Free will

[satricion]

What's wrong with willing yourself out of extinction and into relative existance due to desire?

Maybe the first cause is consciousness allowing itself to bound to something - like a desire. This desire cannot be quenched in void space - can it? Space and time, mass and energy is needed - so it is born to quench desires. When you have had enough of chasing desire - countless eons later - you can go back to extinction via meditation.

Free will. Forever. %)

...

Wtf are you talking about?

You can't will yourself into being through desire. For that desire to exist, you already have to exist. This is not logically possible.

I mean, even if you want to go so far as to go before birth and claim that people are just some sort of consciousness or soul floating around then deciding to materially exist, free will is still impossible. Because they'd still have to cause themselves. This is impossible. It is a logical contradiction, like saying that I am in two places at the same time, or that I am both an orange, and not an orange. It's nothing to do with physical laws or anything, it's about logic. You can't cause yourself.

 

[satricion]

Whoever came up with determinism was ignorant of their own inner workings.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter.

If determinism is true then free will is false.

But if determinism is false then free will is STILL false because that would make everything random and you can't control random events. If you could they would be deterministic and hence free will would still be false. This is not a spiritual argument or an argument about the laws of physics or the neurological workings of the brain. This is a purely logical argument.

Determinism HAS to be either true or false, and free will is incompatible with both of these, as well as being a logically incoherent concept in and of itself.

 

[Portillo]

Death may have something to do with this. Or that fact that we have no idea whats going to happen 1 second from now. We can probably guess but how much do our opinions and ability to live a personal entity experience have on the universe, do we leave any impact?

 

[Dyno_oz]

...

Wtf are you talking about?

You can't will yourself into being through desire. For that desire to exist, you already have to exist. This is not logically possible.

I mean, even if you want to go so far as to go before birth and claim that people are just some sort of consciousness or soul floating around then deciding to materially exist, free will is still impossible. Because they'd still have to cause themselves. This is impossible. It is a logical contradiction, like saying that I am in two places at the same time, or that I am both an orange, and not an orange. It's nothing to do with physical laws or anything, it's about logic. You can't cause yourself.

I have no problem with the paradox of causing ones 'self' to exist, as I know there is such a thing as extinction ( nirvana ) and a path leading toward extinction, walked by our own actions if we choose so. If one can cause ones 'self' to no longer exist - I have no problem with the opposite - namely going from extinction to existance.

Causing ones 'self' to exist only seems impossible if you believe that time, space and ego-based perception are reality. If they are viewed as constructs with a hidden reality behind them, the idea of 'self' causation becomes possible - even if the mechanism is hidden.

You remind me of a fish.

Fish can only live in water. So out of ignorance it thinks that water-based existance is the only reality. Little does it know that other life exists outside water.

So unless you have gone beyond ego-based perception, time and space (like a fish out of water), even for a few moments, you are not in a position to say ego-based perception, time and space are the only reality.

 

[elemenohpee]

^^again, we're working with different perspectives on the self. If we think of the self as the complex structure that we currently are, then satricion is right, it could not have caused itself, because it did not exist before it came into existence. On the other hand, if you think there is some supernatural "soul" or whatever, then it would be theoretically possible for it to will the physical body into existence.

 

[SmC]

To say free will is false is ridiculous. Saying we don't have free will is like saying we are robots imo. We have emotions, so we are not like them, that gives us an ability to use free will. We can be influenced, but i'll say it again, to act on those influences is down to us and our free will.

 

[Dyno_oz]

^^again, we're working with different perspectives on the self. If we think of the self as the complex structure that we currently are, then satricion is right, it could not have caused itself, because it did not exist before it came into existence. On the other hand, if you think there is some supernatural "soul" or whatever, then it would be theoretically possible for it to will the physical body into existence.

Defining 'soul' or 'self' would be buying into the ego-based illusion that they exist.

Consciousness needs to exist for free will to exist. From what I have read, consciousness does not need time, space, an ego, a body or a mind to 'be' - essentially 'empty' - like void space. The self-causation paradox dissolves and free will is inferred true.

Imagine that - the vast emptiness of void space actually being 'full' of something.

PS: From this standpoint, 'existance' could be seen as an ego-based illusion also

 

[PottedMeat]

A few months ago, I realized that I don't believe in free will. Basically, my train of thought goes like this:

Any given choice that I make is based on a number of factors. Some of these might be past personal experiences, advice or stories told by others, information about the situation I'm in, personality traits/brain chemistry, and (naturally) the situation itsself. However, I can't control any of these factors. So, since I don't control any of the factors leading up to the choice, I can only conclude that I don't actually control the decision that I make.

Of course, this basically disproves any religion, so I've denounced Christianity since then. The whole thing has really been bugging me for a while.

How do you view free will? Anyone have advice for how I can deal with the idea that I have no control over anything I do, or any evidence to disprove me? Please share.

I do not follow your argument. As Manifespoindicated, determinism is mere circular reasoning.

The best manner in which to argue the matter is to first define what "free will" is. If we use the common idea that all human acts of decision making are based upon prior experiences in our lives, we have a problem.

Since defining free will is complex, I would offer the notion, where and when does free will originate? Obviously, we cannot prove a negative.

 

[qwedsa]

Saying we don't have free will is like saying we are robots imo

our bodies are machines. our brains take in, process/integrate, and output information. in other words they are computers

We have emotions, so we are not like them

computers can have emotions (it's been done). all an emotion is, is someting influencing the the mind's processing of information! for example, the sight of a predator may trigger stimulation of thought processes, a motivation to flee, etc. this can be done on a biological organism or an electrical robot in the EXACT same way.

to say that emotions make us unlike computers is silly because all emotions do is make us compute data in different ways than normal, but we're still computing data

that gives us an ability to use free will

an emotion is another influence on our decision, sure. but how would that lead to the conclusion that we make our decisions independent of the physical matter making up our brain? emotions are electrical-chemical in nature, just like the rest of our decision making processes

We can be influenced, but i'll say it again, to act on those influences is down to us and our free will.

to act on those influences is down to 'you', sure, but there is no metaphysical entity choosing. it's YOU choosing, and YOU are made of atoms, and the ATOMS follow physical laws, so every thought and action of YOU (given sufficient data) is predictable, so determinism works

 

[delta_9]

computers can have emotions (it's been done). all an emotion is, is someting influencing the the mind's processing of information! for example, the sight of a predator may trigger stimulation of thought processes, a motivation to flee, etc. this can be done on a biological organism or an electrical robot in the EXACT same way.

thats not really emotion, when people are in love they go out of their way, sometimes at the extent of their health, for the one they love, robots cant do that, because robots see things in black and white, humans are able to change thier views on their own, but robots, unless they malfunction, do what they are programmed to do, and the only way they change is if we change them

 

[qwedsa]

I do not follow your argument.

ill try to clarify his argument. its very simple conceptually but language doesnt serve well in this sorts of discussions... if you feel like reading for 10min, follow along

imagine a simple unicellular organism with certain proteins on its membranes. a predator comes by that wants to eat it, but there are a bunch of a certain molecule coming off the predator cell (we'll call it molecule A) and the prey cell developed a mechanism to detect these as a sign of a predator

when molecule A hits one of these proteins, the protein changes in shape, which in turn changes the shape of a nearby protein (its shape now makes it take an ATP and pass it to a collection of proteins)

these proteins function as a rotary motor, they twirl and flip a flagella protruding from that part of the membrane

the result is the unicellular organism zips away from the predator

this is life. it's all mechanical. it's an example of reducing complex events that you see in real life (e.g. human behavior) to the molecular level (and the moleuclar level is predictable). everything in biology is reducable to this level

now, why do 'choose' to grab something? because the molecules in your brain are doing their own thing. you have the illusion that you chose to grab it because your molecules are acting as a computer, and your brain/computer sees a number of possible actions it can do, and it chooses

what determinism says, is that all this thinking, planning, and choosing, is reducible to this physical level, and therefore it's all predictable given sufficient data because physical matter follows physical laws. tell me how htis doesnt make sense?

 

[qwedsa]

thats not really emotion, when people are in love they go out of their way, sometimes at the extent of their health, for the one they love, robots cant do that, because robots see things in black and white, humans are able to change thier views on their own, but robots, unless they malfunction, do what they are programmed to do, and the only way they change is if we change them

humans can only do what they are programmed to do as well. the difference (for now) is that in humans, we have our genes and our environment as programmers, while electrical robots have humans as programmers

love's influence on behavior is just as reducible to the physical level as fear. go snort some oxytocin if you dont believe me

 

[delta_9]

^thats not true, cause if it was we wouldnt be doing drugs because society(environment) tells us not to, so do our parents(genes) and im straight off some oxy, what kind of fuckin bashead do u think i am
so basically, your living proof that what u said is wrong

 

[qwedsa]

^
1. i never implied that society is the only thing that programs us. its much more complex than that
2. i wasnt talking about oxycodone

 

[delta_9]

^
1. i never implied that society is the only thing that programs us. its much more complex than that
2. i wasnt talking about oxycodone

then why didnt u mention the other things that "program" us, and i did misread, and think u meant oxycodone, but oxytocin is a hormone in the brain, u dont snort it anyway

 

[GenericMind]

^thats not true, cause if it was we wouldnt be doing drugs because society(environment) tells us not to, so do our parents(genes) and im straight off some oxy, what kind of fuckin bashead do u think i am
so basically, your living proof that what u said is wrong

Computers can be programmed to make their own decisions based on certain factors in any given situation. How is that different from what humans do?

Society and your parents aren't the program, they're the factors. Computers do what they're programmed to do and so do humans. Just because the human process is much more complex than the (current) computer process it doesn't mean they're not remarkably similar.

 

[delta_9]

Computers can be programmed to make their own decisions based on certain factors in any given situation. How is that different from what humans do?

Society and your parents aren't the program, they're the factors. Computers do what they're programmed to do and so do humans. Just because the human process is much more complex than the (current) computer process it doesn't mean they're not remarkably similar.

if society and parents arent the program then what is?, and i never said they werent similar, but theres no denying that computers can only be as smart as the person who made it, and because of that fact, we will always be better than computers
and u said computers CAN be programed to make decisions, humans will ALWAYS make decisions no matter what, thats how its different

 

[Pegasus]

if society and parents arent the program then what is?

Your body + experiences = output.

and u said computers CAN be programed to make decisions, humans will ALWAYS make decisions no matter what, thats how its different

A computer can be programmed to do that.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a human action that can't be explained through mechanical decision making strategies of the brain.

Edited.

 

[qwedsa]

delta9, intranasal administration of oxytocin (other administration routes wont get it into the brain) increases feelings of trust, empathy, love. thereve been numerous studies involving the molecule (and vasopressin, a closely related molecule) in forming social bonds, and having a role in empathy. what i am trying to get at is that the emotion of love (like the other emotions) is biological/physical in nature, and merely makes us compute data differently than otherwise. it doesnt make us "not a computer"

regarding your next post, im not sure that youre familiar with the terminology we're using

>>if society and parents arent the program then what is?>>

society, parents, are some of hte major influences of your programs. but you cant say htat "they are the programs". a program is software within your brain that takes in data, processes it, and sends output. programs are, basicly, what allow you to think and reason and manipulate reality based on your senses, and htey are what allow your PC to run the explorer browser your'e using. both cases require input, processing (decisions), and output

>>theres no denying that computers can only be as smart as the person who made it>>

well there are many different kinds of 'smarts.' in any case theres no reason why a computer couldnt be as smart as its maker because of how flexible computer's programming can be. this fact will be obvious to everyone once computers start creating better computers... as far as speed and rate of error goes, by the way, computers far surpass the brain already

i reccomend wikipedia'ing some of these concepts...

 

[GenericMind]

if society and parents arent the program then what is?

DNA

but theres no denying that computers can only be as smart as the person who made it

That's untrue. We create programs that are "smarter" than their creators all the time. We even leave the design of higher-end machinery up to computers because they produce better models than any human could come up with.