100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Determinism or free will? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am involved in a discussion with some rather intimidatingly intelligent folks on this question and would appreciate thoughts from both sides.please feel free to elaborate in detail on your point of view... I hope I dont get my self into trouble by jumping in but... Scientificaly speaking, the universe is based on probability. Chaos theory states that no matter how deterministic something is, there are always unknown variables, and you can never accuratly predict what will happen. Its all a dice role   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm an existentialist, which means that I reject a higher authority, and believe in an individual's free will (and the responsibility that comes with having it). I think that, no matter where you are in life, you are free to make your own choices, and you alone are responsible for dealing with the consequences. It grinds my gears when I hear people say, "Oh well, it's God's will" or "I prayed about it, so that's all I can do." I don't believe in making excuses. You can always be better than you are. I also don't believe in an absolute moral code. The Ten Commandments say that under no circumstances should one tell a lie. But if it's the Holocaust, and I'm harboring Jews, and Nazis knock on my door, I'm sure as hell going to lie to them, to save the lives of innocent people. An existentialist appreciates the privilege and the burden of making difficult choices. As for the "meaning of life"... an existentialist believes that there is no one answer - it is what you make it. If life is predetermined, what's the point? /: Many people have painted a bad picture on existentialist, but I think Soren Kierkegaard would be proud of your definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jasonpfaff
on
Thu 01/14/10 10:25 PM
|
|
Heres another thought...
I think everyone has the capability of having a 'free will' but its up to the individual to embrace that concept. For instance, a guy listens to the radio and heres someone bashing the current president. Upon hearing these things, this guy feels angry and cheated that someone in a leadership possistion would do a thing like that, he cant believe that he was fooled and wounders why he didnt see it before. So he tells his co workers who tell their wives the horrible atrocities commited by the presedent. Was he excerzing free will in making that decsision to be influenced and than to influence others? So when those wives tell their kids all the crimes against humanity the government commited back in their day, and those kids now wives and husbands themselves preach about the dispicable and hanus evils in polotics to their grandkids, do the grand kids have a choice whether or not to accept those views? Please bear with me. My point is, if your influenced at a young age to believe in something, it is extreemly dificult to think anythink else is possible. IE Radicale Islam in some cases. So how do we fix this issue? Or does it need fixing? We teach our children (most of us) that murder and rape is wrong, thats not so bad lol Just a thought. If we teach them to think for themselves, To look at information objectivly, to see all sides of the issue, to use logic and sound reason when deciding or concluding, I think we would In effect fix the part that needs fixing, while nurturing the part that needs to be capitalized. If the children of Germany were taught these things, there would never have been a Nazi Germany. Objective thinking is the ultiment protection from a person with a eloquent vocabualry and a strong willpower who would cast a seemingly wounderful and delicatly woven spell that would unknowlingly force us to give up any free will and bound us to servitude. Logic is the sword that cuts down dogma, and the concoction that prevents it from festering into the disease of arbitrary reason and mindless ideology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative: Self delusion does not count, does it? JB: Well see, you were not being "extremely courteous" at all. You were working very hard at refraining from a rude remark. I see you lost that battle. creative: Seeing how self delusion exists, it is relevent. The courtesy factor had nothing to do with not saying self delusion does not count. That is a valid and pertinent question, unlike the answer to it. JB: We were not talking about self "delusion" and why do you assume it exists? Why do you assume that I am assuming that? Because you stated it. "Seeing how self delusion exists, it is relevent." ********************* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a good time to show a fine example which provides obvious proof(to me at least) that self delusion exists. Self delusion happens when one incorrectly assumes(and subsequently believes) that something is true and then acts upon, and according to, that justified false belief - that is self delusion.
Whether a thing is a "false belief" is a matter of another person's opinion. So according to that other person's belief, s/he may be incorrectly assuming that is "self delusion." As I have already indicated, and despite the fact that is not being recognized to be what it is, my claiming courtesy earlier had nothing to do with being silent and everything to do with maintaining a respectable dialogue with you even though there are continued assumptions which permeate your side of the discussion on a regular basis. Add to that your seeming to be unable to follow someone else's thoughts and nearly always focusing upon your own. I follow your thoughts perfectly. I simply disagree with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/15/10 07:54 AM
|
|
JB: I think I would define the self (at its core) as pure potential. The potential to be, to think, to observe and to manifest. The potential to choose and to act, and to imagine. Everything else that exists around that self are tools to aid in that potential. Those tools are the mind, the brain, the body etc. They have manifested from pure potential for the purpose of the expression and existence of the self. This sounds nice but means nothing. Potential doesn't do anything. Potential is self? Do you understand what potential is? Yes I understand what potential is. And it does eventually DO SOMETHING. If you did not have the potential to do anything you would not do anything. Describing the true self is like trying to describe God. It is certainly not easy to do with the limits of the human language. JB: Self is the will. It is the will to exist. I thought the will was the soul? I thought the soul was the programmer, interpreter, interpretee, the person, etc... Yes I did. These are all 'words' that describe the self and what it is. I'm sorry you don't understand or comprehend that. You're not giving a coherent argument here, JB. I say that out of courtesy, and with respect for you, although my interest level in continuing to discuss this with you is waning. Earlier you made the remark that my "theories go round and round". Do you understand why that is false? First of all the last question assumes it is false. Opinions cannot be false. Opinions are opinions. It is my opinion that your theories go round and round when attempting to define the self. The best you can come up with is a combination of things or tools that the self uses to express itself. The brain, the body, beliefs, etc. None of which are the self, but they are attributes or manifestations of the self. I start and end at the same point, but only after wading through and courteously addressing your wording for so many pages, while showing you why your arguments against mine claims are failing, and giving credit where it is due. Oh you are so gracious. Pat yourself on the back.  So, it is not my theories that go round and round, it is my conversations with you that go round and round. That is because the only thing being addressed by either one of us is what you think. Why don't you focus upon what I am writing, especially when it is not a direct result of my following your thoughts? What you write shows me that you don't comprehend what I am saying. I understand your point very well. There were several important and valid points made earlier which you either did not comment upon, or attempted to disprove but failed to do so. Those points were made on and with a purpose, one of which was to talk about the relevent aspects of this topic and to get off of the semantic merry go round which your continuing to create and fuel with a constant barrage of new terminology, most of which does not matter anyway. Just as you do not address my valid points. You expect me to address all of your points, and yet you ignore mine. The semantic merry go round? Unfortunately, words are all we have to attempt to describe something that is very difficult to describe. The differences between your and my beliefs are clear. That is where they always end up. You believe you are right and you always try to tell me I am wrong about what I believe until the inevitable word "delusion" pops up. I have valid reasons for my beliefs which are logical to me. You expect and demand 'proof' for everything as if you think I am trying to convince you of something or as if you just want to win an argument. You expect and demand your kind of logic for everything. (The truths that lie beyond this reality are not going to be logical.) I reach for truth and I have found that the truth is not logical according to the level of thinking that you are coming from. I could confine myself to your level of thinking and I would agree with everything you say but that is not where I am. You don't understand this and no amount of 'semantics' will help you to understand it. So my interest in this conversation is also waning.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case study 85, closed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RainbowTrout
on
Fri 01/15/10 07:42 PM
|
|
I used to have free will. I had accepted that we were out of water and that it could wait until tomorrow to get it fixed. But my roomate was determined that I should be the responsible one and get more water in gallon jugs. I could choose to accept my free will to procrastinate ot just to accept that she was pissed off at me. To get her off my back I complied with her wishes that I be the responsible one and do something about the problem. Luckily, I had remembered from treatment that I can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Determinism seemed to work out in my case because the bitching has ceased and she got her way. So much for free will because I chose serenity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 01/15/10 11:09 PM
|
|
Hey trout!!!
 It's been a while. Hope you are well, my friend. Regarding free will... I believe that a sound case can be made which establishes the idea that belief necessarily negates free will. I do not find reason to even make a distinction between false belief or true. Both necessarily negate free will, because one's will correlates(in many ways) to what one believes, and there are certain beliefs which all(some, or most) others rest upon that necessarily affect how one frames conscious thought, and therefore must affect one's wants as well. Great example! Funny! Edited to remove the absolutionism... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RainbowTrout
on
Fri 01/15/10 11:34 PM
|
|
I tend to agree with you because I have the sophist trait to gain and that shows up in my belief system. Dogmatic though that be I find it better like St. Francis prayer mentions to try to understand better than to be understood. Or otherwise it affects my learning. It seems I always have an ulterior motive whether I realize it or not.
I also like what Epictetus said. All religions must be tolerated... for every man must get to heaven in his own way. Epictetus If you seek truth you will not seek victory by dishonorable means, and if you find truth you will become invincible. Epictetus Control thy passions lest they take vengence on thee. Epictetus We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak. Epictetus You may be always victorious if you will never enter into any contest where the issue does not wholly depend upon yourself. Epictetus People are not disturbed by things, but by the view they take of them. Epictetus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice!
I always liked the one that says that waiting one's turn to speak is not the same as listening. Sophistry? What is that? j/k
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is where I try to convince you that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kant defined free will as moral not selfish!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The past is but the beginning of a beginning, and all that is or has been is but the twilight of the dawn.
-H.G. WELLS |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Sat 02/06/10 09:38 AM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ Reading this thread makes me cry, so much confusion between what happens and what can be known. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 02/07/10 05:30 PM
|
|
Instead of talking about "Free Will" you might want to read this book:
THE POWER OF WILL by Frank Channing Haddock M.S. PHD. Download the book here: http://arfalpha.com/PowerOfWill/PowerOfWill.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
plato.stanford.edu
 If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right. - Henry Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We ALL have free-will to help us define what our inner self portrays as our best. See, we think in our reasonings as two.
Objectively and permissibly our best choice of will. If THIS was simply predetermined, all of that would just be a muse. All defined determinations always have multiple exclusions as to that end..........WHY?,,,,,,free will to act, spoils all models of exact perfect being its out-come. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A brick is sailing through the air toward your head. Do you have free will?
Well you could choose to duck. You could base your decision on your financial situation and decide not to duck. Our brains and millions of years of evolution make us good avoiders, and good schemers as well. We do not know what reality we exist in, we could exist in the reality where the brick just misses us without moving our head at all (we would have to look and trust our senses to know), maybe we live in a reality where the brick will smash our teeth out, or just graze our dome, or . . . so we can make assessments of our reality, we can plan what to do if we live say in reality a), or b), or . . . and avoid an undesirable outcome. Bricks sailing through the air hitting heads is evitable. We can aviod this, and thus it is not inevitable. There are those things that are evitable, and inevitable. That each moment has a preceding cause, and that the next moment is based on the preceding causes does not change that some things are still evitable, a mail box does not have free will, and thus it cannot avoid bricks, in fact it cannot know anything, yet we can and if we knew exactly which reality we existed within (every single variable for the whole of existance) then we could know each cause and each effect. Knowledge is however distinct from ontology (what we know about what is, is not perfect), we have a limited experience of this reality and so we cannot know exactly which reality we are in and can only plan so many different patterns based on that knowledge. We cannot avoid every outcome, however quite a lot can be avoided. This is a compatibilist perspective. Free will is compatible with determinism. Physics backs up this idea in every case considered deeply enough. Determinism no more breaks free will, then does no determinism. A world with indeterminate, or even no causes has no more foundation for free will then does a deterministic world, after all in order to duck the brick you must first determine you will need to duck the brick. |
|
|
|
|
