Free Will

[loseyourname]

Mousy, you mentioned free will before as a justification for the existence of evil given the existence of a benevolent deity. The FWD has been successfully refuted so many times that I won't even bother, especially given that I don't think I need to even bring up the problem of evil to do away with anything you give me.

However, let's talk about free will. Not just Mousy, either. Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it does not exist? If it does, is it God-given or just an evolutionary by-product (which does not rule out the existence of God, only the intentional creation of free-willed entities on his part)?

Personally I lean toward the compatibilist freedom presented by William Stace in Religion and the Modern Mind. I'll explain a little more later, once the conversation gets going.

[patlajan]

Ooops I'm sorry, I thought the title of this thread was "Free Willy" excuse me....

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by loseyourname
However, let's talk about free will. Not just Mousy, either. Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it does not exist? If it does, is it God-given or just an evolutionary by-product (which does not rule out the existence of God, only the intentional creation of free-willed entities on his part)?


Why don't you guys reply to these threads as much as you do to the sex threads?? :rolleyes:

We have the free will to do what we desire. What we desire may have been determined beforehand (I believe the whole determinism thing to the extent that I understand were all made up of the tiniest atoms and molecules and their functions, etc are already known/predetermined...), but we still have the ability to desire. We do whatever we do as a matter of choice, not because we have the ability to choose between two things equally, but because we desire to do one thing over the other. In other words, I have free will because I CHOOSE to eat strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream. Not because I am equally able to choose one or the other, but because I DESIRE one over the other. Kindof a combination of Hume and determinism...

So whenever we do something, or don't do something, we can choose between two or more options. Choice. Freedom to chooose between whatever array of choices you are presented with = free will. Unless you live in the middle east or something, nothing is forcing you to choose to do (or not do) one thing over the other. Although even then, while fear is a great big thing that gets in the way, limits your ability to choose, you still have a CHOICE whether or not you want to follow the laws (or whatever).... So when you decide to do something, nothing is stopping you. So you have free will. Right? As long as you are free to choose and act in a certain way, you have free will. What has been 'pre-determined' by a combination of nature and nurture (your genes, life experience, upbringing) is our character, motivations, personality, and preferences. But, given all these things that have been pre-determined that we have no power to change, as long as we are free to choose how to do and act, we have free will. That's what I think.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Mousy, you mentioned free will before as a justification for the existence of evil given the existence of a benevolent deity. The FWD has been successfully refuted so many times that I won't even bother, especially given that I don't think I need to even bring up the problem of evil to do away with anything you give me.

However, let's talk about free will. Not just Mousy, either. Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it does not exist? If it does, is it God-given or just an evolutionary by-product (which does not rule out the existence of God, only the intentional creation of free-willed entities on his part)?

Personally I lean toward the compatibilist freedom presented by William Stace in Religion and the Modern Mind. I'll explain a little more later, once the conversation gets going.

Refuted? Well, I'm sure it has since it appeals to preconceived notions. That's what all history is by the way. We try to make sense of what it is and have it fit to our ideological bias, much like the debate about God or evolution. You seem bent on proving the world view which you don't adhere to as "wrong", while I do not care, and nor do I wish to convert you to this or that world view.

Evolution is horribly flawed. Then again, the Bible is full of contradictions as well. It is no wonder than those who are atheists, most socialists and left leaning individuals, who will subscribe to this view. I do find myself in agreement with microevolution, since obviously it deals with within species variation, but macroevolution is just silly to me. And even if we assume evolution, well then that doesn't explain how we got here. Even the big bang is an assumption.

But as to your question of free will, like you said, what is our belief? Essentially it goes to free will. My belief is that it is God given, to humanity. In order to be free to do good, man is free to do evil. He is free to choose to reject God and believe in God, embrace evolution or, embrace spirituality. Man is free to live in ignorance, and he is free to educate and enlighten himself and see those who rule him and try to deceive him. There are many ideologies out there that claim to have answers to everything, and when we succumb to that, that is what we call deception. All I believe is that God made man as both an animal, and a spiritual being ( some may call this as my own deception ), and I believe that this is what is behind the allegory of heaven and earth, that our death is merely another step, and mind you Christianity is not the first to argue about this, nor the last.

However, I still have a problem with a world without volition. I choose to think about volition. I decide that it's a very important philisophical topic. If thinking about volition or philosophy is not caused by my choosing to do so, then philosophy would be pointless and irrelevant. It would be contrived. I know that this isn't proof, but there is something wrong here. Since asking questions appears to be an exercise in volition, I won't give up the idea of free will until someone can explain how a mind without volition can question whether it has volition. Indeed how can we question anything at all. Let's say that I choose to question the whole history and humanity as a whole, and allege a conspiracy to deceive the human race, that indeed all that we know is being pumped into our brains to make us believe in this or that idea, in order to sway us in this or that direction and create conflict. One can look at history and humanity in a conspiratorial worldview, and say that it's all a conspiracy, from Jesus, to da Vinci, to Dante, to Shakespeare, to nationalism, to capitalism, to Marx, to anything. That the underlying force behind all events, and opposing ideas is the same force and entity to make us divided and believe in this or that. How would I conceive of this if it were not for free will? To question is the most precious thing God has ordained us with.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by ckBejug Why don't you guys reply to these threads as much as you do to the sex threads?? :rolleyes:

We have the free will to do what we desire. What we desire may have been determined beforehand (I believe the whole determinism thing to the extent that I understand were all made up of the tiniest atoms and molecules and their functions, etc are already known/predetermined...), but we still have the ability to desire. We do whatever we do as a matter of choice, not because we have the ability to choose between two things equally, but because we desire to do one thing over the other. In other words, I have free will because I CHOOSE to eat strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream. Not because I am equally able to choose one or the other, but because I DESIRE one over the other. Kindof a combination of Hume and determinism...

So whenever we do something, or don't do something, we can choose between two or more options. Choice. Freedom to chooose between whatever array of choices you are presented with = free will. Unless you live in the middle east or something, nothing is forcing you to choose to do (or not do) one thing over the other. Although even then, while fear is a great big thing that gets in the way, limits your ability to choose, you still have a CHOICE whether or not you want to follow the laws (or whatever).... So when you decide to do something, nothing is stopping you. So you have free will. Right? As long as you are free to choose and act in a certain way, you have free will. What has been 'pre-determined' by a combination of nature and nurture (your genes, life experience, upbringing) is our character, motivations, personality, and preferences. But, given all these things that have been pre-determined that we have no power to change, as long as we are free to choose how to do and act, we have free will. That's what I think.

Indeed I agree, we have choices which stem from desires, and I believe it is a mark of our soul and mind conspiring together to be able to choose.

However, one may argue that indeed all is predetermined, that whatever choices we make, we do so within that predetermined context. Since the laws that govern our world are mathematics, and everything is composed of mathematics, and mathematics is the only predetermined medium that we know of, one can say that the future is already written. Since 2 plus 2 will equal 4 no matter what, it is already there. Even if we were ignorant and did not know how to solve the equation, the answer will not change, and it will always be there, regardless of whether or not we know how to solve it.

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by Anonymouse However, one may argue that indeed all is predetermined, that whatever choices we make, we do so within that predetermined context. Since the laws that govern our world are mathematics, and everything is composed of mathematics, and mathematics is the only predetermined medium that we know of, one can say that the future is already written. Since 2 plus 2 will equal 4 no matter what, it is already there. Even if we were ignorant and did not know how to solve the equation, the answer will not change, and it will always be there, regardless of whether or not we know how to solve it.


So far we agree that we have the free will to choose but only within the context of the predetermined future. I don't buy this 'everything is predetermined' idea. If everything was predetermined, who or what predetermined it? You mentioned volition, doesn't the fact that there is such a thing as volition, that I AM conscious of my own decisions obliterate the idea that any decisions I am making are going to be predetermined? So if I decide to make no decisions, and just sit there. That decision was predetermined? I don't but it. I think we are far too intelligent even those among us who aren't so very intelligent, to have all our thoughts and actions be the result of some predetermined course of action....

Also, 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2. When a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results.

So, when a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it fall, does it make any sound? Since sound is basically the result of the waves hitting the inner workings of our ears and being translated into what our brain recognizes as 'noise', lack of someone around to hear it fall would mean lack of noise... right?

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by patlajan Ooops I'm sorry, I thought the title of this thread was "Free Willy" excuse me....

Talk about a letdown...:mad:

[xBaron Dants]

I'm not sure I get the question, and I don't have any studies to base myself on, but here goes.

To soort of reply to what CK was saying (I'm not even sure if I get it), even if you're not living in the Middle East, you cannot always do what you would choose over something else, because of the will of others.

The simplest example would be (yes, very corny and cheesy, I know):
You like a certain girl/guy, but this person hates your best friend and your best friend hates him/her.

While you would rather go out with him/her over aaaaanyone else, you still might not do so, because of the implication on the will of others.

Do I make sense? I don't know....I just didn't want to make a stupid joke about a thread and then not try to be serious about it. :rolleyes:

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by ckBejug So far we agree that we have the free will to choose but only within the context of the predetermined future. I don't buy this 'everything is predetermined' idea. If everything was predetermined, who or what predetermined it? You mentioned volition, doesn't the fact that there is such a thing as volition, that I AM conscious of my own decisions obliterate the idea that any decisions I am making are going to be predetermined? So if I decide to make no decisions, and just sit there. That decision was predetermined? I don't but it. I think we are far too intelligent even those among us who aren't so very intelligent, to have all our thoughts and actions be the result of some predetermined course of action....

Also, 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2. When a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results.

So, when a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it fall, does it make any sound? Since sound is basically the result of the waves hitting the inner workings of our ears and being translated into what our brain recognizes as 'noise', lack of someone around to hear it fall would mean lack of noise... right?

I thought we agree, but it appears we don't, for you are bending what I said, to mean something else, such as your 2-knot example. I am dealing with numbers, not physical manifestations of things. Math is a predetermined medium, no matter how ignorant we may be of the workings of 2+2, the answer remains unchanged. It is there, for us to discover it. Just like inventions are there for us to discover. The idea ( like the answer in math ), exists, we merely uncover it.

As to our free will within the context of the greater cycle, mostly what Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, deal into, I do agree with you on that.

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I thought we agree, but it appears we don't, for you are bending what I said, to mean something else, such as your 2-knot example. I am dealing with numbers, not physical manifestations of things. Math is a predetermined medium, no matter how ignorant we may be of the workings of 2+2, the answer remains unchanged. It is there, for us to discover it. Just like inventions are there for us to discover. The idea ( like the answer in math ), exists, we merely uncover it.

As to our free will within the context of the greater cycle, mostly what Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, deal into, I do agree with you on that.

We do agree, except for the predetermination thing, which you didn't really reply to. I was just kidding about the 2+2 stuff. I was reading about Fibonacci and Bishop Berkeley all these others with 'theories' about 2+2 and I just thought I'd throw it in the mix... The idea exists, we merely uncover it. Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself. But what of the whole predetermination thing? How does the number thing, the rigidity and unchangable structure of things that exist in math, that exists whether or not we know what they are, how do we gebneralize that to apply to predetermination in life, in physical manifestations. Which are, at the end, what we're talking about...

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by Baron Dants I'm not sure I get the question, and I don't have any studies to base myself on, but here goes.

To soort of reply to what CK was saying (I'm not even sure if I get it), even if you're not living in the Middle East, you cannot always do what you would choose over something else, because of the will of others.

The simplest example would be (yes, very corny and cheesy, I know):
You like a certain girl/guy, but this person hates your best friend and your best friend hates him/her.

While you would rather go out with him/her over aaaaanyone else, you still might not do so, because of the implication on the will of others.

Do I make sense? I don't know....I just didn't want to make a stupid joke about a thread and then not try to be serious about it. :rolleyes:

I get what you mean, but that doesn't necessarily present you with a complete inability to make a decision, does it? You still have the free will to choose. That's what I'm talking about. Granted you now have the choice whether to choose the girl, hurt your friend or choose the friend, hurt the girl. Right? Even in this difficult situation, you have the choice between two pretty much equal things. Your friend and the girl you like, if they are both people you like, are pretty much on equal footing. Choosing one over the other would end up causing the same hurt to either one of them. Right? Given that, you still have a CHOICE between the two... Thus, unless someone is standing at your head saying you can't choose, and must go with the one he says, you have FREE WILL.

Thanks for answering. It's nice to talk to people about other things for a change...

[Aphrodit3]

Either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them. - Hume's fork

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by ckBejug We have the free will to do what we desire. What we desire may have been determined beforehand (I believe the whole determinism thing to the extent that I understand were all made up of the tiniest atoms and molecules and their functions, etc are already known/predetermined...), but we still have the ability to desire.

If what we desire is predetermined, and we only have the ability to do as we desire, which is predetermined, please explain how that constitutes free will.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But as to your question of free will, like you said, what is our belief? Essentially it goes to free will. My belief is that it is God given, to humanity. In order to be free to do good, man is free to do evil. He is free to choose to reject God and believe in God, embrace evolution or, embrace spirituality. Man is free to live in ignorance, and he is free to educate and enlighten himself and see those who rule him and try to deceive him.

It would be nice if somewhere in your little dissertation you would explain why you believe we have free will. Please don't tell me because we desire it, either.

[Arvestaked]

That term, "free will", is a religious, scapegoat, mind-control phrase. Scientists do not size things up that way because it is meaningless and has no bearing on reality; it is tangental to logical thought. It is a term born from misunderstanding and/or denial.

Love is biochemical. Philosophy is biochemical.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by ckBejug But what of the whole predetermination thing? How does the number thing, the rigidity and unchangable structure of things that exist in math, that exists whether or not we know what they are, how do we gebneralize that to apply to predetermination in life, in physical manifestations. Which are, at the end, what we're talking about...

Strict mathematical laws come into play in the interactions of minute particles, as you said. They all behave according to the laws of physics. It would be fallacy to refer to them as predetermined, unless you were able to demonstrate somehow that the laws of physics were determined. Nonetheless, since the English language does not contain any better word that I know of, predetermined will have to do for our purposes.

You're a biologist, so you know as well as the rest of us that biological systems, though almost impossibly complex, still obey the same laws that these minute particles do. They still behave in a way that, determined or not, is entirely predictable given complete enough data. The only way a human system may be said to overcome this is through some manifestation of consciousness that allows us to make a decision that runs contrary somehow to what the laws of physics would have the molecule floating around in our neurons do. I don't think that anybody here knows enough about the nature of consciousness to say whether or not that takes place, so none of us can really answer the question.

Mouse can go on and on about spiritualism, but this one at least is not a spiritual question, unless you can demonstrate a spiritual manifestation in the phenomenon of consciousness. ck can go on saying because we make decisions, we must be free, but even she admits that these decisions reflect desires that we seem to have no control over. In the end, I don't think any of us really has any idea.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Strict mathematical laws come into play in the interactions of minute particles, as you said. They all behave according to the laws of physics. It would be fallacy to refer to them as predetermined, unless you were able to demonstrate somehow that the laws of physics were determined. Nonetheless, since the English language does not contain any better word that I know of, predetermined will have to do for our purposes.

You're a biologist, so you know as well as the rest of us that biological systems, though almost impossibly complex, still obey the same laws that these minute particles do. They still behave in a way that, determined or not, is entirely predictable given complete enough data. The only way a human system may be said to overcome this is through some manifestation of consciousness that allows us to make a decision that runs contrary somehow to what the laws of physics would have the molecule floating around in our neurons do. I don't think that anybody here knows enough about the nature of consciousness to say whether or not that takes place, so none of us can really answer the question.

Mouse can go on and on about spiritualism, but this one at least is not a spiritual question, unless you can demonstrate a spiritual manifestation in the phenomenon of consciousness. ck can go on saying because we make decisions, we must be free, but even she admits that these decisions reflect desires that we seem to have no control over. In the end, I don't think any of us really has any idea.

So if you say there is no free will, I guess what you just said is in accordance with the prophecy.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Arvestaked That term, "free will", is a religious, scapegoat, mind-control phrase. Scientists do not size things up that way because it is meaningless and has no bearing on reality; it is tangental to logical thought. It is a term born from misunderstanding and/or denial.

Love is biochemical. Philosophy is biochemical.

I agree with Arvestaked.

[Anonymouse]

I guess the adamant position of loseyourname and Arvestaked seems to seal the case for them, no free will. Their thoughts are not a product of them, just some "laws". I think there is alot of confusion as to how we define free will. Will that is free from physical input. When I say is free I mean will free from causality purely random and unpredictable. Even you in your everyday lives, the two of you that deny free will, cannot deny ever using the expression of damn that was random. Random will, is in other words, the ability to choose completely independent of any cause. By this definition a photon has free will. Experimentally, at a slit a photon may choose to go right or left and no one can know which way it will go before it does. Indeed, why do we even bother using "choice" in our vernacular or "volition". If all is hopeless, one wonders why the words exist. But God still loves you. He loves me and I'm missing chromosomes.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I guess the adamant position of loseyourname and Arvestaked seems to seal the case for them, no free will. Their thoughts are not a product of them, just some "laws". I think there is alot of confusion as to how we define free will. Will that is free from physical input. When I say is free I mean will free from causality purely random and unpredictable. Even you in your everyday lives, the two of you that deny free will, cannot deny ever using the expression of damn that was random. Random will, is in other words, the ability to choose completely independent of any cause. By this definition a photon has free will. Experimentally, at a slit a photon may choose to go right or left and no one can know which way it will go before it does. Indeed, why do we even bother using "choice" in our vernacular or "volition". If all is hopeless, one wonders why the words exist. But God still loves you. He loves me and I'm missing chromosomes.


I denied the credibility of defining such a concept.

Entropy is predictable. And free will can exist within the confines of the very credible laws of physics.

It is inconsequential.

[Anonymouse]

Well thats what me and CKbejug agreed upon, the free will within the basic system.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well thats what me and CKbejug agreed upon, the free will within the basic system.

No you did not. You tried to credit it beyon that point. If you had, the arguement would have stopped. I could be opening up a can of worms here but you are all arguing the validity of a concept who's definition you have not agreed on.

[Anonymouse]

Um, I think me and bejug know what agreed upon, as opposed to your personal opinion.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Um, I think me and bejug know what agreed upon, as opposed to your personal opinion.

Like I said, I you had, l.y.n. probably would not have continued to argue with you.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse So if you say there is no free will, I guess what you just said is in accordance with the prophecy.

And?

I suppose that would be kind of liberating, but that isn't what I said. I just said that we can't know. As our knowledge of human biology increases, and we gain some working knowledge of the exact nature of consciousness and decision-making, then maybe we can say. Until then, it's fun to speculate, but I will speak with no authority.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname And?

I suppose that would be kind of liberating, but that isn't what I said. I just said that we can't know. As our knowledge of human biology increases, and we gain some working knowledge of the exact nature of consciousness and decision-making, then maybe we can say. Until then, it's fun to speculate, but I will speak with no authority.

Biology cannot answer ethereal and spiritual domains. You admitted that you believe in a soul, yet you cannot prove that with the scientific method. Like I said, faith begins where reason ends.

Like I told you before, it is only a philosophical assumption that all knowledge comes from the material world and what you can observe. How that in itself got to be there science cannot answer.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Biology cannot answer ethereal and spiritual domains. You admitted that you believe in a soul, yet you cannot prove that with the scientific method. Like I said, faith begins where reason ends.

Decision-making is not a spiritual matter. Decision making takes place in the brain, which is quite material and quite studyable. I never said I believed in a soul, either. I just said that I didn't disbelieve in it. I certainly feel some form of a human spirit, but whether or not that translates into any form of individual awareness without the presence of a physical body I don't know. I don't see how any of us could know.

[jahannam]

Originally posted by patlajan Ooops I'm sorry, I thought the title of this thread was "Free Willy" excuse me....
hahahhahhahahhahhahahhahahhahahhaahahahhahah

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Decision-making is not a spiritual matter. Decision making takes place in the brain, which is quite material and quite studyable. I never said I believed in a soul, either. I just said that I didn't disbelieve in it. I certainly feel some form of a human spirit, but whether or not that translates into any form of individual awareness without the presence of a physical body I don't know. I don't see how any of us could know.

Mind, money, and materialism. The only thing that lasts is the mind. Well if you don't see how we could know, why are you here discussing, if not but for a desire, since you know my position that, yes we can know, and yes we are part of a spiritual collective consciousness, and that, yes, there is life beyond the material world.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Mind, money, and materialism. The only thing that lasts is the mind. Well if you don't see how we could know, why are you here discussing, if not but for a desire, since you know my position that, yes we can know, and yes we are part of a spiritual collective consciousness, and that, yes, there is life beyond the material world.

I already outlined how we can know. Until then, all we can do is speculate. It's good mental exercise, and I enjoy it. That's why I'm here. Plus, I knew I'd get into it with you. I like getting into it with you.

[Anonymouse]

It just occured to me, that in the SIMS game, there's an option in which can turn off the SIMS free will as you see fit. Having free will on will allow your SIMS to move around and do actions that are necessary for its well being (i.e. go to the bathroom, sleep, eat). This has always boggled me as a creepy thing. I don't know why. I mean, just the idea of one click, *bing*, no free will.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I already outlined how we can know. Until then, all we can do is speculate. It's good mental exercise, and I enjoy it. That's why I'm here. Plus, I knew I'd get into it with you. I like getting into it with you.

I don't speculate, I have faith.

[loseyourname]

If you are correct in your assertion that we are free, and that our freedom is God-given, presumably he can take it away at any minute. So live in fear.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname If you are correct in your assertion that we are free, and that our freedom is God-given, presumably he can take it away at any minute. So live in fear.

Indeed, you can make the argument that God can choose to take away free will if God wants to. So God is essentially choosing. If man acts against the "will of God", then he must have free will. Otherwise, every act would have to be concurrent with the will of God. If I have free will and God decides that I shall live, but I demonstrate my free will and commit suicide, then God is not actually omnipotent. If God intervenes and prevents me from committing suicide, then I don't actually have free will. Of course, I disagree with the above since I believe God has given us free will and designed our world, but doesn't decide it. It knows the future, but doesn't decide it.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse It knows the future, but doesn't decide it.

If God knows the future, then you are not free, plain and simple. What you will do is already known and you have no choice but to do it. Omniscience is not compatible with free will. I hope to you know who you're not actually advocating a Christian God here. Don't make me break out my Michael Martin and turn to the section on "divine incoherence."

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I don't speculate, I have faith.

Faith is not knowledge. Anything less is speculation. You have beliefs; I have ideas that I know damn well may very well be nothing more. That is the difference between you and I. That and I'm better looking.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname If God knows the future, then you are not free, plain and simple. What you will do is already known and you have no choice but to do it. Omniscience is not compatible with free will. I hope to you know who you're not actually advocating a Christian God here. Don't make me break out my Michael Martin and turn to the section on "divine incoherence."

For the sake of argument, God is outside of the realm of time and space, of good and evil ( a Hindu slant ). I don't see how you're point is valid, for knowing the future is one thing, yet he cannot exercise any decision over it. It is done by us. We have choices which we make, in the greater context of the system, which me and CkBejuh agreed upon. You don't have to like it, but this is my belief and I have faith in this. Because God knows the future, doesn't mean we know, therefore we make choices, yet the supernatural creator does know. There is no "incoherence" but what you want to make.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Faith is not knowledge. Anything less is speculation. You have beliefs; I have ideas that I know damn well may very well be nothing more. That is the difference between you and I. That and I'm better looking.

Now now, no need to hate the messenger for a little boy lost.;)

That my faith is not your knowledge, is again an assumption of what you choose to believe. The faith I have is based on spiritual experiences, which cannot be interpreted into the "knowledge" that pertains to this material world which you are adamant on arguing for, and you even claimed you have not experienced this, so what ones spiritual experience is to them, to me is testament of a guiding maxim, of a spiritual existence and knowledge, namely there is a God. Now, you are attempting to make the ethereal experience of someone, conform to your standards of materialism or of what things ought to be.

[Anonymouse]

author unknown

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/thematrix/man.jpg

The Mandelbrot Set is derived through a mathematical algorithm. Using software software you can choose four points within the image and blow that up so you can zoom into the Mandelbrot. If you do this you will discover shapes which mimic things you see in nature. There are those who believe that the Mandelbrot Set (fractal geometry) is a representation of random CHAOS. How can a mathematical algorithm be random? The conclusion of ANY mathematical algorithm can only be discovered. Because of this, mathematics is a medium which is predetermined.

X, y and z are mentioned quite a bit within computer graphics. Those three letters represent the three plains within a 3d (three dimensional) world. Within a 3d world a floating point coordinate system is used for the placement of objects. The center of the world is coordinate 0,0,0 (x, y, z). To travel within this world all you have to do is alter your coordinates by either incrementing or decrementing the values. An object within the 3d world is comprised of vertices or points. A square or a box for example has eight vertices. It also has 6 sides or "facets". The more detail you want in an object the more vertices and facets it must have.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/thematrix/wireframe.jpg
A box in the center of the world.

You could add one more letter to "x, y, and z" and call it "d" for dimension. Within the movie, "The Thirteenth Floor" you saw individuals passing from one dimension to another. There first simulation had another running within it. The simulation was also running within a computer system.

In the picture above you see a wireframe box with arrows pointing to its center. This center is actually the center of the 3d world (coordinates 0,0,0). The arrows represent the direction of light. When the scene is rendered you will see the sides of facets of the box as color rather than the wireframe. The little triangle to the left of the box is called a "widget". It is a 3d tool used to manipulate the object associated with it, in this case, a box. The above graphic is a capture of Caligari trueSpace 4 window, a computer graphics program that allows you to create virtually anything you want within the computer. The movie, "Toy Story" was made with similar software. Toy Story is an example of dumbed down computer graphics. You can make the world as real as you want. You're only limited by the amount of computing power you have and the quality of the textures you use for the facets. A computer is a device which can do many things. Within the computer is a "CPU" or Central Processing Unit. The CPU has an instruction set which is nothing more than a list of commands, commands which when executed accomplish certain tasks. The instruction set is nothing more than a list of instructions which a CPU (central processing unit) can execute. There are instructions for mathematical calculations such as adding, multiplying, dividing, and subtracting. There are instructions which tell the CPU to read from one memory location and write it back out to another. Anything you wanted the computer to do can be accomplished via the utilization of the instruction set. The CPU only understands 0's and 1's or more technically, low signals and high signals (respectively). The instruction set is comprised of mnemonics. A mnemonic is a single command used in a computer language called, "Assembly Language". A user would write an Assembly Language program using mnemonics and when completed later would assemble the program, converting it into machine code which is zeros and ones or to be even more technical high and low signals. Within your computer you have a motherboard, and a graphics card. The CPU sits on the motherboard and most graphics cards plug into what is called an AGP port. Some machines have the graphics hardware integrated on the motherboard. A graphics card has its own memory. This memory is used to store the image you are seeing right now. There is a computer chip on your graphics card called the RAMDAC. RAMDAC means Random Access Memory Digital to Analog Converter. Its purpose is to read from video memory and convert the digital information to an analog signal so your monitor can display the image which resides in memory. When the image on your monitor changes it means your CPU just executed a command which told it to write to a specific memory location on your video card altering its existing content.



I'll bet you're wondering why I have gone into the inner workings of a computer, right? It is important to this argument. A computer cannot lie. It is a logical device which can calculate numbers and determine which is greater then, less then, or equal to. Because of it being a logic device it can never lie. It can however, be programmed to lie. In the world of computer graphics mathematical algorithms are used to calculate the positions of vertices and the color of facets. There are also hidden surface algorithms which determine visibility. Put an object on a table and place a box over that object. Can you see the object? You can't, can you? It is hidden from the box. The way some hidden surface algorithms work is, objects which are farthest away from your eye (the camera) are written to video memory first and the objects closest to you are written last. This insures that the world will be displayed correctly from the cameras (your) perspective. It is interesting to know that everything in Nature can be mimicked with the computer using computer graphics methods and mathematical algorithms.

If you followed a recipe precisely 100 times, would each outcome taste the same? It would, wouldn't it? Why? Every atom in the universe obeys a set of laws, the laws of physics. With law comes predeterminability. Everything in the universe is based on mathematics. Mathematics is a medium known to be predetermined. Pick a number, any number. Now pick and add another to it. As you calculate the sum realize what it is you are about to do. You discovered that which was already there, the sum. Like mathematics, invention/creativity works the same way. There is no invention, only the discovery of what was already there. Do you know what else this reveals? Random does not exist in the universe either! Random is unpredictable. We can imagine it but there is no way we can represent it in the universe. Why? Because all matter obeys the laws of physics and if that matter is placed into a scenario such as baking a recipe for example, the outcome will always be the same. If you had weighted dice would the same numbers come up each time you tossed them? Even if those dice were perfectly balanced they would still obey the laws of physics.

A computer cannot generate a random number either. Microsoft writes on its website (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/veendf98/html/defseed.asp), "seed - An initial value used to generate pseudorandom numbers. For example, the Randomize statement creates a seed number used by the Rnd function to create unique pseudorandom number sequences." I'm certainly glad they are telling the truth in this matter. They said the exact same thing as I just did. The seed is a numerical argument that can range from -32767 to 32768. Within the BASIC (Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) programming language there are commands you can experiment with. I will briefly explain the Randomize statement, RND function and the TIME$ system variable which can be found within the BASICProgramming language. The Rnd function returns a value less than 1 but greater than or equal to zero.

100 Randomize 33 - 100 Randomize val(Right$(TIME$,2))

110 Print Int(Rnd * 10) - 110 Print Int(Rnd * 10)

Now don't get confused because you may not understand the code in the above two progams. I'll make it perfectly clear for you. With what you learned above you should have realized that these two programs will not have the same output. The only thing that is different between the two programs is the SEED (the mathematical argument to the right of the word "Randomize"). One is STATIC at "33" and the other is DYNAMIC based on the TWO RIGHT MOST characters of the system variable TIME$. TIME$ is a no-argument function that returns a string that contains the time as measured by the 24-hour clock. For example, at 1:45 and 2 seconds P.M., TIME$ = "13:45:02", and at midnight, TIME$ = "00:00:00". If your computer does not have a clock, then TIME$ returns "99:99:99". If the seed was the same (STATIC) each time the computer program was executed the same sequence of numbers would be returned by the Rnd function. Above you see me multiplying Rnd by "10" with the asterisk. Using this method you can tell the computer to return a pseudorandom number from any numerical range you want. If you wanted pseudorandom numbers picked from the range of 50-100, alter line 110 to read, "Print Rnd * 50 + 51". "Rnd * 50" tells the computer to pick a pseudorandom number from 0-49 (50 places). Say the Rnd function returns .5, take .5 and multiply it by 50 then add 51 to that.

What are the odds of you running a program the same time every time? Not very high, huh? Therefore you can use the two digits which represent the SECONDS within TIME$ to seed the psuedorandom number generator dynamically. Remember, your choice to run a program or not is based on freewill. So what is freewill based on? Are our lives predestined? No. Statements like, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it," only proves our lives are based on dynamics. If lack of knowledge will cause repetition for a given circumstance, then obviously, it is a dynamic.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/thematrix/freeurmind.jpghttp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/thematrix/morpheus.jpg
Morpheus; "You have to let it all go Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind."

In the movie, "The Matrix" Morpheus trains Neo for battle with "AI" or Artificial Intelligence. The Matrix is a neural interactive simulation of earth at the end of the twentieth century. That is the world Neo knew. The laws of physics also applied to this world. In the above two video captures both Neo and Morpheus are in a training program which behaves like The Matrix. Because Morpheus knew the truth he could bend the rules (laws of physics) easily. He jumped from one building to another to show Neo. Before Morpheus brought Neo out of The Matrix Neo was living in a dream world. His mind was being fed stimulae from "AI". All his life's experiences were not real because his world was not real. Later Neo made reference to this on his way to see the Oracle. Morpheus; "What is real? How do you define real? If you are talking about what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." This is an interesting quote from the movie because it reflects logic and common sense reasoning which was mentioned in the beginning of this article. We are all spiritual beings attached to physical bodies and this universe does not exist. The computer simulation has to recognize three dimensional fractal geometry in order for it to interface with the mind. In "The Matrix" they used a jack in the back of the head as the interface. They inserted a rod into that jack which was connected to a computer. That computer had the capability to connect with The Matrix so Morpheus and his freedom fighters could "jack into" or enter The Matrix.

[Anonymouse]

In the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" Mr. Hannon Fuller and his colleagues had created a simulation of earth 1937 within a computer. Fuller became aware that the world his simulation was running in wasn't real either. He left a letter with "Ashton" who was a bartender at a members only hotel within the simulation for a man named "Douglas Hall". The letter explained Fuller's discovery. Ashton wasn't supposed to find out that his world wasn't real. Ignoring Mr. Fuller's privacy, Ashton read the letter then became more curious. Ashton got into his car, drove out of town and kept driving. The further away from the city he got the stranger it was. There was no movement, no life. Everything was still and quite. Soon he saw something that scared him "to the depths of his miserable soul". His world was a sham, it wasn't real! He saw the edge of existence where wireframes had no textures (above picture). He did all this because it is what Mr. Fuller said to do in the letter. But the letter wasn't meant for Ashton, remember? It was meant for Fuller's colleague Douglas Hall. Douglas Hall entered or "jacked" into the simulation and asked Ashton if Fuller left a letter or something for him. Ashton said, "No." Ashton lied because he wanted more information about what he had read in the letter and what he saw on his drive. Douglas and Ashton eventually got into a fight over the letter. From what Ashton told Douglas what the letter said Douglas had a good idea as to what he should do next. Douglas exited the 1934 simulation and did what Ashton did. He got into his car and drove out of town and discovered the same. His world was just a simulation. There is much more to the story of course, most of which is not important to this discussion.

There is something The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor and the universe you live in have in common. They do not exist. The fact that logic and common sense reasoning states that you are a spiritual being and are part of a collective consciousness means there is something more beyond death. There are two types of laws in physics. Those we are familiar with and those we are not. When we learn how the ones we are not familiar with work we discover they are predetermined like the ones used in the baking of a recipe and mathematics, A + B = Discovery. If it wasn't this way the universe simulation wouldn't work, PERIOD! You are an empty glass that can be filled with knowledge. Just make sure that the knowledge you absorb is comprised of LOGIC, COMMON SENSE REASONING and fits in with CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. It is these three RED elements that make up truth.

What is judgement? Judgement is simply a conclusion to a scenario. Because of this, the definition of "Judgement" has to coincide with freewill as well. "You get what's coming to you." is a phrase which reflects that. If someone chose to do a crime and got caught then jail time is their judgement. Your judgement does not come from someone else, it comes from you. It has to. Judgement for the human race comes from its collective behavior. The collective behavior of the human race can be controlled by another source as well. Within the world we live our day to day lives being bombarded with advertisements made by companies which tell us we need this, that and the other thing to make our lives complete. When compared, present day earth is much more dangerous to live in then earth of the past. The world isn't a nice place to live because the human race hasn't done anything yet to erraticate the evil that is within. The ones who have molded society into what we see today will soon get what's coming to them. Their Judgement.

[patlajan]

http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/animals/234x.jpg

Look at him go. He's in the ocean in the sky now. Swim forever little buddy...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/animals/234x.jpg

Look at him go. He's in the ocean in the sky now. Swim forever little buddy...

http://www.angelfire.com/az2/lepconnie/vidcaps/lep3/lep60.JPG

"Me thinks you're trying too hard to exercise youre free will in order to be funny".

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse For the sake of argument, God is outside of the realm of time and space, of good and evil ( a Hindu slant ). I don't see how you're point is valid, for knowing the future is one thing, yet he cannot exercise any decision over it. It is done by us. We have choices which we make, in the greater context of the system, which me and CkBejuh agreed upon. You don't have to like it, but this is my belief and I have faith in this. Because God knows the future, doesn't mean we know, therefore we make choices, yet the supernatural creator does know. There is no "incoherence" but what you want to make.

It makes no difference who makes the decisions, Arman. If all of time is already set, you are mearly an automaton going through the motions, doing that which is preordained. In God's eyes you have already eaten whatever it is you will eat for dinner tonight. You cannot exercise any form of will that will allow you to eat anything else.

Again, I am providing arguments and examples. You are simply saying "no, you are wrong" with no backup whatsoever. The mathematical rambling you went into later has nothing to do with what we're talking about. But hey, it's cute.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It makes no difference who makes the decisions, Arman. If all of time is already set, you are mearly an automaton going through the motions, doing that which is preordained. In God's eyes you have already eaten whatever it is you will eat for dinner tonight. You cannot exercise any form of will that will allow you to eat anything else.

Again, I am providing arguments and examples. You are simply saying "no, you are wrong" with no backup whatsoever. The mathematical rambling you went into later has nothing to do with what we're talking about. But hey, it's cute.

It makes no difference who makes the decisions? To you it might not, to me it does, but on a more serious note, you are right and everyone else is wrong and how do you know my name?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That my faith is not your knowledge, is again an assumption of what you choose to believe.

There is only one truth, my friend - that is what qualifies it as truth. I can tell you exactly where my knowledge comes from, and it is peer verified and accepted. All you can do is say "trust me, I know." Those are the words of a man who has little in terms of substance. Then again, spirit by definition is substanceless, so perhaps I should not be so critical of you. I'm just not as easily convinced as you are. Beware of Billy Mays.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname There is only one truth, my friend - that is what qualifies it as truth. I can tell you exactly where my knowledge comes from, and it is peer verified and accepted. All you can do is say "trust me, I know." Those are the words of a man who has little in terms of substance. Then again, spirit by definition is substanceless, so perhaps I should not be so critical of you. I'm just not as easily convinced as you are. Beware of Billy Mays.

Well, I bet you can, no one disputes knowledge, since there is only one knowledge through reason. But reason, or the knowledge, that you speak of, doesn't answer beyond a certain point. Hence to quote Albert Pike, "Faith begins where reason ends". You are bent on trying to prove me wrong based on the standards you deem is verifiable here on the material world. I don't dispute you with that, you fail to understand this. I am talking about something, beyond mere reason. Of course trying to prove one wrong with the other is like trying to say a banana really tastes like a watermelon.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Anonymouse For the sake of argument, God is outside of the realm of time and space, of good and evil ( a Hindu slant ). I don't see how you're point is valid, for knowing the future is one thing, yet he cannot exercise any decision over it. It is done by us. We have choices which we make, in the greater context of the system, which me and CkBejuh agreed upon. You don't have to like it, but this is my belief and I have faith in this. Because God knows the future, doesn't mean we know, therefore we make choices, yet the supernatural creator does know. There is no "incoherence" but what you want to make.

Actually this goes into our everyday lives as well. We, ourselves can even known the future if we know which action we are going to take. Thus, if I park my car on the no parking zone over night it might be towed away. Now I have hope that it won't be noticed ( I have indeed parked it and it hasn't been noticed ). But if it is noticed I know the future, meaning that it will be towed away, and in this regard my article on math and numbers was indicative of something, that we make choices within the basic parameters of the system that is made.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, I bet you can, no one disputes knowledge, since there is only one knowledge through reason. But reason, or the knowledge, that you speak of, doesn't answer beyond a certain point. Hence to quote Albert Pike, "Faith begins where reason ends". You are bent on trying to prove me wrong based on the standards you deem is verifiable here on the material world. I don't dispute you with that, you fail to understand this. I am talking about something, beyond mere reason. Of course trying to prove one wrong with the other is like trying to say a banana really tastes like a watermelon.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm trying to prod you into saying what it is you know and how you know it. You still won't do it.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Actually this goes into our everyday lives as well. We, ourselves can even known the future if we know which action we are going to take. Thus, if I park my car on the no parking zone over night it might be towed away. Now I have hope that it won't be noticed ( I have indeed parked it and it hasn't been noticed ). But if it is noticed I know the future, meaning that it will be towed away, and in this regard my article on math and numbers was indicative of something, that we make choices within the basic parameters of the system that is made.

You can never foresee all of the circumstances that go into making something come about. If so, you'd be rich beyond belief as the world's first accurate meteorologist. Presumably god knows a little more than you do. There is no comparison.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan I'm excersising my free willy. Which is what this thread should be named.

You know, in all the time that you've been here, I've yet to see anything intelligent that you've contributed to any discussion aside from one-liners.

[loseyourname]

I agree. Your negative interjections are not only pointless but distracting. If you have nothing to add, then just stay out.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You know, in all the time that you've been here, I've yet to see anything intelligent that you've contributed to any discussion aside from one-liners.

These pointless discussions have been done, redone, and overdone. My outburtsts are much like your "this thread sucks" posts.
If I've contributed nothing why did you vote me best all around forumer. Hmmmm

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan These pointless discussions have been done, redone, and overdone. My outburtsts are much like your "this thread sucks" posts.
If I've contributed nothing why did you vote me best all around forumer. Hmmmm

Irony.

[loseyourname]

All right. You said God's existence preceded all, which negates your previous postulation of the eternality of the soul. So that takes us back to the original question - what determines the character of the soul? You seem to have already answered that it is God, that he determines all. He gives us the ability to choose between whatever options we may have, but it is he that creates us with a certain predisposition to make decisions that follow a certain pattern that we refer to as "character." While this doesn't completely negate free will, it does pretty seriously undermine it as well as making God largely responsible for a great deal of evil. Furthermore, it makes him awfully petty to lay the blame entirely on us when it should so obviously be on him.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname All right. You said God's existence preceded all, which negates your previous postulation of the eternality of the soul. So that takes us back to the original question - what determines the character of the soul? You seem to have already answered that it is God, that he determines all. He gives us the ability to choose between whatever options we may have, but it is he that creates us with a certain predisposition to make decisions that follow a certain pattern that we refer to as "character." While this doesn't completely negate free will, it does pretty seriously undermine it as well as making God largely responsible for a great deal of evil. Furthermore, it makes him awfully petty to lay the blame entirely on us when it should so obviously be on him.

If God has ordained us with free will, like I've said for a thousand times, and in order for man to be free to do good, he must be free to do evil. If you want to argue that somehow this makes God indirectly responsible, go for it.

[loseyourname]

You're not listening to me. I'm not arguing that if God allows evil, he is responsible for it. I'm arguing that if His existence preceded that of our souls, then it is he that created those souls. It is He that created evil souls that perpetrate evil acts. That being the case, then yes, He is responsible for evil. The only way to get around this is to say that he created souls that were blank slates, completely devoid of character. But if this is the case, then what is it that determines the character of the soul? Nobody is going to deny the existence of character. Regardless of the existence of free will, there are some people who are predisposed to committing evil acts and others who are not. Why is this, and what is responsible? If not God, then I want to know what.

[loseyourname]

I am exercising my free will and reviving this thread. Suffer the wrath.

[fstkhnan]

I've been noticing lately that in some situations I dont really have free will......as athletes we have to do "study hall" and I really don't need to do it and I dont wanna do it, but it's mandatory, and it's out of my hands...I hate it....another thing, my freakin coach made me move out and live by the university, and I didn't wanna move out, but she like totally forced me to, I had no choice. After living out for about 2 weeks I hated it, and now secretly I'm living at my house........basically if she finds out i might get kicked out of the team.....I mean where is my free will? I wanna freakin live wherever I would like to live and do whatever i want..screw the mandatory rules that she comes up with!lol.....(i know my examples are all tennis related, but it's a big part of my life, sorry)lol.......

[loseyourname]

Nan, your arguments cut right to the heart of what I initially wanted to get at with this thread. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't subscribe to contracausal freedom. The very idea is ridiculous. Basically, modes of action are separated into two distinct categories: one is caused, and therefore determined and unfree, the other is uncaused and therefore free. First off, if strict determinism is correct, then all determined events are unfree; that is, they are traceable all the way back through a series of causes and could have been predicted. However, I see no reason to view an uncaused event as free. That which is uncaused is completely random. Free will must involve some form of conscious decision-making process; that is, a free agent may not know ahead of time what he will do, but he must be able to cause a certain mental event to occur. With this argument in hand, I turn to a compatibilist form of freedom. W.T Stace begins his argument with an assessment of decisions that we would commonly agree are free and are those that are not free.

Unfree decisions include those that fstkhnan speaks of: being forced to live somewhere that she does not want to live and to do things that she does not want to do. Free decisions include her decision to live where she wants to anyway. Stace then analyzes what it is that makes these decisions different from one another. The conclusion is that the unfree decisions have a cause originating outside of the free agent's own psyche. Nan here is being forced to do something. The cause of her decision is directly traceable to her tennis coach. Her decision to live in her house, however, is traceable only to her. Nothing external to her psyche coerced her into making this decision; it is hers and hers alone.

So, in conclusion, that is what separates a free decision from an unfree decision. The free decision is simply that which originates in the psyche, or the self, of the agent making the decision. Whether or not this act is truly free is another story, although it would fit the common definition. Whether or not it is truly free depends largely on the nature of consciousness itself. If consciousness is entirely a biochemical process that strictly follows the laws of physics and can be traced to a series of causes that existed prior to the arising of the consciousness itself, then the decision is not technically free. However, I'm not sure that this is even relevant, as again, the common defitition and understanding of freedom does not seem to take such things into consideration.

[fstkhnan]

yeah I see ur point there, and I pretty much understand what u mean and agree as well....it's well written and explained.....

[sleuth]

If there is a place for racqute and tennis coach would you mind a little room for poor sleuth...

WE was born with free will...there is no doubt about it...Life is all about choices....everything the way we live,act,think it's all about choices and the univers support us whatever we choose...it is not about tennis coach,or religion...because we choose them,it's ourrrrrr choice...fstk your tennis coach is your CHOICE...you let her to take control of you.... why do you complain? Acting like a victim is just a lame cover of our own choice..to blame someone lol,being a victim...but reality thats our choice...if we suffer its our choice,if we are happy its our choice....some ppl are masochists..they love to suffer and they love when someone suffers,,they love to cause pain and get pain...We make our lifes...

[PASAMONSTER]

couldn't have put it better myself

======We make our lifes...=======by sleuth.






what about the times when someone makes the choise to take your self chosing life away, is that also your choise?

[sleuth]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER couldn't have put it better myself

======We make our lifes...=======by sleuth.






what about the times when someone makes the choise to take your self chosing life away, is that also your choise?

Nobody can make a choice for you unless you give that person a power your own power of choice to make choice for you...again it is your choice to give out your power,your free will...it is really hard to get...but it is soooo true...:)

[PASAMONSTER]

understandable.


but i'm talking about a guy having a picnic with his family in his secure back yard. Me and the boys decide that we're going to go on a random shooting spree. just walking down the street, eenie meenie myniee mo. pick a family to slaughter.


guy having lunch with wife and 2 kids add 60 clip magazines full of armor piercing bullets multiply by 3 maniacs. what do you get?

well you get the families body parts dividing and eventually end up with one family minus living.

and not a single choise they made was theirs.

they didn't give up the power to choose either.

besides if they had given up the power to choose wouldn't that mean that they're choosing, therefore they aren't giving up the power to choose.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER understandable.


but i'm talking about a guy having a picnic with his family in his secure back yard. Me and the boys decide that we're going to go on a random shooting spree. just walking down the street, eenie meenie myniee mo. pick a family to slaughter.


guy having lunch with wife and 2 kids add 60 clip magazines full of armor piercing bullets multiply by 3 maniacs. what do you get?

well you get the families body parts dividing and eventually end up with one family minus living.

and not a single choise they made was theirs.

they didn't give up the power to choose either.

besides if they had given up the power to choose wouldn't that mean that they're choosing, therefore they aren't giving up the power to choose.
It was YOUR choice...you didn't give them chance to choose,they murdered.. that's a different story...then again its a choice its your choice and i am pretty sure it has an impact in your life...

[sSsflamesSs]

Loser, maybe you should bring up the Free Will thread, for my discussion is going to involve humans.

I confess that I have not really read that thread, so I might repeat some things that have been said there, I don't know.

Anyway, for starters, we should try to define what "free will" really is.

Two possibilities exist:

a) If our actions are determined by any factor (such as selfishness), then we do not possess free will (you were getting to this in an earlier post, so I'll go along with it).

b) If our actions are not determined by any factor, then our actions are random, and we have no control over our actions, and hence we do not possess free will.

I just copy/pasted my response after finding the thread. Aphro mentioned Hume's fork, which are the two possibilities above. I made a thread a while back involving Hume's fork, but the thread didn't get much traffic.

Anyway, does determinism invalidate free will? Can free will coexist with determinism?

[loseyourname]

Read this:

Originally posted by loseyourname Nan, your arguments cut right to the heart of what I initially wanted to get at with this thread. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't subscribe to contracausal freedom. The very idea is ridiculous. Basically, modes of action are separated into two distinct categories: one is caused, and therefore determined and unfree, the other is uncaused and therefore free. First off, if strict determinism is correct, then all determined events are unfree; that is, they are traceable all the way back through a series of causes and could have been predicted. However, I see no reason to view an uncaused event as free. That which is uncaused is completely random. Free will must involve some form of conscious decision-making process; that is, a free agent may not know ahead of time what he will do, but he must be able to cause a certain mental event to occur. With this argument in hand, I turn to a compatibilist form of freedom. W.T Stace begins his argument with an assessment of decisions that we would commonly agree are free and are those that are not free.

Unfree decisions include those that fstkhnan speaks of: being forced to live somewhere that she does not want to live and to do things that she does not want to do. Free decisions include her decision to live where she wants to anyway. Stace then analyzes what it is that makes these decisions different from one another. The conclusion is that the unfree decisions have a cause originating outside of the free agent's own psyche. Nan here is being forced to do something. The cause of her decision is directly traceable to her tennis coach. Her decision to live in her house, however, is traceable only to her. Nothing external to her psyche coerced her into making this decision; it is hers and hers alone.

So, in conclusion, that is what separates a free decision from an unfree decision. The free decision is simply that which originates in the psyche, or the self, of the agent making the decision. Whether or not this act is truly free is another story, although it would fit the common definition. Whether or not it is truly free depends largely on the nature of consciousness itself. If consciousness is entirely a biochemical process that strictly follows the laws of physics and can be traced to a series of causes that existed prior to the arising of the consciousness itself, then the decision is not technically free. However, I'm not sure that this is even relevant, as again, the common defitition and understanding of freedom does not seem to take such things into consideration.

[sSsflamesSs]

That basically repeated what I said, except my response was more concise.

Again, I ask, can determinism coexist with free will?

You mentioned compatibilism, but to me, the two ideas (determinism and free will) are exact opposites. So how can they be compatible with each other?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs That basically repeated what I said, except my response was more concise.

You didn't offer a definition of "free." You only asked the question. I answered it. Well, Stace did. I'm only repeating from his book.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname You didn't offer a definition of "free." You only asked the question. I answered it. Well, Stace did. I'm only repeating from his book.

Look above - I added on to my post.

As far as the definition of free goes, there was no room for it. Actions are either determined or not determined, and in either case, actions are not considered free.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs Look above - I added on to my post.

As far as the definition of free goes, there was no room for it. Actions are either determined or not determined, and in either case, actions are not considered free.

Then you believe free will is a logical impossibility?

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then you believe free will is a logical impossibility?

This has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe that free will exists, since all my thoughts and actions originate in my mind. No matter what the situation, I always have a choice.

However, when we look at it from the deterministic point of view, it seems so, doesn't it? Again, we go back to the explained vs. unexplained, the biological form vs. the soul. That article that Anon just posted ("what it means to be human") provided, what I felt, was an appropriate metaphor. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean that it does not exist, which is what you imply when I bring forth discussion of the soul. Damn, all these ideas are so tightly intertwined, sheesh.

Again, no one is going to prove anything in these discussions - we are merely doing that, discussing. As I've said before, while you do not believe in the soul, I do, but neither of us can prove the other wrong...we can simply discuss our ideas.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs This has nothing to do with what I believe. I believe that free will exists, since all my thoughts and actions originate in my mind. No matter what the situation, I always have a choice.

Isn't that exactly what the compatilist viewpoint is? If an action originates in your psyche, then it is free? If you wish to add that the psyche is an immaterial soul, feel free, but it needn't be.

However, when we look at it from the deterministic point of view, it seems so, doesn't it? Again, we go back to the explained vs. unexplained, the biological form vs. the soul. That article that Anon just posted ("what it means to be human") provided, what I felt, was an appropriate metaphor. Just because it cannot be explained does not mean that it does not exist, which is what you imply when I bring forth discussion of the soul. Damn, all these ideas are so tightly intertwined, sheesh.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish. We know the way neuropeptides and other transmitters should behave and we can observe the actions that come from their interactions with receptors. If it can be shown that they are somehow being controlled, and this is not far-fetched, in fact a lot already suggests this, then it shows a seat of consciousness that is more than simply intermolecular interactions. Even this doesn't really prove the existence of any free will that denies determinism, as there is no proof that your "soul" isn't behaving in a determined manner, but it goes a long way. It certainly gets rid of material determinism. This will be the first step in understanding the self in a scientific manner, getting rid of all the mysticism and obfuscation that has clouded true understanding over the millenia.

Again, no one is going to prove anything in these discussions - we are merely doing that, discussing. As I've said before, while you do not believe in the soul, I do, but neither of us can prove the other wrong...we can simply discuss our ideas.

I have not stated a disbelief. There is nothing to disprove. You are the one claiming to have knowledge on this matter. I only claim curiosity. I keep an open mind to all possibilities.

[Anonymouse]

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish.

You still haven't abandoned this line have you? Moreover, this suggests that at one point, with all the money and research we will know "all that there is to know", because we are imperfect, we will never know everything, thus we believe. Moreover science itself is akin to a religion. Fadix in another forum reacted insecurely when I suggested this, and you did the same here. It is no more a belief to believe it all originates in the brain, than it is to believe it emanates from soul. Your belief in evolution is all faith, so when you say "we needn't rely on faith", I myself find that foolish.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname Isn't that exactly what the compatilist viewpoint is? If an action originates in your psyche, then it is free? If you wish to add that the psyche is an immaterial soul, feel free, but it needn't be.

A compatibilist believes that determinism and libertarianism can coexist. As far as how they coexist, I do not remember, and will have to dig up my philosophy books at a later time. Not now though, I'm writing a paper, and procrastinating by replying to you.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Once we know what is really going on in the brain, we should be able to answer this question. It needn't remain a mystery, and we needn't rely on faith, which I just find to be foolish. We know the way neuropeptides and other transmitters should behave and we can observe the actions that come from their interactions with receptors. If it can be shown that they are somehow being controlled, and this is not far-fetched, in fact a lot already suggests this, then it shows a seat of consciousness that is more than simply intermolecular interactions. Even this doesn't really prove the existence of any free will that denies determinism, as there is no proof that your "soul" isn't behaving in a determined manner, but it goes a long way. It certainly gets rid of material determinism. This will be the first step in understanding the self in a scientific manner, getting rid of all the mysticism and obfuscation that has clouded true understanding over the millenia.

So if there is something that controls all these molecules, then where is the origin of this control? You can't possibly go back infinitely through the molecular reactions, as the reaction has to originate somewhere, above everything molecular. And if this can be proven, then why do you say that it doesn't prove the existance of free will?

I have not stated a disbelief. There is nothing to disprove. You are the one claiming to have knowledge on this matter. I only claim curiosity. I keep an open mind to all possibilities.

On the contrary, that was my exact point - that neither of us has enough knowledge to prove the other wrong, which makes this a discussion, and not a debate.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs A compatibilist believes that determinism and libertarianism can coexist. As far as how they coexist, I do not remember, and will have to dig up my philosophy books at a later time. Not now though, I'm writing a paper, and procrastinating by replying to you.

That isn't necessary. I know the compatilist viewpoint very well. In fact, I posted it. Go back and read my quote again.

So if there is something that controls all these molecules, then where is the origin of this control? You can't possibly go back infinitely through the molecular reactions, as the reaction has to originate somewhere, above everything molecular. And if this can be proven, then why do you say that it doesn't prove the existance of free will?

The origin is the will. If it can be shown to exist separately from the molecules themselves, then I think that pretty effectively proves the existence of a soul. Still doesn't make it eternal, or show that it can exist as an entity separate from the physical body, but other things can show that.

On the contrary, that was my exact point - that neither of us has enough knowledge to prove the other wrong, which makes this a discussion, and not a debate.

All I meant is that you state that there exists a soul. That can be argued with. I state that I don't know. Hard to argue with someone not making a claim.

[sSsflamesSs]

Originally posted by loseyourname That isn't necessary. I know the compatilist viewpoint very well. In fact, I posted it. Go back and read my quote again.

Forgive me, but I'd rather check myself.

The origin is the will. If it can be shown to exist separately from the molecules themselves, then I think that pretty effectively proves the existence of a soul. Still doesn't make it eternal, or show that it can exist as an entity separate from the physical body, but other things can show that.

Is it me, or is loser becoming less and less sure of his position, that humans are nothing more than biological beings?

All I meant is that you state that there exists a soul. That can be argued with. I state that I don't know. Hard to argue with someone not making a claim.

You said that relying on faith is foolish - my belief in the soul is based on faith (duh), so whether you like it or not, you claim that the soul doesn't exist. This is news to me that you claim that you don't know, haha.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sSsflamesSs Is it me, or is loser becoming less and less sure of his position, that humans are nothing more than biological beings?

That was never my stated position. I challenge you to find one instance of me saying this.

You said that relying on faith is foolish - my belief in the soul is based on faith (duh), so whether you like it or not, you claim that the soul doesn't exist. This is news to me that you claim that you don't know, haha.

Why is so difficult for you fundamentalists to understand that some people can honestly withhold judgement when judgement is not yet due? I hope you and Mouseboy are never on a jury.