Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kullervo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"There is no mechanism for free will.
It is not reducible to something else including what happened in the past."
BINGO!

And one never ever has to “prove” it exists for it to exist -

It is so self-evident that for any to suggest “prove it!”
easily raises wonders re: underlying Reasons for asking about our will which we constantly employ.

One of the very common main reasons - connects back to Genesis, Bible, Adam and Eve with Choice and their Sin - which necessitated the need for the Redeemer - Jesus.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
A mechanical system cannot overcome such a situation.
Click to expand...
So how does a purely mechanical system overcome the problem in which two outcomes have an equal potential to occur?

Classic example: The double slit experiment. How does the particle decide which slit to go through if the probability of it going through one or the other is exactly the same?

Does the particle have free will?
 
Last edited:
When a cricket sees me coming closer to it.
and then it quickly scurries to an escape hole,
It reflects action based upon observation and decision/choice of the will portion of its MIND

No. Not my will… It’s will 🙂
 
Back to: Can we be intellectually honest and believe in the freedom of man?

… As that applies to his will, is negated by an equal qualitative question:

Can we be intellectually honest if denying the free will of Man - as Reasoned By our Intellect?

Related… When any attempt to pin the cause of our will as being God’s Will…
By default, and by necessity, they are acknowledging an Existence - God.

Without bringing God into their Question, their 'Or is it God’s Will?" must vanish…

_
 
itsjustme said:
Your consciousness it would seem, only becomes involved at the end of the process, because it doesn’t seem to serve any purpose during the process, at least as far as your visual awareness is concerned. Now it would seem probable that the same holds true for reasoning and decision making, in that our consciousness is the result of the process, not an active participant in the process.
Click to expand...
Big difference between image processing (spotting and recognizing an obstacle, let us say) and reasoning/deciding (determining what to do about the obstacle - walk around, climb over, tunnel under, blow up, …).
 
STT said:
40.png
itsjustme:
So how does a purely mechanical system overcome the problem in which two outcomes have an equal potential to occur?

Classic example: The double slit experiment. How does the particle decide which slit to go through if the probability of it going through one or the other is exactly the same?

Does the particle have free will?
Click to expand...
Yes, according to Wheeler’s experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler’s_delayed-choice_experiment
Click to expand...
Wow, this doesn’t happen very often, but you seem to be the most rational person in the thread at the moment. So let me ask you a couple of questions.

Are you implying that the Delayed Choice Experiment demonstrates that the particle has free will? If so, then why do particles act probabilistically when there’s a large enough sample size?

If you’re not implying that the particle has free will, then how does the Delayed Choice Experiment explain why the particle goes through one slit rather than the other, when the probabilities are exactly the same?

And can you give an example of a situation in which a person has to make a choice between two options, in which neither of those options is preferential to the other. I don’t believe that such a situation exists. But perhaps I’m wrong.
 
itsjustme said:
And can you give an example of a situation in which a person has to make a choice between two options, in which neither of those options is preferential to the other.
Click to expand...
Choosing what to have for dinner maybe.
 
STT said:
40.png
itsjustme:
That would seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, but how does one definitively prove that it’s true?
Click to expand...
Have you ever been in a situation that you cannot decide? A situation like when you like two options equally or when you are uncertain about what will happen in the future as the result of your decision. A mechanical system cannot overcome such a situation. We can. Therefore, we are free.
Click to expand...
If there is no reason for one choice over another then the choice is random. Which is not compatible with free will. If there are aspects of any given situation that suggest one choice over another then it could be said that those aspects determine the choice.
 
EndTimes said:
When a cricket sees me coming closer to it.
and then it quickly scurries to an escape hole,
It reflects action based upon observation and decision/choice of the will portion of its MIND

No. Not my will… It’s will 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s instinct. An argument against free will.
 
When a cricket sees me coming closer to it.
and then it quickly scurries to an escape hole,
It reflects action based upon observation and decision/choice of the will portion of its MIND

*That’s instinct. An argument against free will"

No it’s not… What is our Free Will?

And more to the Point what exactly does INSTINCT mean to you? I mean… Exactly…

As an aside: Curious and Connected:

Are We and the Cricket only guided by God’s Will?

Call it by whatever label one wants to employ -
the cricket displays non-pure-robotic intelligence.

It has a life. It seeks life by its recoiling against Death - as we all do.

What are you really attempting to (looks like via logic) prove and/or disprove?

_
 
Last edited:
How can one argue that free will does not exist because we are purely material, in a deterministic universe, yet accept that randomness does exist in a deterministic universe?

FWIW, you have it backwards.
 
EndTimes said:
When a cricket sees me coming closer to it.
and then it quickly scurries to an escape hole,
It reflects action based upon observation and decision/choice of the will portion of its MIND

*That’s instinct. An argument against free will"

No it’s not… What is our Free Will?

And more to the Point what exactly does INSTINCT mean to you? I mean… Exactly…

As an aside: Curious and Connected:

Are We and the Cricket only guided by God’s Will?

Call it by whatever label one wants to employ -
the cricket displays non-pure-robotic intelligence.

It has a life. It seeks life by its recoiling against Death - as we all do.

What are you really attempting to (looks like via logic) prove and/or disprove?

_
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to parse what you post. But thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
tafan2 said:
How can one argue that free will does not exist because we are purely material, in a deterministic universe, yet accept that randomness does exist in a deterministic universe?

FWIW, you have it backwards.
Click to expand...
Random, in the context we are using it, means that there is no way to determine the outcome of a given scenario. If you toss a coin, to all intents it is random because we have no way of knowing if it’s heads or tails.

If you have no way of determining why you made a decision, then even though it is effectively deterministic, we can clasify it as random.
 
When a cricket sees me coming closer to it.
and then it quickly scurries to an escape hole,
It reflects action based upon observation and decision/choice of the will portion of its MIND

That’s instinct. An argument against free will

No it’s not… What is our Free Will?

And more to the Point what exactly does INSTINCT mean to you? I mean… Exactly…?

“I find it difficult to parse what you post. But thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.”

Can we be intellectually honest in denying the free will of Man?

You’re welcome. It would assist parsing if you answered the questions…
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
If there is no reason for one choice over another then the choice is random.
Click to expand...
How about a situation where there is no specific reason, so the chooser decides to select randomly? The choice is random by definition, but the decision about method of selection is not.
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
Freddy:
If there is no reason for one choice over another then the choice is random.
Click to expand...
How about a situation where there is no specific reason, so the chooser decides to select randomly? The choice is random by definition, but the decision about method of selection is not.
Click to expand...
True. It was prompted by pertinent events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top