What is free will?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by fess, Jan 30, 2019.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    They say this because they believe that the universe has some sort of monopoly on what that unique predetermined choice is...
    Of all the predetermined choices in the actors awareness only one is unique and this is predetermined by the universe and not the actor.
    This is why I brought up the hind sight fallacy issue.
    For it is only after the choice is taken that the universe claims it to be uniquely predetermined. It can not be claimed to do so before hand but only in hindsight.
    This leads to an impossible to falsify situation.

    However if one argues that all possible choices are not only predetermined but unique as well then any choice the actor makes is unique and so freedom of choice is actually irrelevant to the universe and only relevant to the actor.

    I am still hunting down the exact terms used for this logic or reasoning fallacy but as yet have not found it...
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    nope

    I also keep print screen files.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    iceaura,
    Do you still think I am wrong? ( test)


    Can you provide a print screen showing your quote as missing so we can show that the post has been tampered with?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    You may recall the good old days of Alpha####numeric and his team of sciforums destroyers... hence the print screens
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,189
    You mean this thread:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/defying-gravity-and-the-laws-of-physics.141147/?
    Your recollection of it is rather blinkered, methinks. It was 5 years ago, and there was no attempt to ridicule, just to see if others had a better way of explaining why you were wrong. Most, after initially telling you you were talking rubbish, just wanted the thread scrapped because the idea of defying gravity (e.g. by standing up) was/is so ridiculous, and a thread on the matter unwarranted in the maths forum.
    But hey, you remember it how you want.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    well you did post it in the math forum didn't you.....tut tut tut....
    It was fun actually ....
    I rememebr this bit I wrote..
    And you know what? ... you still can't provide a straight forward answer can you?

    How come we can stand up ( and defy gravitational pull ) and a rock can't?
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    You see you interpreted the claim as defying natural law... where I was simply claiming the defiance of gravity.

    Two very different things, and you were so enraged by your own incorrect interpretation you posted it to the math forum and made more a fool of your self then I.
    You still can not discern the difference between law of gravity and and the effects of gravity... can you?

    edit: I need to find the actual thread Sarkus has quoted from to verify his quote in the thread he has linked to, before saying much more.

    He may actually have a point for a change....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    ok I verified the quote Sarkus was using to start that thread... and note one of my the following responses:
    note the date of the thread was way back in 2014
    "Quantum Quack, post: 3175444, member: 13925"]Of course nothing can avoid the effects of gravity. The question is in the terms "to defy" or "act in defiance of",. This is not saying the same thing as to neutralize or destroy gravitational attraction. self animated life is not being claimed to have some sort of "anti-gravitational ability" this is because there is a cost associated with our ability to CHOOSE to stand up and defy the otherwise natural outcomes of the laws associated with gravitational attraction. We CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to do so...and CHOOSE to spend the energy needed to continue doing so.. etc.

    We are able by force of will, employ our energy to deliberately work against the natural or normal attraction of gravity, thus the term defy is quite appropriate IMO.
    We have apparently evolved from non-animation to self-animation and to do so means at some point, life would have had to defy the laws of gravity to do so. However to do so it must have utilized self determination as with out it the word "defy" becomes inappropriate. IMO [which is why to minimize confusion, I limited the claim to one involving humans.]

    If you feel the need to complain about my usage of words and their definitions then I would suggest that before you go on a campaign as you have this time, you seek clarification of that word usage.

    It is also fair to add that IMO the existence of gravitational forces does not determine our choices however it does significantly influence them.
    [ are you able to realize the distinction between influence and determine?]


    I still stand by my words in 2014...
    It is also worth noting that any one who supported my argument was subsequently banned from the forum. Coincidence perhaps....but those days were strange times at sciforums if I recall...
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,189
    When discussing the law of gravity, the Physics/Maths forum seemed as good a place as any.
    It was answered adequately at the time. There was no need for me to answer it at the time. We don't defy gravitational pull. A rock doesn't. If you're asking why a rock doesn't stand up its because it doesn't have the systems that might allow it. But neither defy gravity.
    You don't think gravity is part of what's natural???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And just using "defiance" instead of "defy" doesn't alter the issue: defiance of gravity is demonstrated by that which defies gravity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I admire your ability to be so oblivious.
    I can, QQ. The effects of gravity are those things described by the law of gravity. Do you understand the difference?

    But hey, my objective here was not to rehash old threads, nor to open your old wounds. You mentioned the old thread, and your rather unusual recollection of it piqued my curiosity. That was all. I'll leave you to the same debate with iceaura, if he so wishes.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    so you have a problem with the word defiance... ok..
    What word would you choose to use to describe the act of standing up in a gravitational field strength of 1G?

    the point remains the same....
    Human beings can counter the force of gravity and stand up.
    And they can only do this by deliberately choosing to do so by applying energy using their will.
    If you can explain it any better go ahead....
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,192
    What defies the law of gravity in a free will discussion?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    "Standing up"?
    Oh, okay, that's two words.
    Me bad.
    Humans can do so without needing to do so deliberately.
    Sitting on a thumb tack could well make one stand up with no thought whatsoever.
    No will involved.

    Asimo can stand up, walk, even run.
    The "dogs" from Boston Robotics are freaky in what they can do (look them up on YouTube... Uncanny Valley or what!)

    But what are you trying to claim with this "gravity-defying" example of standing up?
    Is it just evidence for the will?
    If so, that's not answering the question of the nature of the freedom within that process, is it?
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    No it wouldn't. It would make you move away from the thumb tack but standing from a sitting position is not a reflexive reaction. It takes a decision and deliberate application of energy to stand up. To flinch on a thumb tack would also take energy something a cog or a thermostat can't do.
    the using an inorganic machine to emulate human freewill is a false analogy.

    Show me a thermostat that can counter gravity at will to prove it is an appropriate analogy.
    In fact show how a thermostat can make a choice when in fact it has been repeatedly stated it can't.
    False analogy with out question.
    The contradiction:
    Determinists believe that any choice other than the one taken is counterfactual and in this case Sarkus is using a thermostat that can not even make a choice as support for his position.

    Can a thermostat make a choice? Nope.
    False analogy...
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    perhaps you could attempt to argue both sides of the debate and see how objective you are...

    You never know... you might surprise yourself... and others...with your ...uhm.... reflexive brilliance...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    The problem with unresolved lying is that you get to live with it for the rest of your life...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    btw thermostats can not lie.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,364
    It is predetermined by the universe via the actor, who is part of the universe. The actors awareness is irrelevant.
    Of course. Quite obviously - you go on to reveal that getting up out of the chair and "standing" were identical in your thinking, where the differences between standing and other ways of departing from the chair were central to my point - so the source of your mistake was identified.

    Meanwhile, although you have yet to inform your readership what exactly you are talking about, you have left some hints - apparently you regard acceleration counter to that of a gravitational field as a "defiance" of gravity, as if gravity were issuing commands. This looks like the standard metaphorical mistake - thinking of natural law as one thinks of human law, as some kind of command.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    nonsense!
    ..and you decided to claim so using a zero gravity environment as a false analogy.... and then lied about it....

    Regardless of your deliberate obfuscation ... he has to apply energy to counter the gravitational pull...thus co-determining with gravity the events he deliberately chooses to determine. ( eg. standing up , walking, going for run etc )

    Believe it or not this discussion is not about finding error in other peoples posts, it is about a common goal, that being "What is Free Will".

    If you wish to discuss this issue fine, if you simply wish to find fault then go for it.
    I am interested only on the goal of this thread and tearing someone down because of misinterpretation or self esteem issues is not what I am about.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,421
    Being able to lie is actually a key issue for freewill....
    With out this ability whether the lies are "white" of more nefarious, there is no freedom.
    Can a thermostat lie?
    Can a cog in a machine lie?
    Can a human being deliberately lie? (Rhetorical)

    Can a deterministic universe lie?

    So go ahead lie your pants off and prove my point....
    But be warned, even white lies can prove ...uhm....problematic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,364
    When you are wrong - as at present - you offend like that to no purpose.
    The one we are taking as an example includes many entities - all of them part of said universe, and therefore determined in their nature and actions - that do in fact lie.
    The freedom of will of the universe is irrelevant here, of course. It's not a thread topic.
    Now you declaring an observation of a physical reality, the deterministic reality stipulated to as the basis of the entire thread, to be nonsense. One would expect some kind of careful and persuasive argument, for such a counterintuitive and extraordinary declaration.

    Especially one central and key to the nature of freedom of will. My contention that freedom of will - if it exists, as I think it does - must be and is an observable feature of the entity possessing it and exist in accordance with natural law, is labeled nonsense for no presented reason. Why?
    One way to tell when a poster has begun to sputter, mentally, is that their sentences become muddled strings of mismatched words - they stop making sense as written. That's an example. The more closely and carefully one reads it, the less sense it makes - there is literally no way to tell what I am supposed to have claimed, for example. That appears to be self defense - it protects the writer from being held to account for their assertions, as nobody can tell what they are.

    It's too common here, especially in conjunction with accusations of lying and so forth. IMHO.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019

Share This Page