|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:02 pm
Note: I'm going to be posting this in a number of places.
Do you have free will? Most of us will say that we do but the evidence is at odds with that assertion. It should come as no surprise to anyone that all of our bodily functions and movements are controlled by the brain. Specifically, the electrical impulses within the brain. How then, can our consciousness induce electrical impulses in our brains that cause our actions and thoughts? There is no part of the brain that is the seat of our free will or consciousness.
One might argue that while electrical impulses cause the actions, our urges are what give rise to the actions. As it turns out, through placing electrodes on the brain, these "urges" can be induced as well as the actions that would flow from said urges. Not only this, but we can be tricked into believing we intentionally performed actions that we, in fact, did not. This works in reverse, we being fooled into believing that we are merely receiving input when in fact that "input" is arising from within us. Free will really is a tricky thing to wrap your mind around. It seems that our conscious intentions are really just the by-product of something that is already going on inside of our brains, beyond our control.
To go a little deeper into this, let's consider what we're made of and where that all began. Within a few moments of the universe beginning, everything that was, is, or ever will be was set in motion. All the stuff that makes up you or me or the planets or the stars can all be traced back to that moment. Now, stuff interacted with other stuff, hence changing the properties of all the stuff. Is it conceivable, in a Newtonian sense, that everything that goes on in our heads, the motions of molecules, electrons, etc. can all be traced back through a long, long series of interactions to that initial moment of creation? Running with this, everything that we do, everything that we are, was determined at the moment of creation. Does this sound like free will?
What are your thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:45 pm
i think your way into the eugenics, were not bound mentally by science, were logic instinct and emotion
its infant science you speak of, fancy words to dress up how it works. just because you know how it works. doesnt mean it ruins what you want to do with it.
things will always grow and change. its progress. just figured out what you want to do next with the knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:31 pm
Hoshioni i think your way into the eugenics, were not bound mentally by science, were logic instinct and emotion its infant science you speak of, fancy words to dress up how it works. just because you know how it works. doesnt mean it ruins what you want to do with it. things will always grow and change. its progress. just figured out what you want to do next with the knowledge. The point I'm kind of getting at is this: One has to accept that they do not have free will or one has to accept that there is a "supernatural" aspect to human consciousness. It might put most people at a bit of an impasse. No one wants to admit that they aren't in control of themselves, but there are just as many people that don't want to admit to the existence of anything that could be called supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:18 pm
the human body is a vehicle, always was a vehicle, and will continue to be so. A scientist claiming they've figured out how to hotwire the vehicle has nothing to do with the passenger. To get an understanding of just how primitive medicine really is, ask your doctor what the cure for Psoriasis is. Then ask them if they can fix broken bones good as new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:24 pm
Michael Noire the human body is a vehicle, always was a vehicle, and will continue to be so. A scientist claiming they've figured out how to hotwire the vehicle has nothing to do with the passenger. To get an understanding of just how primitive medicine really is, ask your doctor what the cure for Psoriasis is. Then ask them if they can fix broken bones good as new. This really has nothing to do with the topic of free will. It's a straw man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:23 am
woah. that really has me thinking now! D:
Its almost like fate. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:39 am
Obscurus Michael Noire the human body is a vehicle, always was a vehicle, and will continue to be so. A scientist claiming they've figured out how to hotwire the vehicle has nothing to do with the passenger. To get an understanding of just how primitive medicine really is, ask your doctor what the cure for Psoriasis is. Then ask them if they can fix broken bones good as new. This really has nothing to do with the topic of free will. It's a straw man. It isn't my fault if the concept is beyond your comprehension. You must be of the materialist school of thought. As an idealist, it is my duty to inform you that we will never agree, therefore argument is mute, and your attempts at logic will have no persuasive power whatsoever. For others confused, here is the break down: An entity which is the source of free will possesses the Body. The body is like - to use animation for analogy - "power armor" for the spirit, which wears it like a shell. This is not unlike a person getting into an automobile and driving. When the vehicle is significantly damaged, the spirit leaves. As a materialist, you may find this to be a fallacious argument, however, that is how I see it, and how billions more see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:43 am
Obscurus Hoshioni i think your way into the eugenics, were not bound mentally by science, were logic instinct and emotion its infant science you speak of, fancy words to dress up how it works. just because you know how it works. doesnt mean it ruins what you want to do with it. things will always grow and change. its progress. just figured out what you want to do next with the knowledge. The point I'm kind of getting at is this: One has to accept that they do not have free will or one has to accept that there is a "supernatural" aspect to human consciousness. It might put most people at a bit of an impasse. No one wants to admit that they aren't in control of themselves, but there are just as many people that don't want to admit to the existence of anything that could be called supernatural. just because science can tell you how it works, doesnt mean you can willfully control or turn off your emotions naturally. unless you accept some brain recepting destroying drug. but agian thats like destroying an arm or somthing. i mean what if our soul is like sealed in our brain and if doesnt work the body cant channel it? what if were better then what science claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:45 am
Michael Noire Obscurus Michael Noire the human body is a vehicle, always was a vehicle, and will continue to be so. A scientist claiming they've figured out how to hotwire the vehicle has nothing to do with the passenger. To get an understanding of just how primitive medicine really is, ask your doctor what the cure for Psoriasis is. Then ask them if they can fix broken bones good as new. This really has nothing to do with the topic of free will. It's a straw man. It isn't my fault if the concept is beyond your comprehension. You must be of the materialist school of thought. As an idealist, it is my duty to inform you that we will never agree, therefore argument is mute, and your attempts at logic will have no persuasive power whatsoever. For others confused, here is the break down: An entity which is the source of free will possesses the Body. The body is like - to use animation for analogy - "power armor" for the spirit, which wears it like a shell. This is not unlike a person getting into an automobile and driving. When the vehicle is significantly damaged, the spirit leaves. As a materialist, you may find this to be a fallacious argument, however, that is how I see it, and how billions more see it. i like how he words it, and to add some science to this what if that light at the end of the tunnel is really the black holes that make matter disspear to balence out the universe? and they cant explian what makes these black holes. so what if its just souls being pulled into the next world. science is too rigid. and the magic too well uha loose. i think its a balence of the 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
ITT Michael doesn't realize that Obscurus isn't making the statement that Michael is trying to argue against, but is providing a sort of paradox situation wherein a "logical" materialist must accept that they either don't have free will and that all things are dictated by the influence and motion of energy and particles since the creation of the universe, or, on the other hand, consider the idea that there would have to be more than just matter and electrical signals, suggesting something supernatural or otherwise "of the soul." Or, on the other side of the fence, that a person who isn't strictly a materialist could consider the materialist possibility; that everything IS just a product of the transference of energy and motion of matter.
All he's doing is providing a basis of discussion on whether or not free will exists, and whether or not someone wants to accept the potential implications that comes with either mode of thought. He's not actually providing any support for either side. You're arguing with him over something he never stated or offered support for.
You have a lot more problems with overall comprehension than those you talk to, Michael, at least when it comes to understanding the overarching intent or point someone is making when they say something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:07 am
The Darth Vizzle ITT Michael doesn't realize that Obscurus isn't making the statement that Michael is trying to argue against, but is providing a sort of paradox situation wherein a "logical" materialist must accept that they either don't have free will and that all things are dictated by the influence and motion of energy and particles since the creation of the universe, or, on the other hand, consider the idea that there would have to be more than just matter and electrical signals, suggesting something supernatural or otherwise "of the soul." Or, on the other side of the fence, that a person who isn't strictly a materialist could consider the materialist possibility; that everything IS just a product of the transference of energy and motion of matter. All he's doing is providing a basis of discussion on whether or not free will exists, and whether or not someone wants to accept the potential implications that comes with either mode of thought. He's not actually providing any support for either side. You're arguing with him over something he never stated or offered support for. You have a lot more problems with overall comprehension than those you talk to, Michael, at least when it comes to understanding the overarching intent or point someone is making when they say something. I've read his article over again to find out where I made a mistake. The thing I was arguing against wasn't his conclusion, but his premises. He's attempting to argue that the origin of the arrangement of matter could call into question the idea of free will, that the electrical impulses are a consequence of Newtonian mechanics originating from the very beginning. This is a kind of deterministic cosmology that takes cause and effect chain reactions like we see in a pool table, all the way to the level of individual humans. Quote: To go a little deeper into this, let's consider what we're made of and where that all began. Within a few moments of the universe beginning, everything that was, is, or ever will be was set in motion. All the stuff that makes up you or me or the planets or the stars can all be traced back to that moment. In other words, I have no agreement with this statement, as it is a form of Big Bang cosmology. I'm an adherent of the Plasma Cosmology of Alfven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology recent discovery supporting this model: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/22/universalprimordial-magnetic-fields-discovered-in-deepspa.html (despite the fact that they keep using "Big Bang")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:58 pm
The Darth Vizzle summed up my intentions perfectly. I'm trying to provide a kind of "rock and hard place" in order to make people think about something that most take for granted.
Michael Noire, please don't assume so much about me. I am not a materialist. I acknowledge materialism but I also acknowledge what's beyond our current understanding. I chose to withhold my own personal viewpoint on the matter so as not to influence the responses.
Hoshioni, I think you're looking at science as some kind of established orthodoxy (which, I admit, mainstream science seems to be). I look at science in the purest sense; it is a tool for exploration and understanding. Science is not a supreme arbiter or what is and what is not, or what can be. It is just a tool. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:21 pm
Obscurus The Darth Vizzle summed up my intentions perfectly. I'm trying to provide a kind of "rock and hard place" in order to make people think about something that most take for granted. Michael Noire, please don't assume so much about me. I am not a materialist. I acknowledge materialism but I also acknowledge what's beyond our current understanding. I chose to withhold my own personal viewpoint on the matter so as not to influence the responses. Hoshioni, I think you're looking at science as some kind of established orthodoxy (which, I admit, mainstream science seems to be). I look at science in the purest sense; it is a tool for exploration and understanding. Science is not a supreme arbiter or what is and what is not, or what can be. It is just a tool. biggrin Apologies on the knee jerk reaction to some of the statements. I've got an existentialist class this quarter and its grating on my nerves. Let me quote from this week's assigned reading... Selected highlights from page 349: Quote: we mean only that God does not exist (line #1) Abolish God with the least possible expense (line #3) God is useless (line #5) God does not exist (line #14) God does not exist (line #16) God is an outdated hypothesis (line #18 ) God does not exist (line #21) God didn't exist (line #27) God does not exist (line #29) God does not exist (line #35) Incidentally, the topic is supposed to be Free Will... rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:04 pm
What if our free will is a result of our inner self within our mind? That would makes everything we do still a result of free will but not "this" self, but rather thine "true" self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:48 pm
So, let me see.
This topic about asking on the opinion of "Free Will"?
I've read all the responses and if i'm understanding.
Obscurus, you implying that has a possibility that "Free will" doesn't exist and our thoughts, actions, and emotions are from something, like energy based down to atoms or particles. That "THAT" is want controls us and that we have no control of our actions, even with the fact of knowing what you want to do.
Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
