Freewill

[Xylem]

I have the right answer and can prove it as much as a man can prove that 2+2 = 4 but whats your opinions?

[Nielsio]

wat

[Subfallen]

I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

take yourself less seriously?

[Subfallen]

Um, what level are you on? I don't get it.

It's just clearer to write "I define" than "Some people define". Sorry if that offended your delicate sensibilities.

Do you have any comments on the actual topic?

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this approach. I've always said that whether we have free will or not, either way it's not a testable hypothesis. In this paradigm the illusion of free will is just as good as actual free will, so it's best not to fret about it.

[FortunaMaximus]

He's just telling you to loosen up a bit. It's not a bad thing. Probably wasn't leveling you.

Free will does exist, and the C/!C situation is essentially accurate.

Choices affect choices though. And in a larger system of choices approaching infinity, you can begin to see that it has to exist or there is a static ennui in which nothing happens.

Even in situations where an individual has absolute control over the other, free will exists, even if it is in the hands of the individual in control.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
I have the right answer and can prove it as much as a man can prove that 2+2 = 4 but whats your opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shall we have a contest then? Someone from the board will prove that 2+2=4, and you shall prove your position on free will. We will then see whose proof is better, or if it is in fact a tie.

I'm a big proponent of free will, but I recognize that it's not possible to prove one way or the other, and you should recognize that also. I'd love to see you try to prove it though.

[GoodCallYouWin]

What could possibly give anyone free will?

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have any comments on the actual topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[foal]

Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
What could possibly give anyone free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

We could have free will if it turns out not to be the case that the universe is deterministic. I think quantum mechanics has caused some serious doubt over whether or not that is the case. Also, and I'll get mocked for saying this, it is possible there is some aspect of our consciousness that is independent of the physical world, making it consequently free from determinism.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
What could possibly give anyone free will?

[/ QUOTE ] You have a poor imagination.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[foal]

I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words. Consider the following analogy. A gamer may control a video game character. Within the game, it appears as though the character has no free will and is completely determined by the the events of game world. However, the character's actions are actually controlled by a user who is independent of the rules of the game. He watches his monitor and listens to the speakers to receive input from the game world, and he controls his character so that he affects the game world, but he is not bound by the same rules that the character is.

Now consider real-life to be the game and consciousness to be playing the game. Because there is interaction between consciousness and the physical world in decision making, that part of consciousness isn't really independent of the physical world, but decisions can be made that are not solely bound by the limitations of the physical world.

[tame_deuces]

Do we know enough about the properties of our universe to bombastically come to a conclusion about free will?

(And this is a question, not a statement disguised as one).

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]

Do we know enough about the properties of our universe to bombastically come to a conclusion about free will?

(And this is a question, not a statement disguised as one).

[/ QUOTE ]

And the answer is no.

Although it seems some people just can't help themselves.

[Borodog]

Where is the option for "It doesn't matter"?

Edit: Subfallen and AWoodside nailed it.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

take yourself less seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

This is in no way a slur or attack on you, more a compliment i suppose, but this is not the first post you have made that has left me thinking 'WTF?'

As I have already said, this highlights my lack of vocabulary, and is not supposed to be negative towards you in any way. I just thought it might help you to understand the reply you recieved.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif Part of the problem may be that I haven't read anything but philosophy for 3-4 months now. Here's a sample from what I'm reading at the moment, Heidegger's Being and Time (Macquarrie & Robinson translation):

[ QUOTE ]
Primordially 'truth' means the same as 'being-disclosive', as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the derivative signification: 'the uncoveredness of entities'. Correspondingly, 'certainty', in its primordial signification, is tantamount to 'Being-certain', as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a derivative signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something 'certain'.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's an unusually concrete analysis for Heidegger. On the average he stays more abstract, along the lines of:

[ QUOTE ]
The character of understanding as projection is constitutive for Being-in-the-world with regard to the disclosedness of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being by which the factical potentiality-for-Being gets its leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

[/ QUOTE ]

we always have a choice, it's just not free.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif Part of the problem may be that I haven't read anything but philosophy for 3-4 months now. Here's a sample from what I'm reading at the moment, Heidegger's Being and Time (Macquarrie & Robinson translation):

[ QUOTE ]
Primordially 'truth' means the same as 'being-disclosive', as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the derivative signification: 'the uncoveredness of entities'. Correspondingly, 'certainty', in its primordial signification, is tantamount to 'Being-certain', as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a derivative signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something 'certain'.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's an unusually concrete analysis for Heidegger. On the average he stays more abstract, along the lines of:

[ QUOTE ]
The character of understanding as projection is constitutive for Being-in-the-world with regard to the disclosedness of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being by which the factical potentiality-for-Being gets its leeway.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You nailed it.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Any thoughts on the implications of free will not existing? "

It makes it awfully hard to blame people for things they had no choice in doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
True and I think that's a good thing. Less hate = good. Of course we will still want to take measures to prevent them from harming us so punishment is still perfectly viable as a deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

In the above example, we have no choice regarding what measures we take....

[/ QUOTE ]

we always have a choice, it's just not free.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Even if we have no free will we still must engage in deliberation and rational decision making to accomplish our wants and needs. In a sense we must act as if we have free will, because we have the experience of it. But we cannot change our wants (i.e. what motivates us). We might have a desire to change our desires and that is not impossible, but we cannot change the totality of our desire system at any given moment. Our actions would be 100% predictable to someone who knew everything there was to know about the present, even many years in advance. But we cannot not act as if we have free will. The difference I think the thought that there is no free will can make is, as I've said, giving us less reason to hate others. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

[hitch1978]

It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

Man.

I want to type more, but don't think I have the choice to do it.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

Man.

I want to type more, but don't think I have the choice to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you do.

[dragonystic]

i dont see much room for freewill. it might exist though, and i kind of hope it does.

but as a few have mentioned, we still have to act 'as though' it exists, since we have decisions to make and lives to live.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a paradoxical arguement.

If we believe there is no free will, then our feelings towards everything are irrelevant, as our actions are pre-determined.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pre-determined != irrelevant. Otherwise no one would watch films or read stories.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is my view, it dismisses the notion of free will as something incompatible with determinism. Therefore it's not relevant.

In terms of the common definition of free will, as some (usually supernatural) nondeterministic phenomenon, I think the answer "no" stands out as the most rational. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and that's about all I need. Of course, it's impossible to completely disprove free will, and given our current level of knowledge we can't even say that free will is necessarily implausible.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words. Consider the following analogy. A gamer may control a video game character. Within the game, it appears as though the character has no free will and is completely determined by the the events of game world. However, the character's actions are actually controlled by a user who is independent of the rules of the game. He watches his monitor and listens to the speakers to receive input from the game world, and he controls his character so that he affects the game world, but he is not bound by the same rules that the character is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sloppy analogy because there is no "game world." There is a game loop (basically the program where the game processes are taking place - the graphic context is just an "arm" of that program). That game loop treats the buttons you press on the controller as inputs, and then translates those inputs into game terms.

In order for "free will" to exist in the real world, there would have to be a similar process. Something would have to translate inputs from the "otherworld" into physical responses in the brain. This process should be obvious on observation of certain brain patterns. Unfortunately, our ability to observe the brain is limited for now, so there remains the possibility of such a mechanism. But it's likely we'll overcome the limitations soon (within our lifetimes) and then either free will should be empirically obvious, or it will have nowhere to hide.

Regarding quantum mechanics... Certain quantum effects appear to be random - appear to be perfectly random, in fact. There are two points to recognize about this. First, probabilistic determinism is still determinism. Random events can't be predicted, but that's wholly irrelevant. That human actions may be random to some extent doesn't imply free will. But more important is the second point - because quantum randomness is empirically "truly" random (more random than the results of any pseudo-random number generator!), it's nonsensical for it to have patterned effects within the context of physics. Physicists have gone to great lengths to verify that there are no patterns in quantum randomness, so to suggest that quantum randomness (the only unexplained part of human functioning at the reductionistic level) has patterns when involved in decision-making is to suggest that somehow quantum physics starts to work completely differently when scientists aren't watching.

But it gets worse. Some people are unable to take a certain action if you disable a part of their brain. There are many sorts of odd situations in which affecting the brain affects basically every aspect of human functioning. Your idea of free will posits a "player" behind the scenes, interpreting independently from the brain. However, the ability to think, interpret, and decide changes depending on the state of the brain - this makes no sense if there really is an independent entity controlling the action.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so how could such a thing be anything like what we mean by free will?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

A practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of us, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

An practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of, however, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[Qrawl]

There is no free will. The future already exists. At the root of everything are tiny mathematical formula/number series. However, there might be branching timeline/universes, in which case you get the illusion of freewill. If that's true, then you if you have to choose between A and B, you'll choose both, 1 in each branching timeline.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]


If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ] Is sense of self the same type of illusion that free will is, to determinists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the common definition of free will, as some (usually supernatural) nondeterministic phenomenon, I think the answer "no" stands out as the most rational. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and that's about all I need. Of course, it's impossible to completely disprove free will, and given our current level of knowledge we can't even say that free will is necessarily implausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why be so generous with the metaphysicists? I demand evidence that consciousness can be even provisionally modeled as an idealized Will. (That is, a self-contained entity that deliberately chooses among discrete possibilities.)

Honestly I think it's more meaningful to debate whether a video game villain powered by a random number generator has free will.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Well I think you could do it that way, or you could haggle over whether your desires control you(no free will) or you can control your action regardless of desires(free will). What is it that forbids the ability to be in control of "you". Ok so what do you call the actions that one makes that aren't instinct or reflexes, but purposeful, deliberate actions?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the common definition of free will, as some (usually supernatural) nondeterministic phenomenon, I think the answer "no" stands out as the most rational. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and that's about all I need. Of course, it's impossible to completely disprove free will, and given our current level of knowledge we can't even say that free will is necessarily implausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why be so generous with the metaphysicists? I demand evidence that consciousness can be even provisionally modeled as an idealized Will. (That is, a self-contained entity that deliberately chooses among discrete possibilities.)

Honestly I think it's more meaningful to debate whether a video game villain powered by a random number generator has free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. His choices are built into the system, but they arent made for him by any game designer. I think you'd have to hypothesize a real random number generator (which is a huge can of worms) but I suppose the free will advocates must do the same.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Well I think you could do it that way, or you could haggle over whether your desires control you(no free will) or you can control your desires(free will). What is it that forbids the ability to be in control of "you".

[/ QUOTE ]

He told me. I'm just trying to argue within his framework here, I personally dont think the free will debate is all that interesting and if pushed I'd say "Nope, no free will, see madnak or subfallen for explanation." But he claimed that you werent free to choose your emotions (and from that I inferred desires and motivations, perhaps wrongly) and so that claim has consequences.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]Well I think you could do it that way, or you could haggle over whether your desires control you(no free will) or you can control your desires(free will). What is it that forbids the ability to be in control of "you".

[/ QUOTE ]

He told me. I'm just trying to argue within his framework here, I personally dont think the free will debate is all that interesting and if pushed I'd say "Nope, no free will, see madnak or subfallen for explanation." But he claimed that you werent free to choose your emotions (and from that I inferred desires and motivations, perhaps wrongly) and so that claim has consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out what everyone is arguing about wrt freewill.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[/ QUOTE ]TBH, there is a genetic component to that moral rule. The golden rule seems to be part of our genetic make up.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[/ QUOTE ]


While that may very well be true (and probably is) its also irrelevant. I'm working within your framework here. If it isnt THAT desire, its some other desire. And we cant choose our desires right? Can we choose which of our desires is strongest? No, we cant. And how do we choose what we dont want to choose?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[/ QUOTE ]


While that may very well be true (and probably is) its also irrelevant. I'm working within your framework here. If it isnt THAT desire, its some other desire. And we cant choose our desires right? Can we choose which of our desires is strongest? No, we cant. And how do we choose what we dont want to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

We cannot choose our desires. They are primarily genetic/environment/lifestyle induced. So we can't choose which desire is the strongest. We can identify which one is.

An alcoholic, physically and mentally addicted to alcohol, has a much stronger desire to drink than a desire to get sober. Yet they do. Go to an open AA meeting and ask one who has been sober for at least 5 years how he/she did it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Why be so generous with the metaphysicists? I demand evidence that consciousness can be even provisionally modeled as an idealized Will. (That is, a self-contained entity that deliberately chooses among discrete possibilities.)

Honestly I think it's more meaningful to debate whether a video game villain powered by a random number generator has free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that some people believe in it, and I can't prove them wrong. I can see no reason to believe in it, but I'm hesistant to write it off on that basis.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole notion of that kind of "will" is ill-defined and foolish. I think it rarely gets beyond the level of Moseley's posts. But I accept the possibility that someone does have special knowledge of the subject.

To use an analogy from the other thread, if I lived in 1200 I would be justified in concluding that there is no Pluto. However, I would not be justified in saying that the question of Pluto's existence is meaningless, or in saying that nobody is justified in concluding that Pluto exists. (Even though, at the time, it's possible nobody was.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[/ QUOTE ]


While that may very well be true (and probably is) its also irrelevant. I'm working within your framework here. If it isnt THAT desire, its some other desire. And we cant choose our desires right? Can we choose which of our desires is strongest? No, we cant. And how do we choose what we dont want to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

We cannot choose our desires. They are primarily genetic/environment/lifestyle induced. So we can't choose which desire is the strongest. We can identify which one is.

An alcoholic, physically and mentally addicted to alcohol, has a much stronger desire to drink than a desire to get sober. Yet they do. Go to an open AA meeting and ask one who has been sober for at least 5 years how he/she did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you are wrong about which desire is strongest, since they dont drink. And their perception of their desires is potentially pretty misleading. After all, I feel like I have free will!

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You are haggling over which of your uncontrollable desires makes your decisions for you, your desire for the alcohol or your desire to overcome your alcoholism. The end result is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. All this time, I've been thinking that my treating of my fellow man in a way that I would like to be treated, was a decision made on my own, since a good number of people do not do the same. Now it turns out, that my desire is nothing more than genetic.

[/ QUOTE ]


While that may very well be true (and probably is) its also irrelevant. I'm working within your framework here. If it isnt THAT desire, its some other desire. And we cant choose our desires right? Can we choose which of our desires is strongest? No, we cant. And how do we choose what we dont want to choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

We cannot choose our desires. They are primarily genetic/environment/lifestyle induced. So we can't choose which desire is the strongest. We can identify which one is.

An alcoholic, physically and mentally addicted to alcohol, has a much stronger desire to drink than a desire to get sober. Yet they do. Go to an open AA meeting and ask one who has been sober for at least 5 years how he/she did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you are wrong about which desire is strongest, since they dont drink. And their perception of their desires is potentially pretty misleading. After all, I feel like I have free will!

[/ QUOTE ]

LO FREAKIN L /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
"The problem is that some people believe in it" (free will), "and I can't prove them wrong. I can see no reason to believe in it, but I'm hesistant to write it off on that basis."

[/ QUOTE ]

So what was it that made you choose the profession that you are in, since your will to choose freely doesn't exist?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is sense of self the same type of illusion that free will is, to determinists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the term "illusion." I like how Sub put it, "I define 'free will' as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property." Free will really does exist, it's a valid phenomenon - it just doesn't exist at the level many people think it does.

This is why I feel dishonest when I say that I don't believe in free will. What we label as "free will" does exist, it just doesn't have any meaning outside a limited context. It certainly doesn't have any metaphysical (much less ontological) meaning.

I take a similar view of the sense of self. Obviously the sense of self exists - but to conflate sense of self and an idea of "actual self" (or to suggest that our sense of self has metaphysical implications of any kind) is silly.

(I guess "yes" would be the short answer.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The problem is that some people believe in it" (free will), "and I can't prove them wrong. I can see no reason to believe in it, but I'm hesistant to write it off on that basis."

[/ QUOTE ]

So what was it that made you choose the profession that you are in, since your will to choose freely doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a bum, he doesnt have a profession, he is a STUDENT for Christ's sake. He has no free will obv.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So what was it that made you choose the profession that you are in, since your will to choose freely doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I majored in physics because it seemed challenging, because I'm deeply interested in how the world works, and because what I knew of physics was beautiful and seemed like a lot of fun. Among other reasons.

But I don't want to get into a complex analysis of human decision-making processes. So I'll take a reductionistic view. I chose because the chemical processes in my brain led to the action of writing "physics" on the "major" line in my application. Most likely my prefrontal cortex and the organization of the neurons there were responsible for the decision-making process itself. But I don't know what role glial cells, different areas of my brain, and environmental inputs (for example) played.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
He's a bum, he doesnt have a profession, he is a STUDENT for Christ's sake. He has no free will obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I do have free time. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The problem is that some people believe in it" (free will), "and I can't prove them wrong. I can see no reason to believe in it, but I'm hesistant to write it off on that basis."

[/ QUOTE ]

So what was it that made you choose the profession that you are in, since your will to choose freely doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of Being from Time immemorial has been decisive in ushering in madnak's career choice. One tiniest miscue and he wouldn't even exist.

If you don't feel the interconnection of all prerequisite Reality sufficiently dignifies your choices(?), then...I respect your audacity, good sir, but I can scarcely empathize.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a bum, he doesnt have a profession, he is a STUDENT for Christ's sake. He has no free will obv.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I do have free time. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Madnak 1, vhawk 0.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what was it that made you choose the profession that you are in, since your will to choose freely doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I majored in physics because it seemed challenging, because I'm deeply interested in how the world works, and because what I knew of physics was beautiful and seemed like a lot of fun. Among other reasons.

But I don't want to get into a complex analysis of human decision-making processes. So I'll take a reductionistic view. I chose because the chemical processes in my brain led to the action of writing "physics" on the "major" line in my application. Most likely my prefrontal cortex and the organization of the neurons there were responsible for the decision-making process itself. But I don't know what role glial cells, different areas of my brain, and environmental inputs (for example) played.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your brain acts independent of your genetic makeup? Or did your genetic makeup have a role to play in how your brain processes, compared to the person who chooses to become a doctor, or lawyer? I think so.

It all boils down to genes. You can sing the whole process of the brain, but it's all genetics. Some of us have better genes than others.

Some are lucky, others are not.
Some are lucky and put it to good use.
Others don't.
That would be two people with similar smart genes but genes of a completely different pool when it comes to motivation.

[madnak]

It's not all genes. Plenty of it is environment. And "genes" don't really exist without environment. Genes are sequences of nitrogenous bases in an alternating sugar-phosphate chain that makes up a long molecule called a chromosome. Physical damage to the chromosome can change the genes. As can errors when the chromosome is splitting in two or when the gene is being turned into a protein. And the proteins created from the gene can still be damaged and affected by the environment. Which proteins are created is often a matter of environmental factors. Hell, when all of these proteins, interacting in the appropriate ways, result in the brain itself, that brain is highly subject to environmental factors. And then the life of the individual person - the organism that brain is attached to - can proceed in many different ways depending on the environment. And I've skipped a few steps.

DNA is just a molecule, not some "magic map" of the future.

[Xylem]

My arguement against free will can be summised in one paragrarh;

Question:
If u were George Bush would you have done ANYTHING differently? Would you have thought or acted or felt in any way differently to him?

Answer:
No. If u were Bush u would have felt exactly the same as him and acted based on these feelings in exactly the same way.

This proves that as entities we have no ability to change our path.

I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.

Can you think of any of ure acts where u cant say i wanted.
Eg i wanted my kids safe so i drove them to school etc etc.

Well thats just 2 reasons to prove it but i have many more intuitive examples.

I realise this looks extremely amateur and stupid and its because im stoned and giving facts based on bare intuition.

I think youll find the arguement is flawless though.

[Sephus]

and that proof is why we have a new free will thread. fantastic.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I realise this looks extremely amateur and stupid and its because im stoned and giving facts based on bare intuition.

I think youll find the arguement is flawless though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. And you're making the rest of us determinists look stupid. You said you were going to present an argument as solid as 2+2=4. That argument is based on the most fundamental mathematical axioms.

If you want to present a good argument, you'll have to take the same approach. Begin with basic premises, and then proceed through valid inferences to a conclusion that free will can't exist. Do that, come back, and we can discuss your proof. You may want to read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) on the subject of what makes a valid argument, so you don't waste our time.

[Xylem]

LOL, regardless my 'amateur' arguement is still without flaw, just not very explicit or thorough.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
My arguement against free will can be summised in one paragrarh;

Question:
If u were George Bush would you have done ANYTHING differently? Would you have thought or acted or felt in any way differently to him?

Answer:
No. If u were Bush u would have felt exactly the same as him and acted based on these feelings in exactly the same way.

This proves that as entities we have no ability to change our path.

I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.

Can you think of any of ure acts where u cant say i wanted.
Eg i wanted my kids safe so i drove them to school etc etc.

Well thats just 2 reasons to prove it but i have many more intuitive examples.

I realise this looks extremely amateur and stupid and its because im stoned and giving facts based on bare intuition.

I think youll find the arguement is flawless though.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know?

Counter arguement.

If u were George Bush would you have done ANYTHING differently? Would you have thought or acted or felt in any way differently to him?

Answer:
Maybe. If u were Bush u would have felt exactly the same as him and acted based on these feelings in probably a similar way.

I think you'll find it flawless.

(So long as you can ignore the fact that I'm not backing it up with anything at all, just stating my opinion as fact.)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, regardless my 'amateur' arguement is still without flaw, just not very explicit or thorough.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're all geniuses when we're stoned.

[Xylem]

I thought of this when sober.

It just happens im stoned now.

There is truth in ure post though.

[madnak]

And maybe there's truth in your argument. But being explicit and thorough is important when expressing an argument to others. As it stands, nobody can make much sense of your points (at least, nobody who doesn't already agree with you).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
My arguement against free will can be summised in one paragrarh;

Question:
If u were George Bush would you have done ANYTHING differently? Would you have thought or acted or felt in any way differently to him?

Answer:
No. If u were Bush u would have felt exactly the same as him and acted based on these feelings in exactly the same way.

This proves that as entities we have no ability to change our path.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is known as begging the question. If it is true that we have no free will then you are probably correct - George Bush would always do as George Bush did. The thing is, you're trying to prove that, so you cant just assume it to be true. You have to go further back - assuming you dont know if George Bush would always have chosen the same, can you prove he would have from more primitive assumptions?

[ QUOTE ]
I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this premise can be tightened up and lead to the conclusion you want. However, there are plenty of people who deny the truth of this premise. Do you think it's self-evident that humans are computer systems which will always make decisions that they think will benefit them most?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you say a person acts according to "what he wants." But your definition of "what he wants" is exactly: "how he acts." /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Clearly this an entirely circular project...it just goes to show the hopeless ambiguity caused by lazily assuming that humans are anything like idealized Agents.

[Xylem]

hmmm.

Ive actually been beaten in less than 5 posts.

Let me have a thinkabout this.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you say a person acts according to "what he wants." But your definition of "what he wants" is exactly: "how he acts." /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Clearly this an entirely circular project...it just goes to show the hopeless ambiguity caused by lazily assuming that humans are anything like idealized Agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd prefer that he redefines free will to mean something different than most would recognize in order to avoid difficult questions?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think of the human as a computer system which will always make decisions that they think (experience + IQ determines thinking power) will benefit them most.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you say a person acts according to "what he wants." But your definition of "what he wants" is exactly: "how he acts." /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Clearly this an entirely circular project...it just goes to show the hopeless ambiguity caused by lazily assuming that humans are anything like idealized Agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'd prefer that he redefines free will to mean something different than most would recognize in order to avoid difficult questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'd prefer that he empirically establish the human "Will" before inquiring into its freedom.

[Qrawl]

Why are you all still confused. I already told you. There is no freewill. The human mind is WAY too big to be controlling anything. All "decisions" happen at the tiniest level possible. That's where all the mathematical computations are occurring.

[Xylem]

Can you look back on ure life, considering the exact same thoughts u would have had etc and say that u would have chose differently?

Once again this is as flawed as the 'Bush' example but it has relevance.

[Xylem]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you all still confused. I already told you. There is no freewill. The human mind is WAY too big to be controlling anything. All "decisions" happen at the tiniest level possible. That's where all the mathematical computations are occurring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats my new arguement then.

Btw i argued for this implicitly without knowledge of these established theories.

[hitch1978]

Of course you did, you had no choice /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you all still confused. I already told you. There is no freewill. The human mind is WAY too big to be controlling anything. All "decisions" happen at the tiniest level possible. That's where all the mathematical computations are occurring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see many confused people.

But since you are not god I'll venture a guess (out of my own free will or because the universe made me do it, it doesn't really matter) and make the bold guess that you don't hold the combined knowledge you need to make that claim stick.

It is also quite clear this thread operates with at least two distinct definitions of free will.

One defines free will as the ability to make different actions within the confines of reality as proposed by the properties of the universe and the other seems to define free will as the ability to breach these confines.

[Qrawl]

No, it's true

[Xylem]

I feel guilty for informing the ignorant but this is SMP.

Please dont try and persuade people of this though its not a good thing know.

Also if u tell ppl u wont have a mysterious air of superior smugness to internally brag about.