Og

How exactly does that "decision to change or act differently" come about? Aren't there "breaking points" for deterministic things like bridges and elevators and such? Why would you consider the ability of a human to change behavior to be some sort of "free" act that is completely undriven by external forces (i.e. free will).

Why must the human brain be considered a "locked machine in a rut" and that the ability to change out of this pattern is free will? Why can't the ability to recognize a thought pattern through feedback of your own thoughts be a drive to change the nature of your thought patterns? Why is this free?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

romansh

Hi AB
Og answered the breaking point / changing minds ... 'free will' aspect eloquently as ever. Now, I'm on the verge of being completely convinced that we have none. OK I could be wrong, but I don't think so. The really interesting question for me now is what do I do next? ...

Well in someways it won't be a lot different from say yesterday or six months ago. But it does mean when I make important decisions, you know whether the United States should invade China (and the like), I need review and understand my influences. If I had free will these influences are irrelevant. My values where do they come from? My behaviours, my English spelling ...

Is that so bad for not having free will?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

AB517

I agree with this.

What I disagree with is the all or nothing point of view.

Free acts or not separate from external or internal forces. At the risk of sounding harsh, most people are nothing more than your confluences of events Og. If you do not understand this I can not help you. Closed minded people are not free. Open minded people are “more free”. This feed back system is the way the brain works and we can only “be” as we are “made” so in that sense we are not free. I am free to choose what thoughts I allowed to be fed back through the system to an extent. I am not free to choose the “break through” thoughts that “pop up” so in that sense I am not free.

I say this again and it is obvious that you guys still do not see it. If had had to pluck a number from a hat to describe the amount of free will we have I would say 98% programmed and 2% free will. I can understand less free will than that but I will not accept zero percent, it just does not match observation.

You can call it an illusion, but this is an opinion, this is your faith statement.
There is a certain amount of randomness associated with what we see, from subatomic particles to cosmic events, I think free will is something a-kin to this. These events are not saperate from the universe, they are part of it.

I would like to see what happens when we build a machine capable of the number of calculations per unit time that we have in our heads. I do not mean a replica of our brains.

Og

Calling it an illusion is not an opinion. It's a hypothesis based on strong evidence from cellular/molecular/behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and electrical and computer engineering.

"Open Minded" is just a state of a machine. It indicates functionality that adapts to new information. The Ego is the source of the illusion that there is free will. Saying "I am not free" makes no sense. If you are not free (and you truly realize this) then you are not an "I" (ego).

I am not saying that anyone should discard their ego and pierce the illusion. "I have free will" is certainly a valid statement! "I" and "free will" are both illusions and define each other. It is a self consistent statement.

People should keep their gods because they work to an extent for now. As we move forward and ask questions about the nature of the universe and existence, the reality that we are all one gigantic continuous process (where each one of us is ENTIRELY a confluence of sub-events in that process) is going to have to surface. As the world shrinks due to population increase and communications, the notion of being separate is going to have to go out the window.

When christians argue "we have free will" I tend to nod and let them live on that (that's a thread that will unravel their whole world if pulled on). If they start telling me me that I must believe it, I smile and will frequently tell them that I do and that it means a great deal to me (and I'm not lieing or patronizing them).

When they come to a forum on the internet designed for discussion of things like this, they have broken the seal and the thread will be tugged.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

shadowind

why not pull the thread? unravel their entire sweater, maby they'll see why it was to hot to begin with.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

Og

Because you don't do that to someone walking around in the world. Basically it's a "you break it, you buy it" mentality that I have. I'd feel responsible for them after that.

Would you go around and tell little kids that Santa doesn't exist? I wouldn't. It's an identical situation.

It's when they come out of their little bubbles and start causing a problem. Until we get education treated as more important than military and we can go into 2 trillion dollars of debt (i.e. the iraq war bill) in funding our educational system, we need stop gap measures to keep people from committing mass suicide or mass crimes. Until people are trained to think for themselves, we need an authority which they can look to (God). This is the ENTIRE point of Santa Clause.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

GX

I am with you on this one AB. Most behavior is indeed driven as OG states. We wouldnt be able to function without automatic subconscious reaction. However, they cannot definitively prove that there is no "free will" or some subatomic independent force we do not yet understand and now choose to call "consciousness" "free will" or whatever. Though I cannot prove otherwise, I wish to remain "agnostic" about the free will issue, strongly leaning towards some level of its existence. I have a feeling that OG and Romansh are quite "atheistic" in this regard. Nevertheless, it is an interesting debate and this board is one of the very few places on the internet where these kinds of debates take place. May the agnostic forum continue on and prosper!

romansh

True the fact that free will does not exist cannot be proved. Can anything? I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, logic, theory, evidence (precedent) indicates that it will. Similarly evidence and logic points to there being no free will.

Show me your logic and evidence to the contrary ...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

GX

Will do! Lets start with consciousness that can exist outside of the body. If consciousness can exist outside of the body, that implies a "will" separate from the brain and body. Dr. Raymond Moody documented one particular near death experience case that defies all logic. A 70 year old woman was rendered totally blind (were talking irreparable eye damage here) at age 17. Before this she was able to see quite well and was aware of the experience of sight. She went in for an operation and "died" for several minutes on the operating table but was revived. When she awoke, she spoke of floating above the operating room with restored sight and was able to describe, in minute detail what she saw. She was accurately able to visually describe what the OR and OR personnel looked like (colors etc.), the type and color of watch the doctor was wearing etc. Of course when she "awoke" she was still totally blind.

My logical explanation is that "consciousness" (for lack of a better "scientific" term) exists at some subatomic level we do not yet understand within the body and can leave the body.

What is your logical explanation?

shadowind

intresting, was she wrong on anything, like colors and such?
since shes blind she wouldn't know like subcousously and replay it back when her brain was losing o2 or something, unless she learnt to attach liklyhoods and such at 17 and held on to them, like a sterotype of other senses going with sterotypical sights(seems unlikly though), its a intresting story. also if her eyesight problem was effected by the state of being dead that might have something to do with it, was she totally blind, she couldn't see shadows or anything right? intresting though, any body else has any ideas?

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll