Free will, freedom from what?

[Atla]

Yes, apparently since the Big Bang to now this ridiculously placed tilde--> ~ was always going to happen.




Well, quantum-indeterminacy where consciousness is concerned is part of my angle, that we of conscious minds do have free-will and this tilde--> ..was never going to happen. (not since the Big Bang determined universe, but because I decided not to put one there)

You know nothing about the topic so it can't really be part of your angle.

Well, that's odd.

I had no idea you know me better than I know me. From whence are you drawing the conclusion that I know nothing about the topic?

Because you generally know very little about science, and never shown any signs that you know anything about QM. If you did, you would know for example that quantum-indeterminacy is exactly a feature of QM that can't account for free will.

[Self-Lightening]

But let me ask you this, instead: if we, to whom you are arguing, have no free will, no volition, then how do you expect us to change our minds? According to your theory, the only reason we think what we think, at any given time, is because "natural law" made us think what we think. So we have no ability to choose our beliefs, and the quality of your arguments has no impact on whether we believe X or Y. Only "natural laws" determine that, not quality of argument.

False dualism: arguments and the effect they have on the brain are always in complete conformity with "natural laws" (the laws of physics).

No, an "argument," by definition, is not a physical thing, but rather a conceptual abstraction. Can you measure an "argument"? Can you put it in a beaker? Can you pinch it in Vernier calipers, or dissect it? It's not part of the physical world, but belongs to mental phenomena. And we have no "natural laws" that predictably describe its operation. Unless somebody "believes" it, and acts on it into the physical world, it's inert.

Still with the false dualism... An argument, like any meme, only exists physically: for example, on paper, or on a computer, or yes, in a brain.

[attofishpi]

You know nothing about the topic so it can't really be part of your angle.

Well, that's odd.

I had no idea you know me better than I know me. From whence are you drawing the conclusion that I know nothing about the topic?

Because you generally know very little about science, and never shown any signs that you know anything about QM. If you did, you would know for example that quantum-indeterminacy is exactly a feature of QM that can't account for free will.

I am absolutely certain you have very little idea about QM and how it ties in with consciousness.

Go ahead, explain how quantum-indeterminacy has NO role to play to support conscious minds having free will.

[Harbal]

But what have physical laws got to do with free will?

I have no idea. I was making a point about gravity, not free will.

Oh. You missed the earlier conversation, then. For some reason I can't figure out, Janoah thinks that the existence of gravity proves that free will doesn't exist. At the same time, he claims that Determinism is "absurd."

I've been trying to make sense out of all that, but I really don't think I can.

I saw some of the conversation but I didn't really read it, so I don't know what his argument was. I don't know how much free will we have, I'm afraid.

[Immanuel Can]

...you just randomly start talking about randomness in a conversation about relativity.

They're both explanations people think might account for volition, but neither does.

Who talks about relativity like this? Who are these "people"?

People here, for example. In past conversations about Determinism, those are explanations others have offered to me. Have you not heard such things?

[Immanuel Can]

False dualism: arguments and the effect they have on the brain are always in complete conformity with "natural laws" (the laws of physics).

No, an "argument," by definition, is not a physical thing, but rather a conceptual abstraction. Can you measure an "argument"? Can you put it in a beaker? Can you pinch it in Vernier calipers, or dissect it? It's not part of the physical world, but belongs to mental phenomena. And we have no "natural laws" that predictably describe its operation. Unless somebody "believes" it, and acts on it into the physical world, it's inert.

Still with the false dualism... An argument, like any meme, only exists physically: for example, on paper, or on a computer, or yes, in a brain.

It's not false. Here, you make a dualistic explanation as well. "Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning, and meaning can only be generated or understood by "mind," and "mind" isn't physical.

"Brain" is, just as "paper" is. But "mind" is the perceiving entity, whereas "brain" is only meat.

This is an old philosophical point, and well-known. If you want to establish what is meant by each, check out T. Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos," for example.

[Flannel Jesus]

They're both explanations people think might account for volition, but neither does.

Who talks about relativity like this? Who are these "people"?

People here, for example. In past conversations about Determinism, those are explanations others have offered to me. Have you not heard such things?

I have never once heard people talk about relativity that way, no. Quantum mechanics yes, but not relativity. It would be a remarkable kind of absurdity to do that, and I'm finding it hard to believe anybody has.

That's why I was, and still am, convinced you've mixed up relativity and qm.

[Fairy]

False dualism: arguments and the effect they have on the brain are always in complete conformity with "natural laws" (the laws of physics).

No, an "argument," by definition, is not a physical thing, but rather a conceptual abstraction. Can you measure an "argument"? Can you put it in a beaker? Can you pinch it in Vernier calipers, or dissect it? It's not part of the physical world, but belongs to mental phenomena. And we have no "natural laws" that predictably describe its operation. Unless somebody "believes" it, and acts on it into the physical world, it's inert.

Still with the false dualism... An argument, like any meme, only exists physically: for example, on paper, or on a computer, or yes, in a brain.

What my definition of a false dualism is... I'm not gonna lie when I tell you/me the truth, cos, even a lie is the truth.

I spoke to my brain once, I asked it how it is able to brain out the world to look as though the inside is on the outside. I waited patiently, but it just ignored me.

I'm guessing my brain must have thought about it for some time, thinking to itself inside / outside / where is that!

Where am I actually located.

[Immanuel Can]

Who talks about relativity like this? Who are these "people"?

People here, for example. In past conversations about Determinism, those are explanations others have offered to me. Have you not heard such things?

I have never once heard people talk about relativity that way, no. Quantum mechanics yes, but not relativity. It would be a remarkable kind of absurdity to do that, and I'm finding it hard to believe anybody has.

That's why I was, and still am, convinced you've mixed up relativity and qm.

I merely made my explanation too terse and hasty, and thus jumbled my wording a little. But I assure you, there is some difference, and I know the difference. They are two distinct proposed objections to criticisms of Determinism. If you have not encountered both, I believe you. But I have, so I don't know what more to say about that.

However, if that's really what you want to discuss, then we should sort out what you meant by "Relativity" before we commence.

As you may know, there is "relativity," the scientific theory, and "Relativism," the position on morals or epistemology. Which one did you mean to allude to? You mention Einstein, which would suggest it was "relativity." And if I recall aright, you said "relativity" explicitly. But that would not make sense in view of the present topic, which has to do with human beings and cognition, rather than physics...

So I think you must have meant "Relativism," but then Einstein wouldn't be directly involved...so maybe you can clear that up for me, as well.

[Flannel Jesus]

But that would not make sense in view of the present topic

I was having a conversation with another poster when you jumped in. That poster was absolutely talking about relativity as in physics, as in Einstein. Whether you think it makes sense or not, that's what he was talking about, that's what I've been talking about.

[Atla]

Well, that's odd.

I had no idea you know me better than I know me. From whence are you drawing the conclusion that I know nothing about the topic?

Because you generally know very little about science, and never shown any signs that you know anything about QM. If you did, you would know for example that quantum-indeterminacy is exactly a feature of QM that can't account for free will.

I am absolutely certain you have very little idea about QM and how it ties in with consciousness.

"absolutely certain"
And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Go ahead, explain how quantum-indeterminacy has NO role to play to support conscious minds having free will.

Because by itself it's just predictably random, and free will can't be based on randomness.

[Immanuel Can]

But that would not make sense in view of the present topic

I was having a conversation with another poster when you jumped in. That poster was absolutely talking about relativity as in physics, as in Einstein. Whether you think it makes sense or not, that's what he was talking about, that's what I've been talking about.

Okay, that's fine. But maybe you can connect the dots for me. What has physics got to do with freedom?

[Flannel Jesus]

But that would not make sense in view of the present topic

I was having a conversation with another poster when you jumped in. That poster was absolutely talking about relativity as in physics, as in Einstein. Whether you think it makes sense or not, that's what he was talking about, that's what I've been talking about.

Okay, that's fine. But maybe you can connect the dots for me. What has physics got to do with freedom?

Believe it or not, I didn't say it did. All I said to op was, relativity does not rule out determinism. Which is true, it doesn't, and Einstein was himself a determinist.

[attofishpi]

Because you generally know very little about science, and never shown any signs that you know anything about QM. If you did, you would know for example that quantum-indeterminacy is exactly a feature of QM that can't account for free will.

I am absolutely certain you have very little idea about QM and how it ties in with consciousness.

"absolutely certain"
And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Oh no!! Please don't tell me there's a "WE"..

The "absolute certainty" I have about you and your credentials on the topic is because most physicists would admit the same (u arrogant X)

Go ahead, explain how quantum-indeterminacy has NO role to play to support conscious minds having free will.

Because by itself it's just predictably random, and free will can't be based on randomness.

Shit effort.

So tomorrow I'll explain how you should never have insisted so arrogantly that I "..know very little about science".

I can only assume you are making such a claim based on my insistence that I KNOW God exists - that somehow to your meagre, short of insight mind this means then I cannot under_stand science.

[Fairy]

No, an "argument," by definition, is not a physical thing, but rather a conceptual abstraction. Can you measure an "argument"? Can you put it in a beaker? Can you pinch it in Vernier calipers, or dissect it? It's not part of the physical world, but belongs to mental phenomena. And we have no "natural laws" that predictably describe its operation. Unless somebody "believes" it, and acts on it into the physical world, it's inert.

Still with the false dualism... An argument, like any meme, only exists physically: for example, on paper, or on a computer, or yes, in a brain.

It's not false. Here, you make a dualistic explanation as well. "Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning, and meaning can only be generated or understood by "mind," and "mind" isn't physical.

"Brain" is, just as "paper" is. But "mind" is the perceiving entity, whereas "brain" is only meat.

This is an old philosophical point, and well-known. If you want to establish what is meant by each, check out T. Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos," for example.

You miss the point about the meme thingy. Non-physical things do not exist for the physical body. The physical has no conception of it's own conception, the body does not know body. The body only exists as a physical image, it has no existence except in a photographic image. Bodies never chose to be born. No body ever chooses to be born, all births are concept-less free beings. Knowledge is an apparent by-product of synthetic language, which is simply sound heard as words.

It's more along the lines of 'the whole universe choosing' to be born.. But being rather than choosing. The universe is more of an apparent twoniverse which in effect, seems like a universe. One appearing as two, which makes it seem to One as if there is two, with the 'second' seemingly being - a, universe. Only therein does there seem to be choice, a chooser and possibly other choosers.