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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

"Do you agree it is impossible to make a conscious choice free from any physical or quantum (or other) conditioning whatsoever?"

I don't think anything is impossible in a universe that contains infinite diversity in infinite combination, just highly improbable.

I think our notion of logic and reason still leaves a lot to be desired hence my ambivalence to answer the question unequivocally.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

To some degree I can agree, but the problem with that logic is that we can know some things for sure, like the fact we are conscious. What you've seem to have done is deny if those sorts of facts saying that "We can't know anything for sure". That argument could never be said about the fact that we experience life. It isn't probable or improbable, it's absolute.

Also if everything in a universe is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible? This is the paradox you have slightly been abusing.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

LoL

Never been accused of abusing a paradox before.

Such interesting times in which we live, humorously so.

The problem is indeed logic related/based, apparently the answer is 42.


It's as good an answer as any other.

Keeping in mind that propositional logic is apparently formally fallacious, and always considered to be wrong.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I actually agree with everything you're saying but you can't seem to agree that there are things we can know beyond a shadow of doubt.

All I'm saying is that there is no absolute free will free from the constructs of physicality, quantum physics and whatever other forces there are. That's it. It's that simple. You can't make a choice without it having an influence. That's it.

When I say I am aware of experience, it's logically true. Nothing can trump this logic.

Again the paradox is if you can't know anything then how can you know that? You're sort of contradicting yourself. I mean you don't but you do. That's another contradiction by the way. Rather a paradox.

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



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

See the very nature of the questions this thread poses can be considered to be paradoxical.

People contradict themselves for a multitude of reasons, lack of knowledge or incomplete grasp of the situation being some of the main contenders as to contradiction.

I imagine i fall into that category.


There may be no absolute anything, absolute may just be another hurdle humanity has to contend with.

Fact is we need to get over ourselves and our inflated opinion as to our place in reality before the big quetions can be addressed.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake



Fact is we need to get over ourselves and our inflated opinion as to our place in reality before the big quetions can be addressed.

But based on you these questions can't ever be addressed so that's a contradiction to your statement. It's true there is no absolute something, but if there is one thing, it's that I am aware.

You can choose to be open to the possibility that there is an old man in the sky that judges us to heaven or hell based on their religion. You can say you can't disprove it because we can't know anything for sure, but I prefer to look at the facts.



I imagine i fall into that category.

hehe, I bet you do sugar pie. (Joke)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
The concept of "free will" is just a fictitious concept without any inherent truth.


I thought about arguing the point, but it seems my lack of "free will" just won't let me do it. But, don't forget that non-action is a form of action as well, so, I guess I did execute my own choice by not arguing with you. But then proved you were wrong by posting in response at all. And when my non-action became an action, I proved myself both right and wrong at the same time.

Think about it.

But not too long.

Gotta love Philosophy.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

But saying there is no absolute is making an absolute statement.

I'm with you all the way, Andy.

It actually really baffles me how much opposition this always gets from people. Always.

I think people are afraid that it somehow takes away meaning from our personal lives, or even that it might excuse criminal behavior like "well they have no choice." And actually I am a big empathizer of all behaviors but luckily, there are the "white blood cells" in the system who will always work towards cleaning and improving the machine by realizing more choice so that everything runs smoothy. Knowing that we basically have no free will in this big machine? It doesn't take meaning away for me, it's just a truth to me. It is absolute to me, like gravity.

I think when we deny the truth about one another and one another's behaviors, I think that might cause more problems in the future. Like I can see that we are trying to improve our environment by punishing criminal behavior (which I agree with, I think the world needs more justice personally), but I think we could do more too. People are created and made and maybe we can change our environment so our environment produces less criminal behavior. But that won't happen until we admit that we're all... a little bit made. That's what I mean about causing more problems.

There are reasons I myself am particularly interested in these things. I was made this way. It is what it is.
edit on 2-2-2017 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

In a nutshell, there are two different meanings of free will which contradict each other but are both true in their own context.

I think the true use of philosophy is to make conclusions to questions based on logic. Not to continuously stress over the fact of how something contradicts. I was just doing a little banter.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: geezlouise

I think it's a sensitive topic and easily misunderstood. I remember 4 years ago I was 17 and I started thinking critically about life. I realized that every decision we make is decided by forces completely out of our control. The realization was so deep I contemplated suicide for over 4 months. My sense of identity was completely shattered. I had deep regret for thinking critically because the truth destroyed my comfortable illusions. I think people don't want their illusions destroyed. They become too afraid of going face to face with the truth so they rationalize it.

Also, just because we have no free will doesn't mean there aren't consequences. It's like allowing a tiger to eat your leg without trying to escape because the tiger has no responsibility. It all starts making sense under more scrutiny but only the most open minded will truly understand the truth about no free will.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Wether we are free by choice, or we are animal that fall prey to our instincts or puppets some quantum mechanism that constrain life, that would be left to the imaginary concept of God to deal with an know.

Saying there isn't or is does not really make a difference, unless one is content when they die with no regrets at their choice, so they can R.I.P.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


We humans dont have a infinite possiblities. We cant have that in a finite inviorment/universe. Not even Our universe have more than finite possibilities within the set of universal laws. Our universe cant be infinite since it has a begining, it will also have a end.

We humans are bound to the speed of light. That is Our absolute limit. And so is Our Technology. We are also bound by the finite Resources Our universe can provide.

We are also bound to the timeline of Our universe, Our solar system and Earth.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

Sorry to hear that you suffered.

I understand, too. I've been destroyed and shattered countless times personally. Education/knowledge does that to you. Whenever you learn something new, it changes you. The you that you were before isn't there anymore, knowledge destroys illusions and ignorance and changes behavior. It is scary and hard to go through, so I understand the general adversion people have towards learning new things.

Yeah, there is cause and effect. That's one of the things that I really believe in, it's like God to me and helps me keep going. But as much as I really try to make sense of things because that's like one of my favorite things to do because when things make sense that's when I feel the most secure and safe, I still have to accept that not everything will make sense and that's just gotta be ok.

Sorry to ramble. You are very young and IMO, very wise already. Thank you for writing this thread and acknowledging my existence.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

So far i tend to agree with you, but times they are a changing.

As we approach the singularity or when we eventually breach the concept and possibly attain the ability to learn at an exponential rate problems such as broaching the speed of light or FTL communications may become viable.

As to us being bound to our own universe, or the timeline of such, well if multiverse theory decides to hold any weight there may just be an infinite amount of universe also.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


It is hard to argue Your statment because we never know what our true boundaries are. They still have to be reached.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Very true.

Also keeping in mind we need to breach those boundaries without destroying ourselves or sacrificing our Humanity in the process.

Defiantly a challenge but should we manage to survive the next few centuries as a species and become a type one civilization the possibilities are as of yet unimaginable.

Certainly interesting times in which we live.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The scientific reality affirms the reality of free-will, at least in the general sense we tend to mean it: to control your emotions.

  • Free Will is a reality that is built within an already existent, extraordinarily complex physical world of structures.

  • This means we are always being preconsciously "groomed" to advantageously handle interactional experiences. The choice of word - advantageous - means that our brain-mind will dissociate material (known things; facts; reality) such that the reasoning process can be called "motivated" i.e. to bring about what is being affectively determined in the body.

    So free will thus occurs within a deterministic framework - i.e. physical reality, as governed by the processes of symmetry, synchrony, and chaos. But that does not at all mean that we cannot inhibit what we feel, and thus create within our mindspace a clearer perception of what were doing.

    The key to understanding the reality of free will is subtly. You have to be willing to understand the limitations of your ability to detect truth, which is to say, the Human beings intrinsic tendency (as facilitated by popular culture) to become overly passionate (i.e. overly determined i.e. dissociative and idealistic) which forces a split second 'selection' process within your brain to stereotypically project meaning into a conversation.

    Such ways of being are described as "monologic", as in "a monologue", since the speaker really has no intention in hearing the other parties frame of reference. In fact, there isn't even a mental apparatus in place for them to think logically i.e. to think logically literally does entail a continuous regulation of affect i.e. what you feel, so that you do not bring your into a dissociative hyper-focus on one element amidst what can be potentially known if one simply relaxes his brain-mind and listens.

    This view, btw, is is a scientific reality. There are distinct EEG and fMRI patterns associated with strong emotional ideation that are fundamentally different from a calm, and internally regulated listening to another party. Activity in the forebrain becomes more coherent and synchronous, and so its theorized that the OFC, the area of brain behind your eyes, has some sort of 'templating' capacity in the regulation of the rest of the brain; this also implies a reversal of the relationship with the brainstem/amygdala complex. For the person who simply 'acts from will', they are under-utilizing their forebrain which leads, of course, to an incremental loss of function and structure (i.e. "use it or lose it"). In losing an important and socially necessary part of integrating your self with other people, such minds become delusionally trapped and jailed within a mind that unconsciously 'breaks away' capacities within its functioning, all the while denying the reality which is happening to them.

    And why - denial? I find it amusing that many people who pronounce themselves to be atheists or pagans seem the least able to coherently relate to the reality of our animality. Animals are organized by the amygdala - fear/advantage center which compels the organization of consciousness with reference to threat. With the evolution of social-animals, the cingulate begins to evolve, which operates by literally 'depressing' the activity of the amygdala and brainstem through the evolution of the spindle cell - a paticularly large type of neuron that exists in only the most social mammals i.e. hominids,apes, dolphins, whales, many monkeys and raccoons.

    I go into this to point out the 'two urges' which exist in animals: a more ancient one evolved in the reptile - the amygdular system - activates fear, anger and attack orientations. Whereas with the evolution of social animals, the centripetal feeling of togetherness with other animals is able to regulate, depress and ultimately, come to control its 'inner evil urge'.

    The concepts of good and evil matter - simply because of this impersonal reality: we can be fear-governed, and so come to experience deficiency in our relations, egotism in our feelings, and an inchoate aggression against others who are unconsciously felt to threaten us (anger takes over and occludes the initial fear-event in narcissists) in some way. Or, we can try to be good i.e. recognize the cause-effect processes that build us, and come to realize that happiness truly does come from affirming the value of others - because when you do that, they feel charged to do the same thing right back. Its a feedback loop - which should make sense, since the human being evolved within the context of its relationships with other Humans - ergo, the brain literally "internalizes" within itself the ontological reality and necessity of the Other.

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



  • posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:37 PM
    link   
    a reply to: Astrocyte



    I go into this [to point out the 'two urges' which exist in animals: a more ancient one evolved in the reptile - the amygdular system - activates fear, anger and attack orientations. Whereas with the evolution of social animals, the centripetal feeling of togetherness with other animals is able to regulate, depress and ultimately, come to control its 'inner evil urge'.


    Excellent response but is survival evil when conditions that necessitate survival are immoral otherwise to the cause of survival?







    edit on 2-2-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



    posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:45 PM
    link   
    a reply to: Kashai

    I think the concept of good and evil are very human constructs all thought non the less necessary to our species.

    Our ability to emphasis with others being one of the defining factors that sets us apart from other animals.

    Nature certainly does not seem to hold with such concepts, balance being the main paradigm that she seems to follow.

    edit on 2-2-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:46 PM
    link   
    Stopping thought or the concept stream no biggie.

    Pick an object and think out all you can think out on it... from the mundane to the off the wall and I mean everything. Evetually they arise slower and slower until that grinds to a halt... nothing left to the thought about the object you and it left in a nothingness and yet there is something.

    It is an external object meditation. Try as you might nothing left to be thought about the object... it conceptually vanishes but yet still there as it is without any thought that could be placed on it.

    All is like this... emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The true nature of the mind left in it's natural state the same as the object chosen.

    Over time all objects of experience become the exact same way, they have their use with none of the nonsense on top of them... leaving it in a state of it is what it is until there is a need to make it something different if it ceases to function properly in it's intended use. Of course trash is also an option if there is no project to be found to recycle or "up" cycle. Having gone through the countless conceptuals of object? Then many ideas to reuse repurpose may also result... the inventor mind of necessity.

    However choice in the matter... the reason it does seem like freewill is all the mental concepts and burdens that have been sttached to the mind as an anchor... and all the causes put out from ALL past choices become effects in which one does not seem to have control over. The proverbial ripples on a pond... picking up object tossing object into water... can occur without thought. If there is intent of positive or negative in the picking up or the throwing(emotional) then the movement is irrational as it is a self attachment driven function. If one simply picks up obhect and throws it then it becomes the mechanical process that is required... thought is not required to do so as the same function of bending reaching grasping lifting straightening coiling extending letting go and watching has occured countless times before.

    It has also occured as a child in the exact same manner "no thought" yet attachment to such things later as bad or naughty? Then the mind attaches to the act and yet it does not think about all of the processes involved in the order mentioned it just does the act... but the mind is thinking which is extrainious to the act.

    Mindfulness is a process in which one thinks the entire steps mentioned while performing the function to get the "excess" nonsense out of the process occuring.

    Seeing eventually becomes just seeing, tasting etc. and the mind goes back to the primordial state of peace where it belongs unhampered by experience, experience arises it comes and it goes and there is observed cause and effect. The effect of murder is death, the ration for murder is irrational due to all of those attachments that make it seem or appear to make sense or have justification.

    That sense or justification is a conceptual invention by the very conceptual load itself... it has given one mindless excuse to perform yet another mindless excuse call one irrational act rational when neither is a rational act no matter how many irrationals try or attempt to justify the act. It is simply an excuse to act or the exact same no matter how many agree or disagree with the excuse.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    15
    << 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

    log in

    join