Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Free Will Thought Experiment

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sam Harris starting at 19:00 Min Mark.

Let's play along eh, hopefully it would be insightful for some, it was for me, errr I think...........

Step 1) Think of a city any where in the world, you can choose any city you want. Chances are a few cities pop into mind and you picked one.

Step 2) Okey do it again, but this time don't pick the same city and notice what the experience is like.

Question) Did you see any evidence for free will ?

Point 1) You couldn't of picked any city that you don't know about.

Point 2) There are many cites that you do know about, but they did not occur to you to pick from

Question) Were you free to choose, that which did not occur to you to choose ?

Point 3) You probably thought of a few cities, and juggled some reason/s as to why you should pick one of them between them.

Point 4) You are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

Point 5) Even if you have a reason as too why you picked that city, like you remember eating sushi last night and thus choose Toyko, why was it that thought came to mind and not some other thought ? Or why did the memory have the effect that it did ?

Point 6) You witness these decisions, you don't choose them.

After doing this experiment myself, I can't disagree with anything he said. This is most disturbing.

And so the decent into madness begins............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 7:32:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your view speaks to the anthropic principle and sure there are limits to free will. Physics and nature. That does not mean that you cannot freely choose from a given choice, on a menu for instance. All the questions as to why you chose as you did, steak over chops, and that will be due to preference and you can question all the way back to your birth for that but it is irrelevant. You can still choose something else on the menu freely.

There is a way to prove or test that you have a free will, ---- within the bounds of nature, physics and the anthropic principle.

Logic proves it. Care to test yourself?

It stands to reason that you cannot give up what you do not have.
If you do not have free will then you cannot give it up.
If you do have free will then you can give it up.

I invite you to give up your free will to reply as you like to this post by asking that you begin your reply to me with the letter "Y".
If you do, you will be proving that you have a free will to give up.

Regards
DL
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 7:50:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 7:32:21 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Your view speaks to the anthropic principle and sure there are limits to free will. Physics and nature. That does not mean that you cannot freely choose from a given choice, on a menu for instance. All the questions as to why you chose as you did, steak over chops, and that will be due to preference and you can question all the way back to your birth for that but it is irrelevant. You can still choose something else on the menu freely.

This shows that you don't get the experiment. I suspect there is a certain amount of self reflection that is needed, but surely ANYONE can do it. You just dismissed this all as oh its irrelevant, you can choose something else.

Well if you do the experiment, you will see. your wrong.

There is a way to prove or test that you have a free will, ---- within the bounds of nature, physics and the anthropic principle.

Logic proves it. Care to test yourself?

It stands to reason that you cannot give up what you do not have. ( ok ill go with that)
If you do not have free will then you cannot give it up.

This assumes just because you have something it means you can give it up, this isn't necessarily so, its possible that you can possess something that you can't give up.
If you do have free will then you can give it up.

Same as above, even if free will is granted it doesn't follow that therefore it something that can be given up.

So straight off the bat your logic ain't looking to good.

I invite you to give up your free will to reply as you like to this post by asking that you begin your reply to me with the letter "Y".
If you do, you will be proving that you have a free will to give up.

Y. all you did like once again is assure your self is that you are correct. Now here is my question, why did you choose the letter Y ? You know the entire alphabet right ? you had A - Z to choose from, yet you choose Y ?

You had the thought of Y correct ? but why did the thought of Y come to your mind ? why even a letter ? why not a number ? do you know why Y came to your mind. Did you choose to have the letter Y entire into thought ? of course not, that would mean you thought your thought before you thought it.


Regards
DL
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 8:12:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Question) Did you see any evidence for free will ?

I there is evidence for free will. I could have picked any city. I even could have decided not to play, or make up a city. I decided to pick a city because I wanted to test the experiment.

Point 1) You couldn't of picked any city that you don't know about.

This is more a limitation of knowledge/ability than freewill. I cannot right now dunk a basketball, make the NFL or determine the existence. However, I can choose study more cities to gain knowledge.

Point 2) There are many cites that you do know about, but they did not occur to you to pick from

This also does not show anything. The more time you take to think, the more cities you will think of. I can not recall in detail what I did the 1348th day of my life. Again, this is a limitation of knowledge.

Question) Were you free to choose, that which did not occur to you to choose ?

No. This is a limitation of knowledge not freewill. But, in theory you could have chosen to take more time to think of cities.

Point 3) You probably thought of a few cities, and juggled some reason/s as to why you should pick one of them between them.

Yes, this shows freewill. Choice from a limited number of options is still choice.

Point 4) You are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

That's because it was an irrelevant question that we did not know the purpose to. If the choice was pick a city to go on vacation, to live, or go to school, we would know why we picked it.

Point 5) Even if you have a reason as too why you picked that city, like you remember eating sushi last night and thus choose Toyko, why was it that thought came to mind and not some other thought ? Or why did the memory have the effect that it did ?

We recall only what our minds feel important/relevant. Tokyo making sushi seems more relevant than other random facts we may have learned about Tokyo.

Point 6) You witness these decisions, you don't choose them.

I don't think this is the case, and I don't think this shows this.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 8:15:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 7:32:21 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Your view speaks to the anthropic principle and sure there are limits to free will. Physics and nature. That does not mean that you cannot freely choose from a given choice, on a menu for instance. All the questions as to why you chose as you did, steak over chops, and that will be due to preference and you can question all the way back to your birth for that but it is irrelevant. You can still choose something else on the menu freely.

There is a way to prove or test that you have a free will, ---- within the bounds of nature, physics and the anthropic principle.

Logic proves it. Care to test yourself?

It stands to reason that you cannot give up what you do not have.
If you do not have free will then you cannot give it up.
If you do have free will then you can give it up.

I invite you to give up your free will to reply as you like to this post by asking that you begin your reply to me with the letter "Y".
If you do, you will be proving that you have a free will to give up.

Regards
DL

What your though experiment proves is apparent freewill,...not actual freewill. If you want to defeat determinism you'll have to demonstrate how freewill isn't just an illusion.

I don't know why people are shocked by Harris's example, it just requires some retrospective introspection, anomalies like that are everywhere! Lets say you're angry and you slam a door, accidentally breaking an expensive vase. Given your mood, your frustration, and impulse prior to slamming the door, could the thought of NOT slamming the door have even occurred to you? How do you even force thoughts to occur to you? To think? How do you think? We don't actually know how to think,....we simply THINK! and then we claim that the thoughts are purely our own unforced origination. Competence without comprehension.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 2:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 7:50:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2012 7:32:21 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Your view speaks to the anthropic principle and sure there are limits to free will. Physics and nature. That does not mean that you cannot freely choose from a given choice, on a menu for instance. All the questions as to why you chose as you did, steak over chops, and that will be due to preference and you can question all the way back to your birth for that but it is irrelevant. You can still choose something else on the menu freely.

This shows that you don't get the experiment. I suspect there is a certain amount of self reflection that is needed, but surely ANYONE can do it. You just dismissed this all as oh its irrelevant, you can choose something else.

Well if you do the experiment, you will see. your wrong.

There is a way to prove or test that you have a free will, ---- within the bounds of nature, physics and the anthropic principle.

Logic proves it. Care to test yourself?

It stands to reason that you cannot give up what you do not have. ( ok ill go with that)
If you do not have free will then you cannot give it up.

This assumes just because you have something it means you can give it up, this isn't necessarily so, its possible that you can possess something that you can't give up.
If you do have free will then you can give it up.

Same as above, even if free will is granted it doesn't follow that therefore it something that can be given up.

So straight off the bat your logic ain't looking to good.

I invite you to give up your free will to reply as you like to this post by asking that you begin your reply to me with the letter "Y".
If you do, you will be proving that you have a free will to give up.

Y. all you did like once again is assure your self is that you are correct. Now here is my question, why did you choose the letter Y ? You know the entire alphabet right ? you had A - Z to choose from, yet you choose Y ?

You had the thought of Y correct ? but why did the thought of Y come to your mind ? why even a letter ? why not a number ? do you know why Y came to your mind. Did you choose to have the letter Y entire into thought ? of course not, that would mean you thought your thought before you thought it.


Regards
DL

I chose "Y" to represent yes as in yes I have free will.

I note you did start, not the post but that one phrase with a Y.

Why?

And why would you think that you cannot give up your free will when you did by starting that phrase with a Y?

Let me add this link to the mix.

I don't know about you but I give up my free will often.
Like when my will says I want some loving and my wife says she does not.
I give up my will to hers and go to sleep.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 2:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 8:15:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/21/2012 7:32:21 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Your view speaks to the anthropic principle and sure there are limits to free will. Physics and nature. That does not mean that you cannot freely choose from a given choice, on a menu for instance. All the questions as to why you chose as you did, steak over chops, and that will be due to preference and you can question all the way back to your birth for that but it is irrelevant. You can still choose something else on the menu freely.

There is a way to prove or test that you have a free will, ---- within the bounds of nature, physics and the anthropic principle.

Logic proves it. Care to test yourself?

It stands to reason that you cannot give up what you do not have.
If you do not have free will then you cannot give it up.
If you do have free will then you can give it up.

I invite you to give up your free will to reply as you like to this post by asking that you begin your reply to me with the letter "Y".
If you do, you will be proving that you have a free will to give up.

Regards
DL

What your though experiment proves is apparent freewill,...not actual freewill. If you want to defeat determinism you'll have to demonstrate how freewill isn't just an illusion.

I don't know why people are shocked by Harris's example, it just requires some retrospective introspection, anomalies like that are everywhere! Lets say you're angry and you slam a door, accidentally breaking an expensive vase. Given your mood, your frustration, and impulse prior to slamming the door, could the thought of NOT slamming the door have even occurred to you? How do you even force thoughts to occur to you? To think? How do you think? We don't actually know how to think,....we simply THINK! and then we claim that the thoughts are purely our own unforced origination. Competence without comprehension.

The only thing I prove is that free will, apparent, whatever that means, or real, can be given up.

When our friend typed the "Y" above at my request, he showed he could give up what I see as real and not apparent free will. If both always appear the same then I would suggest that they are both the same.

If not, FYPOV, then come up with a simple experiment like I did to show what the difference between apparent free will and real free will.

You might want to view that short link just above first.

Regards
DL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Sam Harris starting at 19:00 Min Mark.

Let's play along eh, hopefully it would be insightful for some, it was for me, errr I think...........

Step 1) Think of a city any where in the world, you can choose any city you want. Chances are a few cities pop into mind and you picked one.

Step 2) Okey do it again, but this time don't pick the same city and notice what the experience is like.

Question) Did you see any evidence for free will ?

Yes, since he took away my option of choosing Las Vegas, that made me want to choose a city in Nevada, so I chose Reno. I could have gone outside the state he mentioned, but chose not to.

Also, I was thinking mainly of cities here in the US, but when he mentioned world cities, I began thinking more globally. Ultimately though, I came back to the US, by choice.

Point 1) You couldn't of picked any city that you don't know about.

It's more accurate to say that I WOULDN'T have picked a city I didn't know about. He said I could choose any city. So if there's a Bottlecap, Iowa then I COULD have chosen that city if I had known about it. Since I didn't know about it, I wouldn't have chosen it.

Point 2) There are many cites that you do know about, but they did not occur to you to pick from

Well yeah, but given the short amount of time we had to choose then not all options were able to be considered. This guides our choice and makes it likely that we'll pick certain cities that have some immediate relevance.

Question) Were you free to choose, that which did not occur to you to choose ?

Yes I was free to choose every single city in the world. The only things limiting me were the time allowed to come up with a choice, and my knowledge base.

Point 3) You probably thought of a few cities, and juggled some reason/s as to why you should pick one of them between them.

Point 4) You are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

Point 5) Even if you have a reason as too why you picked that city, like you remember eating sushi last night and thus choose Toyko, why was it that thought came to mind and not some other thought ? Or why did the memory have the effect that it did ?

Point 6) You witness these decisions, you don't choose them.

Again, the time given to make the choice guides us to immediate relevancy of a city, recent familiarity. Or some may have chosen a city that was totally random and has no meaning to them, other than the fact that it was in their knowledge base. Either way, it was a choice.

After doing this experiment myself, I can't disagree with anything he said. This is most disturbing.

And so the decent into madness begins............

Don't worry, the fall isn't far enough that you're going to be hurt. :)

TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:21:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 8:15:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Sam Harris starting at 19:00 Min Mark.

Let's play along eh, hopefully it would be insightful for some, it was for me, errr I think...........

Step 1) Think of a city any where in the world, you can choose any city you want. Chances are a few cities pop into mind and you picked one.

Step 2) Okey do it again, but this time don't pick the same city and notice what the experience is like.

Question) Did you see any evidence for free will ?

Yes, since he took away my option of choosing Las Vegas, that made me want to choose a city in Nevada, so I chose Reno. I could have gone outside the state he mentioned, but chose not to.

Also, I was thinking mainly of cities here in the US, but when he mentioned world cities, I began thinking more globally. Ultimately though, I came back to the US, by choice.

Point 1) You couldn't of picked any city that you don't know about.

It's more accurate to say that I WOULDN'T have picked a city I didn't know about. He said I could choose any city. So if there's a Bottlecap, Iowa then I COULD have chosen that city if I had known about it. Since I didn't know about it, I wouldn't have chosen it.

Point 2) There are many cites that you do know about, but they did not occur to you to pick from

Well yeah, but given the short amount of time we had to choose then not all options were able to be considered. This guides our choice and makes it likely that we'll pick certain cities that have some immediate relevance.

Question) Were you free to choose, that which did not occur to you to choose ?

Yes I was free to choose every single city in the world. The only things limiting me were the time allowed to come up with a choice, and my knowledge base.

Point 3) You probably thought of a few cities, and juggled some reason/s as to why you should pick one of them between them.

Point 4) You are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

Point 5) Even if you have a reason as too why you picked that city, like you remember eating sushi last night and thus choose Toyko, why was it that thought came to mind and not some other thought ? Or why did the memory have the effect that it did ?

Point 6) You witness these decisions, you don't choose them.

Again, the time given to make the choice guides us to immediate relevancy of a city, recent familiarity. Or some may have chosen a city that was totally random and has no meaning to them, other than the fact that it was in their knowledge base. Either way, it was a choice.

After doing this experiment myself, I can't disagree with anything he said. This is most disturbing.

And so the decent into madness begins............

Don't worry, the fall isn't far enough that you're going to be hurt. :)



I believe the argument is based around having a "true choice" vs a pressure driven choice. And to have a true choice, one must be omniscient of all possible choices and the infinite consequences of any choice to be made. Hence the butterfly effect comes into play here. And even if you could make a true choice, it's still pressure driven... Choices are made by weighing the positives and negatives in relation to self and possible desirable outcomes. Free will would allow you to have all possible desirable outcomes without error or pressure driven choices. Choices are at best educated guesses, and even then is can be stated as pressure driven.. And largely because life doesn't wait for you to make a choice, it's like a spiked wall behind you to which is forcing you through it's chaotic and often unpredictable maze. It's inherently deterministic at this level. It's like a choose your own adventure book where you are given a choice to pick path A, B, C ,D ect.. But those paths have consequences, and in life, you're not allowed to stop reading, or allowed to read ahead to figure out which path was the safe path to take. You are pushed ahead by the ticking clock of your life..
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:41:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 8:15:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


And so the decent into madness begins............

Don't worry, the fall isn't far enough that you're going to be hurt. :)

I should resent that, but I think you might be on to something.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 2:09:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 11:41:33 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2012 8:15:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:


And so the decent into madness begins............

Don't worry, the fall isn't far enough that you're going to be hurt. :)

I should resent that, but I think you might be on to something.

Just having a little fun with ya.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 2:23:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 11:21:57 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/21/2012 8:15:05 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/21/2012 6:30:35 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Sam Harris starting at 19:00 Min Mark.

Let's play along eh, hopefully it would be insightful for some, it was for me, errr I think...........

Step 1) Think of a city any where in the world, you can choose any city you want. Chances are a few cities pop into mind and you picked one.

Step 2) Okey do it again, but this time don't pick the same city and notice what the experience is like.

Question) Did you see any evidence for free will ?

Yes, since he took away my option of choosing Las Vegas, that made me want to choose a city in Nevada, so I chose Reno. I could have gone outside the state he mentioned, but chose not to.

Also, I was thinking mainly of cities here in the US, but when he mentioned world cities, I began thinking more globally. Ultimately though, I came back to the US, by choice.

Point 1) You couldn't of picked any city that you don't know about.

It's more accurate to say that I WOULDN'T have picked a city I didn't know about. He said I could choose any city. So if there's a Bottlecap, Iowa then I COULD have chosen that city if I had known about it. Since I didn't know about it, I wouldn't have chosen it.

Point 2) There are many cites that you do know about, but they did not occur to you to pick from

Well yeah, but given the short amount of time we had to choose then not all options were able to be considered. This guides our choice and makes it likely that we'll pick certain cities that have some immediate relevance.

Question) Were you free to choose, that which did not occur to you to choose ?

Yes I was free to choose every single city in the world. The only things limiting me were the time allowed to come up with a choice, and my knowledge base.

Point 3) You probably thought of a few cities, and juggled some reason/s as to why you should pick one of them between them.

Point 4) You are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

Point 5) Even if you have a reason as too why you picked that city, like you remember eating sushi last night and thus choose Toyko, why was it that thought came to mind and not some other thought ? Or why did the memory have the effect that it did ?

Point 6) You witness these decisions, you don't choose them.

Again, the time given to make the choice guides us to immediate relevancy of a city, recent familiarity. Or some may have chosen a city that was totally random and has no meaning to them, other than the fact that it was in their knowledge base. Either way, it was a choice.

After doing this experiment myself, I can't disagree with anything he said. This is most disturbing.

And so the decent into madness begins............

Don't worry, the fall isn't far enough that you're going to be hurt. :)




I believe the argument is based around having a "true choice" vs a pressure driven choice. And to have a true choice, one must be omniscient of all possible choices and the infinite consequences of any choice to be made. Hence the butterfly effect comes into play here. And even if you could make a true choice, it's still pressure driven... Choices are made by weighing the positives and negatives in relation to self and possible desirable outcomes. Free will would allow you to have all possible desirable outcomes without error or pressure driven choices. Choices are at best educated guesses, and even then is can be stated as pressure driven.. And largely because life doesn't wait for you to make a choice, it's like a spiked wall behind you to which is forcing you through it's chaotic and often unpredictable maze. It's inherently deterministic at this level. It's like a choose your own adventure book where you are given a choice to pick path A, B, C ,D ect.. But those paths have consequences, and in life, you're not allowed to stop reading, or allowed to read ahead to figure out which path was the safe path to take. You are pushed ahead by the ticking clock of your life..

Seems to me that he was trying to say that we're wrong when we say that we have free will, from God. I don't get how he supposedly does that though. We have freedom to increase our knowledge, thus giving us more options to choose from. But to say that we don't have free will because we don't know all possible options, or can't think of all of them at the same time is wrong, given what we mean by free will. If he disproves something else then it's not really relevant.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:11:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seems to me that he was trying to say that we're wrong when we say that we have :free will, from God. I don't get how he supposedly does that though. We have :freedom to increase our knowledge, thus giving us more options to choose from. But :to say that we don't have free will because we don't know all possible options, or :can't think of all of them at the same time is wrong, given what we mean by free :will. If he disproves something else then it's not really relevant.

We only have the limited ability to do what is possible.. I explained this earlier as to why free will is a pseudo...kinda like being put in a circle to where you can only move about within that circle without the ability to move outside it. Toss in the need to survive, reproduce, and eat ect, it all becomes pressure driven even in the progression of the increasing knowledge. To want to know more comes from the inherent consequence of being a conscious entity to which experiences reality and learns from it through the senses and interactions with it. Learning is pressure driven and is inherently deterministic at the base level to which is effect by numerous other variables to which can give rise to mental addictions such as beliefs ect.. It's all driven, and we have very little control over the entire system to which drives it. And what control we exert is also pressure driven.. To give you an idea of how deterministic reality is at this level, we can overview what it means to exist in a quantized existence:

Quoting myself:

The sum of everything can be summed up in 3 attributes, laws, properties, and governing rules. All to which will be bound to, must abide by, and be determined by within a quantized existence. This to which is the only possible form of existence that can exist. And these 3 attributes, laws, properties, and governing rules are as follows:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

These are the quantity and quality value of existence and the essence of as there can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Existence
System
State
Function
Action
Reaction / response
Position
Electric Charge
Quantity
Quality
Essence
Information
Data
Rule
Law
Ethic
Moral
belief
Emotion
Equation / math equation
Solution
Answer
Reply
Opinion
Concept
Idea
Transition
Transformation
Process
Interaction
Cause
Effect
Force
Property
Attribute
Thought
Path / route
Choice
Decision
Stance
Frame of reference
Time scale
Interpretation
Observation
Experience
Sensation
Natural selection
Probability
Possibility
Option

OR:

The relativity of all the above!!

It is certainly deterministic even if the system is chaotic as it is all pressure driven.. Hence, there is no such thing as "Random". Random only deals with our "ability" to predict the out come and has no bearing on the deterministic nature of reality. So if I were omniscient, there wouldn't be anything that could happen to which I wouldn't know would happen since I would infinitely know every variable to the point of total complete predictability with 100 percent accuracy. That would include knowing any choice or decision you might ever make in any given situation.

So in reality, it's all deterministic because its all pressure driven. And our pseudo that it's not rests in our limited ability to predict since we are not "omniscient".. So since it's all pressure driven, it's a determining system, and that really is the only way anything can really happen. Free will would be will not bound to such a system, and that would be impossible as one can not exist outside a quantized existence. It's pretty hard to exist as nothing or less than nothing for that matter.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 3:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry forgot to add the point at the end

If some entity gave us free will, we wouldn't be bound to a pressure driven system.. And since that is impossible, so is he idea of being given "free will"
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:47:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree.
Free will is something that is taken. It cannot be given unless it is somehow forcibly being denied.

We are all free at this point in time to go and kill someone. Thankfully, that is one of our freedoms that we do not generally do.

No one gave us this freedom. It is one we have and control.

If any do not think they have free will. Prove you do by taking my little test.

Regards
DL