we have it,ok
Free Will
Posts
Total:
100
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Can you prove that?
-->
@Sum1hugme
ok, well you have the ability to make your own choices
-->
@oromagi
the philosophical definition of free will is not the cringe political definition of freedom
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagithe philosophical definition of free will is not the cringe political definition of freedom
FREEDOM is "The lack of a specific constraint, or of constraints in general;"
FREE WILL is "The ability to choose one's actions,"
Seems to me one can't choose her own actions without first being free of constraints.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have our "own" will, which is not always "free". Don't let them trip you up with semantics.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ok, well you have the ability to make your own choices
No you don't. Consider the following.
P1. You can only ever do something if you want to or if you are forced to.
- Truism. Try and name an action which you "chose" to do which you didn't want to do and weren't forced.
P2. Being forced to do something is not illustrative of free will.
- Truism.
P3. You cannot choose what you want.
- Assuming your heterosexual, try and want to be gay. Try and want to love your own sex. Impossible.
P4. If the two conditions of free will are not satisfied, determinism is true.
C1. Determinism is true.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
One is free to choose, but one inevitably chooses for a reason.
If one decides to make a random choice, then one does for that reason. Therefore the choice ceases to be random.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How do you know that? It sure appears that way, but where does cause and effect end and the "will" begin?
-->
@Bones
P2. Being forced to do something is not illustrative of free will.
When you are forced to do something, you are free to not trust the person to force you but you chose to trust them and do what they say.
-->
@Intelligence_06
But then that can be said to fall under the category of "want" which I have shown you do not control.
There’s always surface level analysis when it comes to free will.
Here’s how I see it:
Free will is a product of ignorance.
Whenever you look at a complex system, you think to yourself, ‘Wow, things are happening without cause.’
We call that free will when it comes to our own consciousness.
The human mind can’t simultaneously comprehend the chicken and the egg at instance of thought.
Free will is fabricated just as human sight is. We have natural blind spots which get filled in by the processing power of the brain.
-->
@zedvictor4
Randomness is an entirely different set of circumstances than those of free will. Free will can be calculated in advance, and, shy of any limitation, can be fully exercised. The idea of causation is also a red herring that does not necessarily limit free will. Relative to religion, for example, sure, my parents had much to do with the thoughts they had on the subject to influence me in my childhood, but to say they had sufficient influence to ultimately prevent my own choices in that regard is folly. Today, I know for myself that I was taught correct and sustaining principles and I first knew this at fourteen. By 19, I had manifestations I witnessed by faith that sealed the deal.
-->
@Bones
I can try to be gay if I want to.
All I need is to redefine gay myself in order to consider myself gay.
Words are words. They are random squiggles on a screen or paper, etc. They can mean something else if we want to.
-->
@Reece101
Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris argues that free will is an illusion. In his view, we are the mere conscious witnesses of decisions that deep in our brains have already been made.
-->
@fauxlaw
If you had been raised by Muslims, would you be a Christian?
And I did imply that an assumed random choice, is a choice for a reason....So therefore not actually random.
And freewill calculated in advance, is calculated in advance for a reason.
Calculation requires internal data assessment predicated upon acquired and stored knowledge.
Given the nature of the beast, freewill is probably not a possibility.
Freedom to make informed choices is probably as good as it gets.
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know that? It sure appears that way, but where does cause and effect end and the "will" begin?
i have literally no idea what on earth you are saying
-->
@zedvictor4
ne is free to choose, but one inevitably chooses for a reason.If one decides to make a random choice, then one does for that reason. Therefore the choice ceases to be random.
are you saying that people can not make a random choice?
i disagree with that zed
-->
@Bones
No you don't. Consider the following.P1. You can only ever do something if you want to or if you are forced to.
- Truism. Try and name an action which you "chose" to do which you didn't want to do and weren't forced.
P2. Being forced to do something is not illustrative of free will.
- Truism.
P3. You cannot choose what you want.
- Assuming your heterosexual, try and want to be gay. Try and want to love your own sex. Impossible.
P4. If the two conditions of free will are not satisfied, determinism is true.C1. Determinism is true.
"You can only ever do something if you want to"
why? theres plenty of times in my lifetime that i would recall not wanting to do something but going anyway
"Assuming your heterosexual, try and want to be gay. Try and want to love your own sex. Impossible. "
thats not really free will. That is trying to fight the natural way you are born. Free will refers to the choices and the will that you have. If you are born a male, no free will allows you to become female.
those are the problems i see but the main thing is that you dont get free will
free will is making choices that you wish to make. uncased actions, such as the one you mention about homosexuality dont count for free will
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"You can only ever do something if you want to"why? theres plenty of times in my lifetime that i would recall not wanting to do something but going anyway
But you still went anyways because you wanted to.
"Assuming your heterosexual, try and want to be gay. Try and want to love your own sex. Impossible. "thats not really free will. That is trying to fight the natural way you are born. Free will refers to the choices and the will that you have. If you are born a male, no free will allows you to become female.
This isn't about becoming a female, this is about loving a male. If you are a heterosexual male, and lust for male is simply a mind thing which requires no physical change, surely you can change your mind about your sexuality?
free will is making choices that you wish to make. uncased actions, such as the one you mention about homosexuality dont count for free will
Don't you see that this leads to an infinite regress? You say you want to do something, but free will requires you to be able to justify why you did what you did. And then you give a reason for why you did what you did, but then why did you do the thing which you did?
For example, consider the following thought experiment.
Pick a random country. Any country. Notice this processes which you are going through. Notice the selecting and the choosing, and the "freeness "which you are going through. What if I were to say that this very processes proves that free will does not exist?
In order to unpack this, we must first establish the options that one has to pick.
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists.
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
The first option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. You are not free to choose it, so to speak.
The second option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers know about Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were not functioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what canyon think about?
The third option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you. But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring toyon is unsolicited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you.
Secondly, say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose for these two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why did you choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subject usually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way that they did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, this isn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has been hypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizarre reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convinced of their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an American hotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is no justification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if you asked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". So why choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't you think "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China". This process of "choosing" because of your apparent "justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision for you and you being aware of this decision.
You cannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you "chose" the option of which you did.
-->
@EtrnlVw
aight thx
-->
@oromagi
FREEDOM is "The lack of a specific constraint, or of constraints in general;"FREE WILL is "The ability to choose one's actions,"Seems to me one can't choose her own actions without first being free of constraints.
i am arguing that free will compatibilism EXISTS, it isnt inheritably good nor evil, its free will
that definition of freedom is inheritably evil. That is because when you remove constraints in a society, whether its religion, morals, etc-you are then restricted to your human nature only, and since the natural state of humans is one of evil, the freedom will produce evil.
take a look at what "live and let live" did to america. Absolute freedom gets rid of constraints and people are restricted to their bodily desires only. One of their main bodily desire is sex. And that is why every song, tv show, advertisement, has some sexual undertone.
If there were values to control the freedom, then there would be no sexual undertones today. Take a look at vietnam. It bans pornography and cites the reason being " it is against the values of the Vietnamese people". THAT is what needs to be done, lets get rid of this whole "freedom" and "live and let live" attitude
The annoying thing about philosophers debating free will is that it is o ly a semantics debate. Those who believe free will is not possible use the correct definition itinerary of free will. The ones who believe free will does exist, will just state that free will means the ability to choose an action or some other variation of that argument
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Consider the process Doc.
How random can random be?
Ultimately a random choice is an internal choice, subject to internal data analysis.
More like a snap decision perhaps?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure where I lost you.
Either we are choosing freely, or our choices are determined by an unbroken chain of events going back to the beginning of time. Either our actions are the product of some function that is making decisions, the will, or our actions are the inevitable product of cause and effect.
So how do you know that you're choosing freely, and not determined by cause and effect?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Either we are choosing freely, or our choices are determined by an unbroken chain of events going back to the beginning of time.
Occupied space Universe is eternally existent. Observed { quantised/quantifiable } time aka our physical reality may or may not exist eternally.
Cause and effect stem from ultra-micro inter-relationships of the 180 degree, diametrically opposing phenomena of Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )(.
The resultant of these two diametrically opposing phenomena and their invaginations as to create the sine-wave patterns /\/\/ associated with physical reality aka observed time { quantised/quantifiable } ex EMRadition { photon } and Electrons
-->
@ebuc
None of that means anything. You're just stringing random words together.
-->
@Sum1hugme
None of that means anything. You're just stringing random words together.
False narrative because of your ego base set of mental blockages. Sad :--(
-->
@Sum1hugme
None of that means anything. You're just stringing random words together.
..."If we peer deeply into the brain, in other words, what we’ll find is
that electrochemical synapse firings—produced by neurons of various
types—are responsible for, as Koch puts it, the feeling of life itself,
consciousness."...
Ergo bilateral consciousness * * is based upon electro-mangetics fields ergo sine-wave patterns /\/\/ ergo the two inside lines { 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 } of the cosmic tori (>*<) i (>*<) Ive presented for some years now, in various threads, that sine-waves, are resultant of invaginations from outer peak of positive curvature { Gravity } and inner peak of negative curvature { Dark Energy }......space(>*<) i (>*<)space.........
outer....1.........................5p.........7p....................11p.........13p.........................17p..........
-
-
.0.............................................6.....................................12............................................18 { 18 quarks and 18 anti-quarks }...
...........................3p....................................9.........................................15..............................
-
-
inner............2p.........4...........................8........10..........................14............16.....................
( )( ) = equaltorial bisection/cross-esction of torus from side-view
( () ) = equaltorial bisection/cross-section of torus form birds-eye-view