seem that even now,
    Divisions are at the point,
    Where the differences are not entirely clear.

    And the society of selves,
    Have become almost dependant on communication,
    To verify the difference between divisions.

    Will the divisions become so great in number,
    That most reactions,
    Appear ordinary and common place?

    Will the reactions,
    To the perceived divisions,
    Become so great in number,
    That the basic nutritional needs of the self,
    Will become unknown to the point,
    That the divided self cannot be maintained?

    Will the need to supply energy to the divided selves,
    Require at some point,
    Energy sources,
    That cause genetic disorders?

    Is it possible,
    That these things are already occurring?

    If division is the opposite of unification,
    Then what is the word that represents,
    The balance between the two?

    If division can be divided in both directions,
    Beginning at any number.

    And a infinity symbol,
    Can be drawn starting at any point.

    Then could division,
    Eventually catch up to itself?

    If unification,
    Is inevitable.

    And a infinity symbol,
    Can still be redrawn over itself.

    Then could it be that,
    The what is that is there,
    Is a whole thing?
    But at the same time divided?
    And a beginning,
    But also has always been?

    So perhaps Infinity,
    Is the word that best represents,
    And Division.

    Does the self have Freewill?

    If the self,
    Is the what is that is there.

    And the thought process freewill,
    Is a reaction to the input,
    Of the what is that is there.

    Then could it be,
    That the word Freewill,
    Is the same as Infinity?

    Can infinity be Divided?
    Can infinity be Unified?
    Can infinity be Neither?
    Can infinity be Nothing?
    Can infinity be Oppressed?

    Written by: Giorgio Martoni
    WGA Registration Number: 1210150

    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    If called upon to do so I can write pages and pages of pseudo-intellectual guff. Generally I have more regard for my fellow man.

    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Join Date
    May 2007
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    "Can free will be understood through logical deduction"?

    Let's just slow down a bit: is logical deduction a process of exercising "free will"?

    If we are not being logical, in our deductions, in working things out to do what is favorable for our ability to survival (logical, I would think, the idea of trying to enhance our survival), if we are not being logical, we are being illogical, and thus compromising our freedom, IF indeed the act of being logical is an exercise of our freedom.

    Basically, LOGIC is an application to our will to be a free person or a slave to something. It's arbitrary, it's how you want to define it.

    For instance, Jesus suggested he could set us free by carrying our cross of sin, and thus liberating us from the cross of sin by teaching us how not to be sinful, while paradoxically he practiced the ways of tolerating people thinking he was a menace of historical philosophizing.

    OK, that's confusing.

    Is freedom "more space and more time"?

    More choice with more space and more time?

    Well, ultimate freedom would be having the keys of space and time, to the system, almost being an immortal.

    It would seem that to understand space and time to make use of it, one needs to be logical.

    I could then suggest that logic works BEST for our survival, and represents a path to freedom..............

    Of course though if everyone hated you, and you were damned for eternity, that your entire space and time was a living hell, kept in a cage, that would suck, freedom not yours........but in that case, you are not exercising access to all space, and time presumably would be a time not well spent, best forgotten and not looked forward to..........irrelevant.

    There is an answer to your question: I cant though TELL YOU there is one, you are going to have to exercise your free will and choose whatever angle you want to look at the situation.
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Caliban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Its a pity that you have been joined a month and have only one post.
    And to say the least it was mind boggling.

    Surely you wanted to day something else.

    I guess freewill is doing something without interference, or influence from others.[/img]
    Reply With Quote  

  6. #5  
    Join Date
    May 2007
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Thank you, but I think your response was more fundamental.

    Let us both though think about what type of philosophy we can join, an ultimate one, where we all live in peace with one another, presumably, you know, to be left alone with our free-will, in not influening one another. But I guess if we choose to be influenced by others, we do so because they represented a talent we decided not to adopt as our own personal "repertoire" of expertise..........that we chose one MAIN influence we exerted while living in the other menargerie of influences others would be responsible for, presumably.

    I guess it is an "expansive" yet holistic ideal, if not ideal, "freedom".

    On a simple level, if "level" is the word, if a man was looking for a "partner", a girlfriend, for instance, she would influence him in a unique way to him, limit his freedom, and him to her in a unique way to her, limit her freedom, but they would agree on that because they perhaps would have realized they possess qualities unqiue to each other they would not have the liberty to express without the other person being evident (sex, male-female, as the most fundamental example of how freedom is limited by our own biological construction).

    Sure, some men try to behave like women, and women men, as a freedom, as an exercise of freeedom, but in being practical and honest about what a person is and is not, need one say more.
    Reply With Quote  

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Maybe it's in the difference between acting and being acted upon. Any time someone deliberately commits an action, that action is at least partially the result of free will. Usually it's the result of a combination of free will and outside influences.

    Usually, it's more economical to have someone voluntarily do a job than to have them be forced to do it. I think that's part of why free will is such a societal ideal. It's more efficient than compulsion.
    Reply With Quote  

  8. #7  
    Join Date
    May 2007
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Sometimes, efficiency is having people do things for you, because you can trust they will stay in their box...........yet when someone does something for someone, technically, one is allowing someone to exercise a strength of ability, a freedom, if one chooses that..........and one then becomes a slave to what is offered, done, unless one gives strict instructions to the one making one's life more efficient.

    I think it is relative to what a person "defines" as their own "touchstone" of freedom: Moses, for instance, his touchstone was leaving Egypt behind, leaving that mind-perception cage.........leaving behind his duty as High priest, and almost effectively as some would have regarded it, making a slave out of himself to others he assisted in the process.

    I actually think freedom is when we break free from our "perception", when we GO BEYOND what we perceive and "realize" greater possible LEVELS to our "perception ability".........without of course leaving behind our ability to be "aware", to perceive.

    It would be great if someone had a theory of mathematics that linked to our perception that "allowed" us that type of "freedom", I day, maybe.
    Reply With Quote  

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman freejack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    "freedom is slavery" - 1984

    freedom is not just action but thought, if you think and act independantly

    you soon realise that your free will is limited and at best an illusion

    likewise within social frame work, the more free you are the more you are aware you are trapped

    say you had all the money in the world and you could do or buy whatever you want... instantly everything decreases in value

    thats why billionaires have 8 yachts, 20 mercs, 12 holiday homes and a private jet
    Reply With Quote  

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    I've come to the conclusion that free will is a misnomer based on the old presupposition that there is a separate entity called mind.

    I prefer the term self-control when talking about the subject matter of free will.

    I also don't think that the word freedom can be talked about as some form of platonian ideal. It has to be contextualised by a qualifier, such as political, economical, philosophical, religious, physical to make any sense. The qualifier in free will is the word will which was used to mean a separate entity called mind.

    What was once thought of as a transcendant entity [mind] is now thought of as a epiphenomena resulting by the interactions going on in our brain. Which is set on a genetic level and utilised through consciousness and then manipulated according to societal conditions and introspection.

    Just had a thought. Maybe freedom in the context provided by consciousness could be the ability to find and choose meaning in something fundamentally devoid of it.
    Reply With Quote  

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    What is free will?

    Hmm, that's provocative food for thought...

    Is free will the systematic process of decision, mandated by life experiences within a given social system of acceptability, risk, and comfort?

    Perhaps it is the ability to think beyond the limits assigned by others. The choice indicated is not the only option that can be chosen, despite causality.

    Perhaps free will is an endemic response to the presence of action. In other words, free will is only an illusion in the face of causality.

    Furthermore, can free will be a self-withholding property of choice, or can free will only exist in relative form? Can we ever achieve actual free will, or is there always some rule by which we must play?
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman youdiehard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    We're all stuck on Earth's Gravity. What do you call that?
    Reply With Quote  

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by youdiehard
    We're all stuck on Earth's Gravity.
    Hey! Stop bringing everybody down!

    Heh, sorry, couldn't resist!
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Benjamin Libet did a test where the subject had to do something with their wrist. He did not exclude free will by saying it has the power to veto the act or effort, but others say we have no choice. Also said about then saying that Libets test excludes the existance of a consciousness being a seperate entity. IF thats true what about all the choices we make on a conscious level such as choosing between item A and B. does our brain make that choice or do we?

    I think the brain deals more with reasoning and commands, such as "Lift hand" but we can ask our brain "left or right", or "yes or no." The way I see it consiousness is like a safety net for the brain it helps it with information.
    Reply With Quote  

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    For free will to exist there can't be an allknowing god.
    Reply With Quote  

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    There can be a god and have free will. it would still be free will to be planning a trip tommorow and then suddenly decide to cancel
    Reply With Quote  

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    This is hard to answer......

    Reply With Quote  

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Dream_Catcher
    There can be a god and have free will. it would still be free will to be planning a trip tommorow and then suddenly decide to cancel
    no, because a god, whom in most religinons is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipower, and a god also usually has a perfect plan and therefor he knows what you will do at any given time and free will is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Free will is something those (who know how everything works) take advantage of.

    To take advantage of something, is to konw there is room for movement........freedom.

    This world..........there is much room for movement: you are literate, you do basic arithmatic, yet the true science you have yet to show aptitude of "management" of.........beckons.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    And the point here might be....hmmm hard to decipher... I guess I'll let that pass by. So my argument remains valid
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts