-->
@secularmerlin
Over tea, yes, bourbon, no.
Omniscience and Free Will Coexistence
Posts
Total:
166
-->
@Goldtop
So in general your choice would go bourbon then coffee then tea?
-->
@secularmerlin
It all depends on my free will to choose one over the other at any given moment.
-->
@Goldtop
A but all things being equal when presented with all three drinks you reach for the burben?
-->
@secularmerlin
See post #123.
-->
@Goldtop
So you don't prefer bourbon?
For your convenience the definition of preference as it is being used in this context is a greater liking for one alternative over another or others and in this hypothetical scenario you have no particular reason not to have the bourbon (All things being equal).
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, whatever my will decides at any given moment is what I'll have.
-->
@Goldtop
How often do you deny your desires for no reason?
-->
@secularmerlin
At any time my free will decides.
-->
@Goldtop
Ok goldtop if you say so. Its not as though you are free to consider my arguments, your defiance is dictated by cause and effect that niether of us can change.
There exists no omni-scient in that scenario. Outplazy believes there exists some super-natural omini-scient higher dimensions outside our finite, occupied space Universe/God ergo his scenario looks like this:
...................................................................................................................................................
........................................omni-scient/supernatural/higher dimensions......................................
..................................................................................................................................................
Hi obviously does not understand what the words finite Universe mean. He is confused.
Why block out rational, logical common sense. Is it free will, or is it ego?
Ominiscient infers a sum-total { finite }, omni-considerate, wholsitic { integral } set of lines-of-relationship of awareness.
A conceptual constellation of events aka Rational Cosmic Trinity.
Humans access to metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept is the closet we come to omni-scient consideration.
There exists no infinite source or omni-scient outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.
If we conceptually remove our finite, occupied SPACE Universe, from the the macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE we have only one possible rational, logical common sense conclusion:
.................................................................................................................................
....................................................SPACE..............................................................
..............................................................................................................................
To argue truth only makes the ego look foolish.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes I am perfectly free to willfully consider your argument, which I have, you just need to admit you have no argument, that we all have free wills.
-->
@Goldtop
It is impossible to prove a negative and even if neuroscientists discover the exact mechanics by which humans come to conclusions and determine actions there still might be some mystical component, some undetectable "soul" which possesses freewill.
That being said however what neuroscience has discovered would seem to suggest that our "choices" are not made consciously at all and that our subconscious "knows" what we will do before we are consciously aware of it. See the universe, including human behavior, is perfectly explainable by cause and effect. Freewill is unnecessary to this explanation so if you claim freewill exists and I reject your claim based on a lack of evidence then supplying that evidence falls to you, the one making the claim.
I have given an argument for how the universe could work without freewill and your only objection so far as I can tell is that you feel like you are making choices. So tell me how would actual freewill differ from the illusion of freewill from a practical standpoint from our perspective? If our "choices" are just a post hoc justification for our actions after the fact how would we ever know the difference?
I am not asking for anything you do not regularly ask theists for. Evidence to support your beliefs.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is impossible to prove a negative
I have proved a positive, that I have free will.
That being said however what neuroscience has discovered would seem to suggest that our "choices" are not made consciously at all and that our subconscious "knows" what we will do before we are consciously aware of it.
But the experiments also show conscious choices were also made based on various tasks in the experiment. It was found that when people had time to think about something, they made better decisions based on their subconscious rather than their conscious.
See the universe, including human behavior, is perfectly explainable by cause and effect.
That is your own assumption and not a conclusion of the experiments.
I reject your claim based on a lack of evidence
Do you freely and willfully reject my claim? Did you do so out of ignorance?
I have given an argument for how the universe could work without freewill
Lol, you've done no such thing. That's your fantasy.
I am not asking for anything you do not regularly ask theists for. Evidence to support your beliefs.
You've provided absolutely nothing that shows free will doesn't exist. Not sure where you get that notion.
-->
@Goldtop
I have proved a positive, that I have free will.
Actually all you've done is make the bald assertion that you possess freewill.
That is your own assumption and not a conclusion of the experiments.
it doesn't matter. Cause and effect are a perfectly good explanation of any natural phenomenon unless evidence is provided that more is at work. Isn't that part of why you don't believe that god(s) created the universe?
Do you freely and willfully reject my claim?
No I do not do so freely. In fact I have no choice as I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence.
Did you do so out of ignorance?
Yes I did. You see some things are beyond our epistemological limits and if we cannot say for certain that a claim is true the reasonable recourse is to reject that claim until more information can be provided.
You've provided absolutely nothing that shows free will doesn't exist.
Are you suggesting it is possible to prove a negative? If that is the case then please prove that no god(s) exist and I will attempt to use your method. Or we could agree that a claim which has not been demonstrated should logically be dismissed.
It is impossible to demonstrate free will, because science has conclusively proven that there are always variables unaccounted for.
Things don't happen for no reason, and every single interpretation of science that leads to this conclusion inevitably comes from people who have a hard time admitting that they have no idea what is really going on.
Thats a really hard thing to do if you spentt your whole life building up this credibility that you are some kind of expert.
Superdeterminism
-->
@secularmerlin
Yet, no matter how many vague questions you offered, they all failed to make a dent. In fact, I proved I had free will, which you could not argue. Call it a bald assertion all you want, you are the one who failed to show that.Actually all you've done is make the bald assertion that you possess freewill.
it doesn't matter. Cause and effect are a perfectly good explanation of any natural phenomenon unless evidence is provided that more is at work.
Yes, it matters, because it was easy to dismantle your bald assertions of cause and effect.
-->
@Goldtop
Are you claiming cause and effect do not exist? My only claim is that cause and effect are observable as having a real quantifiable effect on the universr while the only evidence for freewill is a subjective experience.
-->
@secularmerlin
Try reading what you just wrote and see how much you just shifted the goalposts and reading what I didn't write. If this is the only way you can make your point, then it's just sad.
-->
@Goldtop
I'm not trying to move the goal post and my only claim in this conversation is that cause and effect are testable and observable while freewill is not. Is there some particular comment I have made that suggests more? If so please draw my attention to it and if need be I will revise or retract that statement.
-->
@secularmerlin
Free will is indeed testable and observable, you tested me and observed the results of my free will. And no matter how many times you tried, you failed to show cause and effect was testable and observable in regards to showing free will false.
-->
@Goldtop
How exactly did you demonstrate freewill? (Cause) I made a post you disagreed with (Effect) you posted in opposition to my arguments. This demonstrated cause and effect not freewill
-->
@secularmerlin
How exactly did you demonstrate freewill?
By willfully showing it with every answer. If it is was simply cause and effect, why didn't you accurately predict all of my answers?
-->
@Goldtop
I predict that you will continue to argue that freewill is fundamental and that you will be unable to understand our epistemological limits. This prediction is based on reasonable expectation built on repeated observation. You do not even seem able to choose to offer evidence rather than the argument that freewill must exist because you can do anything you are capable of.
Let us examine this claim. Axiomatically it is true that you could do anything at any time providing you are physically able to do it.
How would that statement be untrue whether our behavior was simply a product of cause and effect or if there is some extra mechanism like freewill or devine will?
If the statement would still be true regardless of whether or not your claim is false then this axiomatically true statement does not act as proof of your hypothesis.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you're still conflating the will to do something with the capacity to do something, they are both different things. Its a common error.Axiomatically it is true that you could do anything at any time providing you are physically able to do it.
-->
@Goldtop
That one has will does not necessitate that this will be free. Also willing something, whether you are capable of accomplishing it or not is a thing you can do as seperate from the act you are willing (willing to jump to the moon is an action, jumping to the moon, if it could be done, would be a seperate action).
-->
@Goldtop
The fact that he cannot accurately predict your actions does not mean that your actions are unpredictable in principle, or due to freewill. After all, we cannot accurately predict earthquakes. I don't think you would claim that earthquakes are due to freewill.If it is was simply cause and effect, why didn't you accurately predict all of my answers?
-->
@Stronn
Perhaps, but Sec is talking about straight forward cause and effect, which would allow someone to predict the effect of the cause. We would be able to predict earthquakes through cause and effect if we knew the cause. If earthquakes had freewill we wouldn't be able to predict them.
-->
@secularmerlin
That one has will does not necessitate that this will be free.
Why not?
-->
@Goldtop
Perhaps, but Sec is talking about straight forward cause and effect, which would allow someone to predict the effect of the cause. We would be able to predict earthquakes through cause and effect if we knew the cause. If earthquakes had freewill we wouldn't be able to predict them.
Only if we knew all the initial conditions of the universe and we don't. Your comment does not reflect my argument.
That one has will does not necessitate that this will be free.Why not?
Because there there may not be a difference we could detect between the two states. Saying that something is unnecessary isn't the same as claiming that thing does not exist but unless the unnecessary agency can be demonstrated it is reasonable to reject it until further information is available.