Free will does not exist

Beliefs only contend with other beliefs, never with the truth.

 

I thought you were supposed to be asleep now, but I was anyway impatient for your reply with a dumb belief.

Now, I have it, and I believe my contribution was only for a pop a pill; yaah, I need my blood pressure pills.

 

I have done it. It was a slow, evolutionary change.

 

All expressions are maximal, there are no idle thoughts. That which you share is never lost to you, what you share is an extension of the self, always increasing.
Money is worth nothing unless it is spent. Your contribution thrills me.

 

Belief is a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. The mind is powerful and belief can fashion entire worlds, however as powerful as beliefs are, they simply disappear in the light of truth. There is no need for belief if you have knowledge. We cling to belief because we feel the belief supports us. Because we feel we are supported by belief we are apt to defend our beliefs as though life depended upon it.
There simply is no rule MrFlash that entrenches belief, the entire power of belief rests with the individual.

 

Jackflash was objectivist enough. Beliefs about the Object can and will refer to the unknown aspect for doubts at one's identity... of the objects represented within the World of So-called objective reality. Well enough: the problem is that the true being for this Object can never make enough sense to allow the faith in ethical action for his confidence. Such is expected by the system.

Personally, I am badly against feeling that our ethos is decided from Objectivity this way in politics and social planning. So, how does one's past and understanding for Identity effect us in the social manner we need, distinct of the tchnological and human rat race?

Nobody is going to answer now, because everybody found out they were after stubborn to their old consciences and undirected hear say.

 

The lilies neither toil nor spin.

 

Me too, in order to know what free will is we have to know a lot more than we do now about what motivates us and where, if any, there are exceptions to the rule.

I think so.

The thing that I find really interesting is how some can go against their own personal desires for the desires of someone else. But then wouldn't that mean that our true desire is giving up our desires for our greater desire, the person we're sacrificing a desire for? Even when we give up those desires, we may still have those desires, yet we can still choose. I think our free will lies within that choice process.

The other thing that I find interesting is that while computers cannot decide an incorrect and illogical choice without crashing, people can, intentionally. I think that is what separates human intelligence from that of the intelligence of animals and artificial intelligence. I think it is this ability that we have to choose something that doesn't make sense is the power behind our free will.

Even with experience, we can still choose something we know to be the wrong choice from the knowledge gained from an experience.

 

I look at more as a car traveling on the road. During the travel, if we don't like the path we're taking we can always change the road we're on

We do have a choice whether to stay there. I mean there is suicide. But maybe you just used that as to mean that since birth everything has been panned out, like a domino effect and all we can do is enjoy the ride.

I do agree with you on what you said about experience playing an important part in this. I am just unsure we can know to what extent and whether or not there are exceptions.

 

The map you use only contains what your experience has drawn on it.

Determinism is such a nasty word. You can commmit suicide, only if you are aware of that option by past experience, only by means of which you are aware and with results that are unknown.

I just don't accept an ability to make choices as proof that Free Will exists. But I don't believe in fate either.

Life is open ended and you never know what's gonna to happen, no matter what choices you make.

.

 

So you believe we have the ability to make choices based on our experiences, desires, etc.?

That's what I'd personally class as free will.

 

Actually, I'm saying that you are trapped by your experiences, or in the least, limited by them. The only choices you have are the ones that you are aware of through your experience. And, you make a choice, but it may not be possible or it may not come to fruition.

Are you saying that the definition of Free Will is limited to making choices, a visceral endeavor, and excluding action, possibilities, or results? This would imply that Free Will exists only in the mind.

.

 

In terms again of the absolute, everything else is an abstraction. The mind is naturally abstract and as such, is the only thing you can change. Change your mind and the abstractions of time and place change with it.

 

We have two factors involved for self-knowledge, one is your character, and the other is psyche. One is the knowledge of temporalized time, and the other is the knowledge of being human in the world. That is how we are at the limitations of the experiences; and it is always others which set our understanding (a) by each one of us, (b) by the other's lesson for the community; and (c) what we really have for Claims by the 'Me', the self-claimed per being oneself for the Self. n/s

In this way we may conclude we are time, but that makes out the Being from the pre-ontological and self-conscious. Consciousness of Being and consciousness of self exist without limitations. We don't know ourselves as such though we have ourselves reduced to totality, and all of that is the Human situation. To that we express every quality of life towards- as self-creative.

Self-consciousness in turn has two subjects for the psycho-analysis: feelings which are never made self-aware for the being of value, and good faith which never IS PER being the self-in-oneself (as much as being is only a negatable essential constraint around the 'Me') conscious.


In all good faith Sartre means we ARE not Characters. As with our personal character we are free at every moment of existence to change, were free at every moment to change. Being free is, however, the ontological outside of the 'Me'. As much as the world is totality totalized, the world is totality, as it were, de-totalized. Time for all time in reality becomes time for the moment. Character really exists in ourselves, determined OR undetermined
for All times sake just for the claim of being-me. Being shallow is totally the character 'I am' for the deep person I could be. The community is the Claim, and the tradition is the Name. That is truly partly to blame in ourselves, and for ourselves there is no faith, only BAD faith.

Now we exist without limits. Being of the self is value positing self to be Value; such is the perpetual project transcendentally known as Being.

 

nothing exists, but it still happens regardless

 

If you do not believe in free will then you must believe everything is predetermined and the universe is perfect. I think this is a very common theist, creationist or idealistic way of thinking.

Believing in free will is to understand the universe is not perfect and imperfection lends itself to truly random events. The exact state of our universe 1 million years ago did not determine the exact state of our universe today. Energy is the propagation of balance, energy flows because of imbalance. A perfect universe would have no energy, a perpetual state of quiet singularity. Our universe can not hold singularity because nothing is perfect. Imperfection is the key mechanism of evolution and natural selection, the process in which our complex minds have been formed. Free will exists.

 

free will doesn't have to do anything obvious ,
but then one day Whahhk ! .

 

If "nothing is perfect", what are you contrasting imperfect things against?

If perfection has no defining attributes, how do you distinguish between perfect and imperfect things?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are drawing a distinction between things that exist, and things that don't exist, and calling them "perfect" and "imperfect". Hence "Nothing is perfect".

I think you mean to say that determinism results in an infinite regress, but I'm unsure whether you know its what you mean to say or not.....

I'm curious to see if your holding on to that perfect-imperfect dichotomy because its essential to some other explanation you have or because its still functioning like you intend.

You have a very interesting way of saying things.

 

i haven't read the entire thread
but i thought I'd just say:

hard determinism is an interesting philosophy.
it doesn't have much to say on how to live your life, as you still have to 'control' yourself, and make decisions, all it says is that freedom is an illusion.

It's kind of lulz...it's interesting
but I can't say it really changes anything ^^

 

Umm, no. I'm saying I think determinism is a fantasy like perfection and God. If any of the 3 actually existed there would be no question about it, but humans would not exist in a perfect universe. I'm saying imperfection is the key mechanism for energy, complexity and evolution. this has been logically and scientifically validated while perfection and God has not.