Do humans actually have free will?

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Hahahaha... even a blind hog finds an acorn on occassion! *__-

Philosophers have been wanking on the old 'what is knowledge' for a long time. I have found that, from this perspective, knowledge = memory. People refer to memory as knowledge. When 'believed', the 'memory' becomes 'truth' and all sorts of weird stuff happens then. All I 'know' is what is in memory at that moment, nothing more or less; like everyone else.

We are 'created' each moment as memory/with memory. That is how we know, we are created, complete with 'knowledge/memory', all 'moments' synchronous.

Memory contains the apparent answer to your question at any moment.

No. There isn't any 'out there' out there. All is memory.

Nope. Sure seems like thats the case though, judging by the (illusory) evidence of our perceptions. Just illusion, but quite the ride nontheless!

The illusion/dream IS life, IS 'out there', IS existence complete.

A mental construct and nothing more.

Hmmm, can one have a dream within a dream? Wouldn't it all be part of the one dream?

You are, but 'imagining' me, you find 'access' to apparently different perspectives (more memory).

Only? Waterboarding and heart surgery is an illusion also! A bit easier to bear, I find, knowing that it is not 'real' even though the feelings seem to be quite 'real'.

Me too. 'Make believe'!

How we know is how we think, and we get that from society in the form of concepts. Each form, idea, notion, and concept is a discrete bit of information, and every dictionary is full of concepts in alphabetical order. If you knew the meaning of every word in the dictionary you would know everything, today. Tomorrow there would be more to learn. So much knowledge is legacy that no one could find the time to test it out. But most of it seems to work no less for that.

@PeterDamian,

PeterDamian wrote:

Determinism seems to breach the so called free will because all things you do have been theologically determined by the supreme being. If determinism have all humans programmed like a computer operator does with computers, what happens to free will?

The is no doubt in all aspects, some people even think that all man's action is determined by his environment.

What is free will?

Determinism has nothing to do with theology. It is just the view that every event has some cause, and every cause is an event. Atheists can (and do) believe that.

Free will consists in the ability of a person to do as he pleases, so that he is not compelled to do as he does not please. In ordinary language, I marry Sally of my own free will when I do it voluntarily and am not (for example) being forced to do it by Sally's father holding a shotgun threateningly. In that way, there is nothing incompatible between my marrying Sally of my own free will, and determinism.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

How we know is how we think, and we get that from society in the form of concepts. Each form, idea, notion, and concept is a discrete bit of information, and every dictionary is full of concepts in alphabetical order. If you knew the meaning of every word in the dictionary you would know everything, today. Tomorrow there would be more to learn. So much knowledge is legacy that no one could find the time to test it out. But most of it seems to work no less for that.

I am well aware of 'common perspectives' and their implications. I am here to offer an uncommon perspective, this one.
I have already defined 'knowledge' and 'learning' as I use them and needn't repeat myself.
If you are thinking that bourgeoise consensus will reflect or lead you to some kind of 'Reality/Truth', ..best of luck in your quest! Blind leading the blind and all... I do not need to imbibe my 'thoughts', my 'reality' from societal 'authority and consensus'. I have my own 'memories' ...

@kennethamy,

Hmm, perhaps it was a bit of a leap. When you said (Dec. 8)

Quote:

I 'know' that all is One

, I took the word 'know' in the sense of being held to 'truth'. All the more so since subsequent posts have had this recurring theme of

Quote:

I equate this 'Truth' with 'Reality' in the Vedantic; "Reality must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of universal permanence."

- Dec. 13.

You state (today) that

Quote:

I am well aware of 'common perspectives' and their implications. I am here to offer an uncommon perspective

. I do not mean by this to be critical, but note that I for one, shall have to stop trying to communicate, if I am unable to find a way of establishing common understanding of apparently salient terms. And since you seem to eschew the dialectical experience by which people may establish (even a temporary commonality of understanding), denigrating ongoing efforts to extend or clarify mutual intelligibilty as

Quote:

bourgeoise consensus

, it would seem pointless to continue.

@GridLok,

GridLok;6890 wrote:

Hmm, perhaps it was a bit of a leap. When you said (Dec. 8) , I took the word 'know' in the sense of being held to 'truth'. All the more so since subsequent posts have had this recurring theme of - Dec. 13.

Actually, I already told you that I equated 'knowledge' with 'memory', remember. So, when I say that I 'know' something, that equates to the best most salient memory (in question) in the moment of 'knowledge'.

Quote:

You state (today) that . I do not mean by this to be critical, but note that I for one, shall have to stop trying to communicate, if I am unable to find a way of establishing common understanding of apparently salient terms.

I have not, at any point, failed to define, to the best of my ability, the terms that I use. I have been asked for definitions and have provided up to the moment updates. What exactly seems to be the problem? If you are not interested in understanding what I am offering, I would question your entry into this discussion, asking questions and all... I use very few, if any terms that would have no common ground for understanding (I take special care on that account), if understanding is desired.

Quote:

And since you seem to eschew the dialectical experience by which people may establish (even a temporary commonality of understanding), denigrating ongoing efforts to extend or clarify mutual intelligibilty as , it would seem pointless to continue.

I don't know what your problem is, we have been having a simple conversation as I elucidated points and answered questions. If we have that level of communication problem; I suspect that a large part of the 'problem' is an unwillingness to make an attempt to understand what I say. You seem to 'act' as if understanding equates with accepting or believing. It doesn't, necessarily.
But.. whatever..
perhaps another time
Peace

@PeterDamian,

It seems that 'free-will', like 'Jesus' and 'God'for Xtians, is a (necessary) 'belief', unsuitable to rational, logical scientific discussion and examination.
What use science to a 'believer'?
Old humor, re:
"Debating an area of a 'believer's faith, using logic, is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, craps on the board and returns to the flock claiming victory!"
*__-

@nameless,

I like the humour in the previous post.

An excellent experience in questions to not ask.

What do say 'memories' are?

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It seems that 'free-will', like 'Jesus' and 'God'for Xtians, is a (necessary) 'belief', unsuitable to rational, logical scientific discussion and examination.
What use science to a 'believer'?
Old humor, re:
"Debating an area of a 'believer's faith, using logic, is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, craps on the board and returns to the flock claiming victory!"
*__-

Nameless,

Excellent point, it never the less seems an unresistable force to secular thought to try to reach the faithful through reason, something they long ago abandoned to their faith. In the presence of knowledge there would be no need of faith. To make unrestricted claims about that great mystery is thus open to any and all speculations, there is no need of a foundation on which to base them, what would be the foundation/means of explaining the unknown be, there are no limitations here it is the human imagination set free. As in not answerable/accountable to its own statements.

Memories: stored experiences?:confused:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Nameless,

Excellent point, it never the less seems an unresistable force to secular thought to try to reach the faithful through reason, something they long ago abandoned to their faith. In the presence of knowledge there would be no need of faith. To make unrestricted claims about that great mystery is thus open to any and all speculations, there is no need of a foundation on which to base them, what would be the foundation/means of explaining the unknown be, there are no limitations here it is the human imagination set free. As in not answerable/accountable to its own statements.

Memories: stored experiences?:confused:

Knowledge requires faith as much as religion, but knowlege is something more than faith when true, and only faith when false.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Knowledge requires faith as much as religion, but knowlege is something more than faith when true, and only faith when false.

Fido,

Religion requires no knowledge, please give an example of this said knowledge innate to religion. As I stated earlier in the presence of knowledge faith is unnecessary. Lord help my disbelief!:eek:

@GridLok,

GridLok;6950 wrote:

What do say 'memories' are?

Ahhh, thats the question of the evening!

'Memory' (a definitional work in progress);

1) Memory = (what we accept as) Existence

'It' (self, dreams, thoughts, concepts, the 'world'...) exists, for us, because we have/are a memory of 'it', at the moment.

A 'memory' of a thing often appears to be that thing; it is not the thing. Memory has built-in ego. That mnemonic ego, sense of 'self' as individual = unique perspective. A 'unique self' (memory thereof) is a unique perspective of that memory. 'Self' is what memory presents as perspective of memory.

1) Each 'moment' = one uniquely perceived (mnemonically) universe. Like one cell from a film, motionless and unrelated to the other cells but by 'coincidental' arrangement and a sequentially perceived mnemonic.

1) A 'memory' must be contextual/definitional/dualistic to Be.
Existence = Context/definition

1) One memory (with perspectives) = one moment (Planck)

There are 10-^43/second meaning that if a Planck moment were the tiniest nano-increment 'larger', there would be 100 billion trillion trillion trillion Planck moments in one second.

1) As it is, a Planck moment is of such construction that there are no temporal qualities inherent in a 'slice of time that 'small'; all synchronous moments are completely 'timeless'. Odd how the illusion of such a thing as 'time' can occur in a moment that is timeless. Timeless and motionless.

1) All momentary memories are quantumly discrete and synchronous.

Physics shakily admits that there has been found no electrons jumping between energy levels. Nothing 'moving'. An electron was said to 'jump' from one energy level to another, but now that there are tools capable of observing, there cannot be found any electrons between energy levels. What this implies to me is that one 'moment' there is an electron in it on a particular energy level; in another moment, there is no electron on that level, but Now there is an electron on the next level in another moment. New moment, new memory, nothing 'happening' but momentary memory as perspective, as context, as all of our perceived 'existence', all at Once, for the non-duration, timelessly.
We are new 'creations'(memories/universes) each and every moment. Not linearly but synchronously 'Banging' into existence, and Banging out again at the same timeless /moment'. That is all of ever creation. Pooft! Sure appears differently though.. what a 'trip'. Fun, full, wildly and broadly elevated, but a 'mnemonic dream' nontheless.
Not 'Real'.

1) The 'ground' of memory seems to be (One) Mind, which I equate with the 'quantum probability wave field'.

Some quantum physicists call (the One) 'Consciousness' the "Ground of all Being". ( see; Copenhagen Interpretation) As undisturbed chaos, the 'wave field' (Mind) is absolutely undifferentiated potential. It is all the possibilities of existence/memory, yet nothing in particular. No memory. When Consciousness turns 'in' upon mind, each of the 'potential universes', each 'wave' (quanton) 'collapses' into it's 'potential' universes/'realities' (memories) of each of those (infinite?) particular 'realities' complete with many, many perspectives (us/ego built in).
And we imagine 'life'.
And people have been asking if there is 'life' after death (a nonsensical question on the face)! The question would have been better asking if there is 'life' before death.
One can/must get used to not accepting the 'display of memory' (perceptions/concepts) as 'Truth', in a 'quest' for 'Truth/Reality'.

This is a rough definition of 'memory', as I 'see' it.
At the 'moment', this definition is a work in progress. There is another moment, somewhere, where this definition is completed and, perhaps, more meaningful.
Peace

@boagie,

boagie;6951 wrote:

Nameless,

Excellent point, it never the less seems an unresistable force to secular thought to try to reach the faithful through reason, something they long ago abandoned to their faith.

It is no different then the 'believers' attempting to propagate their 'beliefs'. It is all 'pride'. Those who 'believe' in logic are no different than those who 'believe' in spirit guides. The 'logician, if not a 'believer', if trying to 'convince' a believer of the (assumed) error of his ways is acting vainly egoically. It is prideful ego that assumes 'superiority' when faced with a differing perspective. 'Belief' and 'pride' are intimately connected, hence the apparent hypocrisy of those who 'believe' that 'pride' is a 'sin'. 'Belief' judges different as 'wrong/evil/bad'. Evangelizing in the name of 'Logic' or 'Jesus' is non-different, from this perspective.
That 'unresistable force' to which you refer, is 'prideful ego'.

Quote:

In the presence of knowledge there would be no need of faith.

Knowledge = Memory
Some, by 'faith/belief' accept their 'memory/knowledge' as 'Truth/Reality', whatever the subject.
All knowledge is memory, the 'believer's' and the non-believer's. None 'correcter/righter/more 'Truthful'/valuable... than another.
Which of the blind men surrounding the elephant is 'right'? Which is 'wrong'? Only the One Consciousness that is the Observer of all memory (the 'Experiencer' as compared to 'we experiences') 'perspectives' gets the complete picture.

Quote:

Memories: stored experiences?:confused:

Nothing to be 'stored'.
Flash Boom there is a memory/moment of a whole personal history, created on the spot, Now, as one moment/memory. You 'imagine' your life history to be a 'fact' from the appearances of memory (sort of).

@boagie,

boagie;6951 wrote:

... to try to reach the faithful through reason, something they long ago abandoned to their faith.

'Knowledge' is only one 'path' to 'Truth/Reality'.
'Faith/belief' is another. Both are fruitful to a point, but both must be abandoned, in the end (as all 'paths'), to proceed toward the 'goal'.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It is no different then the 'believers' attempting to propagate their 'beliefs'. It is all 'pride'. Those who 'believe' in logic are no different than those who 'believe' in spirit guides. The 'logician, if not a 'believer', if trying to 'convince' a believer of the (assumed) error of his ways is acting vainly egoically. It is prideful ego that assumes 'superiority' when faced with a differing perspective. 'Belief' and 'pride' are intimately connected, hence the apparent hypocrisy of those who 'believe' that 'pride' is a 'sin'. 'Belief' judges different as 'wrong/evil/bad'. Evangelizing in the name of 'Logic' or 'Jesus' is non-different, from this perspective.
That 'unresistable force' to which you refer, is 'prideful ego'.

Knowledge = Memory
Some, by 'faith/belief' accept their 'memory/knowledge' as 'Truth/Reality', whatever the subject.
All knowledge is memory, the 'believer's' and the non-believer's. None 'correcter/righter/more 'Truthful'/valuable... than another.
Which of the blind men surrounding the elephant is 'right'? Which is 'wrong'? Only the One Consciousness that is the Observer of all memory (the 'Experiencer' as compared to 'we experiences') 'perspectives' gets the complete picture.

Nothing to be 'stored'.
Flash Boom there is a memory/moment of a whole personal history, created on the spot, Now, as one moment/memory. You 'imagine' your life history to be a 'fact' from the appearances of memory (sort of).

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Fido,

Religion requires no knowledge, please give an example of this said knowledge innate to religion. As I stated earlier in the presence of knowledge faith is unnecessary. Lord help my disbelief!:eek:

Sir. I did not say religion requires knowledge, but that knowledge requires faith. No one alive has tested all the concepts we must take for granted to add to knowledge. We take what the last generation tested on faith. The same is true of religion. They take someones testimony. What they do not realize is that they get only the testimony of those who prayed, and were saved, and they miss the testimony of all who prayed and were washed away. You should not confuse the fact that you can conceptualize all you know with really knowing what you are given in the way of concepts. Certainly, many concepts have fallen by the wayside that were once accepted as truth. It will happen today, tomorrow, and forever, if there is such a thing.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

What you should try to realize is that the makings of religion were once the cutting edge theory of reality. Considering that each step leads to another, it is difficult to imagine how we might have gotten here if that step had not occured. There are a lot of ideas common to theology and philosophy even if the later has dismissed the ideas of the former. We still think of good, of virtue, of justice, and morality apart from religion. And for its part, religion and magic have the sense of force at a distance, tools, the power of words and words of power. Neither magic nor religion serve to answer the practical needs people have to understand nature. The reason it has survived is that it, better than the organizations of government based upon archaic understandings of human relationships, do not answer our needs for justice or community or contemplation. Religion used to explain reality, but in many respects it is the reality each thinking person must deal with. It is pervasive, and more so as the failures of government drive people back into older forms of relationship. You cannot become its master out of antipathy. You have to grasp what it is, not as telling a truth, but as answering a need.

@Fido,

Fido,

"I did not say religion requires knowledge." This was the bone of contention, my apologies if I attributed to you a statement which is not yours. I am very familar with the nature of world mythologies and in how these things serve in informing of a particular culture. When one has a religion/mythology that was relevant two thousand years ago to a particular people, particular culture, and by its nature/ its own defination, it cannot change and adapt to the changeing world, it is apparent that it has no knowledge that is not present to the secular worlds understanding. Faith and knowledge seem to be logically linked, where you have faith is in the absence of knowledge.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Fido,

"I did not say religion requires knowledge." This was the bone of contention, my apologies if I attributed to you a statement which is not yours. I am very familar with the nature of world mythologies and in how these things serve in informing of a particular culture. When one has a religion/mythology that was relevant two thousand years ago to a particular people, particular culture, and by its nature/ its own defination, it cannot change and adapt to the changeing world, it is apparent that it has no knowledge that is not present to the secular worlds understanding. Faith and knowledge seem to be logically linked, where you have faith is in the absence of knowledge.

Yes, where faith leaves off knowledge begins, and endferend. I think the adaption of religion is marvelous. Where is the religion of today that beats the bushes for a race of devils? Everyone is parried down to one logical God, and faith answers all the wants that knowledge does not. Ratio and religio are like owls and bats feeding off the same black night.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Yes, where faith leaves off knowledge begins, and endferend. I think the adaption of religion is marvelous. Where is the religion of today that beats the bushes for a race of devils? Everyone is parried down to one logical God, and faith answers all the wants that knowledge does not. Ratio and religio are like owls and bats feeding off the same black night.

Fido,

"Where faith leaves off knowledge begins?" Faith simply desires if you like, that it imagineings will one day manifest themselves as reality. Faith you might say is a process of desire, and nothing more. I believe the latin religio is translated to mean, a linking back, back to its origin, With Christianity this would be its genesis in the form of the garden of eden and the talking snake. I do like your analogy of a great darkness which is the shared experience of two different organisms, only one is claiming to know the darkness for what it really is------that would be the faithful.

Sorry if my stance seems harsh, perhaps in the future there will be a mythology created which does not totally breach with what we know of reality. Actually reality is very mystical, as intangible as it is it would lend itself to the knowledge of the day.

@boagie,

boagie;6959 wrote:

Nameless,

That is a most impressive soft shoe dance,

Is this what is known as a 'left handed compliment'?
A 'dismissal' of 'meat' in favor of a sweet tasting desert?
*__-

Quote:

but what is the knowledge you claim to be innate to religion?

'Knowledge' of a 'religion' = 'memory' of that 'religion' =that 'religion' has its existence in and as 'memory'.
There is no 'knowledge/memory' innate in anything but Mind. Religion exists as a memory for some people, a real and integral part of their 'mnemonic nature'. Their Jesus' and gods are as 'real' for them, in their 'world' as 'breakfast' (if you are fortunate enough to have the memory thereof) might be in yours. There is no 'difference', both, ALL existence, is memory.
Bye the bye, I'd love to see where I 'claim' that 'knowledge/memory' is innate to anything but, perhaps, Mind. There is nothing 'out there' (never been any valid evidence of such, anyway, nor is there likely to be any...).

Quote:

If you wish to consider ultimate reality and its nature and origin

Metaphysics and mysticism along with quantum physics, now, takes us down this path.

Quote:

then you are dealing with that ultimate mystery which is the unknown.

Making fire was an 'ultimate mystery' once... It was unknown, a 'mystery', not understood, by the people. Perhaps they made it a 'god' when it (wondrously) appeared..
Anything that is newly 'perceived' and examined is the 'unknown', for the moment. With examination, experiment, whatever, it gradually becomes more and more 'known'.
There is nothing in existence that cannot be 'known' as 'knowing/memory' IS existence.

Quote:

Again what knowledge is innate to religion whether of naive realism or ultimate reality, an example would be most helpful.

Naive realism is simply trusting that your senses, perceptions, provide an accurate reflection, in the form of concepts, of an (apparently) 'external/objective' existence. As that has been thoroughly refuted by science, logic and rationality suggest we ignore that perspective for the moment.
All 'knowledge' is 'memory', and all 'memory' is existence, personalized (completely subjective) by ego/perspective.
I hope that this helps your confusion in this matter. You have somehow misquoted me.
(Bye the bye, misquoting (misdirection) and then arguing the misquote is one symptomatic defensive survival tactic of a 'belief virus' that feels threatened. I'm going to have to keep my eyes open for the potential appearance of further symptoms. @__@
Perhaps this misquote was merely an oversight, somehow? Most likely, but 'beliefs' are widespread! We'll see... *__- )

Philosophy Forum

Do humans actually have free will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know