Free Will

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

nameless
 
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2007 07:18 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;7004 wrote:
You honestly try to argue that you understand Libet's work better than Libet? Okay.

Good. Glad to be done with this.

Quote:
Do you want me to go through and show you the myriad of ad hominem's you use?

Yes. In providing those links, you will also display whether you know what an 'ad hominem' actually is.

Quote:
Nice try with the semantic trickery. "Me" generally refers to what people perceive to be their 'self', which is different from the true 'self'. You do not know me. You do not know my name, my favorite book, my favorite song. You know nothing of my family, or any of my environment for that matter, other than that I am living in the US, perhaps. What you do know is that my true nature is a 'self' beyond my apparent 'self', you do not know me.

Whatever...
It's only your ego that imagines yourself to be so different than anyone else. You can make whatever claims that you like. Whatever works for you. The only 'self' that I do not know is illusory and not relevent. What kind of music you like is trivia and illusion. If that is the 'you' to which you refer, then you yourself does not know 'you'. And at the tender age of 19, I wouldn't expect you to. The equation of knowledge to ego, at 19, is quite unbalanced. Time, hopefully, will help.

Quote:
I'd like to, but you keep telling me I'm wrong because of my ego.

My, my, another misquote. I have never said that you are 'wrong'. Try again, or provide a link.

Quote:
I'm not sure how karma relies upon cause and effect. As I understand, the principle of karma is supposed to work because everything is interrelated, that there is no fundamental difference between you, me, or any other sentient being. Could you elaborate?

Go do a search, learn something about 'karma' from where it comes, re-read my comments, and get back to me then. I'm not going to teach you about an illusion just to tell you that it is an unscientific illusory concept.
'Karma' boils down, ultimately, to 'action', an illusion; 'action and reaction', 'cause and effect'... obsolete.

I am not enjoying this conversation, too argumentative. I have nothing to convince anyone of or defend. It is offered as food for thought. It is meaningful or not.
I am aware of 'common perspective', like everyone else, that is what makes it common. I offer something else, alternative perspective, for people who are sincerely interested in 'Reality/Truth', other than the naive realism (illusions) of the (perceptions) masses.
If you are interested in learning/understanding something 'alien' to your common 'reality', then we can continue to discuss, but the tension and defensiveness and argumentative attitude must abate.
Otherwise, I must bid you good day.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:51 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
First, there is the most basic question: 'Does man have free will' but what value is this question? Even if man has a will, the heart of the issue is not the freedom of man's will, but rather, the freedom of the man himself. If we have a will, the question then becomes, 'can man freely apply his will'?


Well, that is an entirely different question altogether. Even if the question of free will is not valuable (it really isn't much more than a brain teaser, merely acting confirms the absurdity of true choice and determinism) it is distinct and separate from discussions on material freedom.

Quote:
Second, if we are to say that "Free will is then an illusion that we percieve through the disconnect between ourselves and the totality" how do you reconclie this with the fact that we are part of that totality?


Our conscious experience is epiphenomenal, it is not a causal actor.
 
Play Dough
 
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 12:42 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
"Free Will" is Nature's (God's) plan to enable us to experience the results of our choices. The goal, of the concept of free will, is so we can, gradually, become familiar with the Natural Law that govern the universe.
Hopefully, none of us will ever have to experience the portion of 'Natural Law' that deprives us of our innate free will for (because of) having made seriously bad choices.

.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2008 01:38 pm
@Play Dough,
Quote:
Well, that is an entirely different question altogether. Even if the question of free will is not valuable (it really isn't much more than a brain teaser, merely acting confirms the absurdity of true choice and determinism) it is distinct and separate from discussions on material freedom.


Depending on one's conception of will and what freedom could/does amount to, the question might be different. However, if we say man has a will, and this will is free (that a man can will as he pleases), we must still ask ourselves if the man is free. It might be the case that I have free will, but not free action because I cannot freely apply my will.

My general point being that discussion of the "will" is often overemphasised when we talk about free action. Even the topic of the thread, "free will", represents this tendency to think of man's freedom in terms of his will (probably because we all like to think we do have free will; we seem to).

Quote:
Our conscious experience is epiphenomenal, it is not a causal actor.


Some argue this is the case, others object to the claim. For example, it seems concious experience does have a causal influence. My brother loves to drive fast. Speeds everywhere. The other day he was pulled over by the police for the first time, and he was written a ticket. After that ticket, he drives a great deal slower, and pays more attention to traffic laws. It seems his experience (of being pulled over and written a ticket) affected his future actions.
Do our pains, thoughts, and feelings really have no influence over our actions?
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 03:53 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Depending on one's conception of will and what freedom could/does amount to, the question might be different. However, if we say man has a will, and this will is free (that a man can will as he pleases), we must still ask ourselves if the man is free. It might be the case that I have free will, but not free action because I cannot freely apply my will.

My general point being that discussion of the "will" is often overemphasised when we talk about free action. Even the topic of the thread, "free will", represents this tendency to think of man's freedom in terms of his will (probably because we all like to think we do have free will; we seem to).


I will not argue with you because I agree to some extent and where I may disagree I do not think that it is all that important.

Quote:
Some argue this is the case, others object to the claim. For example, it seems concious experience does have a causal influence. My brother loves to drive fast. Speeds everywhere. The other day he was pulled over by the police for the first time, and he was written a ticket. After that ticket, he drives a great deal slower, and pays more attention to traffic laws. It seems his experience (of being pulled over and written a ticket) affected his future actions.
Do our pains, thoughts, and feelings really have no influence over our actions?


They do not necessarily, our conscious reactions to experience may stem from the same nature that our actions do.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2008 12:51 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Quote:
They do not necessarily, our conscious reactions to experience may stem from the same nature that our actions do.


I think they are certainly related. It seems that, sometimes, concious experience influences certain actions. I would imagine that our mentality (in a very broad sense) influences the way we understand our experiences and influences our decisions to act and how to act.

None the less, if our concious experience has causal significance, which it seems to have, the claim "Free will is then an illusion that we percieve through the disconnect between ourselves and the totality" does not seem to have much credibility. We are part of the totality; free action is not an illusion, if anything, it is the notion of self that is illusory.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 10:42 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:


My general point being that discussion of the "will" is often overemphasised when we talk about free action. Even the topic of the thread, "free will", represents this tendency to think of man's freedom in terms of his will (probably because we all like to think we do have free will; we seem to).





Yes, I agree. And so did John Locke who wrote that it was not the will that is free, but the person who is free.
I really do not know what a will is supposed to be. What reason is there to think there is such an entity? It is persons whom we say are free or not, and by that, we mean that they are, respectively, not under compulsion of some kind, or under some kind of compulsion.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 11:42 am
@kennethamy,
Absolutely, kennethamy. My point was lifted directly from Locke.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 06:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Yes, I agree. And so did John Locke who wrote that it was not the will that is free, but the person who is free.
I really do not know what a will is supposed to be. What reason is there to think there is such an entity? It is persons whom we say are free or not, and by that, we mean that they are, respectively, not under compulsion of some kind, or under some kind of compulsion.


Brian Leiter's essay on Nietzsche's treatment of the will:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/images/3521354.0007.007.pdf

------------------------------

Without the metaphysical will and a metaphysically free causal actor, moral deliberation is dead.

I think it is a valid point that we should consider whether the person is free, even if the will is not, but you must understand the consequences of such a position.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 06:10 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I think they are certainly related. It seems that, sometimes, concious experience influences certain actions. I would imagine that our mentality (in a very broad sense) influences the way we understand our experiences and influences our decisions to act and how to act.

None the less, if our concious experience has causal significance, which it seems to have, the claim "Free will is then an illusion that we percieve through the disconnect between ourselves and the totality" does not seem to have much credibility. We are part of the totality; free action is not an illusion, if anything, it is the notion of self that is illusory.


Yes, the identity we create for ourselves is the illusion, but the concept of free will is one necessary to overcome.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2008 07:28 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Hi everyone,

:)Will, is the ability to form intent.Very Happy
 
Phaedrus
 
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:56 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by overcoming free will. Overcoming the illusion of free will and the desire to experience it?

I believe we have free will within our own creation of reality. The dream so to speak. The problem is we live in a dream within a dream and we cannot exercise free will outside of the system within which we live an move and have our being. I cannot fly. Thats not how things work here. I can however move within this system and decide to be selfish, evil, good, loving hatefull etc... and buy a plane.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 09:21:04