The Astonishing Hypothesis

Ahnimus

I was watching Heroes the other night and on episode like 9 the narrator says basically that fate guides us, but some sliver of free-will allows us to defy fate. Complete nonsense.

Over 90% of people believe they have free-will.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you realize we all agree? You agree that we have choice and accountability dependent on the determinants that cause us to act as we do. So does farfromglorified.

That's great, then I don't understand where the concept is not being grasped.

Ahnimus

This isn't something I made up

wikipedia wrote:

Some philosophers' views are difficult to categorize as either compatibilist or incompatibilist, hard determinist or libertarian. John Locke, for example, denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense. He also took the view that the truth of determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the defining feature of voluntary behavior was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to reflect or deliberate upon the consequences of a choice: "...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power, or ability, to prefer or choose".[28] Similarly, David Hume discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue. He also suggested that it might be accounted for by "a false sensation or seeming experience" (a velleity) which is associated with many of our actions when we perform them. On reflection, we realize that they were necessary and determined all along.[29]

Arthur Schopenhauer put the puzzle of free will and moral responsibility in these terms:

Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life... . But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...."[30]

In his On the Freedom of the Will, Schopenhauer stated, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." [31]

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That's great, then I don't understand where the concept is not being grasped.

It is being grasped. We all use different terminology that reflects who we are. We all perceive the phenomena with differences, but we all agree on what it fundamentally is about. What you call determinants, farfromglorified calls reasons. We are having clashes of the will, so to speak, or of the ego. Our differences and our lack of effective communication is not getting in the way of convincing each other but instead getting in the way of realizing we are talking about the very same thing.

angelica

The credit goes to soulsinging who first pointed this out. By him making the point, it allowed me to step out of my own ego position where I had been butting heads with you, Ahnimus, to switching to seeing the synthesis and similarities that I'm actually wired to see when I'm looking to the greatest good or outcome of a situation.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It is being grasped. We all use different terminology that reflects who we are. We all perceive the phenomena with differences, but we all agree on what it fundamentally is about. What you call determinants, farfromglorified calls reasons. We are having clashes of the will, so to speak, or of the ego. Our differences and our lack of effective communication is not getting in the way of convincing each other but instead getting in the way of realizing we are talking about the very same thing.

We can't be, because ffg is saying that free-will is caused and it cannot be caused.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not inventing it, it's an illusion people live with.

Hehe...then if they live with it, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to live with it, right? And if they reject your arguments, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to reject them, correct? If it's all determined now, and it's all going to be determined tomorrow, what are you so concerned about?

You seem to want it both ways....you seem to want a determined universe full of people who will choose to devour your theories. It's absolutely priceless.

Perhaps hearing from a socialist might help you...

"Freedom of the will does not mean that the decisions that guide a man's action fall, as it were, from outside into the fabric of the universe and add to it something that had no relation to and was independent of the elements which had formed the universe before. Actions are directed by ideas, and ideas are products of the human mind, which is definitely a part of the universe and of which the power is strictly determined by the whole structure of the universe.

What the term 'freedom of the will' refers to is the fact that the ideas that induce a man to make a decision (a choice) are, like all other ideas, not 'produced' by external 'facts," do not 'mirror' the conditions of reality, and are not 'uniquely determined' by any ascertainable external factor to which we could impute them in the way in which we impute in all other occurrences an effect to a definite cause. There is nothing else that could be said about a definite instance of a man's acting and choosing than to ascribe it to this man's individuality." -Ludwig von Mises

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

We can't be, because ffg is saying that free-will is caused and it cannot be caused.

*Sigh*

Stop putting words in my mouth. Free-will must be caused. Otherwise, it would not exist.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...then if they live with it, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to live with it, right? And if they reject your arguments, it's perfectly determined that they were supposed to reject them, correct? If it's all determined now, and it's all going to be determined tomorrow, what are you so concerned about?

You seem to want it both ways....you seem to want a determined universe full of people who will choose to devour your theories. It's absolutely priceless.

Perhaps hearing from a socialist might help you...

"Freedom of the will does not mean that the decisions that guide a man's action fall, as it were, from outside into the fabric of the universe and add to it something that had no relation to and was independent of the elements which had formed the universe before. Actions are directed by ideas, and ideas are products of the human mind, which is definitely a part of the universe and of which the power is strictly determined by the whole structure of the universe.

What the term 'freedom of the will' refers to is the fact that the ideas that induce a man to make a decision (a choice) are, like all other ideas, not 'produced' by external 'facts," do not 'mirror' the conditions of reality, and are not 'uniquely determined' by any ascertainable external factor to which we could impute them in the way in which we impute in all other occurrences an effect to a definite cause. There is nothing else that could be said about a definite instance of a man's acting and choosing than to ascribe it to this man's individuality." -Ludwig von Mises

In the field it's called rational deliberation. By talking to people that have the illusion I'm providing them with evidence to question their beliefs, otherwise they may never not. You are still describing something different though.

Without free-will, if will is truly determined. Then God cannot expect anyone to independently choose Good over Evil and therefor the entire myth about heaven and hell is wrong.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

We can't be, because ffg is saying that free-will is caused and it cannot be caused.

You are both seeing it differently. If I'm understanding, farfromglorified realizes that our choices--what he relates to our free will--are preceded by determinants.

He is not saying that our choices come from thin air--he knows they are dependent on who we are and all of our experiences that influence us.

Now where he and I are share a view but are somewhat different than you, is that we see that the human, backed by all the determinants/reasons is very unique. We focus on and celebrate this! There will never ever be another same individual making those choices in this big old world, whether based on determinants or not. We see how potent and unique and spectacular that is--we see that the human making these choices is a separate thing than JUST being the choices. Remember ffg's analogy about how you would see the magic show, understand it, and then say the magician does not exist. We're saying an integral part of this process is all about this central, individual character--the individual themself, free to dance upon a world of forces even if driven by a past and causes. And we feel that this portion of the equation, being the role of the central character--ourself-- cannot be downplayed, or ignored.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You are both seeing it differently. If I'm understanding, farfromglorified realizes that our choices--what he relates to our free will--are preceded by determinants.

He is not saying that our choices come from thin air--he knows they are dependent on who we are and all of our experiences that influence us.

Now where he and I are share a view but are somewhat different than you, is that we see that the human, backed by all the determinants/reasons is very unique. We focus on and celebrate this! There will never ever be another same individual making those choices in this big old world, whether based on determinants or not. We see how potent and unique and spectacular that is--we see that the human making these choices is a separate thing than JUST being the choices. Remember ffg's analogy about how you would see the magic show, understand it, and then say the magician does not exist. We're saying an integral part of this process is all about this central, individual character--the individual themself, free to dance upon a world of forces even if driven by a past and causes. And we feel that this portion of the equation, being the role of the central character--ourself-- cannot be downplayed, or ignored.

"A Self is a set of behaviors appropriate to a given set of contingencies." - B.F. Skinner

I'm not playing down the self, I'm putting it into perspective. Whatever the hell you are talking about is irrelevant. I'm talking about facts that apply to real things and how those real things are affected. So yea, to the individual "Self" it appears to be free and basks in the glory of feeling free and acts as though it is. But it is not, that is the point.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

In the field it's called rational deliberation. By talking to people that have the illusion I'm providing them with evidence to question their beliefs, otherwise they may never not. You are still describing something different though.

So you're still a slave to this "illusion" then, despite your brilliance to see through it?

Without free-will, if will is truly determined. Then God cannot expect anyone to independently choose Good over Evil and therefor the entire myth about heaven and hell is wrong.

Hehe...no it's not. All you've done is proven God to be a really big sadist. Congratualtions, you're a Calvinist.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

So you're still a slave to this "illusion" then, despite your brilliance to see through it?

Hehe...no it's not. All you've done is proven God to be a really big sadist. Congratualtions, you're a Calvinist.

Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

"A Self is a set of behaviors appropriate to a given set of contingencies." - B.F. Skinner

I'm not playing down the self, I'm putting it into perspective. Whatever the hell you are talking about is irrelevant. I'm talking about facts that apply to real things and how those real things are affected. So yea, to the individual "Self" it appears to be free and basks in the glory of feeling free and acts as though it is. But it is not, that is the point.

Yes, we have differences in our view. Do you recognize that myself and farfromglorified share the basic fundamentals with you? We all accept the determinants. We all recognize the programming people falsely labour under. We all believe this is at root of the human condition problems. We each seek, in our unique ways to wake people out of the illusions. We just don't recognize each other and our similarities, some of the times, while we are adamantly arguing for our differences. In my books, sharing such huge basic fundamentals, unlike the majority of the population is a bigggg thing. I'll take that!

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Man, do I even have to tell you how nearsighted that is?

Yes.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yes, we have differences in our view. Do you recognize that myself and farfromglorified share the basic fundamentals with you? We all accept the determinants. We all recognize the programming people falsely labour under. We all believe this is at root of the human condition problems. We each seek, in our unique ways to wake people out of the illusions. We just don't recognize each other and our similarities, some of the times, while we are adamantly arguing for our differences. In my books, sharing such huge basic fundamentals, unlike the majority of the population is a bigggg thing. I'll take that!

I agree Angelica. I'm extremely happy that we all view choice as the result of determinism. It's just the details we don't agree on. And I see that you think my opinions are just opinions. But I assure that they are grounded in evidence.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes.

I am not living the illusion, I'm trying to influence the illusion.

God in the biblical definition is not a sadist, according to the bible we have free-will. God is based solely on the bible, without the credibility of biblical truth, God basically doesn't exist. There is no other reason to believe in God.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I agree Angelica. I'm extremely happy that we all view choice as the result of determinism. It's just the details we don't agree on. And I see that you think my opinions are just opinions. But I assure that they are grounded in evidence.

Your opinions are opinions by definition. Even though they may be grounded in fact, like my own, or like farfromglorified's.

Hopefully we can all respect that we share some very important basic groundwork. And that it's entirely natural that we also see many things differently, given our different perspectives.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Your opinions are opinions by definition. Even though they may be grounded in fact, like my own, or like farfromglorified's.

Hopefully we can all respect that we share some very important basic groundwork. And that it's entirely natural that we also see many things differently, given our different perspectives.

What facts?

I have a lot of facts. I don't go out, I don't drink, I don't go to PJ concerts. I don't have kids, don't have a mate. I do almost nothing besides read facts, mostly concerning consciousness and human behavior. What facts are you basing your belief on?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

What facts?

I have a lot of facts. I don't go out, I don't drink, I don't go to PJ concerts. I don't have kids, don't have a mate. I do almost nothing besides read facts, mostly concerning consciousness and human behavior. What facts are you basing your belief on?

We share a view. We have some differences based on that we each seek out different aspects of life to hone in on, and in different ways. It's as simple as that. We have different facts of the same subjects. We have different determinants so therefore we will come up with something different. We are connected in that we seem to be fixating on the same fundamentals at this time. and again, whew! we should count our lucky stars that others can even "go here", much less see many of the same things considering how rare it is!

No matter how hard we try, we cannot change our opinions to facts. We can derive our opinions from facts, yes. Facts can underly, support and sustain our opinions, yes.