Free Will

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7717
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

HTD

Post by henry quirk » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:59 am

"can't it be the case that you not choosing to eat the spinach is because of your predisposition too?"

Oh, I'm absolutely predisposed to hate spinach. I've had no bad experiences with the stuff to color my view (except for tryin' it voluntarily). As I see it: spinach is garbage food. But: my predisposition determines nuthin'. If I choose: I can force the stuff down. It's a simple demonstration of agency, kinda picayune, but apt.

#

"Whatever the reason is, that reason is definitely not independent of the aforementioned predispositions which determine your thinking proccess and the assumptions that lead you to not eating it."

But that's not my experience of it. Sure, there's myriad processes at work, from my cells to my organs to how my organs synchronize to the 'I' that extends up from and sits stop all those autonomic processes, but that 'I' (me) is the active feature, the apprehending agent. I'm not slaved to all the processes 'beneath' me, those processes are slaved to me. I direct the show. Now, of course all those processes exert influence (my spinach hatred, for example), but none determine, cuz that's my job.

In a very real way: the effect (me) controls the cause (all the processes comprising me), through some complex, on-going recursiveness, or through a limited, local violation of cause and effect.

As I say (some place at some time): mebbe agency/personhood/freewill/the agent/the person is some weird nondeterministic algorithm that pops up when matter organizes in a certain way; the matter causes it then it dominates the matter, literally possesses, owns, it.


User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8380
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: perspective choice

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:59 am

As I say (some place at some time): mebbe agency/personhood/freewill/the agent/the person is some weird nondeterministic algorithm that pops up when matter organizes in a certain way; the matter causes it then it dominates the matter, literally possesses, owns, it.
The agency is an illusion aka identification with an image form as being an agent. There is no agent there, it's empty of agent in the same context a dream character in a nightly dream is empty of agent. A photograph is empty of agent.

All is mindscape, aka dreamscape. All choice is a particular perspective choice. There is a determined number of choices of action that your brain can make according to the determination your unique perspective will make. .no person ever made a choice.

Agreeing with information or disagreeing with information is all part of the same illusion of being.

.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7717
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

DAM

Post by henry quirk » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:30 pm

"Agreeing with information or disagreeing with information is all part of the same illusion of being."

No, I disagree with you becuz you're wrong.

HereToDiscuss
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:25 pm

Re: HTD

Post by HereToDiscuss » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:37 am

henry quirk wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:59 am
"can't it be the case that you not choosing to eat the spinach is because of your predisposition too?"

Oh, I'm absolutely predisposed to hate spinach. I've had no bad experiences with the stuff to color my view (except for tryin' it voluntarily). As I see it: spinach is garbage food. But: my predisposition determines nuthin'. If I choose: I can force the stuff down. It's a simple demonstration of agency, kinda picayune, but apt.
I said it before, and i'm going to say it again one more time, more clearly: Yes, it's unreasonable to suggest that your hating of the spinach determines your actions related to the spinach on it's own. But that isn't my claim anyways. I say that the reason you choose to eat the spinach regardless is because of your beliefs/reasoning etc. that override your hating of the spinach itself. Your example isn't contradictory to my position as i never suggested the human mind was that simple and one predisposition determined everything-that would only be the case if there isn't something that overrides it. And, if there is a thing that overrides it, then, if we accept that my position is true, the thing that overrides it is also subject to determinism.

You're strawmanning my position.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Free Will

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:20 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:21 am
Free will means making the right choice in order to feel love and goodness, a sense of justice, security, peace and harmony, mainly, the natural equilibrium of being no thing and everything.

Any objection?

.
Dontaskme?? I don't believe many people here do or would.

I prefer the dictionary:

FREE WILL
noun
1) free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2) Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

I see that it exists ever so slightly within the framework of determinism.

Edit: simply added definition numbers
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2458
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Greatest I am » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:30 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:21 am
Free will means making the right choice .
Thieves and murderers make free will choices all the time.

Do you see those as the right choices?

Regards
DL

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7717
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: HTD

Post by henry quirk » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:49 pm

"You're strawmanning my position."

Nah, sometimes I'm just dumb and 'don't get it'.

#

"I say that the reason you choose to eat the spinach regardless is because of your beliefs/reasoning etc. that override your hating of the spinach itself."

Yes, exactly. 'I' choose to eat the muck.

#

"And, if there is a thing that overrides it, then, if we accept that my position is true, the thing that overrides it is also subject to determinism."

And that's where we part company. Determinism sez my reasons for choosing to eat garbage aren't really my reasons (don't orginate with me). Absolutely, past events and experiences inform my choice (assessing, concluding) but I'm the cause of the choice and the action (gaggin' down spinach), not merely the discharge for past events.

Bottomlining it...

Yeah, chemistry and biology and physics are deterministic, and computation is deterministic (so, cuz the brain is a computin' machine, 99.99% of mental operations are deterministic) but in the midst of all this determinism, squattin', in of all places, the human brain, is a lil sumthin' that sets us (you, me, him, her) apart.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: HTD

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:14 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:49 pm
Yeah, chemistry and biology and physics are deterministic, and computation is deterministic (so, cuz the brain is a computin' machine, 99.99% of mental operations are deterministic) but in the midst of all this determinism, squattin', in of all places, the human brain, is a lil sumthin' that sets us (you, me, him, her) apart.
It's interesting. I've seen a number of people on this site raise the "non-falsifiability" critique on various kinds of claims people have made -- sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not. But this Determinism seems a perfect case of it. See what your present interlocutor says about his own position:

"Your example isn't contradictory to my position as i never suggested the human mind was that simple and one predisposition determined everything-that would only be the case if there isn't something that overrides it. And, if there is a thing that overrides it, then, if we accept that my position is true, the thing that overrides it is also subject to determinism."

In other words, he says his Determinism is utterly incapable of falsification -- but we may say it's not because it's so true, but because it has an alternate explanation for any data you might ever raise to contradict it. He's just going to say, "Well, that thing you say disproves Determinism is also deterministic." For him, it's "turtles all the way down." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

As the Falsificationist argument goes, if you can't specify terms of falsification, you also can't prove by verification. In other words, it is just an intractable idea, but one with no actual basis of justification.

If indeed, as your interlocutor has said, there are no terms at all upon which it can be falsified; which means, according to Falsificationism, that we have no reason to believe it in preference to the free will view...or anything else.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7717
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"turtles all the way down"

Post by henry quirk » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:34 pm


User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "turtles all the way down"

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:46 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:34 pm
I prefer: 'the buck stops here'.
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... nonscience
Yeah, this line could be well applied to the earlier discussion:

"Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets."

The "a priori" principle here is Determinism. We don't know it's true, particularly in regards to humans. And we have no reason at all to think it is -- the whole thing is merely an a priori faith, and untestable. On the flip side, nothing "play[s] a [more] crucial role in how the [human] world" seems "to work" than does free will...even your interlocutor is presently acting like you have it, and that he's going to convince you of something, so your free will will make a change. His alternate explanation, meanwhile, smacks only of reductionism. I suggest the burden of proof would be on him to show that the free will he's acting as if you have is illusory...and by something much better than a mere recourse to a priori Determinism.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: "turtles all the way down"

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:46 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:34 pm
I prefer: 'the buck stops here'.
...nothing "play[s] a [more] crucial role in how the [human] world" seems "to work" than does free will...even your interlocutor is presently acting like you have it, and that he's going to convince you of something, so your free will will make a change.
I was once having a debate in person with a Determinist, as we were driving along a country road.

I said to him, "I'm sorry; I cannot believe that Determinism is true, because I was predetermined by forces beyond my control not to believe in Determinism."

He was a clever guy, and he went silent -- because he realized that the denial of the truth of my claim would be a denial of the very Determinism for which he was so ardently contending.

That's the paradox of arguing for Determinism: if it's true, then not only is no argument necessary, but no argument is actually capable of working.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests