Is it really free will, If you only have one option?

[Wyatt earp]

Discuss.....

Why do people do this:

DISCUSS

Why do I need more words then the title?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Discuss.....

Why do people do this:

DISCUSS

Why do I need more words then the title?

Because your title is vague, and we're not mind-readers . . . particularly when the print is really small.

 

[PK1]

Perhaps “next life” discussions should be in another thread.
Does “life” mean only “consciousness/memory” to you? Then it’s unlikely it will have another life after death.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate ... but the original “free will” will likely not -

your statement seems the opposite for the progression of living beings that have emerged on this planet - the metaphysical "original" free will is what was responsible for the physical, physiology that life emerges with for the duration of its presence as we know it on planet earth - the physiology disappears without its spiritual presence and reemerges with changes through evolution over time that implies the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.

perhaps living beings are only leaves to the original free will that do perish or that coming from the original free will allows some to return back to it as distinct individuals. by completing the required conditions.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

cannot be corroborated ...

the answers for evolution are in the present tense the past examples are incomplete reminiscences long discarded for more desirable results incorporated metaphysically from one generation to the next by the physiology's spiritual content ... the same as the cicada -

transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

Sorry, but from an objective scientific perspective, your terminology has little meaning or significance:

“metaphysical, spiritual content”

.

Sorry, but from an objective scientific perspective, your terminology has little meaning or significance:

“metaphysical, spiritual content”

From ANY perspective...

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

... the same as the cicada - transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

PK1: this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

met·a·mor·pho·sis
/ˌmedəˈmôrfəsəs/
noun
Zoology
noun: metamorphosis; plural noun: metamorphoses

a change of the form or nature of a thing or person into a completely different one, by natural or supernatural means.

Scientific usage of the term is technically precise, and it is not applied to general aspects of cell growth, including rapid growth spurts. References to "metamorphosis" in mammals are imprecise and only colloquial, but historically idealist ideas of transformation and monadology, as in Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants, have influenced the development of ideas of evolution.

- not by you two, anyway.

There is nothing “supernatural” in bio metamorphosis. Your mumbo jumbo verbiage reminds me of the man behind the curtain causing things to happen (Oz land), which is imaginary UNTIL you see the man.
Science is agnostic; it deals only with natural phenomena; if you cannot see beyond the horizon, then you must admit “you don’t know” ... if you are honest. No BS in real science.

This Wikipedia summary is reflective of our objective reality:

“Metamorphosis is a biological process by which an animal physically develops after birth or hatching, involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation. Metamorphosis is iodothyronine-induced and an ancestral feature of all chordates.”

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate ... but the original “free will” will likely not -

your statement seems the opposite for the progression of living beings that have emerged on this planet - the metaphysical "original" free will is what was responsible for the physical, physiology that life emerges with for the duration of its presence as we know it on planet earth - the physiology disappears without its spiritual presence and reemerges with changes through evolution over time that implies the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.

perhaps living beings are only leaves to the original free will that do perish or that coming from the original free will allows some to return back to it as distinct individuals. by completing the required conditions.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

cannot be corroborated ...

the answers for evolution are in the present tense the past examples are incomplete reminiscences long discarded for more desirable results incorporated metaphysically from one generation to the next by the physiology's spiritual content ... the same as the cicada -

transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

Sorry, but from an objective scientific perspective, your terminology has little meaning or significance:

“metaphysical, spiritual content”

.

Sorry, but from an objective scientific perspective, your terminology has little meaning or significance:

“metaphysical, spiritual content”

From ANY perspective...

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

... the same as the cicada - transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

PK1: this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

met·a·mor·pho·sis
/ˌmedəˈmôrfəsəs/
noun
Zoology
noun: metamorphosis; plural noun: metamorphoses

a change of the form or nature of a thing or person into a completely different one, by natural or supernatural means.

Scientific usage of the term is technically precise, and it is not applied to general aspects of cell growth, including rapid growth spurts. References to "metamorphosis" in mammals are imprecise and only colloquial, but historically idealist ideas of transformation and monadology, as in Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants, have influenced the development of ideas of evolution.

- not by you two, anyway.

There is nothing “supernatural” in bio metamorphosis. Your mumbo jumbo verbiage reminds me of the man behind the curtain causing things to happen (Oz land), which is imaginary UNTIL you see the man.
Science is agnostic; it deals only with natural phenomena; if you cannot see beyond the horizon, then you must admit “you don’t know” ... if you are honest. No BS in real science.

This Wikipedia summary is reflective of our objective reality:

“Metamorphosis is a biological process by which an animal physically develops after birth or hatching, involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation. Metamorphosis is iodothyronine-induced and an ancestral feature of all chordates.”

.

Science is agnostic; it deals only with natural phenomena; if you cannot see beyond the horizon, then you must admit “you don’t know” ... if you are honest. No BS in real science.

nothing new, what you said ^^^

the answers for evolution are in the present tense the past examples are incomplete reminiscences long discarded for more desirable results incorporated metaphysically from one generation to the next by the physiology's spiritual content ... the same as the cicada - transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

sorry caveman speaking with an illiterate proves again a fruitless endeavor, you offer nothing in your responses relevant to the discussion than a thinly veiled ad hominem respite to disguise your own incompetence.

- involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation.

* metaphysically by the physiology's spiritual content ... is not agnostic (if that helps you).


- refute the statement itself or stfu. homeboy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

this is interesting.......



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-mind-body-problem-scientific-regress-and-woo/




THE DEPRESSING HYPOTHESIS?

Crick spelled out his hard-core materialist credo almost too clearly in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis. He declared that “you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of neurons… you’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” I once told Crick that The Depressing Hypothesis would have been a more accurate title for his book. He chuckled.



NEURAL EDELMANISM.

Two other big-shot scientists were claiming to have solved the mind-body problem in the early 1990s. One was Gerald Edelman, who proposed in Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (1992) and other books that consciousness results from competition between populations of neurons responding to stimuli.

Critics complained that Edelman’s theory, which he called “neural Darwinism,” was just an obscure, pretentious version of neural-network theory. Crick said “neural Edelmanism” would have been a more accurate name for the theory, and he did not mean that as a compliment. Neurologist/author Oliver Sacks is the only brain scientist of note who really liked Edelman’s theory.

THE QUANTUM MIND OF ROGER PENROSE.

Physicist Roger Penrose spelled out a more radical view in The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) and later books. Based on his interpretation of Godel’s theorem and introspection into his own brilliant mind, Penrose argued that consciousness must be based on non-deterministic quantum effects. He teamed up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and the pair produced ever-more-elaborate quantum-consciousness theories.


TUCSON 1994: FUN BUT TOO MUCH WOO.

All the above approaches to the mind-body problem and many more were represented at “Toward a Science of Consciousness,” the first of many biennial conferences in Tucson. Koch gave a talk on neural correlates. Penrose, Hameroff and others touted quantum consciousness. Other speakers presented chaotic or holographic models. Some emphasized the importance of mystical and paranormal phenomena. It was lots of fun, but the proportion of flakey ideas, or “woo,” to serious suppositions was high. (“Woo” can be used as an adjective or noun. Variant: “woowoo.”) The field was obviously pre-scientific, still in search of its unifying paradigm, although the neural-correlates approach of Crick and Koch seemed promising.

DAVID CHALMERS AND “THE HARD PROBLEM.”

The young Australian philosopher Chalmers generated lots of chatter at Tucson when he said that consciousness—subjective experience-- is different from other natural phenomena and hence unlikely to be solved with conventional, materialistic approaches. The "hard problem” of consciousness, Chalmers said, might be solved by assuming that information—along with matter and energy—is a fundamental property of reality. Chalmers seemed to be reviving not only dualism but also panpsychism, the ancient mystical doctrine that everything is at least a little bit conscious.

KOCH RESISTS WOO.





I liked Chalmers’s discussion of how “hard” consciousness is, but I found his information conjecture too hand-wavy. Woo. And panpsychism? Come on. So I was delighted when Koch confronted Chalmers at a reception in Tucson and criticized his ideas as untestable. “Why don’t you just say the Holy Ghost comes down into your brain and makes you conscious?” Koch asked. Koch, who also criticized quantum-consciousness theories, was standing up for common sense and against woo. Or so I implied in my write-up of the 1994 Tucson conference for Scientific American.

THE NEURAL CODE.

I kept reporting on the mind-body problem over the next two decades. For a while, I got excited about the “neural code,” the rules or algorithms that transform the firing of brain cells and other neural activity into perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions. Koch, my neuroscience go-to guy, warned that there might be many neural codes, operating at different scales in the brain, and our brains might even invent new codes in response to different experiences. The neural code, if it exists, will certainly be much more complex and difficult to crack than the genetic code.

THE RISE OF INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY.

About a decade ago Guilio Tononi, a former student of Edelman, proposed an ambitious theory of consciousness, integrated information theory. According to IIT, any physical system, not just a brain, is conscious if it passes a certain threshold of complexity, defined by the term phi. After attending a two-day conference on IIT at New York University, I concluded that IIT is highly implausible, for reasons that I go through here. IIT is essentially an elaborate, mathematical version of the old information-based idea that Chalmers presented in Tucson in 1994. And like the Chalmers conjecture, IIT implies than panpsychism is true.

 

[Moonglow]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.

Untrue. Some animals show a cognitive sense between the two.

 

[BreezeWood]

this is interesting.......



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-mind-body-problem-scientific-regress-and-woo/




THE DEPRESSING HYPOTHESIS?

Crick spelled out his hard-core materialist credo almost too clearly in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis. He declared that “you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of neurons… you’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” I once told Crick that The Depressing Hypothesis would have been a more accurate title for his book. He chuckled.



NEURAL EDELMANISM.

Two other big-shot scientists were claiming to have solved the mind-body problem in the early 1990s. One was Gerald Edelman, who proposed in Bright Air, Brilliant Fire (1992) and other books that consciousness results from competition between populations of neurons responding to stimuli.

Critics complained that Edelman’s theory, which he called “neural Darwinism,” was just an obscure, pretentious version of neural-network theory. Crick said “neural Edelmanism” would have been a more accurate name for the theory, and he did not mean that as a compliment. Neurologist/author Oliver Sacks is the only brain scientist of note who really liked Edelman’s theory.

THE QUANTUM MIND OF ROGER PENROSE.

Physicist Roger Penrose spelled out a more radical view in The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) and later books. Based on his interpretation of Godel’s theorem and introspection into his own brilliant mind, Penrose argued that consciousness must be based on non-deterministic quantum effects. He teamed up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and the pair produced ever-more-elaborate quantum-consciousness theories.


TUCSON 1994: FUN BUT TOO MUCH WOO.

All the above approaches to the mind-body problem and many more were represented at “Toward a Science of Consciousness,” the first of many biennial conferences in Tucson. Koch gave a talk on neural correlates. Penrose, Hameroff and others touted quantum consciousness. Other speakers presented chaotic or holographic models. Some emphasized the importance of mystical and paranormal phenomena. It was lots of fun, but the proportion of flakey ideas, or “woo,” to serious suppositions was high. (“Woo” can be used as an adjective or noun. Variant: “woowoo.”) The field was obviously pre-scientific, still in search of its unifying paradigm, although the neural-correlates approach of Crick and Koch seemed promising.

DAVID CHALMERS AND “THE HARD PROBLEM.”

The young Australian philosopher Chalmers generated lots of chatter at Tucson when he said that consciousness—subjective experience-- is different from other natural phenomena and hence unlikely to be solved with conventional, materialistic approaches. The "hard problem” of consciousness, Chalmers said, might be solved by assuming that information—along with matter and energy—is a fundamental property of reality. Chalmers seemed to be reviving not only dualism but also panpsychism, the ancient mystical doctrine that everything is at least a little bit conscious.

KOCH RESISTS WOO.





I liked Chalmers’s discussion of how “hard” consciousness is, but I found his information conjecture too hand-wavy. Woo. And panpsychism? Come on. So I was delighted when Koch confronted Chalmers at a reception in Tucson and criticized his ideas as untestable. “Why don’t you just say the Holy Ghost comes down into your brain and makes you conscious?” Koch asked. Koch, who also criticized quantum-consciousness theories, was standing up for common sense and against woo. Or so I implied in my write-up of the 1994 Tucson conference for Scientific American.

THE NEURAL CODE.

I kept reporting on the mind-body problem over the next two decades. For a while, I got excited about the “neural code,” the rules or algorithms that transform the firing of brain cells and other neural activity into perceptions, thoughts, memories, emotions. Koch, my neuroscience go-to guy, warned that there might be many neural codes, operating at different scales in the brain, and our brains might even invent new codes in response to different experiences. The neural code, if it exists, will certainly be much more complex and difficult to crack than the genetic code.

THE RISE OF INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY.

About a decade ago Guilio Tononi, a former student of Edelman, proposed an ambitious theory of consciousness, integrated information theory. According to IIT, any physical system, not just a brain, is conscious if it passes a certain threshold of complexity, defined by the term phi. After attending a two-day conference on IIT at New York University, I concluded that IIT is highly implausible, for reasons that I go through here. IIT is essentially an elaborate, mathematical version of the old information-based idea that Chalmers presented in Tucson in 1994. And like the Chalmers conjecture, IIT implies than panpsychism is true.

.

The neural code, if it exists, will certainly be much more complex and difficult to crack than the genetic code.

not to mention flora, half the living organisms on planet Earth haven't a single neuron for all of them combined ...

used for their conscious presence.

 

[ding]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.

Untrue. Some animals show a cognitive sense between the two.

Not like humans. It’s built into higher order life forms. It’s logical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.

Untrue. Some animals show a cognitive sense between the two.

Not like humans. It’s built into higher order life forms. It’s logical.

Not "like" humans? But, you said it was a completely human construct that animals don't have. But now, they have it, but it is just different. Wow, a lot can change in an hour, I guess.... heh heh

 

[Moonglow]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.

Untrue. Some animals show a cognitive sense between the two.

Not like humans. It’s built into higher order life forms. It’s logical.

Not "like" humans? But, you said it was a completely human construct that animals don't have. But now, they have it, but it is just different. Wow, a lot can change in an hour, I guess.... heh heh

That is why animals know how to find shelter humans must have a degree to do it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'

Our species evolved from a social ancestor. Our "innate" morality is a product of our hardwiring. Of course, hardwiring mass produced objects produces some objects with flaws (like pedophiles, sociopaths, etc). And much of our morality and ethics comes from reason. For example, taking care of the weak and ill in society.

 

[Mike Dwight]

The Bible is such a beautifully scholarly engaging book. I wouldn't compare it to the instruction manual they try for in the Kuran, would you? So what Christian Religion means for Free Will doesn't carry the slave-like connotation. Are you in any way happier thinking that you are able to Throw Away Christ's salvation? That's more where its pointing.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is free will if you choose an option

If someone else choose an option for you then it is free will that make you accept that option

Trump supporters only have one option and they choose that option based on free will.

Some people believe that they only have one option

 

[ding]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.

Untrue. Some animals show a cognitive sense between the two.

Not like humans. It’s built into higher order life forms. It’s logical.

Not "like" humans? But, you said it was a completely human construct that animals don't have. But now, they have it, but it is just different. Wow, a lot can change in an hour, I guess.... heh heh

Right. They don’t think in terms of right and wrong. Animals act on instinct and impulse. Humans do too but have a unique ability to override their instincts and impulses entirely unlike that of animals. So while you can find examples within the animal kingdom of empathetic behaviors it is nothing like what humans do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They don’t think in terms of right and wrong. Animals act on instinct and impulse.

Which is often true of us, even when displaying "right and wrong" behavior. Our introspective self awareness is layered onto the fact of our nature, and does not replace it.

So while you can find examples within the animal kingdom of empathetic behaviors it is nothing like what humans do.

False. Many times, it is precisely what humans do. Again, much of our behavior is simply hardwired. Our affinity and protectiveness of our children is a product of evolution, and the same behavior can be found not just in our closest relatives, but in many mammals. This arose not from any special intellect or divine horseshit, but rather evolved alongside the evolution of our underdeveloped offspring.

And we still attach words like "right" and "moral" to this behavior, after the fact. Because we can think about it and employ our introspective self awareness in considering it. But its really not a "choice", in the sense of being agents of our own thoughts and behaviors, anymore than it is for an elephant or a dolphin.

 

[ding]

They don’t think in terms of right and wrong. Animals act on instinct and impulse.

Which ia often true of us, ebmven when displaying "right and wrong" behavior. Our introspective self awareness is layered onto the fact of our nature, and does not replace it.

So while you can find examples within the animal kingdom of empathetic behaviors it is nothing like what humans do.

False. Many times, it is precisely what humans do. Again, much of our behavior is simply hardwired.

The real difference is that animals don’t rationalize that they have done good when they haven’t. That is entirely a human phenomenon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The real difference is that animals don’t rationalize that they have done good when they haven’t.

True, but that is still "after the fact".

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Physics Delimiting Order Versus Disorder "

* Hear Ring A Story Of Willy Nilly *

Introspection requires a sophisticated physical state ; and , any supposition for free will necessarily require an assurance that a sophisticated physical state for introspection exists infinitely .

Not only do mortals not have free will , an exercise in too much freedom of will could cause one to lose the limits of freedom one is afforded .

 

[ding]

The real difference is that animals don’t rationalize that they have done good when they haven’t.

True, but that is still "after the fact".

It’s all part and parcel.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there are artifacts of intelligence and that the concept of right and wrong is unique to man. A deer doesn’t see a wolf as evil. It just sees it as a threat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s all part and parcel.

But still after the fact. So oftwn not a part of geberating the behavior, which is completely germane to the point. You can't sidestep it.