- Nov 28, 2010
- 287
- 4
- 43
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Even in true randomness you cannot have free will, because it is exactly that "random." No free will involved.
Are you a compatibilist?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Free will exists and is a combination of chance and deterministic processes. Pseudorandomness may substitute for chance. If your idea of free will cannot be composed of chance and deterministic processes, then it does not exist.
It is true that we can choose "which of the variety of effects this cause will have on our behavior." By saying, "via free will" you are assuming free will exists, and therefore is not proof of free will. Any choice can be explained by cause and effect, so unless you can get around cause and effect, there is no free will.I kinda think if we have a cause, we can choose via freewill which of the variety of effects this cause will have on our behavior.
All of neuroscience tells us this. Moreover all of science depends on cause and effect. Consider this:Is this your personal opinion? Or is this an established theory. If the latter, can you provide some proof to back this up?
Causality describes the relationship between causes and effects, is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics, and has an analog in logic. It is also studied from the perspectives of philosophy, computer science, and statistics.-Wikipedia
Even in true randomness you cannot have free will, because it is exactly that "random." No free will involved.
Are you a compatibilist?
I did see something interesting on a public show. Some kind of special test and the video showed an element appeared out of no where and appeared on the test. No where could be evidence.---First of all there is no evidence that tachyons exist. ---
(clipped)
---So either God is omniscient and free will does not exist, or God is not omniscient and free will does exist.---
How can two processes that do not give you free will, suddenly give you free will when combined?Hence why I said a combination of deterministic and non-deterministic processes. The non-deterministic processes ensure that you're free from cause and effect; the deterministic processes allow the will to be yours. Furthermore, the effect is amplified by having feedback loops in the brain, so that the internal thoughts get that much more prominence than external ones.
Whether you consider the above to be "free will" or not is up to you, but what is described above exists.
FREE WILL- freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.-Merriam Webster.com
How can two processes that do not give you free will, suddenly give you free will when combined?
The converse could, arguably, be said of you: you can redefine 'free will' so much that it's no longer a paradoxical concept, but don't expect anyone to take you seriouslyIt's right there in my definition of free will.
As for proof: Processes can be either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination. Free will is considered to exist. Therefore, free will is either a deterministic process, non-deterministic process, or a combination of both.
If you decide you want to define free will to mean "a logical contradiction", that is up to you but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Free will is not what determines a decision or a next cause. Prior causes and effects produce the next cause. Any decision that is made is made as a direct result of your genetic makeup and environmental upbringing
Right, which means you do not know. So how can you make a statement of certainty when you do not know?
How in the world can an omniscient god not understand something?This is a complete non sequitur.
Ya considered by believers in free will, which is not proof.It's right there in my definition of free will.
As for proof: Processes can be either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination. Free will is considered to exist.
Again, determinism does not give you free will, random events do not give you free will. You cannot have an event be both deterministic and random simultaneously, thus how can free will arise from either of these processes?Therefore, free will is either a deterministic process, non-deterministic process, or a combination of both.
I do not decide to define free will as anything, the definition of free will was around long before either you or I were born. The question is why do you decide to change the definition of free will? Perhaps it is because you want it to exist?If you decide you want to define free will to mean "a logical contradiction", that is up to you but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Okay! How about today!
This morning I got up to go to work. I looked in my closet and had a choice of around 50 different pants and shirts to choose from but I put on a pair of black pants and a blue shirt. Why? I dont know; at the time I was think about what I was gonna do at work; so I just grabbed something and put it on.
You answered it yourself, you choose the blackened banana because you liked it that way. Why do you like it that way? It could be many different reasons but here are a couple. Your genetic makeup prefers bananas like that, or it was an aquired taste.I then went to the kitchen to fix my lunch, and while doing that I saw some apples and bananas on the counter; I chose to eat a particular banana that was starting to turn black because I like them that way.
You drove the Caddy because it was not raining and the radio works in it. Why? Because you do not like your Caddy getting rain on it. Why? I speculate it is the nicer of the cars and you like to keep it in good clean shape. Why? Because you like to look good in it or you spent lots of money on it, and so on and so on. There is always a reason, and those reasons can always be ultimately linked to either "nature or nurture."I then grabbed the keys to my Honda because I thought it was gonna rain but when I went outside I saw the weather looked good so I went back into the house and got the keys to the Cadillac because the radio works in that car but not the Honda so I can listen to the radio on my way to work; I dont like getting rain on my Caddy.
To drink or not to drink and what you should drink can be linked to many factors. You want to drink because you need it to survive, You want to survive because it is part of our evolutionary makeup.Incorrect
The cause of thirst brings on a free will decision of beverage, or choice to remain thirsty. The choices are both cold beverage, to something toxic, from alcohol, from uppers to downers, and again, a free will decision to do whatever we choose.
Upbringing does not necessarilly mean just your parents influences. My argument is based in the "Nature vs Nurture" understanding of our reality.And as far as upbringing and genetic makeup, my dad likes pepsi, my mom likes water, and I like coke.
Unlikely.You may have a fun hypothesis that is viable by a appeal to authority fallacy, but in action, it is debunked.
You can say 2+2 must equal 3 or 5, but 4 is the correct answer.
Your 2 choices in answers are wrong.
Can you give me an example of how an omniscient being could not be able to understand something?Because the decision made, though God would know the end result, God would not understand the reasoning.
To drink or not to drink and what you should drink can be linked to many factors. You want to drink because you need it to survive, You want to survive because it is part of our evolutionary makeup.
You do not want to drink because you are on some kind of diet. You are on a diet because you want to loose weight. You want to loose weight because you want to look good or because of health issues. You want to look good because of social reasons, or you have health issues because of your genes or your environment. And so on and so on and so on....
Please take a look at this 5 min video so you can better understand where I am coming from.
Can you give me an example of how an omniscient being could not be able to understand something?
Because I am at a complete loss of how this can be.
Ya considered by believers in free will, which is not proof.
I do not decide to define free will as anything, the definition of free will was around long before either you or I were born. The question is why do you decide to change the definition of free will? Perhaps it is because you want it to exist?
As far as people taking me seriously, I think you will find it the other way around. Once you have researched the philosophical arguments and the physics involved you will see that my argument is widely accepted as a view on free will.
Here is why the video 'test' is completely flawed. The decisions 'was' already predetermined. It was either the left button, or the right button. So no matter what question was asked, the answer was already left button or right button. Without knowing the questions or his answers, I can say, all left, and be in the 30-70% accuracy to predicting his test. That is just bunk.
If you think that being constrained in your answers is the same as being "predetermined" per your owns, then you obviously do not understand the matter at hand. Or you're being deliberately obtuse, which is more likely. In fact, I can bet that no matter what amount of choices had been given, you'd still claim the answers were "predetermined," as you erroneously called them.
Fantastic. Then we can safely ignore this paragraph as that is not what this experiment was trying to show.Let me put it like this, if I was trying to prove that nothing could exist outside of a box, and I did all my experiments in a box, how is that reliable data? The answer was pre-determined, everything is kept in a box, so there is no other option but to conclude everything exists in a box.
That said, how can you understand free will by forcing yourself to answer every question, and only having 2 options. You want to test free will, give people a test with unlimited options, the ability to give multiple answers, or, the ability to not answer at all. If you are going to question free will, take it on. Do not limit and pre-determine a mind, then conclude thoughts are pre-determined.
Of course suicide is an option! My intent was to give just one possible option. It would be close to impossible to include all possible variables in my explanation.The protests that are currently going on began with a man in the middle east setting himself on fire and killing himself, because he could not succeed. Kurt Cobain used a shotgun for dental floss because he did NOT want to succeed. These were individual choices of free will that are so far outside the lines of any 'makeup' that is built to survive that I can not help but bring it to your attention.
The test was a simple test to demonstrate that we have the ability to see how the brain reacts when presented with choices. Once we know which parts of the brain react and the manner in which they react, we can accuratly predict what the choice will be before the individual knows.Here is why the video 'test' is completely flawed. The decisions 'was' already predetermined. It was either the left button, or the right button. So no matter what question was asked, the answer was already left button or right button. Without knowing the questions or his answers, I can say, all left, and be in the 30-70% accuracy to predicting his test. That is just bunk.
Was pushing neither button an option? How about both? No, you gave a yes or no test, that was it.
This is not that difficult a question, either god is omniscient or he is not, period.Just like the test, you want a yes or no answer. The answer is neither.
Is knowing=understanding?
This is why I called it a straw man earlier. The title, 'omniscient', is too simple. You make a simple answer out of a incredibly complex question, then debunk omniscience or non-omnicsience. This never truly addresses 'God', it only addresses 'omniscience'.
First off I don't believe that story to be an actual event in the first place. Secondly, whether it was of Judas's own free will is a matter of debate. However, for the sake of argument I will use your example.As best as I can explain it, God could know Judas Iscariot was going to betray him, but God did not created Judas Iscariot to betray him. Judas Iscariot chose to betray Jesus by his own free will. This was against God's will, but not outside of God's knowledge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?