The unsolved problem of "free will"

[DanishDynamite]

Again - so what?

Answer the question.

 

[DanishDynamite]

This is the point you were making when you were interrupted. I had agreed that this was correct so far.

So what is the view you are proposing?

I've forgotten.

When I made the above statement I was trying to parrot the view being given by one or more opponents in order to clarify that view.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Let me remind you of our conversation so far:



Hence my last post where I defined what I meant by arbitrary.

In other words, according to your concept of free will arbitrary choices would count as free will. I disagree, a choice must be a voluntary action, ie not arbitrary.

Define voluntary in terms of determinism.

 

[cyborg]

In other words, according to your concept of free will arbitrary choices would count as free will. I disagree, a choice must be a voluntary action, ie not arbitrary.

So here we come back down again to:

Random is not willed.
Non-random is not free.

Does anyone here get the point about not finding forests by looking at trees?

 

[The Atheist]

Let's see:
#1

#2

Yep. The confusion is coming from your posts.

Yet you even bolded the question mark without realising that makes it a question rather than a statement.

 

[Robin]

Answer the question.

How many times and in how many ways do I have to answer that question before you will read the answer?

OK, for the umpteenth time nobody here has suggested that anything does not follow the rules of the Universe regarding how physical matter behaves.

Can we finally get past this????

 

[DanishDynamite]

So here we come back down again to:

Random is not willed.
Non-random is not free.

Does anyone here get the point about not finding forests by looking at trees?

Define willed in terms of determinism.

 

[DanishDynamite]

How many times and in how many ways do I have to answer that question before you will read the answer?

OK, for the umpteenth time nobody here has suggested that anything does not follow the rules of the Universe regarding how physical matter behaves.

Can we finally get past this????

Sure, if you will try to understand what that means. So far, I haven't seen this understanding.

At its deepest levels, there are only two types of physical interactions: Caused and non-caused. Caused actions are those which can be explained by "billiard ball" physics. Uncaused actions are those that require QM.

 

[Robin]

Yet you even bolded the question mark without realising that makes it a question rather than a statement.

You are not suggesting that logic is relative are you?

 

[Robin]

Sure, if you will try to understand what that means. So far, I haven't seen this understanding.

At its deepest levels, there are only two types of physical interactions: Caused and non-caused. Caused actions are those which can be explained by "billiard ball" physics. Uncaused actions are those that require QM.

Again, so what?

 

[Robin]

Define voluntary in terms of determinism.

Deterministic process that occurs within subjective experience.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Again, so what?

So what is your point?

There are only two ways physical matter can interact, caused or random. You appear to think there is a third different way, something called "voluntary".

What is that?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Deterministic process that occurs within subjective experience.

What does that even mean?

Are you saying that matter in the brain is not afterall physical matter? That it somehow behaves differently from other physical matter?

 

[Robin]

What does that even mean?

Which part did you not understand?

Do you understand what a deterministic process is?

Do you understand what subjective experience is?

Do you understand that these subjective experiences are processes?

Would you say that these processes obey the rules of the universe?

What part didn't you understand????

 

[DanishDynamite]

Which part did you not understand?

Do you understand what a deterministic process is?

Yes

Do you understand what subjective experience is?

Yes.

Do you understand that these subjective experiences are processes?

No.

Would you say that these processes obey the rules of the universe?

What processes? Are you talking about physical processes?

What part didn't you understand????

Your view.

 

[Robin]

So what is your point?

My point? Wait a minute, wasn't it you who asked:

Does anyone here understand the point I'm making? Anyone at all?

I asked you to state your point. You still have to get around to it.

There are only two ways physical matter can interact, caused or random. You appear to think there is a third different way, something called "voluntary".

Quote me anything I have said that even remotely implies this. Anything at all. Go on.

 

[Robin]

Do you understand that these subjective experiences are processes?

No.

So what are they???

 

[DanishDynamite]

My point? Wait a minute, wasn't it you who asked:

I asked you to state your point. You still have to get around to it.

I stated it, many times. Once again, for the slow section: The question of whether we have free will is a question grounded in absurdity. The reason why is that there is no "I" to make or not to make a particular decision. There is only the processes in the brain, the processes which generate the "I" so many hold dear and also generate all the decisions and actions of said "I".

Quote me anything I have said that even remotely implies this. Anything at all. Go on.

See post number 336.

ETA: And post 340.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So what are they???

They are what is experienced by the brain as the physical processes occur.

 

[Robin]

They are what is experienced by the brain as the physical processes occur.

But if the way the brain experiences processes is not in itself a process, what is it?