Free Will vs Determinism

[Belinda]

Sorry, Eodnhoj, I cannot follow you.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sorry, Eodnhoj, I cannot follow you.

The nature of "will/reason" and the physical "nerves" are so intertwined, that to argued one came before the other cannot be entirely justified. The reason for this is because they are strictly approximates of the other.

What we understand of "will" as "force" gives credit to not only all form's of "spatial flux" having a minor form of consciousness (a panpsychism argument may be presented here) but the nature of "force" itself being what not only maintains and produces structure but its structure itself.

If rationality is strictly the observation of structure as a structure, and causality is fundamentally the symmetry of structure itself (a leading to b leading to c, must be viewed as one structure under the nature of causality. The reason for this is the cause is strictly and observation of point with effect itself being both a separate reflective point of the original cause but also a point as cause itself. In these respects the study of causality is a study of holism or unity through the nature of reflective structures.), then "will/rationality" and "cause" are strictly reflective approximate structures.

For if rationality is the observation of structure (which is both active and passive in nature) and causality is the manifesting and stabilization of structure, then not only are both rooted in space but they prove the "unmoved mover" concept or "Logos".

Space and consciousness may fundamentally be one for if we look at it in every day language we describe the nature of consciousness through "light" and "darkness" many times, with light and darkness fundamentally being duals of space. In a seperate respect consciousness, when under the nature of extreme circumstance moves towards either "light" or "darkness". Again, space itself. Everything in between "light" and "darkness", the everyday world is strictly a gradation of both.

[Belinda]

Eodnhoj wrote:

The nature of "will/reason" and the physical "nerves" are so intertwined, that to argued one came before the other cannot be entirely justified. The reason for this is because they are strictly approximates of the other.

But a neuroscientist has identified a sequence of events.

[henry quirk]

"But a neuroscientist has identified a sequence of events."

No he just muddied the waters.

Every time someone talks about a sequence of neuro-events, or the brain as just an organ, they've fallen way short.

You are your brain (and body)...that sequence of neuro-events is 'you', not sumthin' that happens to you.

Libet himself admited his findings were not a denial of free will.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj wrote:

The nature of "will/reason" and the physical "nerves" are so intertwined, that to argued one came before the other cannot be entirely justified. The reason for this is because they are strictly approximates of the other.

But a neuroscientist has identified a sequence of events.

Actually, by the route of reasoning you presented, it was actually a group of nerves not the neuroscientist himself/herself. If that is the case, whose nerves maintain the authority to make such statements? Where do the nerves begin and end? Which one(s) are responsible for self-reflection.

Anyhow, the sequence of events is in itself an observation of the "cause and effect" structure we were discussing prior. The neuroscientist observed the nature with which reason and "the nerves" are intertwined as a structure.

On a side note, from many perspectives, an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I have my own opinions on that, so again I emphasize "many perspectives".

[Dalek Prime]

Now, how did I know this would last for at least 78 pages....

[thedoc]

Now, how did I know this would last for at least 78 pages....

You were just lucky.

[Dalek Prime]

Now, how did I know this would last for at least 78 pages....

You were just lucky.

So, it wasn't determined? I declare free will the winner, then.

[thedoc]

Now, how did I know this would last for at least 78 pages....

You were just lucky.

So, it wasn't determined? I declare free will the winner, then.

I'm glad that's finally settled.

[Dalek Prime]

You were just lucky.

So, it wasn't determined? I declare free will the winner, then.

I'm glad that's finally settled.

I'm glad we determined the winner too, doc.

[Celebritydiscodave2]

Nothing can be created from out of nothing, this includes us, so for me it has always been totally inconceivable that our will can have a totally independent detached existence. We are what we are, this is not something created from nothing, it can only be the sum total of past and present experience, plus hereditary, for nothing else of any influence even exists. We shall likely think long and hard in the present prior to making the decision, but that thinking was a creation of our past. Another course of action may be presented us by a second party, and this would of course add to the sum total of past and present experience, present being meant to include influence just past. The notion for any spontaneous decision has of course been proven to be an "add on", we would have lunged out anyway. Those that move in "better" circles make better decisions, and enjoy happier lives, but much depends on which way we are pointing early on. We are creatures which require equilibrium of self awareness. Should we perform below our expectation (the product of interaction with society), in one area, we shall endeavour to excel in another. Not all of us for all of the time, but for those periods of healthy mind.

[Phoenix]

Here is my slant on this interesting subject, and I welcome criticism.

Objectivety; determinism is a function of energy and its system analysis, in that, the more concrete the analysis, the more and more there is predictability, and less and less free'will; however, as with all empirical data, there is always some variation of sensual thresholds, plus and minus this or that. A sense of free'will may diminish, but never disappear, no matter how small plus and minus this or that may be. A determinist is an indecisionist who allows their circumstances to deteriorate until all options disappear. Subjectivity; free'will is a sense related to choice; as long as there are two or more choices, there is a sense of free'will. One with free Will tends not to act until there is at least two choices. One without free Will tends not to act until there is no choice. One locked into free Will, feels safe only with a sense of freedom. One locked in otherwise, feels safe only in confinement. Free'willists like open space within which to intuit what choice should be made. One otherwise, likes confinement because decisions are already made.

Within the empirical reality, a measurement cannot be made some value plus or minus infinity, nor can a measurement be made some value plus or minus zero. Therefore, the empirical universe exists between zero and infinity, and in turn, philosophically, between determinism and randomness (free will). Since the universe exists as some operation between deterministic and randomized states, the empirical measurement as its plus and minus value approaches zero or infinity becomes a function of one's ability to measure, perceive, and analyze by that measurement. The general question of determinism versus randomness within the empirical realm is dependent upon the ability to sense the empirical reality. As measurement variation increases and approaches plus or minus infinity, the universe appears more and more randomized. As measurement variation decreases and approaches plus or minus zero, the universe appears more and more ordered or deterministic. Given these two existential extremes where reality is either ordered or randomized, it is axiomatic that the abstract realities of zero and infinity are equally stationed and mutually exclusive. The universe exists as an operation between zero and infinity states of consciousness. Totally randomized and deterministic states exists only in the zero'infinity abstract reality, or in one's abstract imaginary. Degrees of randomness and determinism exist only in the empirical reality, which is limited and defined by sensory thresholds. Both are equally real.

[Celebritydiscodave2]

Quite simply put it would be impossible for us to exist in the first instance should we actually possess free will. It is really a no brainer. Our minds only exist as consequence to the experience of events, and there is no other input besides this that can influence how our minds function. The self aware mind accommodates its function by providing us with the sense of possessing free will over our decisions. The possession of free will is at absolute and total odds with the principal of mind being the product of experience. One would have to be able to make decisions without any at all requisite for processable information in order to exercise genuinely free will. It is a very good thing that we in fact have no free will, and our "decisions" are made infinitely better for it. This is a very easy area of debate, and the more complex the word combinations the weaker becomes the underlying points. This taking it of course that they are even successfully transported.

[Immanuel Can]

Quite simply put it would be impossible for us to exist in the first instance should we actually possess free will.

Au contraire: if Determinism of a Materialist kind were true, then our whole existence would be an inexplicable improbability of the highest order.

It is really a no brainer.

Funny that we've spent so long on it, then. It seems not everybody has that simplicity of belief.

[OuterLimits]

Quite simply put it would be impossible for us to exist in the first instance should we actually possess free will.

Au contraire: if Determinism of a Materialist kind were true, then our whole existence would be an inexplicable improbability of the highest order.

It is really a no brainer.

Funny that we've spent so long on it, then. It seems not everybody has that simplicity of belief.

Improbable things only have to happen once to be actual things.

You notice the news never reports on all the cars that don't blow up.