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.

 

Free Will vs Determinism in Humans: what's your view?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
If you are an element of the Prime creator then you actually have both.You can see this theory by how perception has been shown to affect the quantum level.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BenTFH
 


Congratulations on your first thread!

My view of free will:

I was born with will. Later in life, I learned about free will. My understanding and knowledge of free will is simple: I have the inborn ability to choose direct and/or indirect action in any situation. As an equation, “action” is a variable and “free will” is a constant. Although everyone is unique, we all have free will in common. It is constant.

Some variables of action in the free-will equation:

Action 1: Freedom of will (Freedom)
Action taken that does not deny the existence of free will to others and me.
“All people are born free and I respect that. I respect the freedom of all people.”

Action 2: Oppression of will (Dominance)
Action taken that attempts to control another’s free will.
“I am right and you must agree with me! You should really try these chocolate chip waffles!”

Action 3: Suppression of will (Denial)
Action taken that denies the existence of free will to others and me.
“I do not have any choice. They made me do it. It just happened, I swear. What else could I do?”

Action 4: Liberation of will (Creation)
Action taken that emancipates the will and leads to its liberty.
“I think I’ll post on that forum tonight.”

Action 5: Breaking of will (Destruction)
Action taken that coerces another into a state of extreme physical or metal duress, leading to the breakdown of will.
“I will destroy you if you do not see things my way. Now are you gonna talk or do I have to break another finger?”

I understand free will more as a spiritual philosophy. In my opinion, determinism is a form of free will expressed by people, manifested in forms of Action 2-5. Determinism works in some non-human situations, but fails to meet Action 1 on a human scale. It relies more on planning, statistics, fate, fortune telling and hindsight, whereas free will relies upon choice before personal action taken.

Determinism is a theory best applied toward physical science. Free will is an inborn ability best applied to everyday, personal life choices.

IMO-Cheers,
Dan
edit on 2/23/2012 by danats because: typo fix



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by 7thcavtrooper
 


Hey 7thcavtrooper,

This is another issue that makes me wonder. Observing particles supposedly changes their properties/behaviour at a quantum level right?

So what's going on there, why does the human brain processing these behaviours change them? You would've thought they were completely independent. Maybe it shows a linking throughout this world that we aren't aware of/can't comprehend?

It reminds me of another of my questions: if you put a dog at a computer, it won't have a clue what to do, or what this glowing machine is supposed to accomplish. It doesn't provide food or safety, so what's the point?

Now replace the dog with a human being, and the computer with the Earth, or something else. Perhaps we can't comprehend it's full use or function? Something to think about.

Cheers,
Ben.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BenTFH
reply to post by 7thcavtrooper
 


Hey 7thcavtrooper,

This is another issue that makes me wonder. Observing particles supposedly changes their properties/behaviour at a quantum level right?

So what's going on there, why does the human brain processing these behaviours change them? You would've thought they were completely independent. Maybe it shows a linking throughout this world that we aren't aware of/can't comprehend?

It reminds me of another of my questions: if you put a dog at a computer, it won't have a clue what to do, or what this glowing machine is supposed to accomplish. It doesn't provide food or safety, so what's the point?

Now replace the dog with a human being, and the computer with the Earth, or something else. Perhaps we can't comprehend it's full use or function? Something to think about.

Cheers,
Ben.


This reminds me of several this:

One is the film "The Gods Must be Crazy." The aboriginals had no idea what the coke bottle was, but they made use for it in a variety of ways that was overwhelmingly beneficial to them. You say putting a dog in front a computer, i was going to say to giving an aboriginal practically any piece of modern electrical technology and he or she would not know what to do with it. I am sure a they might find something to do with it, but it would most certainly not be its intended use (e.g. cell phone).

Back to the earth, i think you're correct. I do not see how we could fully understand its use or function, because we do not perceive it correctly. Our (western) perception tend to be something that is here for us--to be used (up). This is very different from indigenous people across the globe: while they see it as a resource, their livelihood, they respect it and live with it; whereas we, IMO, live almost against it. I wonder why this is. I think that until we fully realize the power, and undergo some type of transformation (spiritually and consciously) this will not happen. Some might argue that we are limited by our brains, which are physical, and the limited information it can process and handle, and that because of being confined by temporal perception we can't "break through."

I think, though, that were a human and a computer are separate, humans are apart of the earth. I don't think we realize that. It would be different if we had arrived here, as outsiders (no religious debate), but since we come from it it striking the way we live against it. Like a virus that eats its host, which more-or-less unnatural.

The whole "act of observation changes behavior" is interesting too. First we must define "observation." Beign aware of something or seeing something? If we look at a particle under a microscope it changes, but it doesn't if we turn our backs? There must be some unconscious relationship between awareness and perception and i think it's tied to one simple (unconscious) thing: energy.

Whenever energy is introduced, (through observation or in general), and however slight that energy is, energy has an effect of change (a law of physics); but one would then ask about consciousness: is an electron conscious? If not, then the act or observation itself does not matter, only the energy involved, in which case we must seriously reconsider Schrodinger's cat (because a cat is conscious, and according to theory its fate is determined by our observation). Then, our energy should change its state regardless if it is directly observed (before the box is removed), so it seems to be the act of observation. Is the earth conscious? Is the change reciprocal (if we change the electron the electron changes us/our behavior, what about the earth, etc )?

And it must be the transference of energy through awareness/perception? Would a dead person would induce change by its very existence, though even not an observer (or aware), or what about on a meta level? Would its very presence induce a change?

I might go further to suggest that of all the possibilities everything exists in this same state because time is ONE, it is perception of time that "steps things down" into their condition as observed.

Ok, i need to finish my first cup of coffee.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
True free will would not be bound by ANY science, math, absolute laws of any kind.. By nature of it's definition. When i imagine free will i imagine the being that created any law science may "discover".

Something/Someone with free will would be free to create or dissolve any laws it willed.


While that's true from an absolute standpoint, that's not the context the OP framed the question in. She framed it within the context of natural philosophy/physics, and according your context, the existence of division is a false dichotomy, I agree, as Aristotle stated:


For there is nothing contrary to that which is primary; for all contraries have matter, and things that have matter exist only potentially; and the ignorance which is contrary to any knowledge leads to an object contrary to the object of the knowledge; but what is primary has no contrary.



Originally posted by rwfresh
Humans live in the delusion of a creators willed reality. And in reality "we" do not exist except as a projection of the true and only beings will.



Most people who identify themselves as a separate human living in the universe are bound by all it's rules. Humans have lots of rules. Lots of internal and external pressures and stimuli making them do things. It's easy to identify with all the immediate physical and mental experience. That is the entire purpose of human beings.



If a person eliminate every preconception of what they are, they can wake up to the only thing that is real. And that thing is the only thing that has free will. And in reality we are that thing making all of this. One thing.


I do not know if I agree with the idea that a person must eliminate every preconception that they have. That assumes a collective destiny that disregards the individual destiny. The collective destiny must yield to the individual destiny and vice versa: so above, so below. so below, so above. The individual destiny contains in itself the holographic totality of the collective, and so if it exists at the individual level, then the collective must reflect that symmentry.

So, in the OP's context, as I stated in my earlier post, our free will consists in the mathematical possibilities while our determinism consists in the physical laws of nature, and that the recognition of this fact, leads to our freedom of will. I think the anthropic principle demonstrates just how powerful we, as microcosms, are:


The Laws of Physics have to be such that they allow life because if they weren't, there wouldn't be anyone to ask about the Laws of Physics.


Susskind modified it in the context of modern physics to be this:


Somewhere in the wave function, the constant equals this number: somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny branch where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 


exactly, when freedom is truth existence then determinism is free

which bring out another dimension of freedom being absolute conscious of truth existence as the end of truth in living



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Hey Liquesence,

I was thinking about what you have said quite a lot in college today, and the more I think about it the more it makes sense. There is now research and (as far as I'm aware), quite good evidence that every living thing emits certain 'energies'. I have not always been convinced about the 'energy/aura' theories, but am starting to become more sympathetic with them as I think/learn more.


Walter Kilner - Interest in the HEF was mounting in the medical community in the 1900's. In 1911. Walter Kilner, M.D., from St. Thomas Hospital in London, reported on seeing the HEF, or aura, as he called it. Looking through glass screens stained with dicyanin dye, he saw a glowing mist around the body in three distinct zones: 1. A 1/4 inch layer closest to skin; 2. A more vaporous layer, 1 inch wide, streaming perpendicularly from the body; 3. A delicate exterior luminosity with indefinite contours, about 6 inches wide.

Source (a very interesting article): www.vxm.com...

Back on topic, this 'Human Energy Field' may have some sort of effect on free will, or the lack of it? Say, for example, the energy fields of Human Beings may be connected, and may effect how we respond to certain situations, for the deterministic point of view. Alternatively, this energy field may GIVE us free will, while other animals don't have energy fields and therefore may not have free will and act through instinct? Interesting stuff.

I greatly appreciate everyone's responses to this thread, thank you all!
Ben



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 


Hey imherejusttoread,

I'm actually male! Haha. And thank you for expanding on my ideas of both being able to co-exist. I like your thoughts of individual and collective destinies as well, I will have to think about that later today!

Cheers,
Ben



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I'll give you my opinion:

(1) Quantum mechanics limits determinism with uncertainty and randomness. If the person exercising free will is in a separate metaphysical reality then that free will can be expressed through controlling this randomness without leaving any finger prints in the physical real world.

(2) There is not necessarily a one to one relationship between the metaphysical identities exercising free will (spirits) and the physical identities (bodies). I like to think there is only one spirit - God - because that seems simpler. The same free will that inspired Beethoven inspires each of us.

If you like the idea, I can explain it better.
edit on 24-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
I'll give you my opinion:

(1) Quantum mechanics limits determinism with uncertainty and randomness. If the person exercising free will is in a separate metaphysical reality then that free will can be expressed through controlling this randomness without leaving any finger prints in the physical real world.

(2) There is not necessarily a one to one relationship between the metaphysical identities exercising free will (spirits) and the physical identities (bodies). I like to think there is only one spirit - God - because that seems simpler. The same free will that inspired Beethoven inspires each of us.

If you like the idea, I can explain it better.
edit on 24-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



I agree with what you said, but I will add that I feel our human spirits are influenced when in a flow moment, by the Elohim or Godhead or whatever you call it. The source, if you will.Tupac said it best; "I feel his hand on my brain, when I write rhymes I go blind and let the lord do his, THANG!".

It's like spiritually if you are following the "holy spirit" he will synchronize your path and if you are following the spirit of "self" and divinity then you can sidestep and let other "multi-dimensional" spirits take over for you. That's channeling.


edit on 24-2-2012 by FinalAccount2008 because: Edited to delete comment about OP having a beauitful smile, cause being it seems out of place on ATS to to give compliments ;D



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Only thing to remember is;

'Where theres a Will, theres a Relative'.
(Grin)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by steaming
 


so what is relative is will source, so will is an illusion but free sense present stillness bc of relative fact existence is true or real, depending from where it is meant
if it is from the sense then it is more real while if it is from the freedom out of objective sense then it is more true



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Did any of you 'choose' to respond to this thread? Can anyone youre responding to 'choose' to change their mind based on your 'choice' to try and persuade them?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


no it would b relative and relative is nothing at its best fact, that is why also everyone seem to insist on being one from being a will initially, for what a will become immediately a negative state if it doubt about being one, which is impossible absolute negative fact cant be zero nor go to, so it prefer to stay relative as one right hoping from everything to let it be, but it is impossible too, everything is to truth perfections so it is opposed to wills



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


I dont fully follow what youre saying, but i will say that your 'preference' has zero to do with what *actually and objectively* exists.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


yes and potentially opposed to, that is why conscious is crucial essential fact before anything

conscious is not knowledge, conscious is exclusively the right got from absolute to b there, so it is an active right exercise



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
People have the potential for free will. Most people may have brief moments of free will throughout their lives, but it certainly isn't the norm.

I believe free will is is similar and about as common as becoming lucid during a dream. Without lucidity, we just go along with what ever scenario the dream presents us with. But lucidity brings with it the ability to go beyond the limits of the current scenario. That's free will.

For instance, when I go to a bar, I don't dance because I feel self conscious. But when hitch hiking across Canada, I ended up in the small town of Medicine Hat and found myself at a pretty rocking bar. I knew I would never see any of these people again, so I didn't care what people thought. I danced up a storm with the ladies and had a fantastic time. That's probably as close to being lucid in waking life as I've ever been.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Here is an interesting way to look at choice:
youtu.be...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FinalAccount2008
I agree with what you said, but I will add that I feel our human spirits are influenced when in a flow moment, by the Elohim or Godhead or whatever you call it. The source, if you will.Tupac said it best; "I feel his hand on my brain, when I write rhymes I go blind and let the lord do his, THANG!".

It's like spiritually if you are following the "holy spirit" he will synchronize your path and if you are following the spirit of "self" and divinity then you can sidestep and let other "multi-dimensional" spirits take over for you. That's channeling.


edit on 24-2-2012 by FinalAccount2008 because: Edited to delete comment about OP having a beauitful smile, cause being it seems out of place on ATS to to give compliments ;D


Thanks. I don't understand your last paragraph but it seems interesting - if you feel like explaining it further.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by FinalAccount2008
I agree with what you said, but I will add that I feel our human spirits are influenced when in a flow moment, by the Elohim or Godhead or whatever you call it. The source, if you will.Tupac said it best; "I feel his hand on my brain, when I write rhymes I go blind and let the lord do his, THANG!".

It's like spiritually if you are following the "holy spirit" he will synchronize your path and if you are following the spirit of "self" and divinity then you can sidestep and let other "multi-dimensional" spirits take over for you. That's channeling.


edit on 24-2-2012 by FinalAccount2008 because: Edited to delete comment about OP having a beauitful smile, cause being it seems out of place on ATS to to give compliments ;D


Thanks. I don't understand your last paragraph but it seems interesting - if you feel like explaining it further.


When I walk into an airport, I observe each individual at once from a distance to see what direction they are all looking, and how it relates to whatever It is I'm at the airport for. Family, career, leisure travel of a rich family...Asian person, angry person, person scared of having their luggage stolen...To me personally, the holy spirit is the driving mechanism that forces most of us to see each other as one big human family, rather than vigilantes that write the law as they go and do whatever they want, feeling no attachment to random "strangers".

The rebellious spirit inside me used to seek thrills, doing whatever I could to convince myself I was different and special and unique and somehow more important than everybody else and their stupid families. That led to a pretty terrible version of me that looked like a monster in a mirror, and now when I look through people's windows (eyes and body language are windows to me, as they are the free open part of people that enjoys to be seen, not talking house windows) I look for the part of them that is joyous. I believe in hell as a construct of the human imagination, and pessimism is one way to start believing in it until you are there.

edit on 25-2-2012 by FinalAccount2008 because: To fix the window part which looked funny without the parenthesis



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join