The many faces of the free will problem
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
Compulsions are created by the Conscious Mind, Freewill as you define it.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
No.
It is not possible to 'impede' Reality, and Reality is ALL inclusive!
On the other hand, there is the passing thought/feeling/ego that somehow one (-s desires are) is being 'impeded'.
No.(2) Do our wants and needs cause our actions?
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
(3) Are we determined by physical causes.
No.
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
If we can, then it isn't a 'law'.Can we do things beyond the laws of physics?
Laws are Universally applicable!
For the most part.(4) Are we predictable?
To Know OneSelf is to Know all!
No.(5) Can we choose what we value?
There is no 'free-will/choice' (impossible).
All 'values' are experienced as perceived thought (in the eye (Perspective) of the beholder), like everything else.
We value stuff, according to Perspective, at the moment.
No.(6) Could we have done otherwise?
Never in the recorded or hypothetical history, or future, of man has a moment ever been 'otherwise'.
What is 'determines' what is.(7) Do we determine ourselves, or does something else do it?
Our perception is what Knows what 'is'!
We experience/Know what is, always is. Not anything 'causes/determines' what is.
No.(8) Are all our thoughts and actions unconscious?
(T)Here is only Universal Consciousness.
There is no 'unconsciousness.
There is, of course, that of which your momentary unique Perspective is ignorant, unaware, not experiencing, at the moment.
The questions are not all the same. They are asking different things. Many of them seem related, but all are not necessarily the same thing.
For instance, the answer to (2) (Do our wants and needs cause actions?) seems to be obviously yes. If I happen to want to throw my coffee cup out the window, it will happen, unless I am stopped by something. If this is all the question of free will means (and it might be all it means) then obviously we do have free will. However, the answer to question (5) (Can we value what we don’t want?) is also obvious, but the answer is no, we can’t value what we don’t want. If this is all the question of free will means, the answer is no, we don’t have free will.
So what is the proper question? Is there a proper question? Is there a proper answer?
So one thing I'd like to do is to get opinions on FIRST: are these all the questions? Are there more interpretations of the free will question that you have seen? SECOND, which is the one that you think pertains most to the proper question?
For what it's worth, after writing this up, my opinion is that the proper question is whether or not "we" are a determining thing. Does our consciousness determine things to happen or not, and in what way?
Now he tells me!THIRD, I guess, ... I'm quite tired of this question
Glad that I didn't waste more time on this...
A copy and paste of my previous work on the subject, then;
"To have 'free-will' is to have the ability to 'do otherwise'.
In the complete history of the Universe, no being has ever 'done otherwise', no moment has ever been 'otherwise'!"
'Free-will/choice' exists as a *thought*, a 'belief', a 'feeling'. Thats all. But it exists! Everything exists!
The notion of 'free-will/choice' is unsupportable both from a scientific or philosophical perspective.
Yet it exists in/as 'ego/thought'.
'Thoughts' come in various flavors; memory, anticipatory/expective, imagination, ...
That which exists as 'thought', exists! (as 'thought')
Everything exists!
Benjamin Libet's famous experiment certainly pounded another nail in the 'free-will/choice' coffin! Demonstrating the the brain initiated the action "prior" to the 'choice' being made, 100% of the time!
There are so many nails in that obsolete vain belief's coffin already, but i don't have the space, here, to elaborate.
'Free-will/choice' depends on some moment of existence being 'otherwise'! Never, never in the existence of existence has (or can be) any moment ever been 'otherwise'! Ever! What is, is, and that's all that is or ever can be!
What is, (already) is!
Every moment of existence exists Now!
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!
There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!
1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one thousand trillion trillionths the diameter of a proton!!
The 'size' of one percept, one unique Perspective, One Soul!, that synchronously exist for one Planck moment!
A 'moment' is a unit of perception, a percept!
"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"
Another point.
To completely define something, the context in which it is perceived must be included in the description.
Ultimately, the COMPLETE context of anything is the entire Universe! (at any moment!) So, to actually 'change' something from what is, to what you find more comfortable (the usual basis of 'desires' and the 'thoughts' of 'will' and 'free-will/choice'), you would have to alter the entire Universe (think Butterfly Effect)!
What an egoic/godlike ability! And just for your own comfort! You might have to ignorantly wipe out 17 galaxies and 486 civilizations so you can 'create' that new chair...
Get the drift?
Thank GOD! that it is impossible for us to 'change' anything!!!
(Any more than a telescope can have 'creative powers' over what it is pointed at!)
Religiously speaking;
The 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' is the physical menifestation of the one and only sin, Pride! (Insanity!)
It is saying, in essence; "Let MY Will B Done! Now! Abracadabra in Jesus' name (or whatever magic...)... Ah-me!"
Believing that we can 'change' the Universe, that which 'Is', for what usually amounts to 'personal comfort', is quite the ego masturbation!!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
Nameless:
Nameless's eternal perspective is based in reason, and I agree with Nameless that reality is always and everywhere the case. I like to call this idea necessity.(2) Do our wants and needs cause our actions?
No.
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
(3) Are we determined by physical causes.
No.
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
What we think of as causes and effects is how we individual learners of our lives deal with staying alive. Although humans seem at this time to be the only animals who conceptualise cause-and-effect, other animals that are capable of learning from experience use inductive learning too.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
I think so. Could be I'm an idiot, though...
Your point being what?Wayne92587 wrote: ↑March 15th, 2018, 2:33 pm Compulsions are created by the Conscious Mind, Freewill as you define it.
I suppose the point is that, if I throw my coffee cup out the window for a "rational reason", such as to give it to Henry because he bought it, is this different than me throwing a coffee cup out the window for a compulsive reason, such as being possessed by a fit of anger brought on by PTSD?
In both cases, I throw the cup because my thoughts and feelings directed my body to do it, but the second was not an act of "free will", because my conscious mind was not part of the decision. Supposing that my conscious mind was not part of the decision, it seems to be a different sort of decision, because it was not "me" who threw the cup. I wasn't in control.
So why can't I claim that I have free will when my conscious mind, the part of me that deliberates and watches my own thoughts makes a decision, but at other times, when I am possessed by a fit of compulsion, I don't have free will. In both cases, my thoughts and feelings directed, or caused, my body to do something, but under compulsion, because my anger is taking over, since my being is not using my conscious mind, I don't have free will?
Sometimes my body just does things that I can't control, such as catching things that are suddenly thrown at me. These actions are still "free" in the sense that they are caused by thoughts and feelings (not something else) that are not recorded and/or are not accessible to my conscious mind (the part of me that deliberates and watches my thoughts go by). But they are not acts of my "will", because they are beyond my conscious mind.
Seems fine to me...
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
After looking over your post, I decided I'm not going to talk to you. Sorry, don't think it will be fruitful.Namelesss wrote: ↑March 15th, 2018, 9:09 pmNo.
It is not possible to 'impede' Reality, and Reality is ALL inclusive!
On the other hand, there is the passing thought/feeling/ego that somehow one (-s desires are) is being 'impeded'.
No.(2) Do our wants and needs cause our actions?
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
(3) Are we determined by physical causes.
No.
Creation/causality is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
If we can, then it isn't a 'law'.Can we do things beyond the laws of physics?
Laws are Universally applicable!
For the most part.(4) Are we predictable?
To Know OneSelf is to Know all!
No.(5) Can we choose what we value?
There is no 'free-will/choice' (impossible).
All 'values' are experienced as perceived thought (in the eye (Perspective) of the beholder), like everything else.
We value stuff, according to Perspective, at the moment.
...
1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one thousand trillion trillionths the diameter of a proton!!
The 'size' of one percept, one unique Perspective, One Soul!, that synchronously exist for one Planck moment!
A 'moment' is a unit of perception, a percept!
"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"
Another point.
To completely define something, the context in which it is perceived must be included in the description.
Ultimately, the COMPLETE context of anything is the entire Universe! (at any moment!) So, to actually 'change' something from what is, to what you find more comfortable (the usual basis of 'desires' and the 'thoughts' of 'will' and 'free-will/choice'), you would have to alter the entire Universe (think Butterfly Effect)!
What an egoic/godlike ability! And just for your own comfort! You might have to ignorantly wipe out 17 galaxies and 486 civilizations so you can 'create' that new chair...
Get the drift?
Thank GOD! that it is impossible for us to 'change' anything!!!
(Any more than a telescope can have 'creative powers' over what it is pointed at!)
Religiously speaking;
The 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' is the physical menifestation of the one and only sin, Pride! (Insanity!)
It is saying, in essence; "Let MY Will B Done! Now! Abracadabra in Jesus' name (or whatever magic...)... Ah-me!"
Believing that we can 'change' the Universe, that which 'Is', for what usually amounts to 'personal comfort', is quite the ego masturbation!!
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
- dzung
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: March 14th, 2018, 5:06 am
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
There are criticisms too for experiments of Libet's kind, have you tried? If yes, can I hear your resonance on the strongest criticism?Namelesss wrote: ↑March 15th, 2018, 9:09 pm Benjamin Libet's famous experiment certainly pounded another nail in the 'free-will/choice' coffin! Demonstrating the the brain initiated the action "prior" to the 'choice' being made, 100% of the time!
There are so many nails in that obsolete vain belief's coffin already, but i don't have the space, here, to elaborate.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
From what I heard of the criticisms, are people egoically required to doubt his clear findings due to the egoic need to believe in free-will/choice.dzung wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2018, 7:09 amThere are criticisms too for experiments of Libet's kind, have you tried? If yes, can I hear your resonance on the strongest criticism?Namelesss wrote: ↑March 15th, 2018, 9:09 pm Benjamin Libet's famous experiment certainly pounded another nail in the 'free-will/choice' coffin! Demonstrating the the brain initiated the action "prior" to the 'choice' being made, 100% of the time!
There are so many nails in that obsolete vain belief's coffin already, but i don't have the space, here, to elaborate.
Too much psychological bias, and it still doesn't refute the results, just attempts to obscure them, and 'feel better'.
One cannot talk someone from their Pride!
None of the criticisms have been valid, as far as I can see, that they would dispute the results of the experiment.
(Which, I might not so humbly add, is completely validated and consistent with my theory, which does not require emotional, egoic rationalization and validation.)
Unexamined basic assumptions ("I know that I make choices, I 'FEEL" like I do!") are the end of rational thought.
Yes, we assume motion and time and choice because we 'feel' it, 'subjectively experience it', and to doubt our 'feelings' is to doubt/examine ourselves, something which many are incapable of doing.
Zeno logically proved that 'motion' (and, thus, 'time'; the theory to explain motion) is not possible, despite appearances and 'feelings'!
With no 'motion', there can be no 'choice/free-will'!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
Natura Naturans (Spinoza) ."The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
Right on....Namelesss wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2018, 9:35 pm From what I heard of the criticisms, are people egoically required to doubt his clear findings due to the egoic need to believe in free-will/choice.
Too much psychological bias, and it still doesn't refute the results, just attempts to obscure them, and 'feel better'.
One cannot talk someone from their Pride!
None of the criticisms have been valid, as far as I can see, that they would dispute the results of the experiment.
(Which, I might not so humbly add, is completely validated and consistent with my theory, which does not require emotional, egoic rationalization and validation.)
Unexamined basic assumptions ("I know that I make choices, I 'FEEL" like I do!") are the end of rational thought.
Yes, we assume motion and time and choice because we 'feel' it, 'subjectively experience it', and to doubt our 'feelings' is to doubt/examine ourselves, something which many are incapable of doing.
Zeno logically proved that 'motion' (and, thus, 'time'; the theory to explain motion) is not possible, despite appearances and 'feelings'!
With no 'motion', there can be no 'choice/free-will'!
- dzung
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: March 14th, 2018, 5:06 am
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
It is simply because I haven't the time or inclination to sally forth in quest of 'flat Earthers' to examine their opinions and theories, and refute them (when the author isn't even present to gain), when there is so much easily examined evidence for the 'spherical' Earth.
Libet's experiments seem to have no criticism of their scientific rigor, and the easily seen results are completely CONSISTENT!
I have no 'need' to theoretically tentatively accept, or believe in 'free-will/choice', so I can evaluate them (experimental results) for myself.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
- Hedward
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: April 8th, 2018, 5:09 pm
Re: The many faces of the free will problem
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023