argument against free will

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: argument against free will

Post by bahman » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:50 pm

gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 pm
I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act.
nonesequitor since the original thought was not via freewill.
We have ability to consciously create thoughts. The process is like this. We perceive a thought, sometimes decide (when there is a conflict), otherwise create another thoughts. Sometimes a thought pups up from unconscious mind into conscious mind too.
gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:10 am
the thought - just appeared - any actions from it may be "freewill" but not freewill since the thought itself was not created via any choice by the individual (it's author or not? (maybe just feed into the individual) - not known/knowable.
Freewill is independent act which is based on thought which is perceived.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2077
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: argument against free will

Post by bahman » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:56 pm

gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:23 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:36 am
-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:31 am


Memory will carry the thought's decision to carry out the decision in the related act.

The mute point does not have the effect of erasing the decision. It is only a passage of time, but memory is perfectly capable of carrying on the decision made by thought.

Your argument is invalid, Bahman, inasmuch as it is not proof or evidence of "free" will.
We are just aware of options when thoughts cannot help us to decide. Decision of course is not free when it is based on a thought.
decisions (options) are just other forms of thought. so nope no freewill.
Decision is based on thought. Decision is not similar to thought since thought is causal but decision is uncausal.

seeds
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: argument against free will

Post by seeds » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:37 pm

gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:20 am
why not assume all your thoughs and actions were fed to you?

seems more apt to me personally. all my thought "come to me" by some means outside of my choice of which thought to have before i have it.
Your thoughts may indeed be coming to you by a means that is often “outside of your choice,” but they are not outside of the subjective fabric of your very own being. For if your inner-self (your “I Am-ness”) did not exist, then neither would your own particular field of thoughts exist.

So it is not as if they are being fed to you from somewhere outside of your own mind.
gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:20 am
maybe you are different than me though. you decide which thoughts (and so have freewill) to have before you have them.
To me it is more like the eye of my mind (my “I Am-ness”) is positioned within the center of a “galaxy” of thoughts of which I have the free will to pick and choose which ones to focus on (or ignore) at any given moment.

And that includes the ability to creatively manipulate (i.e., transform and repurpose the thoughts) in any way I wish, which is the epitome of free will.

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: argument against free will

Post by seeds » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:38 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:33 am
I have a lot of respect for Sam Harris, however, he doesn’t even believe in the existence of the self (or more specifically, that the self is an illusion founded upon neural processes).
gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:37 am
I share his view of the self - but oddly enough unlike me he affirms neurons/brain/science as Truth outside of "self".

when he should be as I - a Solipsist.

of course he is me........
If you know that you are a solipsist, then why are you talking to yourself?

Boredom? Multiple personality disorder? Utter madness from being eternally alone?

By the way (and this is just a note to yourself), seeing how you are so darn good at creation...

(nice work on the billions of galaxies of suns and planets)

...then why not try to create something “in your own image” - something with complete autonomy and freedom from your control?

Oh wait,......maybe you have already done that?

Dang, solipsism is confusing. :D
_______

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: argument against free will

Post by gaffo » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:05 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:37 pm
gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:20 am
why not assume all your thoughs and actions were fed to you?

seems more apt to me personally. all my thought "come to me" by some means outside of my choice of which thought to have before i have it.
Your thoughts may indeed be coming to you by a means that is often “outside of your choice,” but they are not outside of the subjective fabric of your very own being. For if your inner-self (your “I Am-ness”) did not exist, then neither would your own particular field of thoughts exist.

So it is not as if they are being fed to you from somewhere outside of your own mind.
yes maybe so.


gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:20 am
maybe you are different than me though. you decide which thoughts (and so have freewill) to have before you have them.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:37 pm
To me it is more like the eye of my mind (my “I Am-ness”) is positioned within the center of a “galaxy” of thoughts of which I have the free will to pick and choose which ones to focus on (or ignore) at any given moment.

And that includes the ability to creatively manipulate (i.e., transform and repurpose the thoughts) in any way I wish, which is the epitome of free will.

(Continued in next post)
_______
then your nature is higher than mine. i defer to you (assuming i'm not a solipsist) - lol

thanks for reply, it was apt and mindful, and concured with the first half.

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: argument against free will

Post by gaffo » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:15 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:50 pm
gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:10 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 pm
I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act.
nonesequitor since the original thought was not via freewill.
We have ability to consciously create thoughts. The process is like this. We perceive a thought,
is that like "its all turtles on down"????

if as some how to "perceive a thought before the thought" - makes it more freewillish for you?



gaffo wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:10 am
the thought - just appeared - any actions from it may be "freewill" but not freewill since the thought itself was not created via any choice by the individual (it's author or not? (maybe just feed into the individual) - not known/knowable.
Freewill is independent act which is based on thought which is perceived.
[/quote]
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:50 pm
that said thought.............and the latter actions are not products of freewill. they are fed to me.

i value empricism and why im a solipsist - i know i exist right now - i also not i have no freewill nor thoughts of my own (per the understanding of a concieous mind in control of thoughts) I have thoughts, but they come to me.

from where? no idea and not able to find - so i don't waste my time. i accept my limited nature in this life.


fkit - i tried to make the quote system work - i am a solipsist (but lack all power - inculding the mindpower of figuring out the quote editing of posts here...............the attack against solipsism is in effect " if you are god why cant you so and so")

i not a Faithist-type - only empricist. and from the former (why i lack the ability to spell or edit the posts here on this forum? offer no answer - i'm not God, but per empricism am so - (I lack faith, so i only hope i'm not all/god)

thanks for reply - even if i'm talking to myself.

waxberry4@gmail.com
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:56 pm

Re: argument against free will

Post by waxberry4@gmail.com » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:09 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:06 pm
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:38 am

It is uncaused meaning that it is not related to options. You are making the decision since you are a free agent.
An uncaused decision is not free; it's random. A genuinely free agent must be self-caused, which according to Spinoza, can only be God.
Random? You know that wanted it.
I think you're confused with what you're saying. Something is either caused or uncaused. If it's uncaused, by definition it's random. To apply this in decision making, if it's true that you make decision X, either it's true because of something else (causal) or because of nothing (uncausal). If it's true because of nothing, then we say it's randomly true that you make decision X. The only thing that prevents you from thinking your decision as random is the fact that it involves your volition. But the question now is exactly where your volition comes from. This is like asking where your book comes from, and you say: "This is my book; I own it!" You're not answering the question.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: argument against free will

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:27 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 pm
I have an argument in favor of free will: A Thought precedes the related act. This means that the thought and the act cannot coexist at the same point therefore there exist a point between them, mute point or decision point, at which one neither think nor act. The point is mute therefore it cannot be consciously affected by thoughts. Therefore the decision is made at the mute point is free.
Good argument. It is actually identical in form to the Intermediate Value Theorem. Did Calculus remind you of this?

P.S. to all: I'm just beginning to read this thread and this is a response to only the first few posts. But I need to point out the OP is also an excellent argument. Now can BOTH not be true, ....or could they? I say this IS the case. Quantum Mechanics' via the Copenhagen Interpretation says that all odds lie in one space but that they collapse to become a distinct unique one of all possibilities only. Thus, space is indeterminately 'free' to choose options from.

But this then can be redressed by the alternative: that the space doesn't hold more than one one option but is uniquely one of any set of possibilities greater than one ....AND....that each possibility can still exist in distinct worlds of which we can only see one reality at at time. Thus as a whole, this shows that for EACH possibility, there is a unique corresponding Universe. Thus within our own world among the potential infinite set of possibilities, one world seems Relatively indeterminate or 'free', AND every free relative choice covers all possibilities where distinct worlds exist. This means reality as a greater whole is still determinate.

Both are true, relatively, as it depends upon actual perspective distinctly able to be observed in isolation but still be true of the whole.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests