arkain101 Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 Eliminate will. What takes place? Without a will, then what is the choosing drive force? The controller, the chooser.. Do we then call it "instinct". If we continue with this, and call instinct our will. Then it is our instincts that make us choose. But, what then is an instinct. Is it an instinct to play, laugh, talk, walk, build, work, eat, drink? (you may see where I am going with this). Is life then instinctive? Even so, Are we not at least using mental effort to do these tasks? Do we not feel frustration, exhaustion, reward, success, accomplishment, love, freedom, satifaction. If we lable life instinct, or free will, the end result is logically indifferent. Instinct is what I see as the limited explaination. Free will is the open and unlimited explaination. We can say, I can experience and feel my instincts and make choices with them. Or we can say I will my experiences. In the end do you see how I see that free will is there in either conclusion? One last analogy. If we are playing a game like soccer or as some of you call it (football). Let us assume this game is a life or death situation. We must win, or we die. For an hour or more we are guided, forced, and influenced by the ball and the actions of others and the actions they put on the ball. We do not have the freedom of what to do if we want to live. We must "PLAY BALL"! to live, we must win. Even though we are caught up in this game, and nearly all our actions are surrounded around this one them, a ball, do we excluded free will out of this scenario just because there are rules, guidelines, consequences, and restrictions? I wouldnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 arkain101,Do we then call it "instinct". If we continue with this, and call instinct our will. Then it is our instincts that make us choose......We can say, I can experience and feel my instincts and make choices with them...You are forgeting the capability of thinking rationally to take decisions. Free will is applied when you have several different options to choice and pick one of them. This can be done instinctively or rationally. I think that free would only exist if there exist enough free degrees of freedom in the Universe behavior to let us be able to make our own options and take our own decisions."Degrees of freedom" is the same as "dimensions". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 I see. So for example. In that soccer game the ball comes flying at you face. "Instinctively" you have one option, Protect your face. Why would you protect your face? Is it because it is an instinct? Or is it because you designed your memory related reaction? Are you not responsible for your basic instinctive reactions? Some people might duck because thats the comman thing that worked before. They have memories of the discomfort and issues that come from being hit in the face. Some people might put up their hands because that is the technique that has worked well for them in the past unique experiences they had. Some people like a seasoned soccer player may just tilt their head down and head the ball in a certain direction because they have intentionally practiced this reaction and technique in the past for some time. Althought in the moment of NOW we may have instinctive reactions. Much of those quickly accessed actions can be and are purposely expected by previous practices and such with the willed INTENTION so that in future times our work and effort will become almost as we call "natural" or "instinctive". Much seems impossible understand or explain untill all the steps leading to the answer have been accomplished. Also, much seems miraculous and amazing when something has been revealed when all the steps leading up to that moment have been forgotten. (intended to support free will of self in a (not sure what to say..) restricted non-free world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuGZ Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 PuGZ, Deterministic free will has no sense, it is in contradiction of the definition of free will.It's not an illussion. Although we are influentiated by some things in the rest of the Universe (past experiences, others' thoughts, conditions in the environment, etc) we take our own decisions sometimes. If we would have a "deterministic mind" we would be machines and I don't think we are.Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'll expand upon this when I get home, but for now I'd advise that you read up on compatibilism and see why others may disagree with you regarding determinism and free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 To Martillo, 'Free Will' by any definition is pretty limited. The dinosaurs for instance didn't vote for being wiped out by a rogue solar body. No one I know of has made the decision 'not to die' and succeeded. Although if you truly had 'Free Will' surely it would top most peoples list of wishes. So you have to at least admit 'Free Will' is pretty limited. Simply adding more dimensions wont solve the problem of conciousness.If only it was that simple, sigh. To Tormod or other Admin, I think he is asking how many dimensions would be required to have a Physics that includes 'conciousness' or a explanation of what it is. I know this is a toughie but it is certainly worth asking. I would also like to know what Tormod or other admin staff think what 'conciousness' is. Obviously we know that conciousness resides in the convoluted areas of the brain. But nothing in the physics of neurons and synapses suggests why a large number of these structures should produce a thinking being. 'Thinking' of course is technically a 'non-physical event' but the brain is 'physical' and therefore physics should give us clues as to 'how' conciousness comes about. Cheers;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 As I've been looking about it, consciousness can't nor does it just "come about". I mean this in the same way a universe of energy and mass doesn't just come about. We know of this issue well in science. This is, the comman question of what came before the begginning of the universe if it had a birthing event such as the big bang, and how it is possible for it or anything for that matter to exist. If you truly begin to ask yourself; what is a thing, and you attempt to define it in it's purest form you will find that a thing is not a thing without your consciousness to create the existence of a thing. When consciousness is removed from the equation, a thing is and must be described as its purest form. It shall have no color. It shall have no shape. It shall have no difference from anything else it interacts with. All shall be of what exactly one would define light as made of. But energy is not made of anything, it is energy that infact allows things to be made, or let us say exist. It is energy that our consciousness interacts with in order for something to become a thing. Thus even consciousness itself and the senses that are intwined with it is more than a fluke, but a side of the equation that must be treated as much and as equally as the material cosmology of our universe. This is that one must ask the same question about how or where consciousness came from as we try to learn how the universe came into being. Each thing, the physical and the non physical are the same thing and are infact ONE. They must be two things but they must be one thing intwined intemitly for existence itself to be realised. Each of these things are designed with intention. They have and had been pre-designed, pre-capable, such as a hidden or mental blue print of which we are recievers of experiencing sections of these intended design. If you have difficulty understanding or taking in a sense of god or devine being these thoughts will help you understand and find the kind of perspective that opens the doors for one to find it logical. Spirit is defined as the essence of life or inside life, the somewhat unlogical state of being, that is the non-material material. It is a paradox to find anything more realised or Truth in its purest form than what you see as you look around you in the macroscopic level. At this scale the most fundamental level of reality is realised. I hope readers of this post do take the time to contemplate these things for a time. Not only is it beautiful and amazing, but helpful for us as people to see a level of things that we didnt realise was there but must be there for us to be. A spiritual source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 To arkain, You spent a lot of time saying nothing and you didnt even say what you think conciousness is ? So what do you think it is ? Cheers;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 snoopy,Consciousness is a matter of psychology, psichiatry and may be phylosophy. I don't see what it has to do here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 snoopy,Consciousness is a matter of psychology, psichiatry and may be phylosophy. I don't see what it has to do here. Wow you are hard to please Martillo !! ;) You previously posted I'm thinking now if the "free will" of living beings would imply in one or even more dimensions of the Universe... I'm assuming that 'free will' implies 'conciousness' maybe I'm wrong and the type of 'free will' you are talking about isn't linked to 'conciousness' Anyway 'conciousness' is a hard problem to insert into Physics because our present physics QM should explain how collections of neurons produce 'conciousness' but it doesn't. That was all....ho hum... sorry for treading on your toes 'n' all..... Cheers:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 snoopy,I think conciousness isrelated to the beings' capability to know the reality (conjunct of objects and phenomena existing and happening) around the being.I don't know the possible relationship between "free will" and conciousness but the subject in this thread is about the dimensions of the Universe. I can "see" that in order for the beings to have "free will" (possibility to choice what to think and do between some available options) the Universe must have at least one dimension (degree of freedom) for this to be possible (This does not apply to conciousness). If not the Universe would run as a huge machine and we also would be machines. GAHD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 snoopy,I think conciousness isrelated to the beings' capability to know the reality (conjunct of objects and phenomena existing and happening) around the being.I don't know the possible relationship between "free will" and conciousness but the subject in this thread is about the dimensions of the Universe. I can "see" that in order for the beings to have "free will" (possibility to choice what to think and do between some available options) the Universe must have at least one dimension (degree of freedom) for this to be possible (This does not apply to conciousness). If not the Universe would run as a huge machine and we also would be machines. There is no way you can have 'free will' without being conscious it simply isn't possible and it's highly illogical to suggest you can. Simply adding an extra dimension onto space-time will not give you 'free will' some sort of feedback loop into all the laws of motion is required and something similar to a Feynman diagram would also be required to show all possible outcomes from all possible decisions that a being with 'free will' could choose. All the decisions would then collapse to one single decision after the moment of 'choosing' had passed. This would necessarily lead to a very messy physics. But then I am not sure if anyone has 'free will', I am quite comfortable with the idea that the Universe is deterministic and that we are biological machines. Removing 'free will' to being something thing which is illusionary like 'the passage of time' and 'the existence of God'. Cheers:cheer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Snoopy: Are you saying that the passage of time is illusary and, if so, what do you mean by this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martillo Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 snoopy,Simply adding an extra dimension onto space-time will not give you 'free will' some sort of feedback loop into all the laws of motion is required and something similar to a Feynman diagram would also be required to show all possible outcomes from all possible decisions that a being with 'free will' could choose. All the decisions would then collapse to one single decision after the moment of 'choosing' had passed. This would necessarily lead to a very messy physics.I think you don't understand the point of the "free will".I mean that I have the free will in the weekend to choice if I go to the beach, a restaurant or to the cinema and there is no physical law that determines what I would do. My car is a machine and obeys all the physical laws while running but I only can give it the destination and is my choice, not a consequence of any physics law!Then there is enough degree of freedom in the Universe's laws to let me take that decision "freely". But then I am not sure if anyone has 'free will', I am quite comfortable with the idea that the Universe is deterministic and that we are biological machines. Removing 'free will' to being something thing which is illusionary like 'the passage of time' and 'the existence of God'.You could feel comfortable with that idea, I don't.It simply don't describe the world and the life (particularly my life) as I see they really behave.Furthermore everyone "drives" his life (and even others' lifes, ex: the president's decisions affect an entire country) through many decisions he takes in his history.We all have the possibility to enjoy this but we also have responsibilities about what we "choice"... I have taken a look at wikipedia about "free will" and it shows the large amount of tendencies in Phylosophy, some categorized and others that do not enter in any category.I feel simply disappointed that the mother of the Sciences, Phylosophy, is not able to reach a final conclusion about this subject. Phylosophy (with Logic) is not able to determine which tendency is right and which not. Only one is possible to be right, the true one, but current Science is not able to determine which is the true one...It is only shown many possibilities anyone could choice like to choice a game team!This shows how much our current Science need to evolve yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 snoopy, I think you don't understand the point of the "free will".I mean that I have the free will in the weekend to choice if I go to the beach, a restaurant or to the cinema and there is no physical law that determines what I would do. My car is a machine and obeys all the physical laws while running but I only can give it the destination and is my choice, not a consequence of any physics law! I think you don't really understand what I am getting at. You 'think' you have 'free will' to go to the beach, a restaurant or to the cinema. That is the illusion of 'free will' It appears to you that you have 'freedom of choice' to do these things but your thought processes are necessarily governed by natural laws. You are 'part of the universe' and therefore must be governed by those laws. What I am saying is that although it is 'self apparent' to 'you' that you have free will this is simply an 'illusion'. While standing on the face of the earth. It is 'self apparent' to me that the I am not moving and that the ground beneath my feet is not moving either.I am wrong on both counts and it is an 'illusion' that this is the case. It is also self apparent to me that the moon and the sun revolve around the earth while to me the earth doesn't move at all. I see this happen every day and night as the sun and moon cross the sky.Again I am wrong.This too is an 'illusion'. So when you 'think' you have 'free will' to go to 'the beach' for example you have to analyze what you mean by this. You look at atoms and molecules and you understand these things are governed by natural law. You look at your body and understand that it is made up of these same atoms and molecules. You have only one conclusion to make and that is you 'must' be subject to natural law as well. So in your example how much 'free will' do you have ?The wishes of your body as well as your mind play a part in the eventual outcome of your decision.But both are subject to natural law. If you are 'hungry' it is more than likely you will 'choose' to go to the restaurant.If you need some 'relaxation' it is more than likely you will go to the beach.If you have been 'influenced' by advertising at some earlier point in the week you might end up in the cinema. Whatever you decide will be 'the natural decision' for you at that time. Of course the processes involved in you determining this outcome are incredibly complex and therefore very difficult to predict what you will 'decide'. This complexity however doesn't mean that you have 'free will'. What I am saying is although you appear to have 'free will' you are wrong and that it is just an 'illusion' that you think you do. I feel simply disappointed that the mother of the Sciences, Phylosophy, is not able to reach a final conclusion about this subject. Phylosophy (with Logic) is not able to determine which tendency is right and which not. Philosophy doesn't seem able to reach conclusions about anything. Cheers:cheer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Snoopy: Are you saying that the passage of time is illusary and, if so, what do you mean by this? Yes I am saying that it is an 'illusion' that we 'seem' to be moving from the present into the future. I believe that the past, present and future all exist at once and it is simply an illusion that we feel this 'passage of time' as we are moving through the space-time block. It is an evolutionary perspective that has evolved to make sense of the universe but the universe doesn't seem to be like that at all. We only ever 'see' the 'present' but we cannot 'see' the past or 'future'. But we 'remember' past events and 'know' they happened although they are not happening 'now'. But I believe that the past and future 'exist' as does the present in a single space-time block and that 'everything' is predetermined. Although we cannot 'know' what will happen in the future due to 'complexity'. But in theory if you could calculate the position of every atom in the universe and had enough computational power you could deduce what happened at every moment of the past and what will happen at every moment in the future. But in practice you could not do this as it would require more matter and energy than exists in the entire universe to accomplish. Cheers:cheer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Are you suggesting that without this illusion I would experience being both alive and dead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopy Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Are you suggesting that without this illusion I would experience being both alive and dead? No I don't think you could ever experience being dead, you would be dead and therefore not alive to experience it. You will only ever experience being alive, you will never have any experience of what it is like not to be born or being dead. That said I think you mean are you both alive and dead inside the space-time block and that would be 'Yes'. In fact you are being born, alive and dead within the space-time block although at this point in the space-time block you are most definitely alive. So therefore you will only ever experience being alive. Once you are dead you will experience nothing at all, unless there is an afterlife. Cheers:cheer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.