It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our concept of free will could all be an illusion, new research suggests.

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

There are two possibilities here:

1. You're lazy and don't want to put forth the effort to communicate effectively.
2. You think that being ambiguous and hard to understand will make you look smarter by making others struggle to understand what the fug you're saying.

Let's break down this sentence for fun:



All you, or anyone needs to do, if they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP (which amounts to the negation of free will) is raise your hand...


"All you, or anyone needs to do," is a little redundant. Since "you" is part of "anyone," let's just cut "you" out entirely. Moving along now...

"If they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP" is fugging awkward as all hell... ironically. So lets just change that to, "if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility."

Next, the fragment in parenthesis is redundant not to mention treats us like we are idiots. Cause the thread title alone covers what the article proposes, saying "The concept of free will could all be an illusion." That's pretty straight forward and I'm going to dare to assume that most of us understood it. However, you seem to think that we didn't "get it" so you must re-iterate it for us? You must think so lowly of us!

Now let's put this sentence back together and it reads: All anyone needs to do, if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility, is raise their hand...

Still, that's a little awkward so I would re-arrange it to read: All anyone needs to do is raise their hand if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility.

You gotta admit, that's a smoother, chiller sentence and real easy to read. But then, I still don't know why anyone needs to raise their hand if they are calling the OP a bunch of BS? I had hoped that maybe you'd answer that question of mine in the last paragraph. However, the last paragraph is the MOST gauche, and it's still talking about raising hands but this time because you're not fooled and you didn't choose "it" whatever that means.

If you continue to persist like this, I will cease all communication until you show signs of actually wanting to communicate.

Thank you in advance for making yourself clear (if you choose to do so), and have a good night now.
edit on 11-5-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: akushla99

There are two possibilities here:

1. You're lazy and don't want to put forth the effort to communicate effectively.
2. You think that being ambiguous and hard to understand will make you look smarter by making others struggle to understand what the fug you're saying.

Let's break down this sentence for fun:



All you, or anyone needs to do, if they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP (which amounts to the negation of free will) is raise your hand...


"All you, or anyone needs to do," is a little redundant. Since "you" is part of "anyone," let's just cut "you" out entirely. Moving along now...

"If they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP" is fugging awkward as all hell... ironically. So lets just change that to, "if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility."

Next, the fragment in parenthesis is redundant not to mention treats us like we are idiots. Cause the thread title alone covers what the article proposes, saying "The concept of free will could all be an illusion." That's pretty straight forward and I'm going to dare to assume that most of us understood it. However, you seem to think that we didn't "get it" so you must re-iterate it for us? You must think so lowly of us!

Now let's put this sentence back together and it reads: All anyone needs to do, if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility, is raise their hand...

Still, that's a little awkward so I would re-arrange it to read: All anyone needs to do is raise their hand if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility.

You gotta admit, that's a smoother, chiller sentence and real easy to read. But then, I still don't know why anyone needs to raise their hand if they are calling the OP a bunch of BS? I had hoped that maybe you'd answer that question of mine in the last paragraph. However, the last paragraph is the MOST gauche, and it's still talking about raising hands but this time because you're not fooled and you didn't choose "it" whatever that means.

If you continue to persist like this, I will cease all communication until you show signs of actually wanting to communicate.

Thank you in advance for making yourself clear (if you choose to do so), and have a good night now.


It is fairly clear that you do NOT understand what the OP 'is' saying through a statement made by a researcher at Scientific American..

Let's do it one question at a time.

Q1 Do you credit the research presented in the OP?' yes or no

Å99
edit on 12-5-2016 by akushla99 because: of yes no



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

I have given you the opportunity to explain your most gauche syntax, but instead you are now trying to engage me in some kind of dialogue in which you clearly plan to squash my intelligence and make yourself feel big? I guess you don't know how to say what you want to say (why would you quote 'is' like that? lawl), but I do hope that you learn how to communicate more effectively for your own sake. Until then, good luck and have a good one.

Btw, I aintcho mama.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: akushla99

I have given you the opportunity to explain your most gauche syntax, but instead you are now trying to engage me in some kind of dialogue in which you clearly plan to squash my intelligence and make yourself feel big? I guess you don't know how to say what you want to say (why would you quote 'is' like that? lawl), but I do hope that you learn how to communicate more effectively for your own sake. Until then, good luck and have a good one.

Btw, I aintcho mama.


I've explicitly broken it down to yes/no answers.

If you are saying, you cannot answer a yes/no questionaire - but are completely au fait with determinism...that's not confusing, it's ridiculous...

Through several iterations of the same question - the simplest, and easiest to understand would be a yes/no question.

Q1 Do you credit the research presented in the OP?

yes or no

Å99



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

en.wikipedia.org...(rhetoric)

Such a formula can be made either true or false based on the values assigned to its propositional variables

Am I right?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox

wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

en.wikipedia.org...(rhetoric)

Such a formula can be made either true or false based on the values assigned to its propositional variables

Am I right?


There is patently something wrong with the statement made by the researcher on the conclusion of the research conducted.
What do you think it is? You can PM me if you like.

Å99
edit on 12-5-2016 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2016 by akushla99 because: PM



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
"Perhaps in the very moments that we experience a choice, our minds are rewriting history, fooling us into thinking that this choice - that was actually completed after its consequences were subconsciously perceived - was a choice that we had made all along," writes one of the researchers, Adam Bear, over at Scientific American.

...except Adam Bear...and except those who agree with this statement (non free willers).
This special group are not subject to the statement. I.e. are somehow exempt from the statement (?!).

...and everybody else who doesn't agree with this statement (free willers) are subject to the statement.

The reason free willers do not put thier hand up to the challenge is because they do not agree with the statement. They therefore have no need to validate it as a statement of truth, by raising their hand.

...and the reason non free willers do not put their hand up, is because, if they agree with the statement - they must be included in the statement. They therefore - exempt themselves from a statement pertaining to free willers and non free willers alike...the statement is absurd, if you credit it, and if you don't credit it.

The question is -

How is Adam Bear and all who agree with the statement - exempt from the statement?

[The statement was neither uttered, nor penned by me. It is a quote from an article, by one of the researchers at Scientific American]

Å99



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I've been saying this for years.

Free will is not possible with our understanding of physics today.

When we break everything down to its smallest scale.. and ask ourselves..

What is a descision, what is a choice?

It is a mere thought.. or the synapses firing in our brain which is caused by our brain chemistry. On an atomic level all that is, are atomsubject forming molecules bouncing off eachother.

^ the result of that reaction being a thought and an action. Just like pool balls being broken at a pool table (think the big bang) every atom and molecule has a velocity (a speeds and a direction) and thus a predetermined destination based on the initial motion.

The entire fate of the universe was "predetermined" in a way by whatever it is that you want to define as the initial motion of matter.

It's undeniable. We have no real control over our lives, every descision we make was a descision we were always going to make. Every change we make in ourselves was a change destined since the beginning of time.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Sorry. Not buying.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

He's just telling us we're not as smart as he is.

I'm sure he is quite right.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

What you believe is not relevant to the conversation, I'm afraid. We are trying to identify, if possible, what is real.


Å99



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

How is any concept clung too not a belief except when it becomes communication. If one still believes when the conversation is over and dwells in that belief, then how could they think to turn the TV on or go do something else? Those beliefs or concepts no matter if its religion, philosophy, science or whatever is still just a conceptual system to communicate.

They are all subjects of some concept to ponder in the mind, in order to effect some sort of work. The benefit of that concept to do some sort of work or solve some sort of problem is debatible... and well the OP just communicates a concept no different than any other concept in the varied ways people choose to grasp it... as in dismiss it or defend it or integrate it into some sort of understanding that may be beneificial later... even if its just cause for a random conversation over coffee with someone later.

Does any concept grasped actually change anything within ones mind... no but of course the experience of whatever may be a catylst for a different way of living, whether beneficial or not is of course left to be determined through experimentation, of course the results will be variable just like the many opinions on this and a myriad of other topics... so does it make it any truer outside of ones own actual experience? The debate actually becomes moot when it is all understood to be concepts looking subjectively at then instead of becoming subject to them from an objective point of view.

Science could say the found all bodies in space now have rings, my body is not located in space so the question is what does such a discovery mean is it a benefit and detriment or just more conceptual load to learn as our old conceptual load now has to say not only saturn... some have not upgraded their knowledge so to them thats the only one :p so its important to bare in mind, what we argue about as important or an amazing discovery does not keep or prevent the world from going around... the rings whether dicovered now or 1000 years ago wouldnt make any difference as obviously they were already there its just someone finally noticed look they all have rings.

Of course someone knowing such and knowing others do not, can allow in that silly old ting called and ego to say to that other someone haha youre stupid. So basically even though the rings seemingly have no effect now being known... the discovery creates a wave of varying degrees of gravity to the situation of the whole entire mass.

In the same way belief and concepts not known to be reality just a label to describe some condition also yet just another conceptual label... leaves a lot of things poorly understood, so perhaps thats why we have thumbs because when we dwell in the conceptual as a reality it makes sense at the time, looking back 2000 years from now we are going to be seen as all thumbs in our conceptual thinking just the same as looking back now to 2000 years ago? Same thing.

As Socrates said what do you or anyone actually know? Its all basically concepts grasp them or do not, it wont make any difference to the sun... which was there 2000 years ago now and will still be there 2000 years later.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

How do you square free will with causal determinism? In our universe nothing moves without an "agitator", so if you believe in free will what creates free will? Or do we possess a god-like power to create something out of nothing?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

It's undeniable. We have no real control over our lives, every descision we make was a descision we were always going to make. Every change we make in ourselves was a change destined since the beginning of time.



Since we interact with the world and are not a closed system what you're saying sounds implausible. Given the infinite amount of random factors influencing our causal behavior (easy example: sunny day v. rainy day) the current "state of our being" can't be known since the beginning of time. In hipper terms: since $hit happens La Place's demon cannot exist ;-)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I'm always up for the challenge to have my mind blown, and that's basically the only good thing about debate. To have my mind changed or to be given the chance to strengthen my own stance which could equally result in my mind being blown. I love it when my mind is blown, period. lol. I like being mind-fugged, lol. I like being full of wonder and feeling lucky to be alive and amazed by life. I like how learning things always fills me with wonder but at the same exact time makes me feel so small... like a nobody, because there's a certain freedom that comes with being a nobody, isn't there?

But that doesn't mean I think everything(or anyone) is stupid whenever my mind isn't blown... cause I think we're all stupid, as you so tediously with length went into depth about. And I agree. It's natural. Everybody knows something I don't, and I know things that others don't, etc. And... I don't think I'm better than anybody, if that's what you're worried about. On the contrary, I feel like a freak and an outcast, and less than generally (everyone else is better than me, they sure do act like it anyhow and I'm super sensitive to that sh-t so I just can't seem to ignore it!)... but that's how I personally discovered the freedom that comes with being a nobody. I accept being a nobody!

Does grasping any concept actually change anything in one's own mind? YES. Of course it fugging does, oh my god yes. What the hell are you on about? Tbh, you feel slightly dissociative because you're not really grounded... in anything, and you're a little awkward in your syntax, too. But I get the feeling you're basically like, "you can't know anything for sure, it's all different for everyone." But I on the other hand? I'm not like you (but I am dissociative, just in another manner).

I'm not afraid to know that my body needs good food, and a lot of rest, in order to function properly (among many other things). I know this very firmly. I am very grounded in specific truths, concepts, beliefs, or whatever you want to call them... I have a strong foundation in them. And whenever I learn or grasp a new concept? It changes everything in my mind by either acting as reinforcements to already pre-established belief-systems or, the new learned thing might act as a dangerous force threatening to shatter those familiar networks but then may act as the foundation for newer networks to be built on. And so on and so forth. So yeah, concepts have the power to change minds.
edit on 12-5-2016 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Just a friendly reminder: we know nothing when it comes to the "nature" of consciousness and free will. So therefore we shouldn't judge others so quickly. I have strong opinions about a lot of things, but I also know that it's just a speck of dust in the universe of knowledge, and sadly my speck of dust may only be an illusion.

When I heard a Nobel Laureate in physics say two weeks ago that "consciousness" may be a fundamental part of reality, like gravity, it blew my mind. Twenty years ago only New Age loonies would utter those words. Well, …

This post is mostly a reminder to myself so I don't forget to be kinder to all loonies on ATS … :-)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllIsOne
a reply to: neoholographic

How do you square free will with causal determinism? In our universe nothing moves without an "agitator", so if you believe in free will what creates free will? Or do we possess a god-like power to create something out of nothing?


Hate to be captain obvious here... but the space for your post conceptually existed but until you made the post it didnt exist and to other posters your post didnt exist until you made it... so you moved some matter from one empty space to another and viola! Something from err nothing, even though that wasnt the case as you simply filled empty space... but that empty space went somewhere so now it has the potiential to now be moved elsewhere once someone somewhere at some time creates something and then it moves elsewhere once again.

This crap is infinite without any beginning of moving space around even before any known conceptual concievible life... atoms where moving empty space around and then they were chunky... larger bits of matter displacing even larger chunks of space around... til whammo a complex combination of all this shifting from some timeless point and energy animated a form as a possibility until such kept going and we can scratch our collective monkey butts in mass over the wondering.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

Youre um welcome? But yes I do have hobbies many of them other than rubbing peoples minds into extasy or confusion. I typically point the the absurdity of all the conceptual graspings people do, so more people can live with ease and peace, sleep nice and cozy and enjoy a good meal without stress and worry to the world. But just because im not attached to concepts or prior experience doesnt mean im randomly floating around to be tossed into extremes of highs and lows, it means im very rooted and grounded and open to experience and readily shed that without it becoming a conditioning into a bias or avoidance... although I do have personal preferences, they are not something that is a must. Like Im not a fan of ketchup on a hotdog, but if I were a guest and all of them were pre ketchuped id eat it without complaint... even if they dropped it on the floor and didnt know I saw them. Neither a practice id do to others but different people have different ways of doing things... of course that just means id likely throw a cook out not put anything one their hot dog, drop one on purpose and toss it out for some random night animals to eat... and maybe theyd see I dont do things the way they do. Then try another cookout with them? Same sort of thing as last time? Maybe hotdogs is a bad idea and movies and pizza is a better option.

So yeah ive a personality and normality even though since im not te average bear im kind of eccentric as most people that attempt to make life an art form at every single level of it... because everyting is beautiful and weve a limited time to appreciate it.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: AllIsOne
a reply to: neoholographic

How do you square free will with causal determinism? In our universe nothing moves without an "agitator", so if you believe in free will what creates free will? Or do we possess a god-like power to create something out of nothing?


Hate to be captain obvious here... but the space for your post conceptually existed but until you made the post it didnt exist and to other posters your post didnt exist until you made it... so you moved some matter from one empty space to another and viola! Something from err nothing, even though that wasnt the case as you simply filled empty space... but that empty space went somewhere so now it has the potiential to now be moved elsewhere once someone somewhere at some time creates something and then it moves elsewhere once again.



Sounds very poetic, but it's a bad understanding how pixels on your computer get organized. There is no "empty space".



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
True freedom comes with free education, free farmlands, and free traveling without borders. This doesn't meaning killing all animals.




top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join