Printable View
I challenge you to give me a situation in which it matters whether you have free will or not. First I want to say that people should be punished for bad things they did even without free will because if they do something bad it's likely that they'll do it again if unpunished. Punishment is not an enjoyable thing (generally) and the brain will want to avoid doing bad things if it leads to punishment.
How are you defining this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
No matter what anyone says, the other side of the arguement will be "we are all robots, souls are BS, neurons are in what ever postion they are in, quarks, blah blah, science...) So, arguement about IF free will is a thing is pointless, when the other side is going to claim we are biological robots.
What can we discuss that is even worth the time?
How about this? Teaching youth that free will is not a thing is destructive, regardless of IF it exists. You say punishment will deter crime. But that is simplistic and sounds sociopathic if it is the whole of the arguement. Sociopathic? As in, the only reason to avoid impulses such as rape, is the bad feelings or punishment that will arise as a result. It removes accountability, beyond fear of conciquence. If we believe in no free will, then we can excuse acting sociopathically, because we are just robots after all. How about general right and wrong? I will not rape this girl because that is horrible and wrong, not because I fear punishment.
To me, it's your answer that sounds simplistic. You seem to be saying that a simple knowledge of right and wrong is what is wanting in criminals, and that this knowledge will be sufficient to stop crime. That's incredibly naive and it's plain wrong. It is perfectly possible for somebody to know that something is wrong and yet still do it. Do you think somebody who mugs an old lady for their wallet just doesn't know that it's wrong?? Of course they know it's wrong. Knowledge isn't the problem, the problem is that the individual disregards this knowledge because of their selfishness. And once the crime has been committed, what would you have done? Are you saying you wouldn't punish them? Obviously you have to punish such people to deter them in future. Such people will always exist. It's a scientific fact that some people are inherently disposed towards selfish behaviour and lack empathy - extreme cases are called "psychopathy", and it's genetic. How do you propose to moderate these people's behaviour but by fear of reprisal? Punishment also serves the purpose of keeping the community safe during a period of incarceration, of providing redress and a sense of justice to victims, and potentially rehabilitating those who are capable of rehabilitation.Quote:
You say punishment will deter crime. But that is simplistic and sounds sociopathic if it is the whole of the arguement.
I am all for punishment and agree with al you have said. Please note this part "if it is the whole of the arguement."
I feel that those who want to argue that ALL of reality is the result of random particle physics and that no other outcome was every available since the Big Bang dehuminize people.
What is my point? While sociopaths and psycopaths need fear to hold back, it is useless and harmful in general to attempt to remove all concept of individual choice. It opens to many oppertunities for bad behavior. feeling that we can choose to do bad and therefore are personally responsible, regardless of if we get caught, is a useful tool for society.
sir sivason, don't you think it's more logical that everything is the result of certain physical principles? Because if you take that away, it becomes quite unclear what 'human' or 'free will' really means. I have nothing against the unknown and mysterious but I feel that you think the 'soul' or the 'real you' chooses to do something. I think that is unnecessarily mysterious.
I don't agree with your last part. I honestly feel that free will in the objective sense makes no sense at all. It implies something outside of physical reality deciding behaviour (the soul?). Saying free will is an illusion sounds a bit dramatic and I would say that free will is subjective. From our personal point of view and expierience we feel a very real sense of free will. I do feel responsible and accountable for my actions, I feel that every bad decision is my fault. Even though I believe that with enough knowledge all my thoughts and feelings and actions can be predicted with 100% accuracy, I still feel responsible. And I think that everybody (except for the mentally sick) will feel responsible regardless of any evidence that free will is purely subjective. I even think that sufficient knowledge will prove that people feel responsible and act as if they have free will.
I think you underestimate human goodness if you think that knowing free will is an illusion will ultimately be bad for society.
Here is what I am saying. Let us pretend you are proven 100% correct, and I am shown the proof. Now, let's say I am made into a powerful creator of some new space colony in that I can grow new biological persons from a vat and teach them what ever I want.
I would still choose to NOT teach what you had proven to me, as I feel belief in high powers or a soul serves a very valuable function. Yes, even if I knew it was untrue, I would instill in my new world a belief in some sort of battle of good vs bad and a higher directive than just science.
Not being able to argue a topic like this (or shared dreaming/ aliens/ the existance of anything spiritual) I am going for the part where you ask "if it matters."
Does it matter to the particle physics itself? Probably not. Does the belief that you are wrong matter? Maybe.
Nope, not for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
It appears that we disagree on a deep level.
Sure, but that is one of the fun things about free will OR the subjective appearance of such, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
It is a neat topic and I hope some other people will respond to your OP.
Thanks for taking the time to make some new threads lately.
So do you not have a definition of free will, Ginsan?
Sure sivason I love this forum and the fact that I can ask any kind of wild question and have interesting discussions about it. And also the friendly atmosphere maintained by moderators like you! I think a community like the one on this website is priceless :D
Mr statue, free will: the freedom to act independant of anything except for what "you yourself" "want".
When would anybody not according to their wants (unless they were being coerced)?
I can't answer your question directly. If you agree that all behaviour can be predicted with sufficient knowledge, then in a way, everybody is always being forced because they never really had a choice because it is predictable. But then every behaviour is always forced and then the term 'forced' doesn't mean anything anymore. I think objectively everybody is always being forced (by the laws of nature) and subjectively nobody is never being forced because it always feels like you made a choice.
But the fact that you were always going to choose according to your wants does not mean that you did not in fact choose according to your wants.
But does the fact that wants are predetermined and can be predicted not change the idea of 'wants'? You are absolutely right. It does mean that you choose according to your wants. But now wants becomes something as a product of many many things happening according to the laws of nature. And not a desire of the soul, or something mysterious like that.
Why not both? Well, I wouldn't call it the "soul", that word can lead to even more confusion. Let's just refer to "ourselves", that is to say, our thinking beings (which clearly exist). Things are (for the sake of argument) predetermined, but they're also still a result the "desires" of "myself". These aren't mutually exclusive.
But I think that those desires and "myself" are also predetermined.
Yes?
Let me answer your question that caused these last few posts.
"When would anybody not according to their wants (unless they were being coerced)?"
Never.
So by the definition you chose, we always have free will.
If free will means that you decided according to your wants, then yes. This is a very interesting conclusion. Because if wants are predetermined, and free will is acting according to your wants, then I don't even know what free will means.
EDIT: If predetermined wants are the precursor and predictor of what a free willed person will do, then free will is subjective, which I already said in my second post
Does it change if we choose what we do not want? probably not, there must be a reason that negative choice is made. Just a thought.
I don't think it changes anything. One thing I find really interesting is that this realization that everything might be pretermined makes me feel even more strongly about properly guiding my own actions :P I should ask a neuroscientist about this..
It means precisely that. Personally I'm perfectly happy with having free will by this 'parsimonious' definition; I don't see any problems at all. I make decisions based on my desires: I weigh up the pros and cons, in view of my personal desires and my moral beliefs, and I make a choice. It was my thought process and my agency. What more could you want? Yes, it may well be the case that my thought process and its outcome could in principle have been predicted at a prior time... but of what consequence is that? In my view it's rather strange to desire the contrary; to desire that the outcome be incapable of prediction at a time prior to its occurrence -- strange because it just seems rather superfluous, and of no import; why does it matter? I think when people consider that their decision was predictable, they get this idea in their heads of a runaway train on rails, and in that image there seems to be no element of choice, and they perceive a contradiction. But that's simply a contradiction in terms. There is a choice. The image is simply broken: a runaway train is not an agent capable of contemplation and of making decisions. But we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Yes, yes! I completely agree. Perhaps I was lacking the intelligence to be as articulate as you, but this is exactly why I said that free will is completely irrelevant.
So in your first post, you were kind of using "free will" to refer to this element of unpredictability. I see. :)
Exactly! :cheers:
We live in a mathematically calulable universe is all. Has nothing to do with free will :P
Sivason had something. If we can determin what we do not want. And determin what we do want. Is that not a relevant use of free will?
I mean.. I could very well choose to sit here. Do nothing.
I could choose to explore the city and expand my choices dramatically.
What I choose for is relevant. What I want at this point is wolly and truthfully irrelevant. Because I do not know what is outside, so I do not know at this point whether I want any of the millions of possibilities. I can only make a (by comparison with reality) completely unnacurate prediction of what awaits in the outside world. And base my wants on a fiction.
Yes what you choose is relevant, but (if prediction is possible, and I don't claim to know for sure that it is) that choice is still pretermined.
But I don't understand what you mean by your last paragraph. Maybe it's because I am sleepy so I apoligize but I'm going to bed :P
important piece of the last thingy is that prediction is not possible. you can only Judge by the information you have at hand. Atleast, I think so.
I see, but if you have all the information at hand you should be able to make a 100% accurate description, right?
Yes. But try gathering all the information and memorize it. :P
It does matter if you have free will or not, because it is possible to lose your free will. Free will obviously exists because there are drugs that will take it away and make you act in all sort of strange ways, which can have many bad side effects.
As for all the predetermined stuff, if free will existed then everything would be predetermined. Free will is all about making choices and these choices are based off who you are. Meaning if someone knew everything about you, they should be able to predict what you would do. On the other hand, if it was impossible to ever predict what a person would do, then what would that mean? That they are making random choices not based on their past experiences, personality and other factors like that? If you are making random choices then you don't really have free will, you are not choosing anything, you receive some random thought and then do it.
If free will does exist, and I believe it does, then your choices should be predictable because you are making the choice.
Think about it like this, if there is a thousand clones of you that are exactly like you with all the same experiences and they are all placed in exact situations, they should all act the same. They should all act like you and make the choice based off who they are. If you did that and they all picked random choices then free will wouldn't exist and any choice you made would be meaningless.
A thought:
Look at the illusion below, play with it. See the arrows going left, hold it. Then, look at the arrows going right and do whatever you want.
http://cpfunfacts.weebly.com/uploads...6_orig.jpg?253
Now, At any particular moment, what has predetermined you to see the arrows going in the direction that you did? Neither side has any importance. You're just playing, changing perspective, observing them, playing. Nothing in your past (that I know), is affecting your choice.
Life is the same way. One event can be seen through multiple, infinite, perspectives. You can choose which perspective you see. You can alternate between them. In 10 minutes, I can play through 3 different perspectives of my present moment, and feel deep awe for each. And what has predetermined me from seeing any of these perspective at any specific moment? And then, I can choose which perspective I hold, and when I change. It's a game, in a way, a game with Life. :)
To say that I have 100% freewill is simplistic. To say I have 0% is also simplistic. Edit: Not that anyone before me has shown a simplistic approach to the argument, the discussion was very interesting :)
If I respond to you two, Alric and Occipitalred, I'll just be repeating what I already said. You can call me rude but I think it's more rude to just ignore you. So with all due respect, please read the previous page :P
I feel like scientifically testing how free will could be relevant. If its exists at all.
As a cruel scientist that we are let's take a rat and put it in a cage.
In it it has 2 exits.
One leads back to the same cage. And is sprinkled by pieces of cheese. And never runs out.
One leads to a cage with 100 female rats and an infinite amount of quality cheese.
Which one is the rat most likely to take? How many times will he do it?
I think the rat will be perfectly happy given his ability to make choices but remain completely oblivious that there's a world of possibilities in another route. All he needs to do is exercise a little bit of free will.
It gets even more cruel when you safeguard the other exit with a tiny shock. The rat is even less likely to ever take the route. But if he soldiers through the shock makes it to rat heaven.
Thank you for responding Ginsan, I don't think it was rude. :)
I did read every single post, and thought it was appropriate to post what I posted, except, thinking back to it, maybe it was my final statement "To say that I have 100% freewill is simplistic. To say I have 0% is also simplistic." that seemed to make it sound as if I missed the divert and high quality conversation that had taken place. Sorry for that. :P
Edit: Oh, or maybe you were just saying that you had nothing to add to the conversation, you said everything that you had to say before. Silly me. :P
Yes, this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sivason
And this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sivason
If two parties do not agree on the fundamental worldviews (or do not acknowledge understanding of them), it's basically impossible to hold a useful philosophical discussion. All differences in rhetoric, argument, examples, terms, semantics, nuance, connotation, all come down to the basic underlying worldview in the end.
I do not accept the premise that life is robotic fizzing towers of chemicals, because to me the inevitable conclusion is that life does not matter and serves no point. The fact that there is universal value ascribed to life to me is sufficient proof that it is a fundamental aspect of reality & truth. Arguments that the value we place on life is "simply a quirky byproduct of an evolutionary compulsion for survival" hold no sway with me because in the end, it all comes down to pointlessness. There is no *point* to continue living if in fact the sum-total of our selves is just that we are only strangely shaped chemical soup.
I also think that consciousness and meta-reflection are counter-examples to pure materialism, but again I think that flows from the fundamental first principle that life matters and that there is more to truth than the merely physical.
(What is "physical", by the way? atoms? quarks? strings? sub-strings? Doesn't that bother the materialists? That as soon as delicate enough instruments are constructed that we *always* discover yet another more fundamental building block? Have you ever read the "Midnight at the Well of Souls" series? What if all "matter" and "physical laws" in fact existed solely because some super computer/being "wills" it to exist?)
Science is cool and all, but it is and always will be limited to "what?" and "how?" (and it does a pretty poor job of those, see the above "what is physical"), and never "why?"
How do you reconcile your dissent with the fact that it is observed to be the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
Your "fact" is simple assertion. "Scientific observation" is simply an extension of the physical senses. Using sensors that are incapable of measuring certain phenomena is a poor argument for their non-existence. It's like looking for your glasses under the streetlight even through you dropped them in your doorway "because the light's better here."Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
edit: And, BTW, this is an excellent example of what sivason initially stated, and I agreed with:
If you have a fundamental worldview based on the belief that there is nothing beyond the "physical" (whatever that is!), there basically is no profitable conversation to be had with someone who has the fundamental worldview based on the belief that there are phenomena beyond the physical. You're making an assertion basically of your worldview. It is incompatible with mine. That's really probably all that can be said about it.
I disagree. Your example is interesting, but I believe you may have the outcomes reversed. Free will implies that some force deeper within is able to make decisions to the best of their ability. If you were to clone someone and expect those clones to act exactly the same, you are disproving free will. You are essentially showing that choices are the human brain's way of coping with obstacles based on past experiences, chemical processes etc. you take away that extra something that makes us, us. However, if you were to clone someone and the clones acted differently... This I believe would show the existence of free will. It would defy what a clone should be. Or they're defective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Planeswalker, I wouuld take into account the environment has on the electrochemical soup that we call a brain. Mirror neurons effectively mimic this environment. A clone born in even a slightly different timeframe could have drastically different environmental factors that changes the chemical makeup of our body. Assuming that Genetics and Predisposed folding of Proteins act as the blueprint for one's personality. You could get an exact copy but You would have to have been born in exactly the same environment and get the same kind of nurture for it be even physically possible to be an EXACT copy of an Original.. Otherwise, minute changes in the brain caused by at the least mirror neurons will make for a different chemical makeup fairly quickly. Just adding to the depth of the question here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanesWalker
Free will in purely biological terms may be irrelevant. But I think that if some kind of free will exists as a ghost in the machine-style sort of thing then there remains a ghost that is able to direct physical changes. Maybe to the ghost it does not matter what happens to the machine and to the machine it does matter what happens to the ghost because the ghost is affecting the machine. but the ghost is only temporarily. I feel like talking about free will on this thread basically boils down to talking about the amounts of free will that exists or rather does not exist. Free will in this case matters to the extent to what amounts of free will the ghost has on the machine and vice versa... Including the environmental factors. Because the two are basically co-dependant. The ghost is rather detached, since it is somehow able to be free'd from much of the biological constrains. Maybe it's possible if it exists in a superposition of states. obviously affected by biology but not limited to it. A quantum particle is able to exist in both places at the same time i.e. without the constraints of silly physical laws like the speed of light. These puny laws don't stop a particle from coming into existence and literally making physical changes instantly, theoratically from across the entire span of the universe. And even from the vacinity of other dimensions. So perhaps in another dimension completely detached from reality here there is a twin particle completely free of physical laws from this reality. In this hypothetical situation the twin particle is affected by biology in this world, it is not completely free of it. But there is no way of knowing what effects the physical laws on his world, free from chemical soups like our brain can do for us. Well there is, but we certainly aren't there yet.
So quickly this thread has become so full of crap that before pointing out all the nonsense I would probably pull out every single hair on my head. And I have a really full head of hair.
You didn't actually try to answer the question. You made it about me, but the question was about you. All aspects of life arise because of physical processes. This isn't a "simple assertion", it's a statement about observations. How do you explain these observations?Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
You repeat your worldview assertion again. You did not ask a question, you asked how I can reconcile my worldview with the fact that you have a different worldview. And I pointed out that that cannot be done because we do not have a common basis for discussion. It's different than say a discussion about mathematics because the foundation, the set of axioms upon which all is built, are well-defined and can be seen and agreed on by all beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe
You can make a statement that "some aspects of life arise from physical processes and can be measured with physical instruments" and I'd agree with it. But not all. Mind, consciousness, love, etc., defy physical explanation. Heck, what we term physical matter itself very likely may not even have a "physical" basis at all if you go down small enough, and is there any indication that the scale of building blocks has a limit? The only limit is in our ability to measure it with current instruments.
They don't defy anything. It just can not be explained yet. That doesn't mean it can never be explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
That's just not true and no scientist has ever said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
YES THERE IS. You should look it up, the planck length is there shortest known possible length. This is not 100% true, and NOTHING is 100% true, but it is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
You shouldn't make these claims if you haven't spent any time actually trying to prove or disprove them.
I made no such claims, I raised a question. I made an observation that as instruments improve, there doesn't appear to be any fundamental building block, we continually discover new ones, and new theories arise to explain the possibly smaller building blocks, and so on. To me it suggests "reasonable doubt."
You continue to show sivason's original comment as correct. It all comes down to the fundamental belief that all reality is based only on what we currently term the physical, and so even when you don't have an explanation for them, you believe that there is one! Just as I believe there isn't. And "explanation" still only ventures into theory, e.g., love: many claim it is only chemical. Anyway, round and round, I think I'll return to the dreaming side of the site....Quote:
They don't defy anything. It just can not be explained yet. That doesn't mean it can never be explained.
I hope you really do return to the dreaming side and stay there.
Ginsan is like a kid that can't win :P
lol
And you've made it about me again. I did not espouse any worldview, I just asked how you account for a set of observations. Observations are not a worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingMan
Now you're just being argumentative. That looks like a question to me. I used a question mark, and even you said I was "asking". How can you ask something if it's not a question? Please don't try to argue this point any further, it's a waste of time.Quote:
You did not ask a question, you asked how I can reconcile my worldview with the fact that you have a different worldview.
On the contrary, there are numerous observations which show that subjective phenomena, loosely termed "mind", are the result of physical objects. For instance,Quote:
You can make a statement that "some aspects of life arise from physical processes and can be measured with physical instruments" and I'd agree with it. But not all. Mind, consciousness, love, etc., defy physical explanation.
Altogether, these observations clearly demonstrate that mental activity is caused by and inextricably linked with physical phenomena.
- Physical trauma to the brain causes profound mental effects, including change of personality, loss of memories, loss of cognitive faculties and changes to perception. These changes are predictable, as specific areas in the (physical) brain has been found to correspond to specific faculties.
- Chemical agents can alter the behaviour of neural activity in a way we understand, with corresponding changes in mental experience. For example, the molecule LSD.
- Scans of the electrical activity of the brain provides further evidence that specific perceptions and specific cognitive faculties are localised to specific (physical) neurons. This is being perfected to the extent that scientists can now use the physical brain activity to produce images that the percipient is viewing. Different mental states, such as unconsciousness, can also be viewed.
- Electrical stimulation of specific regions of the brain causes the experience of the percepts, emotions, and memories associated with that region.
I don't really know how you're using "physical" in this context. How are you defining it? What does "physical matter has no physical basis" mean? How could we establish whether it did or didn't?Quote:
Heck, what we term physical matter itself very likely may not even have a "physical" basis at all if you go down small enough, and is there any indication that the scale of building blocks has a limit? The only limit is in our ability to measure it with current instruments.
In this case "They Don't defy anything" is an assertionQuote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
We can not know if it defies explanation since we haven't found one. Chances are at this point equally so that we may never will find an ultimate explanation for mind,consciousness the whole shebang.
Even of you define it as a quantum probability, or imaginary speaking if we define consciousness as an invisible teapot. Then we still haven't defined mind itself. it remains elusive.
You want to hear some interesting assumptions that have no scientific basis? Dthoughts and FryingMan is too stupid for me and it's a complete waste of my time and energy to talk to you = D :D
Well I did take the time and effort to respond to your challenge by giving examples where free will is relevant. I even went as far as to take into account punishment and reward into a plausible model of behaviorism in rats. Something you seemed to be alluding to in ur OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
I am guessing the reward for winning ur challenge and actually handing you a situation where free will actually is relavent constitutes being called stupid and unworthy in ur almighty godly presence. But I guess you didn't expect that.
Ah well.. I don't even care anyway. :chuckle:
That makes two of us :chuckle:
No harsh feelings ;-)
Ofcourse not :)
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I was perhaps imprecise in my original statement.
I should have said "I reject the premise that the *sum-total of all that we consider "life"* is ONLY a tower of fizzing molecules*: that it ONLY is physical explained ONLY by the material". Of course life *includes* the physical, and the mechanism of how our personalities/mind are observably expressed are AFFECTED by the state of our physical brains.
But that in no way shape or form allows for the conclusion that there is ONLY the physical. I will allow that in this universe, at least the physically observable portions of it, existence/mind is *expressable* through material forms, but doesn't prove that it is the foundation or even the ultimate source of it.
And Ginsan, you're a bit of a jerk it turns out.
I don't really want to get into personals and all. But lest be honest here, I really came to philosophize as a layman in the field in it's absolute of the sense. I mean, i loved the greeks and all but I coulden't understand much of a word of what they where saying. Maybe PLato has some fun ideas that I like but that's it. So hopefully you understand I am realy just a toddler trying to play in this field here.
I'm not into materialism OR immaterialism. Don't get me wrong. It doesn't even have nothing to do with this thread so I'm not even fishing for replies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denziloe;2148304
On the contrary, there are numerous observations which show that subjective phenomena, loosely termed "mind", are the result of physical objects. For instance,
[LIST
But here's a nugget: Insight into the nature of reality,angels and god is a feature that comes with having spiritual experience.
People experience the same kind of spiritual insight in Epilipsy. A state of extremely high brain activity
And Near death experience. A state of extremely low brain activity
Where does this evidence fit in the brain model of consciousness?
I try to honestly express myself most of the time and if you feel that I'm a jerk, well thanks, that's an interesting piece of information.
It makes no sense to me that there is more than the physical. What the hell does that even mean?
Dthoughts as far as I know neuroscience has little to tell us about consciousness so I'm not going to try and say anything about it either.
LINK: Wave
Read this for reference to matter perhaps not actually being composed of matter on the sub atomic level. Next look at E=MC2 which says matter is composed entirely of energy, even if that energy is somehow condensed into matter. Then look at the Big Bang theory. It claims all of the universe started as energy and even laws like gravity and electro-mag formed from that energy.
Some point for anyone to address.
1) Is this supposed to be some belief in science? If so, how can you claim something does not exist with any conviction?
refer to this:
Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Is it scientific to discount anyone's theory because the technology does not exist to do the testing? How would that differ than saying radio waves did not exist before they were proven to exist?
2) How can anyone who claims to base their world view on science claim to be atheist instead of agnostic? I mean that claiming you do not believe in anything spiritual is not in line with science, as where claiming you do not know and doubt such things can be measured meets with my understanding of logic and scientific conclusion making.
This seems to make atheism a religion. See definition 4 in Webster's
___ a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
It takes faith to claim something many millions perceive is not real, when such things are unmeasurable by definition, and therefore is not adequately explored or tested
Your "honesty" includes base personal rudeness and insults when none were offered to you before, right there in your last couple of messages. That's sort of the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
This just made me laugh :) (edit) I didn't read the conflict beforehand though, I am not encouraging it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
To add to what's been said previously, let's see if you can picture this (don't believe it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Matter is conserved. It can't be created or destroyed. (Law of conversation of matter).
Energy is conserved. It can't be created or destroyed. (Law of conversation of energy).
Than, what of our consciousness, of that thing people call the soul, this which would be the source of free will? Why would this be created and destroyed every time a person is born and dies. Following the logic of everything else, it should also be conserved, recycled.
Another point is, you know of the attractions and repulsion at the atomic level such as nuclear forces, the molecular level, such as electrostatic level, at the big level of planets, gravity, and why not of the soul/consciousness: karmic laws, which guide the soul from body to body, or guides the events that will happen in it's life.
I think this is easy to understand, the goal here is not that you believe this, just that you understand this is how some people see this, and it's not all that far-fetched.
Consciousness is something. It obviously exists, it's the only thing we can truly know. Therefore, and since science still doesn't understand it, people call it the soul. And be sure not to confuse consciousness with perception. Robots can perceive light, but do they experience it consciously like we do? I don't think so.
Anyways, it isn't too far-fetched that there would be rules for consciousness, and abstract things such as love when there are new forces that emerge in the bigger picture (like gravity) which isn't there at the molecular level.
I'm glad I made you laugh and also that you said I don't have to believe it, because I think you're just making senseless extrapolations and going into mysticism :P
Hey guys, just a reminder that personal attacks and insults are not allowed. So let's keep this discussion civil :)
I'm very curious about this thread, and in particular, what we believe to be be the self or "soul," and how science has measured that. I've noticed Denziloe's suggestion that consciousness can be quantified. I would agree to some extent that "free will" is a myth. Our choices are of coursed based off of genetic coding and biological predisposition, but on the other hand, they are encoded based on culture, class, and innumerable other stimuli that both consciously and unconsciously filter in. If we think of free will as completely independent of external or internal phenomena, then I think that is obviously a fiction.
However, it does not seem that the self is entirely quantifiable. Western science mistakes "self" as primarily being the false self, constructed of thought, emotions, and memory. Anyone who has experienced lucidity can parse out that our sense of "self" is entirely a mental construction. But there have been cases of people being "aware" in coma states (no brain activity) as well as the yogis who can rest in non dual awareness on a moment-to-momement basis. This is awareness without the constructed self, and is not based on brain activity. But I'm not sure this awareness has free will in the way we normally define it.
Here is a thought I have honestly been playing with, so I hope it is not offensive.
I believe that a sense of self comes from two possible sources. The first and most undeniable is the biological functions of an animal body. This is easy to understand. It is neurons and chemicals and conditioned response. Just as a robot can become increasingly complex, a biological machine (animal) can experience things such as fear and affection. Fear evolves because it is helpful in avoiding injury, and affection because mammals who tend and care for offspring have more offspring successfully reaching breeding age.
The second source of self would be any perceptions that come from other sources. We can look at this as "transmitted signals." The source of the "other" signal could be speculated on another thread. Now, we will make a metaphor using a lap top computer. It has hardware that can account for most of its functions, such as video processing and memory storage (that is like the biological animal body). However, with the lap top we have at least two other factors that can effect what the computer does. We have wi-fi, and external data received through the keyboard or controllers. This will be my metaphor for anything non biological effecting the program.
While we understand wi-fi and data entry, from the point of someone examining the hardware only, it would not explain any intelligence out side of the lap top. Devoid of any understanding the receiver inside the lap top would not seem to have a function, nor would the key board, as the lap top has no means of pressing the keys.
So, where am I going with this?
The lap top can have programs stored that allow every one of its functions to work, just like the biological animal body does. You can find a reason the screen lights up, you can find a reason it goes into sleep mode. You can find a reason the animal experiences fear, and a reason it enjoys the opposite sex.
The computer and the animal are completely capable of functioning with out outside influence.
That does not suggest that outside influence is not an option. Now let's think about video games. The lap top can have a program that allows it to run through a game either using preset logic or a random number generator. However, a thing (teen age boy) outside of the hardware may enjoy taking control of the game by using the keyboard and mouse. If we could only examine the hardware, we would not understand the source of the new inputs. We may be able to detect the keystrokes, but not the source.
Now, back to "the self" The self could either be the programs running in the lap top, or it could be the programs plus the external sources influence.
Now for the part I hope will not be hurtful.
Why do so many people claim with faith that they 'know' they have a soul and free will? Perhaps these people are like the computer that has someone at the controls.
Why do some people claim they can detect nothing in themselves that would lead them to believe in such a thing? Perhaps these people actually do not.
I am not trying to be cruel. I am saying biology can explain intelligence and probably all other perception with in limits. So, if a body was not inhabited by a soul it could still interact and even possibly win a noble prize, but it would simply cease to exist upon death.
However, that does not discount the idea of sometimes there being more to the story.
If you feel convinced nothing outside of the physical/ biological construct exists, perhaps it is because for you it does not.
Perhaps with those in which more exists they can tell this and therefore need no proof.
What could that source be, as far as a mechanism. We hit the same wall here. Those who want to believe nothing else exists, reject all suggested mechanisms. I must say, I feel they knee jerk reject honest possibilities as they do not want to "loose" the debate. It is impossible to explore the idea at that point.
One member offers an idea that has reasonable merit in view of modern theoretical physics (maybe one of the actual Doctors of such physics could frame it with more evidence, but we are just people on a forum, not writing thesis)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
To this honest attempt to express a potential mechanism we get this,
So Ginsan, let me know what is wrong with the following theory,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
Theory: Modern theoretical physics suggests there may be "other dimensions" being things that exist in states other than matter. What the things are is yet to be defined or understood. Let's use this link as a possible example of such theories: Large extra dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If we do not understand what exists other than physical matter, we can postulate that consciousness may exist in forms other than physical matter.
sivason, in studying the brain, no neurologist has come across anything outside the physical world. They might not understand fully how consciousness come about because it's very complex but that doesn't mean they don't know anything. They understand a bit about how emotions come about, fear, happiness, what chemicals are involved. There is just no reason to think it is outside the physical world or even outside the brain.
Also in the last part about other dimensions, there is no need to get all mysterious. When they say other dimensions they simply mean another direction, another spacial dimension. You have left-right, back-forth, those are the 2 spacial dimensions on a drawing or on a computer screen, a mirror. In the real world there is a another spacial dimension, you can go up and down. These 3 spacial dimensions are what we can see and in theory, you can have more. A new direction. This doesn't make any sense because we live in 3 spacial dimensions, a new direction sounds ridiculous but you know that in math you have 3 coördinates, x, y and z. You can just add a new coördinate and that's why you can have theories with more than 3 spacial dimensions. I don't see a reason to say that things exist in states other than matter or to say that consciousness exists in other states than matter. There are many videos about this and you go to Youtube and search "carl sagan 4th dimension", he has a 9.30 minute video explaining 4D.
And I have one more thing. I think science can never ever give a satisfying explanation of consciousness because I think it is not nearly as mysterious or mystical or spiritual as some people seem to think. I think it simply emerges when you combine many different senses, emotions, all kinds of sensory things. I don't even think consciousness is a specific thing. I don't think that there is a clear dividing line of what is conscious or not. When neurology is done, when it is completed and just completely understood, the majority of people will still not be satisfied with the explanation. That's what my gut feeling tells me. Just look at religion. I think when the brain is fully understood, people will still keep trying to get all mysterious about it, just like theists today.
I don't want to interfere with the conversation taking place but I would like to comment on that sentence, Ginsan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
The way we measure things is by "absorbing" them. To see light, a photon must be absorbed by something which can be affected by light. For chemicals, it's the same. To measure something, what is being measured needs to have an effect on the measuring device. Machines cannot be affected by consciousness, they cannot absorb it (not yet anyways), because that's just not what they are built for. The brain, however can. And that is why, the only thing which can measure consciousness is brains themselves, thus why humans claim that it exists and machines only claim increased blood flow, or electrical voltage changes because that is all that can affect them.
(Oh, Sivason, those were some evil ideas that you put forth. It would explain why some brains (people) don't claim soul-like consciousness/free will. But I don't think it is a practical worldview that I wish to nurture, although to play with it was interesting, disturbing. :P)
Okay, go on.
Occi, it is true that in order to measure something it needs to affected/be absorbed by the measuring device, but consciousness is not one thing. It is a combination of many things. Even light is not a thing that can be measures, it consists of many photons and there are many many different kinds of light. But even a photon can not be measured. You can measure the amount of photons, you can make measurements on the physical properties, its mass (0), its electric charge (0), according to Wiki it has two possible polarization states, its spin is 1, its parity is -1, its C parity is -1. These are physical properties of a photon that can be measured, it makes no sense to say that a you're going to measure a photon. And it makes no sense to say that consciousness can be measured.
I guess, Ginsan, that you are saying that all we will ever achieve is to measure "properties" of consciousness. Such as increased blood flow. Than, you were also right in your post before when you said people will never be convinced by scientific data, because increased blood flow will never be a satisfactory description of everything they experience.
About this whole argument, Ginsan, I'm going to say, I personally like to change perspectives all the time, and to alternate between them. I sometimes believe in the soul, sometimes I believe exactly what you believe. But, when I do believe in the soul (which I define as the conscious/free will aspect of my self), it is practical, this perspective helps me. And that's why I come to it often. It's all about playing with different myths. They have power over us, not mystically, simply in a very obvious way. Again, this argument is just "Do you believe there is more than what can be observed or do you not?" so I guess we're all here for the entertainment. I'll just share a story, then. I don't know if this is related to what we're talking about, it's just a childhood story that I find interesting to think back to.
When I was a kid, between 4 and 9, the age where kids start to build a self-concept, well, I kept having this very deep and disturbing question. It always came back and I could never answer it. No other question has ever made me feel this before. It hurt a little bit. I never shared my question to anyone because it would sound stupid, and I couldn't even really put it into words, but here it is, my best attempt: "How is it, that I am experiencing this? Experiencing me? It makes no sense that every day, it's always me. In movies and TV-shows, you get to see everyone, the story flows between everyone, so why is the show of this life only about me? What is it, that I am condemned to this? Why am I not conscious of every single person's experience? Why do I always wake up, in this body?". I felt trapped. Felt like someone was watching, but no one was.
Anyways, I like to think back to that time, I think it's when I was discovering my own consciousness (not talking mystical here). I'd like to hear your own story, Ginsan. I've never heard someone else talk about how they felt about their sense of self as they were growing into a child.
According to my brother I have bad memory and I don't remember anything of my childhood. My memories start around 10-12 years old :P As far as I remember I have always been a bit goofy, always honest and curious, always joking around and making people laugh with good jokes, bad jokes or making fun of myself. When I was about 14 or 15 my dad thought it would be good to try Judo, because I quit soccer and I had to have something to do. Around that time I started watching japanese cartoons where they have heroic actions and the good guy beating the bad guy against all odds, nearly dead at the end of the fight. Things like that really fired me up so whenever I had a hard time during Judo training (every single training) I would remember the cartoons and give some extra effort. Around 16 I started practicing Taekwondo and I around 18 I quit both. I don't remember why I quit Judo but I quit Taekwondo because everybody else left :P So that's one part of me. Another part is that I always watched tv programmes about science, where they talked about black holes, all kinds of stars and planets, other galaxies and stuff like that got me interested about science and satisfied my curious mind. I think cartoons had a big influence in my sense of friendship and honesty, personal integrity and never giving up in hard situations.
The cartoon that influenced me the most was Gintama. It is hilarious and the first time I watched it (I have seen the whole thing 3 times now) almost every episode made me laugh so hard that my stomach hurt :chuckle: But it also has serious parts and sometimes they bring up the idea of a soul. The literal translation of Gintama is silver (gin) soul (tama). Tama also means balls :P Here something the main character said, I wrote it down on a piece of paper and put it in my violin case and I read it occasionally. He was about to go into a fight where he would be outnumbered and overpowered for the sake of somebody he only met 1 day ago and he was probably going to die. Somebody asked him why and he saidWhen I am lost in life and confused I just remind myself of what I learned from Gintama and it provides a small, but bright guiding light. When I am enjoying life I say that my soul is shining bright. When I am faced with difficult decisions I don't go with logic or emotion or people around me or what is right or wrong, I just follow my soul. So that is quite a big part of my story, what shaped my soul to the shape it has now.Quote:
"I have an organ that's bigger than my heart. It's invisible, but it's all that holds me up. Because of it, I can stand up straight, I can walk straight, even when I'm bleeding and dizzy. If I run now, it'll tear in half. My soul... Will tear in half. I'd rather my heart stopped than lost what's important to me. Even when I'm old and bent... My soul's got to be straight. The soul of a straight and true guy won't disappear, even if his body dies!"
Thank you for opening that door, Ginsan. I appreciated my visit. :)
You posted a toothy smiley after that sentence, but what you wrote looks more like it came out of the mouth of that avatar you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
It's ok to make an argument withOUT calling members "stupid" or a "waste of time."
Ophelia I understand and I´ll think about it when I am about to say something like that again. But I really had a toothy smile when that thought came to mind and when I was writing it, it was as honest as it could get and I know it´s against the rules but I just couldn´t stop myself. My soul drove me to write that :P
Then your soul is an angry Gandalf with a dragon tongue. :D (kwim?)
It's ok to be honest, and it's also ok to give a little tenderness beneath your honesty.
I don't know what my soul is.. Perhaps that's why I try to listen to it and let it express itself and show it that it shouldn't be shy and that I am listening because I know how important the soul's well-being is and I don't want to compromise it for anything. But I agree that I could have done better. I know that just because somebody doesn't know something doesn't mean they are stupid and you have to give me credit for the last 2 posts because I did try to point out where (I thought) they were wrong and what kind of knowledge made me think that they were wrong.
But you are right and I apologize. Dthoughts and FryingMan I apologize for calling you stupid and I apologize for my lack of intellect and patience to clarify your misunderstandings
You should already be aware that I really don't mind. In addition, this thread has provided nothing but quality posts. I think a little beating is worth the effort for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
:chuckle:
I laugh at the irony that the OP of a thread called "Free will is completely irrelevant" would be corrected on his behavior. :)
(I sometimes wonder if your avatar is not a man doing a failed RC because his hands are perfectly fine, but if he had looked in a mirror instead, he would have known he was dreaming). :)
Occi you remind me of something very interesting. I should be corrected on my behaviour because her comment causes physical changes in my brain and body that can improve my behaviour. This is a common misconception "if you don't have free will then you are not responsible for your actions and shouldn't be commented on or punished". You might say that if everything is predetermined you had no control over your actions, but if everything is predictable, a logical result of a comment on behaviour or punishment is that it gets corrected.
Please understand that I am not arguing against you or saying "you're wrong and here is why! :mwahaha:", I just used your post to try and make a point :)
I also think you are more than capable of going nuhuh and ignore corrections altogether. And choose to live with the consequences. I personally experience freedom in a give or take way.. Passivity being one outcome of freedom. Usually caused by fear. The fear is a physiological effect in my body-Chemistry. But to my mind, it can lead to passivity or it can lead to action. Action being a much more nurturing effect on my mind body and soul.
I agree with you, Ginsan. I also agree with the title of this thread, I think. Whether we have free will or not is irrelevant in how we should react to bad behavior.
(But people can and do use those different perspectives (no freewill, yes freewill) to explain and guide their behaviour,
ex: There is free will, I can and should be allowed to do what I want. There is free will, I have a responsibility to use it well. There is no free will, I have no responsibility. I have no free will but the mental discourse going on in my head is a mechanism of this deterministic world and if I "choose" to be good, then, I most likely will.
People can play around with ideas and make very different conclusions. :)
I absolutely agree that action is almost always better than passivity.
And it's fascinating and mind opening how people can start from the same idea/look at the same thing and play around with it and come up with completely different conclusions and explanations that you never thought of. So even if I made this thread just to express a frustration (that people discuss irrelevant things) and make a point, I learned a lot because of what you said, people play around with ideas and come to different conclusions :)
Playing with another idea, this quite peculiar idea that Sivason put forth.
What if some people have free will and some do not. Is this another irrelevant matter? What would the practical implications of this be, if any?
In this scenario, where some have "souls" and others do not, I think there would be no difference. Sivason's theory of the self is the body and souls, partners to each other. The earth, is physical, it can be seen as a body without a soul. But it is important. So selves consisting of body and souls need to respect selves without souls just as much, because in the physical realm, everything is just as important.
The body has a story. The soul only needs to grow in beauty. They are partners and must accomplish both goals: a growing soul, and a body who achieves its duty, or its destiny.
If a person plays a video game, it doesn't matter if the characters which are not you are not represented by another being, your character must still follow the story line. A Mario controlled by a "teen age boy" will need to save the princess even if she is not controlled by a "teen age girl", she's merely some pixels, but is as important as Mario.
And what of dreams, then? We are a DC with a soul, with an external control. What does this say of how we should treat DCs with no soul, with no external control?
(Sorry, Ginsan, for plunging right into some very mystical stuff, or maybe not that much. :P)
You really are getting into mystical stuff :P You should accept me not getting into it because I am just bad at talking mystical :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occipitalred
Now who is getting profound and casting forth gems? I agree with everything you said. There must never be a feeling of division between you and a human animal. Human animals can raise families and excel at many things. You may meet people who show no glimmer of what you would expect in a human with a soul. You can choose not to befriend them, but still must treat them fairly and feel empathy.