That one is free to believe in fate seems like the best proof of free will to me.
Of course, since all beliefs and actions are dictated by the holders collective experience and biological wiring, it is likely most (if not all) decisions a person makes could be predicted (predetermined) with sufficient information.
There is always a paradox on any subject, once you reach it you are near to understanding it.
That one is free to believe in fate seems like the best proof of free will to me.
Of course, since all beliefs and actions are dictated by the holders collective experience and biological wiring, it is likely most (if not all) decisions a person makes could be predicted (predetermined) with sufficient information.
There is always a paradox on any subject, once you reach it you are near to understanding it.
Edit - this was directed at traveller
I’m a little confused. Are you saying that you disagree with your first post?
Nope. If I ask if you would like to be punched in the face, I may predict you will decline, I may even predetermine that you will decline, but you are still free to decline.
Nope. If I ask if you would like to be punched in the face, I may predict you will decline, I may even predetermine that you will decline, but you are still free to decline.
No. No. No one is free to decline. That’s the essence of declining.
Desire of something/ avoidance of something
We could argue that only one of these items needs to be in effect.
We go through life taking the most desirous route, or we go through life avoiding things.
Either one works. By itself, with the same ends.
It’s only words and semantics that confuse this issue into the discussion of free-will. Hence the illusion of free-will.
The illusion is when both equal concepts are combined in anecdotal life-phraseology.
Plus memory! That’s the other mysterious contributor to the illusion.
When we remember things, we reflect on how things could have been different. But things can only be different when your reflecting on the past.
The things we suppose are different approaching us from the future are simply environmental. Our actions upon those approaching environments are pre-determined.
Pssst Stormy Fairweather… you are right. Look into the infamous longest thread, the mother of all threads.
Or here...
Don’t let VYAZMA hear it… He falls in semantic trap himself… thinking that he denies something when he denies the incoherent idea of free will as an uncaused cause…
Pssst Stormy Fairweather… you are right. Look into the infamous longest thread, the mother of all threads.
Or here...
Don’t let VYAZMA hear it… He falls in semantic trap himself… thinking that he denies something when he denies the incoherent idea of free will as an uncaused cause…
Look, you should know I’m not up on alot of this terminology GdB.
Explain to me what I am denying please.
Also wouldn’t I be correct to deny anything that was incoherent…am I missing something?
What exactly are you saying? How do you perceive my incorrect view of free-will, or my incorrect view of the lack of free-will?
What’s an uncaused cause? Explain these terms in simpler form please.
I wasn’t aware I was denying anything. I’m lost when we discuss free-will with you. I’m sure it’s my fault.
thinking that he denies something when he denies the incoherent idea of free will as an uncaused cause..
all of this above in quotes…I don’t understand this. What are you saying I’m saying?
Apparently if you believe in free will without a deity you believe all things are explainable by natural laws, randomness, and the mechanics of the universe *except* the choices humans make—and perhaps dolphins…. fricken dolphins. So long and thanks for all the fish?
1. That you talk about the illusion of free will.
2. That you say it is a problem of semantics.
To 1:
Calling something an illusion means denying that it really exists, it only seems to exist. From my point of view, you only deny the existence of free will in the following sense: as not caused (otherwise it is determined), and as caused (by the person). But from physics we know that everything is already fully caused, so there is no room left for a person to additionally interfere with the chain of causes. And voila, as the person cannot interfere with the physical universe, free will does not exist. But you started from an inconsistent definition, and from inconsistent definitions you can conclude what you want.
To 2:
The problem with the semantics lies at your side. In a physical discourse concepts of ‚persons‘, ‚consciousness‘, ‚grounds‘ and ‚actions‘ have no meaning. So‚ free will‘, or if you want ‚unfree will‘ have neither. How can you say we are not free, as ‚we‘ has no meaning? But if ‚we‘ exist, then persons exist, and with them consciousness, grounds and actions. And then we can we can talk about free will, and we can distinguish between actions and movements, between free actions and non free actions, we can even talk about responsibility and morality.
From my point of view, you only deny the existence of free will in the following sense:
Yes, from your point of view indeed.
GdB - 24 February 2011 07:12 AM
But from physics we know that everything is already fully caused, so there is no room left for a person to additionally interfere with the chain of causes. And voila, as the person cannot interfere with the physical universe, free will does not exist.
Do you also have something to say about the content, instead of my writing style?
I can say something is completely white and completely black at the same time. But do I say something useful, when I deny that that exists? Wasn’t that clear without doing any science? Doesn’t it follow from the concepts of black and white alone?
Now compare with the kind of free will you and VYAZMA deny:
- freedom of the will means that my actions are not determined
- I determine my actions
This is a chimera from the beginning.
Opposed to that I state:
- I am free if my wishes and believes determine my actions, simply said, if I can do what I want. To extend that to that you can want what you want is a bit silly, isn’t it?
Don’t ever try becoming a prosecutor, GdB.
If somebody did not act on basis of his wishes and believes, he is not responsible.
If he did, he is responsible.
Examples:
- Somebody says ‘Your money or your life!’. But it is the day revenue of the shop where I work. So I give it. Am I punished because of giving away the money? (It is not really my wish to give the money away)
- I am lied to about what happens when I push a button. In fact a bomb explodes. Am I responsible for the killings? (What I believed was that I would turn on a light. I would never have done it if I had known I would initiate the bomb.)
- I am convinced that it is OK to steal money from a house. Am I responsible?
That the it can be difficult to decide in border cases of responsibility, does not mean that the concepts are wrong. Where is the border between red and orange in a spectrum? If I cannot exactly determine this, does that mean that yellow red and orange do not exist?
Merge alarm!
Don’t ever try becoming a prosecutor, GdB.
