The Existence Of God

[Rogue]

LOL! Nice avatar.

My problem with that article is that it's using the unknown to conclude that free will is impossible or doesn't exist.

For instance: "...we could in principle predict exactly what you will do for the rest of your life and what will happen throughout the entire universe for the rest of eternity"

I think that's a fatal flaw and gives me credence to then disregard it as fact. Heh, ironically this appears to be based on faith because it's assuming the unknown.

When it comes down to it both sides use assumption to either prove or disprove the question at hand. We can't even cure the common cold and this article wants to, in theory, prove there's no free will.

It's all theory. I see my faith in God as a theory that I can neither prove or disprove.

I've got an incredibly weak argument and I'm well aware. The universe, billions of years old. Man, a few thousand. That's it, that's all I've got. Sorry. Simply put, I think we're so unevolved that it's impossible to disprove the existance of an after life.

[MonicaTTmed]

LOL! Nice avatar.

My problem with that article is that it's using the unknown to conclude that free will is impossible or doesn't exist.

For instance: "...we could in principle predict exactly what you will do for the rest of your life and what will happen throughout the entire universe for the rest of eternity"

I think that's a fatal flaw and gives me credence to then disregard it as fact. Heh, ironically this appears to be based on faith because it's assuming the unknown.

When it comes down to it both sides use assumption to either prove or disprove the question at hand. We can't even cure the common cold and this article wants to, in theory, prove there's no free will.

It's all theory. I see my faith in God as a theory that I can neither prove or disprove.

I've got an incredibly weak argument and I'm well aware. The universe, billions of years old. Man, a few thousand. That's it, that's all I've got. Sorry. Simply put, I think we're so unevolved that it's impossible to disprove the existance of an after life.

Thanks. That was mostly in response to the whole "private forums" fiasco.

I think what it's saying is that there are so many causes to our actions that we will never make a truly free choice - we're always unconsciously influenced by our mental state, what just happened, previous results of similar choices, etc. But I'm willing to compromise because at least there is an illusion of free will, so feel free to act like it exists.

Anyway, demon thread.

[DJ Wings]

I'll use my free will to get a cheeseburger. Oh, wait, maybe that has something to do with this... Dang, she's good.

[Mighty Mouse]

If my understanding of the article is correct, it seems to say that there is lack of free will because your actions are determined by calculation of the anticipated results of your action, where the action should result in happiness at time one being greater than happiness at time zero.

What about actions or activities with no such risk/reward consequences? For example, where does self-awareness fit in this theory? Can you not then choose to disregard everything? It's kind of like the story of the lemming going over the cliff. Is it possible for a single lemming to stop? I know that lemmings don't really go off cliffs, just using it to illustrate a point.

I believe that there is individual free will to a degree, whereas the group has full free will because of the intricacies of the group.

[Rogue]

Also, by this theory nobody could be held responsible for their actions.

Here is fact: People can and do change their behavior.

Here is theory from the article provided: People only think they can change their behavior.

Which is more believable?


Huh Monica? Huh? Huh? Say it! Say it!

Meh, remember that part of Back to School?

[MonicaTTmed]

Fact: People's behavior changes. We still don't know whether "people can change their behavior" by "pure will." And the justice system still works:

person A is known to have murdered.
person A, under similar circumstances, would murder - circumstances determine actions.
person A will therefore be removed from those circumstances via incarceration or the death penalty.

[Mighty Mouse]

Please define "pure will". I understand free will, but pure will eludes me.

[MonicaTTmed]

Please define "pure will". I understand free will, but pure will eludes me.

Changing behavior by "pure will" - changing your behavior because you think it's "right" despite all material interests - i.e. this is what people who convert in prison think they are doing

[Mighty Mouse]

Isn't there a flaw in your justice system argument? Circumstances do not determine actions, it merely makes one course of action of a higher probability than another. Given the same set of circumstances, there are infinite possibilities. However, given the criminal's background, murder has an unacceptable higher probability than any other result.

Also, in your example, converting in prison does result in a material benefit for the criminal. It opens a whole new set of doors for support and relief from their current circumstances. They have hit on a dead end in one set of actions and decided on another with more promise.

[Rogue]

Man, I'm confused. All this time I thought we were talking about that killer whale named Free Will.

You caused me to not get any work done for the past 20 minutes Monica. I'd been researching this and it seems all is theory and none at all is fact. There are also a half dozen or so different camps and/or classifications and most are combinations of each other.

Your opinion is Pure Will and mine is Free Willy.

I believe Smacky got arrested for that once in Vegas.