For the Free Thinker

gue_barium

I know the Free Will thing has been played to death, but I would like some of those who consider free will to just be another imaginary toy that our brains have conjured to ask themselves, isn't free thinking an exercise in free will? If not, why not? By "free thinking" i mean exactly what it sounds like. Who knows what's going on in my brain right now, but me? Who can tell me any different? What force on earth, or even in my brain, can charge a cost on what I am thinking right now? There is none.

Now, if you want to split atoms with me on this, Ahnimus... Well, I can do that with my brain, too, but I won't. Not today.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

I know the Free Will thing has been played to death, but I would like some of those who consider free will to just be another imaginary toy that our brains have conjured to ask themselves, isn't free thinking an exercise in free will? If not, why not? By "free thinking" i mean exactly what it sounds like. Who knows what's going on in my brain right now, but me? Who can tell me any different? What force on earth, or even in my brain, can charge a cost on what I am thinking right now? There is none.

Now, if you want to split atoms with me on this, Ahnimus... Well, I can do that with my brain, too, but I won't. Not today.

Free thinking is not an exercise in free will. Free thinking is an exercise in consciousness. Free will extends from that exercise.

A thought requires a subject (you) and an object (anything). The objects external to you can certainly "charge a cost" on what you are thinking right now. But those objects need not be external to your own consciousness.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Free thinking is not an exercise in free will. Free thinking is an exercise in consciousness. Free will extends from that exercise.

A thought requires a subject (you) and an object (anything). The objects external to you can certainly "charge a cost" on what you are thinking right now. But those objects need not be external to your own consciousness.

Bullshit. It's my consciouness and I can take it anywhere I please.

Thoughts do not require an exchange rate - only the free exchange of another thought, if desired.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Bullshit. It's my consciouness and I can take it anywhere I please.

Can you take it away from yourself?

Thoughts do not require an exchange rate - only the free exchange of another thought, if desired.

Thoughts require all sorts of things. They require a thinker (a subject). They require a target (an object). They require attributes and content.

I'm not suggesting that you, as a conscious observer, have no control over your thoughts. You have much control over those thoughts based on the objects you may choose. However, those thoughts do not exist and could not exist in a complete vacuum.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Can you take it away from yourself?



Thoughts require all sorts of things. They require a thinker (a subject). They require a target (an object). They require attributes and content.

I'm not suggesting that you, as a conscious observer, have no control over your thoughts. You have much control over those thoughts based on the objects you may choose. However, those thoughts do not exist and could not exist in a complete vacuum.

You're certainly free and willful enough to give whatever attributes and content to your thoughts that you see fit, are you not?

I'm thinking you have no argument.

Next, please.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

You're certainly free and willful enough to give whatever attributes and content to your thoughts that you see fit, are you not?

Sure.

I'm thinking you have no argument.

My argument is simply that consciousness and free-will are not synonymous. Rather, the latter requires the former.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure.



My argument is simply that consciousness and free-will are not synonymous. Rather, the latter requires the former.

And it's free. Born Free, Freeee as the Wiind Blows

as long as the graaaassssss growwwwws....

soulsinging

gue_barium wrote:

I'm thinking you have no argument.

Next, please.

man, i miss being on the junior high debate team...

Jeanwah

My opinion concerning free thinking, and I love the idea of free thinking, is that there are no barriers, no limits. Free will, well, you have to have no barriers literally and metaphorically to act on free will, but free thinking is nothing but your open imaginative conciousness. Take a trip with your thoughts and be free. Of course it's important to be able to subtract yourself from what society, the media, and the gov't tells you also, since all of that clouds judgement.

Ahnimus

Everything is caused.

citizen_drew

Hello...
Been reading around here on and off the last few days, I like it.

Didn't you mention some room for flexibility in determinism?

Because if the free will algorithm is constant, which from a 0's and 1's perspective seems to make some sense to me. How does this planet have anything other than one possible hard coded future?

Where’s the flexibility?

Ahnimus

citizen_drew wrote:

Hello...
Been reading around here on and off the last few days, I like it.

Didn't you mention some room for flexibility in determinism?

Because if the free will algorithm is constant, which from a 0's and 1's perspective seems to make some sense to me. How does this planet have anything other than one possible hard coded future?

Where’s the flexibility?

Well see, determinism takes into account several variables from the past. How a person was raised, what they experienced, everything from how many times they've stubbed their toe. It all adds to a personality and decision making process in respect to determinism. That explains why everyone is different.

Free-will, I haven't been able to figure out how that works. I don't think it does.

Ahnimus

If anyone is serious about looking at the different philosophical arguments.

Check out this wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-will

angelica

It think it's a bit odd that people can't grasp the concept of eternity and that what IS just IS.

Everything IS "hardcoded". It's that thing about fate, or the gods, or whathaveyou. It's how the yin-yang symbol always remains the same, even though there is dynamism implied within it. And within that, we have the illusion of our wills to create in separation, as individuals. This is because our 3-d experience IS an illusion, for the most part. The catch is when we wake up to realize that we are the drop of water AND the ocean, we REALize that in our illusory little earth lives--our virua-worlds that we take so seriously, when we can see from our eyes as the ocean, we KNOW we are the creator and the creation. We are IT. We are Being. We ARE. If we could wrap our brains around the truth of a existence without beginning or end, we would understand that time is an illusion of our human closed perspective and not an indicator of reality. Therefore the future and the past are illusions. All we have is full-bodied experience in many-dimensional glory!

The flexibility is that from our separate perspectives, we have amazing possibilities spinning around at all times. And we can switch awareness to exactly where we choose! We can overcome problems, and surpass the "norm" in our views, or we can be content living a conventional life! There is huge flexibility! The sky is the limit. Or a common life is. WE DECIDE!

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Free-will, I haven't been able to figure out how that works. I don't think it does.

At least we're making some progress, here. And I'm referring to that I'm also willing to admit free will is an illusion, within the fact that 3-d existence is, too.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

At least we're making some progress, here. And I'm referring to that I'm also willing to admit free will is an illusion, within the fact that 3-d existence is, too.

I like how Schopenhauer puts it in On the Freedom of the Will an essay presented to the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences in 1839. They had asked "Is it possible to demonstrate human free will from self-consciousness?"

I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself — if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

—Chapter III

[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string.

—Ibid.

[M]an does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is due to the fact that he already is what he wills.

—Ch. V

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I like how Schopenhauer puts it in On the Freedom of the Will an essay presented to the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences in 1839. They had asked "Is it possible to demonstrate human free will from self-consciousness?"

I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself — if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

—Chapter III

[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string.

—Ibid.

[M]an does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this necessarily. But this is due to the fact that he already is what he wills.

—Ch. V

It's okay if you like that hippie-psychobabble.

Wasn't it Schopenhauer who believed that will preceded thought?
"Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven"

"...desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being." wikipedia on Schopenhauer.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's okay if you like that hippie-psychobabble.

Wasn't it Schopenhauer who believed that will preceded thought?
"Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven"

"...desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being." wikipedia on Schopenhauer.

I think he is actually describing fatalism. Back in those days, atheism was virtually unheard of. So in the term "Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven" is referring to God's will. Likewise "...desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being." is referring to how people can not choose their will, whether divinely inspired or not.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I think he is actually describing fatalism. Back in those days, atheism was virtually unheard of. So in the term "Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven" is referring to God's will. Likewise "...desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being." is referring to how people can not choose their will, whether divinely inspired or not.

The "thy will" part is definitely referring to God, being that I was quoting Jesus, telling us how to pray. Do you find any of this to be remotely God-like, Ahnimus? The all-encompassing power beyond us that dictates our every movement? That is like the "parent" to our every action? One might even say, like a "Father".

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The "thy will" part is definitely referring to God, being that I was quoting Jesus, telling us how to pray. Do you find any of this to be remotely God-like, Ahnimus? The all-encompassing power beyond us that dictates our every movement? That is like the "parent" to our every action? One might even say, like a "Father".

I can see how it can be interpreted that way. However, that's to assume that this "God" is beyond any reason or laws. It would be just as unexplainable as free-will. I lean towards the causal loop theory, at least until something better comes a long.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I can see how it can be interpreted that way. However, that's to assume that this "God" is beyond any reason or laws. It would be just as unexplainable as free-will. I lean towards the causal loop theory, at least until something better comes a long.

In my view this God IS reason and law, and beyond it too, as in what is far beyond our human comprehension. Yes it is unexplainable. That's what the philosophers talk about -- the reality that is beyond our brain perception that we cannot know/understand through thought.

Any kind of loop theory, although I don't know what it is, doesn't sound too far away from a universe without beginning and end. Can you explain in a few sentences? I have attention problems, so hit on the key points, not an article, cause I couldn't handle that.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

In my view this God IS reason and law, and beyond it too, as in what is far beyond our human comprehension. Yes it is unexplainable. That's what the philosophers talk about -- the reality that is beyond our brain perception that we cannot know/understand through thought.

Any kind of loop theory, although I don't know what it is, doesn't sound too far away from a universe without beginning and end. Can you explain in a few sentences? I have attention problems, so hit on the key points, not an article, cause I couldn't handle that.

Well, you remember Einstein's retrocausality and anterocausality. Causal loop theory basically says that the end of the universe is also the begining. From the point of the big bang the universe expands outward, eventually to collapse on it's self and start the cycle over again. I'm not totally buying into it being the same time continuum looped, but at least the physical matter.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, you remember Einstein's retrocausality and anterocausality. Causal loop theory basically says that the end of the universe is also the begining. From the point of the big bang the universe expands outward, eventually to collapse on it's self and start the cycle over again. I'm not totally buying into it being the same time continuum looped, but at least the physical matter.

Where do you stand on the holographic universe stuff?

angelica

premature post

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Where do you stand on the holographic universe stuff?

It's certainly possible to assume that a line can never be chopped up to it's smallest pieces. The same way particles can never be demoted to a single tiniest particle. But as far as the universe being an illusion, I don't see any evidence for that.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's certainly possible to assume that a line can never be chopped up to it's smallest pieces. The same way particles can never be demoted to a single tiniest particle. But as far as the universe being an illusion, I don't see any evidence for that.

I'm talking more along the line that what we see is a product of what our brains are predisposed to see, rather than what is there. In that sense it is an illusion. I would think that would fit within your determinism stance. We see what we've been programmed to see.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm talking more along the line that what we see is a product of what our brains are predisposed to see, rather than what is there. In that sense it is an illusion. I would think that would fit within your determinism stance. We see what we've been programmed to see.

Absolutely, however, we also have sensory organs that allow us to perceive the universe as it really is. I think it's a far stretch simply to assume that even our sensory perceptions or lack there of are illusions. I think to say everything is an illusion, is to say we know nothing.

As Michael Shermer said "Jump off a building and see if you can make it through the grounds tendency." or something like that. Refuting "What the BLEEP's" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

man, i miss being on the junior high debate team...

Why have debate when you can have comedy?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Absolutely, however, we also have sensory organs that allow us to perceive the universe as it really is. I think it's a far stretch simply to assume that even our sensory perceptions or lack there of are illusions. I think to say everything is an illusion, is to say we know nothing.

As Michael Shermer said "Jump off a building and see if you can make it through the grounds tendency." or something like that. Refuting "What the BLEEP's" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

It exists in the context that it exists. Just like when you were 1 year old, what you understood about your surroundings--your worldview--was dependant on the variables of that context. Those variables and your impressions of them were entirely real and 100% valid as a view of reality. But from your perspective now, you might understand how "real" is a matter of perspective, given your view has (hopefully) dramatically increased, with amazing consequences due to that increase. The world around you--the natural laws--have always been the same back then, and now. Yet concepts like "real" are very relationship oriented--relating to the variables.

I'm well aware of and seriously respectful of natural law, since I'm not fond of negative consequences.

angelica

Oh, and specifically related to your subjective variables and your subjective ability to process and understand the unchanging 3-d laws.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, and specifically related to your subjective variables and your subjective ability to process and understand the unchanging 3-d laws.

It's certainly interesting to note that children do not really have spiritual experiences. It isn't until we are older and contemplating our purpose and our deaths that we have such experiences.

An interesting study into prayers, showed that patients in surgery that knew others were praying for them had slightly more complications, however, there was virtually no difference in the outcome of the surgeries.

I agree with a lot of what "What the BLEEP?" was teaching, especially in terms of us creating our own subjective realities, and the addictiveness of emotional states. Though I think that only applies to adults. Children perceive their world through causal inference, models and teaching. If a Child perceives God, it's because God was taught to them.