Free Will

[Blues Man]

I rest my case.

You have no case

 

[ding]

You have no case

I disagree.

 

[dblack]

The only kind of free will that matters, morally and politically, is whether or not a decision was arrived at freely, or whether you were coerced into it by someone else.

As far as the question of free-will vs determinism, it's mostly an incoherent concept. What would even it mean to be free from causation? And why would we want that?

 

[Blues Man]

The only kind of free will that matters, morally and politically, is whether or not a decision was arrived at freely, or whether you were coerced into it by someone else.

As far as the question free-will vs determinism, it's mostly an incoherent concept. What would even it mean to be free from causation? And why would we want that?

This was part of the point.

If your choices are made unconsciously was your decision freely made?

And I never mentioned determinism because I would have to believe in some cosmic puppet master to believe that.

 

[dblack]

This was part of the point.

If your choices are made unconsciously was your decision freely made?

Sure. That doesn't mean it's free from causation though.

And I never mentioned determinism because I would have to believe in some cosmic puppet master to believe that.

?? How are you defining determinism?

 

[Blues Man]

Sure. That doesn't mean it's free from causation though.

?? How are you defining determinism?

Where did I say it was?

And if it was causation that's also an argument that it is not free will.

Because those causes reach infinitely into the past and you had nothing to do with any of them

 

[dblack]

Where did I say it was?

Wow. You use words without knowing the definition?

You said determinism requires a "cosmic puppet master". I was just wondering why. But if you wanna keep it a secret, that's fine.

 

[Blues Man]

Wow. You use words without knowing the definition?

You said determinism requires a "cosmic puppet master". I was just wondering why. But if you wanna keep it a secret, that's fine.

Yes I took it from the religious angle.

But I never argued that were were nothing but a bunch of particles obeying the laws of physic s either.

 

[Libby von H]

Is free will an illusion?

There are arguments to support this claim.

For example Test subjects while monitored by FMRI have shown that people actually make a decision subconsciously with no awareness the choice has been made then the conscious brain just supports the subconscious decision and tells us that we consciously chose a banana instead of an apple for example, when the opposite is true.

There are a lot of ethical and sociological implications to this.

I think it would make an interesting discussion.

But you misinterpret. Even when electrode stimulation of the brain causes someone to raise their arm, they KNOW it wasn't them.

 

[the other mike]

Is free will an illusion?

There are arguments to support this claim.

For example Test subjects while monitored by FMRI have shown that people actually make a decision subconsciously with no awareness the choice has been made then the conscious brain just supports the subconscious decision and tells us that we consciously chose a banana instead of an apple for example, when the opposite is true.

There are a lot of ethical and sociological implications to this.

I think it would make an interesting discussion.

I'll stick with Neil Peart's version.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Is free will an illusion?

There are arguments to support this claim.

For example Test subjects while monitored by FMRI have shown that people actually make a decision subconsciously with no awareness the choice has been made then the conscious brain just supports the subconscious decision and tells us that we consciously chose a banana instead of an apple for example, when the opposite is true.

There are a lot of ethical and sociological implications to this.

I think it would make an interesting discussion.

I think you have a good point. I think it very well could be an illusion, just like a lot of thinking processes we have could be just an illusion. Thoughts and feelings could be argued as an illusion as well, even though we experience them.

 

[Blues Man]

I think you have a good point. I think it very well could be an illusion, just like a lot of thinking processes we have could be just an illusion. Thoughts and feelings could be argued as an illusion as well, even though we experience them.

It's funny how the brain works. It seems a lot of the time the brain makes shit up

 

[Libby von H]

As Kant showed -- and there is no answer to him --- in his Antinomies : You can start with no free will or with free will and construct an unanswerable explanation for everything. But get this: It is a choice where you start

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is free will an illusion?

There are arguments to support this claim.

For example Test subjects while monitored by FMRI have shown that people actually make a decision subconsciously with no awareness the choice has been made then the conscious brain just supports the subconscious decision and tells us that we consciously chose a banana instead of an apple for example, when the opposite is true.

There are a lot of ethical and sociological implications to this.

I think it would make an interesting discussion.

Just the other day:
Free Will genetics discussed in the tv series Bodies. "Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

"It depends on the millions of factors and forces that have already happened to you that you're blissfully unaware of. Your prior relationship to alcohol. Your parents relationship to alcohol. Genetically, the taste buds on your tongue. The specific makeup responsiveness that makes this wine taste just sumptuous to you, right now, in this moment. The temperature of the room, the mood you're in, the person you drink it with. -- My point is - Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

some site: [ The Inevitable Fragility Of Time Loops ]

I believe the case could be made that we do not adequately describe what we mean by free will. Any changes in the list above could result in another choice or experience.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As Kant showed -- and there is no answer to him --- in his Antinomies : You can start with no free will or with free will and construct an unanswerable explanation for everything. But get this: It is a choice where you start

Do things dictate the selection. ones choice?

again, the example:

Free Will genetics discussed in the tv series Bodies. "Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

It depends on the millions of factors and forces that have already happened to youthat you're blissfully unaware of. Your prior relationship to alcohol. Your parents relastionship to alcohol. Genetically, the taste buds on your tongue. The specific makeup responsiveness that makes this wine tatse just sumptious to you, right now, in this moment. The temperature of the room, the mood you're in, the person you drink it with. -- My point is - Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one.

some site: [ The Inevitable Fragility Of Time Loops ]

 

[Blues Man]

Just the other day:
Free Will genetics discussed in the tv series Bodies. "Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

"It depends on the millions of factors and forces that have already happened to you that you're blissfully unaware of. Your prior relationship to alcohol. Your parents relationship to alcohol. Genetically, the taste buds on your tongue. The specific makeup responsiveness that makes this wine taste just sumptuous to you, right now, in this moment. The temperature of the room, the mood you're in, the person you drink it with. -- My point is - Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

some site: [ The Inevitable Fragility Of Time Loops ]

I believe the case could be made that we do not adequately describe what we mean by free will. Any changes in the list above could result in another choice or experience.

Well said.

We might not have free will but it certainly benefits us to believe we do.

 

[Blues Man]

So here's a thought I'm pondering.

If a person believes there is a first cause for everything then that person cannot believe in free will.

If the first cause is the cause of everything than that first cause is also the cause of all your thoughts and actions because you cannot be the first cause of anything therefore you have no free will.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So here's a thought I'm pondering.

If a person believes there is a first cause for everything then that person cannot believe in free will.

If the first cause is the cause of everything than that first cause is also the cause of all your thoughts and actions because you cannot be the first cause of anything therefore you have no free will.

'First cause" -- People have asked if our existence is limited to what we can verbalise? What would be a first cause? What would it look like?

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman coined the metaphor of The Invisible Soccer Ball in his 1993 book The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? Lederman used the metaphor to explain how particle physicists examine a problem.

 

[dblack]

Just the other day:
Free Will genetics discussed in the tv series Bodies. "Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

"It depends on the millions of factors and forces that have already happened to you that you're blissfully unaware of. Your prior relationship to alcohol. Your parents relationship to alcohol. Genetically, the taste buds on your tongue. The specific makeup responsiveness that makes this wine taste just sumptuous to you, right now, in this moment. The temperature of the room, the mood you're in, the person you drink it with. -- My point is - Free will does not exist. It's an illusion, and a pleasant one."

some site: [ The Inevitable Fragility Of Time Loops ]

I believe the case could be made that we do not adequately describe what we mean by free will. Any changes in the list above could result in another choice or experience.

Absolutely. Until we agree on a coherent definition, we can't really discuss it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Absolutely. Until we agree on a coherent definition, we can't really discuss it.

If that were the case, we really can't discuss anything. That is if we are limited by our language. Reality is we can discuss things intelligently, if we admit to ourselves that what we know, what we believe, what we are attempting to grasp is all limited by what's available to us as human beings. Open to change and newer understandings. Our senses, our observations, our place in time and space is most likely not all we believe it is. That's where science comes in. Beware those who would misrepresent science.