Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

I am the only person with free will.

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day"s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50"s he wasn"t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. "It"s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds" he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don"t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn"t apply here, as it doesn"t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender"..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn"t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.

The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time".ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own "existence". What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn"t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that "knows" it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn"t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can"t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue".If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

"A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]

So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective"s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.

Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.

What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen.
firewalker
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day"s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50"s he wasn"t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. "It"s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds" he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don"t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn"t apply here, as it doesn"t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender"..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn"t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.


The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time".ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own "existence". What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn"t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that "knows" it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn"t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can"t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue".If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

"A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]


So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective"s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.



Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen. : :

Here's a thought;

Consider your body as a horse. Are you driving the horse or riding it?
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:43:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 1:38:17 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:: : :
Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen. : :

Here's a thought;

Consider your body as a horse. Are you driving the horse or riding it?

lol neither, but most closely driving
firewalker
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:47:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:43:30 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 8/1/2015 1:38:17 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:: : :
Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen. : :

Here's a thought;

Consider your body as a horse. Are you driving the horse or riding it?

lol neither, but most closely driving : :

I take it that you've never ridden a wild horse.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:47:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:47:03 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:43:30 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 8/1/2015 1:38:17 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:: : :
Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen. : :

Here's a thought;

Consider your body as a horse. Are you driving the horse or riding it?

lol neither, but most closely driving : :

I take it that you've never ridden a wild horse.

XD wtf no lol
firewalker
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:52:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:47:43 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:47:03 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:43:30 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 8/1/2015 1:38:17 PM, firewalker wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:: : :
Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen. : :

Here's a thought;

Consider your body as a horse. Are you driving the horse or riding it?

lol neither, but most closely driving : :

I take it that you've never ridden a wild horse.

XD wtf no lol : :

Many addicts learn they are not driving the horse ( body ). They learn the horse is doing it's own thing while they're riding it. Some of them get very angry at the horse and kill it.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 7:05:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That isn't how logic works... You can't "prove" that the law of non-contradiction is false by equivocation. This reminds me of the sophistry in Euthydemus:

If you will answer my questions, said Dionysodorus, I will soon extract the same admissions from you, Ctesippus. You say that you have a dog.

Yes, a villain of a one, said Ctesippus.

And he has puppies?

Yes, and they are very like himself.

And the dog is the father of them?

Yes, he said, I certainly saw him and the mother of the puppies come together.

And is he not yours?

To be sure he is.

Then he is a father, and he is yours; ergo, he is your father, and the puppies are your brothers.

Let me ask you one little question more, said Dionysodorus, quickly interposing, in order that Ctesippus might not get in his word: You beat this dog?

Ctesippus said, laughing, Indeed I do; and I only wish that I could beat you instead of him.

Then you beat your father, he said.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 5:55:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day"s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50"s he wasn"t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. "It"s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds" he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don"t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn"t apply here, as it doesn"t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender"..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn"t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.


The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time".ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own "existence". What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn"t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that "knows" it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn"t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can"t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue".If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

"A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]


So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective"s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.



Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen.

So where did you copy/paste this from?
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 6:37:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 5:55:46 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day"s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50"s he wasn"t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. "It"s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds" he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don"t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn"t apply here, as it doesn"t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender"..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn"t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.


The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time".ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own "existence". What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn"t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that "knows" it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn"t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can"t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue".If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

"A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]


So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective"s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.



Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen.

So where did you copy/paste this from?

my debate argument on this topic
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:36:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. In fact, I don't think anyone truly has free will. That everything you do can be traced to something and is all part of the grand domino effect.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 8:31:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet we feel we have free will. The reason that people reject free will is not because they 'feel unfree' but because they can't think of any mechanism that could produce free-will.
To be honest, neither can I. But it might not be necessary for free will to exist for us to think we have it. The idea that free-will is an illusion is often expressed, but not often is it expanded on as to how that actually works, so I'll put some flesh on the bones.

It boils down to how we perceive anything. Essentially, if I perceive X its because there is a pattern of neural activity in my brain that encodes X - call that pattern of neural activity a '(neural) representation'. Quite often a representation encoding X in my brains corresponds closely to an external object X, but that is not necessary. If my brain's representation encodes for 'dog' then I will perceive a dog, whether the object in the world is a dog, a cat or nothing at all.

Our brains process information and - through processes we barely understand - come to a decision. That decision may be to stay in and watch TV rather than go out to a movie. As I said, we reached that decision using a mental process that is - as yet - not understood, but there is no a priori reason so suppose it is not deterministic.

However we internally represent that unconscious decision-making process not as it really is (we don't know how it works, and we don't need to know for it to be useful) but as 'exercising our free-will'. 'Free-will' is a subjective fiction - it is the way our brains model an aspect of its action that is not accurate but is still useful.

We use subjective 'qualia' for physical 'qualities' all the time in all sorts of ways. We do not see light of different wavelengths (the physical quality) as having different wavelengths but as having different colours (subjective qualia) . Our entire self-image is a subjective model that evolved not for accuracy but for its utility.

Hence our innate self-image includes free-will (which we don't have) but excludes the spleen because it (apparently) pays to think you have free-will but it doesn't make much difference to reproductive success to know you have a spleen. I don't know what a spleen is or what it does. Never needed to.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 8:34:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet we feel we have free will. The reason that people reject free will is not because they 'feel unfree' but because they can't think of any mechanism that could produce free-will.
To be honest, neither can I. But it might not be necessary for free will to exist for us to think we have it. The idea that free-will is an illusion is often expressed, but not often is it expanded on as to how that actually works, so I'll put some flesh on the bones.

It boils down to how we perceive anything. Essentially, if I perceive X its because there is a pattern of neural activity in my brain that encodes X - call that pattern of neural activity a '(neural) representation'. Quite often a representation encoding X in my brains corresponds closely to an external object X, but that is not necessary. If my brain's representation encodes for 'dog' then I will perceive a dog, whether the object in the world is a dog, a cat or nothing at all.

Our brains process information and - through processes we barely understand - come to a decision. That decision may be to stay in and watch TV rather than go out to a movie. As I said, we reached that decision using a mental process that is - as yet - not understood, but there is no a priori reason so suppose it is not deterministic.

However we internally represent that unconscious decision-making process not as it really is (we don't know how it works, and we don't need to know for it to be useful) but as 'exercising our free-will'. 'Free-will' is a subjective fiction - it is the way our brains model an aspect of its action that is not accurate but is still useful.

We use subjective 'qualia' for physical 'qualities' all the time in all sorts of ways. We do not see light of different wavelengths (the physical quality) as having different wavelengths but as having different colours (subjective qualia) . Our entire self-image is a subjective model that evolved not for accuracy but for its utility.

Hence our innate self-image includes free-will (which we don't have) but excludes the spleen because it (apparently) pays to think you have free-will but it doesn't make much difference to reproductive success to know you have a spleen. I don't know what a spleen is or what it does - I have never needed to that, but it is important for me to know that I can make decisions based on information, even if I am wrong about how I actually make decisions (it's not by free-will - that is just a convenient fiction).
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:40:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 9:18:24 AM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day"s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50"s he wasn"t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. "It"s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds" he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don"t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn"t apply here, as it doesn"t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender"..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn"t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.


The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time".ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own "existence". What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn"t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that "knows" it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn"t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can"t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue".If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

"A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]


So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective"s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.



Free will

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.


What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people"s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement "free will only applies to me" from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that "the entire universe is determined", I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn"t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside "the box" to inside the box, that "choice X" will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position"because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the perspective which can take into account all of the factors it was simply bound to happen.

I <3 Solipsism

" But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality."

If your this perspective, your following solipsism. Just because we can't personally experience their actions doesn't mean their actions aren't performed by free will. As long as your willing to accept that truth can be learned without experience then there's no reason to accept solipsism. We can use deductive logic to prove everyone has free will.

P1. Kozu is not restricted to any one option x, y, or z
P2. Kozu is a human
C1. Humans are not restricted to any one option

I guess you could argue that I am restricted if determinism is true, but then no one has free-will regardless of our perspective. Or that I'm not human.

As far as the Law of Non-Con goes, subjective statements need to be evaluated on a personal level. If I say it's night, then for me it is indeed night, it cannot be day from my perspective.