[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
Non-sequitur. The free will pov doesn't state that physical matter has to be changed in any way. The mental intention is sufficient. One can say "I will a rock to levitate". The failure of the rock to levitate doesn't disprove the free will. Somebody did the apparent willing but the outcome wasn't as desired. The willing and the outcome are separate questions, related of course. http://www.fantasygallery.net/warren/art_0_warren29.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't > > > see how the question can be resolved > > > logically. > > > > turquoiseb: > > IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias > > believe that ANY philosophical question can be > > "resolved." :-) > > > There are millions of proofs for determinism > that can be cited every day - shit flows > downstream and everything falls down. There > is not a single proof for the existence of > a 'Free Will'. Can you think of one? > > If there was a free will, you could fly up > into the air and hover or change lead to gold. > > If there was free will, you will yourself to > be enlightened and you would not have to > practice yoga - you could just 'will' yourself > to be anything you wanted to be. > > It is much more simple and pragmatic to just > accept causation and forget the metaphysical. > > There once was a Chinese sage who, always > looking up at the clouds, fell into a ditch > and hurt himself real bad. > > So, be careful of what you believe in - like > a snake picked up by the wrong end could bite > you. You're already smarting from the licking > you just got from Judy, so before you start > posting your philosophy, THINK first. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
> > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't > > see how the question can be resolved > > logically. > > turquoiseb: > IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias > believe that ANY philosophical question can be > "resolved." :-) > There are millions of proofs for determinism that can be cited every day - shit flows downstream and everything falls down. There is not a single proof for the existence of a 'Free Will'. Can you think of one? If there was a free will, you could fly up into the air and hover or change lead to gold. If there was free will, you will yourself to be enlightened and you would not have to practice yoga - you could just 'will' yourself to be anything you wanted to be. It is much more simple and pragmatic to just accept causation and forget the metaphysical. There once was a Chinese sage who, always looking up at the clouds, fell into a ditch and hurt himself real bad. So, be careful of what you believe in - like a snake picked up by the wrong end could bite you. You're already smarting from the licking you just got from Judy, so before you start posting your philosophy, THINK first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > > > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question > > > > can be resolved logically. > > > > > > IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias believe > > > that ANY philosophical question can be "resolved." :-) > > > > Besides, attempts to "prove" that there is or is not > > such a thing as free will strike me as the kind of > > thing a catechist would do -- declare that only one > > answer can be correct or true, and for everyone. I > > am less limited, and can see that it might be an > > individual thang, with some having free will and > > others not having it. > > > > Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, believing that one has free will is different > from actually having it. > > > To provide a completely theoretical example of how > > this could work, say there was a deranged bag lady > > who had taken offense at some perceived minor slight > > years ago, and had as a result cyberstalked the person > > she believed slighted her for, say, seventeen years, > > spending during most of that time 25% to 50% of her > > weekly posting allotment trying to "get" him. I think > > we would agree that such a person has no free will, > > because no one who indulged in such embarrassing > > behavior and had the free will to change it would > > fail to *not* change it. Continuing the embarrassing > > behavior for that long can legitimately be seen as a > > kind of proof that *for that particular cyberstalker* > > there is no free will. > > > > On the other hand, if the stalkee refused to play the > > game and ignored the cyberstalker as if her and her > > attempts to "get" him affected his life about as much > > as finding one's path blocked by a puddle of flea piss > > would, and focused on his life, well that individual > > obviously has free will. > > I don't view this as pure free will -- nor a real life example. The names > have been changed to protect the innocent as Dragnet says, but in this case > the characters also it would seem. Regardless ..., when does one do what they > think is sub optimal, not choose the best option, act outside of their > values, act outside if the thoughts that they have? I tend to think that the > answer is very rarely to never. > > If one can only choose to make the best decision that they can in any moment, > with given resources (time being a large one -- that is, best overall > decision given 3 hrs to ponder it vs 3 seconds may result in a different > decision made, however, even the 3 second snap judgement was the persons best > efforts given the time allotted.) > > The decisions that we make, first only come from limited options -- that is > the thoughts that precedes the action. No one has thoughts of all possible > options for each action. Maybe 4 thoughts / options are revealed out of a > billion. So free will is quite limited fr om that > first step. Next how do we evaluate those thought / options? > > From our experience, education, logical and intuitive capabilities, our > subconscious processes, advice from our friends, our samskaras, our > compassion or greed, and our VALUES, we generally choose the one option that > we think best maximizes our values. Even if its self-destructive, we choose > that because we think that it will bring us greater happiness (now, or > overall, longer run). What mind can choose to pursue field of lesser > happiness relative to the other options presented? It is in this sense that I > think free will is highly limited o non-existent. We can only do what we > think is best out o the few possibilities that our mind presents to us. > > It may APPEAR as if we are deciding. The intellect knows the drill. It > pounces on the options that the mind presents and "freely" (it thinks) > weighs this and that and after much thrashing around makes a decision. > However, the intellect and its drills, its processes, are simply learned > responses and/or neurologically hard-wired. Its like saying a PC processor > has free will because it is doing a lot of calculations, a lot of thinking, > to come up with its answer. However, given the same problem, it will ALWAYS > do the same thing, come up with the same answer. Just like the intellect. > > However, IMO, free will does NOT imply determinism in the sense that there is > some diety that is planning our every move. It is like a pinball. it has no > freewill to decide where its going to go, its actions are bound by its nature > th the nature of forces it encounters. But no one can predict the exact path > of the pinball. (Same for pool balls at the break). > > Thus the experience "there is no actor" is quite valid. Awareness of > Awareness AND sim
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > > > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question > > > can be resolved logically. > > > > IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias believe > > that ANY philosophical question can be "resolved." :-) > > Besides, attempts to "prove" that there is or is not > such a thing as free will strike me as the kind of > thing a catechist would do -- declare that only one > answer can be correct or true, and for everyone. I > am less limited, and can see that it might be an > individual thang, with some having free will and > others not having it. > Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, believing that one has free will is different from actually having it. > To provide a completely theoretical example of how > this could work, say there was a deranged bag lady > who had taken offense at some perceived minor slight > years ago, and had as a result cyberstalked the person > she believed slighted her for, say, seventeen years, > spending during most of that time 25% to 50% of her > weekly posting allotment trying to "get" him. I think > we would agree that such a person has no free will, > because no one who indulged in such embarrassing > behavior and had the free will to change it would > fail to *not* change it. Continuing the embarrassing > behavior for that long can legitimately be seen as a > kind of proof that *for that particular cyberstalker* > there is no free will. > > On the other hand, if the stalkee refused to play the > game and ignored the cyberstalker as if her and her > attempts to "get" him affected his life about as much > as finding one's path blocked by a puddle of flea piss > would, and focused on his life, well that individual > obviously has free will. I don't view this as pure free will -- nor a real life example. The names have been changed to protect the innocent as Dragnet says, but in this case the characters also it would seem. Regardless ..., when does one do what they think is sub optimal, not choose the best option, act outside of their values, act outside if the thoughts that they have? I tend to think that the answer is very rarely to never. If one can only choose to make the best decision that they can in any moment, with given resources (time being a large one -- that is, best overall decision given 3 hrs to ponder it vs 3 seconds may result in a different decision made, however, even the 3 second snap judgement was the persons best efforts given the time allotted.) The decisions that we make, first only come from limited options -- that is the thoughts that precedes the action. No one has thoughts of all possible options for each action. Maybe 4 thoughts / options are revealed out of a billion. So free will is quite limited fr om that first step. Next how do we evaluate those thought / options? >From our experience, education, logical and intuitive capabilities, our >subconscious processes, advice from our friends, our samskaras, our compassion >or greed, and our VALUES, we generally choose the one option that we think >best maximizes our values. Even if its self-destructive, we choose that >because we think that it will bring us greater happiness (now, or overall, >longer run). What mind can choose to pursue field of lesser happiness relative >to the other options presented? It is in this sense that I think free will is >highly limited o non-existent. We can only do what we think is best out o the >few possibilities that our mind presents to us. It may APPEAR as if we are deciding. The intellect knows the drill. It pounces on the options that the mind presents and "freely" (it thinks) weighs this and that and after much thrashing around makes a decision. However, the intellect and its drills, its processes, are simply learned responses and/or neurologically hard-wired. Its like saying a PC processor has free will because it is doing a lot of calculations, a lot of thinking, to come up with its answer. However, given the same problem, it will ALWAYS do the same thing, come up with the same answer. Just like the intellect. However, IMO, free will does NOT imply determinism in the sense that there is some diety that is planning our every move. It is like a pinball. it has no freewill to decide where its going to go, its actions are bound by its nature th the nature of forces it encounters. But no one can predict the exact path of the pinball. (Same for pool balls at the break). Thus the experience "there is no actor" is quite valid. Awareness of Awareness AND similtaneously the mind, senses, intellect all go about the day's business, each acting according to its own nature, mixing it up with itself, its neighbor inner components and the external world. > > So it seems to me that the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
Those who think that free will may be an an illusion couldn't ask for a better example of a person who suffers from that illusion than Barry, who firmly believes he has free will, oblivious to the fact that in proclaiming it, he's actually advertising how utterly he lacks it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Besides, attempts to "prove" that there is or is not > such a thing as free will strike me as the kind of > thing a catechist would do -- declare that only one > answer can be correct or true, and for everyone. I > am less limited, and can see that it might be an > individual thang, with some having free will and > others not having it. > > To provide a completely theoretical example of how > this could work, say there was a deranged bag lady > who had taken offense at some perceived minor slight > years ago, and had as a result cyberstalked the person > she believed slighted her for, say, seventeen years, > spending during most of that time 25% to 50% of her > weekly posting allotment trying to "get" him. I think > we would agree that such a person has no free will, > because no one who indulged in such embarrassing > behavior and had the free will to change it would > fail to *not* change it. Continuing the embarrassing > behavior for that long can legitimately be seen as a > kind of proof that *for that particular cyberstalker* > there is no free will. > > On the other hand, if the stalkee refused to play the > game and ignored the cyberstalker as if her and her > attempts to "get" him affected his life about as much > as finding one's path blocked by a puddle of flea piss > would, and focused on his life, well that individual > obviously has free will. What about the "stalkee" who, after having announced long ago that he would henceforth ignore the "stalker," continues to make dozens and dozens of posts *reiterating* his determination to ignore her, and dozens and dozens more attacking and demonizing her, all while claiming she has no effect on him whatsoever? Does that individual have free will? Seems to me there's even *less* question about the "stalkee's" lack of free will, since he repeatedly demonstrates his inability to do what he keeps proclaiming he's doing. He's helpless to resist his compulsion to pay attention to her, helpless to avoid noisily exhibiting that helplessness over and over and over again, and helpless even to realize how transparently he's displaying his helplessness. He's a veritable poster boy for the premise that free will is an illusion. Convinced that he's got it, he has no choice but to continually prove he doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question > > can be resolved logically. > > IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias believe > that ANY philosophical question can be "resolved." :-) Besides, attempts to "prove" that there is or is not such a thing as free will strike me as the kind of thing a catechist would do -- declare that only one answer can be correct or true, and for everyone. I am less limited, and can see that it might be an individual thang, with some having free will and others not having it. To provide a completely theoretical example of how this could work, say there was a deranged bag lady who had taken offense at some perceived minor slight years ago, and had as a result cyberstalked the person she believed slighted her for, say, seventeen years, spending during most of that time 25% to 50% of her weekly posting allotment trying to "get" him. I think we would agree that such a person has no free will, because no one who indulged in such embarrassing behavior and had the free will to change it would fail to *not* change it. Continuing the embarrassing behavior for that long can legitimately be seen as a kind of proof that *for that particular cyberstalker* there is no free will. On the other hand, if the stalkee refused to play the game and ignored the cyberstalker as if her and her attempts to "get" him affected his life about as much as finding one's path blocked by a puddle of flea piss would, and focused on his life, well that individual obviously has free will. So it seems to me that the question of free will is an individual thang, a lot like the question of having charisma or creativity or intelligence. Some of us got it, others don't. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > ...I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question > can be resolved logically. IMO only those indulging in confirmation bias believe that ANY philosophical question can be "resolved." :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
right, about 3/4 of the interviewees in the article fit into that category. I'm on the free will side, but don't see how the question can be resolved logically. As to the experimental evidence, some recent experiments mentioned in New Scientist test behavior on the basis of what they believe to be true. The results emphatically demonstrate that (regardless of the actual truth of the matter); what people believe to be true makes an difference and can be experimentally measured. ... The article mentions Zen and a "no self" assumption; but I don't see how that helps in supporting determinism; since the question relates to the broadest interpretation of "material". imo that word should be replaced with "anything relative" or relative aspect of Brahman; then continue with the inquiry inclusive of the higher dimensions and deep emotions, as well as ESP. ... But again, I don't see how including mind-stuff helps the free-will argument; since somebody could say that thoughts and emotions are in the same category wrt the determinism/free will question as ordinary dense physical matter. (although the "materialist" group would posit brain/matter as the cause of mind/emotions). A proof for the existence of ESP might discredit the Harris arguments as to the importance of neurophysiology; as might phenomena such as NDE's. ... In any event, should free will be an illusion, a contrary belief is associated with measurable certain behavior differing from the behavior of determinist "believers". http://www.surrealistic-art.ch/art/confrontation1.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" wrote: > > The majority of people discussing the free will issue are > materialists.This would include the majority of people quoted in the New York > Times article.Their assumption is that everything that exists can be > explained completely in terms of physical matter and the laws that govern > physical matter.Consequently the mind does not actually exist any more than a > mirage does.All statements regarding mental events are purely human > inventions having nothing to do with reality e.g "i love you" has no > fundamental basis in reality(you will never actually see "love" observing the > brain function).Materialists as a rule do not accept any evidence that there > position is wrong.An example of that is how ESP research as been treated in > most academic institutions.One problem with materialism is that there is > anything but universal agreement on what matter IS. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/science/05askscience.html > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennis Overbye on free will
The majority of people discussing the free will issue are materialists.This would include the majority of people quoted in the New York Times article.Their assumption is that everything that exists can be explained completely in terms of physical matter and the laws that govern physical matter.Consequently the mind does not actually exist any more than a mirage does.All statements regarding mental events are purely human inventions having nothing to do with reality e.g "i love you" has no fundamental basis in reality(you will never actually see "love" observing the brain function).Materialists as a rule do not accept any evidence that there position is wrong.An example of that is how ESP research as been treated in most academic institutions.One problem with materialism is that there is anything but universal agreement on what matter IS. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/science/05askscience.html >
