(October 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: Why would we not want to act? The risk is too great not to.

Under your definition, you do not have a 'want'. It seems for you there is some magical force making you do things, independent of yourself.

(October 5, 2010 at 6:52 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Things can already be predicted, it is already known, in this world even if this is an indeterministic one.

...I don't deny determinism though.

That is fate then!!!

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:And furthermore, what if the Police are determined to fail at preventing the criminal from committing his crime?

They arn't, so you will get caught. This is a classic example of your flawed logic. What if........then a totally random example with no significance.

(October 5, 2010 at 7:12 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There is only freedom from things.

What! What are things?

(October 5, 2010 at 7:49 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Physical freedom exists but that's it. My will is not free. My will is what drives me. I am only free in the sense a car driven by an unfree robot is free..... I am physically free. A bird has freedom in the sense it has the ability or "freedom" to fly. But it are we are both not free in the sense that what actually drives us, our wills, aren't free.

This is ridiculous. A bird has the freedom to fly!!! So, we don't have the freedom to walk, run or fly a plane. Another example of your severly flawed logic.

Your will is not what drives you. This is a massive assumption. One that I will not prescribe too.

(October 6, 2010 at 6:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And the present is already present. The moment you think you have changed it it has already become the past. So how can you change that?

As theVOID says, I don't believe in free will because I don't believe we are acausal.

You think ahead.

You two seem to be thinking along the same flawewd logic lines. And you both sound like serial killers. I hope this force (or whatever this independent thing that drives you is) dosen't make you do something stupid. You may have a very long time to think about it.

And, im not going to answer your flawed logic & semantics any more, unless ofcourse, I choose to do so. lol

ib.me.ub Wrote:Sorry EVF, but this logic is flawed.

Quote:They arn't, so you will get caught. This is a classic example of your flawed logic.

Quote:Another example of your severly flawed logic.

Quote:You two seem to be thinking along the same flawewd logic lines.

Quote:And, im not going to answer your flawed logic & semantics any more, unless ofcourse, I choose to do so. lol

Yeah man, you tell them, you tel them that their knowledge is weak, their logic is flawed, and all attempts from them to get an explanation from you are futile. [/sarcasm]

Quote:And you both sound like serial killers.

Yeah, your logic is so great, you can just murder reason with it by taking this... funny conclusion.

lol. Is that it. Let me have it, man. Im not going to argue with you, man. I believe their logic is flawed, man. If you don't like it, well bad luck, man.

Actually, by the sounds of that, yours probably is too. Or are they your friends. Oh, I forgot, a friends flawed logic is ok, because they are your friends. Ah, don't worry LastPoet they will still like you. ;-)

Does that mean I am a serial killer too?

Do you get the point?

Quote:Actually, by the sounds of that, yours probably is too. Or are they your friends. Oh, I forgot, a friends flawed logic is ok, because they are your friends. Ah, don't worry LastPoet they will still like you.

Guess not, do you want me to explain? Oh, wait, my logic is flawed too, so you don't wanna hear...

(October 10, 2010 at 1:32 am)LastPoet Wrote: Does that mean I am a serial killer too?

You could be.

From my entire post, you pick the 'serial killer' statement. Get seroius, man. Is that all you can come up with from my entire post!

(October 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote:

(October 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: Why would we not want to act? The risk is too great not to.

Under your definition, you do not have a 'want'. It seems for you there is some magical force making you do things, independent of yourself.

1. The fact that i have wants is self evident saying otherwise is just absurd, the meaning of the word does not change whether my wants are caused or uncaused. I say they are fully caused by constituents operating under physical law, a causal chain that leads to each of my actions based on the totality of all psychological and physical processes involved prior to that moment. There is absolutely no way to discern between the two based on behavior because all of the same known behavioral phenomenon can be accounted for in each.

2. There is no 'magical force' making me do things, just the laws of nature playing out, some of it is of course independent of me, such as the situation, the laws of nature that allow for the nature of the chemical bonds in my body, the nature of my brain etc. So most of the resulting want has to do with factors that are entirely within me, but there are also external factors in play at every decision. All of the memories i have, all my knowledge and beliefs, previous experiences, social conditioning etc are all things that will cause me to act differently than given the same situation where these things are markedly different. This too is all part of causality, and i doubt you would argue that this doesn't happen.

(October 5, 2010 at 6:52 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Things can already be predicted, it is already known, in this world even if this is an indeterministic one.

...I don't deny determinism though.

That is fate then!!! [/quote]

Not really, fate usually suggests some cosmic plan rather than a causal chain that happened because of it's nature rather than any intentions. They are in the same ballpark of ideas but are significantly different in the 'why'.

Quote:You think ahead.

You two seem to be thinking along the same flawewd logic lines. And you both sound like serial killers. I hope this force (or whatever this independent thing that drives you is) dosen't make you do something stupid. You may have a very long time to think about it.

And, im not going to answer your flawed logic & semantics any more, unless ofcourse, I choose to do so. lol

There is no flawed logic, you just don't have a clue what the issues are, which is entirely typical for you.

I sound like a serial killer? Yeah, because all serial killers favor preventing action under substantial suspicion right? It's pretty obvious that you have never encountered these ideas before because you're responses are utter nonsense.

What do you think the necessary mechanism is for free will? Massive segments of information in the brain have to break causality and act according to some entirely different non-mechanism, so do you have any idea what that non-mechanism is? And how can you show that it exists?

Causality is demonstrable, acusal events are not, so assuming an acausal mind is an unsubstantiated assumption to say the least. These are specifically the same assumptions that are unwarranted in any decent epistemology.

Quote:There is no flawed logic, you just don't have a clue what the issues are, which is entirely typical for you.

It is also typical of you obviously. This is why you get on my nerves. You think it is ok you to sprout off and say whatevr you like, but when someone else does it about you, they are the worst person in the your World.

theVoid Wrote:What do you think the necessary mechanism is for free will?{/quote]

Evolution of the brain to a certain level of self awarness.

Massive segments of information in the brain have to break causality and act according to some entirely different non-mechanism, so do you have any idea what that non-mechanism is? And how can you show that it exists?

Self-awareness. It exist because I understand that I am a self controlled sentient being, as most people do.

So, I do not think that free will is acuasal. It has causality and can be proven to exist. It is caused by the way a complex brain (be it human or otherwise) has evolved to understand the self. Why we understand is another topic.

Quote:1. The fact that i have wants is self evident saying otherwise is just absurd, the meaning of the word does not change whether my wants are caused or uncaused. I say they are fully caused by constituents operating under physical law, a causal chain that leads to each of my actions based on the totality of all psychological and physical processes involved prior to that moment. There is absolutely no way to discern between the two based on behavior because all of the same known behavioral phenomenon can be accounted for in each.

2. There is no 'magical force' making me do things, just the laws of nature playing out, some of it is of course independent of me, such as the situation, the laws of nature that allow for the nature of the chemical bonds in my body, the nature of my brain etc. So most of the resulting want has to do with factors that are entirely within me, but there are also external factors in play at every decision. All of the memories i have, all my knowledge and beliefs, previous experiences, social conditioning etc are all things that will cause me to act differently than given the same situation where these things are markedly different. This too is all part of causality, and i doubt you would argue that this doesn't happen.

I don't diagree with this, its called free will.

(October 14, 2010 at 5:54 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

Quote:There is no flawed logic, you just don't have a clue what the issues are, which is entirely typical for you.

It is also typical of you obviously. This is why you get on my nerves. You think it is ok you to sprout off and say whatevr you like, but when someone else does it about you, they are the worst person in the your World.

You were the one who came out all guns blazing and declaring everyone else illogical mate, so either show that you know what you are talking about by actually pointing out flaws in the reasoning, or stop complaining when you get called out.

Quote:

theVoid Wrote:What do you think the necessary mechanism is for free will?

Evolution of the brain to a certain level of self awarness.

What is this level of self awareness? Do animals have free will too, or is this something that only evolved in us? Does it apply to elephants and apes that have a distinct sense of self?

Quote:

Quote:Massive segments of information in the brain have to break causality and act according to some entirely different non-mechanism, so do you have any idea what that non-mechanism is? And how can you show that it exists?

Self-awareness. It exist because I understand that I am a self controlled sentient being, as most people do.

Nothing exists based on your understanding of it... And you accuse me of poor reasoning And how does something being aware of it's ego and some other functions make it's will acasual?

What creates this self awareness and how is it able to escape causality?

Quote:So, I do not think that free will is acuasal. It has causality and can be proven to exist. It is caused by the way a complex brain (be it human or otherwise) has evolved to understand the self. Why we understand is another topic.

Self awareness does not equate to free-will. If you don't think the brain can act in a way that is not caused then you are arguing against your own position. The outcome of a causal view of the brain is a causal view of will, and that type of will is not 'free' in the contra-causal sense, but at the most a from of compatiblism

Quote:I don't diagree with this, its called free will.

How is it free will? You haven't explained any of that. The idea i just described has been known for hundreds of years as the idea of caused will, which is not free.

(October 14, 2010 at 5:54 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: I don't diagree with this, its called free will.

Do you distinguish between random will and free will? I can think of, at least in theory, someways for will to be formulated in such a way as to be truly unpredictable even in principle. But I would not regard that as conceptually the same as "free" will, which in principle should be predictable by you, but no one else.

Randomness is just as non-free as determinism, in either scenario you did not have contra-causal responsibility for your choices.