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.

 

Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

page: 15
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ZeroFurrbone




If you throw a rock and the rock falls , doesn't it mean they have no free will and by your post they have subconciousness that controlls them to fall.

Yup rocks have a brain which subconsciously tells them to fall or not. You should know this by now.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: Andy1144

No, as the OP it is your job to properly convey your idea. It is not our job to decipher your jargon. If you haven't gotten your point across by now its probably time to rework your theory.

I have done my best to respond to each and every post to reconcile this matter. I will never change what I mean just so someone would agree with me so I can feel good about myself.



Also, insulting the audience you're pandering to doesn't help your case. Just a little advice...

Shouldn't you say that to the replies who always start first? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being curt to BS. And my advice to you is that if you don't like the way I do things, you can go fu*k yourself.


edit on 5-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie




If there is no free will then why do I get multiple choices?

Because its how the brain works. It tries to think about multiple outcomes. But in the end you only choose which one your brain thinks is the best.



Many people choose a different outcome so if there is no free will then why bother giving readers a choice?
Because readers have a brain that thinks and makes choices. You just have no choice in doing things differently from what the brain thinks.
edit on 5-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: old_god




Free will then may well be about what intentions we form, what choices we create and what actions we take which shape our fate going forward.

If that's how you define free will then I absolutely agree with you.

But if I say free will is "x" and you say free will is "z" and you use z to disprove x, that wouldn't work. We would just be talking about two completely different definitions of free will.

By the way there is no ultimate definition of free will, it depends what meaning someone assigns it.

edit on 5-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam




Our hubris all too frequently dictates what we think "exists." Its easy to conclude that because something doesn't logically "make sense," that it doesn't exist. But, that assumes our cognitive ability as a species is profound enough to dictate what is, or is not, based solely on whether or not it makes sense.

Good point. But there are a few facts which are absolute whether they are confined to the laws of physics or not. And an example is that it is impossible to be aware of being unaware. So if you are aware, you cant be aware of being unaware. This fact is applicable in any dimension of existence where there is consciousness. That's why I can be certain.

Now with free will, I basically mean it's impossible to do something free from what makes us do it. Even if there exists a universe where we can do something free from anything, we still wouldn't be free to make a choice free from that cause.

And plus, you could say we can't disapprove the existence of god. But we can't disapprove the existence of Mickey Mouse either. So even if what your saying is true, it still wouldn't benefit us to think about unlikely possibilities. In fact, it is more possible for Mickey Mouse to exist then free will.
edit on 5-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake




I do agree that genes could influence the ant's choice on a path to take. So if you think the issue of free will is solved and we don't have any, what would you call our life experience? Is it an illusion?

I have no idea if what I'm experiencing is real or an illusion, but I know that my and our life experience is real.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit




When people talk of free will, they don't literally mean the ability to create a decision based on nothing..

But that's what I'm talking about. And "the illusion of free will" is a big topic among philosophers who mean free will exactly how I mean it.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Plato's allegory of the cave touches on some interesting subject matter pertaining to freewill and/or how we experience reality.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-2-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is someone "in there", and it is your sub-consicious. The brain is governed by the laws of nature somewhat, but it is also governed by experience that is not always natural, but man-made. This is why we all have different ways of thinking. Through our experience and nature, we choose to believe what we believe. We are self-made due to the information we choose to believe. Thoughts sometimes do just appear, but they are governed by what experience we have. The inventor can't just have a thought to build a totally new invention without any sort of prior knowledge in a similar idea. If that was the case, anyone could invent anything whenever they want it. The only one in there is you and you different levels of consciousness. You make your own decisions, just like choosing to believe that you have no free will.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

You seem to have an extremely shoddy grasp on what Free Will actually means. This post is embarrassing.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Andy1144

You seem to have an extremely shoddy grasp on what Free Will actually means. This post is embarrassing.

Free will doesn't have one absolute meaning, your reply is embarrassing.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Andy1144

Plato's allegory of the cave touches on some interesting subject matter pertaining to freewill and/or how we experience reality.

en.wikipedia.org...

Pertaining to one definition of free will not the one I'm talking about.

I mean we can talk about something else, just know that it's something different then what my OP described. So I don't want to confuse people talking about some other free will when I mean something very different in my OP by it.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

I would say it touches more on the subject of how we interpret reality but it's also about the power of acting, without the constraint of necessity or fate, basically the ability to act at ones own discretion(or not), which seems to be the very definition of freewill.
edit on 6-2-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Andy1144

I would say it touches more on the subject of how we interpret reality but it's also about the power of acting, without the constraint of necessity or fate, basically the ability to act at ones own discretion(or not), which seems to be the very definition of freewill.

Again, as I've said in the past, this is not an issue of causality. I don't know if the universe acts deterministically or not. You could say we have the ability to make choices that go against our subconscious impulses. We can make choices that aren't fully constrained by our genetics, or by outside conditioning. But ultimately these are the two main factors which influence us to make a choice.

Free will has no one definition. It is a very misunderstood concept with a lot of controversy surrounding it. So I'll say it again, there are more than one meaning to free will. And I mean "the illusion of free will" exactly how many philosophers mean it regarding this subject. So sorry to repeat this many times, but you're still talking about another meaning of free will.

www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...

Sam Harris describes the lack of free will exactly as I mean it.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConstitutionalPatriot
a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is someone "in there", and it is your sub-consicious.

The thing is the word 'your' implies that there is a 'you in there' - nothing is 'yours' because there is no 'you' separate from the all. There is only ever what is happening - there is no 'what is happening and you' - there is just what there is - which is one.


The brain is governed by the laws of nature somewhat, but it is also governed by experience that is not always natural, but man-made.
What would you consider to be a man made experience?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

"Free will has no one definition. It is a very misunderstood concept with a lot of controversy surrounding it."

Mate, say it as many times as you wish but without definition discussion becomes rather meaningless.

Illusion/reality or some other external factor/condition at play, freewill is certainly important towards our development as a species, without it, or the illusion of such, i imagine our race would stagnate and devolve somewhat.

The ambivalence that surrounds the topic is really down to our lack of understanding of consciousness.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
Illusion/reality or some other external factor/condition at play, freewill is certainly important towards our development as a species, without it, or the illusion of such, i imagine our race would stagnate and devolve somewhat.

This brings to mind the image of a snooker table with a full set of balls at the start of the game. A man strikes the white ball and as the red balls are struck - one ball says to the other, 'if we did not have freewill we would never get in a net'.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Mate, say it as many times as you wish but without definition discussion becomes rather meaningless.

I have given my definition multiple times but you have changed it's definition to another meaning of free will. That's why I have to say this so the discussion can be focused on one definition, not confused in other definitions. Because the discussion wouldn't work.



Illusion/reality or some other external factor/condition at play, freewill is certainly important towards our development as a species, without it, or the illusion of such, i imagine our race would stagnate and devolve somewhat.

I agree with everything you said here, but again you are talking about something else.

Have you watched the videos about Sam Harris I've posted? They explain what I mean by lacking free will.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I agree that we have little understanding of consciousness and sub-consciousness and how free will plays out in these experiences. If we can accept there may be many forms of free will being utilized whether through rational thought, emotional response, or by instantaneous physical choice (gut reaction; fight, flight or freeze), or a mixing of one, two or all. I always tend to repeat Descartes "I think, therefore I am" theory, which then takes me to Avicena's Falling Man Theory, which is explained as such -

- if you were falling in a vacuum, in utter darkness, though none of your senses would be engaged, you would still be sure you exist; therefore, there is a distinction between mind and body.

My truth, "I am conscious, therefore I exist" whether in this collective physical reality we created for ourselves, or by some holographic imagery created for us without our knowledge.



Summary

It is known that unconscious thought can interpret single words or images, and that deliberating over a simple problem for too long can be disadvantageous. It remains unclear under what circumstances, if any, it is best to delegate decision problems to one's unconscious by diverting attention from them (see Payne,[18] Waroquier[19] and Srinivasan & Mukherjee[21]), and to what extent logical, rule-based thought processes can occur outside of awareness. More fundamentally, it is still unknown what exactly happens neurologically when unconscious thought occurs, a more thorough understanding of which may inform those trying to prescribe unconscious or conscious thought. (Antonio Damasio's recent book on the neurology of reason, Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, while not a discussion of consciousness, argues for the existence of an evolved interaction that takes place in normal brains between emotion – an unconscious process, distinct from the conscious experience of feeling – and conscious reasoning.)


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

"If you were falling in a vacuum, in utter darkness, though none of your senses would be engaged, you would still be sure you exist; therefore, there is a distinction between mind and body."

That would indeed be hell through, to exist in nothingness, and without prior knowledge of anything other than that nothingness. What would you draw upon to establish your existence one wonders?

I understand the premise of Avicena's Falling Man Theory, just playing devil's advocate.



new topics




 
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join