Do You Believe In Free Will?

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by TheSamantha, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,486
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    If I answer this question, does that mean I have it? Or Is the script that extensive?
     
  2. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    Explosive emotional reactions eh? That testimony seems familiar to me, kind of reminds me of something...

    Oh, Jesus Samuel Harris Christ! the way and the light and the truth!

    Break down and cry, shake and lurch all over the atheist church floor.

    Hook line and sinker.
     
  3. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I still have been unable to watch this video----but what is described here is epiphenomenalism. It is an old Cartesian philosophy that was long discarded philosophically, but has seen a recent return to popularity among neurosurgeons and the like. But not all neurosurgeons and 'brain' scientists agree.

    If you believe that epiphenomenalism is true, then you believe that consciousness is an illusion. Everything is already happening, already decided, biochemically within the brain; you only think that you are thinking.

    But the problem becomes-----why bother with the illusion? Why would nature allow us to even think or have choices?

    If consciousness was an illusion, then the experiments at MIT should not work----subjects would not be able alter the environment through intention. But they are able to. If we try to put a determinist conclusion to these results, then we would conclude that the researchers were meant to do these experiments at this time giving the illusion of producing these results (and since the development and construction of the experiment is well documented so that it can be reduplicated in any laboratory, or even in one's basement, then we must conclude that other researchers and amateur scientists will be meant to do the experiment as well everytime these or similar results are produced) then we must conclude that there is a purpose to this determinism. But then another problem arises----whose purpose is it?

    Since it would be a cosmic purpose, we are right back to the conclusion of a God or Gods.




    (Actually its a conspiracy of the 1%. Ever since neurosurgeons found a switch labeled: 'Free Will,' 'On,' and, 'Off,' in the brain, everytime someone goes into a hospital for surgery they bring in a neurosurgeon who turns the switch to Off.)
     
  4. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    Among some of the things Writer already mentioned, I think you misunderstood this part as well. "Truth of determinism" is more or less a philosophical idiom.
     
  5. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    OK----I watched the video on Roku. I wasn’t that impressed with the experiment. My experience of picking the first city was based on the impression----‘ok, what cities do I like?’ The second choice (not knowing where he was going with the process, and that there was a trick to It (or that he was going to demonstrate how I made the choice), followed the thought process of-----‘What city do I like that is small and unusual?’

    I am certain that if he made the choice for me, I would have known that it wasn’t my choice.

    He simply told me what he believed it was not, without showing me it wasn’t. Am I missing something???? Is his whole point that consciousness is not its own object (as I will discuss below)? This video did not demonstrate anything to me.



    I assume you are speaking metaphorically-----My own experience is one of a disassociative nature---the doctor caused my leg to move by hitting it, and it jerked---not by my own will, it jerked by itself.





    I agree that there is a lot neurological and biochemical processing going on. In fact, part of the mind's amazing ability to have potential much greater than what we believe it to be is the fact that as we learn and master certain things, they get reduced to a subconscious process, allowing us to pick up new skills and knowledge. Consider a child learning to ride a bicycle. As he goes down the road, he spots a rock in his way. As he struggles to keep his balance much of his attention is on that rock. It’s not very big, but in his mind, if the front tire hits it, he will surely fall.

    Now consider 2 adults leisurely riding along on bicycles, carrying on a conversation. They don’t even pay attention to the rock. Subconsciously they have steered themselves around it, and they may not have even realized it. More significantly is the fact that whereas the child was struggling to keep his balance on the bike, the adults don’t even give that a thought, as that too is left to the subconscious—automatically shifting weight or inducing subtle balancing maneuvers as necessary.





    What you are talking about is what Sartre called reflexion (reflection), which is where consciousness tries to make itself its own object. In other words, we reflect back on our own thought process, such as a self-awareness that we are aware; we are thinkers, thinking, while we think---a reflective consciousness. Sartre understood that we can have thoughts and do things without a reflective consciousness, and that this is in fact the consciousness of everyday life. He felt that it is ONLY when we do something stupid, or wrong, or whatever that causes us to reflect back on ourselves that we actually use reflective consciousness----that we become aware of our ‘thinking’.

    The problem for Sartre and Sam Harris is that from our material perspective, consciousness is a spontaneity ex nihilo (from nothingness). In fact, Sartre even stated that Descartes was mistaken because, ‘I am’ cannot come from ‘I think’ because there is no self without a reflective consciousness, in other words, I think, has no self in itself. (I grant you however----are you able to authentically say, with the intention of meaning it in the first person, “I think, therefore I am” without an understanding of self-awareness? I argue that the first person pronoun itself, is a form of reflective consciousness in that it posits the self as object----so Descartes was right after all.)

    Reflection is an attempt to turn the mind into its own object. But the mind is not a part of the objective world, it is the ultimate point of subjectivity.

    Would it make sense for me to observe that I am thinking, every time I need to work something out? Do I need to consciously ‘will’ each thought into existence? If I have a complex problem, or even if I need to think of a random city, it would be nonproductive and inefficient for me to devote a portion of my conscious mind to reflective consciousness. Without using reflection, then of course my thoughts would ‘just appear.’ The mind has spontaneity, but that does not prove that I am not the author of those thoughts.

    It is very possible that as a baby, I was continuously self aware of my own consciousness, but that just like the small child learning to ride a bike---that reflective consciousness was relegated to the subconscious until those times when I need it to reflect on my own actions.




    Consider a young man in the moments of passion---hormones raging, biochemical reactions firing off neurological responses left and right. He’s on the verge of scoring… So when does No mean No?

    …No, seriously, when does no mean no?---I’m trying to figure that one out. (I’M JOKING! I’M JOKING!)

    But here is an example of the neurological process that leads a man to continue into rape, as opposed to realizing that despite his urges and passion, he should not act upon what his body is telling him to do. Consider the backseat of a car in a 1960’s Drive In theatre. All too often No was understood to mean Yes. The whole idea today of raising awareness that if she says no, and then to continue is rape---is that guys will understand that despite how much they want to enter the Tunnel of Love, and how much their body is telling them to “Go for It!” that they need to rationalize the reality that she is not ready to give it up. (Damnit Janet!! That was a very expensive meal I paid for!!!)

    Sam Harris, and others, are all making an assumption on where consciousness, which we still do not understand, comes from. And they make a good argument---I have the book, The Compass of Pleasure, and it puts a strong argument. But I can’t wholly agree.

    The assumption is that the whole conscious dynamic is centered in the conscious mind. Therefore if we witness physiological changes prior to that conscious awareness of thought, then existence preceded being. We had no Free Will. (However the worst problem is that this represents epiphenomenalism which I discussed in my previous post.)

    25 years ago, I would have bought into this hook, line, and sinker. But today I am an essentialist. I can no longer buy into the argument that existence precedes being. As you know I have had many experiences, and continue to have experiences that demonstrate the non-physical; that essence precedes existence. Only I know how long I tried to deny such things, how I tried to hold onto a rational world that made sense to the culture I was brought up in. They are things that you would have to experience for yourself, and you can if you wanted. The real point I am making though is that these things are my empirical evidence.

    One problem with Harris and the others is that their assumption forces them to draw conclusions from what may only be a small part of the conscious dynamic. If essence precedes existence then the physiological changes picked up on MRI’s would reflect a physical manifestation of a nonphysical event. The conscious mind is a nonphysical, but in these experiments, we seem to be aware of things after the physiological event. However, conscious awareness does not account for subconscious events, and yet such events would certainly result in physiological changes that would be measurable.

    One serious problem with the MRI’s and other data is that we cannot really know what the actual connection between the physiological change and the actual choice is. The subconscious mind could have triggered the physiological changes, by creating a ‘will’ to think, without actually making the choice. If this portion of the dynamic happened within the subconscious, then it would be prior to his awareness that the thought process had begun. In choosing a city, for example, there is no spot for Tokyo that is located in every brain in such a way that when it lights up on an MRI we could say this guy’s physical brain chose Tokyo. Subconsciously there may have been associations and complexes at work, inducing physiological changes, and subsequently presenting a set of available choices to the conscious mind, which consciously still made a conscious choice, determined through free will.

    At the beginning, I said that I had an impression of cities I liked---I chose that term to suggest the workings of a subconscious element---and I did come up with a few cities, from which I made my first choice. But I am still convinced that ‘I’ made the choice.

    (The subconscious associations and complexes, which Jung has made us aware of, are the reactions to, and lessons from, our environment, and the results of our personal history---but they too were developed based largely on past choices, including those of free will----they are, what Sartre would call, our historicity, and they may provide influence to our choices---but that still does not mean that my Free Will has been take away.)



    Please explain to me---how do we gain freedom by realizing that we have lost our existential freedom?
     
  6. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    "TRUTH of determinism" does not sound like an idiom to me. "It's raining cats and dogs" is an idiom. "It's LITERALLY TRULY raining cats and dogs" is a goofy 'Muppet Show' gag.

    It is a lie, it is a false assertion is exactly what it is. A real skeptic will call out any bullshit, even atheist bullshit. You simply can not prove determinism works in the realms of quantum physics and scope of human brain complexity. Determinism is a limited function with limited observable accuracy that decreases exponentially over time. You guys can fill the next 20 pages up with scientific research quotes and nothing will prove determinism exists on the level and accuracy to rule out free will.
     
  7. Mr.Writer

    Mr.Writer Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,286
    Likes Received:
    643
    The script is absolute. But don't think of it as a script, don't confuse determinism for PRE-determinism. There is no entity we are positing which has advanced knowledge of your actions, so in this sense there isn't a script for anyone to read. It's just that if you were to answer this question, you would not have had a choice in answering it, or in answering it in the way you did, because every antecedent condition of the entire universe lay behind you in producing that action. Perhaps even a "Great Attractor" in the future, as Mckenna thought, "the great transcendental object at the end of time", although this is a complication and we don't need it.



    I don't know why your responses to me are as though I'm preaching about atheism; I don't think atheism was brought up here at all until you did it, and we're having a great philosophical discussion here. Harris never says atheism in the video. Are you triggered? Do you need to go to your safe space?



    You're very good at the history of philosophy, but that topic does not interest me anymore, I'm more interested in philosophy.

    Epiphenomenalism sounds close to this, but not quite. remember that this is also coming from schools of philosophy dating back 4,000 years. i would suggest just working with the subject at hand and not getting bogged down by who said what back then and who disagreed with it etc. let's start fresh and address the argument.

    I don't believe consciousness is an illusion, and neither does epiphenomenalism; it merely believes that consciousness cannot affect physical systems. I do believe that consciousness can affect physical systems, so I am not of that school.

    However consciousness can be "really real", and consciousness can affect physical systems, and the statement "Everything is already happening, already decided, biochemically within the brain; you only think that you are thinking." is also true. The subjective experience of being an author of your thoughts and decisions is an illusion; that is the thesis here.



    Because according to our best rock solid data, nature does not decide anything nor does nature have a game plan for any of this; we evolved by natural selection and slow mutations over billions of years. This is like asking why bother giving us the color vision that we have? Why wouldn't nature allow us to see UV or IR? Because "nature" isn't a player here at all, only an anthropomorphized fictional character, and we have the vision that we have because that's what got us to this place.

    The sense of self, of autonomy, of decision-maker, may be a necessary curlicue in subjective experience to assure continuity of mentality; that is to say, it may not be possible to have a complex subjective space like we do without having the illusion that we are the authors of that space and its decisions.



    There is no illusion of results, there are only results. You being determined to eat a pizza today does not make that pizza or your experience of eating it an illusion; you still eat the pizza. The point is that if you do in fact eat a pizza today, then there was no other way the universe could have unfolded today.

    It does not follow from determinism that therefore there is a purpose. Determinism is merely the description of the fact that all events in the cosmos are completely based on antecedent events. Whether there is a purpose to all this or not is entering into the realm of theology and is now completely speculative.


    If you decide to believe that the universe must have a purpose, and you decide to believe that only sentient beings can produce purpose, then you have no choice but to believe that it must a big man in the sky who's purpose this all is.

    I do not believe the universe has a purpose in this sense. We have never found evidence for this, and all natural data points to a grossly unpurposeful state of affairs. Only humans can have a purpose that they themselves apply to themselves.








    I'm making the opposite claim; show me a single instance of free will. Pick one example where you definitely should be able to find free will, such as in deciding to pick a city. if you cannot find free will there, your idea is in big trouble.
     
  8. Rots in hell

    Rots in hell Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,133
    Likes Received:
    7,213
    Every Time This post comes up I think it says " Free Wifi "
     
  9. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Most empirical data suggests that Free Wifi is an illusion because it is dependent on the physical system that it emerges from. The paradox, and therefore the part of the philosophical problem of whether it is free or not, is that evidence shows that it is nonlocal in nature. It's almost as if any device in its vicinity can be influenced by its presence... ;-)
     
  10. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    It is a phrase that is VERY COMMON parlance in philosophy, even by those who don't necessarily ascribe to it. The fact you concede that we could post 20 pages of scientific research and you won't even consider it demonstrates how close minded you are on the topic, also makes me question how you go about accumulating your knowledge, seems a disconnect from the reliance on evidence you use when to support topics surrounding religion. But I digress... I'm talking about this from a philosophy perspective anyways.

    Here are some other snippets in philosophy that discuss the truth of determinism in various ways. Some of them even hint at your contentions but I post it to show that it is a common phrase.


     
  11. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    For clarification then, does this mean that we are discussing a philosophy that is dependent on the assumption that physical reality is an illusion and the only true reality is cosmic mind; and that man is trapped in a karmic chain of rebirth until he achieves both the highest caste and enlightenment at which time he is able to remerge with that cosmic mind?


    Actually, epi~ means above, and was used to mean that consciousness was above the phenomenal world such that phenomena was perceived, the brain then acted upon this phenomena based on pure physiological material responses, and consciousness was simply a mere observer working on the illusion that it was making choices. The philosophical conclusion of this was that consciousness itself was an illusion. You only thought that you were thinking. This fell back to Hume who said, mind has no substance and only material reality is true. (You said you did not want to speak of the history of philosophy, but the precedent is always important and has a place in philosophical conversation).

    Putting that aside, you are saying that consciousness can affect physical systems. So let’s clarify that, what physical systems can be affected by mind, that does not imply free will? (I will return to this later.)



    Whether we anthropomorphize nature or not, it does have a natural path, which is what I was referring to. Though if we are referring to Indian philosophy, we are in fact speaking in terms of a nature with a purpose, and that does have a natural element of decision because it represents the natural determinism of the universe.

    Putting that aside, evolution is how we are affected by the natural path. Evolution/nature tends to take the easiest path. Granted, it makes sense that we would have this as a defense mechanism giving us reason to live, but there is still a question of whether a physical process can develop such a complex non-physical structure as the mind.


    But aren’t we back to the same problem we had with the question, “How much of the decision is Free Will and how much is predetermination?”

    If researchers do an experiment where they use human intention to change the .ph of water (as in one of the experiments at MIT), and they do in fact change the .ph of the water, where they therefore meant to do that experiment at that time, and the .ph was meant to change at that time?

    Because even if the mind affects things nonlocally, and it was predetermined for them to do that, then it was also predetermined that the .ph would change at that time. But why was it predetermined so? Why wasn’t it predetermined that the .ph would not change at that time? The way it happened appears as if it was designed to show man has causal non local affect over his environment and the illusion of free will (i.e. that there is a purpose in the predetermination).

    When we ask the question why, it is not a simple answer like: “Why did he do the experiment? Because it was predetermined.” Instead it becomes a circular argument with the possible implication that the universe was predetermined to give results that would maintain such an illusion---which would be to say that there is purpose in the universe, which takes us back to the gods or god.

    And this is the problem I see if you still belief that the mind has an impact on material reality. It presents three possibilities:

    1.) That everything is predetermined and the mind only appears to have an impact on material reality.
    2.) That there is a causal relationship between mind and matter, and therefore not everything is predetermined (taking us back to the question of how much is predetermined, and therefore can there be free will?)
    3.) The Hindu response to this, I believe, would be that the material world is all illusion so the causal relationship upon the material world is illusory. It is all mind and in that it is predetermined. (Though I must point out that neither Hinduism or Buddhism are strictly deterministic. There are many sects and schools, and many traditions, and therefore man can have the free will to break or deepen the karmic chains depending on the scripture/sect.)

    Is there another possibility I am missing?
    I will throw you a bone though----there is the cosmological problem of entropy. Our understanding of the universe, based on our concept of time, is that the universe is a system of increasing entropy. We started out a singularity (the Big Bang) and are continuously moving into further and further diversity. The problem is that the math around diversity can go both ways, they haven’t been able to give it a direction, meaning that entropy can move in either direction. Time moving in both directions is the same as time not existing----which is what the case is in the realm of light, where, at the speed of light all time and reality happens in one infinitely small instant. But then you have to believe that time does not exist.

    My answer to that is that light is directional, and I believe in free will. The universe moving from actuality to potentiality.

    Anyway, I hope by starting over you are not intending to ignore the points of my post #85.
     
  12. Tigerlily67

    Tigerlily67 Members

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    No locality is where it's at
     
  13. Fantasm

    Fantasm Members

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if everything is predetermined, that doesn't mean man can't evolve to a point where he harnesses the potentials of non local consciousness. Probability can be tapped into with intention. If this tapping into the potentials of probability is predetermined it doesn't actually get rid of your autonomy. There's no point to cling to the deterministic view.
     
  14. Mr.Writer

    Mr.Writer Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,286
    Likes Received:
    643
    That's a nice 5$ word Chinacat. If you can explain how non-locality gets you free will, everyone is all ears. Show the money, don't just parade around buzz words you hardly understand.



    Whatever that means, if man does so, it is because there was no other way the universe could have occured.




    Probability doesn't get you free will; you trade the clockwork for the random. If you intend something, you couldn't do otherwise but to intend it, because every antecedent condition of the universe is behind that mental occurence.





    You can't both be autonomous and also have all your thoughts and actions be pre-determined; you are describing a square circle.




    It's not a view, it's a description of how the universe works, both objectively and subjectively. The idea here which people are clinging to without evidence is "Free Will"; the supposed ability to alter the course of the universe through intention, as though intention were not a part of the universe.

    You seem determined to continue creating countless new accounts and offering posts which are of even poorer quality than your original namesake. I wonder if you think you are actually fooling anybody into thinking these accounts are different people, or if at this point you are in full troll mode? I wonder if you have the introspective power to see that you can't do otherwise.

    MVW my reply to you will have to wait but it will come.
     
  15. BangkokCamp

    BangkokCamp Members

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose that we officially prove that determinism is the true nature of the universe, even though Quantum Mechanics has shown through multiple tests such as Alain Aspect's tests that the EPR is incorrect.

    Here's the thought experiment. I decide to open the door to a car. Whether it's officially proven that this was predetermined or that it was actually free will, either way, does this in any way actually change my experience of deciding to open a car door? This is why this fixation on determinism is irrelevant. My experience of free will is there whether you tell me it was determined or not.

    If I decided to stop creating accounts due to the moderators' suppression of of my ideas, then you would just say that was predetermined. It's a philosophical cop out and meaningless fixation. You could just drop the whole notion and your life would be fine. Whether we decide it's all predetermined or not, I'm still just choosing to open a car door because I decided to. Period. Constantly jumping back to "well something determined your decision" changes nothing about the experience itself.

    Speaking of showing the money, why don't you find those Hidden Variables if you feel so strongly that they are there? Or maybe you would prefer me saying "why doesn't the Universe predetermine your finding of those elusive Hidden Variables that all of Relativity and Determinism desperately needs to find for its argument to be valid and yet can't find it?"

    ACTUAL lack of free will would be deciding to open a car door and being unable to do so for whatever reason.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=square+circle+alchemy&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqzeKw9JTMAhWPth4KHdvjDTsQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=460&dpr=2#imgrc=8EPL8J8WqFcN8M%3A
     
  16. BangkokCamp

    BangkokCamp Members

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're arguing that intention and every other possible thing is part of the universe, and yet Free Will and autonomy are disincluded from the Universe. If everything is part of the universe, then EVERYTHING is part of the Universe, including Free Will
     
  17. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,486
    Likes Received:
    14,733
    I need to mow my lawn. I'll have to check later to see if I actually have done it.
     
  18. Joshua Tree

    Joshua Tree Remain In Light

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    I believe it is mostly a question of perception.

    If you perceive that you have free will, then you have free will.

    If you perceive that you do not have free will, then you do not have free will.

    Obviously there are fundamental subconscious psychological factors which drive all our behaviour, but I believe for the most part that free will is within our grasp.
     
  19. Mr.Writer

    Mr.Writer Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,286
    Likes Received:
    643
    A few confusions on your end; you haven't explained how QM has anything to do with this, so until you do so, I cannot address those references. Second, I cautioned earlier to avoid the mistake of thinking that determinism is the same as predeterminism; it's not. Determinism states that all events in the universe have antecedent conditions. That's it.

    Third, if you opened a car door, and then later I showed you a state of the art brain scan of your brain from 5 seconds before you opened the car door, showing that you were going to open that car door, I would hope this would be interesting to you. It would show you that actually your subjective experience of having the free will to open the car door is an illusion. You are correct, your experience of free will is there, but only if you don't engage in meaningful introspection, because the illusion can be dispelled subjectively with great effect.

    I think that anybody would care to know whether their experience of having free will is because they actually do have free will, or because their neurology is such that they are tricked into thinking they have it. Think of the implications for the majority of the human population who believes in a theology; think of the implications for the justice system; think of the implication for education, for spirituality, etc


    It shows the experience to be an illusion; it shows that you are not having a good model of the universe. It may be that believing you have free will is a great heuristic for living life on earth, and I would grant you this without squabble for this discussion, but if you're at all interested in what is really TRUE, then it should interest you to learn that actually your experience of free will has been a kind of self-inflicted hoax this whole time.



    Not at all; you could really have free will and be blocked from opening the car door through physical means for example. What I'm saying is that when you decide to open a car door, your neurology has already locked that decision in place "for you" a few seconds ago; you are merely witnessing yourself open the car door and witnessing the sensation of having decided to do so. We can explore this more, because this topic works well with case studies. Let's stick with choosing a city because it's so simple; why don't you explain to me at which point in that process does free will arise.





    I'm saying that the term "Free Will" is like the term "Square Circle"; it's english, it's even well structured, but it points to a null class of objects/events. It's an empty set; there are no phenomena which are members of the class "Free Will". Free Will is really even more incoherent than that, but for now this first level of conceptual failure will do.




    Determinism is not the same as Fatalism. Fatalism says that whatever you do, you're "doomed" to end up a certain way. Determinism says that whatever you do, you do it because of every antecedent condition which preceded that action; your action did not arise spontaneously out of nothing and for no reason; it was determined by the state of the universe prior to that action.

    If you want to mow the lawn, you still have to mow the lawn yourself; it's just that if you do, you do it because there was no other way the universe could have occured.



    I don't believe your reply is coherent; it would help if you define what you mean by "free will". I imagine that your definition of free will is such that it can't simply disappear by someone imagining they don't have it.

    You can pick one simple example of free will, something where we should definitely find it happening, and I can walk you through and show you that it's nowhere to be found.
     
  20. LuciferianPrivy

    LuciferianPrivy Members

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am siding with Niels Bohr moreso than Einstein in the EPR debate, so what I am saying is that all of the Deterministic interpretations of QM are relying on the Hidden Variables of the EPR, but they still have yet to be found. No Determinism = no lack of Free Will. Probability has to do with Free Will because Probability has to do with ​potential, and not determinism. Alain Aspect showed this in the early 80s through various lab tests.

    How does Non-Locality have to do with Free Will? Well I would have to get into Magick to go there, so I won't do that for now.

    I've never been impressed with the brain scan arguments that you're presenting. You can infinitely zoom in farther and farther into subtler and subtler observations of how your brain and body works, but there is still a non-moving Consciousness that is already there prior to even the most subtle aspect of a brain scan. This Consciousness is like darkness in the sense that no matter how fast that light moves and travels, the dark is already there, waiting for it. Or you could compare Space to this Consciousness. No matter how fast you can manifest something into being, Space is already just eternally there. In the same way, Consciousness is already prior and a witness to even the most subtle aspect of your neurology, and this Consciousness is the autonomous cause for any aspect of your life.

    Just because these brain scans show that your brain makes a decision faster than your body, doesn't mean anything other than that, and it doesn't mean that your autonomous Consciousness wasn't the original cause of your brain neurology.

    If you're interested in what is really true, then you need to accept that there are no found Hidden Variables on the Quantum Level. This means that Determinism is false. This means that you don't have a good model of the Universe.

    And despite what you said, Probability would imply that spontaneity IS the actual nature of things.

    ​​​Square Circle is an Alchemical concept as a matter of fact. Logic-addicts can't accept contradictions, but wise ones know that paradoxes usually contain truths. [​IMG]

     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice