Free-Will or Determinism

[Bongo]

I wanted to vote for free will. But I had to vote for determinism since my response was preordained. I must say it pisses me off. But there's nothing I can do about it!!

:roflmao::roflmao: Thank you Miles you made my day.

I'm pretty sure my response was free will

 

[Influx]

I think free-will and determinism are the same. While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.

 

[smarteyeball]

I think free-will and determinism is the same.

By the arbitrary definitions, they can't be.

Assuming determinism is true, where everything is already scripted - from the physical properties that govern the entire gamut of the 'universe' and all that it encompasses; humanity and behaviour being one of small cog in the finite machinations; then free will is just an illusion.

While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.

Again, assuming determinism to be true - then our 'wants, states of mind etc' are already determined. They are already planned.

They are merely illusionary wants and states of mind etc. Ergo, they are not 'free'.

Free will is predicated on the fact that determinism is not true.

Assuming determinism is not true, then free will in humans is just that - Free. Unscripted, unplanned and not pre-ordained.

Wants, states of mind etc become just that. They are no longer an illusion. They are random and subject to flux, and are a diametric to determinism.

 

[Influx]

I think free-will and determinism are the same.

By the arbitrary definitions, they can't be.

Assuming determinism is true, where everything is already scripted - from the physical properties that govern the entire gamut of the 'universe' and all that it encompasses; humanity and behaviour being one of small cog in the finite machinations; then free will is just an illusion. The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be concious and be aware of our existence.

While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.

Again, assuming determinism to be true - then our 'wants, states of mind etc' are already determined. They are already planned. Substantially true.

They are merely illusionary wants and states of mind etc. Ergo, they are not 'free'. Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.

Free will is predicated on the fact that determinism is not true. Prove/Explain.

Assuming determinism is not true, then free will in humans is just that - Free. Unscripted, unplanned and not pre-ordained. It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.

Wants, states of mind etc become just that. They are no longer an illusion. They are random and subject to flux, and are a diametric to determinism. We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity

My reply is already pre-ordained

 

[seekermeister]

Determinism AKA predestination and free will can and do co-exist. Anyone that chooses one mindset blind-siding themselves to the other is predestined to confound themselves. Absolute determinism requires an extraordinary amount of faith in the might of matter...or should I say energy, since matter is only one form of it. Not only would the energy comprising all things have to determine the current and future state of an individual, but at the same time correlate this to the forms and states of all other individuals in the most minute manner. For energy to do this, it would come close to the definition of God, only lacking the aspect of intelligence. Yet, without intelligence, this ability would be incomprehensible. Yet, determinism does exist, ergo God exists.

Does this mean that we are simply puppets of a creator which is beyond our senses and understanding...no, we do have free will as well. As I attempted to illustrate in my previous post, determinism only dictates the boundary of our actions which are possible, and since that boundary impels us in certain pre-defined directions, it could be viewed as a road map, which would appear maze-like if we could actually see it laid out. Within these boundaries, we are given a great deal of latitude in determining our actions, yet we do not have free choice, otherwise many of us would select a clear, straight expressway to travel.

Philosophy can often be a useful tool, but it cannot be used to explain many things about our existence, because much is beyond the scope of our understanding, regardless of how sophisticated science and philosophy may be or become. To say that one thing or another is impossible is not possible, because too much is beyond our ability to comprehend. We have only scratched the surface of understanding those things that we can sense in the tangible reality, and nothing about that which is beyond.

 

[smarteyeball]

The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be concious and be aware of our existence.

No dispute there. However...

Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.

But if wants and preferences have already been outlined, they aren't truly wants and preferences. They are only perceived to be wants and preferences.



Prove/Explain.

Ahh, This is the crux of the argument - there will never be enough proof that either will ever be fully explained or proven by mankind. It shall forever remain theoretical, no matter how 'clever' it's calculated or presented.

For example, we can limit our scope and 'prove' certain elements of determinism within an a smaller arbitrary chosen scope. ie Any science experiment.

It does not matter that even with a particular physical test that can be/is repeated 1000 times with 1000 exact same outcomes. Current/future human technology will never be adequate enough to measure the minutia of aberrations within those tests. And those minutia exist. Therefore, those 1000 outcomes are actually different.

We can sufficiently predict a result within accepted levels of tolerance. That can, and is, erroneously labelled as determined. ie "We can determine an outcome". The aberrant minutia exist, so we simply accept the tolerances between the arbitrary boundary.

Yet, even with the unmeasurable aberrations - assuming the 'core' of determinism to be true - those aberrations are already determined. They are already scripted. There is nothing free about them.

It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.

It's no more absurd than accepting things are planned. Randomness, or continual flux, may just be that.

Existence itself may indeed be ultimately pointless. Accepting that idea is difficult to grasp, but in the absence of proof to the contrary - it's just as valid as existence actually meaning something.

We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity

No, we cannot prove it - and we never shall. Proof will forever be beyond us.

Randomness does suggest complexity, because it it is. Very complex.

However just because something complex is beyond comprehension does not make it invalid. It simply makes too complex to ever ever understand.


Both schools of thought involve complexity.

The major difference is that one allows the idea/concept of randomness to exist in an unplanned, non-scripted existence devoid of pre-ordainment. The other suggests that existence no matter what/why/when/whatever is already set in stone and unchangeable.

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.

 

[Influx]

The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be conscious and be aware of our existence.

No dispute there. However...

Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.

But if wants and preferences have already been outlined, they aren't truly wants and preferences. They are only perceived to be wants and preferences. Wants and preferences are natural things, why would you say they aren't truly themselves if they already been outlined? They are actually more compatible with the idea that they are already outlined. Our wants and preferences are biological configurations, these things are natural and do not need the idea of free will to exist rationally. I could be having a different understanding, it could perhaps be wrong, do elaborate.



Prove/Explain.

Ahh, This is the crux of the argument - there will never be enough proof that either will ever be fully explained or proven by mankind. It shall forever remain theoretical, no matter how 'clever' it's calculated or presented. There will always be reasons why science does continue its search and endless build up of knowledge and understanding of the Universe, its origin, future and how it works. It is blatantly clear that it has been beneficial and has made sense to discover things. To assume sound theoretical facts (ie. motion is not an illusion) is not stupid (obviously), humans become more intelligent with their discovery. So, the implication that tends to come out when you say that there will never be enough proof is too unfaithful.

For example, we can limit our scope and 'prove' certain elements of determinism within an a smaller arbitrary chosen scope. ie Any science experiment. :shock: The only reason why Determinism is not accepted is the heavy faith that you have to carry and the lack of statistical proof (ie using tools) that humans are completely governed by the idea of determinism.

It does not matter that even with a particular physical test that can be/is repeated 1000 times with 1000 exact same outcomes. Current/future human technology will never be adequate enough to measure the minutia of aberrations within those tests. And those minutia exist. Therefore, those 1000 outcomes are actually different. So, the implication with this is??? Actually, that's being too paranoid. This shouldn't encourage us to think that all our discoveries are illusions, this just decreases our tendency to conclude.

We can sufficiently predict a result within accepted levels of tolerance. That can, and is, erroneously labelled as determined. ie "We can determine an outcome". The aberrant minutia exist, so we simply accept the tolerances between the arbitrary boundary. ...

Yet, even with the unmeasurable aberrations - assuming the 'core' of determinism to be true - those aberrations are already determined. They are already scripted. There is nothing free about them.

It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.

It's no more absurd than accepting things are planned. Randomness, or continual flux, may just be that. It is only absurd to think of it. But the logic of determinism is more compatible with our comprehension.

Existence itself may indeed be ultimately pointless. Accepting that idea is difficult to grasp, but in the absence of proof to the contrary - it's just as valid as existence actually meaning something. We can't either prove that it is pointless, we must just continue on with how we differentiate a fact from a assumption or a yet to be proved possibility. Our understanding of the universe, does improve, that is enough reason to continue. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence.

We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity

No, we cannot prove it - and we never shall. Proof will forever be beyond us.

Randomness does suggest complexity, because it it is. Very complex. We cannot prove that true randomness does exist, and there are some evidences that it does exist.

However just because something complex is beyond comprehension does not make it invalid. It simply makes too complex to ever ever understand. I agree, that's why I included the 3rd option. It does not make it valid either.


Both schools of thought involve complexity.

The major difference is that one allows the idea/concept of randomness to exist in an unplanned, non-scripted existence devoid of pre-ordainment. The other suggests that existence no matter what/why/when/whatever is already set in stone and unchangeable. The reason why the universe is at it is, rather than being different hasn't been completely explained, I think that's one tiny possibility that randomness which is beyond our comprehension might exist, we might be able to comprehend these things in the future of evolution.

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.
Substantial evidence, in some sense, may support the possibility of a divine being which governs us, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of such, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that such exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable. I don't intend to put a whole discussion with this one

 

[yowanvista]

Substantial evidence supports the possibility of a God, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of a God, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that God exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable.

No seriously? :roflmao:
You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist? Sorry but our world revolves around Science and not on what you call 'Faith'.

The lack of evidence? Your assumptions are based on your 'Faith' and not on what the reality is, I think that you missed a lot on what Science has taught us.

 

[Influx]

Substantial evidence supports the possibility of a God, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of a God, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that God exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable.

No seriously?
You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist? Sorry but our world revolves around Science and not on what you call 'Faith'.

The lack of evidence? Your assumptions are based on your 'Faith' and not on what the reality is, I think that you missed a lot on what Science has taught us.

Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? :huh: Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.

 

[yowanvista]

Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? :huh: Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.

LOL.. What makes you say that my implications are "childish"? Where did I ever pretend to be a supernatural person 'who can read minds'? I just gave out my personal opinion without disturbing anyone. You assumptions are simply incoherent with the main topic here, starting from 'free will' going to "God".

Btw this forum ain't a place to discuss about 'Gods' or Religion whatsoever.

8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

Windows 7 Forums - Forum Rules

 

[Influx]

Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? :huh: Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.

LOL.. What makes you say that my implications are "childish"? That's a personal opinion which should be true to all.

Where did I ever pretend to be a supernatural person 'who can read minds'?

You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist?

It is blatantly clear that my statements do literally suggests the absurdity with faith in God which is opposite and incompatible with the imaginary things you're trying to oppose.

I just gave out my personal opinion without disturbing anyone. You assumptions are simply incoherent with the main topic here, starting from 'free will' going to "God".

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.

Having mentioned the question concerning the existence of God, that did contrast the perplex paradox of Free Will and Determinism. I don't intend to discuss religion which is clear, you seem to think that I have faith on it.

Btw this forum ain't a place to discuss about 'Gods' or Religion whatsoever.

8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

There is a fine line between a whole new thread of Religious Discussion, and a simple opinion in reply to what seb has mentioned. Quite curiously, you don't seem to notice why that isn't literally a discussion of such topic.

I don't want to argue with you, so I'll keep my mouth shut, and please be straightly on-topic.

 

[yowanvista]

Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? :huh: Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.

LOL.. What makes you say that my implications are "childish"? That's a personal opinion which should be true to all.

Where did I ever pretend to be a supernatural person 'who can read minds'?

You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist?

It is blatantly clear that my statements do literally suggests the absurdity with faith in God which is opposite and incompatible with the imaginary things you're trying to oppose.

I just gave out my personal opinion without disturbing anyone. You assumptions are simply incoherent with the main topic here, starting from 'free will' going to "God".

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.

Having mentioned the question concerning the existence of God, that did contrast the perplex paradox of Free Will and Determinism. I don't intend to discuss religion which is clear, you seem to think that I have faith on it.

Btw this forum ain't a place to discuss about 'Gods' or Religion whatsoever.

8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

There is a fine line between a whole new thread of Religious Discussion, and a simple opinion in reply to what seb has mentioned. Quite curiously, you don't seem to notice why that isn't literally a discussion of such topic.

I don't want to argue with you, so I'll keep my mouth shut, and please be straightly on-topic.

That's a personal opinion which should be true to all.

So what makes you say that? Do you even have proof or just you implied that based on your current distorted vision of things? You're just assuming but your assumptions about me are totally incorrect. You seem to judge people too quickly.

It is blatantly clear that my statements do literally suggests the absurdity with faith in God which is opposite and incompatible with the imaginary things you're trying to oppose.

Trying to oppose? I don't have anything against your supposedly 'valid' statements, you're just simply going off topic with all that stuff knowing that it'll lead to a 'creator' of some sort.

Having mentioned the question concerning the existence of God, that did contrast the perplex paradox of Free Will and Determinism. I don't intend to discuss religion which is clear, you seem to think that I have faith on it.

This discussion will go nowhere, it'll just end with the assumption that "We don't have any kind of free will, this is rather 'dictated' by some superior being''.

(d)

 

[Influx]

So what makes you say that? Do you even have proof or just you implied that based on your current distorted vision of things? You're just assuming but your assumptions about me are totally incorrect. You seem to judge people too quickly. Since you said that I assume that we are puppets of a creator, that isn't true, I am simply suggesting the unreasonability of assuming so.

Trying to oppose? I don't have anything against your supposedly 'valid' statements, you're just simply going off topic with all that stuff knowing that it'll lead to a 'creator' of some sort. I simply said that there is missing evidence with God, that is in contrast to what seb said about the leading questions.

This discussion will go nowhere, it'll just end with the assumption that "We don't have any kind of free will, this is rather 'dictated' by some superior being''. I agree with ya (that it will go to no conclusion). However, the discussion was supposedly to end up with the lack of circumstantial evidence between both sides (seb's topic), so we simply can't conclude anything except assume that both are possible. Have a good day

 

[smarteyeball]

Damn it - I had a fantastic response which was lost by a browser crash - I CBF retyping it all

But first and foremost - this is not a 'Religious' debate. Please keep that tiresome shit to yourself. It is possible to have a logical discussion here without playing the religious card. If that is your intent, you aren't welcome nor do you have any business here. If that's your intent - Bow out now please. Don't ruin it for the open minded people.



In a nutshell - human desires, organic necessity - is not natural if deemed to be part of pre-planned script. If it's all pre-ordained - then every human thought, feeling, function or desire is no longer natural due to the pre-planned essence of determinism.

There shall be be more logical and unbiased thought to follow.

 

[seekermeister]

It seems that some people are so closed minded, that any mention of God, in any context, makes them think that the discussion is of a religious ilk. Regardless of anyone's belief or disbelief in anything of this type, they can't claim to be open minded, unless they are capable of talking about it at some level...scientifically, philosophically, or in whatever fashion they feel most comfortable with. When the bare mention of anything of this nature sets a person off, it would seem that they must have some kind of belief that they don't want to discuss or acknowledge, even to themselves.

So if anyone want to blast me in this fashion, feel free, because it is obvious that this thread is going nowhere, and I have better things to do than go along for the ride.

 

[LADYPINKtomato1]

I voted for Free Will. that leaves most everything open to everyone .. even scientist are now moving closer to that idea. noticed I said idea.
As noted above you are free to have your own ideas on this subject.. In My Humble Opinion.
I dare say this thread will change anyones mind or ideas on the subject.
My greatest hope is that we the people of the world can all get along.

A great discussion.

 

[Influx]

Perhaps, the concept of Determinism is offensive, diametrical and counter intuitive to our understanding, specifically with the implication that the universe is a linear clock, that things are preordained by nature. I am assuming that the reason why the Free Will option in the Poll did get 6 is either because of religious belief or misunderstanding. I'd like to clarify the fact that Determinism is not predicated on the fact that our Wants and Preferences are illusionary. Wants and Preferences are embedded in our biological body, this isn't a spiritual, or a supernatural thing. Hence, it isn't absurd to think of it having a linear path. Both determinism and free will suggests that our Wants and Preference are true, while, free will raises an extra idea that they have no rational basis. The concept in free will, that things are not preordained, suggests an irrational basis, possibly suggesting randomness which could only be the compatible definition of non-preordainment. In conclusion, determinism does not say that you have no want and preferences, it clearly says that your decisions and actions will be based on that, thus, the idea itself is raised.

 

[kronckew]

i was going to vote for free will, but something made me vote otherwise.

didn't they make a movie about 'free will'? starred a whale or something.

or was it a porn film, 'free willy'?

-this post was written by schroedinger's cat - me - my human servant is too thick to think of this stuff, and has the attention span of a goldfish...now if i could only get out of this box.

 

[Influx]

i was going to vote for free will, but something made me vote otherwise.

didn't they make a movie about 'free will'? starred a whale or something.

or was it a porn film, 'free willy'?

-this post was written by schroedinger's cat - me - my human servant is too thick to think of this stuff, and has the attention span of a goldfish...now if i could only get out of this box.

Free Willy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems unrelated. :focus:
Your humor is out of this world

 

[w1dpc]

free will is like free speech..its an illusion.