Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
As many different absolute answers to the question of choice as there are different definitions. Got it.
The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
As many different absolute answers to the question of choice as there are different definitions. Got it.
Perhaps if you offer such a definition then we can take it from there?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
That's your definition. To recap, I'm saying that people make choices, and you're saying that you don't know if people make choices or not.
Im saying that I can't answer the question, at least not in the context of this ongoing thread, until you provide me with the definition you are using.
It is not that I don't know the answer to the question.
It is that I do not know what the question is.
I could provide a yes or no answer, but it would be meaningless given that our understandings in this context could be very different.
So why don't you provide the definition for the question?
Presumably you are able to offer one, since you believe that people make choices?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I understand that you can't answer that question. You are coming through loud and clear.
I have an hypothesis that you'd like to start by saying you can't answer that, and then you'd take me through your "logic" of how you arrive at an answer to the question. But the problem is, when the next person comes along and asks you again, you'd repeat the same nonsense. So you like to go in circles. I get that. I don't like to talk in circles, so I'll leave you to your madness. Good luck.
I can't because there are terms within it which, for whatever reason, you are not clarifying/defining.
Why would I repeat an answer to the same question when it has already been given?
Perhaps they ask a different question.
Perhaps they have different understanding of what terms mean.
If you don't want to define the terms you are using within your question, that is up to you.
Suffice to say, until you explain what you mean by "choice" I can not provide the one-word answer you have asked for.
:spank:
failed?
isn't part of the battle to get ppl to think for themselves?
what percentage of ppl actually know how to think for themselves?
does this have a connection to the percent of ppl who argue against free will?
Is there a thread for most <insert adj here> quote ever?Not QQ said:
oh your base assumptions are indeed incorrect but don't let me or any one else tell you this... YOU will have to find out for yourself...
let's get this straight, you are prepared to claim that the freedom to choose is an illusion yet you can not stick to a definition of the key word choice?
You are then prepared to claim that which you have not defined, as being an illusion and what is worse, accuse others of being idiots when they complain they don't understand what it is you are actually claiming?
Man , you need to get in to politics, we need leaders like you!
Waiting for Sarkus to comment on this exchange:
and disclose how physics has somehow determined the causation for life and it's inherent aspects such as self animation, self determination and freewill...
Last edited:
@NMSquirrel,
hee hee yeah it's so similar to a politician getting caught with his hand in the cooky jar attempting to tell the world "It's not my hand!"
And Billy yells out when accused of having sex with M in the office "a B*ow Job is not sex!"
Yeah we believe him we really do!!!
If any cliche' is needed for "fudge" this thread is loaded with them...
hee hee yeah it's so similar to a politician getting caught with his hand in the cooky jar attempting to tell the world "It's not my hand!"
And Billy yells out when accused of having sex with M in the office "a B*ow Job is not sex!"
Yeah we believe him we really do!!!
If any cliche' is needed for "fudge" this thread is loaded with them...
Last edited:
He wanted a one-word answer.
What is the point of that when our understanding of "choice" is different?
If I said "Yes"... what would that mean to him?
If I said "No"... what then?
He would base the answer on his own understanding of the term.
Not mine.
He would then possibly draw the wrong conclusion, and we would get into further pointlessness.
Regardless of what I might think, or of what you might demonstrate, I have not accused anyone of being an idiot.
I only complain when my words are deliberately taken out of context, or when people deliberately lie about what I have said.
And also when they are explained something and then blatantly ignore that explanation, rather than even ask for clarification if they didn't understand.
Yet in over 30 pages of this thread you haven't provided any valid argument against them.
Every criticism you have had has been dealt with.
And you have offered no alternative in response, other than a jump from claim to conclusion.
You simply beat your chest and display your ignorance and trollish behaviour with a louder voice.
I'm sure this has been asked of you before, but do you not have anything of worth to offer?
he is not interested in your concerns about what it means to him he is asking you not himself..
of course he would that is the point of asking you for your own perspective on the matter.. well duh!
he is simply asking whether you believe yo make choices or not according to your definition not his...
by expecting people to agree with your assessment with out proper reason for doing so you are indeed claiming/implying they are idiots for not doing so...
how many times does one have to offer a contra to your position before you recognize it as a legitimate contra?
ie:
explain how the laws of physics as we know them to be, give cause for life to exist in this universe....
You can't, yet have the ignorance to go on and claim freewill is an illusion but life is not...and then falsely accuse others for not supporting their position because you can't support your own position.
you fail to see this as a glaring contradiction. why? please explain...
If you can not support your position and continue to repeat it, who exactly is guilty of trolling here you or me?
Show and support this claim with one example please.
for unlike you I seek to learn from my experiences.
"Oh Sire, Emperor Baldeee, do you wish to be an emperor happy to believe he has clothes on when he doesn't, or an emperor who knows when he is naked or not?"
Last edited:
Opinion:
Summary:
The reality of the existence of Life, does not defy the laws of physics as we know them to be because we do not know the laws associated and are unable to reach that conclusion.
therefore:
The reality of the existence of freewill, does not defy the laws of physics as we know them to be because we do not know the laws associated and are unable to reach that conclusion.
Therefore the ability to conclude that freewill is an illusion as it defies laws we are unaware of is, ludicrous and position not worth holding.
The above summary conclusion is premised on the observable and provable scientific fact that life, self animation, self determination and the freedom to self determine, are directly associated and co-dependent, as one can not exist with out the other [ re: self animated humans specifically] and until science does know those applicable laws the question/statement "freewill is an illusion" is not able to be seriously contended by science.
Edit: Those readers who agree with the above and enjoy these sorts of debates about freewill can feel comfortable quoting the above any time and at any fora when ever they wish to.
Summary:
The reality of the existence of Life, does not defy the laws of physics as we know them to be because we do not know the laws associated and are unable to reach that conclusion.
therefore:
The reality of the existence of freewill, does not defy the laws of physics as we know them to be because we do not know the laws associated and are unable to reach that conclusion.
Therefore the ability to conclude that freewill is an illusion as it defies laws we are unaware of is, ludicrous and position not worth holding.
The above summary conclusion is premised on the observable and provable scientific fact that life, self animation, self determination and the freedom to self determine, are directly associated and co-dependent, as one can not exist with out the other [ re: self animated humans specifically] and until science does know those applicable laws the question/statement "freewill is an illusion" is not able to be seriously contended by science.
Edit: Those readers who agree with the above and enjoy these sorts of debates about freewill can feel comfortable quoting the above any time and at any fora when ever they wish to.
the problem I have with this article and the implications it extends is that it presumes that for freewill to be real it has to somehow miraculously function entirely free of the human physical body. That the brain can not be involved in the promotion of freewill if free will is to be deemed as real.
The problem with this is that all it does is explore what it takes to biologically process information to the point of acting. It is that exact point of decision/enacting that it fails to determine, as it only deals with the process leading up to it.
Of course the entire body is involved in a decision but what exactly happens at the immediate and undefinable moment when that body makes a determination to act?
So the article whilst great entertainment fails to conclude anything of value regarding the reality of Freewill IMO. [Premature and misleading headlines for sure!]
Last edited:
And of what use is that?
Unless he also understands what I mean by "choice" then the answer is meaningless.
I don't necessarily expect people to.
I welcome any valid criticism of it.
That way a healthy discussion can ensue.
To date there has been no valid criticism.
You can offer a contra as many times as you want, but it won't necessarily make it legitimate.
You are advocating for legitimacy on the grounds of persistence.
I would very much like to take your contra as legitimate, but then both of us would be wrong.
It is not relevant.
It would do so through the universal laws being applied to the contents of the universe.
But it is simply not relevant to the argument.
Because I have explained what I mean by "illusion" - i.e. that it goes contrary to the laws of physics.
Life does not.
Life is a pattern of activity that emerges from those laws but in no way contravenes those laws.
Reproduction does not.
Reacting to stimuli does not.
Freewill, however, does.
It requires consciousness to be the initiator of an action and for the initiation to be free of the restrictions imposed upon it by obeying the universal laws.
At some point in the process of a genuine freewill there must be the ability to specify an outcome without interference and despite those universal laws.
It can not be done.
Or at least we can not consider the laws universal if we accept that they can.
It is this requirement to go contrary to those laws, not merely be a pattern emerging from them, that makes freewill illusory (in my view).
It is that freewill appears to go down the one-way street that is those universal laws.
Either we conclude that it really is, and those universal laws are somehow not universal.
Or we conclude that travelling against them is illusory.
I have supported it.
Every time an effect results from a cause.
Every time an interaction between molecules obeys the laws of physics, chemistry, quantum mechanics etc.
You seek nothing but to troll, as evidenced by your last sentence.
Plus the evidence in the last 30 pages of your posts.
But you have asked for one:
You criticised me by claiming that I have stated that I would change evidence to support a conclusion. (Post #595)
One merely needs to read the preceding posts to know that I never mentioned anything of the sort.
That this is a blatant misrepresentation on your part.
Sarkus dealt adequately with your notion of "the significance of 'nothing'" and your criticism of cause and effect.
The rest has generally been you pushing alternative notions rather than direct criticism of the arguments presented (possibly because you have none, but just don't like the conclusion?)
And that has been covered by merely identifying your lack of substance as you try to go from claim to conclusion.
There is nothing quite so precious as one who, at the end of a reasonably long life, is suddenly confronted with the possibility that their decisions might not have been as personal as one might have once thought.
While Dylan Thomas once exhorted that we not go gentle into that good night, it would seem a little incongruous that those who followed such sage advice might do so as automatons.
First, we do know many of the laws.
We actually understand the laws pretty well.
What we can't yet do is artificially create life from scratch.
That is a fundamentally different thing from what you are stating.
First, we do know many of the laws.
Just use google to look some up.
Second, the specifics of the laws are irrelevant.
What is important is the inability to go against them.
So this argument is fallacious, and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issues involved.
Unless you're advocating for universal laws that can be broken whenever it pleases us??
So much question begging and simple misunderstanding in one sentence.
Does it take effort to come up with something as ridiculous as this, or does it come naturally?
Oh, please, this is too funny.
Baldee..
take a couple days off, rethink what/how you are posting.
your post reads like a little kid, who is trying hard to justify his own beliefs regardless of what anyone else has to say.
you have not defended your point well enough to convince anyone you MAY be right..
the bulk of your posts reads like:
--
You don't know what I am talking about, therefore your wrong.
I don't have to explain what I am taking about, you should know.
I don't have to understand what your talking about, specially if you don't understand what I am talking about.
I don't need to explain what I am talking about. you just need to listen.
--
the fact that you cant answer a simple yes or no question says you have no desire to learn anything, but are only here to justify your own opinions (which EVERY new user does,)
so again I say take a few days off, think about what you want to get across, think about why you are here, (justification or socialization?)
most guys here are pretty smart (including you) but we ALL still have to deal with our own humanity which includes how we treat ppl when we perceive that they are telling us we are wrong.
you can't hammer knowledge into a person, they have to sip it to get it.
take a couple days off, rethink what/how you are posting.
your post reads like a little kid, who is trying hard to justify his own beliefs regardless of what anyone else has to say.
you have not defended your point well enough to convince anyone you MAY be right..
the bulk of your posts reads like:
--
You don't know what I am talking about, therefore your wrong.
I don't have to explain what I am taking about, you should know.
I don't have to understand what your talking about, specially if you don't understand what I am talking about.
I don't need to explain what I am talking about. you just need to listen.
--
the fact that you cant answer a simple yes or no question says you have no desire to learn anything, but are only here to justify your own opinions (which EVERY new user does,)
so again I say take a few days off, think about what you want to get across, think about why you are here, (justification or socialization?)
most guys here are pretty smart (including you) but we ALL still have to deal with our own humanity which includes how we treat ppl when we perceive that they are telling us we are wrong.
you can't hammer knowledge into a person, they have to sip it to get it.
Get over yourself already.
My posts read fine.
If you have issue with the content, detail it and show why your criticism of it is valid.
That's all you have to do.
It shouldn't be so hard, should it, so why do you struggle?
That's usually the way when you talk to people who are unwilling, unable and too set in their ways to even hold a sensible discussion.
At the moment there is simply nothing to defend against.
I have never claimed someone is wrong simply because they don't know what I am talking about.
They can only ever be wrong about what they claim, including what they claim I have previously said.
I think you should address that to Quantum Quack.
He is the only one here who has used that tactic.
If you can point to one example of this, please do so.
If there is anything you are unclear of, one just needs to ask for clarification.
But not hide it within (veiled) insults and ridicule.
The fact that you are raising the issue shows that you do not appreciate the significance of the terms and their definitions.
I have explained quite clearly why I did not answer the question, and gave the requestor ample opportunity to provide the definition he was referring to.
And you lay criticism at my door on the matter?
And I say again, get over yourself.
I have no problem with people telling me I am wrong, if they can do so while showing that they not only understand the issues but also detail why I am wrong.
At the moment all I have heard is "you're wrong" followed by their own claim and a jump to a conclusion.
They first need to be willing to hold the cup.
Or explain why there is no liquid in it.
But I am realising that some have zero intention of engaging in anything close to resembling a civilised discussion on the matter.