Philosophy Now Forum

I may not know by observation that 2 molecules and 2 molecules does not mean that there are 5 molecules, however I know that there are not 5 molecules because 2+2=5 is logically impossible.

Similarly, I know that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it and therefore consciousness cannot determine what we think.
Just as I know (without actually seeing molecules) that 2 molecules plus 2 molecules equals 4 molecules, I know that consciousness (without seeing into the mind or brain) cannot determine what we think.

Arising_uk wrote:

bergie15 wrote:If our choices are limited, then that really isn't free will at all.

Why not? Even Buridan's Ass has a free-choice and appears to use it's will freely.

I agree with Arising! The entire universe has nothing but constraints, I am not free to flap my arms like a bird, and take flight, nor can I will myself to circumnavigate the universe. If a very huge asteroid, say the size of the US, strikes the planet, we all shall die instantly. But within this system, of what is in fact possible for me to choose, I can choose it. But many make that mistake, as they try and make freedom larger than the universe, it's just logically an absurd notion to pursue. Humans are only bound by their limited knowledge of the truth of the universe. You know they say, "knowledge is power," right? The power to will your way through life within the freedom that the universe allows you.

Similarly, I know that at the molecular level there are no square circles, even if I know nothing about molecules.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: nor can I will myself to circumnavigate the universe.

If Special Relativity were a true model of the universe you would in fact be able to do exactly this. According to SR, if you could build a spaceship which could travel at just the tiniest fraction slower than the speed of light you would be able to traverse the entire universe within a single human lifetime. Unfortunately SR is bullshit so flapping the arms would be just as good an option, as well as a cheaper one.

raw_thought wrote:"Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will.I have a feeling for instance, that I will something or other;but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all.I feel that I will light my pipe and I do it;but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? [infinite regress] Schopenhaur once said,"man can do what he will but cannot will what he wills."
Einstein

Here you go:

free [free]

adjective, freer, freest.
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery:
a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty:
They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government:
the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6. able to do something at will; at liberty:
free to choose.
7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor:
The highway is now free of fallen rock.


will(2) [wil]
noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire:
to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness:
to have the will to succeed.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out:
to work one's will.
7. disposition, whether good or ill, toward another.

I hope that's cleared things up for you.

The real question though, is what is it that you've done that you don't want to take responsibility.

????
I agree with those definitions.
Or are you saying that Einstein does not???
Obviously, you are creating a strawman because you lost the debate.

So you are saying that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????

Actually, that is not the real question. That shows your lack of critical thinking skills.
The other person's character is not the issue in a philosophical debate.
For example,
1. Manson is a liar.
2. Manson said that 2+2=4
3. Therefore 2+2 does not equal 4
That is called the fallacy of ad hominum.

raw_thought wrote:????
I agree with those definitions.
Or are you saying that Einstein does not???
Obviously, you are creating a strawman because you lost the debate.

NO!

raw_thought wrote:So you are saying that you can be aware of a thought before you think it????

And, NO!

I suppose that is what you call an argument!!!
NO!
Since you were not making those claims, then that long stupid post of definitions had nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Ummm you quoted Einsten and then gave the definitions as a rebuttal. Either those definitions showed that Einstein was wrong or they have nothing to do with anything.

raw_thought wrote:Actually, that is not the real question. That shows your lack of critical thinking skills.
The other person's character is not the issue in a philosophical debate.
For example,
1. Manson is a liar.
2. Manson said that 2+2=4
3. Therefore 2+2 does not equal 4
That is called the fallacy of ad hominum.

You cannot escape your psyche, and it's in fact responsible for your need to see this argument as you do.

More ad hominums. So that is your idea of critical thinking????

Spheres who knows nothing about me,has made the argument that because I believe that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it, that means that I am not taking responsibility for my life.
Everyone can see how stupid that argument is and irrelevant to the fact that one cannot be conscious of a thought before one thinks it.

raw_thought wrote:More ad hominums. So that is your idea of critical thinking????

Your actions here in the forum demonstrate my point.