Page 54 of 82 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 812

Thread: Free Will And Free Choice

  1. Top | #531
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,883
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,096
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Still waiting for you to explain how mind achieves independence from the brain. How does that work?

    How, mr substance dualist, does mind function without the very brain activity that generates the experience of sight, sound, thought, etc?
    That is not the only question. Yes it is. Unless those are explained and verified there is no discussion

    There are other questions.

    Like: How could an unfree mind make truth judgements that have meaning? By using a chain of micro-operations programmed through evolutionary processes in the brain.

    There is evidence of free will in the veto of movement. That so called evidence either rejected as poor intrpretation of Libet process or is disputed as flawed in it's current form.

    Science needs to try to explain the phenomena. There are literally tens of thousands articles explaining every conceivable element of that pheomena.

    Not pretend it doesn't exist. Objective experiments and studies disputing the existence of will and the universal presence deterministic processes clearly demonstrate otherwise.

    You didn't answer the question. You are the one offering an explanation that you can't actually explain or support. It's clear that you can't, therefore the smokescreens and diversions.
    See bolded in your post untermenscehe.

  2. Top | #532
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Still waiting for you to explain how mind achieves independence from the brain. How does that work?

    How, mr substance dualist, does mind function without the very brain activity that generates the experience of sight, sound, thought, etc?
    That is not the only question.

    There are other questions.

    Like: How could an unfree mind make truth judgements that have meaning?

    There is evidence of free will in the veto of movement.

    Science needs to try to explain the phenomena.

    Not pretend it doesn't exist.

    You didn't answer the question. You are the one offering an explanation that you can't actually explain or support. It's clear that you can't, therefore the smokescreens and diversions.
    You ignore truth.

    Like: None of your judgments could possibly have any meaning unless you had the freedom to keep and discard ideas as YOU, a mind, chooses.

    Either everything you believe is forced upon you or you have the freedom to reject bad ideas.

    Which is it?

    I can reject any bad I idea I find. I do it, based on the idea.

    Like the very bad idea that I don't have the freedom to do it.

  3. Top | #533
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Like: How could an unfree mind make truth judgements that have meaning?
    By using a chain of micro-operations programmed through evolutionary processes in the brain.
    There is no meaning in programmed responses.

    Meaning comes from being able to freely accept ideas and reject ideas.

    If you don't have that freedom then none of the ideas you accept have meaning.

    Nobody should believe you.

    Nobody should take the word of the creature that says "I have truth but no freedom to reject ideas".

  4. Top | #534
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    2,073
    Rep Power
    29

    Some of the unvaccinated should be force-vaccinated AGAINST THEIR WILL.

    If FREE WILL is an absolute which can never be overruled, then force-vaccinations have to be ruled out, in all cases, no matter what. But it's not an absolute, for all time, everywhere, in every imaginable situation.

    This is a legitimate free-will issue, and it is resolved on the basis of what the facts are, such as facts about the risk. It is a practical issue, not a Platonic Abstraction from the Cosmic Realm detached from the concrete world. Free-will questions are practical questions, and they are treated in the law, in legal proceedings, and they have concrete meaning about the real tangible world of observable phenomena where necessary decisions are made.

    And these real issues -- the only ones that have any meaning, including philosophical meaning -- cannot be addressed unless it's assumed that FREE WILL is something real, or something which really does exist, and is something which can either be allowed or can be overruled.

    For something to be overruled, it has to be something real that exists in the practical everyday decision-making.

    Enough scientific facts are now in for the decision to be made to begin force-vaccinating people against their will, a WILL which really exists and is standing in the way of making us all safe from this new virus. It is now established that even the vaccinated are at risk if the new surge continues, because this likely leads to new variant strains which will be less vulnerable to the vaccines, so that even those vaccinated will be in danger. So the unvaccinated, still being a large number, are putting everyone at risk.

    This is a concrete example of how free will must sometimes be overruled in favor of the public good, or the greater good. I.e., the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail, based on the facts, the science, the probabilities determined by good data and math. The only legitimate argument against force-vaccinations must also be based on facts or data about the level of risk (claiming it's not so great). Arguments having no connection to the data, risk, probability, etc., are incoherent nonsense of no relevance to concrete reality, to decision-making, to truth, and even to philosophy -- "philosophy" = love of wisdom = truth-seeking = finding answers to questions about the real concrete world rather than detached abstractions unconnected to verifiable facts. "Truth" cannot be based on poetry or private personal impulses, but on concrete facts which everyone can verify.

    But if you define "free will" as an absolute having no measurable or verifiable characteristic, and unconnected to anything observable, as something uncaused, or as something nonexistent because it can't be verified, then you have to set aside every free-will issue as nonsensical and of no relevance to any decision-making.

    "uncaused"?

    We DO NOT KNOW where "free will" comes from. It's just there. We each know it at least for ourself individually, whatever might be causing it.

    (Or even if you claim something caused it, like "the brain" etc., you still don't know what caused that, etc. -- no matter what "caused" something else, still those things are real and do exist. Even if mind, or will is caused by something, that doesn't change the fact that it exists and is real.)

    Abstractions about "determinism" do not negate the fact that the phenomenon does exist. The "free will" is there, or the desire for this or that, and conjecture about where this "free will" came from doesn't resolve anything, or change the reality that it's there, and that in some cases this "free will" is suppressed by someone else. It has to be real, because something not really there cannot be suppressed, and this thing, wherever it came from, is suppressed at many sundry times and places, for good or ill.

    No one can name a "free-will" issue in law or legal proceedings which is not about the facts and the data and the degree of risk based on the probabilities. It all assumes that free will does exist, as something which can either be permitted to the individual or as something to be overruled in the particular case because of the degree of risk or danger or likely injury.

    If you've ever had the thought that someone's action had to be curtailed, by force, then you believe "free will" exists and had to be suppressed in that case. You could not demand that someone be stopped from doing what they're doing, or forced to do something, unless you believe that their "free will" exists and must be suppressed. If you say "free will" does not exist, then you have no explanation why force should ever be used against anyone, or why any law should ever be passed, or enforced. And you cannot answer why chaos and anarchy would be undesirable.

    If you think the rich should be taxed, and this taxation enforced, then you believe free will exists. Or if you think we need laws imposed onto businesses, to make them do anything they otherwise would not do, then you believe free will exists, is real, and has to be suppressed in favor of what you think is the greater good.
    Last edited by Lumpenproletariat; 07-30-2021 at 02:51 AM.

  5. Top | #535
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,883
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,096
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Like: How could an unfree mind make truth judgements that have meaning?
    By using a chain of micro-operations programmed through evolutionary processes in the brain.
    There is no meaning in programmed responses.

    Meaning comes from being able to freely accept ideas and reject ideas.

    If you don't have that freedom then none of the ideas you accept have meaning.

    Nobody should believe you.

    Nobody should take the word of the creature that says "I have truth but no freedom to reject ideas".
    I call Bullshit on our entire response.

    There is meaning in any response not heard, seen, felt, smelled, tasted before, or otherwise sensed before.

    Accepting what is not fully known can be freely accepted.

    Since you have freedom anything can be accepted or rejected.

    A priori there is no reason for anyone to disbelieve you.

    Taking the word of another is a personal decision. You are free to do so regardless of whether what she says is true or false.

    Whether you are told one has the truth or not you don't know whether one has the truth so you can answer in the negative, positive, or by walking away.

    If one does not know one is determined one can feel free to behave as one will behave.

  6. Top | #536
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,883
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,096
    Rep Power
    65
    Facts have little todo with one's judgement of risk. If they are facts those facts may not be known to you. So where does free will come in to play.

    You may respond according to the facts you have which may be in the negative. You don't know. So free will is not a factor. Rather possession of all the information is the only factor relevant to your hypothesis. Since that isn't realistic your hypothesis fails for lack of meaning or context.

  7. Top | #537
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    If FREE WILL is an absolute which can never be overruled, then force-vaccinations have to be ruled out, in all cases, no matter what. But it's not an absolute, for all time, everywhere, in every imaginable situation.

    This is a legitimate free-will issue, and it is resolved on the basis of what the facts are, such as facts about the risk. It is a practical issue, not a Platonic Abstraction from the Cosmic Realm detached from the concrete world. Free-will questions are practical questions, and they are treated in the law, in legal proceedings, and they have concrete meaning about the real tangible world of observable phenomena where necessary decisions are made.

    And these real issues -- the only ones that have any meaning, including philosophical meaning -- cannot be addressed unless it's assumed that FREE WILL is something real, or something which really does exist, and is something which can either be allowed or can be overruled.

    For something to be overruled, it has to be something real that exists in the practical everyday decision-making.

    Enough scientific facts are now in for the decision to be made to begin force-vaccinating people against their will, a WILL which really exists and is standing in the way of making us all safe from this new virus. It is now established that even the vaccinated are at risk if the new surge continues, because this likely leads to new variant strains which will be less vulnerable to the vaccines, so that even those vaccinated will be in danger. So the unvaccinated, still being a large number, are putting everyone at risk.

    This is a concrete example of how free will must sometimes be overruled in favor of the public good, or the greater good. I.e., the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail, based on the facts, the science, the probabilities determined by good data and math. The only legitimate argument against force-vaccinations must also be based on facts or data about the level of risk (claiming it's not so great). Arguments having no connection to the data, risk, probability, etc., are incoherent nonsense of no relevance to concrete reality, to decision-making, to truth, and even to philosophy -- "philosophy" = love of wisdom = truth-seeking = finding answers to questions about the real concrete world rather than detached abstractions unconnected to verifiable facts. "Truth" cannot be based on poetry or private personal impulses, but on concrete facts which everyone can verify.

    But if you define "free will" as an absolute having no measurable or verifiable characteristic, and unconnected to anything observable, as something uncaused, or as something nonexistent because it can't be verified, then you have to set aside every free-will issue as nonsensical and of no relevance to any decision-making.

    "uncaused"?

    We DO NOT KNOW where "free will" comes from. It's just there. We each know it at least for ourself individually, whatever might be causing it.

    (Or even if you claim something caused it, like "the brain" etc., you still don't know what caused that, etc. -- no matter what "caused" something else, still those things are real and do exist. Even if mind, or will is caused by something, that doesn't change the fact that it exists and is real.)

    Abstractions about "determinism" do not negate the fact that the phenomenon does exist. The "free will" is there, or the desire for this or that, and conjecture about where this "free will" came from doesn't resolve anything, or change the reality that it's there, and that in some cases this "free will" is suppressed by someone else. It has to be real, because something not really there cannot be suppressed, and this thing, wherever it came from, is suppressed at many sundry times and places, for good or ill.

    No one can name a "free-will" issue in law or legal proceedings which is not about the facts and the data and the degree of risk based on the probabilities. It all assumes that free will does exist, as something which can either be permitted to the individual or as something to be overruled in the particular case because of the degree of risk or danger or likely injury.

    If you've ever had the thought that someone's action had to be curtailed, by force, then you believe "free will" exists and had to be suppressed in that case. You could not demand that someone be stopped from doing what they're doing, or forced to do something, unless you believe that their "free will" exists and must be suppressed. If you say "free will" does not exist, then you have no explanation why force should ever be used against anyone, or why any law should ever be passed, or enforced. And you cannot answer why chaos and anarchy would be undesirable.

    If you think the rich should be taxed, and this taxation enforced, then you believe free will exists. Or if you think we need laws imposed onto businesses, to make them do anything they otherwise would not do, then you believe free will exists, is real, and has to be suppressed in favor of what you think is the greater good.
    Nobody is saying that we don't have will. Nobody is saying that we can't make decisions. Just that neither is an example of 'free will.' The reasons have been described numerous times.

    In a nutshell: the information state of a brain at any given moment in time determines consciousness in that instance in time. What you experience is being produced by underlying information processing activity feeding your perceptions, thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions as they unfold over time. Brain agency.

  8. Top | #538
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post


    You didn't answer the question. You are the one offering an explanation that you can't actually explain or support. It's clear that you can't, therefore the smokescreens and diversions.
    You ignore truth.

    Like: None of your judgments could possibly have any meaning unless you had the freedom to keep and discard ideas as YOU, a mind, chooses.

    Either everything you believe is forced upon you or you have the freedom to reject bad ideas.

    Which is it?

    I can reject any bad I idea I find. I do it, based on the idea.

    Like the very bad idea that I don't have the freedom to do it.
    I ignore unfounded declarations....in this instance, yours.

  9. Top | #539
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    There is no meaning in programmed responses.

    Meaning comes from being able to freely accept ideas and reject ideas.

    If you don't have that freedom then none of the ideas you accept have meaning.

    Nobody should believe you.

    Nobody should take the word of the creature that says "I have truth but no freedom to reject ideas".
    I call Bullshit on our entire response.
    Great. You disagree and will willfully show me why. You care because you are in control and that is what you do, care about stuff.

    There is meaning in any response not heard, seen, felt, smelled, tasted before, or otherwise sensed before.
    If the response is forced, a reflex as opposed to something freely made based on ideas in the mind, it has no more meaning than a leg kicking when the patellar tendon is struck.

    If you are forced to believe you have no free will what is the meaning in you saying you don't have it?

    Could you not be forced to say you do have free will?

    If a response is forced and not the product of a free mind it has no meaning.

  10. Top | #540
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post


    You didn't answer the question. You are the one offering an explanation that you can't actually explain or support. It's clear that you can't, therefore the smokescreens and diversions.
    You ignore truth.

    Like: None of your judgments could possibly have any meaning unless you had the freedom to keep and discard ideas as YOU, a mind, chooses.

    Either everything you believe is forced upon you or you have the freedom to reject bad ideas.

    Which is it?

    I can reject any bad I idea I find. I do it, based on the idea.

    Like the very bad idea that I don't have the freedom to do it.
    I ignore unfounded declarations....in this instance, yours.
    Correction: You can't deal with ideas.

    How do you know you have truth?

    You have no clue what the mind is objectively and are making claims about what it can do.

    It is like saying you know what is happening in some other dimension.

    Silly nonsense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •