Ok, so, will is dependent on "reason, desire, perception" what is "reason, desire, perception" dependent on?
See the problem with free-will is there is no causality for it, no explanation, you can only say that it does exist, you can't explain how. It's a philosophical belief par with religion, but it's so widely accepted that it's integrated into all of our lives.
When someone commits a crime, we blame them, we assume that they made the decision, that they have free-will. I'm not saying they shouldn't be accountable, we have to protect society from them. But we assume that their "will" is variably different than ours. We make the same assumptions concerning addiction, many people can quit smoking, many people can not. This is solely attributed to "will", why is it that some people have strong "will-power" and others do not?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, so, will is dependent on "reason, desire, perception" what is "reason, desire, perception" dependent on?
See the problem with free-will is there is no causality for it, no explanation, you can only say that it does exist, you can't explain how. It's a philosophical belief par with religion, but it's so widely accepted that it's integrated into all of our lives.
When someone commits a crime, we blame them, we assume that they made the decision, that they have free-will. I'm not saying they shouldn't be accountable, we have to protect society from them. But we assume that their "will" is variably different than ours. We make the same assumptions concerning addiction, many people can quit smoking, many people can not. This is solely attributed to "will", why is it that some people have strong "will-power" and others do not?
As a parent, sometimes the phrase "impulse control" comes up.
My son has trouble with "impulse control" which essentially means that he doesn't have as much of a barrier between what he wants to do and what he does even when he knows he shouldn't do something.
I think a lot of "crimes of passion" can be attributed to people with less impulse control than others.
Ok, so, will is dependent on "reason, desire, perception" what is "reason, desire, perception" dependent on?
See the problem with free-will is there is no causality for it, no explanation, you can only say that it does exist, you can't explain how. It's a philosophical belief par with religion, but it's so widely accepted that it's integrated into all of our lives.
When someone commits a crime, we blame them, we assume that they made the decision, that they have free-will. I'm not saying they shouldn't be accountable, we have to protect society from them. But we assume that their "will" is variably different than ours. We make the same assumptions concerning addiction, many people can quit smoking, many people can not. This is solely attributed to "will", why is it that some people have strong "will-power" and others do not?
Part of our disconnect will be your belief in strict causality. Post-newtonian laws like Quantum machanics, probability, chaos, etc... have introduced unpredictability and uncertainty to your nice, neat, causality.
And my common sense shows me that I can make choices any time, all day long. I can decide to continue to sit here, or I can go take a piss so my bladder can relax. You'll say my will or choice is just an illusion, but I see your belief in a sort of predeterministic thinking as equally religiosly and philsophically based as you see my "belief" in free will.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
As a parent, sometimes the phrase "impulse control" comes up.
My son has trouble with "impulse control" which essentially means that he doesn't have as much of a barrier between what he wants to do and what he does even when he knows he shouldn't do something.
I think a lot of "crimes of passion" can be attributed to people with less impulse control than others.
It's still variable, it's not a universal constant, which is what I'm looking for as causality.
For example, if I press "C" on my keyboard, "C" comes up on the screen, this is true for every computer/keyboard as long as another constant is true, that is the "C" key is in the right place.
However, in the human psyche, things aren't that simple. If I say "Hey, your an asshole" to my brother, his response will be different than that of a stranger, the response isn't constant, the stimulus is, so there must be other variables affecting the response, because it's not linear.
Saying that will depends on reason which depends on impulse control, means, one variable is dependent on another variable dependent on another variable, but there are no constants.
If I say to my brother "Hey, your an asshole" and you say to your brother "Hey, your and asshole", then we have a constant, the receiving participant of the statement share the same relation to the individual delivering it. However, due to other variables affecting personality the response will ultimately be different. For example, if my relationship with my brother is good and that statement is unusual he might respond "Huh? Why would you say that?" if your relationship with your brother is bad and that type of statement is usual, the response may be "Fuck you, I'm tired of your shit!".
Does that make sense?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Part of our disconnect will be your belief in strict causality. Post-newtonian laws like Quantum machanics, probability, chaos, etc... have introduced unpredictability and uncertainty to your nice, neat, causality.
And my common sense shows me that I can make choices any time, all day long. I can decide to continue to sit here, or I can go take a piss so my bladder can relax. You'll say my will or choice is just an illusion, but I see your belief in a sort of predeterministic thinking as equally religiosly and philsophically based as you see my "belief" in free will.
Don't over-estimated Quantum Mechanics, most of the observations aren't substantial. Quantum Mechanics is simply indicative of our primitive understanding of the universe. After watching the move "What The BLEEP?" I was inclined to believe as you do, but I was put in my place by further study and talking to others who have studied it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
C'mon Ahnimus, give us some idea of your humanity. Anything. I'm a newbie here, so maybe I missed it. The neice or nephew on your knee, the son or daughter, the way you defended your little brother from a bully, anything, anyting at all...
C'mon Ahnimus, give us some idea of your humanity. Anything. I'm a newbie here, so maybe I missed it. The neice or nephew on your knee, the son or daughter, the way you defended your little brother from a bully, anything, anyting at all...
I think it's important.
Hmm, Well, for those exact things, I don't have a neice or a nephew, though I think that would be cool, my bro is settled down so maybe I'll have one soon. I'm single and never had many serious relationships and always used protection, so I don't have any children. I'm pretty sure I stood up for my brother a few times and I'm pretty sure he stood up for me. Actually, I know a time he stood up for me...
It was right after my ex and I broke up from a 2 year on/off relationship. She had moved out and was renting a room in a townhouse with some weird middle-age guy. I guess she said some things to this guy about me, probably because we weren't getting a long and she liked to bitch. So, anyway I guess my bro and his gf are over visiting my ex and the dude she's staying with finds out they know me and starts trash talking me, giving them all kinds of personal information. Of course they already know all of it because I'm really open about my personal life (most of the time). My brother got really upset and put the guy in his place, I was impressed, of course I only heard about it.
How's that?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." -- Albert Einstein
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking
"There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." - Clarence Darrow
"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin
"The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism, so they are freed from their own shame and guilt, they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born." -- Peter Gill
"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach
"Whether or not we have personality disturbances, whether or not we have the ability to overcome deficiencies of early environment, is like the answer to the question whether or not we shall be struck down by a dread disease: "it's all a matter of luck." It is important to keep this in mind, for people almost always forget it, with consequences in human intolerance and unnecessary suffering that are incalculable." -- John Hospers
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." -- Bertrand Russell
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner
"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner
"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity." - Baruch Spinoza
"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire
The real irony of all this, is science leading to God. Steven Hawkings one of the foremost physicists says in A Brief History of Time Pg. 127 "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us"
That's a pretty good argument. But, it doesn't explain what God is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am intrigued by the subject matter you bring forth here, ahnimus. I have also read about those experiments. Also, I enjoy a good voluntarism/determinism debate. And for the most part I cannot do away with the determinist view as that is rather impossible. But I think I would lean more towards a weak determinism, really. I agree that much of our responses and so on are conditioned by environment, learned responses and so on. But is it all? I'm not as ready to accept that.
And even if it were true, that all is determined, what would it do to the human psyche to realize that? Wouldn't that render everything meaningless for most people? Also having in mind a centerpiece of depression leading on to suicide is the loss of meaning, wouldn't free will at least be a necessary illusion for us to go on?
Besides, scientists are gonna find determinist results all the time they look for "laws" which imply determinism by their very existence. If you look for laws, you will find some, but then you are looking for determinism from the outset.
But some degree of determinism is good to have in mind. I just don't think I'm buying the hard determinism. But interesting to shake it up, and see what happens. By the way the experiment shows that we can be fooled into believing we did something out of free will. It doesn't say that we thus are always fooled, and the will always coming after the impulse. But it is quite sobering to realize how easily we may think wrongly.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I am intrigued by the subject matter you bring forth here, ahnimus. I have also read about those experiments. Also, I enjoy a good voluntarism/determinism debate. And for the most part I cannot do away with the determinist view as that is rather impossible. But I think I would lean more towards a weak determinism, really. I agree that much of our responses and so on are conditioned by environment, learned responses and so on. But is it all? I'm not as ready to accept that.
And even if it were true, that all is determined, what would it do to the human psyche to realize that? Wouldn't that render everything meaningless for most people? Also having in mind a centerpiece of depression leading on to suicide is the loss of meaning, wouldn't free will at least be a necessary illusion for us to go on?
Besides, scientists are gonna find determinist results all the time they look for "laws" which imply determinism by their very existence. If you look for laws, you will find some, but then you are looking for determinism from the outset.
But some degree of determinism is good to have in mind. I just don't think I'm buying the hard determinism. But interesting to shake it up, and see what happens. By the way the experiment shows that we can be fooled into believing we did something out of free will. It doesn't say that we thus are always fooled, and the will always coming after the impulse. But it is quite sobering to realize how easily we may think wrongly.
Peace
Dan
Dan,
The social advantages of determinism are mutual happiness. Really. Without free-will there is nothing to support hatred, blame, envy or pride. When a person realizes that they act because of prior events, then they will seek events to improve their actions. When they realize that others act because of prior events, they will understand them. If everyone understood this no one would commit serious crimes. Crimes are committed because people believe they have free-will, envy, vengeance, pride, reasons irrelevant to determinism. They will not regret decisions, nothing will affect their self-esteem, they will live in a state of happiness knowing they have no control. This does not negate God, in-fact it can be seen as quantifying God. The alternative is a loop, where the universe begins where it ends.
In Quantum Mechanics when they talk about the double-slit experiment they aren't exactly sure what they are observing, if they are observing all the variables, so things don't seem to work. But Schrödinger proved that as long as quantum mechanics was observed as a wave, instead of particles, causality does exist and determinism is true. Because all of matter follows these fixed laws, the matter that operates within our bodies and our brains follows these laws as well.
By the way, I just read a lot of this, this idea of determinism is kind of new to me, although I've always felt that past experiences determined my present and future. I would look back at my own actions and ask why I did them, looking for variables within my psyche that provided causality and I always found them. I found them whenever I learned something new that opened my eyes to greater reality. From what I've read on cognitive science and psychology, there is no possibility of indeterminism.
But we are determined to pleasure ourselves by tantalizing our taste buds, sexual interaction, pleasant audio experience, pleasant visuals, social status, etc.. This is the basic law of organisms, even the single-cell organism performs actions to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It's when we are surrounded by pain that we give-up seeking pleasure in the classical sense. When surrounded by pain we seek only to end the pain.
Salaam,
Ryan
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I simply theorize that we are all machines, it is referred to as Hard Determinism.
I was reading Chaos Theory earlier and I got into Cellular Automaton. I won't go into to many details, but it's actually believed that small fragments of machine code are generate where they have no purpose, but are relative to the instructional code. Almost like a level of awareness, this has led to much speculation of the consciousness of computers. Prior to reading that scientific research, I never considered machines having consciousness. But this theory is actually the basis for the movie "I, Robot" amazing how scientifically informed Sci-Fi writers are.
Are you familiar with Godel's Incompleteness theorem?
"In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules."
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself." http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
"It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced."
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The social advantages of determinism are mutual happiness. Really. Without free-will there is nothing to support hatred, blame, envy or pride. When a person realizes that they act because of prior events, then they will seek events to improve their actions. When they realize that others act because of prior events, they will understand them. If everyone understood this no one would commit serious crimes. Crimes are committed because people believe they have free-will, envy, vengeance, pride, reasons irrelevant to determinism. They will not regret decisions, nothing will affect their self-esteem, they will live in a state of happiness knowing they have no control. This does not negate God, in-fact it can be seen as quantifying God. The alternative is a loop, where the universe begins where it ends.
That is the positive side of determinism. The flipside is apathy. If you dont affect the world, but only ever reacts, well, why bother? Why try doing anything knowing that the result is predetermined? Why seek to improve if it is predetermined? Since this all is predetermined, it is not my fault that I rob you and/or kill you. It is a dangerous double-edged sword at best. No responsibility for failure, but also no responsibility or credit for success. To me, and many others, hard determinism makes little sense, and is hard to live by. You argue one can realize one is not responsible and then seek to improve, but seeing as one has no control over ones life, apathy lurks very near, sending someone into despondency and meaninglessness. I've been there, and it was a close call I came out alive and unharmed.
And also, as I adressed, it is in the nature of science to discover and formulate laws. Whether those laws are real, or only look as laws because of our limited knowledge is the question. And when we have laws, we have determinism. The thing is that science in it's nature could never discover voluntarism, or rather something that is not a law. If it isn't a law, as in A invariably leads to B, then it isn't scientifically sound. Science ever only accepts theories and observations that are completely reliable or at least as close as to not matter. But that's what science is about, certain knowledge. But science does not have the tools for uncertainty and unlawfulness. So a scientific enquiry is biased towards determinism from the outset. This is also what Angelica is getting at in the above post, I see.
So again, I am for a limited determinism, as it comes to prior experiences, learning and conditioning. But not a total determinism. The human brain is more than a mere machine, and has the ability to do more than merely react. If I didn't believe that, you'd find me dead next to an empty shotgun.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
What I see as the problem here is that people feel if there is a predestination, free will cannot co-exist. And really, all it means is that in a logical framework they seem paradoxical or contradictory. There is a reason our brains have numerous functions that are alogical or BEYOND logic. This comes in handy in understanding the WHOLE of life, not just the linear aspects. I first believed in free will. Then by circumstances in my life, I came to realize how much my programming and my environment created the circumstances of my life. Ultimately I resolved the two. THE DUALITY IS AN ILLUSION. Free will exists among all of the "fixed, determined" laws. It is a paradox and represents the perfection of the whole before we break reality down with analysis.
This is the key of the resolution of the duality: when one learns to accept and align with nature and the "fixed" laws, one learns to be able to manipulate and bend the very laws of nature. See eastern religions. See all esoteric religious practice. See martial arts. If we think we have a will free of the Source of our existence, that is incorrect. The Source of life flows through us and IS us in each moment. It would be foolish for the drop of water to think it was free of the ocean. But when the drop of water realizes it can dissolve the illusion of the duality between it and ocean, then it REAL-izes the experience of ocean, and therefore finds it has the power of the entire oceanic system within it. Once one REAL-izes or re-COGNIZES their true nature, they realize they were not actually controlled by their circumstances, but rather that is was mutual--they also co-created the very circumstances around them, all along!
Science is one way of mapping reality. Objective study CO-EXISTS along with the valid subjective Truths and the INNER PATHS that are crucial in developing a whole-istic and full appreciation of our environment. Science and logic alone will not resolve this paradox. When we attempt to contain the whole in theories, we are imposing our limits on the whole--limits that exist only by our illusory view of them.
Each theory or system enfolds into larger systems that embrace AND go beyond the original system. This is the essential nature of all that exists, from phsycial systems, to conceptual systems, to spiritual systems. One system does not embrace the whole, but rather reflects our awareness at the time. The consciousness of the observer co-creates in each moment, whether one is completely blind to this or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"This model of purposeful, though intuitive chaos is perhaps one underlying aspect of the concept of karma. It may not be apparent to an individual why certain types of experiences come, but there seems to be an underlying order and purpose, even though it may remain unconscious." http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/ChaosTheory/chaostheory3.html
We've learned so much objective information, but what is generally lacking at this time is our subjective balance. We're so out of touch with ourselves that we do not understand how we connect with the whole or with the science we have objectified. It is those who hone their subjective selves, and practice self-psychological awareness and other practices such as meditation, who actually connect with and marry themselves to the environment and connect with a REAL-ization of wholeness and truth. As your article mentions, the chaos IS INTUITIVE. This means it is responsive, aware and intelligent, and we can align with that and influence our surroundings at all times. When we open to this universal intuitive nature that flows through us, we can learn from the intelligence of this "flow". As we connect to life from the life within, we can tap the underlying consciousness throughout the universe. We can push away opportunities or draw them through this natural intuition. What amazing will. What amazing freedom.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
How is it fascistic to suggest that our decisions are the result of a complex dynamical system as opposed to free-will, and that free-will is merely and illusion projected onto our conscious to make us aware of our actions and decisions?
It's isn't fasscistic to suggest that "our decisions are the result of a complex dynamical system as opposed to free-will". It's just stupid to suggest by inference that "free-will" isn't "a complex dynamical system".
If you dont affect the world, but only ever reacts, well, why bother? Why try doing anything knowing that the result is predetermined?
That you use the word "reacts" it reminds me of something. Many, many people react to many situations in life without awareness and understanding. When we begin to develop awareness and discernment, we can change "reaction" to response. By reacting, we choose our actions unconsciously. By responding we choose consciously.
I've done a lot of work with my own subconscious. The choices I have made subconsciously in my life still were made with amazing intelligence. For example, the numerous disorders I had, they picked up and met needs I was unable to meet consciously--defense mechanisms are very useful! Just like anyone with an addiction right now is meeting a need unconsciously that they have not yet figured out how to meet consciously. It is the ego that is the false self. If we decide to make our choices unconsciously, and beyond the ego, we invite in the much more vast intelligence of our unconscious to act on our behalf, so we learn our lessons and evolve in a round about but very purposeful way. People who align themselves with reality to deeper and deeper degrees come to integrate more and more of this vast underlying consciousness we are immersed in. By doing so, they identify or "own" more and more of this responsibility and also reap more and more of the benefits of authentic power.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The social advantages of determinism are mutual happiness. Really. Without free-will there is nothing to support hatred, blame, envy or pride.
:eek:
How is this possible? Happiness is not the absence of hatred, blame, envy or pride. Happiness stems from the conscious recognition of the achievement of values.
The argument you make here is completely ridiculous. You're suggesting that if people believe their will is not free they will not hate, blame, envy or feel pride. Such a conscious recognition and decision would require free-will, the very thing you're attempting to disprove.
When a person realizes that they act because of prior events, then they will seek events to improve their actions.
How will they "seek" those events?
When they realize that others act because of prior events, they will understand them.
How will they "understand" them?
If everyone understood this no one would commit serious crimes. Crimes are committed because people believe they have free-will, envy, vengeance, pride, reasons irrelevant to determinism.
Hahahahahahahaha...do you see what you're saying here??? You're saying that when free-will is destroyed, the free will of the people will be to not commit serious crimes.
They will not regret decisions, nothing will affect their self-esteem, they will live in a state of happiness knowing they have no control. This does not negate God, in-fact it can be seen as quantifying God. The alternative is a loop, where the universe begins where it ends.
A woman walking over a semi-frozen lake falls through a weak and brittle section of the surface. Her hands clutch tightly to thick chunks of ice, as she screams for help.
A man casually walking his dog along the shoreline of the lake, hears the screams and responds to her cries for help. He risks his own life to save the woman from certain death.
Is this not a response through a complex dynamical system of Free Will?
Alternate Version:
Same woman, same lake, same conditions and same deadly mishap. The woman clings for her life as she screams for help.
Same man on the shoreline walking his dog. But he can not bring himself to risk his own life, in an attempt to save the life of the woman. The woman dies
His refusal to risk his life does not make him a coward, but merely a victim of a complex dynamical system?
How is this possible? Happiness is not the absence of hatred, blame, envy or pride. Happiness stems from the conscious recognition of the achievement of values.
The argument you make here is completely ridiculous. You're suggesting that if people believe their will is not free they will not hate, blame, envy or feel pride. Such a conscious recognition and decision would require free-will, the very thing you're attempting to disprove.
How will they "seek" those events?
How will they "understand" them?
Hahahahahahahaha...do you see what you're saying here??? You're saying that when free-will is destroyed, the free will of the people will be to not commit serious crimes.
It certainly doesn't negate God. It requires God.
I wish I had more time for this thread today.
It seems like Ahnimus is looking at a fused environmentalexistence , where all is one. We've actually evolved to having differentiated individuality from that fusion, and the challenge is to embrace that individuality and integrate it into the whole, in order to have the advanced fullness of this evolutionary phase.
I know that when I tried to assert my will while I was still fused with the whole, WITHOUT having developed my individuality, my will was crippled and caused all kinds of negative consequences to reverberate back to me. Pining for the simplicity of fusion is not the answer. Rather developing healthy individuality within the whole is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
A woman walking over a semi-frozen lake falls through a weak and brittle section of the surface. Her hands clutch tightly to thick chunks of ice, as she screams for help.
A man casually walking his dog along the shoreline of the lake, hears the screams and responds to her cries for help. He risks his own life to save the woman from certain death.
Is this not a response through a complex dynamical system of Free Will?
Alternate Version:
Same woman, same lake, same conditions and same deadly mishap. The woman clings for her life as she screams for help.
Same man on the shoreline walking his dog. But he can not bring himself to risk his own life, in an attempt to save the life of the woman. The woman dies
His refusal to risk his life does not make him a coward, but merely a victim of a complex dynamical system?
Determinism and morality are not compatible. With determinism, there is no such thing as morality. And that makes everyone "innocent" and "guilty" at the same time, though those terms really no longer apply. No action could be classified as "good" or "bad".
Furthermore, no reasoned change is possible. Which makes me wonder why this board would even exist and why nearly every proponent of determinism frames his or her argument around the "positive social changes" that would come of it.
It seems like Ahnimus is looking at a fused environmentalexistence , where all is one. We've actually evolved to having differentiated individuality from that fusion, and the challenge is to embrace that individuality and integrate it into the whole, in order to have the advanced fullness of this evolutionary phase.
How can one "embrace" individuality without free will?
Ahnimus, when you say this: "Without free-will there is nothing to support hatred, blame, envy or pride" it sounds like you are referring to the ego, and not free will. It sounds like you mean our sense of separation from the dynamics that embrace us--a separation caused by ego. Like as if we lose this "freewill-ego" that we would all be in harmony. In a sense, I see that you are correct. When we can EVOLVE our egos and integrate them into the fullness, where we embrace our connecteness AND our individual choice, we can harmoniously appreciate our existence in the "fields" and patterns that surround us. However, this entails consciousness and ownership of will, which is the opposite of fusion, lack of consciousness and non-acknowledgement-of-will.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Determinism and morality are not compatible. With determinism, there is no such thing as morality. And that makes everyone "innocent" and "guilty" at the same time, though those terms really no longer apply. No action could be classified as "good" or "bad".
Furthermore, no reasoned change is possible. Which makes me wonder why this board would even exist and why nearly every proponent of determinism frames his or her argument around the "positive social changes" that would come of it.
...and ultimately, as illustrated in the "Infidelity" thread (through sarcasm) the general population of this planet would interpret and perceive these theories as a pass or excuse to go about committing the most hideous, violent criminal activities without fear of penalty. It's the human nature of the curent state of the species known as......Human Beings.
How can one "embrace" individuality without free will?
Did you notice the part just before I mentioned embracing individuality, where I said we've evolved into differentiating our individuality? That certainly includes awareness of our will. This is a distinct over view of awareness that has been going on for hundreds of years! We generally have awakened to our will and individuality. Because there are good arguments pointing to the seeming-predestination around us does not take away from the fact that humans have uncovered the individual self. Again, the task is to develop this self, AND integrate it. It's not about one or the other. And it's definitely not about denying the self!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Did you notice the part just before I mentioned embracing individuality, where I said we've evolved into differentiating our individuality? That certainly includes awareness of our will. This is a distinct over view of awareness that has been going on for hundreds of years! We generally have awakened to our will and individuality. Because there are good arguments pointing to the seeming-predestination around us does not take away from the fact that humans have uncovered the individual self. Again, the task is to develop this self, AND integrate it. It's not about one or the other. And it's definitely not about denying the self!
I see where you're coming from on this, but the operative word in my question was "one". If determinism is in fact true, and what you say above is also in fact true, we have no choice in the matter -- we simply must leave it to evolution or any number of outside forces of which we have absolutely no control. None of the verbs you use above could apply to the individuals to whom your speaking.
...and ultimately, as illustrated in the "Infidelity" thread (through sarcasm) the general population of this planet would interpret and perceive these theories as a pass or excuse to go about committing the most hideous, violent criminal activities without fear of penalty. It's the human nature of the curent state of the species known as......Human Beings.
Hey! I'm with you on all of this stuff! The thing is values and value systems are entirely, completely 100% valid! I cannot stress this enough. And YES. We're hugely stifled because we objectify everything and essentially block the idea of value; of better/worse, right/wrong. We've stunted our subjective understandings for hundreds of years now! We've prioritized neutrality and science and we've lost touch with value-discernment to a huge degree.
We need to increase the focus on the subjective systems and build them back up to healthy levels themselves. We need to develop healthy ways of determining values. We cannot do this by minimizing science or objectivity or neutrality, though. We cannot do this by saying the neutral stuff does not count! We can only do this by building up the subjective values aspects!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see where you're coming from on this, but the operative word in my question was "one". If determinism is in fact true, and what you say above is also in fact true, we have no choice in the matter -- we simply must leave it to evolution or any number of outside forces of which we have absolutely no control. None of the verbs you use above could apply to the individuals to whom your speaking.
I seems that you are not hearing what I am saying. Well, at the least, this post seems to be at such disconnect to what I'm saying, I'm not understanding what you are saying relative to my assertion that we are co-creators in our environement and are in possession of free will.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
...and ultimately, as illustrated in the "Infidelity" thread (through sarcasm) the general population of this planet would interpret and perceive these theories as a pass or excuse to go about committing the most hideous, violent criminal activities without fear of penalty. It's the human nature of the curent state of the species known as......Human Beings.
Of course. Proponents of determinism (armchair and esoteric philosophers aside) are, more often than not, simply demonstrating their own free will in action. Their theories are tailored specifically towards absolution. They'd be better served by becoming Orthodox Catholics and finding the nearest confession booth.
The ultimate sanctuary of determinism is faith in the omnipresent. And one need only to look at the history of societies dominated by such faith to determine which leads to a healthy society and which leads to a society where the word "health" has no meaning.
Free will is not some inherent magic in humanity. It is simply the result of your biological consciousness. Your mind is constructed such that you may recognize yourself, the other, and the distinct differences and relationships between those things. Futhermore, your mind is constructed to choose by evaluating that which you know and that which you value. Choose wisely, because your faith in determinism cannot save you from the pain and misery that this world will pay into your account regardless of whether or not you believe you are accountable for your choices. Even in a pre-determined world, your psychotic tendencies will not bring you happiness. The free will to choose otherwise is your only hope.
Comments
Ok, so, will is dependent on "reason, desire, perception" what is "reason, desire, perception" dependent on?
See the problem with free-will is there is no causality for it, no explanation, you can only say that it does exist, you can't explain how. It's a philosophical belief par with religion, but it's so widely accepted that it's integrated into all of our lives.
When someone commits a crime, we blame them, we assume that they made the decision, that they have free-will. I'm not saying they shouldn't be accountable, we have to protect society from them. But we assume that their "will" is variably different than ours. We make the same assumptions concerning addiction, many people can quit smoking, many people can not. This is solely attributed to "will", why is it that some people have strong "will-power" and others do not?
As a parent, sometimes the phrase "impulse control" comes up.
My son has trouble with "impulse control" which essentially means that he doesn't have as much of a barrier between what he wants to do and what he does even when he knows he shouldn't do something.
I think a lot of "crimes of passion" can be attributed to people with less impulse control than others.
Part of our disconnect will be your belief in strict causality. Post-newtonian laws like Quantum machanics, probability, chaos, etc... have introduced unpredictability and uncertainty to your nice, neat, causality.
And my common sense shows me that I can make choices any time, all day long. I can decide to continue to sit here, or I can go take a piss so my bladder can relax. You'll say my will or choice is just an illusion, but I see your belief in a sort of predeterministic thinking as equally religiosly and philsophically based as you see my "belief" in free will.
It's still variable, it's not a universal constant, which is what I'm looking for as causality.
For example, if I press "C" on my keyboard, "C" comes up on the screen, this is true for every computer/keyboard as long as another constant is true, that is the "C" key is in the right place.
However, in the human psyche, things aren't that simple. If I say "Hey, your an asshole" to my brother, his response will be different than that of a stranger, the response isn't constant, the stimulus is, so there must be other variables affecting the response, because it's not linear.
Saying that will depends on reason which depends on impulse control, means, one variable is dependent on another variable dependent on another variable, but there are no constants.
If I say to my brother "Hey, your an asshole" and you say to your brother "Hey, your and asshole", then we have a constant, the receiving participant of the statement share the same relation to the individual delivering it. However, due to other variables affecting personality the response will ultimately be different. For example, if my relationship with my brother is good and that statement is unusual he might respond "Huh? Why would you say that?" if your relationship with your brother is bad and that type of statement is usual, the response may be "Fuck you, I'm tired of your shit!".
Does that make sense?
Don't over-estimated Quantum Mechanics, most of the observations aren't substantial. Quantum Mechanics is simply indicative of our primitive understanding of the universe. After watching the move "What The BLEEP?" I was inclined to believe as you do, but I was put in my place by further study and talking to others who have studied it.
I think it's important.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Hmm, Well, for those exact things, I don't have a neice or a nephew, though I think that would be cool, my bro is settled down so maybe I'll have one soon. I'm single and never had many serious relationships and always used protection, so I don't have any children. I'm pretty sure I stood up for my brother a few times and I'm pretty sure he stood up for me. Actually, I know a time he stood up for me...
It was right after my ex and I broke up from a 2 year on/off relationship. She had moved out and was renting a room in a townhouse with some weird middle-age guy. I guess she said some things to this guy about me, probably because we weren't getting a long and she liked to bitch. So, anyway I guess my bro and his gf are over visiting my ex and the dude she's staying with finds out they know me and starts trash talking me, giving them all kinds of personal information. Of course they already know all of it because I'm really open about my personal life (most of the time). My brother got really upset and put the guy in his place, I was impressed, of course I only heard about it.
How's that?
"The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." -- Stephen Hawking
"There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." - Clarence Darrow
"Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." --Charles Darwin
"The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism, so they are freed from their own shame and guilt, they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born." -- Peter Gill
"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." -- Baron d'Hobach
"Whether or not we have personality disturbances, whether or not we have the ability to overcome deficiencies of early environment, is like the answer to the question whether or not we shall be struck down by a dread disease: "it's all a matter of luck." It is important to keep this in mind, for people almost always forget it, with consequences in human intolerance and unnecessary suffering that are incalculable." -- John Hospers
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." -- Bertrand Russell
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner
"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner
"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity." - Baruch Spinoza
"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire
The real irony of all this, is science leading to God. Steven Hawkings one of the foremost physicists says in A Brief History of Time Pg. 127 "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us"
That's a pretty good argument. But, it doesn't explain what God is.
And even if it were true, that all is determined, what would it do to the human psyche to realize that? Wouldn't that render everything meaningless for most people? Also having in mind a centerpiece of depression leading on to suicide is the loss of meaning, wouldn't free will at least be a necessary illusion for us to go on?
Besides, scientists are gonna find determinist results all the time they look for "laws" which imply determinism by their very existence. If you look for laws, you will find some, but then you are looking for determinism from the outset.
But some degree of determinism is good to have in mind. I just don't think I'm buying the hard determinism. But interesting to shake it up, and see what happens. By the way the experiment shows that we can be fooled into believing we did something out of free will. It doesn't say that we thus are always fooled, and the will always coming after the impulse. But it is quite sobering to realize how easily we may think wrongly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Dan,
The social advantages of determinism are mutual happiness. Really. Without free-will there is nothing to support hatred, blame, envy or pride. When a person realizes that they act because of prior events, then they will seek events to improve their actions. When they realize that others act because of prior events, they will understand them. If everyone understood this no one would commit serious crimes. Crimes are committed because people believe they have free-will, envy, vengeance, pride, reasons irrelevant to determinism. They will not regret decisions, nothing will affect their self-esteem, they will live in a state of happiness knowing they have no control. This does not negate God, in-fact it can be seen as quantifying God. The alternative is a loop, where the universe begins where it ends.
In Quantum Mechanics when they talk about the double-slit experiment they aren't exactly sure what they are observing, if they are observing all the variables, so things don't seem to work. But Schrödinger proved that as long as quantum mechanics was observed as a wave, instead of particles, causality does exist and determinism is true. Because all of matter follows these fixed laws, the matter that operates within our bodies and our brains follows these laws as well.
By the way, I just read a lot of this, this idea of determinism is kind of new to me, although I've always felt that past experiences determined my present and future. I would look back at my own actions and ask why I did them, looking for variables within my psyche that provided causality and I always found them. I found them whenever I learned something new that opened my eyes to greater reality. From what I've read on cognitive science and psychology, there is no possibility of indeterminism.
But we are determined to pleasure ourselves by tantalizing our taste buds, sexual interaction, pleasant audio experience, pleasant visuals, social status, etc.. This is the basic law of organisms, even the single-cell organism performs actions to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It's when we are surrounded by pain that we give-up seeking pleasure in the classical sense. When surrounded by pain we seek only to end the pain.
Salaam,
Ryan
Are you familiar with Godel's Incompleteness theorem?
"In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules."
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths ... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself."
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
"It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced."
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That is the positive side of determinism. The flipside is apathy. If you dont affect the world, but only ever reacts, well, why bother? Why try doing anything knowing that the result is predetermined? Why seek to improve if it is predetermined? Since this all is predetermined, it is not my fault that I rob you and/or kill you. It is a dangerous double-edged sword at best. No responsibility for failure, but also no responsibility or credit for success. To me, and many others, hard determinism makes little sense, and is hard to live by. You argue one can realize one is not responsible and then seek to improve, but seeing as one has no control over ones life, apathy lurks very near, sending someone into despondency and meaninglessness. I've been there, and it was a close call I came out alive and unharmed.
And also, as I adressed, it is in the nature of science to discover and formulate laws. Whether those laws are real, or only look as laws because of our limited knowledge is the question. And when we have laws, we have determinism. The thing is that science in it's nature could never discover voluntarism, or rather something that is not a law. If it isn't a law, as in A invariably leads to B, then it isn't scientifically sound. Science ever only accepts theories and observations that are completely reliable or at least as close as to not matter. But that's what science is about, certain knowledge. But science does not have the tools for uncertainty and unlawfulness. So a scientific enquiry is biased towards determinism from the outset. This is also what Angelica is getting at in the above post, I see.
So again, I am for a limited determinism, as it comes to prior experiences, learning and conditioning. But not a total determinism. The human brain is more than a mere machine, and has the ability to do more than merely react. If I didn't believe that, you'd find me dead next to an empty shotgun.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
This is the key of the resolution of the duality: when one learns to accept and align with nature and the "fixed" laws, one learns to be able to manipulate and bend the very laws of nature. See eastern religions. See all esoteric religious practice. See martial arts. If we think we have a will free of the Source of our existence, that is incorrect. The Source of life flows through us and IS us in each moment. It would be foolish for the drop of water to think it was free of the ocean. But when the drop of water realizes it can dissolve the illusion of the duality between it and ocean, then it REAL-izes the experience of ocean, and therefore finds it has the power of the entire oceanic system within it. Once one REAL-izes or re-COGNIZES their true nature, they realize they were not actually controlled by their circumstances, but rather that is was mutual--they also co-created the very circumstances around them, all along!
Science is one way of mapping reality. Objective study CO-EXISTS along with the valid subjective Truths and the INNER PATHS that are crucial in developing a whole-istic and full appreciation of our environment. Science and logic alone will not resolve this paradox. When we attempt to contain the whole in theories, we are imposing our limits on the whole--limits that exist only by our illusory view of them.
Each theory or system enfolds into larger systems that embrace AND go beyond the original system. This is the essential nature of all that exists, from phsycial systems, to conceptual systems, to spiritual systems. One system does not embrace the whole, but rather reflects our awareness at the time. The consciousness of the observer co-creates in each moment, whether one is completely blind to this or not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"This model of purposeful, though intuitive chaos is perhaps one underlying aspect of the concept of karma. It may not be apparent to an individual why certain types of experiences come, but there seems to be an underlying order and purpose, even though it may remain unconscious." http://www.geocities.com/iona_m/ChaosTheory/chaostheory3.html
We've learned so much objective information, but what is generally lacking at this time is our subjective balance. We're so out of touch with ourselves that we do not understand how we connect with the whole or with the science we have objectified. It is those who hone their subjective selves, and practice self-psychological awareness and other practices such as meditation, who actually connect with and marry themselves to the environment and connect with a REAL-ization of wholeness and truth. As your article mentions, the chaos IS INTUITIVE. This means it is responsive, aware and intelligent, and we can align with that and influence our surroundings at all times. When we open to this universal intuitive nature that flows through us, we can learn from the intelligence of this "flow". As we connect to life from the life within, we can tap the underlying consciousness throughout the universe. We can push away opportunities or draw them through this natural intuition. What amazing will. What amazing freedom.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's isn't fasscistic to suggest that "our decisions are the result of a complex dynamical system as opposed to free-will". It's just stupid to suggest by inference that "free-will" isn't "a complex dynamical system".
That you use the word "reacts" it reminds me of something. Many, many people react to many situations in life without awareness and understanding. When we begin to develop awareness and discernment, we can change "reaction" to response. By reacting, we choose our actions unconsciously. By responding we choose consciously.
I've done a lot of work with my own subconscious. The choices I have made subconsciously in my life still were made with amazing intelligence. For example, the numerous disorders I had, they picked up and met needs I was unable to meet consciously--defense mechanisms are very useful! Just like anyone with an addiction right now is meeting a need unconsciously that they have not yet figured out how to meet consciously. It is the ego that is the false self. If we decide to make our choices unconsciously, and beyond the ego, we invite in the much more vast intelligence of our unconscious to act on our behalf, so we learn our lessons and evolve in a round about but very purposeful way. People who align themselves with reality to deeper and deeper degrees come to integrate more and more of this vast underlying consciousness we are immersed in. By doing so, they identify or "own" more and more of this responsibility and also reap more and more of the benefits of authentic power.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
:eek:
How is this possible? Happiness is not the absence of hatred, blame, envy or pride. Happiness stems from the conscious recognition of the achievement of values.
The argument you make here is completely ridiculous. You're suggesting that if people believe their will is not free they will not hate, blame, envy or feel pride. Such a conscious recognition and decision would require free-will, the very thing you're attempting to disprove.
How will they "seek" those events?
How will they "understand" them?
Hahahahahahahaha...do you see what you're saying here??? You're saying that when free-will is destroyed, the free will of the people will be to not commit serious crimes.
It certainly doesn't negate God. It requires God.
I wish I had more time for this thread today.
A man casually walking his dog along the shoreline of the lake, hears the screams and responds to her cries for help. He risks his own life to save the woman from certain death.
Is this not a response through a complex dynamical system of Free Will?
Alternate Version:
Same woman, same lake, same conditions and same deadly mishap. The woman clings for her life as she screams for help.
Same man on the shoreline walking his dog. But he can not bring himself to risk his own life, in an attempt to save the life of the woman. The woman dies
His refusal to risk his life does not make him a coward, but merely a victim of a complex dynamical system?
I know that when I tried to assert my will while I was still fused with the whole, WITHOUT having developed my individuality, my will was crippled and caused all kinds of negative consequences to reverberate back to me. Pining for the simplicity of fusion is not the answer. Rather developing healthy individuality within the whole is.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Determinism and morality are not compatible. With determinism, there is no such thing as morality. And that makes everyone "innocent" and "guilty" at the same time, though those terms really no longer apply. No action could be classified as "good" or "bad".
Furthermore, no reasoned change is possible. Which makes me wonder why this board would even exist and why nearly every proponent of determinism frames his or her argument around the "positive social changes" that would come of it.
How can one "embrace" individuality without free will?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
...and ultimately, as illustrated in the "Infidelity" thread (through sarcasm) the general population of this planet would interpret and perceive these theories as a pass or excuse to go about committing the most hideous, violent criminal activities without fear of penalty. It's the human nature of the curent state of the species known as......Human Beings.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I see where you're coming from on this, but the operative word in my question was "one". If determinism is in fact true, and what you say above is also in fact true, we have no choice in the matter -- we simply must leave it to evolution or any number of outside forces of which we have absolutely no control. None of the verbs you use above could apply to the individuals to whom your speaking.
We need to increase the focus on the subjective systems and build them back up to healthy levels themselves. We need to develop healthy ways of determining values. We cannot do this by minimizing science or objectivity or neutrality, though. We cannot do this by saying the neutral stuff does not count! We can only do this by building up the subjective values aspects!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I seems that you are not hearing what I am saying. Well, at the least, this post seems to be at such disconnect to what I'm saying, I'm not understanding what you are saying relative to my assertion that we are co-creators in our environement and are in possession of free will.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Of course. Proponents of determinism (armchair and esoteric philosophers aside) are, more often than not, simply demonstrating their own free will in action. Their theories are tailored specifically towards absolution. They'd be better served by becoming Orthodox Catholics and finding the nearest confession booth.
The ultimate sanctuary of determinism is faith in the omnipresent. And one need only to look at the history of societies dominated by such faith to determine which leads to a healthy society and which leads to a society where the word "health" has no meaning.
Free will is not some inherent magic in humanity. It is simply the result of your biological consciousness. Your mind is constructed such that you may recognize yourself, the other, and the distinct differences and relationships between those things. Futhermore, your mind is constructed to choose by evaluating that which you know and that which you value. Choose wisely, because your faith in determinism cannot save you from the pain and misery that this world will pay into your account regardless of whether or not you believe you are accountable for your choices. Even in a pre-determined world, your psychotic tendencies will not bring you happiness. The free will to choose otherwise is your only hope.