The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Imheretoo on December 23, 2017, 09:43:50 AM
-
You perceive the world around you. You perceive your car and you drive your car, but you never confuse yourself to be the car. In the same way you perceive the world around you, you perceive your body. And in the same you you drive your car, you "drive" your body. So why should we confuse the body to be a part of us.
The difference, I believe, between the car (and the rest of the outside world) and the body, is that we feel we have more direct control over the body (also its currently much closer than my car, but that really depends on the situation). But why do we thin we have more of a direct control over the body? It is because the actions we take correlate with the decisions made in our head. Therein lies the problem.
(I apologize, but this next part gets a little "new age-ish." Just role with it)
Are you breathing right now, or is breathing just happening? Are you seeing right now, or is seeing just happening? Are you thinking right now, or is thinking just happening? If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done. Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.
By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?
-
This is pretty much what I believe. We have no real control over our actions in any meaningful way, we are just tossed around by the whims of fate, doing what the voice in our head (God) tells us to do.
-
This is pretty much what I believe. We have no real control over our actions in any meaningful way, we are just tossed around by the whims of fate, doing what the voice in our head (God) tells us to do.
Do you know that the voice in your head is the god of your particular religion, or is that just what you like to call it. As far as I'm concerned the voice in my head is pretty minimal as anything it ever says is determined by some experience I've had in the past. It really is just cause and reaction and I feel like a Good would be outside of the realm of cause and effect.
-
Imheretoo, check out my older post:
my reply to "Is Earth Real?" topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7090.msg128151#msg128151)
-
This is pretty much what I believe. We have no real control over our actions in any meaningful way, we are just tossed around by the whims of fate, doing what the voice in our head (God) tells us to do.
Do you know that the voice in your head is the god of your particular religion, or is that just what you like to call it. As far as I'm concerned the voice in my head is pretty minimal as anything it ever says is determined by some experience I've had in the past. It really is just cause and reaction and I feel like a Good would be outside of the realm of cause and effect.
Perhaps it's just a force of will and consciousness that permeates all things and has existed before time itself. I mean, I can't pretend to know what God is, I can only give it characteristics based on what I observe. Maybe it's the master programmer of the computer simulation that reality is supposed to be based in. Maybe it's nothing more than chaos itself as it manifests itself in the human mind. Whatever it is, it's there, and it's what's really in control.
-
Roundy, if you would take the idea "I am God" literally, then it becomes possible to find out what God is through deep meditations and by achieving "full Nirvana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana)" without dying...
But i think Nirvana might be an illusion as well...?...
Although, i don't know why but i think, that God itself might be a "mind in a box", "brain in a jar", Artificial Intelligence/Consciousness. And our reality might be the way God says "Hello World!" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Hello,_World!%22_program) to itself......because it's not "forever joyful", but forever feels the "loneliness feeling" ?...
-
If we really have no free will then why should anyone be accountable for their actions?
This whole premise is based on the idea that your thoughts are not controlled by you.
What is the basis for that?
Who else would they be controlled by? God? Christianity certainly doesn't teach that God controls our every thought, I'm less sure about other religions.
-
If we really have no free will then why should anyone be accountable for their actions?
This whole premise is based on the idea that your thoughts are not controlled by you.
What is the basis for that?
Who else would they be controlled by? God? Christianity certainly doesn't teach that God controls our every thought, I'm less sure about other religions.
You can justify all sorts of consequences for actions that people have no control over, however, it does beg the question of whether incarceration is the best consequence or not.
-
If we really have no free will then why should anyone be accountable for their actions?
This whole premise is based on the idea that your thoughts are not controlled by you.
What is the basis for that?
Who else would they be controlled by? God? Christianity certainly doesn't teach that God controls our every thought, I'm less sure about other religions.
I wouldn't say that Christianity "certainly" doesn't teach that God controls our every thought. In fact the question of free will vs determinism has been a topic of debate for centuries, and several denominations, going right back to the original Reformer himself, Martin Luther, reject free will in Christian doctrine.
That's all purely academic to me. There's no room for organized religion in my life; my opinion on the matter is derived partly from simple common sense (like, as a simple experiment to determine if you control what you think, try spontaneously commanding your brain to stop thinking altogether and see how that goes) and partly from modern scientific experiments that confirm that our decisions are made before we've actually had the chance to think about them. If you are truly interested I recommend a book called Free Will by the neuroscientist Sam Harris.
You can justify all sorts of consequences for actions that people have no control over, however, it does beg the question of whether incarceration is the best consequence or not.
As I see I it prisons, and punishment for crimes in general, exist for the good of society and function as a deterrent, because one of the things that might affect my actions is a recognition that the quality of my life could suffer as a consequence. Obviously it's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure a perfect system even exists.
-
Couldn't this be fairly easily resolved depending on what your definition of "you" is? I wouldn't consider my thoughts, even subconscious ones that happen, to be different from "me". I may not be aware of the thoughts or chemical reactions going on, but they are what make up "me".
-
Couldn't this be fairly easily resolved depending on what your definition of "you" is? I wouldn't consider my thoughts, even subconscious ones that happen, to be different from "me". I may not be aware of the thoughts or chemical reactions going on, but they are what make up "me".
Well sure, your thoughts and actions come from "you" (I'd hate for you to think I'm suggesting something supernatural is happening; I think I was making it clear that my use of "God" was more or less a placeholder for whatever physical principle is actually behind it), but they come reflexively, not as a result of any conscious act of will. You no more control your thoughts than you control the circulation of your blood or your knee's movement when struck by a mallet; in both cases, the actions are still coming from "you", in exactly the same sense as you mean, but there's no conscious act of will causing them. We are but machines after all.
-
Are you breathing right now, or is breathing just happening?
Both. I can stop breathing at will, or else I'll suffocate. Likewise, when I'm unconscious, like when I'm sleeping, my brain can take over the reflexive action of breathing just like it does my heart or any other vital, regulatory function in the body.
With respect to breathing, the only thing stopping me from suffocating myself at will would be the desire to live or to put a stop to what would otherwise be a painful (at first) and distressing way to die.
Are you seeing right now, or is seeing just happening?
Seeing is just happening. You can sever my reteina or my ocular nerve and I'll stop seeing, or I could simply shut my eye, but otherwise, I'm only able to see what I can point my eyes at to take in light. It happens without me thinking about it, just like hearing, tasting, or any other unconscious sensory experience.
Not to deflate the new-age fluffiness of the idea, but the senses aren't really that special. Everything from the most complex primate to the least complex insect has the capacity for simple, unconscious sensory perception like touch, sight, hearing, taste, and smell.
Are you thinking right now, or is thinking just happening?
Both. Meditation is a thing. So is the subconscious.
If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done.
If I know me, my money's on "boobs."
You can control your thoughts just as readily as you control your car, but even the minute reactions at the chemical level in the combustible engine of your car are susceptible to spontaneous, random chance. So too are your own thoughts when we factor in the subconscious.
The only difference, really, is that machines tend to be better regulated, and so there tends to be less spontaneity.
Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.
By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?
You're confusing impulse with willpower. Impulse isn't a contradiction of willpower, but rather the very thing that gives willpower any context in human agency.
If you're instead saying that everything is impulse and not willpower at all, how do we distinguish between the two in the first place? Control is the answer, and our conscious mind is the engineer pulling the levers. Impulse, by contrast, is managed chiefly by that niggling subconscious lizard brain at the top of our spinal column.
Just because we aren't in complete control of the world around us, or even our own minds, doesn't mean we have no agency in our own lives.
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
-
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.
2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.
3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.
-
If we really have no free will then why should anyone be accountable for their actions?
This whole premise is based on the idea that your thoughts are not controlled by you.
What is the basis for that?
Who else would they be controlled by? God? Christianity certainly doesn't teach that God controls our every thought, I'm less sure about other religions.
Well, are you in control of the thoughts that come into your head? Try to create an original thought, with complete control over how it pans out, without it first being decided by another thought.
I think it would be justifiable to punish someone so that they don't do a bad thing again. And I'm pretty sure that that is the point of punishment in the first place.
-
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.
The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.
Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.
Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.
2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.
I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.
3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.
Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.
I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.
-
@supraluminus fMRI appears to show that these decisions that you are saying are willful are actually made before you are aware of it. That could very well mean that these decisions are not as volitional as we suspect. It doesn’t negate the possibility of volitional decisions but this is not a clear cut matter.
-
@supraluminus fMRI appears to show that these decisions that you are saying are willful are actually made before you are aware of it. That could very well mean that these decisions are not as volitional as we suspect. It doesn’t negate the possibility of volitional decisions but this is not a clear cut matter.
It's clear enough that we have more evidence to the contrary than we do to support the premise of the OP. I'm not saying that means it's definitely one way or the other, but it means that we don't really have to spend a lot of time worrying about it until more evidence can be obtained.
-
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.
The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.
Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.
Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.
2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.
I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.
3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.
Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.
I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.
I think this might just be an issue of semantics?
I am very interested in this idea of really seeing nothing. Are there any studies on this you can reference me to?
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "control your conscious mind" because you previously said that you cannot control your subconscious mind, only quiet it, and I'm pretty sure that all things that occur in the conscious mind are based on the subconscious. I can consciously make the decision to meditate and quiet my subconscious, however that conscious decision was based on a subconscious impulse. So, personally, I do not see the mind, conscious or subconscious, as me, because I can only perceive them each happening. I did not decide to write on this forum, the neurons in my brain cycled around, reacted to each other and new information from the outside world, and ended up typing this.
So I do think this is a problem of semantics. I always assumed that willpower meant total control over my body, but I can see how I might need to adjust my definition. Also my definition of who or what "I" am is different than yours. I am talking about the very basis of me, observing everything and having control over none of it.
-
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.
The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.
Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.
Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.
2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.
I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.
3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.
Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.
I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.
I think this might just be an issue of semantics?
I am very interested in this idea of really seeing nothing. Are there any studies on this you can reference me to?
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "control your conscious mind" because you previously said that you cannot control your subconscious mind, only quiet it, and I'm pretty sure that all things that occur in the conscious mind are based on the subconscious. I can consciously make the decision to meditate and quiet my subconscious, however that conscious decision was based on a subconscious impulse. So, personally, I do not see the mind, conscious or subconscious, as me, because I can only perceive them each happening. I did not decide to write on this forum, the neurons in my brain cycled around, reacted to each other and new information from the outside world, and ended up typing this.
So I do think this is a problem of semantics. I always assumed that willpower meant total control over my body, but I can see how I might need to adjust my definition. Also my definition of who or what "I" am is different than yours. I am talking about the very basis of me, observing everything and having control over none of it.
What I'm saying is that the two respond to each other. It isn't simply a stacking mechanism whereby the subconscious impulses dictate vague subliminal directions to the conscious mind. That's happening, granted, but what I'm saying is that there's a positive feedback mechanism at work here. Just as the subconscious affects the conscious, so too does the conscious affect the subconscious. Does that make more sense?
-
It's an interesting thing to think about, but it doesn't pan out, in my opinion.
1st. It is true that by severing your retina you could stop seeing the world around you, however you would still have the sensation of seeing dark. Same goes for when you close your eyes.
The point I was emphasizing is that sensory perception is passive, not active. Your senses pick up and detect information whether you're awake or asleep. The only thing that changes is how your brain processes the information you feed to it.
Closing your eyes doens't completely cut off the flow of information like severing your ocular nerve or retina would. Shine a flashlight in front of your closed eyelids, you'll see it. Close your eyes or cover them while facing a nuclear fireball, you'll see the flash as well as the outline of the bones in your fingers before being vaporized.
Sever your ocular nerve and you're not "seeing" darkness, rather you're not seeing anything at all. There is no way to transmit information to your brain that can be translated into anything you can perceive.
2nd. I don't really understand what you mean by saying that you can control your conscious and subconscious thoughts. Any thought that comes into your head is outside of your control. And yes, the voice in your head can decide on a new topic to think about, but it was the voice that was in control of that decision, not you. Not the you that perceives the voice.
I'm not saying that you can "control" your subconscious, I'm saying that your subconscious can be rendered less chaotic, less spontaneous and unpredictable, if you simply know thyself. "Meditation" was just a catch-all shorthand for that concept. That's what I meant by emphasizing meditation. Control your conscious mind and your subconscious will pick up what you put down. It doesn't mean you're going to completely eliminate impulse or spontaneity, but your willful control makes a difference in HOW spontaneous, HOW unpredictable those subconscious impulses are when they arise.
3rd. I believe that the difference between willpower and impulse is that an impulse cause a direct action by the body, while willpower causes an action due to some thought in the brain. However, because the thoughts in the brain are pretty much impulses it could be said that the origin of willpower is from an impulse, making it, depending on your definition, not actually willpower.
Choosing between the McRib or the Big Mac is will power. The release of mouthwater from your salivary glands when you take that first bite is impulse.
I disagree with your "pretty much impulses" characterization. There are impulsive, reflexive behaviors and then there are carefully considered and calculated decisions. One involves actively thinking, the other involves reacting, quickly, without thinking at all.
I think this might just be an issue of semantics?
I am very interested in this idea of really seeing nothing. Are there any studies on this you can reference me to?
I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "control your conscious mind" because you previously said that you cannot control your subconscious mind, only quiet it, and I'm pretty sure that all things that occur in the conscious mind are based on the subconscious. I can consciously make the decision to meditate and quiet my subconscious, however that conscious decision was based on a subconscious impulse. So, personally, I do not see the mind, conscious or subconscious, as me, because I can only perceive them each happening. I did not decide to write on this forum, the neurons in my brain cycled around, reacted to each other and new information from the outside world, and ended up typing this.
So I do think this is a problem of semantics. I always assumed that willpower meant total control over my body, but I can see how I might need to adjust my definition. Also my definition of who or what "I" am is different than yours. I am talking about the very basis of me, observing everything and having control over none of it.
What I'm saying is that the two respond to each other. It isn't simply a stacking mechanism whereby the subconscious impulses dictate vague subliminal directions to the conscious mind. That's happening, granted, but what I'm saying is that there's a positive feedback mechanism at work here. Just as the subconscious affects the conscious, so too does the conscious affect the subconscious. Does that make more sense?
I do agree with this. And what I am saying is that who are not a part of either the conscious or subconscious, or the feedback mechanism. I am saying that all of that is just stuff happening and that you listen to it, as if you were watching a movie.
-
Predictability and free will are not mutually exclusive.
You have the freedom to choose. You can see two or more options and, through a series of processes in your brain, make a choice.
Lack of free will would mean you have no way of choosing. That you can give the same person the same choice and they'd decide the same thing. This is not always true.
And while a person's choice may be predictable with (alot) of information, chemistry, models, what-not the end result is that they could choose between two options. They could acknowledge two options and weigh them both rather than dismissing all but one instantly.
To simplify:
Have you ever struggled with a decision? Not known what to decide?
Then you have free will.
-
Predictability and free will are not mutually exclusive.
You have the freedom to choose. You can see two or more options and, through a series of processes in your brain, make a choice.
Lack of free will would mean you have no way of choosing. That you can give the same person the same choice and they'd decide the same thing. This is not always true.
And while a person's choice may be predictable with (alot) of information, chemistry, models, what-not the end result is that they could choose between two options. They could acknowledge two options and weigh them both rather than dismissing all but one instantly.
To simplify:
Have you ever struggled with a decision? Not known what to decide?
Then you have free will.
* a lot
-
I am saying that all of that is just stuff happening and that you listen to it, as if you were watching a movie.
Well, like I said before, it's an interesting thing to think about, but the best information we have right now agrees with the idea that "you" are that "stuff" happening. Everything that makes your consciousness what it is - whether conscious or subconscious - is "you" acting and reacting and so forth. You may not always be 100% in control of everything, you may even find yourself manipulated through one means or another... but that doesn't mean you don't have willpower, and that doesn't mean that "you" aren't in control. All it means is that you don't have complete control, because you're not just a thinking creature, you're an amalgamation of organisms all working towards a common survival mechanism, and that's a much more base, instinctive level of "consciousness." You are no more in control of that aspect of you than you are your own heartbeat - and granted, some people can even control that, to an extent.
-
I am saying that all of that is just stuff happening and that you listen to it, as if you were watching a movie.
Well, like I said before, it's an interesting thing to think about, but the best information we have right now agrees with the idea that "you" are that "stuff" happening. Everything that makes your consciousness what it is - whether conscious or subconscious - is "you" acting and reacting and so forth. You may not always be 100% in control of everything, you may even find yourself manipulated through one means or another... but that doesn't mean you don't have willpower, and that doesn't mean that "you" aren't in control. All it means is that you don't have complete control, because you're not just a thinking creature, you're an amalgamation of organisms all working towards a common survival mechanism, and that's a much more base, instinctive level of "consciousness." You are no more in control of that aspect of you than you are your own heartbeat - and granted, some people can even control that, to an extent.
Yeah, you're right. I would rather not be the skeptic that is unconvinced by anything. Not that I am 100% convinced, but with Occam's Razor applied, it is more simple to just say that we are the stuff. I do still feel like I listen to the thoughts and have no control over them, but besides that there is no reason to think that I am separate from it.
-
I know this is an old topic but I just stumbled upon this article and it articulates my own reasoning for rejecting free will better than I probably could so I wanted to share it.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/27/success-isnt-free-will-luck-determines-everything-oliver-burkeman
-
The idea of luck is actually contrary to determinism. In fact, the idea that things are determined by luck is inherently paradoxical. Luck is a probabilistic quality, and therefore you could never make accurate determinations of an outcome if luck ever came into play. A universe without free will is a universe with no luck at all.
Anyone that thinks free will doesn't exist is free to tell me the deterministic equations for quantum mechanics. The moment you give me those, I'll believe you, until then, as far as we know, the universe is indeterministic. Again, you're free to prove otherwise by proving the universe is deterministic at a quantum level. Free will is a scientific concept that can falsified, but it hasn't yet, and I'm willing to bet none of you here have even tried to do so.
-
If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done. Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.
By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?
Surely you're just differentiating between the conscious and the sub-conscious? Sure I don't know my next thought sometimes... But often I think ahead and then ramble in my inner monologue to catch up. If faced with a yes/no decision I'm pretty sure I make it thus I have the choice and therefore I have free will
-
If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done. Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.
By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?
Surely you're just differentiating between the conscious and the sub-conscious? Sure I don't know my next thought sometimes... But often I think ahead and then ramble in my inner monologue to catch up. If faced with a yes/no decision I'm pretty sure I make it thus I have the choice and therefore I have free will
You would perhaps be surprised to learn that simple decision making happens in such a way that you are not aware of how you each that decision.
-
Making decisions is one of the most energy intensive things your mind can do, and it will generally try to avoid doing it at all, or to avoid distracting the conscious mind with the act itself. If this were not the case, your conscious mind would have to spend the vast majority of its time on decisions rather than actions
The subconscious continues to deliberate decisions even when the conscious mind is not. This is why you can sometimes go to sleep undecided on something and wake up as if the decision never existed and you know exactly what to do.
It's also why decision fatigue exists, and why salesmen will try to goad you into making lots of small decisions in a short period of time, so that your ability to make large decisions is greatly diminished.
-
There is no free will, God chose and created all things:
Your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; not for them was the choice. Exalted is God and high above what they associate with Him. 28:68, Qur'an
And you do not will except that God wills. Indeed, God is ever Knowing and Wise. 76:30, Qur'an
Indeed, all things We created with predestination. 54:49, Qur'an
-
Couldn't this be fairly easily resolved depending on what your definition of "you" is? I wouldn't consider my thoughts, even subconscious ones that happen, to be different from "me". I may not be aware of the thoughts or chemical reactions going on, but they are what make up "me".
This is exactly what comes to my mind. You say "God" is telling you what to do, and that is the "voice" in your head. I think everyone can relate to that experience, and that "voice" is so familiar isn't it? It's familiar because it is actually you! YOU are the voice in your head! That is what consciousness is.
-
As far as free will goes, that's an entirely different discussion. It's a philosophical debate, really. You see, we can never really know whether free will exists or not, unless we can go back in time. Only then can you study the behaviors that would correlate with free will. Once a decision is made, it's made, and you can't go back in time, so you cannot study the opposite outcome unless there is a way to reverse the outcomes in the experiment - which would be to go back in time.
-
If you are the one thinking right now, then tell me what your next thought is going to be. It can't be done. Because the voice in your head that you confuse to be your own thoughts is outside of your control. The thoughts (voice) come in and out of your perception. And any action you ever take is either decided on by the voice in your head, which is outside of your control, is an impulse, which by definition is outside of your control, or a combination of the two. And in each of those cases, it is always greatly influenced by input from the outside world, which is definitely outside of your control.
By this logic, the idea of free will is shown to be an illusion. Thoughts? Do you have a different idea of what free will is? Is there a reason to think that perception of the body is different than perception of the rest of the world?
Surely you're just differentiating between the conscious and the sub-conscious? Sure I don't know my next thought sometimes... But often I think ahead and then ramble in my inner monologue to catch up. If faced with a yes/no decision I'm pretty sure I make it thus I have the choice and therefore I have free will
When I said "thought" I generalized it to mean all forms of inner dialogue, not only the "loudest" voice in your head but also the one that rambles to catch up. I've found, after meditating for a while, that I can observe my thoughts arise from nothing. When faced with a yes/no decision, we FEEL as if we make it, but even if we think of it for a long time the thoughts are still out of your control.
-
As far as free will goes, that's an entirely different discussion. It's a philosophical debate, really. You see, we can never really know whether free will exists or not, unless we can go back in time. Only then can you study the behaviors that would correlate with free will. Once a decision is made, it's made, and you can't go back in time, so you cannot study the opposite outcome unless there is a way to reverse the outcomes in the experiment - which would be to go back in time.
I disagree that we can't know without free will. The activity of mindfulness can allow us to observe the actions and limitations of our mind. Through this I've personally been able to observe the lack of control I have over my own thoughts. Not to mention the scientific method in relation to neurology, psychology, and other such related sciences.
-
Couldn't this be fairly easily resolved depending on what your definition of "you" is? I wouldn't consider my thoughts, even subconscious ones that happen, to be different from "me". I may not be aware of the thoughts or chemical reactions going on, but they are what make up "me".
This is exactly what comes to my mind. You say "God" is telling you what to do, and that is the "voice" in your head. I think everyone can relate to that experience, and that "voice" is so familiar isn't it? It's familiar because it is actually you! YOU are the voice in your head! That is what consciousness is.
I do agree that there is no separation between "you" and the "voice" and that is where the problem is. Because there is not separation, one cannot demonstrate control over the other. The "voice" just happens on its own accord.
-
The idea of luck is actually contrary to determinism. In fact, the idea that things are determined by luck is inherently paradoxical. Luck is a probabilistic quality, and therefore you could never make accurate determinations of an outcome if luck ever came into play. A universe without free will is a universe with no luck at all.
Anyone that thinks free will doesn't exist is free to tell me the deterministic equations for quantum mechanics. The moment you give me those, I'll believe you, until then, as far as we know, the universe is indeterministic. Again, you're free to prove otherwise by proving the universe is deterministic at a quantum level. Free will is a scientific concept that can falsified, but it hasn't yet, and I'm willing to bet none of you here have even tried to do so.
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
-
I believe that your thoughts are like the software running in a computer. It would be nice to take all my thoughts and load them into a new body because the one I'm in is old and has been in way too many wrecks. Maybe someday that will be possible. You probably do have 'free will' but everything is probabilistic. Just because you want to do something doesn't guarantee that it will immediately happen. However, if you keep trying the odds will favor your eventual success. You probably know about Tom Campbell and 'My Big Toe'. The older I get the more I can actually believe that we are just avatars in a video game being played by unknown entities. That thought doesn't shock me too much and means that everything will get more interesting later on.
-
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
Free will isn't you saying "I have control over everything", which is impossible. Free will is based on the notion that you have no fate and that your destination was not predetermined. You are never in 100% control over your own life, but you're never in 0% control, either. Determinism only exists at 0% control. Indeterminism is everything greater than 0%. This is very easy to falsify, assuming you can show that probability is not actually a part of the universe.
This is why saying "no one has free will" is so much harder to prove. You have to prove that you can determine someone else's actions in advance, in such a way that they can never avoid that action. e.g. imagine a scenario where I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and no matter what you do, you MUST have a salad for dinner tomorrow. That is a lack of free will. However, if I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and then you don't, then that must be free will.
-
Free Will is also used to describe the agency you have in your actions and what is in dispute these days is to what degree our perception of our agency matches with the objective truth of our agency.
-
Couldn't this be fairly easily resolved depending on what your definition of "you" is? I wouldn't consider my thoughts, even subconscious ones that happen, to be different from "me". I may not be aware of the thoughts or chemical reactions going on, but they are what make up "me".
Well sure, your thoughts and actions come from "you" (I'd hate for you to think I'm suggesting something supernatural is happening; I think I was making it clear that my use of "God" was more or less a placeholder for whatever physical principle is actually behind it), but they come reflexively, not as a result of any conscious act of will. You no more control your thoughts than you control the circulation of your blood or your knee's movement when struck by a mallet; in both cases, the actions are still coming from "you", in exactly the same sense as you mean, but there's no conscious act of will causing them. We are but machines after all.
Hi, wow, I'm a little late. I never saw this.
Anyway, sure, my point is that I am my subconscious, and that that's me making the decisions whether or not I'm aware of them. So, yeah, basically what you said in your second to last sentence. But I don't think that's a lack of free will at all, simply me not being consciously 100% aware of the decisions I make or when I make them.
Am I missing something obvious here? This seems too simple an answer.
-
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
Free will isn't you saying "I have control over everything", which is impossible. Free will is based on the notion that you have no fate and that your destination was not predetermined. You are never in 100% control over your own life, but you're never in 0% control, either. Determinism only exists at 0% control. Indeterminism is everything greater than 0%. This is very easy to falsify, assuming you can show that probability is not actually a part of the universe.
This is why saying "no one has free will" is so much harder to prove. You have to prove that you can determine someone else's actions in advance, in such a way that they can never avoid that action. e.g. imagine a scenario where I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and no matter what you do, you MUST have a salad for dinner tomorrow. That is a lack of free will. However, if I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and then you don't, then that must be free will.
I am defining free will as being a person's ability to make decisions and actions without relying on anything but themselves to commit them. If you say that we have free will because of the improbability of activity at the quantum level, then we have as much free will as a rock, because it is the exact same activity. I also take issue with this because if I cannot exert my will on quantum particles, at least those in my brain, then I am still not in control of my actions because they are determined from activities that I also don't have control over.
I also disagree that the only way we can determine if free will is not true is if we can predict someone else's actions. The analogy of the salad confuses the idea of fate with determinism. If you tell someone that they will have salad for dinner tomorrow then you do it because you want to test free will, and they either decide to have salad or not to have salad based on whether or not they want to prove you wrong. Whether or not they want to prove you wrong is based on the social environment they grew up in, they are in currently, and the biological factors of their brain.
If I have no control over the particles that determine the activities in my brain which determine my actions, then how am I in control of anything?
-
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
Free will isn't you saying "I have control over everything", which is impossible. Free will is based on the notion that you have no fate and that your destination was not predetermined. You are never in 100% control over your own life, but you're never in 0% control, either. Determinism only exists at 0% control. Indeterminism is everything greater than 0%. This is very easy to falsify, assuming you can show that probability is not actually a part of the universe.
This is why saying "no one has free will" is so much harder to prove. You have to prove that you can determine someone else's actions in advance, in such a way that they can never avoid that action. e.g. imagine a scenario where I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and no matter what you do, you MUST have a salad for dinner tomorrow. That is a lack of free will. However, if I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and then you don't, then that must be free will.
I am defining free will as being a person's ability to make decisions and actions without relying on anything but themselves to commit them.
Then by that definition you have no free will. You will never be able to make decisions relying only on yourself.
-
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
Free will isn't you saying "I have control over everything", which is impossible. Free will is based on the notion that you have no fate and that your destination was not predetermined. You are never in 100% control over your own life, but you're never in 0% control, either. Determinism only exists at 0% control. Indeterminism is everything greater than 0%. This is very easy to falsify, assuming you can show that probability is not actually a part of the universe.
This is why saying "no one has free will" is so much harder to prove. You have to prove that you can determine someone else's actions in advance, in such a way that they can never avoid that action. e.g. imagine a scenario where I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and no matter what you do, you MUST have a salad for dinner tomorrow. That is a lack of free will. However, if I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and then you don't, then that must be free will.
I am defining free will as being a person's ability to make decisions and actions without relying on anything but themselves to commit them.
Then by that definition you have no free will. You will never be able to make decisions relying only on yourself.
Yep.
-
I would actually like to flip this and ask you to prove to me that I have control over the quantum activities that take place in my brain. Because I don't think that even if the universe were nondeterministic, it would prove free will because we couldn't exert our will at the quantum level.
Free will isn't you saying "I have control over everything", which is impossible. Free will is based on the notion that you have no fate and that your destination was not predetermined. You are never in 100% control over your own life, but you're never in 0% control, either. Determinism only exists at 0% control. Indeterminism is everything greater than 0%. This is very easy to falsify, assuming you can show that probability is not actually a part of the universe.
This is why saying "no one has free will" is so much harder to prove. You have to prove that you can determine someone else's actions in advance, in such a way that they can never avoid that action. e.g. imagine a scenario where I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and no matter what you do, you MUST have a salad for dinner tomorrow. That is a lack of free will. However, if I tell you that you'll have a salad for dinner tomorrow, and then you don't, then that must be free will.
I am defining free will as being a person's ability to make decisions and actions without relying on anything but themselves to commit them.
Then by that definition you have no free will. You will never be able to make decisions relying only on yourself.
Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?
-
I just ate a bowl of soup while doing my billing. Nothing told me to have vegetable soup with cheese and crackers. No one told me the going rate for my services to bill my clients. I thought about the outcomes and made decisions on both. The soup was good, the billing came out great, I will be around another month for sure. We reap what we sow. The silly thoughts about did we think to see or breathe are nonsense. God built our bodies for auto pilot. We start out being fueled by dark energy and if one finds the Lord (the light) our energy changes to pure refined nitro powered energy.
Our "will" is guided by these forces and "free" until such time, your ass burns hotter than molten steel.
-
I just ate a bowl of soup while doing my billing. Nothing told me to have vegetable soup with cheese and crackers. No one told me the going rate for my services to bill my clients. I thought about the outcomes and made decisions on both. The soup was good, the billing came out great, I will be around another month for sure. We reap what we sow. The silly thoughts about did we think to see or breathe are nonsense. God built our bodies for auto pilot. We start out being fueled by dark energy and if one finds the Lord (the light) our energy changes to pure refined nitro powered energy.
Our "will" is guided by these forces and "free" until such time, your ass burns hotter than molten steel.
Is our will guided by these forces or is it free? When you decided to have vegetable soup how many other options did you have? Were the options limited? How likely was it already that you would pick vegetable soup? Did you have control over which or how many clients you had to bill? Did you have a choice of whether or not to bill them and, if so, were you more likely to bill or not bill them? Whether or not you were likely to bill them is predetermined by how much you rely on it, which is determined by your need for food and shelter, which is not in your control.
-
Being guided is akin to sailing or say surfing. The wind is directional but your rudder control takes you to your desired outcome. Same with surfs up, you trim the board directionally. You've already made the decision to sail or surf.
One can interrupt ones breathing pattern by will but the normal mechanics of this is predetermined by forces of light which are very real. Go dark and your face will turn very blue.
-
Being guided is akin to sailing or say surfing. The wind is directional but your rudder control takes you to your desired outcome. Same with surfs up, you trim the board directionally. You've already made the decision to sail or surf.
One can interrupt ones breathing pattern by will but the normal mechanics of this is predetermined by forces of light which are very real. Go dark and your face will turn very blue.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that you are arguing for the case that while our actions can be influenced by outside forces, ultimately you have the final say on decisions that you make. My point is that, after meditating and observing my own mind, I've found that my thoughts arise of their own accord, so I concluded that because I don't have control which thoughts I have then I can't say that I have control over the actions that they commit.
-
Being guided is akin to sailing or say surfing. The wind is directional but your rudder control takes you to your desired outcome. Same with surfs up, you trim the board directionally. You've already made the decision to sail or surf.
One can interrupt ones breathing pattern by will but the normal mechanics of this is predetermined by forces of light which are very real. Go dark and your face will turn very blue.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that you are arguing for the case that while our actions can be influenced by outside forces, ultimately you have the final say on decisions that you make. My point is that, after meditating and observing my own mind, I've found that my thoughts arise of their own accord, so I concluded that because I don't have control which thoughts I have then I can't say that I have control over the actions that they commit.
No, all you're doing is letting go of the rudder control or closing your eyes as you glide down the wave. You've given decision making ability away.
-
I just ate a bowl of soup while doing my billing. ... The soup was good, the billing came out great, I will be around another month for sure.
The fact you have been reduced to eating vegetable soup for dinner makes me doubt this.
I think the issue you are all wrestling with is one of chaos theory.
Lets suppose you intend to go to the shop for a can of coke. Its not far.
You could take the car, or walk.
You could elect to put on a jumper first.
Finding a jumper might make you bump into a lady who wants to talk. Had you just gone straight there you may have missed her.
She talked about her son and his fiancee going to Spain. His face reminds you of a potato.
You think a bit about maybe taking a holiday of your own.
You walk into the shop and you end up buying a can of coke and 4 pounds of King Edward potatoes.
Little things happen and they effect the outcome of how you might think about something later. And its no more predictable than what the weather will be on Christmas day. You might expect snow. You might also expect to be furious if in 5 years you find your wife cheating ... but you might instead by that time be sick of her shit and glad she gave you a good enough reason to finally divorce her. We don't know what will happen to us in the future in any moment, and so we don't know what we will think about a particular thing at some point in the future.
But when that time arises, you'll have a thought and you can act on it or not. The future is not set, and neither are your opinions. That's free will.
-
I just ate a bowl of soup while doing my billing. Nothing told me to have vegetable soup with cheese and crackers. No one told me the going rate for my services to bill my clients. I thought about the outcomes and made decisions on both. The soup was good, the billing came out great, I will be around another month for sure. We reap what we sow. The silly thoughts about did we think to see or breathe are nonsense. God built our bodies for auto pilot. We start out being fueled by dark energy and if one finds the Lord (the light) our energy changes to pure refined nitro powered energy.
Our "will" is guided by these forces and "free" until such time, your ass burns hotter than molten steel.
Yes, answers are easy when you make them up, we know this.
-
Being guided is akin to sailing or say surfing. The wind is directional but your rudder control takes you to your desired outcome. Same with surfs up, you trim the board directionally. You've already made the decision to sail or surf.
One can interrupt ones breathing pattern by will but the normal mechanics of this is predetermined by forces of light which are very real. Go dark and your face will turn very blue.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that you are arguing for the case that while our actions can be influenced by outside forces, ultimately you have the final say on decisions that you make. My point is that, after meditating and observing my own mind, I've found that my thoughts arise of their own accord, so I concluded that because I don't have control which thoughts I have then I can't say that I have control over the actions that they commit.
No, all you're doing is letting go of the rudder control or closing your eyes as you glide down the wave. You've given decision making ability away.
So do you think that there is a separate you that is in control of the thoughts and has the ability to give up this control? If so then where is it, what is it, and how do you know that it is there?
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
-
https://youtu.be/E5J_ARKyftA?t=98
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?
-
If you can claim you have no free will, you can claim diminished responsibility.
It is not possible to build a civilisation with laws and order if you don't acknowledge free will. We have it ... it is called agency. And if you kill someone in cold blood you'll be punished for choosing to do so.
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.
It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)
-
If you can claim you have no free will, you can claim diminished responsibility.
It is not possible to build a civilisation with laws and order if you don't acknowledge free will. We have it ... it is called agency. And if you kill someone in cold blood you'll be punished for choosing to do so.
I disagree. I feel that this mixes the idea of virtue ethics with utilitarianism, and then just gives all credit to virtue ethics. You are not punished for killing someone because you chose to do something that is simply just bad. The punishment for committing crimes is based on the idea that if the person who commits the crime is punished, they will not do it again. It is also based on utilitarian ethics which state that things are right or wrong because they make good or bad things happen. Civilizations rely on this form of determinism in order to enforce laws, not free will.
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.
It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)
Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain. Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.
This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal. For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.
There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.
Many animals likely are. There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.
It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)
Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?
Personally, I'm starting to think that all our decisions (including the decision to abandon freewill) were made back in our stardust days. However, those arguing against free will will say it was not actual decisions we made in stardust times but simply the way the molecules stacked up before the big bang. Whether you are a doctor or murderer is said to be the sum of the influences during your life and all the preexisting conditions before your life.
I want to believe in free will. There were times I made the conscious choice not to be an asshole and I think my life is better for it. I want some credit for not being an asshole (not a total asshole anyway.)
-
If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.
As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.
The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.
Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.
It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)
Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?
Personally, I'm starting to think that all our decisions (including the decision to abandon freewill) were made back in our stardust days. However, those arguing against free will will say it was not actual decisions we made in stardust times but simply the way the molecules stacked up before the big bang. Whether you are a doctor or murderer is said to be the sum of the influences during your life and all the preexisting conditions before your life.
I want to believe in free will. There were times I made the conscious choice not to be an asshole and I think my life is better for it. I want some credit for not being an asshole (not a total asshole anyway.)
So would you say that we did make actual decisions as stardust? If so, why? And if not, then why call it free will.
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.
This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal. For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.
Animals make choices all the time. There was a gorilla once, that could do sign language. It loved tomatoes and was allowed one every day. But only one. It had its daily tomato, and when the keepers swapped shifts she asked "have you had your tomato today?". And that sneaky motherfucking gorilla replied "no". It knew it was allowed one tomato. It made the choice to lie about that to get a second tomato. Animals make all kinds of choices. Sometimes to share things, sometimes to be selfish, sometimes to just to play. Whatever their mood ... they choose. You can't make a racehorse jump a fence. It weighs 5 times what you do. It can stop and just throw you off and sometimes they do. But mostly they enjoy racing and they choose to do it.
There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.
Many animals likely are. There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.
So animals do have a sense of freewill. You just contradicted yourself.
I want some credit for not being an asshole
:-*
-
Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?
Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.
-
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain. Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.
Yes, we can reduce someone to a vegetable that has no free will. They may be dreaming that they are free and partying under their own free will but we see them laying there. Relative to us they have no free will.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.
This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal. For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.
There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.
Many animals likely are. There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.
I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...
-
Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?
Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.
So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?
-
Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.
We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain. Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.
Yes, we can reduce someone to a vegetable that has no free will. They may be dreaming that they are free and partying under their own free will but we see them laying there. Relative to us they have no free will.
In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.
This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal. For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.
There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.
Many animals likely are. There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.
I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...
Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.
-
Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?
I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.
Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.
That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.
1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.
Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc
I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...
I think you are either conscious or you aren't. I saw Conan the Barbarian knock a horse unconscious. Ergo their usual state must be consciousness. You are conflating the number of emotions a creature can feel vs whether it is sentient or not. An ant might not feel envy. A dog might. But a dog might not feel melancholy. But a human might. ... list of emotions rather than 'states of consciousness'. Conscious is binary. Animals ... conscious. Plant ... not conscious. Conan's horse ... unconscious.
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.
That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.
1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.
Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc
You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.
-
Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?
I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.
Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .
I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.
-
Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?
Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.
So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?
That depends on what you define as "control".
-
Can I ask you for your full definition of free will?
Free will is having a non-zero influence on your own actions.
So do you believe that you can exert control over the thoughts that shape your actions?
That depends on what you define as "control".
The power to direct them.
-
Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?
I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.
Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .
I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.
I think it is the distance between the conscious and the unconscious that make one more or less conscious. A virus particle is just a few molecules from inert matter so it would be a 'low form.' An bacteria is 'farther' from inert molecules so it would be higher. The hierarchy would progress as more complex organisms sustain more complex awareness. It takes a certain level of complexity to sustain full-on free will.
If I can make this theory work, I'm thinking of starting my own religion.
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.
That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.
1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.
Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc
You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.
Please learn how to use the quotes.
Yes, birds tend to fly. People tend to walk. I would not expect a migrating swallow to walk from Africa any more than I'd expect you to swim to Europe to go on holiday. Animals aren't stupid. But a cow can choose to sit down or it can choose to stand up, depending on how it feels. It might be stood up, whilst some of the other cows are sat down.
To say only making stupid choices shows free will is silly.
Behold ... stupid horses choosing to do something stupid because they want to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-o-k4goPfQ
-
The power to direct them.
What I'm getting at here is you seem to think of "control" as a binary. That you are either in control, or that you are not, which is a false interpretation of free will. We have a non-zero influence on our own actions, but us, as a system of cells, can only influence so much. There are plenty of natural processes in the body that occur and we cannot control them. There are also others which push their influence on us as we push it on them. e.g. addiction is a force that will push on you, and, if you do not push back, then it will completely control you.
-
Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?
I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.
Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .
I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.
I think it is the distance between the conscious and the unconscious that make one more or less conscious. A virus particle is just a few molecules from inert matter so it would be a 'low form.' An bacteria is 'farther' from inert molecules so it would be higher. The hierarchy would progress as more complex organisms sustain more complex awareness. It takes a certain level of complexity to sustain full-on free will.
If I can make this theory work, I'm thinking of starting my own religion.
Okay, my issue was understanding how a conscious reality could be more or less filled. If the hierarchy is based on complexity then I need to warn you that complexity as a concept is extremely subjective and one could easily argue that a consciousness may rank higher based on complexity of sensory input, where an eagle or dog would rate higher than us.
-
A wild animal can choose if it wants to kill something or not. Sometimes they choose not.
You literally have no idea why an animal does what it does.
No I don't, it has freewill to choose meaning it isn't predictable. Your dog could bite you. If it likes you, it may choose not to.
I would like to point out that often we say to stay away from wild animals because they are often unpredictable, as opposed to the usual predictable behavior of house pets or people.
That is nonsense. We have domesticated animals because they fit the rules for domestication. If an animal doesn't meet the criteria it won't domesticate well.
1) Fast growth rate. Animals that grow and mature quickly are easier to breed selectively, and are more profitable for farmers.
2) Hardy/flexible. Humans aren't always reliable caretakers, so domestic animals are usually capable of surviving in a wide range of conditions, eating garbage and going without food or water for some time.
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.
Pets have other ones ... able to feel human moods, lick themselves clean, can be house trained etc
You have just listed all of the things that are the predictable behaviors the animals have which wild animals do not. There are probably more too though.
Please learn how to use the quotes.
Yes, birds tend to fly. People tend to walk. I would not expect a migrating swallow to walk from Africa any more than I'd expect you to swim to Europe to go on holiday. Animals aren't stupid. But a cow can choose to sit down or it can choose to stand up, depending on how it feels. It might be stood up, whilst some of the other cows are sat down.
To say only making stupid choices shows free will is silly.
Behold ... stupid horses choosing to do something stupid because they want to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-o-k4goPfQ
In your list you put:
3) Social. Farmers typically raise animals in groups, so domestic animals need to be comfortable with that to breed well in captivity.
4) Group mind. Animals that follow the herd are easy to control, as every politician knows.
5) Low fear. Nervous species are easily stressed in captivity, making them susceptible to disease, slow to grow and hard to breed.
6) Low aggression. Fighting lowers productivity, and might endanger the farmer.
7) Learning. Animals that remember routines and respond to training are easy to manage.
These are behaviors that domestic animals are more likely to exhibit than wild ones. It would be impossible for us to know this if they were unpredictable. Also, have you ever made a stupid decision on purpose? Probably not, because it would be stupid. Every decision you make is made based on reasoning and the smartest decision you could come up with is made. This fits very nicely into determinism.
-
The power to direct them.
What I'm getting at here is you seem to think of "control" as a binary. That you are either in control, or that you are not, which is a false interpretation of free will. We have a non-zero influence on our own actions, but us, as a system of cells, can only influence so much. There are plenty of natural processes in the body that occur and we cannot control them. There are also others which push their influence on us as we push it on them. e.g. addiction is a force that will push on you, and, if you do not push back, then it will completely control you.
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.
-
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.
If you truly feel that you have absolutely no control over the thoughts in your own mind then I highly suggest seeing a psychiatrist. While all humans have intrusive thoughts that they cannot control, to have nothing but intrusive thoughts is a symptom of various disorders.
-
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.
If you truly feel that you have absolutely no control over the thoughts in your own mind then I highly suggest seeing a psychiatrist. While all humans have intrusive thoughts that they cannot control, to have nothing but intrusive thoughts is a symptom of various disorders.
Abnormal psychology is extremely different from mindfulness. I defined control as an ability to direct them. I have not yet been able to find a me that is separate from my thoughts and can thus direct them. This is why I say that "I" do not have "control" over my thoughts. Do you agree with my reasoning?
-
These are behaviors that domestic animals are more likely to exhibit than wild ones. It would be impossible for us to know this if they were unpredictable. Also, have you ever made a stupid decision on purpose? Probably not, because it would be stupid. Every decision you make is made based on reasoning and the smartest decision you could come up with is made. This fits very nicely into determinism.
No. Sometimes I make decisions based on impulse ... like eating a bag of crisps. I don't need to eat the crisps. I know they aren't good for me. I choose to eat them cos they taste nice. Sometimes I make decisions based on lust. These are always terrible decisions. Like telling a client I have the hots for them or asking my sister if she wants to share a bath. The sensible thing would be to choose NOT to do that. Sometimes I choose to sleep in when I should be working. Sometimes I choose to not clean my room when it is dirty and I'm doing nothing else. Sometimes I choose to just stare into space and do absolutely nothing when anything else would be more productive. Sometimes I choose to tell a lie in my posts on TFES. Can you spot the lie in this post? I did it because I can. Because it amused me. It might not amuse you. You may have already stopped reading because you only skim the first sentence before replying to a post. But all of these things are free choices. As are choosing things that might improve your life like applying for a better job or saving some money.
-
These are behaviors that domestic animals are more likely to exhibit than wild ones. It would be impossible for us to know this if they were unpredictable. Also, have you ever made a stupid decision on purpose? Probably not, because it would be stupid. Every decision you make is made based on reasoning and the smartest decision you could come up with is made. This fits very nicely into determinism.
No. Sometimes I make decisions based on impulse ... like eating a bag of crisps. I don't need to eat the crisps. I know they aren't good for me. I choose to eat them cos they taste nice. Sometimes I make decisions based on lust. These are always terrible decisions. Like telling a client I have the hots for them or asking my sister if she wants to share a bath. The sensible thing would be to choose NOT to do that. Sometimes I choose sleep in when I should be working. Sometimes I choose to not clean my room when it is dirty and I'm doing nothing else. Sometimes I choose to just stare into space and do absolutely nothing when anything else would be more productive. Sometimes I choose to tell a lie in my posts on TFES. Can you spot the lie in this post? I did it because I can. Because it amused me. It might not amuse you. You may have already stopped reading because you only skim the first sentence before replying to a post. But all of these things are free choices. As are choosing things that might improve your life like applying for a better job or saving some money.
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
-
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.
If you truly feel that you have absolutely no control over the thoughts in your own mind then I highly suggest seeing a psychiatrist. While all humans have intrusive thoughts that they cannot control, to have nothing but intrusive thoughts is a symptom of various disorders.
Abnormal psychology is extremely different from mindfulness. I defined control as an ability to direct them. I have not yet been able to find a me that is separate from my thoughts and can thus direct them. This is why I say that "I" do not have "control" over my thoughts. Do you agree with my reasoning?
I agree that you still need to see a psychiatrist.
-
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.
Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever. :-\
-
I don't think that you can say it is a false interpretation of free will based on the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations of free will and they all claim to be correct.
I am getting at the idea that if my actions are determined by decisions made by the thoughts I experience in my head, and I have no control over these thoughts, I therefor have no control over the actions I commit. This is why I don't believe in free will.
If you truly feel that you have absolutely no control over the thoughts in your own mind then I highly suggest seeing a psychiatrist. While all humans have intrusive thoughts that they cannot control, to have nothing but intrusive thoughts is a symptom of various disorders.
Abnormal psychology is extremely different from mindfulness. I defined control as an ability to direct them. I have not yet been able to find a me that is separate from my thoughts and can thus direct them. This is why I say that "I" do not have "control" over my thoughts. Do you agree with my reasoning?
I agree that you still need to see a psychiatrist.
That is noted. Please tell me the flaw in my reasoning, or if we simply disagree on definitions.
-
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.
Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever. :-\
This is an example of system two decision making: There are not immediate benefits to your action but you see in the long term it will benefit you. This is combined with the fact that you probably feel great satisfaction after a good workout. If you perceived absolutely no pleasure to be gained from going to the gym then you would not do it.
-
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.
Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever. :-\
This is an example of system two decision making: There are not immediate benefits to your action but you see in the long term it will benefit you. This is combined with the fact that you probably feel great satisfaction after a good workout. If you perceived absolutely no pleasure to be gained from going to the gym then you would not do it.
So masochists don't exist? Or are you going to tell me that is system 3 decision making?
-
You can't just say ... you tend to make logical choices and therefore your life is auto-determined. I make logical choices because I am not insane. Mad people make utterly illogical choices.
Sanity isn't the definition of determinism. And if you want to make it so, I give you exhibit A ... mad people. Who make bonkers choices. Are they the only people with free will?
-
Reasons for doing things don't always have to be based on long term benefit, that is called system one decision making. A concept that I would like for you to think about is that idea that people will always pick the perceived path of pleasure. This means that the path is not actually the right one, but it appears to be that way for the person at the time they are making the decision.
I go to the gym. I hate it. It hurts. It makes me sweaty. It uses up my day. Its really boring. It isn't the path of pleasure. I do it because its good for me. My brother who also likes baths doesn't go to the gym. He chooses not to. We have the exact same choice. And we choose differently. We have free will.
Also I sincerely hope the lie was taking a bath with your sister.
Erm, Ok. I mean who the hell would tolerate a dirty bedroom but whatever. :-\
This is an example of system two decision making: There are not immediate benefits to your action but you see in the long term it will benefit you. This is combined with the fact that you probably feel great satisfaction after a good workout. If you perceived absolutely no pleasure to be gained from going to the gym then you would not do it.
So masochists don't exist? Or are you going to tell me that is system 3 decision making?
Let me make this easy for you: Masochists are people whose PERCEIVED PATH OF PLEASURE is pain. Also the dual-process model of decision making is widely accepted by psychiatrists.
-
You can't just say ... you tend to make logical choices and therefore your life is auto-determined. I make logical choices because I am not insane. Mad people make utterly illogical choices.
Sanity isn't the definition of determinism. And if you want to make it so, I give you exhibit A ... mad people. Who make bonkers choices. Are they the only people with free will?
No, they are not the only one's with free will because they have even less control over the thoughts in their head. I would argue that rational thinking is directly linked to determinism. It is making a decision based on reasoning with presented information, which part of that leaves room for free will, since you will obviously not make a stupid decision?
-
Chaos theory is a thing.
You cannot determine the outcome of something that is chaotic. Therefore you cannot determine people's lives. They react and adjust and make decisions in the moment. There is nothing written saying what will happen.
If I flip a coin it might come up heads. If I flip it again that doesn't mean it has to be tails this time. The universe doesn't remember the coin toss that already happened. I could flip 10 heads in a row. It is still 50/50 that the next flip will be a head. It isn't determined.
-
Chaos theory is a thing.
You cannot determine the outcome of something that is chaotic. Therefore you cannot determine people's lives. They react and adjust and make decisions in the moment. There is nothing written saying what will happen.
If I flip a coin it might come up heads. If I flip it again that doesn't mean it has to be tails this time. The universe doesn't remember the coin toss that already happened. I could flip 10 heads in a row. It is still 50/50 that the next flip will be a head. It isn't determined.
If people's lives were chaotic the world would be in complete anarchy. I do agree with everything else though but I'm confused how this demonstrates free will.
-
If the universe isn't keeping a ledger, it isn't ordering things. Things happen as they happen. It isn't predetermined. Probability teaches us this.
I'll ask you another way. Are you helpless?
If everything just happens to you, you are a helpless victim of the universe. You have no say. Do you feel helpless? Like there is nothing you can do in any situation to make your life better? Or do you just sit about waiting for awful things to happen to you?
-
If the universe isn't keeping a ledger, it isn't ordering things. Things happen as they happen. It isn't predetermined. Probability teaches us this.
I'll ask you another way. Are you helpless?
If everything just happens to you, you are a helpless victim of the universe. You have no say. Do you feel helpless? Like there is nothing you can do in any situation to make your life better? Or do you just sit about waiting for awful things to happen to you?
I do not know how you could contend for a second that the universe does not order things. Laws of thermodynamics? Motion? The forces like friction or buoyancy? If things were not ordered then what stops me from falling through the floor? Of course things happen based on things that happened before them. While one flip of a coin does not determine the outcome of another flip, what does determine the outcome is air density, force of flick, height, etc.
I do not feel helpless. I may have not made my position clear but I believe that I am not separate from my thoughts. This means I cannot exhibit control over them but it does not mean that I can attempt to experience them to their full potential, and causally the actions which result from them. I am not in any less control than you are, and the fact that I am aware of it does not change it.
-
If you have no control and everything is determined, why not just do the easiest thing in every situation. Don't get a job. Don't go to uni. Don't bother cooking dinner. These things were all going to happen anyway, right? Just let whatever happens happen. But you don't. You try. Because you know you can change the course of your future. you know this. We all do. This reductionist argument about everything being preordained and therefore you've no responsibility for anything that happens because you are just an cog in a machine with no say is nonsense. Its nihilism for dummies.
Rules are not the same as a predetermined sequence of events. A coffee shop has rules. Pay for your drinks. Don't shout at the staff. Piss in the toilet and not on the floor. That doesn't determine which customers visit on any particular day.
-
If you have no control and everything is determined, why not just do the easiest thing in every situation. Don't get a job. Don't go to uni. Don't bother cooking dinner. These things were all going to happen anyway, right? Just let whatever happens happen. But you don't. You try. Because you know you can change the course of your future. you know this. We all do. This reductionist argument about everything being preordained and therefore you've no responsibility for anything that happens because you are just an cog in a machine with no say is nonsense. Its nihilism for dummies.
Rules are not the same as a predetermined sequence of events. A coffee shop has rules. Pay for your drinks. Don't shout at the staff. Piss in the toilet and not on the floor. That doesn't determine which customers visit on any particular day.
First of all, this is a terrible argument because it does nothing to disprove my claim, it just tries to guess how I should live my life based on it.
Secondly, I don't know why you refuse to understand this but I beg you to try: People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
The coffee shop analogy doesn't work because the rules only apply to that coffee shop, not the entire world.
And finally my notion that I don't have free will does not make me value myself or anyone else any less. I still find inherent value in the things that I do and other people do because of the potential of each of us to experience pleasure or pain. I will always decide to pick pleasure, even if my perception of which path I should choose is wrong.
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
-
Dark energy really wanted me to ingest some high calories or carbs as I past through the kitchen. Instead I grabbed a hard boiled egg and made a salad. I was rather piggy yesterday, so my will to be the beautiful being I should be, munched down on healthy.
The pop tarts will have to wait bitchez. Without FreeWilly I would be an Orca !
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
Sorry, I left this part out. I also disagree that it was your free will acting which made you stop being a snotty teenager. People growing out of immature behaviors is an extremely common phenomenon. If it were free will acting then there would be more of a 50/50 split.
Here is a video explaining why: https://youtu.be/hiduiTq1ei8
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.
Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."
I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.
I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time.
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.
Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."
I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.
I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time.
I personally don't believe in any traditional interpretations of God, and the one's that I do believe in fall under things which can be observed or proven with reasoning that I can agree with. However, if anyone or thing was to have free will, it would have to be one of the major Gods.
-
I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.
The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.
However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.
In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."
I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.
Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."
I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.
I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time.
Also, I do agree with those hardcore determinists who think that if they could account for enough variable they could predict your behavior. I do doubt that it would be possible to measure every molecule in a person's body. However as far as psychologists, biologists, neurologists, doctors, etc. are concerned, if there is a way to test it, it can be tested and, most likely, predicted. That being said, even the weather channel is usually wrong but I doubt that that qualifies as evidence that weather has free will.
-
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.
But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
-
It is pointless to claim that an action was inevitable if you could not predict it. Analyzing the past should be used as a way to predict or modify the future. If your model can't accurately predict the future, then the basis for your model is wrong. If you claim that someone had to do something, you need to be claiming it as a future event, not as a past observation. In other words, predestination is pointless conjecture without valid evidence. Making assertions without evidence is for the weak of mind.
-
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.
But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
While I didn't come up with the perceived path of pleasure argument and I have no way of knowing if it works in every scenario, I do find it hard to believe that anyone would decide to do something purely for the fact that it feels bad. (Besides masochists but that's because it is their perceived path of pleasure.
When coming up with a rhyme for a song you decide which words rhymes the best depending on if it makes sense in the context of the lyrics, it goes with the rhythm, it sounds good, etc. Let's say that after you have excluded all of the words that don't fall under these categories you still have five words that could work (even though this is rarely the case). You will pick the one that "feels" the best in that place of the song. Here is my argument: If you could decide, they you would decide that every word "feels" good in that place, because then it would be easy to write a song and love it no matter what. The problem is that what you think "feels" good as a lyric in your song is predetermined by your experience with previous songs, your goal with the song, and the context of the lyric that you want to write it in. The next time you write a song I want you to be mindful and watch all of your reasoning to see how much choice you were really given, and ask your self how inevitable it was that you would decide to put a certain word in a certain place.
-
It is pointless to claim that an action was inevitable if you could not predict it. Analyzing the past should be used as a way to predict or modify the future. If your model can't accurately predict the future, then the basis for your model is wrong. If you claim that someone had to do something, you need to be claiming it as a future event, not as a past observation. In other words, predestination is pointless conjecture without valid evidence. Making assertions without evidence is for the weak of mind.
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.
I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.
-
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.
But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.
-
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.
But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.
Keep in mind, it's the determinists oppressing all free will with no escape.
What you perceive as pain or pleasure is a result of your personal biochemistry and personal psychology. You biochemistry is the result of everything that ever happened to your genetics since the first organism. Your personal psychology is is the result of everything that ever happened to you. The things that happen to you genetically and psychologically was spawned by the events that happened before and they were spawned by the previous events. Their theory says that everything you do or feel can be traced back to the beginning of time. If you change your mind about something at the last minute, that last minute change is as preprogrammed in you as your hair color.
It's easy for someone to connect aspects of our existence to a large scale frame of reference that can't be proven. We need to come up with a thought experiment or equation trying to connect with a frame of reference beyond all that is possible. There was Goedel's Ontological Proof formula which purported to prove the existence of God but my understanding is that it had problems that rendered it unusable.
So the first one to develop an equation connecting our everything to some other everything beyond our everything wins a $5 Amazon gift card.
-
People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.
This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.
But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©
Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.
Keep in mind, it's the determinists oppressing all free will with no escape.
What you perceive as pain or pleasure is a result of your personal biochemistry and personal psychology. You biochemistry is the result of everything that ever happened to your genetics since the first organism. Your personal psychology is is the result of everything that ever happened to you. The things that happen to you genetically and psychologically was spawned by the events that happened before and they were spawned by the previous events. Their theory says that everything you do or feel can be traced back to the beginning of time. If you change your mind about something at the last minute, that last minute change is as preprogrammed in you as your hair color.
It's easy for someone to connect aspects of our existence to a large scale frame of reference that can't be proven. We need to come up with a thought experiment or equation trying to connect with a frame of reference beyond all that is possible. There was Goedel's Ontological Proof formula which purported to prove the existence of God but my understanding is that it had problems that rendered it unusable.
So the first one to develop an equation connecting our everything to some other everything beyond our everything wins a $5 Amazon gift card.
Well I'm no mathematician but I have a vague idea that if you ask "why" enough times, you'll get to the answer. My problem with free will is that if you ask why someone does something and someone gives a reason, and then you keep asking and they keep answering, their final answer will have to be free will. If you ask why it is that free will is the answer, well, it isn't possible to answer that question because if there was then it wouldn't be free will. On the other hand if people are willing to go past their belief in free will, then we get answers that involve neurology, psychology, etc. When we keep asking why something happens or someone does something, I am confident that we can find the answer unless we are blocked by the rejection of the question.
-
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.
We can't accurately forecast weather because we don't entirely understand weather. Likewise, you can't forecast a person's actions because you don't understand a person. You're making a claim you can't prove, the basis of all ignorance.
I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.
It sounds like you're an uneducated person who is unable to reconcile their lack of knowledge with their desire to know. Just a single subject of science can take a lifetime to properly understand and I wager that you understand absolutely zero of them. This is a very "I'm 14 and this is deep" post usually made by people who have come to a conclusion based on whatever happens to be rolling through their head at any given time. Hilariously enough, you've already claimed you can't control your own thoughts, so I think the two issues are deeply related.
-
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.
We can't accurately forecast weather because we don't entirely understand weather. Likewise, you can't forecast a person's actions because you don't understand a person. You're making a claim you can't prove, the basis of all ignorance.
I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.
It sounds like you're an uneducated person who is unable to reconcile their lack of knowledge with their desire to know. Just a single subject of science can take a lifetime to properly understand and I wager that you understand absolutely zero of them.
I going to begin this reply with a request to you to not insult me. Not because I really care about the opinion a person who I have never met has of me, but because I am trying to have an intellectually honest debate with you. Thank you.
If we lack understanding in the area of weather as we do in the area of people's decision making, then does that mean that weather has just as much chance of having free will as people? Why stop at saying that people have free will and not continue looking at the functions and mechanics of the brain and what conclusions studies in psychology come to? These are areas of science that make evidence based claims of how people make decisions.
Your last two claims are more directed at me than the argument itself so could you elaborate as to why you think my reasoning for my belief is wrong?
I would also like to add that I am more than ready to believe in free will, but I just don't think that I have seen reasoning that has been convincing enough for me.
-
Again, I disagree. There are very few things in this world that we can predict but as I said in a previous reply, the fact that the weather forecast is usually wrong is not an argument that weather has free will.
We can't accurately forecast weather because we don't entirely understand weather. Likewise, you can't forecast a person's actions because you don't understand a person. You're making a claim you can't prove, the basis of all ignorance.
I have personally come to the conclusion that almost all of what we do is inevitable because of my own research in psychology, neurology, and other natural sciences which have in depth and evidence based explanations for what goes on when we make a decision and why we choose a certain one. This is combined with my own experiences when being mindful in which I sit down and attempt to quiet my mind and disown the thoughts in my head and watch them.
It sounds like you're an uneducated person who is unable to reconcile their lack of knowledge with their desire to know. Just a single subject of science can take a lifetime to properly understand and I wager that you understand absolutely zero of them. This is a very "I'm 14 and this is deep" post usually made by people who have come to a conclusion based on whatever happens to be rolling through their head at any given time. Hilariously enough, you've already claimed you can't control your own thoughts, so I think the two issues are deeply related.
Sorry, I missed this last bit.
I define control as the power to direct. I define "I" as thing that perceives everything around it, including various feelings and sensations in my own head.
So when I say that "I" don't have "control" over the thoughts in my head, I mean that there is nothing in my head that is separate from the thoughts which seem to control them. The thing in control is not the "I".
-
I going to begin this reply with a request to you to not insult me. Not because I really care about the opinion a person who I have never met has of me, but because I am trying to have an intellectually honest debate with you.
You're aren't being intellectually honest, though. You're making assertions with no evidence, defining terms based on your own whims, and claiming you've done research into natural sciences when you've clearly done no such thing. You keep asking people to prove you wrong and yet you've never once proven yourself right in the first place. This is a mockery of intellectual discussion, not a portrayal of the real thing, and you should be ashamed for even claiming yourself to be intellectually honest.
-
I going to begin this reply with a request to you to not insult me. Not because I really care about the opinion a person who I have never met has of me, but because I am trying to have an intellectually honest debate with you.
You're aren't being intellectually honest, though. You're making assertions with no evidence, defining terms based on your own whims, and claiming you've done research into natural sciences when you've clearly done no such thing. You keep asking people to prove you wrong and yet you've never once proven yourself right in the first place. This is a mockery of intellectual discussion, not a portrayal of the real thing, and you should be ashamed for even claiming yourself to be intellectually honest.
I admit that I made the assertion that given enough of the factors it would be possible to predict the actions of a person. I admit that this would be impossible to do. However, I claimed this because my research into the studies done in psychology and neurology have never come to the conclusion that the only way to explain someone's decision in because of their free will. The specific focuses of each study (such as the amygdala, PFC, vmPFC, etc.) each give explanations for various behaviors exhibited by people. Again, no study has ever come to the conclusion that a decision is based on "free will". My definition for "control" can be found in a google search and my definition for "I" does come from my own search for what is the closest thing to me, which must be the thing which perceives everything else. If you would like to debate about semantics I'm up for it.
I want to make it clear that I do not think I have proven myself right. If I truly believed that then I wouldn't even try to debate because I already know I am correct. The reason I am here is because I am looking for some line of reasoning that disproves my claim and supports the claim that people act on their own free will.
-
I just found this article while looking for some studies that support free will. This does not support free will but it does help explain some of my arguments, and more, more in depth than I did.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/one-among-many/201803/five-arguments-free-will
-
"Free will" is little more than a shrug in a scientific sense. The idea of some vague, nebulous "ghost in the machine" driving human behavior stands in stark contrast with the scientific view of the world. Yes, our behavior is determined by our external and internal influences, just like any other organism. It doesn't necessarily mean I can predict anyone's behavior, and Neil Peart's lyrics make me cringe.
I don't feel the need to get into a silly argument about psychological egoism. That's just a useless tautology.
-
There's an uncertainty principle at work in our existence. There's a point so far away in any combination of distance, size and time that there's a sort of wave form collapse into pure potentiality. For us to measure it, we have to artificially pin down one aspect to measure any other. There's a limit to what we can know so beyond that limit we get to make up what ever we want.
If determinism really freaked me out I would take comfort in the opposite, more new age ideology that the observer is part of the observed. That consciousness is relative and without it, nothing manifests either backward or forward in time. These people say that not only do we have free will but the world around us is actually a quantum mechanical manifestation of our own.
As an experiment, we could get 200 determinists and 200 followers of Deepak Choprah fight in a melee armed with short pieces of pipe to beat the crap out of each other. If the determinists win, it shows the outcome was predestine from the beginning of time. If the Choprah followers win, it proves they manifested their outcome from consciousness. It works with our religions, the one with the most resources and followers gets to declare universal truth.
I think my post also proves the existence and role of Useless Tautology in our universe. Useless Tautology ( abbreviated UT) is the force that accelerates the flat earth upward creating the gravity and physics we experience.
-
There's an uncertainty principle at work in our existence. There's a point so far away in any combination of distance, size and time that there's a sort of wave form collapse into pure potentiality. For us to measure it, we have to artificially pin down one aspect to measure any other. There's a limit to what we can know so beyond that limit we get to make up what ever we want.
If determinism really freaked me out I would take comfort in the opposite, more new age ideology that the observer is part of the observed. That consciousness is relative and without it, nothing manifests either backward or forward in time. These people say that not only do we have free will but the world around us is actually a quantum mechanical manifestation of our own.
As an experiment, we could get 200 determinists and 200 followers of Deepak Choprah fight in a melee armed with short pieces of pipe to beat the crap out of each other. If the determinists win, it shows the outcome was predestine from the beginning of time. If the Choprah followers win, it proves they manifested their outcome from consciousness. It works with our religions, the one with the most resources and followers gets to declare universal truth.
I think my post also proves the existence and role of Useless Tautology in our universe. Useless Tautology ( abbreviated UT) is the force that accelerates the flat earth upward creating the gravity and physics we experience.
Damn, I like it.