Free will?

[Opethian666]

You can make up things and expect me to beleive them. We are the ones creating the chemicals to induce the fear. It is when we start to think about the feared event or thing that creates the response.

And what do you think thinking is? A chemical and electrical process going on in your brains. Do you think that thinking occurs by some sort of seperate spiritual entity? It's either that or you completely throw all logic out of the window (which would be the case too in the first situation tbh).

People don't even need to see the stimulous to feel the same fear. They only have to relive it through memory(past) or create it in thought(future, imagined). So they choose to think of the things and create that response in themselves which creates the fear.

And is a memory not stored in your brain in a physical way? And is the way this memory is accessed again in the reliving of it not a physical process, that is determined?

SO again what I am saying is, we have the ability to change associations to specific things, such as phobias, to other more pleasent emotions from other memories, and rewire your synapse so that you no longer feel the fear when you think or encouner the stimulous.
One example
of how you have the free will to choose how you respond to outside stimulous

You do not grasp the concept of cause and consequence.

If you could also think of it like a computer with software. Some already comes on it(aka genes), others are learned from books, teachers, friends,events, etc(environment) and then some are made(choice, self programming)

Can you make a program without knowledge or impulses influencing you to make it? No. The kind of program you make is dependant on your programming knowledge and the input you are receiving from your environment. Even your analogies don't work.

The problem is that sometimes the environmental programming gets in the way of self programming. Sometimes inhibiting. Others it is just bad self programming, which may be due to environmental programs that teach that self programming is not possible, or at least not possible to change the programming.

Lmao at your confusion

 

[Silver Incubus]

You know, no matter how many times you call me dumb, Idiot, stupid etc, the main point is that you cannot explain how you know what your saying is true, and that is the biggest difference here. I know what I am saying, and I know that in real world these things are possible and provable and doable, whereas all the things you talk about are not, and are only bases on your narrow band of perception that your conscious mind has. Most likely because you have been convinced by a very good writter who is really good at convincing you that your future is not changable.

But I am telling you right now, It is possible to change how you respond to past stimulous, which will change your future, because you will change how react to future stimulous.

Leave the name calling for the playground ok? I am having a debate/disscusion and as far as I can remember, you don't lose if you do it right, but both are suppose to win.

And why do you respond to the part of my post that designed to not only interrupt you train of thought, but also to elict a strong response from you? Because I chose those words, in that order, because I knew that when someone would read it, they would have to respond to it simply because it was the only choice that you could argue against.

 

[Silver Incubus]

And what do you think thinking is? A chemical and electrical process going on in your brains. Do you think that thinking occurs by some sort of seperate spiritual entity? It's either that or you completely throw all logic out of the window (which would be the case too in the first situation tbh).

You somehow must be very messed up to assume things which I have never said nor implied. When did I ever deny the physical brain as the source for thought? Actually I think I did say that, and yet you say I didn't. Learn to read please, I am sick of these ignorant assumptions.

And is a memory not stored in your brain in a physical way? And is the way this memory is accessed again in the reliving of it not a physical process, that is determined?

You do not grasp the concept of cause and consequence.

I do, its a bunch of shit is all. A concept isn't true just because YOU think it is.

Can you make a program without knowledge or impulses influencing you to make it? No. The kind of program you make is dependant on your programming knowledge and the input you are receiving from your environment. Even your analogies don't work.

My anologies work fine, it is you who cannot comprehend them correctly. What I am noticing here is that you have your fucked up filter changing half of the words that I put down, and changing what they are saying to fit with your narrow view. To fit with what you want them to say so that you can attempt to prove me wrong.
I never once said "that environment doesn't effect choice",
I said, "you can change how you respond to your environment with a choice"

Lmao at your confusion

My confusion? it seems to me that I am the only one understanding both sides of the argument. Your the one who is confused, so stop PROJECTING your feelings on to me.

Projection
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense.

 

[Demilich]

This whole "everything we do is involuntary response to external stimuli" argument is complete garbage! Under any number of stimuli, no matter how pervasive or coercive they appear, a person maintains a number of options.

Can you make a program without knowledge or impulses influencing you to make it? No. The kind of program you make is dependant on your programming knowledge and the input you are receiving from your environment. Even your analogies don't work.

Let us take this example. The type of program I make is constrained by my knowlefge of programing and the input of my environment, but each person within each environment and each set of social circumstances, etc. has an unimaginable plurality of options before them. To attempt to hold the wool over your own eyes and convince yourself and others that we have no free will in our actions and responses to stimuli is only a limitation in one's possible future pursuits. Fuck that.

 

[Cythraul]

I've only been skimming over the posts in this thread, but the discussion seems confused. Let's distinguish between psychological free will and...hmmm, let's say actual free will. I have psychological free will if I feel as if I am making choices in accordance with reasons, as opposed to say actions taken under heavy influence of drugs or mental disorder, for instance. It may not be the case that certain external factors will be sufficient to cause action, nor may it be the case that even my own desires, internal inclinations, or intentions are causally sufficient to produce action. But if determinism is true, and particularly neurobiological determinism, then this might present causally sufficient conditions for action. If determinism is true, then your psychological free will, that is, the experience of a gap between external factors or intentions and action, is not matched by a neurobiological correlate. Hence, your feeling of free will would be just that, a feeling.

 

[Opethian666]

You know, no matter how many times you call me dumb, Idiot, stupid etc, the main point is that you cannot explain how you know what your saying is true,

Get biochemistry and physics books and read them please.

I know what I am saying, and I know that in real world these things are possible and provable and doable, whereas all the things you talk about are not

Well it's good that you know what you are saying, but that doesn't change the fact that what you say is wrong. If they are provable then please present the proof, and a falsification of my hypothesis?

and are only bases on your narrow band of perception that your conscious mind has. Most likely because you have been convinced by a very good writter who is really good at convincing you that your future is not changable.

No sorry, I didn't get this from anyone else. I just came to this idea after some courses of my bio engineering studies (which say nothing at all about free will obviously). Then I found out many people have the same idea.

But I am telling you right now, It is possible to change how you respond to past stimulous,

Obviously, but that doesn't at all imply free will, which is the concept that a person or any other organism, at a certain point in time, with a certain body structure, and a certain environment, would be able to do 2 different things. It is impossible. The laws of physics prohibit such a thing.

which will change your future, because you will change how react to future stimulous.

Obviously if you have experienced something it will change how you will react to a similar experience in the future, but that has nothing to do with free will.

And why do you respond to the part of my post that designed to not only interrupt you train of thought, but also to elict a strong response from you? Because I chose those words, in that order, because I knew that when someone would read it, they would have to respond to it simply because it was the only choice that you could argue against.

Could you please try and form coherent sentences and avoid making too many spelling mistakes, because I have no clue what you are saying here. (Not attempting to flame, just an honest observation).

You somehow must be very messed up to assume things which I have never said nor implied. When did I ever deny the physical brain as the source for thought? Actually I think I did say that, and yet you say I didn't. Learn to read please, I am sick of these ignorant assumptions.

That's why it was a question, not a statement. I guess you should learn to read. My point was that belief in supernatural entities is the only viable explanation for there being free will. Because the laws of physics make it pretty clear that free will does not exist. We all consist of atoms, governed by the laws of physics, that interact with each other in a way that is determined (and for the molecules in our bodies, the pathways of the chemically reacting biomolecules are beautifully described by biochemistry). Determined means that if all variables of the atoms are set (in this case, a certain set body structure), and all variables of other atoms this previous set is interacting with (the input it is getting from its environment), the result can be calculated, predicted, and is set. There are no roads to choose from, there is one straight line that cannot be altered except by changing one of those 2 variables (body structure, environmental input). This is called logic.

I do, its a bunch of shit is all. A concept isn't true just because YOU think it is.

But it is true if science says it is. Like I said in my previous post, it goes steadfast against basic logic to say that there is free will, unless you are going to claim there are supernatural forces inside humans that are not governed by the laws of physical matter.

My anologies work fine, it is you who cannot comprehend them correctly.

Then please, tell me what I missed?

What I am noticing here is that you have your fucked up filter changing half of the words that I put down, and changing what they are saying to fit with your narrow view.

Not at all. Show me one such example if you are convinced of this?

To fit with what you want them to say so that you can attempt to prove me wrong.

I don't need to attempt such things, science has already done it for me.

I never once said "that environment doesn't effect choice",

I never once stated that you didn't!

I said, "you can change how you respond to your environment with a choice"

No. You can only change how you respond to your environment by altering your body structure (which includes your memory, brain structure, etc...). 2 person with the exact same body structure will respond exactly the same to the exact same environment.

My confusion? it seems to me that I am the only one understanding both sides of the argument. Your the one who is confused, so stop PROJECTING your feelings on to me.

You are far from understanding both sides. Your lack of even grasping the point I made earlier clearly shows that.

Projection
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense.

Oh goodie, you can look up things in a dictionary!

This whole "everything we do is involuntary response to external stimuli" argument is complete garbage! Under any number of stimuli, no matter how pervasive or coercive they appear, a person maintains a number of options.

So you are rejecting basic physics?
If you are not, please explain how a person (with a certain body structure) could be able to react differently to the exact same environmental impulses?
Is there something more to your body than molecules? Because by saying that 2 exact same persons can react differently to 2 exact same situations (environmental impulses), you are essentially saying that there has to be something more to this person than matter.

Let us take this example. The type of program I make is constrained by my knowlefge of programing and the input of my environment, but each person within each environment and each set of social circumstances, etc. has an unimaginable plurality of options before them.

Yes, but with the same body structure and the same environmental impulses at that time, he will always make the same choice of all those options. What you are implying comes down to: How a collection of the exact same defined molecules will react, can not be predicted. Way to go against everything science has accomplished so far.

To attempt to hold the wool over your own eyes and convince yourself and others that we have no free will in our actions and responses to stimuli is only a limitation in one's possible future pursuits. Fuck that.

No my friend, it is you who has pulled the wool over your eyes, because you cannot accept the fact that we are biochemical robots, and that nothing you have ever accomplished in your life, is due to any of "your own choices". There is no "you", just a body, a collection of defined molecules. Not that I blame you, since I realise you don't have free will. But please try and get over it.

 

[Silver Incubus]

OH I FORGOT SCIENCE IS NEVER WRONG!

wait, wasn't it at one time that atoms where the smallest thing. And while they teach you things like that, they tell you about things like neutrons, protons, electrons. Wouldn't those things that comprise the atom be the smallest things? Then what is smaller then those things huh? What are those things made from?

Face the fact that most of reality is empty space(including your head).
Science can only attempt to explain. The LAWS of physics are always being broken, so don't give me that shit.

Your problem, as I have STATED BEFORE, is that you have been conditioned to beleive one form of reality from another. YOu read too many books telling you too many things that are never certain as to the validity of the claims.

I am sorry you are so educated that you cannot look out your window. This parrallels a conversation with someone who beleives that everything in the bible has happened and the world is only 5000 years old.

I am not saying that science doensn't have its place, but it is not the truth, it is only repeatable observations that work when certain things are met. Newtonian physics was once the norm, now it is not. Einstien did much for the world of science, but now we are finding out that he is indeed wrong about many things that science has held as truth.
And that is why you are full of shit. Literally, your brain is full of closed doors and windows, a very dark room, with a very bleak look at life. This is all due to the beleif that what you learn in school and in books is the ultimate truth about reality, when it is in fact not the case.

Want more proof? Science and Psychology experts said that not everyone is hypnotizable. Well guess what, that is a lie. Dont' beleive me? Ask Richard Bandler, or John La Valle.
They also say things like you cannot hypnotize a scizophrenic. Once again they were wrong.
Just because some scientists somewhere says something isn't possible, means that they just have yet to find a means of doing it or explaining it.

Find a torrent of any of Richard Bandlers work, and then watch/read it. Then come back, and appologize to me.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I've only been skimming over the posts in this thread, but the discussion seems confused. Let's distinguish between psychological free will and...hmmm, let's say actual free will. I have psychological free will if I feel as if I am making choices in accordance with reasons, as opposed to say actions taken under heavy influence of drugs or mental disorder, for instance. It may not be the case that certain external factors will be sufficient to cause action, nor may it be the case that even my own desires, internal inclinations, or intentions are causally sufficient to produce action. But if determinism is true, and particularly neurobiological determinism, then this might present causally sufficient conditions for action. If determinism is true, then your psychological free will, that is, the experience of a gap between external factors or intentions and action, is not matched by a neurobiological correlate. Hence, your feeling of free will would be just that, a feeling.

*nod*

 

[Opethian666]

Quite funny how you refused to quote anything from my previous post and respond like that. You didn't answer a single of my questions, and didn't care to try and find arguments against the points I made. I'll just have to conclude that you are unable to do so. All we are left with in your post is a strawman. But let's take a look at it anyway.

wait, wasn't it at one time that atoms where the smallest thing. And while they teach you things like that, they tell you about things like neutrons, protons, electrons. Wouldn't those things that comprise the atom be the smallest things? Then what is smaller then those things huh? What are those things made from?

This matters not on the topic we are talking about. This is called scientific progress (something which you have probably never heard of yet). A deeper analysis of particle structure hierarchy is not needed to be able to make accurate predictions, theories and laws for particles up higher in the hierarchy. When an engineer makes calculations to build a bridge, does he make calculations for every of the bridge's quarks? I don't think so.

Face the fact that most of reality is empty space(including your head).

Nice ad hominem, but you have still been unable to make even one small argument for your view on free will, nor an argument against my view.

Science can only attempt to explain. The LAWS of physics are always being broken, so don't give me that shit.

Give me one example of the laws of physics being broken please? You make a lot of stupid statements, but you have nothing to back them up.

Your problem, as I have STATED BEFORE, is that you have been conditioned to beleive one form of reality from another.

I have not been conditioned. I don't just believe what I read or hear. That's what's called critical understanding. You should stop resulting in weak attacks and try to make at least one little point for what you believe. Ever heard of arguments?

YOu read too many books telling you too many things that are never certain as to the validity of the claims.

We are not talking about some obscure new hypothesis here. We are talking about basic science like basic physics and biochemistry. Science used to build your computer, which would not work if this science was not correct. Science that is used to make medication that would not work if this science was not correct.

I am sorry you are so educated that you cannot look out your window. This parrallels a conversation with someone who beleives that everything in the bible has happened and the world is only 5000 years old.

Yes you are quite correct, your way of debating does resemble that of young earth creationists.

I am not saying that science doensn't have its place, but it is not the truth, it is only repeatable observations that work when certain things are met.

No, it is far more than that. I think your idea of science is a few centuries old. In the distant past science was "repeatable observations that work when certain things are met" (hilarious sentence).

Newtonian physics was once the norm, now it is not. Einstien did much for the world of science, but now we are finding out that he is indeed wrong about many things that science has held as truth.

Like I said, this is what's called scientific progress. You cannot get everything right from the very beginning. But there is a huge difference between the present and the past. Hypothesises are not just randomly accepted. And like I already said also, we are not talking about any new arising theory, we are talking about fundamental generally accepted science that has proven its accuracy throughout history.

And that is why you are full of shit. Literally, your brain is full of closed doors and windows, a very dark room, with a very bleak look at life. This is all due to the beleif that what you learn in school and in books is the ultimate truth about reality, when it is in fact not the case.

I don't have any such belief. I am skeptic of everything I read. I'm very sorry that you're too ignorant to realise this and to even know what you're talking about. May I ask you, how many college level Biochemistry and Physics courses have you actually had?

Want more proof? Science and Psychology experts said that not everyone is hypnotizable. Well guess what, that is a lie. Dont' beleive me? Ask Richard Bandler, or John La Valle.
They also say things like you cannot hypnotize a scizophrenic. Once again they were wrong.
Just because some scientists somewhere says something isn't possible, means that they just have yet to find a means of doing it or explaining it.

What do I care that some scientists somewhere around the world made a statement that was wrong? This is not my point at all, and if you would learn to read my posts (and perhaps reply to them directly), you may get this.

Find a torrent of any of Richard Bandlers work, and then watch/read it. Then come back, and appologize to me.

How about you go back to my previous post and adress it. You have tried to divert the attention of the debate to a strawman, and it has not worked.

 

[Cythraul]

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1179/freewill.pdf

 

[Opethian666]

Btw, one of my most important questions for you:

If you believe in free will, how does it work? Please explain a mechanism that makes it possible for 2 bodies with the exact same structure in the exact same environment to perform a different action?

 

[MURAI]

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1179/freewill.pdf

The link doesnt work for me.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't know what to do for you. It works fine for me.

I found the link on this page: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/peterunger

 

[Silver Incubus]

Btw, one of my most important questions for you:

If you believe in free will, how does it work? Please explain a mechanism that makes it possible for 2 bodies with the exact same structure in the exact same environment to perform a different action?

First of all, hypothetical things like that are dissmissable, because in the Reality we current have that is very inprobbable, and most likely impossible.

Read that link that Cythraul gave, and go to #11 or 12. For me this is the best description of why I think there is free will.

So again with the computer analology,

The body, is the computer
The user is the other unexplainable presence.
Now some programs are pre installed so that it functions. We will call those base programs Genes(Gprogs). Then there are programs that get installed by our environment(Eprogs). Sometimes those programs from the environment alter the way our basic gene programs work(like a computer virus or malware). Such as phobia program using our nartural need for fear and alter it so we fear things we do not need to fear.

Now most users of their computers cannot change the programs, or at least the core program. In these programs there are only so many options available. And sometimes when normally functioning programs have conflict with other programs we call these things errors (mental problems, or feedback loops).

What Biology has done is mapped out the hardware of the computer, so that it can fix the hardware problems because they are easier to see. Sometimes these fixes change how the programs run. Sometimes better(cures) sometimes worse(most drugs now).

Psychology then is the study of programs. The problem is that because other people run other programs that are not always the same, its hard for the user on the other end to comprehend why the other users computer is always getting its errors.

Now some people discover that they can program their own programs to create a desired effect. Most people who learn this, only patch other programs so that they can still run other programs better, but still get errors every once in a while. These programs can be called defense mechinisms or coping strategies.

If your lucky, you can install very good anitvirus/malware software which can prevent unwanted programs (like religion), and fixed damaged ones from programs like religion.

Then there are those who know how to program and deprogram anything on their computer. They can remove harmful programs and errors like the remove software function in the control panel.

The control panel of our computers isn't found in conscious awareness, it is only found in the unconscious. You can acess this control panel through a program that is a Gprog called Hypnosis. It is here where the user can delete(amnesia or reversal) all uneeded or undesirable programs, and it gives them the ability to write in programs that will make them function to the best that is possible with that computer. Or at least if it isn't the user doing it, it is an experienced programmer who knows how to get the acess to the control panel in your brain.

When people learn to meditate to blissful states, they are slowly creating a program for a desired effect without external stimulous effecting the outcome(besides of course problems with the body which make make such things very difficult).

Now I don't want to hear any more about determinism because I have read much on this subject and I understand it, but I do not accept it.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Hypotheticals are the very soul of logical discourse, you fucking moron.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Hypotheticals are the very soul of logical discourse, you fucking moron.

Why is it logical to give something that doesn't exist as proof of something that he claims to exist. He could just give actual examples.

Get some manners please. As I am an adult, and I don't need to insult people I am having disscussions with.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Quite funny how you refused to quote anything from my previous post and respond like that. You didn't answer a single of my questions, and didn't care to try and find arguments against the points I made. I'll just have to conclude that you are unable to do so. All we are left with in your post is a strawman. But let's take a look at it anyway.

This matters not on the topic we are talking about. This is called scientific progress (something which you have probably never heard of yet). A deeper analysis of particle structure hierarchy is not needed to be able to make accurate predictions, theories and laws for particles up higher in the hierarchy. When an engineer makes calculations to build a bridge, does he make calculations for every of the bridge's quarks? I don't think so.

Yes, your right, I have never heard of it, but I can still post about it.:Smug:
And its called applied science, which is the only use for science.

Nice ad hominem, but you have still been unable to make even one small argument for your view on free will, nor an argument against my view.

I have given many, or have you already forgot.

Give me one example of the laws of physics being broken please? You make a lot of stupid statements, but you have nothing to back them up.

Nah, if you want them so bad get them yourself, I don't want to waste my time on someone who will not appreciate my efforst anyways. But I do know that the so called LAWS of thermodynamics aren't all true. I think it was entrophy.

I have not been conditioned. I don't just believe what I read or hear. That's what's called critical understanding. You should stop resulting in weak attacks and try to make at least one little point for what you believe. Ever heard of arguments?

This statement(in bold) is a paradox of what you are arguing. Or are you agreeing with me?
They are not attacks, rather, they are observations of your statements. Very much in the same way you have done to me.

We are not talking about some obscure new hypothesis here. We are talking about basic science like basic physics and biochemistry. Science used to build your computer, which would not work if this science was not correct. Science that is used to make medication that would not work if this science was not correct.

Like i said, applied science is all science is usefull for. You are creating a religion out of science.

Yes you are quite correct, your way of debating does resemble that of young earth creationists.

hahahahahah

No, it is far more than that. I think your idea of science is a few centuries old. In the distant past science was "repeatable observations that work when certain things are met" (hilarious sentence).

that hillarious statement is called.... wait for it.... experiements. Without thme how will we know if hypothesis are false?

Like I said, this is what's called scientific progress. You cannot get everything right from the very beginning. But there is a huge difference between the present and the past. Hypothesises are not just randomly accepted. And like I already said also, we are not talking about any new arising theory, we are talking about fundamental generally accepted science that has proven its accuracy throughout history.

Wow, thats good to hear. So what about the specifically unaccepted science? What about the earth being flat? We say it is wrong now, but it was not always so. And as far as I see it, you are telling me that earth is flat when I know it isn't. or you say X causes Z. I am telling you X causes Y and Y causes Z.

I don't have any such belief. I am skeptic of everything I read. I'm very sorry that you're too ignorant to realise this and to even know what you're talking about. May I ask you, how many college level Biochemistry and Physics courses have you actually had?

No you may not. Besides, I could read every scienctific paper in the world and not go to a 'college' and still have more knowledge then you will ever have on the subject, so schooling doesn't matter.

What do I care that some scientists somewhere around the world made a statement that was wrong? This is not my point at all, and if you would learn to read my posts (and perhaps reply to them directly), you may get this.

So you agree that scientists can be wrong! So how do we know all the things you are saying are correct? Besides it saying so in your textbook there? Well because we can test them right? But isn't it also true that those principles only work in conditions that have to be met in order for them to work properly. Maybe the observer of the experiment has a direct influence on the result. Do you know much about quantum physics?

How about you go back to my previous post and adress it. You have tried to divert the attention of the debate to a strawman, and it has not worked.

ANd just because you dont' want to respond to something, is no need to call it a strawman.

 

[Cythraul]

Somebody posted the following on another forum, and it's pretty much something that's been in the back of my mind but I didn't really know how to express it coherently:

"I just think the argument of whether or not we have 'free will' is one of those philosophical arguments that is a waste of time. The term 'free will' is used to describe certain actions, or should I say choices. When someone says, "You are free to choose whatever ice cream flavor you like" - do you really think "Gee I don't know if I can do this - am I really free"? Do you really want to say that 'freedom of action' or 'the ability to choose' refers to nothing? I don't follow the thinking behind the arguments that say that 'free will' is an illusion. If it is an illusion what is it an illusion of. It seems to be similar to saying "I don't believe we have emotions" emotions are illusions. We think we are having an emotion but we are really having illusions of emotions. These words refer to things that are real - they are part of our lives. That is why I said that the question is nonsense or senseless."

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Cythraul, in terms of day to day practicality, I don't think it matters much - choice is, subjectively at least, a reality of practice.

The question does have real political and ethical import however. Recognizing the limits of 'choice' and 'free will' frees us ethically to recognize natural hierarchies among humans and releases us from the obligation to treat unequal people equally.

 

[Demilich]

Recognizing the limits of 'choice' and 'free will' frees us ethically to recognize natural hierarchies among humans and releases us from the obligation to treat unequal people equally.

:zombie: