Free-Will

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

From wikipedia:

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

They all basically mean the same thing. Free-will as in the ability to control our choices outside of deterministic reality.

In your own post, you are using back-up that points to the fact that free will operates in "the religious realm" and that is has religious and ethical implications alongside science ones. It looks like you and I now agree that free will is legitimately and authentically more than just a science issue. Thanks for that.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica and I both believe in determinism. But because of a subjective experience she doesn't accept it in it's entirety.

No. Angelica has said from the beginning that at her most expansive levels of awareness she believes in the moment, and that she thinks the past and the future are merely a part of the moment. She thinks the past and the future are not real in any other place than in an Eternal Now where one is fully operating from their potential. The only way we can be in the past or the future is through speculation/theory, and not in reality. Empirical knowing tells us that in practical terms, we are always in the moment. We are never in the past and we are never in the future, although we can imagine that we are. We never were in the past and we never were in the future, except in our theories and imagination. Angelica thinks that to understand this is to be REAListic. She also thinks that any reduction of life through intellectual exercise, that does not also synthesize back to the overview or whole of life alongside analysis, distorts the truth, sometimes significantly. Therefore there are whole EXPERIENCES. Granted, in the moment, most of us humans are at a point in evolution where we are immersed in the illusion of cause and effect as being real, and therefore we have that experience of life. Angelica does not believe in determinism. Angelica believes in the "idea" or "concept" of cause and effect, within the big picture of the complete whole Eternal Now. This is very different than believing cause and effect is the CAUSE of the big picture, especially when angelica does not believe cause and effect is real beyond as a theory. Angelica believes this because of her stage of awareness and what her worldview tells her, not because of "a subjective experience".

Your interpretations of angelica's view are about your opinion, Ahnimus, and often do not accurately reflect what angelica is saying. This makes sense when you are trying to make angelica's experiences fit your ideas, rather than understand what she is saying.

That makes sense, I guess. But not from a skeptical point of view. Skeptics typically need some kind of repeatable proof.

If you are skeptical, and need proof, that has nothing to do with what is true or not. Reality exists outside anyone's opinion about it.

I mean, it's such a contradiction to have both cause and effect and some kind of will. But maybe 2 + 2 does equal 22, what do I know?

This is only a contradiction when one cannot resolve the duality and live in the fullness of life. For those who have resolved duality or dichotomy, itself, it's a simple, holistic concept.

Ahnimus

Actually, the whole concept of determinism is being skewed.

No matter what choices a person makes, they can not repeat that exact moment in time. They can't change the choice. A person can not make two choices at the same point in time that contradict each other and have differing results.

Such as, I choose to stay home and study, but also to go out and drink and the exact same time.

Each "choice" has a different fate, but you can't have both. The point is the choices a person makes are totally dependent on their knowledge and perception of the world.

I challenge everyone to think about the causality of their thoughts, because it can be known quite easily by this method.

NMyTree you are assuming that determinism is linear and two-dimensional. Which it certainly is not. Causality works infinitely backwards. So Goddard's theory is only ankle deep in reality. He does not consider that the larger system can also be understood, and the system beyond that into infinity. It doesn't mean that the truths of the original system are no longer truths.

NMyTree

Uh huh. An all encompassing mechanism with infinite control over all variables, alternatives, possibilities, outcomes and choices.

Again, how convenient that this "theory " leaves itself with almost no possibility for error. The only flaw or error is that it can never be proven to be correct or accurate.

Ahnimus wrote:

It doesn't mean that the truths of the original system are no longer truths.

Nor does it mean or prove there's any truth in it, whatsoever.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I challenge everyone to think about the causality of their thoughts, because it can be known quite easily by this method.

What do you mean "causality of their thoughts"? Our thoughts are theories. They are not real, right? Like thoughts about religion are not real, right? Or like spiritual experiences are not real. So why consider the causality? You want me to "imagine" how they stemmed from "the past", when the past only exists in a theory? You want me to "think", period. There's no proof or structure there! Random thought is not 2+2=4! You want me to use an idea about causality, that does not exist, except for it's ability to support your point? I can understand in science, using imaginary theories in order create practical applications--there is practical proof involved. You are not talking about that here. You want to use a theory to prove a non-practical application: you are trying to use a theory to prove your philosophy--you know, that hippie-stuff that is not real.

For what purpose? To indulge your fantasy of non-real things? We're living in the real world here, Ahnimus.

I'd prefer reality and what can be proven, empirically now. So give me something you can empirically prove now. Not a theory. Not a quote. Give us first-hand empirical proof that free will does not exist.

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

I'd prefer reality and what can be proven, empirically now. So give me something you can empirically prove now. Not a theory. Not a quote. Give us first-hand empirical proof that free will does not exist.

Bravo.

I empirically practice free-will all day every day. I just did by posting this.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Bravo.

Thanks! Although I must say, I did notice you and others have been pointing to common PRACTICAL sense all along in this thread.

I empirically practice free-will all day every day. I just did by posting this.

Me too! I just did there!

chopitdown

jeffbr wrote:

Bravo.

I empirically practice free-will all day every day. I just did by posting this.

i knew you were going to say that.

NMyTree

jeffbr wrote:

Bravo.

I empirically practice free-will all day every day. I just did by posting this.

No, it was predetermined that you would respond with that exact post, at that exact time:D:D

NMyTree

chopitdown wrote:

i knew you were going to say that.

hehehehehe:D

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Causality works infinitely backwards. So Goddard's theory is only ankle deep in reality. He does not consider that the larger system can also be understood, and the system beyond that into infinity. It doesn't mean that the truths of the original system are no longer truths.

Oh, my guess is that Godel understood that IN THEORY the larger truths EXIST, but in terms of our figuring out these truths, in PRACTICAL ways as they play out, we can only go by what we know in each moment. Or at any stage. For all we know, we also know there is so much we don't yet know, and we are hinged between those variables in the now. What we know; what we don't know. In the theoretical idea of causality, I understand it would be a finished, complete system. However, we are talking about you, as a flawed human trying to understand this VAST, COMPLEX, theoretically UNIVERSAL system, and if we are being honest, you only know what you do know, and you also don't know what you don't know. Therefore as Godel's theorem implies, you cannot 100% prove your theory because you will always have missing variables. And as you evolve and widen your understanding with expansion, such expansion will open up new incomplete possibilities to explore. Now my understanding was that Godel's theorem was regarding math, and not your consciousness evolution. The thing with math is we are talking an exact science--well, excepting for Godel's incompleteness theorem. In terms of your thoughts/philosophy and your theories that ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AN EXACT SCIENCE, you can make this theory be perfect and make sense to you, but you've also had to dodge 20 practical arguments to the contrary in order to stick to your theory. It's the brain's way of avoiding cognitive dissonance, don'tcha know. If your thoughts were an exact science like math, you would not have been unable to disassociate from the arguments that were too difficult for you to face. But as an un-exact science, your personal philosophy, like the rest of ours, will continue to be just that--a personal philosophy, just fine in it's complete human fallibility.

Ahnimus

Personally, Angelica. I can see a huge difference between these two statements:

"Our thoughts are products of our brains, which make determinations based on information. Scientific experiments such as Benjamin Libet (1980), the works of B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, Einstein and so on, provide empiracle reproducable evidence."

"Everything is a whole, and we exist within that whole, and when we acheive duality and become part of that whole, we can change it and then we are whole."

The first statement attempts to explain things by using reproducable experiments, wether they are simply experiential or substantiated mathematically. The latter statement is hippy-talk.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Personally, Angelica. I can see a huge difference between these two statements:

"Our thoughts are products of our brains, which make determinations based on information. Scientific experiments such as Benjamin Libet (1980), the works of B.F. Skinner, Jean Piaget, Einstein and so on, provide empiracle reproducable evidence."

"Everything is a whole, and we exist within that whole, and when we acheive duality and become part of that whole, we can change it and then we are whole."

The first statement attempts to explain things by using reproducable experiments, wether they are simply experiential or substantiated mathematically. The latter statement is hippy-talk.

Seriously Ahnimus. Your ruse is up.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Seriously Ahnimus. Your ruse is up.

I guess I'm missing something then.

What was your explanation again?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I guess I'm missing something then.

Here are some of your "facts" from this thread. Okay, we'll drop the ruse and we'll see how your philosophy and value judgments are what they are: non-facts.

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, you have provable science and you have grandiose dreams. I put my money on science

Your personal preference is not neutral--it is a grandiose dream of your subjective mind.

Ahnimus wrote:

People have dreamed up all kinds of realities, so it's not very good basis for belief.

"good" is a value judgment beyond the neutrality of science.

Ahnimus wrote:

Totally misguided

Judgment is not neutral and therefore not scientific, but instead based on subjectivity and values system.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't hold any water.

To say that science can not explain will or consciousness is incorrect. Science has explained it more than anything else.

"more" is about value and again subjective preference, not neutral fact.

Seratonin as far as I know is responsible for sexuality and mood.

"as far at you know" is a realistic limit in terms of assessing accuracy. It is not the same as being factual, but rather it accurately portrays that even when trying to be factual, you are still a fallible human with subjective flaws and limit.

I meant to mention as well Dan, that science has lead society to better understanding.

"better"--value judgment beyond neutrality of science.

Most of how we live today is cause of science.

personal opinion.

Science is man-made, so is the term causality, so is consciousness and will.

opinion, and a reductionist one at best, or a distorted-one-at-worst, as well. Do you know enough about consciousness to believe man just invented it? yikes. Remember that consciousness is far beyond physical science, in that is is not physical. You can factually assess brain chemicals. The physical counterpart of consciousness is merely a counterpart and not the whole. You do not apparently accept the methods of understanding consciousness, along with your lack of acceptance of culture or society.

There are far more of your personal subjective viewpoints woven throughout your each post in this thread. Because you gloss over them does not make them go away for the rest of us.

In other words, your opinions and personal value judgments and philosophies are on the same level as anyone's. You have no proof of non-free will. Your opinion stands as your opinion. And apparently as truth to you. The rest of us seem to differ. But I'm sure we'll be pleased if at any point you can empirically prove free will.

Ahnimus

You are nit-picking at words that I used.

Even though I know what I know now, the mind is still complex and old habits are hard to kill. For example I was hard for time yesterday and I got into the shower, someone in the building kept turning the water on and off, out of habit I said out-loud "What the fuck? Fuck off!" and immediately realized afterwords that A) No one can hear me and It's nobodies fault. But I still reacted as I have in the past, look up synaptic plasticity and engrams to understand more about this.

If you actually open your mind and do some reading on the issue, you can see the clarity of what I'm saying, but rather you would pick away at little irrelevant traits. For example Seratonin is very well understood by people besides me, my knowledge is limited to that which I can remember from studying it and it wasn't something I was particularily interested in as a whole, rather how it pertains to sexuality and mood and the effects of SSRIs. Which I did not misrepresent.

Here is a chunk for you, you can look further into yourself if you want, or just accept that others know more about it.

"Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture". This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behaviour when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the newly-described MiRNA, allow a level of molecular complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior."

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You are nit-picking at words that I used.

Wow.

If you actually open your mind and do some reading on the issue, you can see the clarity of what I'm saying, but rather you would pick away at little irrelevant traits.

You have not had one rational argument in dispute of my posts dealing with the subject matter for pages and pages now. Your arguments have been about denouncing and degrading my view. (accusing my view of being psychotic, non-real, fantasy, etc.) Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.

For example Seratonin is very well understood by people besides me, my knowledge is limited to that which I can remember from studying it and it wasn't something I was particularily interested in as a whole, rather how it pertains to sexuality and mood and the effects of SSRIs. Which I did not misrepresent.

Here is a chunk for you, you can look further into yourself if you want, or just accept that others know more about it.

"Like physicists, biologists have also frequently addressed the question of free will. One of the most heated debates of biology is that of "nature versus nurture". This debate questions the importance of genetics and biology in human behaviour when compared to culture and environment. Genetic studies have identified many specific genetic factors that affect the personality of the individual, from obvious cases such as Down syndrome to more subtle effects such as a statistical predisposition towards schizophrenia. However, it is not certain that environmental determination is less threatening to free will than genetic determination. The latest analysis of the human genome shows it to have only about 20,000 genes. These genes, and the reconsidered intron genetic material, and the newly-described MiRNA, allow a level of molecular complexity analogous to the complexity of human behavior."

I've not been interested in your self-serving tripe since you started tuning out conflicting arguments pages ago.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Wow.


You have not had one rational argument in dispute of my posts dealing with the subject matter for pages and pages now. Your arguments have been about denouncing and degrading my view. (accusing my view of being psychotic, non-real, fantasy, etc.) Talk about a pot calling a kettle black.

I've not been interested in your self-serving tripe since you started tuning out conflicting arguments pages ago.

lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

If I pay my bills this month, then according to you (Ahnimus); it was already predetermined that I would pay my bills this month.

But if decide to NOT pay my bills this month, then, according your theory; it was predetermined that I would NOT pay my bills.

Is that not so very convenient? Such a win-win situation for Determinism. No chance of ever losing or being wrong.

The truth is, anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future. There can't be two seperate predetermined futures or results.

The truth is, Determinism awaits on my choice to either pay my bills or not pay my bills. If I can change Determinism's claims of what was expected, then, determinism is a farce.

Exactly, see, let me try to explain why this argument is ridiculous and not even really worthy of addressing.

You are proposing that an individual could make two conflicting choices at the exact same place in space and time, which is impossible. Therefor, "anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future." still applies.

You can not go back in time and change your decision because you learned something new in the future which would have altered your decision. The decision is made and based solely on your understanding at the time. Your understanding at the time is based solely on genetic and environmental influences. Those genetic and environmental influences are also the result of other complex dynamical systems. Such as society and evolution.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

lol, if you want me to address your arguments, present them in a comprehensible way. Most of what you say makes no sense.

Most people here can spot a cheap way of trying to dominate an argument a mile away. You merely reveal your inability to participate in a healthy exchange of information. It's certainly your perogative. Since people use their best argument, and since your arguments to me keep looking like above, I'll take that as meaning you have no actual rebuttal on the subject matter. Thanks.