See Alot Of Different Stuff Here So...

You are nothing but your environment; there is nothing separate from it. You are like an onion, rings upon rings of influence and confluence, with ne'er a core to be found. You can do what feels like to choose to be a cannibal this instant, sure, but do you have a choice in the choice you make? What does making that choice look like?

The guy who went on hunger strike . . . that is not an example of free will. We are talking about something much deeper than simply overruling primal impulses. I have a primal impulse to pounce upon and ravage attractive women who flirt with me . . . restraining myself does not prove I have free will; it merely points to other factors which bound by behavior, such as social norms, adherence to dating customs, loyalty to my girl, etc. Things I have no choice in whatsoever.

The guy who went on hunger strike had no choice but to go on hunger strike. The forces which pulled him to that eventuality were stronger than the forces which pulled him towards eating normally.

It's not just culture which stops you from being a cannibal in this moment; its every single moment of your entire life, its every single event that has ever happened. The entire universe is doing you exactly as you are right now, and to think that you can force yourself out of this torrent of causality is to be mistaken about your prowess.

The fact that we cannot provide a single example of free will, nor define it properly, does not bode well for this concept.

From a physics standpoint it also seems as though what we experience as time is really just another dimension, one which it is possible to go above and see the entire span of time . . . but if the entire span of time is available at all moments . . . how can you differ in what you'll do?

 

So you're saying that loyalty to your girl isn't a choice of yours?

We can provide examples of free will, but since it's a philosophical question only, there can always be a response to these examples which can argue otherwise.

Are you able to elaborate on the other question I asked you regarding the Determinism of chance?

Also, if it comes down to whether there is a Self or not, I would like you to repeat your experiment that you tried with me. When you look within, and don't find anything, is there or is there not an awareness present that's not finding anything?

I would agree that you are nothing but your environment and that there is nothing separate from it. This points back to the Self. The Ego is seen to be a shell and the One Self within all beings and things can then reveal itself. You first need to take the step of realizing no-self and then you can realize the Self. On a practical level the Self shows that the awareness within my cat is the same awareness as me, but functioning through a different form with different intelligence, instincts, etc.

While a wave is unique, it can be shown that it doesn't ultimately have an independence of its own. It is an expression of the Ocean.

The great interplay is that nothing is separate, and yet, you don't have to get rid of the Ego entirely. It still functions as a superficial sense of "me" and separation, which allows one the autonomy to move through the world freely, and potentially without the illusory identification with it that has so much suffering connected to this identification. It is at this point that the Ego can really be utilized with great autonomy.

 

I am enjoying the certainty with which you guys are presenting these ideas when the true reality is NOBODY KNOWS, at best we are blind men groping at and describing an elephant....LOL

but please do continue, mental masturbation is almost as enjoyable as the physical kind.

 

I don't think so. Nature and nurture are in the same boat. Neither one, nor any combination of the two, leaves room for free will. There is a parallel here to determinism and indeterminism. In that case again neither one, nor any combination of the two, leaves room for free will.

I would not say that, because I do not think that free will is a valid concept, philosophically or otherwise. I understand what is generally meant by "free will" so I can use it in a sentence, but I believe upon closer examination the term is revealed to be contradictory and nonsensical.

No I cannot. What is stopping me is that fact that I have no reason to make this choice. I can only chose to do things if I have a reason, and I do not get to chose if I have a reason or not. If I tried to do something just to prove that I could do something without a reason, then that would be my reason, and I would have proved nothing.

A difficult position in which to find certainty because we do not have any real theories of mind or consciousness. It would seem to depend on the complexity of the robot. I do not believe in an immaterial "soul" and I do believe that the brain is a computational device. It would follow from these two beliefs that it should be possible to construct a robot that would be worthy of the title of personhood. Not that it would be complex enough to be indistinguishable from a person. It would in every way be one. That is to say, in my view a woman's womb constructs a biological device (a baby) that upon reaching a necessary threshold of complexity (whatever that may be) becomes a conscious being. To me the word choice refers to a being that is "ruled from within" even in the absence of free will, and so robots can chose to move (even if only hypothetically because we perhaps have not made a sufficiently complex one yet. Although, lacking a true theory of mind or consciousness I do not think that humans can say for certain whether we have already built machines that are aware.)

 

Seeing as though almost every post in this thread is filled with question marks and statements like "In my opinion","in my view", and "it would seem", and also seeing that other posts in this thread (my earlier ones for example) contain statements like "I see we disagree and I'm not saying that my position is better than yours" I must say that I do not see the certainty that you are talking about. I have not seen much arrogance or ignorance in this thread. Just a few people casually discussing their beliefs and ideas, and hypothetical beliefs and ideas, offering points and counterpoints, and if I hazard a guess, enjoying it and probably not taking it to seriously. That has certainly been my purpose in this thread.

Also if people abstained from discussing things because the nature of the thing is uncertain then humans would pretty much never speak about anything ever again. Seems boring to me. Why talk about things if the truth is unknown? Probably for the same reason people keep living even though they will die one day. Because it is enjoyable.

 

This is why it's a pointless debate. We're inevitably going to get nowhere regarding free will vs. no free will. Which is why it doesn't matter.

Let's just pretend that tomorrow they officially release all over the news that there is no such thing as Free Will. What does this mean, exactly? Does this mean all the mass killings of 2015 should be dismissed? Should we start getting a Minority Report thing going where we create Pre-Crime to prevent things that nobody has control of? Would there be any control over Pre-Crime itself?

Does your lifestyle suddenly change if it is "proven" that there is no Free Will? Is the world truly any different one way or the other?

Or let's pretend the opposite. All over the news, tomorrow, they announce that Free Will is real. What's the difference?

 

It may seem a pointless debate when you are participating mainly with the expectation you will all agree with an absolute outcome in the end.

 

Really?
We must be reading different posts.
Most of the ones in this thread are the usual push and shove of ideas and opinions.
After a perusal of the thread, I am actually the only one that has used the phrase "In My Humble Opinion" when putting forward an opinion/idea concerning free will.

As far as the discussion itself being of value,....I did say masturbation was fun, didn't I?







as long as it doesn't become one of those epic "Tastes Great vs Less Filling" sprawling 50 page+, parse every sentence "debates" that thedope and Dejavu used to get into...... :argue:

 

it is good to think your own thoughts and reason with your own reason.
otherwise, well, your own is all you have.

 

If announced, the acknowledgement of free will wouldnt change anything. If it did that too happened as a consequence of "choosing" free will's announcement and subsequently nullifying the statement. All things are as they are meant to be in what time they occur. This entire concept is paradoxical, which points to a negative

 

Don't you think society is largely structured on the premise that people DO have free will?

If there were a way to prove that this is not the case and Assuming that the general populace grasped the implications, I think it might likely prompt MAJOR overhauls in many areas of society, potentially everything from the aforementioned justice system to schooling, to understanding relationships and so on.

 

Yes, but if so would still be the product of "choice" set in motion by other unchangeable events therefore removing the existence of the choice because any effects were inevitable due to the events

 

That sounds more like determinism rather than the concept of free will

 

In other words everything that happens is an unbreakable chain extending from the building blocks of the chain itself. No alterations will ever be made and none have

 

Define determinism, or your understanding of it. Im not sure what you mean

 

de·ter·min·ism
(dĭ-tûr′mə-nĭz′əm)
n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.


Clearly if you ascribe to this doctrine, there are some issues revolving around free will that follow but determinism might be a much more difficult thing to demonstrate.

 

Hmm i wasnt aware that was a term. Not quite. At the base, yes. However, the depth of the understanding surpasses the simplicity of determinism to encompass the multi-layering of reality to that of even if choice was made you would just be switching to one of many different paths existing in a multitude of infinity thereby still following course because not two of the paths exists. Meaning that freewill exists and doesnt at the same time. This is like a zen koan, because life is a zen koan. The point of all the koans and the idea of free will is to obtain understanding of paradox at its core, because that is existence.

 

However many teachings cant be learned, only felt. There is a difference of comprehension that words cannot demonstrate unless the proper conditions are met

 

causality determines not a streight line, but a statistical range of probable outcomes.
exitence has a lot of wiggle room, and within that, even without the operation of sapience,
there is a great deal of roll of the dice, which come up differently every time they are passed through.

 

Yes, but with all possible outcomes existing simultaneously, is there really probability at all?