Destiny and Free will

[MarkCorrigan]

Will you actually provide any evidence for any of your claims this time?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Will you actually provide any evidence for any of your claims this time?

Ah now Mark, don't you know as a true Turk all you gotta have is faith?

 

[acbytesla]

No human is holy.

Ever hear of a Holy Bartender?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ever hear of a Holy Bartender?

I need to watch that movie.

But Emre_1974tr is right, no human is holy - for the very simple reason that the supernatural (including God) doesn't exist. But of course Emre_1974tr has another reason for believing this - unlike the Christian bible, the Quran says nothing about humans being holy. At least it got that right...

 

[Manopolus]

I just thought I'd pop in and provide the definitive answer to the determinism vs free will argument:

Determinists are NPC's.

The rest of us, who do have free will, are the players.

Isn't it nice how we can both get our way?

 

[porch]

I just thought I'd pop in and provide the definitive answer to the determinism vs free will argument:

Determinists are NPC's.

The rest of us, who do have free will, are the players.

Isn't it nice how we can both get our way?

I agree one hundred percent.

Determinists understand their place as wholly part of the universe, whereas all others are suckers that think they're different and special.

Okay, maybe not quite a hundred, but pretty close.

 

[Thermal]

I agree one hundred percent.

Determinists understand their place as wholly part of the universe, whereas all others are suckers that think they're different and special.

Okay, maybe not quite a hundred, but pretty close.

Interesting, I see the opposite. Determinists think they've got it all figured out, and thoroghly understand things they know nothing about. Free-willers say "well free will certainly seems to be the case, and until compelling evidence is presented, it's my working model".

 

[porch]

Yes, well, it's a classic debate. I was once a Free Will believer. Naturally! That's how it seems, being a human, that the mind is the Director. The Gods used to be a bunch of powerful people, basically, each one representing ideal aspects of humans and/or nature, but as the God Inflation Wars progressed, God became more and more idealized. God became us idealized. And God reflected how we see ourselves at our most idealized: The Unmoved Mover. That's what I've been thinking on lately, anyhow. And just like the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God of our fantasies, it doesn't make any sense upon examination.

It is now, 2025, quite clear that the body generates the mind. How else could it possibly be?

At any rate, my challenge to the believers is what it has been. Let's say that you have Free Will, and I don't. I say, anything you can do I can do better. Okay, wait. I say, I can do it at least as well. That's my thesis. I just got caught up in song for a moment, sorry. What can you, with all your powers, do that I cannot do, without them? What can you do that is of any value, that is; that's part of the challenge.

Anyone?

 

[Myriad]

At any rate, my challenge to the believers is what it has been. Let's say that you have Free Will, and I don't. I say, anything you can do I can do better. Okay, wait. I say, I can do it at least as well. That's my thesis. I just got caught up in song for a moment, sorry. What can you, with all your powers, do that I cannot do, without them? What can you do that is of any value, that is; that's part of the challenge.

Anyone?

I can suddenly, and for no reason, go eat some food I don't like the taste of, then break the plate over my head.

If I didn't have free will, I'd be constrained to actions I thought might be to my net benefit or would at least minimize the negatives.

It doesn't seem very adaptive, though. The best strategy seems to be to use it as little as possible.

 

[porch]

I can suddenly, and for no reason, go eat some food I don't like the taste of, then break the plate over my head.

If I didn't have free will, I'd be constrained to actions I thought might be to my net benefit or would at least minimize the negatives.

It doesn't seem very adaptive, though. The best strategy seems to be to use it as little as possible.

Indeed, the essence of freedom is constraint.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, well, it's a classic debate. I was once a Free Will believer. Naturally! That's how it seems, being a human, that the mind is the Director. The Gods used to be a bunch of powerful people, basically, each one representing ideal aspects of humans and/or nature, but as the God Inflation Wars progressed, God became more and more idealized. God became us idealized. And God reflected how we see ourselves at our most idealized: The Unmoved Mover. That's what I've been thinking on lately, anyhow. And just like the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God of our fantasies, it doesn't make any sense upon examination.

It is now, 2025, quite clear that the body generates the mind. How else could it possibly be?

At any rate, my challenge to the believers is what it has been. Let's say that you have Free Will, and I don't. I say, anything you can do I can do better. Okay, wait. I say, I can do it at least as well. That's my thesis. I just got caught up in song for a moment, sorry. What can you, with all your powers, do that I cannot do, without them? What can you do that is of any value, that is; that's part of the challenge.

Anyone?

Ok. What is all this about 'powers'? Free will is not a power; it's an understanding of how stuff, like consciousness, works.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I can suddenly, and for no reason, go eat some food I don't like the taste of, then break the plate over my head.

If I didn't have free will, I'd be constrained to actions I thought might be to my net benefit or would at least minimize the negatives.

It doesn't seem very adaptive, though. The best strategy seems to be to use it as little as possible.

Allah knew from the beginning of time you would have a food and crockery fetish.

 

[Manopolus]

I agree one hundred percent.

Determinists understand their place as wholly part of the universe, whereas all others are suckers that think they're different and special.

Okay, maybe not quite a hundred, but pretty close.

Ah, welcome back to the discussion, person without any real consciousness.

Yeah, I was being snarky, but here's the thing. Weirdly, it's parts of the science/skeptical community that think they've absolutely proven determinism. No. You haven't. For one thing, free will does not require dualism. It just requires the acknowledgement that you make decisions every stinking day, over and over and over again. That is evidence. That's all the evidence anyone should need.

Delving into the mechanics of it doesn't prove otherwise. It can't. That's mostly because you're trying to define where "me" ends in the mechanics when no clear line is present. Yes, it's possible to say someone "acted" before they knew it if you set up a system that inspires autonomous reactions, sure. And sure, they go back and justify the action they perceived. That potentially says more about memory recall and possibly even the mechanics of time than it does volition.

Volition comes into the equation when they tell you to "get bent" and walk away rather than answer your stupid questions in the debriefing. When studying people, they've already made a commitment to comply before they walk in the door, but that can change at any time. It usually doesn't, but that's potentially because those who would do that don't typically volunteer for these things.

What are the spectators supposed to believe? Their own freaking evidence that gets reported every day, or a convoluted explanation that describes mechanics that don't quite prove what you're asserting from someone who will admit that we don't even know everything about the mechanics? I can see withholding judgment. What I can't even freaking understand is asserting the less evidenced position, with the actual biggest support coming from an argument from ignorance (we don't know of anything that can do that).

That's not skepticism. That's doctrine. And don't miss the fact that it's the perfect setup for a dystopian techno-fascist nightmare socially (Hint: We're already living in one, but not because its postulates are true). The will is paramount, but only if you've got the courage to use it.

 

[dellarte]

If you read the full of the verses, you will always see the struggle with the attackers in the defense battle.

Just like... Stargate. It takes Dr Daniel Jackson a few seconds to decipher ancient Egyptian heiroglyphs then *BAM* a bunch of Americans end up somewhere else in the universe of their own free will. There, they find themselves in a parallel ancient Egyptian civilisation where they must overcome attackers in the defense battle.

 

[JayUtah]

Turks invented the Zero Point Module.

 

[Olmstead]

I just thought I'd pop in and provide the definitive answer to the determinism vs free will argument:

Determinists are NPC's.

The rest of us, who do have free will, are the players.

Isn't it nice how we can both get our way?

You are a cluster of arbitrary cells molded by arbitrary experiences. Any "choice" you make to change the trajectory of your molding is entirely dependent on the arbitrary cells and molding that has come before, in a sort of feedback loop.

If you want to argue for free will, you'll have to explain how such a thing can exist in such a system. Or explain how the necessarily entirely deterministic choice of arbitrarily molded cells still counts as free will.

 

[Manopolus]

If you want to argue for free will, you'll have to explain how such a thing can exist in such a system. Or explain how the necessarily entirely deterministic choice of arbitrarily molded cells still counts as free will.

No, I don't. I can access that information internally. It's right there. I don't need to prove it. If you don't have it, then that's you, not me. I can't access your consciousness, but I can access my own. I know what the particulars of it tell me, and it doesn't fit your model. I've experienced the proof every single moment of my existence. That doesn't mean you can access that proof. You can't.

So... either you don't have it or you're just playing stupid mind games. Those are literally the only two possibilities. You couldn't access my consciousness without seeing the proof right there in front of you. Apparent. Obvious. Sucks to be you if it's the first option.

And the fact that I live in a society that constantly violates my agency doesn't change anything. Sure, the math is in charge now, not the people. That doesn't mean I'll comply, but thanks anyway.

Just to lay it right out there, you're arguing with someone who meets "do you have our membership card?" in convenience and grocery stores with complete silence. I'm not obligated to comply with the script, even to say no. I choose to do that. And I've noticed the manipulation. I'm not consistently non-compliant in all circumstances, either. I choose my battles and how to conduct them. And yes, it's despite the fact that I also have the response of automatic compliance with questions. It's awkward, just like you think it might be, even for me.

 

[Olmstead]

No, I don't. I can access that information internally. It's right there. I don't need to prove it. If you don't have it, then that's you, not me. I can't access your consciousness, but I can access my own. I know what the particulars of it tell me, and it doesn't fit your model. I've experienced the proof every single moment of my existence. That doesn't mean you can access that proof. You can't.

Sort of how believers can access the existence of God internally, even though it makes absolutely no sense.

So... either you don't have it or you're just playing stupid mind games. Those are literally the only two possibilities. You couldn't access my consciousness without seeing the proof right there in front of you. Apparent. Obvious. Sucks to be you if it's the first option.

No mindgames, just extremely basic logic.

And the fact that I live in a society that constantly violates my agency doesn't change anything. Sure, the math is in charge now, not the people. That doesn't mean I'll comply, but thanks anyway.

Whenever you do what you consider "non-compliance", you just do what your arbitrary cells and experiences have predetermined you to do. There literally is nothing else. Does that count as free will?

I'm genuinely curious about an answer and explanation to that last question. It is something that I've turned over in my mind occasionally, but personally I always arrive at "No", because I cannot think of a satisfactory explanation. Everything that comes before that particular quandary is incredibly obvious and irrefutable.

 

[Manopolus]

Sort of how believers can access the existence of God internally, even though it makes absolutely no sense.


No mindgames, just extremely basic logic.

Whenever you do what you consider "non-compliance", you just do what your arbitrary cells and experiences have predetermined you to do. There literally is nothing else. Does that count as free will?

I'm genuinely curious about an answer and explanation to that last question. It is something that I've turned over in my mind occasionally, but personally I always arrive at "No", because I cannot think of a satisfactory explanation. Everything that comes before that particular quandary is incredibly obvious and irrefutable.

Sorry for not having the same reasons for leaving Christianity that you did. Mine were ethical, and so freaking long ago that it's barely worth mentioning. To be specific, it was the Euthyphro question, even though I hadn't read Plato yet.

I don't need to justify God. I'm not even an atheist... mostly in that I feel no need to clarify my position or slap a label on it. I'm not committed to any position. The degree to which I believe in "the divine" is free to shift wildly in response to context. I'm not required to be consistent, but I won't accept someone else's answer just to fit in, either.

But all that's irrelevant to this discussion. Has nothing to do with any gods.

All that said, there actually does seem to be a natural human tendency to reach out to the divine. I stop short of trying to explain that. But I will acknowledge I have it. I sure as hell won't accept somebody else's explanation when I know damned well they don't know any more than I do about it. Even if there is a God, what makes you think you know more about Him than I do? Ancient shepherds' scribbles? Nonsense!

That pretty much explains my justifications against God. It isn't about whether such a thing exists or not. It's about whether the person trying to tell you about Him knows anything at all.

 

[Olmstead]

Sorry for not having the same reasons for leaving Christianity that you did. Mine were ethical, and so freaking long ago that it's barely worth mentioning. To be specific, it was the Euthyphro question, even though I hadn't read Plato yet.

I don't need to justify God. I'm not even an atheist... mostly in that I feel no need to clarify my position or slap a label on it. I'm not committed to any position. The degree to which I believe in "the divine" is free to shift wildly in response to context. I'm not required to be consistent, but I won't accept someone else's answer just to fit in, either.

But all that's irrelevant to this discussion. Has nothing to do with any gods.

All that said, there actually does seem to be a natural human tendency to reach out to the divine. I stop short of trying to explain that. But I will acknowledge I have it. I sure as hell won't accept somebody else's explanation when I know damned well they don't know any more than I do about it. Even if there is a God, what makes you think you know more about Him than I do? Ancient shepherds' scribbles? Nonsense!

Irrelevant is right. Absolutely none of this addresses anything in my post.