Free Will Mix

[Arising_uk]

You've called me a liar. Show me where or shut-up you paranoid delusional misogynistic patriarchal twat.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I don't know that she, Kim (Arising_uk) has, as she has been ignored by me, but it would seem as possible, due to the circumstantial evidence of her following me, and her Insatiable need to beat people in her own mind, to prove she is something.

Keep in mind that she has been proven to be a LIAR, afraid to stand up and be counted for what she is. She is a back stabber one that would kick someone while they are on the ground. She has no sense of whats right. Her win, as she sees it, is all she cares about.

I, on the other hand have been nothing but honest and truthful to the point of even laying my most private truths out their for all to see, I am self deprecating, and willing to apologize if I feel I was short sighted as to someones intent.

Many of her assertions are based upon her assumptions which she is quick to jump to, such that many of them are unfounded, born of her need to prove herself worthy as a female, that which she has in the past been afraid to own up too.

So don't take too much stock in her words as she is bitter because I outed that part of her that she is obviously ashamed of, merely the trivial fact that she is a she, or there would have been no need for her to LIE so adamantly about it.

From this day forward anytime she follows me I shall post this to remind people of her nature. Her assertions almost always have been misinformed as she fails to understand, another's points and merely supplies her own in their stead, such as to effectively, merely argue with herself.

[Arising_uk]

Since you can't or won't do so then I think its clear who is the liar in this instance.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I don't know that she, Kim (Arising_uk) has, as she has been ignored by me, but it would seem as possible, due to the circumstantial evidence of her following me, and her Insatiable need to beat people in her own mind, to prove she is something.

Keep in mind that she has been proven to be a LIAR, afraid to stand up and be counted for what she is. She is a back stabber one that would kick someone while they are on the ground. She has no sense of whats right. Her win, as she sees it, is all she cares about.

I, on the other hand have been nothing but honest and truthful to the point of even laying my most private truths out their for all to see, I am self deprecating, and willing to apologize if I feel I was short sighted as to someones intent.

Many of her assertions are based upon her assumptions which she is quick to jump to, such that many of them are unfounded, born of her need to prove herself worthy as a female, that which she has in the past been afraid to own up too.

So don't take too much stock in her words as she is bitter because I outed that part of her that she is obviously ashamed of, merely the trivial fact that she is a she, or there would have been no need for her to LIE so adamantly about it.

From this day forward anytime she follows me I shall post this to remind people of her nature. Her assertions almost always have been misinformed as she fails to understand, another's points and merely supplies her own in their stead, such as to effectively, merely argue with herself.

[chaz wyman]

Art studies!! That says it all.

Some people here are truly idiots.

Yes, - I'm glad you agree.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Art studies!! That says it all.

Some people here are truly idiots.

Yes, - I'm glad you agree.

Yes I do, idiot!
The idiot **** has it all wrong and you the second idiot bought into her/his/it's idiocy. What losers you two are.

[AMod]

Spheres Of Balance and Arising_uk,

Would you two kindly take your spates elsewhere, the Lounge maybe or Philosophical Counselling and tone your language down.

AMod

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres Of Balance and Arising_uk,

Would you two kindly take your spates elsewhere, the Lounge maybe or Philosophical Counselling and tone your language down.

AMod

Thanks, I honestly believed I was well within the rules, but I shall adjust. I'd also like to thank you for understanding that it takes two to tango.

[MindAndPhilosophy]

Hi everybody!

I've been thinking about the free will problem for some time and I'd want to ask you something: do you think it is possible to prove that determinism is false? It may get a little bit tricky because if you try to prove that determinism is false how can you know if the act of proving determinism was not determined? Isn't it a sort of vicious circle? I've written a short post about it (Determinism and free will) so you can check it out and vote for or against existence of free will. What are your opinions and solutions of the problem?

____________________________
mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com - regularly updated blog about philosophy of mind

[Notvacka]

Hello, MindAndPhilosophy!

I checked out your blog and pretty much agree with what you say. And my answer to your question is no, it's impossible to prove determinsim false. I have written about free will and determinsim many times on this forum. For your benefit, I'll quote myself:

Our very use of language here makes it obvious that something must be wrong with the concept of free will. The common expression is "I have a free will" rather than "I am a free will". But how can my will be free if it's in my possession? The phrase suggests that my will is not free from "me".

On the other hand, can I be free from my will? Does my will not rule my actions? In which case the expression should be "free will has me". Which seems like so much nonsense, because it is.

What, then, is the will supposed to be free from? External influences? Internal influences? Can anybody come up with anyghing that makes even the slightest bit of sense as to what the supposedly "free" will could be "free" from?

Free will is the experience of having alternatives to choose from. Beyond the experience itself, there is nothing tangible to be found.

Free will and identity are what we experience between circumstances and actions.

On a purely subjective level, free will is experienced as having alternatives to choose from. On the same subjective level, identity is experienced as being the one doing the choosing.

For free will to exist in reality, alternatives must exist in reality, but they don't. However, they do exist in our imagination. Here is an example of how it works:

Imagine that you are going on a journey and have the choice of going by car or by train. There could be other options, but for the sake of simplicity, let's only consider these two distinct choices.

The alternatives are:

1. You go by car.

2. You go by train.

The alternatives are not the car and the train, which both exist in physical reality. The alternatives are you going by car or you going by train. Please note the difference.

You can imagine yourself going by car and you can imagine yourself going by train. That is how you experience the alternatives of free will. Both alternatives exist in your imagination.

Then you make your mind up. Let's say that you settle for the train. That is how you experience the decision of free will. The decision exists in your imagination.

Then you actually take the train. That is how you experience the action of free will. The action exists in physical reality.

Note that only one of the percieved alternatives can exist in physical reality. If you go by train in reality, then you can't simultaneously go by car.

Once you're on the train, there is no way for you to know if you actually could have gone by car instead. That alternative only ever existed in your imagination.

What you experienced as free will could possibly have been predetermination (as suggested by the theory of relativity) or random chance (as suggested by quantum physics). Since you can't go back in time and choose differently, there is no way to know. And it doesn't matter. Free will exists in our imagination (which is important to us) but not in physical reality (which is less important).

On the train, you experience having made the morally superior choice, since trains impact the environment less than cars. This is true even if the alternative never existed in reality.

[MindAndPhilosophy]

Hello, Notvacka!

Thanks for your reply - it seems we have similar views on the subject - but don't you think that the way we perceive free mind strongly affects our way of thinking? I mean isn't it so hard to prove determinism wrong BECAUSE of the deterministic definition of the free mind? I believe that if something can't be proved false it does not necessarily mean it is true, does it?

____________________
http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy

[apaosha]

Seems like people enjoy dismissing any influence the past might have on us.

Consciousness is the effect of the brain organ. When this organ is damaged the mind is damaged. It follows that the condition of the mind is determined by the condition of the organ. The two are in fact indistinguishable - without a brain you have no mind. You guys should be familiar with the concept.

Every distinct event that occurs is the product of an infinite regress of previous events which brought it about. The present is the continuing manifestation of such an ongoing process.

So, to say that the mind is not influenced by determinism... that the mind is not in fact an expression of determinism through a causative process.... is to suppose that the mind is yet again something from nothing. A causa sui or ex nihilo event that suddenly intrudes upon the causative process making it's impression felt. A very supernatural supposition, I would say.

The mind is the ongoing manifestation of processes within the brain. That is all. As these processes are subject to deterministic factors, such as the condition of the organ, the mind too is subject to deterministic factors - it is itself the expression of them.

There is no Free Will in the absolute sense. The concept of freedom requires a qualifier. Free "from" something, free "for" something. It is thus relative. But the mind is not free from it's past; it cannot exist and at the same time be free from the cause of its existence.

[Notvacka]

Thanks for your reply - it seems we have similar views on the subject - but don't you think that the way we perceive free mind strongly affects our way of thinking?

Of course it does. Everything affects everything else. That's why there is no freedom.

I mean isn't it so hard to prove determinism wrong BECAUSE of the deterministic definition of the free mind?

I don't think so. What definition are you talking about, anyway? I have never seen a useful definiton of free will, one that explains what the will is free from. And determinism is not required. The will is no more free in a random universe than in a determined one.

I believe that if something can't be proved false it does not necessarily mean it is true, does it?

Right. But what's the alternative to a determined universe? And how would it affect free will? As I see it, the will is bound by circumstances, whether those circumstances are determined or random.

[MindAndPhilosophy]

What I wanted to say is that it is possible to give such definition of free will which would actually combine the concept of free will and determinism - I think that one of the possible solutions would be soft detereminism (compatibilism) though I know it's been strongly criticised and I'm not a compatibilist myself. (A. Schopenhauer said that "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills").

Can we know that causes are limited? How far can we trace the history? Regardless of your point of view on how the world started it probably started somehow. We could trace many generations of humankind but finally we would find the first human being (or the first living organism at all). But what was before? What was the first cause? And what had caused the first cause to occur?

_______________________
http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy

[Notvacka]

How far can we trace the history? Regardless of your point of view on how the world started it probably started somehow. We could trace many generations of humankind but finally we would find the first human being (or the first living organism at all). But what was before? What was the first cause? And what had caused the first cause to occur?

All these are interesting questions, of course, but ultimately irrelevant to the question of free will. It does not matter what the circumstances are, or what caused them; as long as the will is subject to circumstances outside itself, it's simply not free.