Free will and determinism

[Neogaia777]

@stevevw

I'll respond to you when I see that you have anything worth saying, or you show me anything that is not caused, etc.

Until then, enjoy your delusions, ok.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

I'll respond to you when I see that you have anything worth saying, or you show me anything that is not caused, etc.

Until then, enjoy your delusions, ok.

God Bless.

lol but we all enjoy the delusion of free will. Not just me.

So you didn't find those videos of interest and worth discussing. There in a few posts back to Bradski. Check them out and see what you think.

 

[stevevw]

There is no choice, or action/inaction/decision, or operation in the human body or brain, that doesn't have a cause, etc. And if any of those has, or had, or always does have, a prior cause, etc, then those prior causes are also an antecedent condition, or they become such, which are all deterministic, etc. As all of those prior causes, also all have/had a prior cause, etc. And this going back as far as you want to follow it, or trace it, etc, as they all had a prior cause, etc.

Refute this, and you can maybe refute determinism maybe, etc.

But if not, or until then, you're just full of hot air, and your words mean nothing, or have no meaning, etc.

So and/or again, and as @Bradskii has been saying pretty much all along, show us something or anything that doesn't have a prior cause?

Either put up, or be silent, etc.

Because until then, you haven't refuted or disproven anything yet, etc, and determinism is still the most likely possibility/explanation for everything we are right now seeing, etc.

And I think it's sad that you refuse to see that, etc. Especially when I contemplate the reasons/causes for that, etc. Which makes it even more sad, etc.

God Bless.

All I can say is that everything you have said has been said by determinist for over a 100 years even further and still its a mystery. Better philosophers than you have been defeated.

I am trying to get beyond that and look at why we have this persistent belief that we have free will. Why would evolution instill such a wasteful belief.

Whats the relationship to consciousness and QM. What does the latest neuroscience tell us. What does behavioural science and latest discoveries of evolution tell us. All of which are disputing the deterministic view.

Why determinist are so fixated on proving free will false. Whats the point. Dennet mentions studies showing how stendents influenced by the idea of 'no free will' are more inclinded to cheat. He reckons its irresponsible to be proclaiming theres no free will as it doesn't accomplish anything except perhaps deminish our belief in accountability.

Daniel Dennett: Stop Telling People They Don't Have Free Will | Big Think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBrSdlOhIx4&ab_channel=BigThink

 

[Neogaia777]

All I can say is that everything you have said has been said by determinist for over a 100 years even further and still its a mystery. Better philosophers than you have been defeated.

I am trying to get beyond that and look at why we have this persistent belief that we have free will. Why would evolution instill such a wasteful belief.

Whats the relationship to consciousness and QM. What does the latest neuroscience tell us. What does behavioural science and latest discoveries of evolution tell us. All of which are disputing the deterministic view.

Well, you keep pondering, and exploring, and maybe one day when you finally abandon all of these things having to do with the self, and self-will, etc, you will one day see that free will was just only a comfortable illusion/delusion that you were living in or with, or were enjoying for a little while one day.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

lol but we all enjoy the delusion of free will. Not just me.

You will never see God's providence, or how He providentially arranges things, or has already providentially arranged some things, if you are always living in and with it continually, or don't ever take a break from thinking that way, etc.

So you didn't find those videos of interest and worth discussing. There in a few posts back to Bradski. Check them out and see what you think.

I only have so much time in a day, and I also already know that they would have nothing new to add, and would just try to make what would probably be to me just a bunch of 100% completely pointless points that I would probably already find a thousand different reasons/ways to disagree with already anyway, etc.

So if you can't summarize it on here, or put it into words yourself on here, then don't expect me to waste too much time with it, ok.

I also use to be a big supporter of how we all had our own free will back in the day, and used to argue for it greatly, until a knowledge of determinism, and determinism in the light of God's full omniscience, changed all of that for me, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Well, you keep pondering, and exploring, and maybe one day when you finally abandon all of these things having to do with the self, and self-will, etc, you will one day see that free will was just only a comfortable illusion/delusion that you were living in or with for a little while one day.

God Bless.

I think thats impossible to do in reality. We can never overcome our belief in free will. Doing so would be a rejection of our very belief in Self as someone who can make real meaningful choices and differences and have a say in what happens to them. To give that up would be to give up life itself.

Thats what I am saying, what is the point in wanting to give up free will. Searl gives the scenario of what a world without free will and one with would look like and you would not like to live in the one without free will. So we need to keep free will and believe in it. Even if it turns out there is none.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think thats impossible to do in reality. We can never overcome our belief in free will. Doing so would be a rejection of our very belief in Self as someone who can make real meaningful choices and differences and have a say in what happens to them. To give that up would be to give up life itself.

Jesus said we have to deny ourselves, and the amplified Bible even says lose all thought/track of ones self, and take/pick up our cross, and follow him (Jesus) daily.

And most all of Christianity agrees that we have to die to ourselves and our own self will daily, as it's taught in a lot of places in Scripture and all throughout the NT, etc.

"Self" is a major problem for us sinful creatures, and seems to be the source of a lot of it, etc. And the solution to almost all of our problems according to most of the NT is completely denying it or getting rid of it/completely abandoning it according to the NT, etc.

Abandoning our "self" is the real true born-again life, and not death, etc.

Or it's new true life from what would seem to be death, etc.

And "no" I haven't fully mastered it yet, but I'm working on it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

You will never see God's providence, or how He providentially arranges things, or has already providentially arranged some things, if you are always living in and with it continually, or don't ever take a break from thinking that way, etc.

You have a unique view. I thought you may have been taking the determinist position.

But this cannot be right if you believe in God and the soul. First God gives us free will and we are accountable to God. Second even if you did not believe in a judging God no determinist can believe in anything supernatural or spiritual. All causes have to happen within a closed material world.

So your own metaphysical belief precludes you beings a determinist in the sense everyone else is talking about on this thread. But I am now interested in your position as its different. I cannot see how it can be though.

I only have so much time in a day, and I also already know that they would have nothing new to add, and would just try to make what would probably be to me just a bunch of 100% completely pointless points that I would probably already find a thousand different reasons/ways to disagree with already anyway, etc.

Really great minds like Imannual Kant. Searl, Dennet and Patrick Haggard. All well respected scientists and philosophers on the subject. Thats why I introduced them as it seems our minds needed expanding instead of the constant person claim and counter claim.

A bit of outside qualified opinion. I may not agree with them either but we need to be open to all views. How can you know your position is correct if the only thing you want to hear is what agrees with your position.

So if you can't summarize it on here, or put it into words yourself on here, then don't expect me to waste too much time with it, ok.

But I did. Nothing that I have said so far is not something someone with knowledge on this topic has not already said in a paper or lecture or investigation into free will. You kept dismissing it so I started linking support for it.

If you dismiss my own words and then don't bother to then check the links that support my words I have no chance. You have already decided beforehand.

I also use to be a big supporter of how we all had our own free will back in the day, and used to argue for it greatly, until a knowledge of determinism, and determinism in the light of God's full omniscience, changed all of that for me, etc.

God Bless.

Well I have never pushed that free will is definitely the case. Mainly that determinism is not definitely the case. Thats all we can do because theres not enough information to go either way.

The most reasonable position to take is we just don't know. Some physical measures point to determinist but behavioural reality points to free will. But neither have a knock down case.

I am not saying to you that you must believe in free will. I don't need to because you already do. But I am not trying to convince you that free will is tru. Rather than determinism is false.

Otherwise no one really knows. No one can say frre or determinism are verfiable science, the truth or reality at present.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thats what I am saying, what is the point in wanting to give up free will.

Oh, I don't know, maybe to finally get or have a real true solution to our all of ours sins problems maybe? and maybe live the real true life Jesus died to give to us maybe?

Oh I know it would seem like death or dying at first, because Scripture even tells us that it would seem like that really, etc, but it also tells us it is the one and only real true way to the real true life also really, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

Jesus said we have to deny ourselves, and the amplified Bible even says lose all thought/track of ones self, and take/pick up our cross, and follow him (Jesus) daily.

And most all of Christianity agrees that we have to die to ourselves and our own self will daily, as it's taught in a lot of places in Scripture and all throughout the NT, etc.

"Self" is a major problem for us sinful creatures, and seems to be the source of a lot of it, etc. And the solution to almost all of our problems according to most of the NT is completely denying it or getting rid of it/completely abandoning it according to the NT, etc.

Abandoning our "self" is the real true born-again life, and not death, etc.

Or it's new true life from what would seem to be death, etc.

And "no" I haven't fully mastered it yet, but I'm working on it, etc.

God Bless.

I wasn't even thinking that lol. I was speaking about this earlier. How Paul says "I do what I know I should not do" when he is referring to our fallen flesh natures of instincts and desires. That we are slaves to sin. Now this is morally and spiritually so I don't know how it applies physically such as with biology and genetics or neurons ect.

But it seems Paul is saying that we as humans can overcome our human nature desires spiritually. So perhaps this is free will. Afterall Christ says that He is the truth and that the truth will set your free. The paradox that by giving up your will you gain free will and control.

AA has the same principle. By giving in and surrendering your out of control life to get help from AA and a higher power you gain control back over your drinking and life.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, I don't know, maybe to finally get or have a real true solution to our all of ours sins problems maybe? and maybe live the real true life Jesus died to give to us maybe?

But wouldn't the exact opposite, actually believing free will is true be the solution to our problems. If people really believed that they are responsible and accountable at least to society but more so to God they would clean up their act quick smart.

Not just religiously but principly as they would realise their actions or inactions do affect others and have consequences. But also it is up to them if they truely want to make a difference and and be something special. It would certain add meaning and hope.

Oh I know it would seem like death or dying at first, because Scripture even tells us that it would seem like that really, etc, but it also tells us it is the one and only real true way to the real true life also really, etc.

God Bless.

OK I am not sure what you mean. But if its about the one and only real true way. Then what is wrong with just believing free will is the one and only true way. Its like grandmas soup reciept. No one knows how she does it but it tastes delicious. Why worry about how she did it, just enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Neogaia777]

The paradox that by giving up your will you gain free will and control.

This is possible I guess, and I have entertained these kinds of thoughts already before, so it's not the first time I have been exposed to them, etc, but then you have to give up all that talk about Jesus not ever doing his own will, or being self-willed, because he was being led around by the Spirit('s) (will), etc, and that it's the same way that we should be walking, etc, and that's what I really want in my life, etc, but have yet to fully get or attain in my life yet, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

But wouldn't the exact opposite, actually believing free will is true be the solution to our problems. If people really believed that they are responsible and accountable at least to society but more so to God they would clean up their act quick smart.

Not just religiously but principly as they would realise their actions or inactions do affect others and have consequences. But also it is up to them if they truely want to make a difference and and be something special. It would certain add meaning and hope.

OK I am not sure what you mean. But if its about the one and only real true way. Then what is wrong with just believing free will is the one and only true way. Its like grandmas soup reciept. No one knows how she does it but it tastes delicious. Why worry about how she did it, just enjoy it while it lasts.

If that's the way you want to live your life, then live it that way I guess, but just don't deny me the way I'm wanting to live mine, ok please.

For me this only affects my life positively, but I also can't deny how it has the potential at least to affect others the opposite maybe, etc.

But I'd also like to say or add if this is how we should be gauging what is the truth, or what is not the truth maybe, etc?

How it affects others and our "feelings', etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

It would seem that just simply dying to oneself while not also at the same time embracing the Holy Spirit's leading you in your life, could possibly have a detrimental effect sometimes to one's own life, etc. But not if you are at the same time adopting the Holy Spirit's leading you in your own will/life, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Its not that there are no causes in free will but that theres an insufficient cause in some situations which causes the gap in the causal chain which allows free will in through our experience of it ie souls searching or deliberating over important decisions.

Then give an example.

 

[stevevw]

Then give an example.

Well I would imagine any situation where you are faced with an important choice. From what I understand from the videos from Kane and Haggart theres a point reflected in brain activity that shows consciousness stepping in milliseconds before a choice is made. This comes after the activity that subconsciously happens in the front of the brain.

This gap as Haggart calls it is like a gap in the deterministic processes where consciousness comes in. This makes sense when faced with important matters relating to self or moral situations. We almost pause in a limbo contemplating what to do. Then consciousness kicks in and we begin to deliberate and this overrides the deterministic causes.

For example if you choose to move your pointy finger to the left or right. You can choose right now to move it either way. You made that choice. There were deterministic processes involved in preparing to make a choice before you move your finger even a couple of seconds before you consciously move the finger.

But that preparation activity if the indeterminancy going on in preparation for something to happen whih is not yet realized and actualised which is consciousness being triggered to get involved.

It is more complex than that but this basic idea if in principle what Kane, Haggart and Dennet and several other scientists are finding and describing.

Haggarts experiments was a variation on Libets original experiment which Determinist base their evidence on for claiming consciousness is an after thought that comes after physical brain activity for the action. Now experiements show that consciousness actually kicks in prior to the action in the causal chain. Thus possibly breaking the causal physical chain.

As I mentioned this is just one example of how the determinist position is being weakened and not strengthened. Which you would think if determinism is true the evidence should be consistent all the way down.

 

[Bradskii]

From what I understand from the videos from Kane and Haggart theres a point reflected in brain activity that shows consciousness stepping in milliseconds before a choice is made.

No, Libet et al are pointing to a decision being made before you are conscious of it. You are only consciously aware of it after it's made. It's an experiment done to show that free will doesn't exist.

It's blazingly obvious that we often make conscious decisions. What on earth is the point of doing an experiment in showing that it's a conscious process?

'Hey, look. He decided to move his finger a split second before he actually moved it!'

And I just decided to have a beer an hour before I get to my hotel.

What on earth do you think that proves?

 

[stevevw]

No, Libet et al are pointing to a decision being made before you are conscious of it. You are only consciously aware of it after it's made. It's an experiment done to show that free will doesn't exist.

It's blazingly obvious that we often make conscious decisions. What on earth is the point of doing an experiment in showing that it's a conscious process?

'Hey, look. He decided to move his finger a split second before he actually moved it!'

And I just decided to have a beer an hour before I get to my hotel.

What on earth do you think that proves?

You have misunderstood the experiment. The claims from Libets experiments was that the general brain activity around the front center of the brain up to a couple of seconds before the action was the physical brain causing the action and then consciousness came in later to create the illusion that we chose to move the finger.

But this new experiemnets expanded Libets experiment and showed that a after the general activity across both sides of the frontal brain is the brain preparing for something to happen. This builds up then activity changes to the side of the brain as to which finger (left or right) pushed the button. As opposed to moving a finger on one hand they gave the option of the subject deciding what to choose, left or right and when.

What they now propose is that the general activity in the front center is the preparatory activity for something to happen but yet determined. So its the deterministist processes causing the activity but its sort of hits a gap in the deterministic chain due to the choice being made.

So they have found two processes going on. One with general preparatory activity and one where consciousness is coming in to make the choice and move the finger. Not after the choice and action as an after thought illusion. So consciousness is actually coming into the causal chain and influencing the outcome before the action.

This relates to Kanes article where evidence showed there were paralelle processes happening and a threshold where consciousness comes in and overrides the deterministic processes. More or less putting yourself in the causal chain to make the choice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm hoping and praying that they can theorize, and follow logic and reason.

Right now determinism is the only logical conclusion right now currently, and our job right now, is to try and get them to see that clearly, etc.

For what point?

You'll continue to act as if free will exists.

 

[Bradskii]

So consciousness is actually coming into the causal chain and influencing the outcome before the action.

Gee, someone's discovered that we think about what we do before we do it? The guy must be up for a Nobel!