Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
2 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,537 Year: 1,418/14,231 Month: 342/1,076 Week: 75/376 Day: 0/75 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will but how free really?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 182 (512244)
06-15-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AshsZ
06-14-2009 6:51 PM


Each element has its own unique properties and these characteristics do not deviate - H2 will always behave the same as all other H2 in the same conditions.
This isn't true. When you boil water, the path that an individual molecule takes is random. If you were to follow one particular molecule's path, then "rewind time" and do it again, it would not follow the exact same path the second time.
Essentially, the molecule is taking a random walk. It is referred to as a stochastic process and can be modeled as Brownian motion.
Randomness does exist in the Universe and the Universe is not 100% deterministic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 6:51 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 182 (512300)
06-16-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AshsZ
06-15-2009 8:23 PM


If the mind is a cause, then it must be a quantifyable element of force that acts upon the fabric of all components within the universe.
Sounds like gibberish to me....did you just make that up?
What is an "element of force"? What is the "fabric of all components" within the universe? How does an element of force "act upon" this fabric? And what is between your "if" and "then" that makes you think it is quantifiable?
We are all aware of many different forces - the forces that physicists have discovered and analyzed.
Actually, there's only four of them.
If the mind is a free agent, or a force having the ability to create an effect, we should be able to observe where the mind has such influences.
The mind doesn't need to use any other forces than the fundamental four.
Perhaps the mind's domain is bounded within that realm of quantum fluctuations occurring within the matter that composes our physical bodies. If this is really the case, then we open the door to connecting a cause (the mind's choice) to an effect (the way biochemical reactions take place).
Or it could just be right here. We don't need to open the door, there's plenty of room here for the causes and effects of the mind.
Maybe we, as humans, possess the ability to manipulate the chemistry within our brains by way of influencing the probability of how or when a particular reaction occurs within the brain.
Or it really is just neurons firing.
But the catch-22 to this is trying to connect the mind to the body.
Its called the brain... just kidding
Are you referring to the mind-body problem?
There's solutions to the problem on that page. You seem to be favoring the Dualist side...
That seems to be a little out of date though... Modern science, cognitive neuroscience, has pretty much figured it out, with the neuron doctrine, in that all these "problems" you're bringing up can be solved with just neurons firing.
If the mind "exists" within that layer of probability, or quantum fluctuation,
And if it doesn't, then its still all good.
then there must exist a bi-directional flow of influence... i.e., your mind cannot know what the body is doing unless it is receiving information from the body about what the current state of the environment is.
The mind and the body do pass info to and from one another.
If matter itself influences the "fabric" of this quantum field then we have a means to support this concept.... i.e., the body influences the mind, which influences the body, which influences the mind, and so on and so forth.
But if you realize that there are no non-fundamental forces at play in the mind, and that the Universe doesn't have to be deterministic, and that the functions of the mind are all just neurons firing, then your whole "problem" of finding a place for matter to influence itself vanishes.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AshsZ, posted 06-15-2009 8:23 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 182 (812047)
06-14-2017 1:28 PM


This is a reply to Message 342 that is off-topic in that thread.
Of course the answer is that he did but the Fall did for all that. To introduce the concept of evil, God had to also introduce the evil itself in the form of a talking snake representing a previously fallen angel.
It's a very, very strange and silly idea isn't it?
Yes, The Fall being a real historical event is a silly idea. But I don't subscribe to it so it's not a part of this reply.
Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't god have created a world without harm?
I think you're looking at it backwards, at least from my perspective. I'm a religious person, and I believe that we have free will. But that belief stems, not from a religious position, but from observations of the real world.
At face value, here in RL, I have the freedom to do whatever I'm willing and able to do. My will is free.
Where my religion comes into play, is trying to make sense of that fact with my relationship with God - how does what He's wants me to do square with my own desires and what I want to do?
What is backwards, to me, is going: "Religion says that we have free will, and that God is omnipotent, so why doesn't God make the world differently?"
We can speculate on why God does or does not do things all day long and not take a single step forward. It's pointless.
On the other hand, we could accept that we do seem to have free will in this world, and then we can discuss what that means if there is a God and it has certain characteristics.
So, given that we have free will, and that evil is allowed to exist, there must be something more important about enabling free will than there is about eliminating evil.
The question shouldn't be why isn't God different, it should be 'given what we know, what would this tell us about God?'
Obviously - well to me at least - this is a totally specious argument because we are simply another organism competing to survive - competing against each other as well as our environment so harm is inbuilt by biology. Evolution completely explains why we ae the way we are.
It doesn't answer the bigger question of: "Why is the way we are the way that things are?" Just sayin'
When we have these discussions it's almost a default position that having the ability to do harm (free will) is important, even necessary. Is it really?
Apparently it is. That's the way things seem to be. Whether or not there is another way is kinda beside anything we can actually determine.
We gotta play the hand we're dealt - I don't see the point in discussing whether or not we could have been dealt a different hand.
Is a world without evil so evil?
It's a necessity if you don't want to just be following protocols. Would you rather be a droid?

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 182 (812049)
06-14-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
06-14-2017 9:10 AM


Re: Free Will and an All-Good World
I would, however, be quite happy with some world where a certain-amount of "very evil" actions were completely wiped out of existence.
Where, exactly, would I place such a line? I don't know. And because I don't know, I would err on the side of caution and reserve my restrictions to only a few incredibly terribly evil actions.
We already live in a world with countless incredibly terribly evil actions that we are not aware of.
You're proposing a negligible increase in restriction, so I'm going to turn a question you asked me back around to you: Does it matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 9:10 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 1:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 182 (812055)
06-14-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Stile
06-14-2017 1:48 PM


Re: Free Will and an All-Good World
New Cat's Eye writes:
You're proposing a negligible increase in restriction, so I'm going to turn a question you asked me back around to you: Does it matter?
I think it matters a lot.
Meh, we're swimming in an ocean of evil and you're saying it would be nice if that guy stopped squirting us with a water gun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 1:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 182 (812075)
06-14-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Tangle
06-14-2017 2:01 PM


Free will is a religious concept which in reality it doesn't exist.
Free will as a concept is philosophical, not religious, and dates back to the Greeks.
Free will as an ability is something that we all have in reality, and it does exist.
People have the ability to do the things the wish to do but within limits
That's free will.
We are a product of competitive evolution, god has zip to do with it so it's a totally specious argument. It's angels on pinhead stuff.
Sure, philosophy isn't very practical... but that doesn't mean it can't be interesting.
Let free will exist as "the ability of people to do the things they wish to do but within limits".
If there was a god, they would apparently be putting 'having free will' as a higher priority than 'not having evil', no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 2:01 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2017 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 182 (812080)
06-14-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tangle
06-14-2017 3:16 PM


Stile writes:
Are you saying that the concept of "everyone has equal free will" is religious?
Yes - it's a religious invention.
That's not true, why do you say it?
Its a philosophical concept based on real world experiences.
We have freedom of action within our physical and emotional capabilities. It's not a 'thing' in itself, it's just a necessary part of our make up and life.
A necessary part of our make up and life IS a thing in itself.
Without religion, the concept would not exist.
That's not true either. It also has ramifications for legal systems and what is and is not a crime and what an appropriate punishment would be.
Christian religion makes it a point of dogma, part of the Genesis and the 'Fall' story.
I don't subscribe to The Fall and I still think free will is an interesting concept to discuss... even completely outside of religion.
Why are you trying to tarnish the concept of free will by trying to make it solely a religious invention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 3:16 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 182 (812118)
06-14-2017 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Tangle
06-14-2017 5:09 PM


Off hand I can't think of any knowledge that came from religion, can you?
If it counted as knowledge then it wouldn't count as religion there's a reason we say it takes faith...
Ignominious and wrong
Hubris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 5:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2017 3:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 182 (812184)
06-15-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tangle
06-15-2017 3:51 AM


NCE writes:
If it counted as knowledge then it wouldn't count as religion there's a reason we say it takes faith...
Pretty useless then,
For me, religion has been quite useful. My highly analytical and scientific mind utterly failed to meet my emotional needs. It was only after embracing my religion and seeking God's help that I was able to improve my mental health.
Finding God showed me the way to finding my self. Finding my self showed me my desires. Having the free will to fulfill those desires allows me the ability to provide my self with pleasure (non-sexual).
And that is the key to happiness
I'm not saying it's the only way, but it certainly worked for me - and that's not useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2017 3:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2017 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 182 (812200)
06-15-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ringo
06-15-2017 11:44 AM


You might as well say, "Rock climbing showed me the way to finding myself," or, "Marriage showed me the way to finding myself," or, "LSD showed me the way to finding myself."
But they didn't...
So your self was what you needed all along. "God" was just a means to that end.
Surely. I couldn't find my self, but after I found God I was shown where my self was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 182 (812210)
06-15-2017 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
06-15-2017 12:09 PM


I've never been married.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 182 (812219)
06-15-2017 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ringo
06-15-2017 12:48 PM


Maybe marriage would have a similar effect as religion.
I was practically married. I lived with the same woman in a committed monogamous relationship for over 11 years. It actually made me worse. But that's over now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 12:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 1:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 182 (812224)
06-15-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ringo
06-15-2017 1:23 PM


Then, as I said, maybe you needed more than one "practical" marriage.
Workin' on it...
What you have is one data point. I'm just suggesting that there may be others.
Well duh - you don't ever stop looking for data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 06-15-2017 1:23 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 182 (812250)
06-15-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tangle
06-15-2017 2:27 PM


It has personal uses - the opium of the masses and all that - it's a bi-product though; making you feel better about yourself in the here-and-now is not religion's real purpose.
There is no real purpose to religion. Take your foil hat off.
And the fact that it's imaginary is a real problem for man's long-term mental health.
You don't know that, and i don't believe you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 06-15-2017 2:27 PM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 182 (812306)
06-15-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dogmafood
06-15-2017 10:12 PM


The fact is that we cant get along without the concept. Where would we be without personal responsibility?
What I find interesting is how the our jurisprudence works better as we appreciate that people are a product of their environment.
To make sense, there has to be more people than environments; and so what you do in your environment is what makes you you. People are a product with their environment, not of it. Our wills are, actually, free to operate within their boundaries. That we decide what we will actually do is what puts the onus of our actions upon ourselves. Without this, a lot of our framework could come crashing down. To disregard the concept of free will is a fool's folly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dogmafood, posted 06-15-2017 10:12 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dogmafood, posted 06-16-2017 8:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023