the the thing is though , is that once you get past the determinism of instinct alone , the possibility of free-will comes into existence.
ability think out-side the box of instinct alone.
so you’re saying free will is rational thought?
Let’s also remember that even if all our actions are driven by a biologically determined brain, this brain still constitutes “us”. Therefore, it’s still “us” who are determining our actions. This could pass as the grounds for a will, but not a free one.
My view on the matter is best expressed through the following excerpt from the Wikipedia article on free will.
NO, not necessarily rational thought ( although this would be a good thing) just the ability to be able to think at all beyond the confines of instinct alone.
Free will is a choice, existing like one particle. Randomness is not choice, but still, it selects from all the choices, existing like the wave.
If randomness did not select and become choice in the perspective of the one chosen, neither would exist.
So does free will exist, in individuals of course it does, but the way most humans compute things, it is very difficult to see that the wave and the particle exist as one.
This may not compute for you but i will try. How can something be randomly chosen without a choice to choose in the first place.
Because it is not chosen in the first place, there never was a beginning; every choice is the first choice depending on the perspective. Every choice in the first place was made after the choice to select out of randomness.
If that does not compute try this:
The free will of your mind is the ability to make choice but every choice is the first choice after the choice is chosen in perspective to the chooser.
We are all one mind but with many perspectives. I am you at the same time you are me, it is only the random choice that once chosen (not before) that make us individuals like the particle. You have your perspective and i have mine. This perspective stays with the individual, like the particle.
No? Then how can something be “Randomly Chosen?” Would it not just stay random? No choice, no particle, no individual.
Would you not still be reconsidering from your own perspective?
Maybe you meant reconsidering choice-
You could reconsider your choice but wouldn’t that be the beginning of yet another choice, and that choice would then have to be first selected from randomness?
So are we not back to having free will randomly chosen?
Where does the free will come from to choose?
Randomness is the opposite of choice or free will.
*Free will (a choice) must first exist as every choice before it can exist.
It can only exist after the fact (of choosing) which does not compute.
For a mind a perspective is born from choice, but only after the fact.
i.e One mind with the many perspectives.
This concept computes and is even backed by quantum entanglement, i think people just don’t like the idea that people they may have hurt or loved during their life were actually themselves with another perspective.
P.S. This is just stating why it may be this way, i don’t think of it as proof.
so randomness or disorder comes first . before free-will , is that what your suggesting?
In the first act:
The act of selecting from randomness creates the individual perspective, the free will.
But look at it, free will was the act that choose.
Free will did not exist when it chose???
Only randomness existed???
The whole wave is contained in every particle
i.e randomness is contained in every choice.
Which leads me to suggest…
All minds are contained in every mind.
Or simply there is only one mind with all perspectives.
if that is so , why did I not agree with you once you mentioned your idea?
That would be because you are an individual with your own perspective.
exactly
Since all individuals cannot be directly monitored by law enforcement, there must be something else which gives them conscience and more so, fear. This was the first function of religious indoctrination and propaganda (you can watch a monty python skit and get the idea). “Freewill” was a necessary aspect of that program…for ethical reasons. Really “God” was like the cop in the sky, you could say, who kept an eye on everyone.
The effect of this belief made men assume the capacity for freewill. This freewill was the capacity to decide between courses of action that were either condemned by God or honored by God…whatever…and this mediation was the origin of the conscience.
Just try to think in terms of man’s consciousness and conscience being a gradual development in both the complexity of language and the bodies physiology. The concept of “freewill” is not simple enough to explain the events in the world and all acts, both mental (psychic) and physical. “Freewill” is like a pragmatic myth that has gestated itself in human psychology over the last few thousand years…and it is only recent. Some scientists speculate that civilizations might have existed with people who had no complex language and no real sense of “self”. So apparently the religious myth of freewill was not yet evolved.
The concept of freewill is contingent to our particular language “memes” and cultures. This doesn’t mean it is “true”, but only useful. I don’t mean to make this confusing. It is perfectly unnecessary for the idea of “freewill” to exist in the world.
This is funny. The only thing you would notice differently in the world would be language. Language would be missing the ordinary possessive tenses and proper nouns. That’s it. Nothing else would be different. I could walk up to you and say “how is that person doing today” and you could say “this person is fine” and we’d know it was me talkin’ to you, see.
How would the world be without the concept of freewill? You couldn’t say “more violent” because there are as many ways to control violence as there are to create it.
Whatever it is that people think is the result of the world believing in freewill, could just as easily exist in a world where nobody believed in freewill.
Useless, confusing, metaphysical garbage for priests, politicians, and judges.
Compatibalism and soft determinism try to make “practical” freewill possible but both of them fail.
A contingent set of choices only means that consciousness can posit different intentional ends…but these ends do not exist, they are transcendent, they are “in the mind” and they exist as possible realities in “profile” to awareness and memory. For example, to decide to go to the car rather than order a pizza involves motives and ends which are transcendent to the empirical conditions of either act. These are the “choices” manifested in the event of deciding a course of action. When a “choice” is made, it is made toward something that not yet is. Although the possible choices are determined and contingent to the circumstances- one’s “field of possibilities”- the experience of choosing is out of time, so to speak. Since the ends and intentions of the acts are “to be determined” while the contingent conditions which create the possible choices are entirely determined.
“Choosing” is projecting an ideal end transcendent to a set of circumstances by manipulating means toward achieving that end. The circumstances, the field of possibilities, are/is determined.
everything you say here, except for “the experience of choosing is out of time”, is in accord with determinism, because in determinism the mind is still choosing toward an end, which wouldnt have happened without that choice, given that the mind is a part of the causal chain. i dont believe in determinism and hence compatibilism, but perhaps with this argument we can get more toward what you’re really saying.
Yes yes but the question is not if there’s a will and a choice is imagined to be made by the individual, but whether it is a free choice that he makes in relation to his logic and knowledge rather than his internal and external influences. To be able to think beyond “how do i attract a mate” or “how do i get that fruit off the tall tree”, thoughts enslaved by his instinct even though they are doubtlessly thoughts, he does indeed believe the actions following those thoughts to be his choice and and indeed they are though not ‘free’ choices as they were triggered by an instinctive method of thinking.
"The free will of your mind is the ability to make choice but every choice is the first choice after the choice is chosen in perspective to the chooser. We are all one mind but with many perspectives. I am you at the same time you are me, it is only the random choice that once chosen (not before) that make us individuals like the particle. You have your perspective and i have mine. This perspective stays with the individual, like the particle. "
I would have to agree that everything is a result of
something else and that in general the laws of nature can be applied to the laws of the human mind but that absolute randomness, even on the quantum level, although it is randomness, is still to be fully explored. Mechanical physics and quantum physics don’t exactly go
hand in hand, but assuming that our knowledge of quantum physics is complete means to believe that absolute randomness exists with relation to nothing else, that all 4 forces were a result of simple probability on the large scale, all laws of mechanics would be absolutely void and I would then have to conclude that existence was founded upon and is sustained by an absolute lack of purpose and order is as likely to collapse as it was to be created; an unlikely though inevitable event.
It is impossible to tell the path of any given electron, any electron can be anywhere at any time, but they are where they are at the time they are because we are. We perceive them; the world would have no purpose were it not perceived. We are all made of the same things, but the fact that we are made of the same physical matter does not make us the same on the mental level. We can look at things by quarks and say everything IS the same. Yet, our understanding of existence in physicality and time is enough to prove that no two things are the same. Just like that, the frequency of two things is also never exactly the same. Yet, although the physical world affects the mental and the mental if by many limitations affects the physical, they are not made of the same things. Although the electron’s mass is irrelevant when compared with that of the proton and neutron, it is still far from absent. The force that an electrons emits keeps the order in the universe. Its force and size are in no way related. Similarly, I don’t find it plausible to prove that mental ‘free’ choice is a result of physical randomness and therefore randomness is the base of choice;assuming it is as that, then free will can have no logic behind it but simple probability and therefore we are unable to rationalize? If we are one consciousness, are we a random consciousness existing because randomness resulted in existence after a period of non-existence by probability?
I am very sceptical about pure free choice, and as an engineer I do appreciate the beauty and magnificence of particles and physics, yet to believe that everything simply is as it is due to randomness, then one must remain ignorant of all science and believe that everything simply is as it is because it happened to be and could very well not be. Order would be impossible.
If I were to believe in randomness, I would have to present this chain:
There was nothing → There was something → Something arranged itself
in relation to itself (physics and chemistry were established in a moment on a universal scale) → Organisms came to being (life and biology are established) → Organism evolves and only one of many gains consciousness and perceives the world around it in relation not only to himself, but also to all else surrounding him.
It seems illogical and improbable to believe that randomness alone would create a physically perfect self-sustaining existence in a moment and that physically perfect existence would give life to creatures to be aware of it, and some of those creatures would by chance happen to be the same people typing on a virtual non-existent world, which happens to exist only so far as they perceive it.
Every particle makes up a greater being, true, but each particle does as its nature instructs it so long as it exists, self-serving and selfish and ultimately contributing in some way to the group but the group doesn’t necessarily have to be aware of each particle. for example, we don’t need to be aware of each cell for it to perform a certain task.
I think the ultimate conclusion thus far has been that free will is at best limited to instinct and a will, though not free. At worst, there is no free will and we are simply a series of effects emanating from some ultimately random cause with no purpose.
North:
It is not one mind as in one great circle with all minds contained within, this would be how you are computing it when you said:
The circle being drawn is around every particle, the electrons orbit around the atom. The atom being mass made from the mass less particles which I am assuming come from just one fundamental force.
The atom like your mind is an individual.
The individual is the Particle, the non individual, the one, is the fundamental and mass less force, this is the Wave. They are one in the same; the one is contained in (or draws a circle {sphere} around) every particle. Every particle is the one and in every way a particle can form or combine it is still remains the one.
A brain is formed from particles, sure it forms an individual, every choice and thought is completely individual, forming a single unique personality.
The one is the owner or experiencer of the individual, the “non individual”, it plays no part in thought, it only gives reference to ones own self, it is who ideas are thought to within your head, the i in thought when thinking of self.
This is the Mind I referred to in "All minds are contained in every mind†just to clarify the definition.
one question right now , which is , is the proton massless?