A simpler explanation of free will.

[apeman]

If you believe you have the freedom to choose between available options based on your preferences, and if you believe you have the power to change your preferences (even ingrained prejudices if better knowledge comes your way), then you have free will, or you had just as well act as though it exists.

All else is conjecture, materialism itself is not falsifiable and therefore faith based, idealism is faith based but a simpler explanation of reality, but conjecture nonetheless.

Free will exists until someone proves it does not, the onus is up to those detractors to come up with a falsifiable reason why free will does not exist.Good luck with that one.

 

[fromderinside]

No exceptions, everything is winding down. Will falsified.

You need to find something winding up, not down to make your claim apeman.

 

[DBT]

Whatever you feel you can choose, whatever you feel you can do, it is the underlying parallel processing power of neural networks that are producing not only 'your' experience, but you yourself as a conscious experience. This is not your choice.

 

[Togo]

...which is only a problem if you think you and your brain are somehow separate. It's like using the existence of bricks to deny the existence of walls.

 

[Juma]

...which is only a problem if you think you and your brain are somehow separate. It's like using the existence of bricks to deny the existence of walls.

Your brain is not the same as your concious "iI". The brain, and what is going on is much more than that.

 

[Togo]

...which is only a problem if you think you and your brain are somehow separate. It's like using the existence of bricks to deny the existence of walls.

Your brain is not the same as your concious "iI". The brain, and what is going on is much more than that.

Of course not, but the fact that there is more going on in the brain than conscious I doesn't stop what is going on in the brain being part of conscious I, or even stop conscious I being a subset of what goes on in the brain.

 

[Juma]

Your brain is not the same as your concious "iI". The brain, and what is going on is much more than that.

Of course not, but the fact that there is more going on in the brain than conscious I doesn't stop what is going on in the brain being part of conscious I,

Eh. Yes it does. If it is "more than concious I"then it is something else that you doesnt have control over.(as is meant by control in sense of libertarian free will)

or even stop conscious I being a subset of what goes on in the brain.

Why on earth did you add this????

 

[Togo]

Of course not, but the fact that there is more going on in the brain than conscious I doesn't stop what is going on in the brain being part of conscious I,

Eh. Yes it does. If it is "more than concious I"then it is something else that you doesnt have control over.(as is meant by control in sense of libertarian free will)

That doesn't follow.

You either need to believe that the brain isn't free by definition or some other form of logical necessity, or you need an argument to the effect that conscious choice (in the sense of LFW) is incompatible with a physical brain.

Otherwise it's back to 'the brain can't choose because it's physical/made of neurones', which is akin to arguing that you can't build an arch out of bricks, because bricks aren't arch-shaped.

 

[Juma]

Eh. Yes it does. If it is "more than concious I"then it is something else that you doesnt have control over.(as is meant by control in sense of libertarian free will)

That doesn't follow.

You either need to believe that the brain isn't free by definition or some other form of logical necessity, or you need an argument to the effect that conscious choice (in the sense of LFW) is incompatible with a physical brain.

Otherwise it's back to 'the brain can't choose because it's physical/made of neurones', which is akin to arguing that you can't build an arch out of bricks, because bricks aren't arch-shaped.

Ii just wrote that your post contained a contradiction. I was not arguing for/against free will.

 

[Togo]

That doesn't follow.

You either need to believe that the brain isn't free by definition or some other form of logical necessity, or you need an argument to the effect that conscious choice (in the sense of LFW) is incompatible with a physical brain.

Otherwise it's back to 'the brain can't choose because it's physical/made of neurones', which is akin to arguing that you can't build an arch out of bricks, because bricks aren't arch-shaped.

Ii just wrote that your post contained a contradiction. I was not arguing for/against free will.

Appreciate that. But I don't agree that there is a contradiction.

Maybe we're talking a cross purposes. Can you say what the contradiction is?

 

[apeman]

No exceptions, everything is winding down. Will falsified.

You need to find something winding up, not down to make your claim apeman.

I think you have just dreamt that up because it's complete conjecture. Are you claiming that you know the boundary of everything?

 

[apeman]

Whatever you feel you can choose, whatever you feel you can do, it is the underlying parallel processing power of neural networks that are producing not only 'your' experience, but you yourself as a conscious experience. This is not your choice.

You claim that there is an underlying mindless process controlling our minds, is this theory of yours actually falsifiable or do you admit that it's just a theory that you have faith in, ie, conjecture ?

 

[apeman]

...which is only a problem if you think you and your brain are somehow separate. It's like using the existence of bricks to deny the existence of walls.

The fact that my mind appears to be dependent upon my brain is not proof of causation, sure there is correlation, but as we know it is not proof...for instance you could be dreaming that brains cause thoughts...that kind of shit.

Materialists seem to over-step the mark of what they can actually know as fact, rather than accept that their belief system is faith based.

 

[apeman]

...which is only a problem if you think you and your brain are somehow separate. It's like using the existence of bricks to deny the existence of walls.

Your brain is not the same as your concious "iI". The brain, and what is going on is much more than that.

The brain containing the I is not the same as the brain being the I, so yeah you're right. For instance, the brain could be a conduit through which the I acts, so that when part of the brain is damaged that part of the I no longer exists within this world.

 

[apeman]

Don't forget folks that it is a simpler explanation of reality to state that this is a dream type event, that there is no such thing as a mindless basis for reality.

 

[Juma]

Your brain is not the same as your concious "iI". The brain, and what is going on is much more than that.

The brain containing the I is not the same as the brain being the I, so yeah you're right. For instance, the brain could be a conduit through which the I acts, so that when part of the brain is damaged that part of the I no longer exists within this world.

What "this world". If the mind is a dream there is no "this world"

 

[fromderinside]

The brain containing the I is not the same as the brain being the I, so yeah you're right. For instance, the brain could be a conduit through which the I acts, so that when part of the brain is damaged that part of the I no longer exists within this world.

What "this world". If the mind is a dream there is no "this world"

That world? Other world? Damaged part of I world? Maybe he's just trying to make the point there is no world? World knows!

 

[fromderinside]

No exceptions, everything is winding down. Will falsified.

You need to find something winding up, not down to make your claim apeman.

I think you have just dreamt that up because it's complete conjecture. Are you claiming that you know the boundary of everything?

So how's your search for a backwards  Arrow of time and a  Dean drive?
As for dreamed up eat these cookies from Arrow of time:

British physicist Sir Alfred Brian Pippard wrote, "There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."

In other words "all things wind down".

Surely you can do as well? No? ....then done!

 

[Kharakov]

There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.

In other words "all things wind down".

It's called becoming mature, when you've downed wine.

 

[ryan]

Is anybody reading what this fromderinside and Karkov write?!

This is torture! I mean I actually feel uninspired from reading their posts; it even makes me feel uninterested in philosophy somehow.

It's like I am forced to sit through an extremely boring and pretentious dialog made by two play writers who try to explain philosophy to an audience.

If you don't believe me, just look at post #17.

Someone reading this might be thinking that I could just ignore their posts. But it's like driving past a bad car accident; you know nothing good will come from looking, but you do anyways because it's along your path.

You both might end up killing TF and god knows what other forums you're on. Please stop, please, no more.