GENIUS FORUMS

The implications of free will mean that we are in a sense "baby gods" in that we have latent creative powers and can alter perceptual reality to varying degrees using our will.

In that respect free will and determinism both co-exist because we have deterministic power, however weak or strong as it may be.

It seems then, yahooyoda, that you are a compatibilist.

This is tricky. I don’t believe in a personal free will. However, when one realizes that one’s will is totally deterministic, then this realization grants a certain freedom of thought, expression and creativity. For instance: one doesn’t choose ones genetic makeup, which is what creates a unique range of character strengthens and weaknesses, and one doesn’t choose ones environment, which has various degrees of opportunities for expression and creativity. So when one fully realizes the extent of ones own unique genetic and environmental limitations and realizes what is possible for ones life, then action in thought and behaviour is possible.

Otherwise, there is a deluded ego-will that believes as if it is personally making choices in the world, thus not realizing the extent of how determinism controls behavior, which repeatedly causes unnecessary suffering.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: For instance: one doesn’t choose ones genetic makeup...and one doesn’t choose ones environment,

Is this verifiable, or simply your opinion?

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote: For instance: one doesn't choose ones genetic makeup...and one doesn't choose ones environment,

Is this verifiable, or simply your opinion?

i'll try an keep this simple,

its self evident, neither option is available as a choice, both are chosen for you before birth. Sure you can choose to change environments eg. by moving, but the environment you were born into will have already had an effect on creating the "who" you are.

the concept of changing environments to myself, is a localized perception, certain fundamentals defining environment cannot be changed, time being one of them. For example you cannot change being born in the 20th century and you cannot escape the effects of this simply by changing locations, even going in the deepest heart of Africa will not bring you to another time. Or change what has already occurred.

You could say your genetic makeup and your birth environment are the first dominoes of your life, the starting point has been decided totally outside your control, what choices you make after this are simply dominoes that are added to the line after the fact, no matter how you twist and turn the layout of your tiles they all follow through from those first dominoes.

You can run but you cant hide from your origins.

more abstract

Our free will is an illusion of localized interaction, we have no real effects on our universe in any way what so ever on a macro level. What we define as free will is no different than an ant deciding to nibble at a leaf instead of an aphid, or the choice of socks, or the mate we choose. in any given situation there are a limited amount of choices to choose from, if one defines free will as the ability to choose between A and B than it exists under that definition.

But since there are no other choices available other than A or B or C etc... then one could say its been predetermined that you will choose either A or B so there really is no "free will" to truly have free will would in effect make us gods, as this would allow us to choose choices that are not limited to those choices available in a given situation.

suicide is a commonly cited example of free will.
A- choose to die now
B- choose to die later naturally
C- deus ex machina

The choice many choose is the one not truly knowable, or at least known to be true beyond the point of belief, we dress this choice up as religious belief (C), an after life is a life of true free will, where there are no limits on choices or existence.

One could say religion is a fundamental expression of people instinctively knowing free will does not exist in our reality so they imagine/believe in one where it does.

is this free will?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgZGuasi1q0

Remo wrote:

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote: For instance: one doesn't choose ones genetic makeup...and one doesn't choose ones environment,

Is this verifiable, or simply your opinion?

i'll try an keep this simple,

its self evident, neither option is available as a choice, both are chosen for you before birth.

How do you define birth? If you define it as creation, then I agree that there must be a starting point for which you or I could have no possible input of our own. If we define it more narrowly as our physical appearance from seed and egg into the world, then, the question is academic, and subject to opinion, since we cannot know for sure what immediately precedes our physical appearance in this plane of existence. So, in the largest sense we can be sure, but we cannot know the particulars of a local lifetime (and it is in the local sense that I believe Ryan framed his statements).

Sure you can choose to change environments eg. by moving, but the environment you were born into will have already had an effect on creating the "who" you are.

the concept of changing environments to myself, is a localized perception, certain fundamentals defining environment cannot be changed, time being one of them. For example you cannot change being born in the 20th century and you cannot escape the effects of this simply by changing locations, even going in the deepest heart of Africa will not bring you to another time. Or change what has already occurred.

We do not know that we cannot change what has already occurred. We do not know that we are not doing this now. We can only theorize about this.

You could say your genetic makeup and your birth environment are the first dominoes of your life, the starting point has been decided totally outside your control, what choices you make after this are simply dominoes that are added to the line after the fact, no matter how you twist and turn the layout of your tiles they all follow through from those first dominoes.

Genetic makeup and one's perception of one's birth environment can be changed, and that is all that matters. But again, there is no saying that we did not have a say in those supposed starting points, for this lifetime at least. There is no way I know of to prove it yea or nay.

You can run but you cant hide from your origins.

Such as God, and the stars. I agree.

more abstract

Our free will is an illusion of localized interaction, we have no real effects on our universe in any way what so ever on a macro level.

I would tend to agree with this opinion.

What we define as free will is no different than an ant deciding to nibble at a leaf instead of an aphid, or the choice of socks, or the mate we choose. in any given situation there are a limited amount of choices to choose from, if one defines free will as the ability to choose between A and B than it exists under that definition.

I'm fine with defining it that way. All the power one needs is to be had in choosing between A and B. Indeed free will may be a misleading term. Maybe just will, or maybe simply freedom, to choose, would be better.

But since there are no other choices available other than A or B then one could say its been predetermined that you will choose either A or B so there really is no "free will" to truly have free will would in effect make us gods, as this would allow us to choose choices that are not limited to those choices available in a given situation.

Predetermination does not negate the value -- especially the spiritual value -- of choosing between available choices. Most people cannot even do this, certainly not if it entails other than traveling the easiest possible path. Indeed all the world and heaven is available to those who can learn to exercise the will in a constructive manner, i.e. to 'perfect' themselves, and it is done exactly in this way, by choosing between A and B.

Remo wrote:is this free will?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgZGuasi1q0

The conclusion that "trick" ends with is idiotic (and the claimed stats likely made up), but I think you'll find the reasons most people say "red hammer" are fairly obvious. I said "red hammer" when I did it. Not sure what its relevance to free will is.

Carl G wrote:We do not know that we cannot change what has already occurred. .

Sure we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox

How do you define birth? If you define it as creation, then I agree that there must be a starting point for which you or I could have no possible input of our own. If we define it more narrowly as our physical appearance from seed and egg into the world, then, the question is academic, and subject to opinion, since we cannot know for sure what immediately precedes our physical appearance in this plane of existence. So, in the largest sense we can be sure, but we cannot know the particulars of a local lifetime (and it is in the local sense that I believe Ryan framed his statements).

This answer only makes sense from a metaphysical perspective and even then, from a practical standpoint, in the context in which Ryan seems to have presented it, this reply is nonsense or a failure to elucidate properly. As far as i can tell this topic is about free will in the context of our known existence, the concept of free will is already complicated enough without dragging in borderline mystical theories that have as much validity as reincarnation or god. This by the way is an argument of subverted support, you cannot invalidate the known with the unknown.

If we're speaking philosophically about a subject who's application is based in the real world, then it serves no purpose to counterpoint with the unknown outside "the real world".

We do not know that we cannot change what has already occurred. We do not know that we are not doing this now. We can only theorize about this.

Again same as above your using the unknown to counterpoint. Also i have to say this sounds a bit loopy, not as in crazy but as in a circular argument, although I'm sure a few would think the former.

Genetic makeup and one's perception of one's birth environment can be changed, and that is all that matters. But again, there is no saying that we did not have a say in those supposed starting points, for this lifetime at least. There is no way I know of to prove it yea or nay.

Again same as above your using the unknown to counterpoint. you need to back this up with facts , buts also its a change of subject in that we we're not discussing the changing of perspective of ones birth environment, but the effect this environment has had in creating who you are now.

Predetermination does not negate the value -- especially the spiritual value -- of choosing between available choices. Most people cannot even do this, certainly not if it entails other than traveling the easiest possible path. Indeed all the world and heaven is available to those who can learn to exercise the will in a constructive manner, i.e. to 'perfect' themselves, and it is done exactly in this way, by choosing between A and B.

Makes sense although a moral right decision seems to be implied by this statement which has no bearing on the topic of free will, however all the choices we make are to subjective to ourselves A might = B in theory but in a personal practical sense each individual will place a higher value on either A or B, but again this is more a description of an application of free will than discussing free will itself.

Remo wrote:

How do you define birth? If you define it as creation, then I agree that there must be a starting point for which you or I could have no possible input of our own. If we define it more narrowly as our physical appearance from seed and egg into the world, then, the question is academic, and subject to opinion, since we cannot know for sure what immediately precedes our physical appearance in this plane of existence. So, in the largest sense we can be sure, but we cannot know the particulars of a local lifetime (and it is in the local sense that I believe Ryan framed his statements).

This answer only makes sense from a metaphysical perspective and even then, from a practical standpoint, in the context in which Ryan seems to have presented it, this reply is nonsense or a failure to elucidate properly. As far as i can tell this topic is about free will in the context of our known existence,

In the context of our known existence? How boring is that? How little we know, that is my point. And, true philosophy concerns that which is true in all possible worlds, not that which is limited to our "known existence". Thus I point out the inconsistency and illogic when I see it, in that which is necessarily mere opinion; that is how I think Ryan presented it. I'm separating the wheat from the chaff.

the concept of free will is already complicated enough without dragging in borderline mystical theories that have as much validity as reincarnation or god. This by the way is an argument of subverted support, you cannot invalidate the known with the unknown.

If something can be so easily challenged by a "borderline mystical theory" then how can we know it is absolute truth, something which must be true in all possible worlds. No, it seems sometimes that Ryan and others promote their own borderline mystical theories under the guise of that which is "obviously true," and of such platitudinous statements I seek to point out the intrinsic subjectivity.

If we're speaking philosophically about a subject who's application is based in the real world, then it serves no purpose to counterpoint with the unknown outside "the real world".

I believe that applying a strict litmus test of logic, as I am doing, is ultimately practical. I dislike blanket statements bandying opinion as truth; it muddies the waters of true inquiry.

We do not know that we cannot change what has already occurred. We do not know that we are not doing this now. We can only theorize about this.

Again same as above your using the unknown to counterpoint. Also i have to say this sounds a bit loopy, not as in crazy but as in a circular argument, although I'm sure a few would think the former.

I do not think it loopy at all to question the "common knowledge" and "old wives tales" suppositions of ordinary thinking. And I do not have to prove a positive to discount an assertion as not being above questioning. All I have to do is see that it is not a necessary truth, that there are other plausible explanations. I merely point out that such blanket statements -- unthinking cliches, really -- do not serve the philosopher well.

Genetic makeup and one's perception of one's birth environment can be changed, and that is all that matters. But again, there is no saying that we did not have a say in those supposed starting points, for this lifetime at least. There is no way I know of to prove it yea or nay.

Again same as above your using the unknown to counterpoint. you need to back this up with facts ,

No sir, I do not. I only need to introduce doubt. Again, my purpose is to point out illogic in action, in service to better thinking.

buts also its a change of subject in that we we're not discussing the changing of perspective of ones birth environment, but the effect this environment has had in creating who you are now.

Perspective is environment. Change one and the other is changed. Such things as time and place are quite relative. In a very real sense perspective is all that is real. In this way the past can be changed. Metaphysical, yes. What of it?

Predetermination does not negate the value -- especially the spiritual value -- of choosing between available choices. Most people cannot even do this, certainly not if it entails other than traveling the easiest possible path. Indeed all the world and heaven is available to those who can learn to exercise the will in a constructive manner, i.e. to 'perfect' themselves, and it is done exactly in this way, by choosing between A and B.

Makes sense although a moral right decision seems to be implied by this statement which has no bearing on the topic of free will, however all the choices we make are to subjective to ourselves A might = B in theory but in a personal practical sense each individual will place a higher value on either A or B, but again this is more a description of an application of free will than discussing free will itself.

Free will and it's application are definitely related. They cannot be unrelated. But you are right, a discussion of morality is not needed in order to talk about choice between A and B. Indeed it is only necessary to see that the ability to choose exists.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Remo wrote:is this free will?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgZGuasi1q0

The conclusion that "trick" ends with is idiotic (and the claimed stats likely made up), but I think you'll find the reasons most people say "red hammer" are fairly obvious. I said "red hammer" when I did it. Not sure what its relevance to free will is.

I would say the question is why we all say red hammer, and i think it has bearing on free will, i would call this a semi-subconscious trigger (in that the title of the video effects the choice of tool and color you select), and it works on almost all people so its not that idiotic, even you followed the pattern :P ,Our culture and society is laced with these triggers that herd our decisions for us, if 99% of the time your taking the choice that you've been herded to wheres the free will?

Again with my domino analogy, we can chose where we lay the tiles but each tile you lay is dependant on the previous tile laid down before it, following this line of thought one could say we are predestined to make the future choices we will make, based on the pattern of choices we have already made all the way back to the first tiles of genetic heritage and environment . In this context theres not much free will, for most of our choices are decided in advance before we face them.

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote: For instance: one doesn’t choose ones genetic makeup...and one doesn’t choose ones environment,

Is this verifiable, or simply your opinion?

That's a brilliant question Carl.

@ Carl study up on critical thinking, your selectively altering context and definitions to suit your argument, no philosophy professor would let you get away with your line of reasoning even if you were right about what your trying to say. Your all over the place, you remind me of my uni days when we would all get stoned and ramble on about 15 different topics at the same time feeling enlightened because no one could make sense of what we were discussing because they just didn't "get it".

here's a guide
http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html

Given all the debates on this forum, would be good to have a sticky on this.

Again sorry if you think I'm being rude, i love a good argument but it has to follow through logically.

What a weenie.

lol i think i like you... weirdo... hehhe