Is there really such thing as free will? - Page 6 - Political Forum

USViking · 03-05-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Really? Because that is what I would call this:

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

All conclusions are required by your premises THATS THE POINT

In your case the conclusion is required because
it is assumed by the premises, not because the
premises are true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

You have yet to explain which premise specifically is wrong.

Go back and look at my post #65 page #7.

The last premise of your latest syllogism is another
way of stating the second premise which I identified
and expanded for you in post #65. They both contain
the conclusion you think you are "proving".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

No I am not introducing new 'forces' I'm explaining how things like family situation/genetic disposition/phychology break down into physical processes.

What do you mean by "physical processes"?

If you mean "laws of physics" then to avoid confusion
use that term since it is what you have been using up
to now. And if that is what you mean, then no, you
certainly have not made an explanation. The family must
obey the law of physics. That is not evidence that
the laws of physics deny Free Will to family members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

I'm still very much using the laws of physics as my basis, did you fall asleep or something while reading this section?[:

No, but you seem to have fallen asleep while writing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

That would explain it...

The tedium is really getting to me here.

jaimesal · 03-05-2008, 11:30 AM

I do think there is free will, because right now I have a free will of continue my writing in this screen or just finish, and freely I make a decision right now to continue my writing because I want to finish my message. However I dont feel a compulsive need to do it although I wouldnt like to not finish my message because it would make no sense to me. To me that is free will.

USViking · 03-05-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Is that all you have?

It is all I need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

ALL premises at some point have to be assumed to be true. If someone made a conclusion based on the premise 1+1=2 could he PROVE that 1+1=2? No, you could request a premise to be proven NO MATTER WHAT THE PREMISE IS which is why they HAVE to be assumed true/given.

Some very few premises are obvious enough
to require no evidence, such as 1+1=2.

But how about this: if AB = X does then BA = X?

The answer happens to be "not necessarily" if A
and B are part of a matrix, and this is a provable
mathematical fact. The point in bringing this up is
to illustrate that a premise which seems intuitively
true to YOU may be true in some but not all cases,
and unless you are careful with your premises you
can get your head handed to you in argumentation,
as your experience in this thread illustrates.

I doubt anyone in the history of philosophy would quibble
with the following syllogism, because both premises are
sufficiently obvious, and the conclusion may be logically
deduced from them:

Premise (1) Socrates was a man
Premise (2) All men are mortal
Conclusion (3) Socrates was mortal.

However, this syllogism is a different story:

Premise (1) Socrates was a man
Premise (2) All men have souls
Conclusion (3) Socrates had a soul.

Premise (2) lacks the standing in evidence that
"All men are mortal" possesses. Evidence is also
a problem with your premises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

No stop right there. I asked you give me a specific premise, directly quote it, don't give me this paraphrasing, cross-referencing BS. "Another way of stating".

You know that none of my premises in my formal statemnt was wrong which is why you consistently refuse to directly acknowledge one of them.

I'll even number them for you to make it easier.

1. Premise: The body is comprimised entirely of matter.

2. Premise: Matter, in all combinations and forms, is subject entirely to the laws of physics.

3. Premise: The body is subject entirely to the laws of physics. (premises 1 and 2 combined)

4. Premise: Free will requires that your body move based on your will to at very least some degree.

5. Premise: If the body is subject entirely to the laws of physics (premise 3) then motion that body makes can be only based on the laws of physics.

Conclusion: The body does not have free will.

Directly tell me which # is wrong and why. Not ONE of those premises contains the conclusion

No problemmo:

Premises 2-3-4-5 assume that Free Will
is incompatible with the Laws of Physics
which is also your conclusion.

Don't take my word for it: e-mail your syllogism
to any university Philosophy Department for a
professional opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Yes, essentialy I'm reffering to the laws of physics.

If you break it down far enough it will be a physical process. Think of it this way. The only thing that exists is physical proccesses (atoms and molecules and energy, ect) right?

No, not exactly. Physical processes also involve
forces whose interplay with matter is nowhere near
completely understood. And their relationship to
the mind is even less well understood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

So things like 'family' 'choices' 'life' relationships', everything builds up from physical processes, so conversely eveything breaks down back into physical processes.

Get back on this after you untangle the dynamics,
or can cite an authority who thinks he has untangled them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

This suggests to me that you are conveniently and selectively responding to things that fit your liking, kind of weak.

It should be obvious to you by now that I specialize
in line-by-line and phrase-by-phrase very detailed
rebuttal, leaving absolutely nothing out.

I only use the contemptuous ZZZZZZ in cases of the
most blockheaded repetitiousness by an opponent.

Charlie_Harper · 03-05-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaimesal

I do think there is free will, because right now I have a free will of continue my writing in this screen or just finish, and freely I make a decision right now to continue my writing because I want to finish my message. However I dont feel a compulsive need to do it although I wouldnt like to not finish my message because it would make no sense to me. To me that is free will.

Exactly, from our perspective. But if God ultimately knows that you will type away on the keyboard like that kid from War Games, could you have chosen to do otherwise? If any outcome is known with absolute certainty there is no choice to be made.

USViking · 03-05-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Require no evidence? by who's standard and who's opinion?

You are free to reject the truth the the premise
1+1=2 for lack of evidence.

If you do then others might consider you to be a
crank or a bozart, but that would be their problem
and not your problem, wouldn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

That can be said of anything. It's hyper-skepticism.

Can what be said of anything?

It is in no way skeptical to suggest that you
be careful how to state your premises.

What is hyper-skeptical is to reject a premise on
the grounds that nothing can ever be proven,
as you do below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Prove Socrates was a man. He could have been a female,

Substitute "human" for "man".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

a God,

Substitute "Bronze Medal" for "Socrates",
taking into account your own philosophical convictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

maybe he didn't exist at all.

Substitute "Bronze Medal" for "Socrates",
taking into account your own philosophical convictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Prove all men are mortal. It's statistically likely but not impossible. If someone was supernatural they might be immortal and you don't know that he wasn't supernatural. If his genetic material had the ability to continuously regenrate he may have been immortal (By that I mean, people die of 'age' because a specific gene in our body expends a small amount of protein to replicate and create new cells and eventually your cells run out of that protein and cannot replace old cells which leads to some sort of organ failure) Even this conclusion relies on assuming the premises are true and those premises cannot be proven and never can be proven.

You are the one who is all tied up in knots
over the need for proof.

I am satisfied with the evidentiary record
for universal mortality among human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

No it's the exactly same story, all premises must be assumed.

You must assume them. I am free to rebut them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Wrong. The only premise that even mentions free will is 4 which states:

"Free will requires that your body move based on your will to at very least some degree."

A conclusion need not be named in the premises
of a begged question. It may only be implied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

So what about that statement do you not agree with?

I agree with the statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

And I will say it again, my conclusion relies on my PREMISES being true and nothing more. The conclusion IS that physics are incompatible with free will and it's backed up by the premises.

Let's look at premises 2-3-4-5:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

2. Premise: Matter, in all combinations and forms, is subject entirely to the laws of physics.

You assume in this premise that "subject entirely"
means "incompatible" with Free Will, but that
assumption is also your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

3. Premise: The body is subject entirely to the laws of physics. (premises 1 and 2 combined)

The repeated phrase "subject entirely" means the
same thing it does in premise (2) and so also
assumes your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

4. Premise: Free will requires that your body move based on your will to at very least some degree.

The phrase "move based on your will" is assumed
contradictory to the laws of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

5. Premise: If the body is subject entirely to the laws of physics (premise 3) then motion that body makes can be only based on the laws of physics.

The phrase "only based on" means the same
as "subject entirely to" and so also assumes
your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

It does not need to be COMPLETELY understood,

I said: "NOWHERE NEAR completely"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

unless that force involves BREAKING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

...in other words the state if scientific ignorance
on the subject of Free Will is now so total that
there is no way of knowing whether Free Will
contradicts Scientific Law, or if they coexist.

I have heard of one and one only neurological experiment
(involving electrode attachments and the rest of the nine
yards of such apparati) which purported to support determinism
in decision-making.

According to the evidence some electromagnetic impulses
were detected when one would expect them in the event
of predetermined decision.

I hope that science looks deeper here, even though
the one and only experiment I have heard of supports
your conclusion rather than mine.

I take comfort in the fact that it will take a lot more
experiments before Square One is reached.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

it does NOT obstruct my premises (which only deals with matter, the laws of physics and what our body/brain is made of) and also my conclusion.

Your premises are hopelessly entangled with your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

Unless the atoms that make up your brain can display a property that DEFIES the laws of physics it does not matter.

See above.

It is over.

Goodbye.

lordoftheworld · 03-30-2008, 02:56 PM

God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving. If god is all knowing, how can you have free will, since He already knows? I'll tell you.

God is all powerful, He can limit himself to not look at your future, allowing you to make choices. B/c once He looks He determines what you must do otherwise He would not be god. God is still all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, but He chooses to not know what you are going to do so that you can have free will.

Finally, Gods ways are too complex for the human to understand.

Future Leader · 04-04-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordoftheworld

Gods ways are too complex for the human to understand.

so you're saying that humans can't comprehend gods plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordoftheworld

He chooses to not know what you are going to do so that you can have free will.

it looks like you know what he's up to

mairead · 04-04-2008, 06:15 AM

I think most folk use their logic and thought processes before making decisions.

JimmyFord · 04-06-2008, 01:37 PM

This is what it comes down to. Either your brain creates thoughts, meaning there is no free will, or your brain does NOT create thoughts, and there is free will.

I cannot say for certain as I do not know how a thought comes into existance. Neurons firing? How does that make words in my mind?

hbloms · 04-06-2008, 06:57 PM

No, there is no such thing as free will... It's an illusion...

In reality there's cause and effect... You get hungry you eat... You get cold you go inside... You get horny you have sex (or sumthin)...

In the case of a all divine god granting free will i would like to thank Will Wright for letting me create this example:

In the Sims 2 you build your house and create your family. Then you can control each of them. If you don't wish to control all of them they can be put on self-control. But are they actually controlling themselves or not?
You see Will as the creator might have made it possible for them to move around by themselves, but he still made the world they move in and gave them the needs for which they move...

Is that really free will? Or just an illusion of self-control created by the fact thet you decide whether or not to eat... But isn't there a reason as to why you wouldn't eat?