Tell me what you believe.

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 353
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
But that doesn't change the fact that we have will.  
1} Consciousness { * i * } via complex nervous system :

........1a} Will { spirit-of-intent } via most humans access to metaphyhsical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego { * i * } ergo a resultant, spirit-of-intent.

2} Consciousness { * * } via less complex nervous system:

......2a} Will { spirit-of-intent }, via animals other than human, have to a lesser degree,  access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts if not also, an ego and to some lesser degree a resultant, spirit-of-intent.


3} Consciousness { O---O } not associated with complex nervous system:

....3a} O = observer,

....3b} O = observed,

....3c} ----- line-of-relationship { vector } ex EMRadiation { photon }, gravity { mass-attraction } etc

.....3d} background Space { ..... } against which all three exist within..............O-----O.................


Comment/Questions:

1} a line-of-relationship vector does ---and never is---   not have to be straight { Euclidean } line irrespective of how short the distance,

2} a line-of-relationship vector can be a on a positively ( )  or negatively curved )(  trajectory.
 




Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
yes
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
The free descriptor is just a misnomer. 

I agree whole heartedly. Calling will free is a misnomer.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What should it be called? 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Will or perhaps agency.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Will or perhaps agency.
How would you define it?

mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
....perhaps agency.....
State Farm { insurance agency } employees have ability-to-act i.e. State Farm policy gives humans ability to act { action } to award another person financial support.

Ability-to-act i.e. ability to take action { motion }.

First and foremost the human and all of their constituent parts are in motion { action } prior to any spirit-of-intent { decisions/choices }.

Motion = action

Will = spirit-of-intent

Agency = snergetically wholistic set of actions { human } that result in more actions taking place via the synergetistically whlistic set { human }.

Observed action { motion } attracts attention { mass } of the observer actions via a line-of-relationship vector { magnitude and direction }.





secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Part of the problem in these discussions is how difficult it is to define and indeed our extremely poor understanding of how our brains go about coming to conclusions and implementing behaviors.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Part of the problem in these discussions is how difficult it is to define and indeed our extremely poor understanding of how our brains go about coming to conclusions and implementing behaviors.
How about the control one has in doing actions. When science has better answers philosophy can think of a better definition. 

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree, will or agency.  The free part is definitely contradicted by determinism.  I'd be a fool to say otherwise. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would posit that in the way you described it, we could possibly call it "freedom of will" in the sense that we have some freedom within our actions.  The "free will" statement implies that it's completely unrestricted, which isn't true if you count external factors and genetic dispositions.  


Then that leaves the question, Do we make a choice because biology always makes us, or is there a point where biology doesn't care and just lets us act within our biology? 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How about the control one has in doing actions. When science has better answers philosophy can think of a better definition. 
I remain unconvinced that we actually have control over our actions in the way you seem to be implying. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
"freedom of will"
What would be cases that freedom of will is not freedom of will?
Do we make a choice because biology always makes us
I think everything can be traced to biology. I don't think there is a choice that is so useless that biology does not have a part to play in it. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
well that's the point, it's not a thing that you do or don't have.  It's a quantity.  If you only have one choice, then your freedom of will is zero and then it can be higher or lower based on circumstance. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think everything can be traced to biology. I don't think there is a choice that is so useless that biology does not have a part to play in it. 

Maybe.  But there are things that even biology can't control.  like your brain might control your activity, but that activity is controlled by particles and as far as we know, particles are not deterministic.  So there's still room for choice in the matter.  
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I remain unconvinced that we actually have control over our actions in the way you seem to be implying. 
No I agree with you. I was saying the definition would be "control over actions".

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
 It's a quantity.  If you only have one choice, then your freedom of will is zero and then it can be higher or lower based on circumstance. 
So some-people have more freedom than others? 
So it would be safe to assume poor people lack the freedom to do well in life compared to a better off individual?
like your brain might control your activity, but that activity is controlled by particles and as far as we know, particles are not deterministic.  So there's still room for choice in the matter.  
Guess we have to wait for quantum mechanics to make advances to be sure on that part. 
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So some-people have more freedom than others? 

Bingo.

So it would be safe to assume poor people lack the freedom to do well in life compared to a better off individual?
Assuming they have the same goals and being "better of" relates to those goals, then yes.  If my only goal in life is to not be homeless, then my choices are only limited until I have enough money for that goal since I choose to not care about other things that are more difficult to obtain. 



Guess we have to wait for quantum mechanics to make advances to be sure on that part. 
True, but even if it was deterministic.  That would mean that our decisions literally come down to the exact moment we make them and this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. Furthermore, let's say everything is predetermined, does that change the fact that our minds think and that we make choices?  I'd say no.  At the most, it just means that we make choices for reasons we don't understand. 




mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Do we make a choice because biology always makes us, or is there a point where biology doesn't care and just lets us act within our biology?
Biology is based on physics ---aka occupied space--  ergo cause and effect { deterministic }.

Spirit-of-intent { will } is an a priori  occupied space   ---spirit-2, 3 and 4--- with resultant of prior occupied space actions ---spirit-2,3 and 4---.

The metaphysical-1 illusion is that the access to metaphysical-1 spirit-of-intent is a prior is when it is not.  Occupied space determinism is.   

17 days later

Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
Well, I would agree that things are deterministic in the sense that whatever will happen will always have been what happened.  

In the sense of "The inability to have done otherwise"  I'd say this type of determinism is not currently provable.  I would also say that's it's not currently possible to prove the negation of this position either.  Some people would call the negation of this position free will.  I'm not convinced that's the case either.  

One recent thought I've had on this subject goes as follows:   If we assume that everything is deterministic, should we not then ask in what way it's deterministic?   For instance, let's so I have Group A which are things that interact with the 4 known forces in physics.  Now let's suppose for a second that there was Group B which are things that reach with 3 different forces that don't interact with Group A at all.  Now let's suppose that there is a Group C that can interact with 1 force from Group A and 1 force from Group B.   Now we could say all of these things are deterministic within their groupings of the hypothetical Venn Diagram we've made, But one observation to be made here is that not every determination is able to apply to the whole of the system ubiquitously.  

In short, I can imagine a possible world where the mind could have it's own set of separate interactions that are at the top of the deterministic chain and not affected by ALL of the same rules as the external world.  

Does this prove free will?  No. 

Does it give me reasonable doubt about free will?  No. 

Does it give me doubt about free will?  Only on the "free" part.  

Thoughts? 
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
yes = win/win
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
One recent thought I've had on this subject goes as follows:   If we assume that everything is deterministic, should we not then ask in what way it's deterministic?
As Ive previously laid out with clarity, via mechanisms of ultra-micro gravity (  ) and ultra-micro dark energy )(.

(^v)(v^)

Observed Time = ^v^v^v aka sine-wave patterned topology as frequency

here\........../then\............./coming\............/ebb\........../high\........./\.../\.../
.........\now/...........\.there/...............\going/.........\flow/...........\low/...\/...\/


mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
In short, I can imagine a possible world where the mind could have it's own set of separate interactions that are at the top of the deterministic chain and not affected by ALL of the same rules as the external world.

Occupied space, if not specifically occupied space of phyiscal/energy{ fermions-bosons } has properties{ spin, charged, mass etc } ergo tainted whereas, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts have no properties and is not tainted.

Occupied space precedes access to i.e. metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and ego are a resultant of occupied space interactions/interference.

All of our thoughts, via brain, are deterministic resultants of eternally existent set of occupied space relationships, that, at the core stem from mechanisms of gravity (  ) { mass attraction } and dark energy )( { mass repulsion? }.