[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]

Login:
Password:
Lost password| Sign Up
New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS · Profile · Logout
Forum moderator: I_Guy, s0dr2, El_Matador  
Forum » Knowledge » Philosophy/Science » The Impossibility of Free Will
The Impossibility of Free Will
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 12/Oct/09, 11:27 PM | Message # 16

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
Quote (I_Guy)
there will be exceptions that seem to defy the principles and they will need to be accounted for

this is how i got the name i changed my title to ages ago :D

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
YANHAP1 Date: Tuesday, 13/Oct/09, 8:32 AM | Message # 17

DJs
Posts: 337
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (I_Guy)
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

13.7 billion years of pure energy degenerating from light to matter to this illusary awareness.

Quote (I_Guy)
Similarly, society creates anomalies in nature. Society creates artificial devices such as expectations and standards, to which we all react. It would seem that any choice we could have would be further inhibited by these delusions.

If the notion of self is to become the focus of its own attention then it has to internalize, isolated from past burden and future aspiration to be "aware" only in the moment.

Quote (I_Guy)
We are realizing our delicate position in the universe and reality.

Can it be said empirically that nature has not designed us to percieve ourselves if the concept of evolution is continual, exteriors are broken down further to engage in as yet undetermined subtleties,for example Quantum Physics.
Our being, if you were to allow the precepts of time and space, is in a state of motion thrust forward away from the primordial state and the point of creation itself, in this motion we can now communicate with other selves on an instantanious global scale and have amassed shared knowledge beyond that which was possible to our ancestors. You acknowledge yourself we are in a state of realization, realization in itself is advancement.

To close the door to interaction purely with exteriors as we know them at present or in past tense is stagnation.

Is this not against the thrust of motion of existance itself?

Whatever that is!

Very much enjoyed the reading bro, i'm not an educated man as such but i'm always grateful for others perspectives.

Every day is a school day.

Best regards.

who killed bambi?

eboyd Date: Wednesday, 14/Oct/09, 1:20 AM | Message # 18

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 Well, I have been searching since yesterday for the argument that led me to believe in compatibilism and I was unable to find it, so for now I will have to agree with hard determinism only because my brain hurts from all this reading and searching for an argument I remember seeing but cannot find, but once I do find it I will bring it to this thread. The entire premise of my belief in determinism is that when it comes down to it, everything is caused by a chemical reaction of some sort. For example, I chose to write this comment. This would outwardly seem to be a free will decision, however, when we look deeper into it, what had to happen in order for this event to take place was caused by a series of events that leads all the way back to the very first event that occured. Here's a short explanation of how I came to write this: I chose to write this comment because a series of chemical reactions occured in my brain that enabled, possibly even forced, me to do so. This was preceded by me choosing to read the previous comments. My brain's response to reading these comments was enabling these chemical reactions to occur, and so on. However, though this would seem to be the only sufficient explanation, we still have not answered the million dollar question: where does choice come from in the first place? In all these circumstances we chose to partake in these events. Yes, there are circumstances in which we are forced to do something and I am in no way arguing for absolute free will (for example, when a person is shoved, they have no free will to stay in place and are forced to move), but I think to completely deny free will is to completely deny your ability to objectively observe nature. So my stance is this: based on my education and the cumulative knowledge I have gained through studying scientific theory, I can conclude that the most sound and reasonable explanation of reality in regards to free will is that hard determinism is true, however, based on the knowledge I have gained in life through the observation and analysis of said observation of existence, I can conclude that it is far more logically sound to believe in soft determinism or compatibilism. So basically, I am at odds with myself in this argument currently, and because of this I forfeit any belief in this argument until someone can provide me with information to clear this issue up in my mind.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I_Guy Date: Wednesday, 14/Oct/09, 2:05 PM | Message # 19

Heads
Posts: 1792
Reputation: 1
Offline
 I feel you man. I don't think we'll ever have a satisfying solution/answer for this problem/question. Things may be a certain way, but we cannot help but understand how it seems.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
eboyd Date: Wednesday, 14/Oct/09, 4:35 PM | Message # 20

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 True, I agree with that. This is one of those questions that leads me to a bit of a strange decision though. I am almost inclined by my better judgment to distrust science here which seems quite paradoxical to me. What would you say about this? Do you have a response to this or my last comment?
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

EmSeeD Date: Wednesday, 14/Oct/09, 4:50 PM | Message # 21

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
searching for an argument I remember seeing but cannot find,

are you talking about Lapenello's thread about how reality doesn't exist?

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
eboyd Date: Wednesday, 14/Oct/09, 5:27 PM | Message # 22

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 No, that's either idealism or solipsism (more than likely idealism). laPen is into quantuum physics as well. This is something I learned in philosophy class that had to do with compatibilism (the belief that determinism -- the theory that everything that happens in reality was predetermined by something prior and can be linked all the way back to whatever the first cause was -- is compatible with free will) and it showed that free will is possible even if the root idea of determinism -- that everything we think of as a "free will choice" is really just our body, most likely our brain, going through chemical reactions that cause us to make said choices -- is true.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I_Guy Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 6:43 PM | Message # 23

Heads
Posts: 1792
Reputation: 1
Offline
 In deliberation, I think I actually lean toward (what I'll call) "probabilistic determinism," where everything isn't determined from the start, but rather perpetually evolving to offer determining probabilities. If everything is probabilistic then they are still determined because they are given a set of determined courses. Additionally, we still have no control over any thing for the same reason as hard-determinism (because natural laws are in control). Thus free will is still devoid.

This reconciles the discoveries of quantum physics with determinism.

So in a sense, everything is in a state of controlled chaos, or organized disorder, because the natural laws allow such a system. Hard for us to fathom.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
eboyd Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:14 PM | Message # 24

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 That hardly sounds different from compatibilism except you just said "devoid of free will". Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Can you reword it so that I can comprehend what you mean?
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I_Guy Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 11:42 PM | Message # 25

Heads
Posts: 1792
Reputation: 1
Offline
 Because probabilities that determine everything makes no room for free will in a similar way that hard-determinism doesn't.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
eboyd Date: Wednesday, 21/Oct/09, 3:56 PM | Message # 26

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 Yeah, but that's the whole idea behind compatibilism. The idea is that everything CAN be determined, even IS determined, and there is STILL free will, even if just in a limited sense.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I_Guy Date: Wednesday, 21/Oct/09, 4:40 PM | Message # 27

Heads
Posts: 1792
Reputation: 1
Offline
 It's basically hard-determinism I'm talking about, but what is determined is split by probabilities, in which we have no choice which path to choose. Within this, free will doesn't exist due to materialistic reasons.

I guess it's probabilistic determinism combined with bio-environmental determinism governed by materialism.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
eboyd Date: Wednesday, 21/Oct/09, 7:07 PM | Message # 28

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 Ok, I get it now
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I_Guy Date: Thursday, 22/Oct/09, 3:20 AM | Message # 29

Heads
Posts: 1792
Reputation: 1
Offline
 I still don't feel satisfied though. There has to be something more to it that is still unaccounted for. I don't think anyone has found a truly satisfying solution yet. So I definitely still can't feel comfortable to truly conclude.
%)
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
eboyd Date: Thursday, 22/Oct/09, 8:58 AM | Message # 30

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 Yeah, I feel you. That's what I meant by saying if I look at it purely scientifically I am a bit of a hard determinist, but if I look at it through science and my experience in life I'm a compatibilist. I was watching this episode of "Atheist Experience" where they discuss exactly this and they mention a book by Daniel Dennett (who is a compatibilist) and he apparently gives detailed reason for why compatibilism makes sense in this book. I want to get a hold of this book. Apparently it's out of print but you can still find it on occassion. It may be worth taking a look at.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Forum » Knowledge » Philosophy/Science » The Impossibility of Free Will
Search: