Free Will vs Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm » Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:27 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:46 am
Neutrinos are not free.
Are you sure about that?

davidm
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by davidm » Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:29 pm

Anyone who deliberately misrepresents another's posts, and even bogusly puts quote marks around things his interlocutor never said, should draw moderation attention, IMO. In any event, anyone who believes a word I Can says about anything should be prepared to purchase a bridge from him. :lol: Lying for Jesus -- it's what apologists do!

Belinda
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:58 am

Davidm wrote:
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:46 am
Neutrinos are not free.
Are you sure about that?
It's most probable that neutrinos don't experience qualia. I also doubt if a neutrino has the urge to preserve its own integrity or even the integrity of any system. in other words neutrinos are not subjects of experience. Freedom is inconsistent with existence as an object. And this is why we hold the moral belief that it is wrong to objectify some men, or all men.

Nobody can be sure of any empirical fact.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:09 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:29 pm
Anyone who deliberately misrepresents another's posts, and even bogusly puts quote marks around things his interlocutor never said,...
Actually, in both cases, all I did was cut and paste. Nothing else.

In fact, check it out: I didn't even bother to remove the time signature from the second one, so you can go back and see that it is EXACTLY what you said. Or, somebody skillfully pretending to be you said. In which case, you should sue that guy...he's impersonating you so well that nobody knows the difference.

I wonder what people should think if someone who so routinely misrepresents HIS OWN statements...

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:37 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:58 am
Nobody can be sure of any empirical fact.
Yes they can. Everything that is empirical is sure. It's what it means that is unsure.

Belinda
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:33 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:37 pm
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:58 am
Nobody can be sure of any empirical fact.
Yes they can. Everything that is empirical is sure. It's what it means that is unsure.
Not only concepts but percepts too can be false .

There may not be any ordered nature at all. The lack of any order in nature is the ultimate atheist's attitude towards the creator God.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am

Belinda wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:33 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:37 pm
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:58 am
Nobody can be sure of any empirical fact.
Yes they can. Everything that is empirical is sure. It's what it means that is unsure.
Not only concepts but percepts too can be false .

There may not be any ordered nature at all. The lack of any order in nature is the ultimate atheist's attitude towards the creator God.
Not even relevant. Not even wrong. not even on the right page.
The order of nature and its complete lack of intelligence marks the end of any concept of god.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:37 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:29 pm
Anyone who fails to deliberately misrepresent another's posts, and even truthfully puts quote marks around things his interlocutor said, should draw a pretty picture, IMO. In any event, anyone who believes a word I say about anything should be prepared to purchase a nice pint of cool beer for me. :lol: Crying for Jesus -- it's what apologists do in their nappies!
I Can and I will be a naughty boy!

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:47 pm

Free will is just an approximate structure of force whose median point is man (the subjective). In simpler terms, if free will is subjective force, and causality is objective force, both the subjective (free will) and objective are extensions of causality as force.

Why do they have to clash?

Belinda
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:47 pm
Free will is just an approximate structure of force whose median point is man (the subjective). In simpler terms, if free will is subjective force, and causality is objective force, both the subjective (free will) and objective are extensions of causality as force.

Why do they have to clash?
Because will is rationalisation after the neural event.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:41 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:42 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:47 pm
Free will is just an approximate structure of force whose median point is man (the subjective). In simpler terms, if free will is subjective force, and causality is objective force, both the subjective (free will) and objective are extensions of causality as force.

Why do they have to clash?
Because will is rationalisation after the neural event.
Well let's break this down and we will use your argument as an example.

Rationalization is the will according to you. What we understand of rationalization, or reason, is rooted in the greek "ratio" which simply means "proportion". "Will", under this definition, is the manifestation of "proportions" or "symmetry" (for both are approximately the same). It is within "proportion" or "symmetry" that not only we find order but order itself it constructed. We observe this in all geometrical abstracts and physical constructs found in the universe whether they be artificial (buildings, tools, etc.) or natural (flowers, trees, rocks, etc.).

So this axiom of "will is the manifestation and observation of order (or reason)" (if you do not agree with this, we can step back further) will be labeled Axiom A.

The neural event which causes Axiom A we will observe as Axiom A1.

Fundamentally, if I correctly understand what you are arguing A1 → A

If this is true, then the neural event which manifests rationalization again manifests itself, (or cycles back to itself), through the rationalization as:

A1 → A → A1a

This in turns manifests another "rationalization"

A1 → A → A1a → Aa

And this goes on further to x, with x being a potential end or potential infinity (that is a seperate argument we will avoid for the sake of confusion).

A1 → A → A1a → Aa → x

It is from this observation of axioms A and A1 that we observe:

1) A constant Reflective cyclic motion where "will/rationalization" and "neurology" are cyclic structures which reflect each other to maintain a stability. It is in these respects that "will/rationalization" and "neurology" maintain a cyclic symmetry between eachother through reflection and neither can be completely seperated as both are extensions of cyclical pattern.

Now this "cycle", or observation of it, could be argued as "reasoning" but if that is the case then why does "neurology" reflect it? Why is neurology the manifestation of a "cycle"? How can neurology be seperate from reason for neurology/nerves manifest as "structure" and all structure is comprised of "proportion" or "symmetry".

In a seperate respect this "cycle" could be argued as the "nerves" (or neurology) itself, but if that is the case then why does "reason" reflect it? Why is reason the manifestion of a "cycle"? How can reason be seperate from neurology/nerves for reason manifests as "structure" and all structure is comprised of "proportion" or "symmetry".

It is in these respects that both "reason" and "nerves" as approximates that maintain eachother through reflection as cycles and what we understand of "cause and effect" is fundamentally a cyclic symmetry between points, in this case "will/reason" and "neurology/nerves". The "effects" themselves are strictly cause reflecting upon itself to form and approximate cause and this approximation introduces an element of "randomness" or deficiency in a fully observable symmetry (which can be observed in the example of a "center" of a point. It is never really found, yet the observation of structure in undeniable)


2) A fluxing cycle of relations where "will/rationalization and "neurology" are cyclic particles which relate through a continual flux.
Take for example Axiom A.

Axiom A maintains itself through: A → Aa → Ab → x , if Axiom A1 is taken away. It continual cycles through a flux of relations between a, b, c, etc..

Axiom A1 follows this same pattern of flux: A1 → A1a → A1b → x

It is in these respect that both Axiom A and Axiom A1 are a continual flux of relations whose actual relations (example: A1 → A1a) is defined by its potential relations (example: A1 → A1a → A1b). It is in these respects that we observe both "reason" and "neurology/nerves" observing and observed as cycles of flux through relations with A and A1 in themselves being "particulate" which are defined through "actual" flux and "potential" flux.


3) It is from these above observations of both "will/rationalization" and "neurology/nerves" that we understand both to have dual elements of Reflective Stability and Relational Flux through the nature of their definitive cycles. In these respects, "will/rationalization" and "neurology/nerves" synthesize the nature of what we understand as a "cyclical" definition and in turn manifests structural dimensional limits as both axioms A and A1 and further possible dimensional limits as further axioms (ex: from the axiom of reason we observe the axiom of proportion, from the axiom of nerves we observe the axiom of "bio-electricity".

It is in these respects that both "will/reason" and "nerves/neurology" reflect, relate, and synthesis through cyclic stability and flux as "spatial properties" and neither really "clash".


Besides let's take this from a practical standpoint. You claim that both "reason" and "neurology" clash. That means you are clashing as you are composed of both. Whatever observation you produce or maintain, due to the clash of your reason and neurology, will be in and of itself divisive and imply a self-contradiction.

Both "will/reason" and "neurology" both have to work together, in some degree, for you to even produce your thought.

Belinda
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Belinda » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:46 pm

Eodnhoj, is the above meant to be some sort of verbal smoke screen? It's unreadable.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:46 pm
Eodnhoj, is the above meant to be some sort of verbal smoke screen? It's unreadable.
Well, just take the first part then.

In the nature of "nerves" manifesting "will/reasoning" that act of "will/reasoning" in turn manifests the nerves since the very act of "will/reasoning" manifests an observation through which the nerves respond.

In this respect the "will/reasoning" and "nerves" maintain a cyclic form of symmetry in which neither are truly separated.

Is that better?

Impenitent
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Impenitent » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:47 pm
Free will is just an approximate structure of force whose median point is man (the subjective). In simpler terms, if free will is subjective force, and causality is objective force, both the subjective (free will) and objective are extensions of causality as force.

Why do they have to clash?
Joe Strummer

-Imp

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Free Will vs Determinism

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:59 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:47 pm
Free will is just an approximate structure of force whose median point is man (the subjective). In simpler terms, if free will is subjective force, and causality is objective force, both the subjective (free will) and objective are extensions of causality as force.

Why do they have to clash?
Joe Strummer

-Imp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9r8LMU9bQ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: seeds and 3 guests