Notices
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 601 to 674 of 674
Like Tree44Likes

Thread: Free will?

  1. #601  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    I don't know why I have to do the hard work for you...
    Because I am not a frikkin mind reader.

    Maybe in your deranged state of mind you think you already said what book you are talking about. You didn't.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #602  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    I don't know why I am promoting a book out here...
    Nor do I. Especially as you are doing a really crap job at it.

    You start by talking nonsense which are unable to either explain or support. Then you refuse to say what the book is until pressed. I hope they are not paying you for this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #603  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Read the BOOK and find out.
    I might read the book if you gave me any reason to think it was even slightly credible. As it is you have convinced me it is a work of total fantasy.And, as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said what the book is... Am I mistaken? Author? Title? ISBN? Amazon link? Anything?Or are we supposed to know what you are talking about through some sort of Quantum Magic?
    I am not able to PM it it to you for some odd reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #604  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    I am not able to PM it it to you for some odd reason.
    I had to turn off PMs - too many crackpots sending me messages. This is a discussion forum. If you have something to say, say it here.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #605  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    I am not able to PM it it to you for some odd reason.
    I had to turn off PMs - too many crackpots sending me messages. This is a discussion forum. If you have something to say, say it here.
    So I cannot provide the name of the book on a discussion forum, as that would amount to product promotion, and a violation of forum rules as well!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #606  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    This is a request that I am making to all of the Moderators of the Philosophy forum. Do I have the right to provide the name of a book to anyone who is asking for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #607  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    This is a request that I am making to all of the Moderators of the Philosophy forum. Do I have the right to provide the name of a book to anyone who is asking for it.
    I have seen the Quran, Bible, the Vedas, and several other books/manuscripts/articles endorsed on this forum so go ahead, provide us.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #608  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    This is a request that I am making to all of the Moderators of the Philosophy forum. Do I have the right to provide the name of a book to anyone who is asking for it.
    I have seen the Quran, Bible, the Vedas, and several other books/manuscripts/articles endorsed on this forum so go ahead, provide us.
    I have sent it to you as a PM....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #609  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    This is a request that I am making to all of the Moderators of the Philosophy forum. Do I have the right to provide the name of a book to anyone who is asking for it.
    I have seen the Quran, Bible, the Vedas, and several other books/manuscripts/articles endorsed on this forum so go ahead, provide us.
    I have sent it to you as a PM....
    I'm not asking for it......Thanks for the reminder to have that PM option turned off.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #610  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    This is a request that I am making to all of the Moderators of the Philosophy forum. Do I have the right to provide the name of a book to anyone who is asking for it.
    I have seen the Quran, Bible, the Vedas, and several other books/manuscripts/articles endorsed on this forum so go ahead, provide us.
    I have sent it to you as a PM....
    I'm not asking for it......Thanks for the reminder to have that PM option turned off.
    I sent it anyway. Please trash it immediately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #611  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    Going to sleep now. See you guys tomorrow. It is 02:46 AM in Delhi right now!! Time for light reading, light snacks and some cold water. Thirsty and hungry too!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #612  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    136
    I am making a HUGE offer out here. I will pay and ship any book I can think of any where in the world at my own cost. Whosoever is interested can let me know asap....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #613  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I think you are right. He is a stupid spam bot. I just read those identical posts in the "is god real" thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #614  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    He's gone.

    And thanks for all the reports.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #615  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2
    all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #616  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by aliengod0505 View Post
    all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address
    You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that anyone is interested.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #617  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aliengod0505 View Post
    all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address
    You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that anyone is interested.
    You misunderstand. I very clearly said IF anyone is interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #618  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by aliengod0505 View Post
    all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address
    And who might you be? What private messages are you referring to? Or are you a reincarnation of arjundeepakshriram?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #619  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    deleted double post
    Last edited by seagypsy; June 9th, 2013 at 07:05 AM. Reason: double post was supposed to be an edit not a new post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #620  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Sock puppet of arjundeepakshriram.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #621  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by aliengod0505 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aliengod0505 View Post
    all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address
    You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that anyone is interested.
    You misunderstand. I very clearly said IF anyone is interested.
    No you didn't. You said, and I quote: "all replies to all of my private messages can be sent to my account email address".

    There is no "if" in there. You appear to be a compulsive liar. Is this related to your OCD?
    seagypsy likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #622  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arjundeepakshriram View Post
    Read the BOOK and find out.
    I might read the book if you gave me any reason to think it was even slightly credible. As it is you have convinced me it is a work of total fantasy.And, as far as I can tell, you haven't actually said what the book is... Am I mistaken? Author? Title? ISBN? Amazon link? Anything?Or are we supposed to know what you are talking about through some sort of Quantum Magic?
    I don't know why I have to do the hard work for you...
    I don't know why I am promoting a book out here...
    Maybe you thought they like to read?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #623  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    (I'm not up to date with this thread.)
    In my opinion, we are conscious. I experience things, such as hearing my own thoughts. That sounds like magic, but it obviously isn't. We just can't explain it. If you disagree, you might just be trying to simplifying things. I'm pretty sure you experience things as well. That isn't an illusion. If consciousness were an illusion, and you had no consciousness, who would be there to experience the illusion? That's a paradox.
    If were assume that people are conscious, then we could have free will. Consciousness seems just as magical as free will. Believing that consciousness exists, but not free will, would be a double standard. Consciousness and free will are just as "magical" as everything else we don't understand.

    We cannot validate free will without more information. My only concern is whether or not we experience free will. We can easily see if 1+1=2, but it is much more difficult to see if we have free will.

    Here's a way to look at free will. Our mind is our neurons. We are our neurons. Our neurons decide what we do. Maybe those two ideas mean we have free will. You might be locked into a decision by your neurons, but that's the decision you want to make.
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    to predict something includes knowledge, but knowledge doesn't require prediction.
    Knowledge doesn't require prediction, but to do anything with that knowledge does require prediction. For example, to say something you know, you predict what sequence of words you should say in order to convey the knowledge. (Technically, a region predicts high level ideas, which then tells a lower region slightly lower level ideas. The ideas propogate down the hierarchy until the ideas are converted into very precise muscle commands. That's beside the point though.)
    Last edited by NNet; June 17th, 2013 at 03:52 PM.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #624  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Free will means anything can happen without a reason i.e. reasons are not present in space , in other words complete failure of science Secondaly "Free will " is logicaly impossible and that thing is logicaly impossible cannot be believed possible until you make it logically possible
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #625  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Free will means anything can happen without a reason
    No it doesn't.

    i.e. reasons are not present in space
    Is a cause not a "reason"?

    in other words complete failure of science
    Whut?

    Secondaly "Free will " is logicaly impossible
    Please lay out this logic for us, I think you've made an error somewhere.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #626  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Free will means anything can happen without a reason i.e. reasons are not present in space , in other words complete failure of science Secondaly "Free will " is logicaly impossible and that thing is logicaly impossible cannot be believed possible until you make it logically possible
    This is how I define Free Will, as well. Will or intent that is Free of physical direction or influence.
    I disagree with wording it as a "complete failure of science," however- but a complete failure to demonstrate the unknown and supernatural force required to make Free Will possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #627  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Free will means anything can happen without a reason i.e. reasons are not present in space , in other words complete failure of science Secondaly "Free will " is logicaly impossible and that thing is logicaly impossible cannot be believed possible until you make it logically possible
    This is how I define Free Will, as well. Will or intent that is Free of physical direction or influence.
    I disagree with wording it as a "complete failure of science," however- but a complete failure to demonstrate the unknown and supernatural force required to make Free Will possible.
    Yes I used misguided wording in hurry as it does not seem me to right
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #628  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Free will means anything can happen without a reason
    No it doesn't.

    i.e. reasons are not present in space
    Is a cause not a "reason"?

    in other words complete failure of science
    Whut?

    Secondaly "Free will " is logicaly impossible
    Please lay out this logic for us, I think you've made an error somewhere.
    Yes cause are reasons
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #629  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Yes cause are reasons
    So you now agree that:
    i.e. reasons are not present in space
    was incorrect?
    Or are you claiming that causes don't happen in space?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #630  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Yes cause are reasons
    So you now agree that:
    i.e. reasons are not present in space
    was incorrect?
    Or are you claiming that causes don't happen in space?
    My means is not that
    My means to say simply is that if causes /reasons exists then "Free Will" can not exists
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #631  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    RAJ_K, do you agree that we are conscious? (or have a "soul" or "mind" I guess.) We can't explain how seeing something causes a mental image to form which is different from simple neurons firing. So far, consciousness seems like magic. Yet it exists. If it were an illusion, who would be there to experience that illusion? And you aren't a zombie. If you say so, you are lying. You are conscious, which seems like magic. Obviously there is a reason for consciousness. We just don't know how it works. People don't say that crazy quantum physics phenomens don't happen just because they don't make sense. If you want to argue about whether or not we actually experience consciousness, feel free to do so.

    I personally don't think we have free will by one definition. We have to do what are neurons are doing. However, we are our neurons. Yes, we cannot control our own neurons. However, your neurons are your mind. There is nothing else. So, you control what you do.
    To phrase it in a different way, you (your neurons) control what you do. So you control what you do.
    I think most people's definition of free will is the ability of some seperate soul to control your neurons. If you call your neurons your soul, of course your neurons (or soul) controls your own neurons.
    I think that your neurons control your neurons, your neurons control you soul, and your soul controls your neurons.

    Just to clarify, my definition of free will is the ability of your soul to control your neurons. Reflexes are not free will because they directly control your muscles.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #632  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    RAJ_K, do you agree that we are conscious? (or have a "soul" or "mind" I guess.)
    Do you agree with it?
    Do you have any evidence of a Soul?
    Do you have any evidence that anything aside from the physical processes of the brain, nervous and lymphatic system contributes to our basic awareness and basic programming? Do you have any evidence of something outside of the brain leading to a person having self-aware thought?
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    We can't explain how seeing something causes a mental image to form which is different from simple neurons firing.
    Bull. It's been quite thoroughly explained as the Brains Own Interpretation of its Own Processes.
    You're in a Believers delusional Denial.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    So far, consciousness seems like magic. Yet it exists. If it were an illusion, who would be there to experience that illusion? And you aren't a zombie.
    So, you start out with "Magic" and then build your arguments on top of that stupid assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Obviously there is a reason for consciousness.
    You can say there is a cause but you cannot say there is a reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    We just don't know how it works.
    For what we don't know- you seem to think you know that it's
    Magic
    Exterior to the brain
    Metaphysical
    For claiming ignorance of the topic, you seem to be saying you know all the answers.
    Consciousness is a net product of the physical reactions and processes of the brain and unless you have any evidence of any other "forces," your arguments amount to jack diddly squat.
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I personally don't think we have free will by one definition. We have to do what are neurons are doing. However, we are our neurons. Yes, we cannot control our own neurons. However, your neurons are your mind. There is nothing else. So, you control what you do.
    There is a lot more than neurons.

    Watch a woman go through a hysterectomy. But that doesn't mean that there is anything magical going on- it only means the Body is a Complete System. It's interconnected and sensitive to its conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #633  
    Forum Freshman Dreamraider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga(US)/ Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    59
    This is a question that honestly depends on your world view and wether you mean it objectively or subjectively. Essentially, you have to rid your thinking of the intangibles (soul, spirit, god(s), the force etc..) On the base level free will isn't entirely possible. No matter who what or where you are some object or person has some amount age of control over your actions. Your natural biology even vies to control you.Ex: many people envy birds for their ability to go anywhere and do anything(flight) but very few think about migration. Can the wayward bird just decide,"hey, I don't feel like it", and stay in its primary location. No, it has no choice.Other people also have huge influence over us because humans are social animals.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #634  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    Ex: many people envy birds for their ability to go anywhere and do anything(flight) but very few think about migration. Can the wayward bird just decide,"hey, I don't feel like it", and stay in its primary location. No, it has no choice.Other people also have huge influence over us because humans are social animals.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #635  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    I wasn't very clear.

    I don't believe in magic, silly. I don't think there is any extra sauce. Just our brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You're in a Believers delusional Denial.
    I’m just speculating. I’m undecided. Here’s why I’m speculating about why we might have free will:
    -I've only really thought about the for-free-will side.
    -I think it would be more difficult to prove that free will doesn’t exist.
    -It seems to me like I chose my own actions. (Once again, I agree that there isn’t a soul. My concern is whether or not the fact that your brain triggers your actions/thoughts means that you trigger your own actions/thoughts.)
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    We can't explain how seeing something causes a mental image to form which is different from simple neurons firing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Bull. It's been quite thoroughly explained as the Brains Own Interpretation of its Own Processes.
    I was trying to explain that we don’t know why we feel like we are conscious or have free will. I agree with your response to my written statement.
    We don’t know why we feel like we make our own decisions. I’m not using that as an argument for free will. I’m just confused about some inconsistencies between what we experience and what actually is going on. This point is too confused to matter much. Blah.

    Your argument seems to be this:
    You cannot make your own decisions because your neurons decide what you do. If you had free will, you might decide to do something else.
    Why would you want to do something else? When you eat something, you both had to eat because of your neurons, and you wanted to eat it. Doesn’t that me you do what you want, and therefore have free will?
    Some behavior is not free will. For example, you might not have wanted to do what a reflex did. What is “you” though? Are there multiple “you” s in a single person? We can consider reflexes and the reward system as two separate beings. Each system has its own basic goals. There are two points in this paragraph. 1. Some behavior might not be free will. 2. Without any modification, this idea would mean that doormats have free will. (Not consciousness though.) (A doormat simply does what it wants, and doormats want to do nothing.)

    Is free will the ability to do what you want? Free will is an ambiguous term.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    For what we don't know- you seem to think you know that it's
    Magic
    Exterior to the brain
    Metaphysical
    For claiming ignorance of the topic, you seem to be saying you know all the answers.
    Consciousness is a net product of the physical reactions and processes of the brain and unless you have any evidence of any other "forces," your arguments amount to jack diddly squat.
    Why are you so convinced that I think there is some separate soul? Try reading my post again if you still think I believe in magic. I completely agree that consciousness is the result of physical reactions and processes of the brain. My arguments do not amount to jack diddly squat, now consider the points I made if you want. (I would completely understand it if my posts were too disorganized or speculative.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    There is a lot more than neurons.
    Does that affect what I said at all?
    I know that modulatory neurotransmitters are involved. How do non-neuronal cells contribute to processing? I looked up glial cells, and didn’t find anything about their role in processing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamraider View Post
    This is a question that honestly depends on your world view and wether you mean it objectively or subjectively. Essentially, you have to rid your thinking of the intangibles (soul, spirit, god(s), the force etc..) On the base level free will isn't entirely possible.
    I don't think we have a soul, but I do think we have a "soul". I was being extremely confusing there, sorry. soul=religious/metaphysical, "soul"=the ability to consciously perceive things I guess.
    On the base level, free will is possible. It depends on how you define free will. If you define free will as the ability to do what you want, then free will is possible. (...although that opens other doors. I wonder how want should be defined.)
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #636  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by qwertyman View Post
    do we realy have free will?

    the more I find out about psychology the more I learn that all emotions and everything about us is decided by our genes and memes.

    so do we realy have free will or are all our decisions controlled by our genes and memes?

    You are too much "infected " by Dawkins' outdated reductionistic materialistic deterministic mechanical paradigm or view of the world ,friend, and by his silly memes , disregarding the human free will and creativity , disregarding the influences of the environment in the process... .

    In his "Selfish Gene " ,Dawkins tried to develop his evolutionary genetic theory regarding human behaviour ,but then again , after "proving " there is in fact no such a thing as altruism and that the latter is just selfishness in disguise , he preaches about making people learn how to become altruistic in the future generations : a rather paradoxical way of thinking , simply because one cannot deviate from his/her deterministic genetic behaviour , Dawkins has been fantasising about .

    P.S.: As Augustine once said : we cannot prove the existence of the free will , we don't know wehere it begins or where it might end , but we do know it does exist .

    Trying to deny the obvious existence of the free will ( If there is no free will, there is no responsibility ....) reminds me of Zeno's silly paradox by the way : The poor Zeno tried to prove there can be no movement from A to B , simply because of the alleged infinity of space between A and B ....


    Bullshit thus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #637  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by WhistleBlower View Post
    In his "Selfish Gene " ,Dawkins tried to develop his evolutionary genetic theory regarding human behaviour ,but then again , after "proving " there is in fact no such a thing as altruism
    Um, no he didn't.

    P.S.: As Augustine once said : we cannot prove the existence of the free will , we don't know wehere it begins or where it might end , but we do know it does exist .
    On the contrary, we don't know it exists.

    Trying to deny the obvious existence of the free will ( If there is no free will, there is no responsibility ....)
    So what?
    That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether free will actually exists, it's simply IF... THEN.
    You'd have to show that responsibility (as a fact - rather than concept - exists 1).

    Bullshit thus
    Quite.


    1 And if god does exist, with all the attributes ascribed, then neither free will nor responsibility exist.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; June 26th, 2013 at 12:47 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #638  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WhistleBlower View Post
    In his "Selfish Gene " ,Dawkins tried to develop his evolutionary genetic theory regarding human behaviour ,but then again , after "proving " there is in fact no such a thing as altruism
    Um, no he didn't.
    Yes, he did : read that book of his then .

    P.S.: As Augustine once said : we cannot prove the existence of the free will , we don't know wehere it begins or where it might end , but we do know it does exist .
    On the contrary, we don't know it exists.
    We do know it exists , dude .
    We make conscious decisions every day .
    You are here ,aren't you ? Nobody forced you to be here .

    Trying to deny the obvious existence of the free will ( If there is no free will, there is no responsibility ....)
    So what?
    That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether free will actually exists, it's simply IF... THEN.
    You'd have to show that responsibility (as a fact - rather than concept - exists 1).
    Free will supposes responsibilty and accountability , the one cannot exist without the others .

    Are you trying to deny the existence of responsibility and accountability as well ?

    Bullshit thus
    Quite.
    Humanity has been struggling with this free will issue for so long now that there seems to be no end to it , so .

    It's a bullshit discussion , according to me , simply because of the obvious existence of the free will , according to me at least , once again


    1 And if god does exist, with all the attributes ascribed, then neither free will nor responsibility exist.
    On the contrary , God's will or existence do not exclude the free will or responsibility of man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #639  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by WhistleBlower View Post
    Yes, he did : read that book of his then .
    I have.

    We do know it exists , dude .
    We assume it exists.

    We make conscious decisions every day .
    Assumption.

    Free will supposes responsibilty and accountability , the one cannot exist without the others .
    Yet responsibility and accountability are concomitants of free will: which has NOT been shown to exist. Therfeore responsibility and accountability are assumed.

    Humanity has been struggling with this free will issue for so long now that there seems to be no end to it , so .
    You mean, it's not absolutely settled either way?
    You mean, your claims that it does exist are false?

    It's a bullshit discussion , according to me , simply because of the obvious existence of the free will , according to me at least , once again
    It's a bullshit discussion because YOU assume you have the answer. One you can't actually demonstrate. Got it.

    On the contrary , God's will or existence do not exclude the free will or responsibility of man
    Wrong again.
    Try this thread.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #640  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    We dont realise the importance of free will until we have lost it.
    believer in ahimsa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #641  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    We dont realise the importance of free will until we have lost it.
    Of course, in order to lose it we'd have to actually have it in the first place.
    Which has yet to be shown.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #642  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by qwertyman View Post
    do we realy have free will?

    the more I find out about psychology the more I learn that all emotions and everything about us is decided by our genes and memes.

    so do we realy have free will or are all our decisions controlled by our genes and memes?

    I really can't quite understand human life without the notion of free will .

    I don't understand why there is such controversies about the obvious existence of the free will .

    I am an artist and i have been trying to understand human creativity , for instance ,that cannot be something mechanical really .

    Maybe , someone here can enlighten me regarding this issue.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #643  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    We dont realise the importance of free will until we have lost it.
    Of course, in order to lose it we'd have to actually have it in the first place.
    Which has yet to be shown.
    So, you think there is no free will ? Why , please ?

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #644  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
    So, you think there is no free will ? Why , please ?
    Cheers
    Um, please read, exactly, what I wrote.
    My personal belief/ opinion regarding free will wasn't given: what I pointed out is that no one has yet shown that we do in fact have free will.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #645  
    Forum Freshman puzzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    tongzhou Beijing
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Pandora's Box View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by qwertyman View Post
    do we realy have free will?

    the more I find out about psychology the more I learn that all emotions and everything about us is decided by our genes and memes.

    so do we realy have free will or are all our decisions controlled by our genes and memes?

    I really can't quite understand human life without the notion of free will .

    I don't understand why there is such controversies about the obvious existence of the free will .

    I am an artist and i have been trying to understand human creativity , for instance ,that cannot be something mechanical really .

    Maybe , someone here can enlighten me regarding this issue.

    Cheers
    your will follow your desire,your desire come from your body,your body be made up by nature.so you can call it is free will .because body is yours.and you can take it as a illusion because body belongs to the nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #646  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    Maybe freewill is an illusion, the result of something we don't understand, perhaps because it is too complex for us to understand fully. Does it matter, though? Would it change your actions, your thoughts, the state of the universe, or anything else if freewill was the result of a highly complex set of variables?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #647  
    Forum Freshman Teralek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    I think we do have free will. With this I'm not saying that there is no determinism. What I'm sayin is that it's not just black or white choice.

    The problem with the MANY who uphold determinism is that they live under the indocrination of hard physicalism, a Newtonian world view and the assumption that everything that exists is material.

    The other problem I find with determinism world view is that when I ask a determinist to concieve a world where free will, in any form, be real I get nada, nothing. This tells me that determinism is not falsifiable, thus an assumption.

    Very very very briefly I think we have free will because:

    - I believe that conscience interacts with the physical world through a quantum state.
    - The nature of conscience is not newtonian and allows free will within certain parameters
    - The intuition of free choice is huge. (I can choose to be here babbling or go watch TV). Consequently there is more to conscience that what meets the eye (phylosophical zombie paradox?)
    - Choice acts upon a "wave" of probability. And your free will colapses this wave into a free choice action within a probability spectrum. Expectations vs. reality.
    - Electromagnetic waves in your brain make your conscience which is a thing on it's own and capable of conditional free choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #648  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    The other problem I find with determinism world view is that when I ask a determinist to concieve a world where free will, in any form, be real I get nada, nothing. This tells me that determinism is not falsifiable, thus an assumption.
    Hmm, let's see...
    How would a world in which there is free will be distinguishable from one where determinism is a fact?
    Wouldn't that mean that free will is also "not falsifiable and thus an assumption"?

    - I believe that conscience interacts with the physical world through a quantum state.
    You can believe what you like.
    If you can't show it (or support it at least) then it's just a belief.

    - The nature of conscience is not newtonian and allows free will within certain parameters
    What?

    - The intuition of free choice is huge. (I can choose to be here babbling or go watch TV). Consequently there is more to conscience that what meets the eye (phylosophical zombie paradox?)
    Which doesn't, in any way, negate determinism. (In fact does nothing either way).
    The size of the phase space (to use a physics term) has no bearing on the conditions that apply within it.

    - Choice acts upon a "wave" of probability. And your free will colapses this wave into a free choice action within a probability spectrum. Expectations vs. reality.
    Unsupported claim.

    - Electromagnetic waves in your brain make your conscience which is a thing on it's own and capable of conditional free choice.
    Unsupported claim.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 14th, 2013 at 10:31 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #649  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    I think we do have free will. With this I'm not saying that there is no determinism. What I'm sayin is that it's not just black or white choice.

    The problem with the MANY who uphold determinism is that they live under the indocrination of hard physicalism, a Newtonian world view and the assumption that everything that exists is material.

    The other problem I find with determinism world view is that when I ask a determinist to concieve a world where free will, in any form, be real I get nada, nothing. This tells me that determinism is not falsifiable, thus an assumption.

    Very very very briefly I think we have free will because:

    - I believe that conscience interacts with the physical world through a quantum state.
    - The nature of conscience is not newtonian and allows free will within certain parameters
    - The intuition of free choice is huge. (I can choose to be here babbling or go watch TV). Consequently there is more to conscience that what meets the eye (phylosophical zombie paradox?)
    - Choice acts upon a "wave" of probability. And your free will colapses this wave into a free choice action within a probability spectrum. Expectations vs. reality.
    - Electromagnetic waves in your brain make your conscience which is a thing on it's own and capable of conditional free choice.
    Free will and determinism don't play well on the playground together.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #650  
    Forum Freshman Teralek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Hmm, let's see...
    How would a world in which there is free will be distinguishable from one where determinism is a fact?
    Wouldn't that mean that free will is also "not falsifiable and thus an assumption"?
    that's a good one! Good strawman argument!
    For me is simple. You live in a deterministic world. You can be pretty sure that the Sun will rise tomorow. That part is deterministic.
    Problem with the world is that now we found out that the ultimate nature of reality is indeterministic. And it's not that we don't have the technology or we didn't find the right algorithm to predict where the electron will be it is because it's really random and doesn't obey any mathematical algorithm. There is no hidden variable.

    It is indeterminism at the core of what we can percieve as reality that allows free will.

    So you see I don't do the same mistake as you. If we lived in a perfect newtonian/relativistic world or you could find the algorithm of a human mind I would agree with the mad duck of certainty who talks like my militant atheist friends. But when you cannot predict certain events no matter what your degree of knowledge, it tells me that pure indeterminism kills a deterministic view of the world.

    Statistically and most importantly metaphysically, there is a difference between probability generated by math (computational) and non computational probability. When you ask the computer to generate a random number it uses a computational algorithm, and if you know this algorithm you can predict the number sequence. Many people don't know this.

    Now you can say in the same "unsupported claim" accusation of my arguments that the link between indeterminism and free will is an unsupported claim. Basically it's an unsupported claim to say it's an unsupported claim that indeterminism allows free will. That's all you have. By doing this you are actually hanging yourself in your unfalsifiable perfectly deterministic world.

    I could expose my theory further but I do have to put my time to a better use. I'm writing a book about it anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #651  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    For me is simple. You live in a deterministic world. You can be pretty sure that the Sun will rise tomorow. That part is deterministic.
    Problem with the world is that now we found out that the ultimate nature of reality is indeterministic. And it's not that we don't have the technology or we didn't find the right algorithm to predict where the electron will be it is because it's really random and doesn't obey any mathematical algorithm. There is no hidden variable.
    I would say that you make that assertion with too much certainty.

    Q.M. is something that we still have a great deal to learn about and observation of that which is smaller than any scale machinery is exceptionally difficult.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #652  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    I think we do have free will. With this I'm not saying that there is no determinism. What I'm sayin is that it's not just black or white choice.

    The problem with the MANY who uphold determinism is that they live under the indocrination of hard physicalism, a Newtonian world view and the assumption that everything that exists is material.

    The other problem I find with determinism world view is that when I ask a determinist to concieve a world where free will, in any form, be real I get nada, nothing. This tells me that determinism is not falsifiable, thus an assumption.

    Very very very briefly I think we have free will because:

    - I believe that conscience interacts with the physical world through a quantum state.
    - The nature of conscience is not newtonian and allows free will within certain parameters
    - The intuition of free choice is huge. (I can choose to be here babbling or go watch TV). Consequently there is more to conscience that what meets the eye (phylosophical zombie paradox?)
    - Choice acts upon a "wave" of probability. And your free will colapses this wave into a free choice action within a probability spectrum. Expectations vs. reality.
    - Electromagnetic waves in your brain make your conscience which is a thing on it's own and capable of conditional free choice.
    Free will and determinism don't play well on the playground together.
    Yeah I always kind of wondered wether it was predetermined that we'd have free will, or wether it was something we could actually choose.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #653  
    Forum Freshman Teralek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Free will and determinism don't play well on the playground together.
    "A limited amount of choices is not a lack of choice, therefore we have freewill within that context."

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I would say that you make that assertion with too much certainty.

    Q.M. is something that we still have a great deal to learn about and observation of that which is smaller than any scale machinery is exceptionally difficult.
    Yes man you're right... I'm certainly not the only one here though!!!! I think I get to passionate when I see rethoric and assumptions.
    It's possible that I'm wrong. I concede that. What really tips me is when others don't see to recognize they can be wrong.

    Bear in mind that my first post here started with the sentence "I think" not "I'm sure"
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #654  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    that's a good one! Good strawman argument!
    Really?
    Essentially all I've done is reverse YOUR argument.

    It is indeterminism at the core of what we can percieve as reality that allows free will.
    Please show how this is so.

    So you see I don't do the same mistake as you.
    Oops.
    1) Where did I make a "mistake"? (I doubt you'll find one).
    2) You go on to make your own mistakes.

    But when you cannot predict certain events no matter what your degree of knowledge, it tells me that pure indeterminism kills a deterministic view of the world.
    Really?
    Indeterminacy on a sub-atomic level translates directly to indeterminacy on a macro scale, does it?

    Now you can say in the same "unsupported claim" accusation of my arguments that the link between indeterminism and free will is an unsupported claim. Basically it's an unsupported claim to say it's an unsupported claim that indeterminism allows free will.
    Wrong again.
    All you've done is make claims.
    Without supporting them except by making other unsupported claims.

    By doing this you are actually hanging yourself in your unfalsifiable perfectly deterministic world.
    Two errors, one of which I won't mention, because I'm sure you'll eventually see it, and the other: AGAIN how is a non-deterministic world falsifiable?

    I could expose my theory further but I do have to put my time to a better use. I'm writing a book about it anyway.
    You don't have a theory. But you do have a lot of unsupported claims.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #655  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    "A limited amount of choices is not a lack of choice, therefore we have freewill within that context."
    Your "therefore" is an assumption.

    I think I get to passionate when I see rethoric and assumptions.
    Yet so far that's all you've presented.

    It's possible that I'm wrong. I concede that.
    Then you're progressing grasshopper.

    What really tips me is when others don't see to recognize they can be wrong.
    Others such as...?
    (Or is this another assumption on your part?)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #656  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    I think we do have free will. With this I'm not saying that there is no determinism. What I'm sayin is that it's not just black or white choice.
    That is absolutely reasonable, but in fact does not bring much to the discussion unless you are prepared to delves into those various shades of grey.

    The problem with the MANY who uphold determinism is that they live under the indocrination of hard physicalism, a Newtonian world view and the assumption that everything that exists is material.
    I won't put it like that. That is not being "classic" or "Newtonian", this is being realist. Everything that exist is "real". Love and free-will also. Unicorns too there are some 5 words to the left. "Free will" is one of those real word that get used by every body, but in sometime totally different ways. It is easy to show that free will does not exist because nothing free exist in the world, will or lunch.
    Anyway, we still exert some level of decision making, and we may call that "free will". There are worst oxymoron ....

    The other problem I find with determinism world view is that when I ask a determinist to concieve a world where free will, in any form, be real I get nada, nothing. This tells me that determinism is not falsifiable, thus an assumption.
    Determinism have been falsified ... deterministically. Again a bad wording no ? But scientifically, logically, you can prove that you cannot know things in advance. And I don't speak about quantum theory, I speak about clouds that will be there (shapes and all) in two days (or two nano seconds), I speak about the position of planets. None of them depends on "quantum state". They both depends on a totally perturbatives physics, and all physics are, even if chaos is not really teached and appreciated.


    - I believe that conscience interacts with the physical world through a quantum state.
    What I can deduce by that is that "conscience" for you is something that interacts with the physical word. I have no clue why quantum state should enter the mix. My "consciousness" is formed by the interaction of billions of neuron's bathing in a soup of billions of billions of others , cells, molecule, each of them having a say.
    That totally un-computationable soup is behave anyway as a totally non-quantic climate, and stable enough between the various mood weather.

    - The nature of conscience is not newtonian and allows free will within certain parameters
    Definitely, within every parameter ... but death.

    - The intuition of free choice is huge. (I can choose to be here babbling or go watch TV). Consequently there is more to conscience that what meets the eye (phylosophical zombie paradox?)
    My cat is not a zombie, and occasionally in war with mouses, and he made choices, based on more or less educated instincts... He has free will, I can guarantee that

    - Choice acts upon a "wave" of probability. And your free will colapses this wave into a free choice action within a probability spectrum. Expectations vs. reality.
    Sorry, but I find that is a totally ludicrous mix with quantum theory. You don't collapse zillions of probability waves at once, it is just the opposite.

    - Electromagnetic waves in your brain make your conscience which is a thing on it's own and capable of conditional free choice.
    No only Electromagnetic waves, electric potential, hormones level, heat, energy, various various sub motions/spin states, et etc etc.

    What make that you have a conscience, is that you have been educated to have/recognize one, and that your brains hardware is particularly well suited to run that kind of software.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #657  
    Forum Freshman Teralek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    Boing3000, there is a theoretical construct about the link between conscience and QM in Roger Penrose work.

    If you concede that free will exists in "some level of decision making" that's enough for me. That's actually what I've been saying.

    The lack of precision about where planets will be is because we don't have all the variables and instruments. But there is a computational model that can accuratly predict where the planet will be. We just don't know it. QM is different; the uncertainty principle is not computational.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #658  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    Boing3000, there is a theoretical construct about the link between conscience and QM in Roger Penrose work.
    Not really theoretical. More hypothetical or speculative. And ultimately based on his (unsupported) personal belief that consciousness cannot arise from a purely materialistic substrate (although it isn't clear how throwing in QM resolves this any more than invoking a soul).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #659  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    Boing3000, there is a theoretical construct about the link between conscience and QM in Roger Penrose work.

    If you concede that free will exists in "some level of decision making" that's enough for me. That's actually what I've been saying.

    The lack of precision about where planets will be is because we don't have all the variables and instruments. But there is a computational model that can accuratly predict where the planet will be. We just don't know it. QM is different; the uncertainty principle is not computational.
    Roger Penrose's work is hypothetical at best at the moment and requires employing all manner of structures and processes he has no direct evidence of.

    Even if he turns out to be correct though, there is no logical way to separate the fact that we are nothing more than the product of DNA and the environment influencing the expression of that DNA. Every possible conscious decision we make employs that reality. There is no way to separate it and hence, no way for us to make any kind of meaningful "free" choice in the usual sense of the word. We have at best an illusion of free will, an illusion we can't suppress.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #660  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    309
    This seems to be a "Free will of the gaps" argument, like the "God of the gaps" arguments popular with religious apologists.
    We don't know exactly when a uranium-238 atom will decay. We do know that after 4.468 billion years half of the mass of u238 will decay into th-234 through alpha decay. We can't determine the exact time it will happen for each atom, though. Does this mean that Uranium has free will, or is it determined by a process that we don't understand yet?
    Why can't the same be true for the human mind? We can determine probabilities of action, belief and the like, but not predict every action perfectly. Does that translate into free will, or just the illusion of free will?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #661  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Teralek View Post
    Boing3000, there is a theoretical construct about the link between conscience and QM in Roger Penrose work.
    Sadly so. When, like me, you started you delving into quantum theories by the tedious debates on the various unfalsifiable hunch that are quatum theory "interpretation"(like if it needed to be translated :-).
    But I finally bumped into Feynman, which will sober you up and finally collapse all those BS about consciousness...

    If you concede that free will exists in "some level of decision making" that's enough for me.

    I don't have to concede that. It would be like conceding that water is wet. But if you really need it I do concede it.
    We do have that same general use for "free will", but I strongly emphasis that the will is just those potential that entropy is leading in a one way direction, and free is just what it is NOT.
    If you are a rational person, and don't believe in magic, nothing "free" pop's up, nothing vanish. The various law of conservation are not only physics hard core shells of truths it is just the only way science can be done, logically. Nobody wants to rely on a consciousness or tiny unicorns, to sort out the result of an experiment OR an equation solving.
    In other words, if you imagine a computer, even backed up with real analogical sources of randomness, and that this computer is able to decide were it will go hunting for mouses, and when it will come home, what would make it different from a cat ? Even if programmed totally deterministically, it will be indistinguishable from the "free will" of the average cat.

    around 600 post below, I stress that point by stating that you only have the degree of liberty associated with previous knowledge, and then motivations and so forth. Some would argues the opposite, that only a total void makes you free. Like colon in a virgin landscape (well, if it has ever existed). My take is that won't ever have the "free will" to enter the next restaurant at the end of the prairie.

    The lack of precision about where planets will be is because we don't have all the variables and instruments. But there is a computational model that can accuratly predict where the planet will be.
    We just don't know it.

    No. Absolutely not. Nothing is wrong in our instruments, and one way QM is useful is that it teach you that. You would never know the position of anything, and the more you will try, the less you will know its velocity.
    You know the Heisenberg principle, and it has nothing to do with randomness. And you would need both( and more), and not just for some just for a bunch of "theoretical body", but an infinity of real giga zillions particules body, not counting the average neutrino passing by. And is is a proven fact that any slightest difference in any digit anywhere will lead to totally different outcome.
    And no again, because even for ridiculously classic/simplified model, no computational solution exists (yet, lets wait the chaos genius that would solve that)

    QM is different; the uncertainty principle is not computational.
    QM is difficult to compute, for sure, especially when more than a few quantum things are at play, but uncertainties ARE computed and ARE observed. QM is different, because it is often counter intuitive.
    Free will is no more burred in probability waves that in measurement inaccuracies... it is bundled in the chaotic matter that we call "reality"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #662  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    155
    IMO, we have the free will only upto the extent that we can only produce, discover and invent certain things through our efforts and ability, but when we attempt to create anything or even wish to create anything, our free will fails so miserably that we feel like we do not have any free will at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #663  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithfulbeliever View Post
    IMO, we have the free will only upto the extent that we can only produce, discover and invent certain things through our efforts and ability, but when we attempt to create anything or even wish to create anything, our free will fails so miserably that we feel like we do not have any free will at all.
    In other words: opinion and hand waving, coupled with vague claims.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #664  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Question. So, if there is no such thing as "free will" is everything then pre-determined?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #665  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    hypothesis: "Everything in the universe is free, to the limits of its nature and available energy." correllary: Generally science concerns itself with those aspects that are matters involving the nature of things. Thus not even looking at the "freedom". The evidence of freedom is written off as "random variablity"," ramdom error". When very large numbers of things are behaving freely the observed effect is "random" behavior. Any scientific study where any of the results are discribed as "scatter", "normal variation", "random variation", or similar words that discribe the results not being exactly on the predicted target, have in fact been measuring freedom. Therefore, freewill, is proven, and has been demonstrated countless times. If determinism were correct there would be no "random" elements, no "scatter" no need to use words like "mean distribution". Therefore determinism has been effectively disproved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #666  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    The evidence of freedom is written off as "random variablity"," ramdom error". When very large numbers of things are behaving freely the observed effect is "random" behavior. Any scientific study where any of the results are discribed as "scatter", "normal variation", "random variation", or similar words that discribe the results not being exactly on the predicted target, have in fact been measuring freedom.
    Please show that this is actually a fact, as opposed to an assumption.

    Therefore, freewill, is proven, and has been demonstrated countless times.
    Assumption.

    If determinism were correct there would be no "random" elements, no "scatter" no need to use words like "mean distribution".
    ONLY IF we were aware of all variables.

    Therefore determinism has been effectively disproved.
    False.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #667  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Here is the experimental set up: You will need some detailed socialogical data. We used the non winning entries at the "moon light maddness sales raffles" at two modest sized towns and the outpatient billing records from their local hospitals. We used Norhampton and Greenfield Massachusetts. You are measuring the "access to central place functions" of people from the surrounding towns and villages. You will also need accurate maps of the area and census data. The device consists of a cork board, some standard sized carbon paper, a source of direct current which can be metered out in micro quanities and a multimeter calibrated to read those quanities. Some metal push pins, wires with allegator clips to deliver measured current to push pins and wires with neddle point probes to read current. Proceedure: Map the local area under consideration onto the carbon paper using #2 soft pencils. The carbon layer conducts electricity at a uniform resistence, the pencil marks show major roads, since they are graphite they reduce resistence and make "travel" easier for electrons. Input current equivalent to the population of the towns and villages onto the the carbon paper map at the appropriate locations using a push pin, allegator clamp and wire and read off the current that arrives at the "central places". Use the raw data as your control. We experimentally confirmed that the device allowed for accurate prediction of useage of cental place functions by real people. My conclusion: People subjectively experience "free will" and "make free will choices", under experimental conditions, electrons, acting" randomly" have been shown to duplicate those free will choices. Two interpertations are possible: One that our subjective experience is illusion. Or two, that we are not deluding ourselves, we do experience the freedom we have direct experience of, but that the underlying phenomenon is far more widespread than we had suposed. Being on the order of being a universal quality of matter rather than a special human trick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #668  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Maybe,
    Just maybe, determinism ain't the opposite of free will?

    If given an either/or choice between determinism and free will, I'd likely fall on the side of "free will".
    However:
    I ain't actually chosen much of my life.
    It is as though I were a tumble weed being blown about by a fickle wind untill I blow up against a fence
    Resting there, I seem to have stability, and make the best of my current circumstances. And, no sooner than I think I am in control, the wind shifts and off I go, tumbling o'er the earth, being blown here and there with no conscious control of my destiny. Until, I find myself tangled in a new situation and repeat my futile attempts at control.... but alas, my seeming control is limited by temporal controls well beyond my own.

    Was it that ficle wind that blew me in here so that I could spare with the mentally defective(no offense intended duck ), and spacially/temporally constrained fellow travelors, or is there an internal driver carrying me forward in a seemingly random fashion? Are any of us really in charge of our own destinies?
    How would we ever know?

    Control vs. Chaos
    My favorite phrase there was when Smart would say "Don't tell me that ..., and someone would say what he didn't want to hear, whereupon he would say "I asked you not to tell me that"
    Is ignorance really bliss?
    Boing3000 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #669  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Here is the experimental set up: You will need some detailed socialogical data. We used the non winning entries at the "moon light maddness sales raffles" at two modest sized towns and the outpatient billing records from their local hospitals. We used Norhampton and Greenfield Massachusetts. You are measuring the "access to central place functions" of people from the surrounding towns and villages. You will also need accurate maps of the area and census data. The device consists of a cork board, some standard sized carbon paper, a source of direct current which can be metered out in micro quanities and a multimeter calibrated to read those quanities. Some metal push pins, wires with allegator clips to deliver measured current to push pins and wires with neddle point probes to read current. Proceedure: Map the local area under consideration onto the carbon paper using #2 soft pencils. The carbon layer conducts electricity at a uniform resistence, the pencil marks show major roads, since they are graphite they reduce resistence and make "travel" easier for electrons. Input current equivalent to the population of the towns and villages onto the the carbon paper map at the appropriate locations using a push pin, allegator clamp and wire and read off the current that arrives at the "central places". Use the raw data as your control. We experimentally confirmed that the device allowed for accurate prediction of useage of cental place functions by real people.
    What?
    Has that "experiment" actually been done?
    When, where and by whom?

    My conclusion: People subjectively experience "free will" and "make free will choices", under experimental conditions, electrons, acting" randomly" have been shown to duplicate those free will choices.
    Nonsense.
    In order to show that "free will choices" are being duplicated you'd have to define exactly what a "free wil choice" is and how it would be distinguished from "action/ decision subject to constraints that are not only undetermined but unknown".

    Two interpertations are possible: One that our subjective experience is illusion. Or two, that we are not deluding ourselves, we do experience the freedom we have direct experience of, but that the underlying phenomenon is far more widespread than we had suposed.
    With a third interpretation: you haven't shown anything...
    (Oh, and you're making assumptions again).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #670  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Maybe,
    Just maybe, determinism ain't the opposite of free will?

    If given an either/or choice between determinism and free will, I'd likely fall on the side of "free will".
    However:
    I ain't actually chosen much of my life.
    It is as though I were a tumble weed being blown about by a fickle wind untill I blow up against a fence
    Resting there, I seem to have stability, and make the best of my current circumstances. And, no sooner than I think I am in control, the wind shifts and off I go, tumbling o'er the earth, being blown here and there with no conscious control of my destiny. Until, I find myself tangled in a new situation and repeat my futile attempts at control.... but alas, my seeming control is limited by temporal controls well beyond my own.

    Was it that ficle wind that blew me in here so that I could spare with the mentally defective(no offense intended duck ), and spacially/temporally constrained fellow travelors, or is there an internal driver carrying me forward in a seemingly random fashion? Are any of us really in charge of our own destinies?
    How would we ever know?

    Control vs. Chaos
    My favorite phrase there was when Smart would say "Don't tell me that ..., and someone would say what he didn't want to hear, whereupon he would say "I asked you not to tell me that"
    Is ignorance really bliss?
    I believe in free will. I don't believe things, in general, are pre-determined, as I believe we make choices that guide us our lives paths. I also think in some instances, ignorance is bliss. Awareness of an unpleasant reality can really suck sometimes. Pardon moi
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #671  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey View Post
    How can you have free will if every thought and action is determined by a limited structure that allows for a limited range of output and input.
    You don't know that, you don't know if theres any outout at all while watching this: Is Anything Real? - YouTube episode of vsauce he describes egocentric predicament that says you may not be able to see beyond your own brain and says you can't see beyond your phaneron/
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #672  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    Is it not assumptive to suggest your measurement of the structural relationship to the input and output of all? (Just a student passing through)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #673  
    Forum Freshman HB3l1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    85
    I am not entirely sure whether I can accept that there is a free will or that there is not.

    Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways but our mind is made of atoms and particles and then how can free will exist?

    But at the other hand it's not easy to falsifiable existence of free will. For instance it was my free will to write 'instance' instead of 'example'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #674  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by HB3l1 View Post
    I am not entirely sure whether I can accept that there is a free will or that there is not.

    Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways but our mind is made of atoms and particles and then how can free will exist?

    But at the other hand it's not easy to falsifiable existence of free will. For instance it was my free will to write 'instance' instead of 'example'?
    Probably, as it is my free will to say, I do not agree, and your free will to tell me I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •