Test yourself for Free Will. (Merged with "Free Will?")

[Greatest I am]

Test yourself for Free Will.

The debate as to our free will is more widespread than most realize. It is also stalled without a definitive answer, because no one has come out with a definitive test.

From my point of view free will cannot be given, it is something that must be taken.

If someone has free will then they are in a position to give it up.
If a someone does not have free will, they cannot.

To prove that you have free will, all you would need do is give it up to someone else’s will for no other reason other than you chose to.

If you agree with the reasoning and think the process here sound, then I invite you to give up your free will to mine, by simply replying to this thread with a brief response.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

Your appropriate response will prove that you have a free will.

Is this a definitive test for free will?

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

[Jobar]

The problem isn't so much testing for it, as defining what it is.

I've always thought that if you are capable of unpredictable action, you then have free will. But, since this question is always asked in conjunction with questions about sin, and hence about religion, you also have to factor in the supposed omniscience of God- which, if it exists, means that none of the actions of the supposed God's creations are ultimately unpredictable.

Free will is probably the most popular "out" to deal with the Riddle of Epicurus, and the Problem of Evil. But it screws up the omniscience or omnipotence of God, so it really leaves the Riddle unsolved.

[BioBeing]

Z.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

I have the free will to ignore your request, and start my post with something else. Or does that mean I don't have free will?

Now I'm confused :dunno:

[Greatest I am]

Z.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

I have the free will to ignore your request, and start my post with something else. Or does that mean I don't have free will?

Now I'm confused :dunno:

I don't know either. You did say you had the will to ignore. Did you convince yourself?

Ignoring the request shows you following a will. Your own or not, I have no clue.

I can only show with this test that you did not give it up to me.
Not if you have it in the first place.

Did you give it to someone who did not want you to comply?
This I cannot answer either.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

[Sarpedon]

What if someone who is somehow otherwise compelled to answer with the letter Y first happens to post on this thread?

[BioBeing]

What does it even mean "to give up my free will to yours"?

Does a slave freely hand over his free will to a slaver?

[munnki]

Can we start over with a definition of free will. What does that mean in the context of the op?

[phands]

Test yourself for Free Will.

The debate as to our free will is more widespread than most realize. It is also stalled without a definitive answer, because no one has come out with a definitive test.

From my point of view free will cannot be given, it is something that must be taken.

If someone has free will then they are in a position to give it up.
If a someone does not have free will, they cannot.

To prove that you have free will, all you would need do is give it up to someone else’s will for no other reason other than you chose to.

If you agree with the reasoning and think the process here sound, then I invite you to give up your free will to mine, by simply replying to this thread with a brief response.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

Your appropriate response will prove that you have a free will.

Is this a definitive test for free will?

Ta ta
Jailbird

Seems self-referential. If you have the free will to take the free will, you already have it. If you don't, you didn't.

[Pandora]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

[Valheru]

You can't test for something that doesn't exist, just like you can't test for the existence of a supernatural diety.

[Greatest I am]

What if someone who is somehow otherwise compelled to answer with the letter Y first happens to post on this thread?

Compelled by what or who?

Did it kill their free choice?

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

What does it even mean "to give up my free will to yours"?

Do as asked without reward or consequence.

Does a slave freely hand over his free will to a slaver?

Yes. Not necessarily freely if the consequences of not doing so are severe.
Saying no in this case could mean death. Quite the choice to make.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Can we start over with a definition of free will. What does that mean in the context of the op?

No definition from me.
That debate is ongoing and endless.

Whatever your definition is I can likely live with.

I am not here to debate definitions of free will.

I am her to show that we have one and that free will is something that we take and it cannot be given to us by God or anyone else.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Test yourself for Free Will.

The debate as to our free will is more widespread than most realize. It is also stalled without a definitive answer, because no one has come out with a definitive test.

From my point of view free will cannot be given, it is something that must be taken.

If someone has free will then they are in a position to give it up.
If a someone does not have free will, they cannot.

To prove that you have free will, all you would need do is give it up to someone else’s will for no other reason other than you chose to.

If you agree with the reasoning and think the process here sound, then I invite you to give up your free will to mine, by simply replying to this thread with a brief response.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

Your appropriate response will prove that you have a free will.

Is this a definitive test for free will?

Ta ta
Jailbird

Seems self-referential. If you have the free will to take the free will, you already have it. If you don't, you didn't.

Who do you know that has no free will?

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

Cause and effect eh.

Two words.

Uncertainty principle.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

You can't test for something that doesn't exist, just like you can't test for the existence of a supernatural diety.

Did you choose to write this?

Regards
DL

[Pandora]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

Cause and effect eh.

Two words.

Uncertainty principle.

Ta ta
Jailbird
:fallshort:
You understand that I'm NOT challenging free will? I'm challenging your method. Your test fails to be effective. So your whole "two words" flippant response there seriously falls short. It has nothing to do with my point. Why don't you reread my post and respond rationally and with a touch less arrogance?

[Alethias]

Test yourself for Free Will.

The debate as to our free will is more widespread than most realize. It is also stalled without a definitive answer, because no one has come out with a definitive test.

From my point of view free will cannot be given, it is something that must be taken.

If someone has free will then they are in a position to give it up.
If a someone does not have free will, they cannot.

To prove that you have free will, all you would need do is give it up to someone else’s will for no other reason other than you chose to.

If you agree with the reasoning and think the process here sound, then I invite you to give up your free will to mine, by simply replying to this thread with a brief response.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

Your appropriate response will prove that you have a free will.

Is this a definitive test for free will?

Ta ta
JailbirdIf I act in a way that is more or less independent of any external debilitating influences, then I am exercising free will, to a greater or lesser degree, since it is relative and not absolute. At least that is my understanding of the expression in the way that it is commonly used.

You used your will to post that, and your will is in that respect influencing mine, but not in any debilitating fashion that imposes limitations on the choices I can make. Your will is that I should start my post with the Letter Y if I have free will. If I do that, I'm being influenced by your will in a positive fashion, but I'm in no way limited by that. Nor am I compelled to do the opposite in any way that limits or debilitates me. So I disagree that this is a true test or measure of free will.

Interesting idea, but I don't think it works.

[Jobar]

Again, GIA, I think you need to define what you're trying to test for.

Certainly any of us responding to you can answer in a practically infinite variety of ways. Does this mean we have true freedom? We can choose to preface any response with 'Y', or we could choose to append a long string of random alphanumerics. But does that indicate we have free will?

And, if we decide we do have it, then what?

[Febble]

I think "free will" is better described as "degrees of freedom". The more you have the freer you are.

We have lots. Mosquitoes not so much.

[Valheru]

You can't test for something that doesn't exist, just like you can't test for the existence of a supernatural diety.

Did you choose to write this?

Regards
DL

There was no choice to start off with, only the illusion of having had one, when you consider the sequence of events in retrospect.

I trust that makes sense.

[BWE]

#98652 / #22


I think "free will" is better described as "degrees of freedom". The more you have the freer you are.

We have lots. Mosquitoes not so much.

febble, you have an epic post on this topic somewhere that should be mandatory 2nd post in any thread on the topic but I can't find it. I think it's here. Maybe at TR or FRDB though. Do you know which post I'm thinking of?

[Valheru]

I'd like to point out that the uncertainty principle isn't a natural law, although many people tend to view it as such, which points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

The idea, put simply, is that you can either observe the position of a particle, or its vector moment, but not both simultaneously.

Another "consequence" is that by observing a particle, you fundamentally change it.

People often miss the core truth behind it though, which is that the rules governing the particle's position and behaviour aren't necessarily unpredictable, as a result. The entire behaviour of a particle might be predictable via some unknown method that doesn't interfere with the particle in any way. The uncertainty principle does not, and cannot, conclude that it's impossible. It merely states, in effect, that we don't know how.

Even Hawking radiation (at the edge of black holes) isn't necessarily unpredictable - we might not know the fate of single members of a particle pair that disappear into the black hole, and from our point of view the behaviour of the emerging particle might be unpredictable as it escapes, but that, again, does not imply that the entire process is nondeterministic. We don't know anything about what happens on the other side of the horizon, but for all we know, the behaviour of the entire system could be fully deterministic.

Even if it WAS nondeterministic, the idea that unpredictable particle behaviour filters upwards through the emergent functioning of a complex biological neural network, thus giving us free will, is absurd. The chemical cascades of your brain are far removed from the unknowns of a black hole.

[Greatest I am]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

Cause and effect eh.

Two words.

Uncertainty principle.

Ta ta
Jailbird
:fallshort:
You understand that I'm NOT challenging free will? I'm challenging your method. Your test fails to be effective. So your whole "two words" flippant response there seriously falls short. It has nothing to do with my point. Why don't you reread my post and respond rationally and with a touch less arrogance?

I went for information, not arrogance but see it whatever way you want.

My response was proper to refute your claim.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Test yourself for Free Will.

The debate as to our free will is more widespread than most realize. It is also stalled without a definitive answer, because no one has come out with a definitive test.

From my point of view free will cannot be given, it is something that must be taken.

If someone has free will then they are in a position to give it up.
If a someone does not have free will, they cannot.

To prove that you have free will, all you would need do is give it up to someone else’s will for no other reason other than you chose to.

If you agree with the reasoning and think the process here sound, then I invite you to give up your free will to mine, by simply replying to this thread with a brief response.

You will begin your response with the letter Y, if you recognize that you have free will.

Your appropriate response will prove that you have a free will.

Is this a definitive test for free will?

Ta ta
JailbirdIf I act in a way that is more or less independent of any external debilitating influences, then I am exercising free will, to a greater or lesser degree, since it is relative and not absolute. At least that is my understanding of the expression in the way that it is commonly used.

You used your will to post that, and your will is in that respect influencing mine, but not in any debilitating fashion that imposes limitations on the choices I can make. Your will is that I should start my post with the Letter Y if I have free will. If I do that, I'm being influenced by your will in a positive fashion, but I'm in no way limited by that. Nor am I compelled to do the opposite in any way that limits or debilitates me. So I disagree that this is a true test or measure of free will.

Interesting idea, but I don't think it works.

Then if your will can go against mine then you have free will. You make my point.

If the point was to draw out or prove free will then we have done it here.

We were testing for free will and found it so I think the test worked fine.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Again, GIA, I think you need to define what you're trying to test for.

Certainly any of us responding to you can answer in a practically infinite variety of ways. Does this mean we have true freedom? We can choose to preface any response with 'Y', or we could choose to append a long string of random alphanumerics. But does that indicate we have free will?

And, if we decide we do have it, then what?

I would think that any time you do what someone else wants you to do, that is giving up your free will.
Wanting to is nice, not wanting to shows free will.

What then, ---enjoy your freedom.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

You can't test for something that doesn't exist, just like you can't test for the existence of a supernatural diety.

Did you choose to write this?

Regards
DL

There was no choice to start off with, only the illusion of having had one, when you consider the sequence of events in retrospect.

I trust that makes sense.

Sure you had a choice. Ignore or post.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

Cause and effect eh.

Two words.

Uncertainty principle.

Ta ta
Jailbird
:fallshort:
You understand that I'm NOT challenging free will? I'm challenging your method. Your test fails to be effective. So your whole "two words" flippant response there seriously falls short. It has nothing to do with my point. Why don't you reread my post and respond rationally and with a touch less arrogance?

I went for information, not arrogance but see it whatever way you want.

My response was proper to refute your claim.

Ta ta
Jailbird

In what way does "Uncertainty Principle" refute my point? Why don't you start by telling me what my point is, in your eyes?

[Pandora]

Then if your will can go against mine then you have free will. You make my point.

If the point was to draw out or prove free will then we have done it here.

We were testing for free will and found it so I think the test worked fine.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You've proved nothing. Your argument is circular as well as illogical. In what way did you find free will?

[Pandora]

Again, GIA, I think you need to define what you're trying to test for.

Certainly any of us responding to you can answer in a practically infinite variety of ways. Does this mean we have true freedom? We can choose to preface any response with 'Y', or we could choose to append a long string of random alphanumerics. But does that indicate we have free will?

And, if we decide we do have it, then what?

I would think that any time you do what someone else wants you to do, that is giving up your free will.
Wanting to is nice, not wanting to shows free will.

What then, ---enjoy your freedom.

Ta ta
Jailbird

That's just dumb. Sorry, but it is. You obviously have a COMPLETELY different version of "free will" than the rest of us do.

You've set up a situation whereby the ONLY way to exercise free will is to NEVER do what ANYONE wants you to do... which essentially means nobody ever does anything.

[Pandora]

There was no choice to start off with, only the illusion of having had one, when you consider the sequence of events in retrospect.

I trust that makes sense.

Sure you had a choice. Ignore or post.

Ta ta
Jailbird

Bullshit.

How can you distinguish between Valheru choosing to post of his own free will and Valheru posting because he is compelled to do?

[Pandora]

This is fucked up, btw. I believe in free will. But GIA's "logic" is so completely lacking in logic that i find myself arguing the other side just to point out how abysmally bad his logic is!

[Greatest I am]

Y

Well... I see where you're going, but I don't think it's definitive by any means. Although I do believe that free will exists ;).

Since you have free will, let me ask, why is this not definitive?
Where does the logic fail?

You had the will to give up to my request.

Regards
DL

It fails because you have no way of knowing whether the person under consideration complied with your request to start with a Y because of their own will... or because a star exploded some 50 million years ago and set their brain atoms in such a formation that they could not act in a differing fashion. This test fails to distinguish between an act of will and an act that is in some fashion predestined.

Cause and effect eh.

Two words.

Uncertainty principle.

Ta ta
Jailbird
:fallshort:
You understand that I'm NOT challenging free will? I'm challenging your method. Your test fails to be effective. So your whole "two words" flippant response there seriously falls short. It has nothing to do with my point. Why don't you reread my post and respond rationally and with a touch less arrogance?

I went for information, not arrogance but see it whatever way you want.

My response was proper to refute your claim.

Ta ta
Jailbird

In what way does "Uncertainty Principle" refute my point? Why don't you start by telling me what my point is, in your eyes?

Your point was cause and effect controls us.

I say it does not. A cause may initiate an effect but the effect can be effected by individual desires.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Then if your will can go against mine then you have free will. You make my point.

If the point was to draw out or prove free will then we have done it here.

We were testing for free will and found it so I think the test worked fine.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You've proved nothing. Your argument is circular as well as illogical. In what way did you find free will?

Free will is inherent in all of us.

Note. The terrible two's. As in two year old child.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

There was no choice to start off with, only the illusion of having had one, when you consider the sequence of events in retrospect.

I trust that makes sense.

Sure you had a choice. Ignore or post.

Ta ta
Jailbird

Bullshit.

How can you distinguish between Valheru choosing to post of his own free will and Valheru posting because he is compelled to do?

Who is doing the compelling?

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

In what way does "Uncertainty Principle" refute my point? Why don't you start by telling me what my point is, in your eyes?

Your point was cause and effect controls us.

I say it does not. A cause may initiate an effect but the effect can be effected by individual desires.

Ta ta
Jailbird

See - this is why we're having a problem. You obviously didn't bother to read my post. That isn't even remotely close to what I said - not even kind sorta a little bit.

Please go back, reread my post, and try again.

[Pandora]

Then if your will can go against mine then you have free will. You make my point.

If the point was to draw out or prove free will then we have done it here.

We were testing for free will and found it so I think the test worked fine.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You've proved nothing. Your argument is circular as well as illogical. In what way did you find free will?

Free will is inherent in all of us.

Note. The terrible two's. As in two year old child.

Ta ta
Jailbird

That's not answering my question. You're just inanely spouting sound bites that have nothing to do with the discussion. If your whole point here is to jerk yourself off so you feel good, while completely ignoring any attempts to discuss the topic rationally, then I won't waste my time with you. If you actually want to discuss something, You might consider reading with the application of logic.

You said that this thread is a test for free will... and that you found free will as a result of this thread.

I asked you in what way did you find free will. A rational person with grade 2 reading comprehension would understand that I am asking what in this thread do you believe is evidence of free will.

You respond by telling me "the terrible twos". Not only is this NOT proof of free will, it's also not even remotely applicable to the question you were asked. You've completely ignored my question.

[Pandora]

Who is doing the compelling?

Ta ta
Jailbird

It doesn't matter who or what is doing the compelling. Can you determine whether Valheru posted because he was compelled to do so or because he chose to do so through the action of free will?

[Jobar]

I would think that any time you do what someone else wants you to do, that is giving up your free will.

But what if doing that is your own uncoerced choice? Cooperation is not coercion.

See, I don't think you're putting enough thought into what you're trying to talk about.

I think "free will" is better described as "degrees of freedom". The more you have the freer you are.

We have lots. Mosquitoes not so much.

Now, there's a good place to start. We don't have some sort of absolute and unlimited freedom; I doubt such a thing is possible. But we do have *some* freedom; just because I'm not free to fly like Superman, or to purchase the Taj Mahal on a whim, doesn't mean my fate is totally constrained and foreordained. Starting with simple things- like whether or not I respond to your post at all- I have choices I can make according to my own best judgment.

[Valheru]

Sure you had a choice. Ignore or post.

Ta ta
Jailbird

The choice was an illusion, which only becomes descernible in retrospect.

Every living thing is a vector engine, and it follows the vector sum of all of its stimuli, both internal and external. If I responded to this thread, there was no other way I could have acted, even though I might be aware of other "possible" outcomes. At the end of the day, my resultant action was simply the vector sum of a vast array of inputs. If I had chosen not to respond, it's because I would have had other inputs. But because I had X number of inputs, the result was that I posted, and if an observer had a time machine, he/she would observe me acting in exactly the same fashion each and every time.

Does a mosquito choose to bite or ignore? Same thing as a human. With a human the number of vectors is infinitely more numerous, but the same principle applies.

You're postulating that at some point, physical laws become "fuzzy" and give way to something metaphysical that drives our actions. It's nonsense. If you overindulge with the booze at a party, your behaviour changes. Does the alcohol alter this "metaphysical will"? No, obviously it doesn't, because it doesn't exist in the first place. What's altered are the physical properties of your brain, based on physical and chemical laws, which leads to altered processing. Nothing more than that.

We have a whole range of "intelligence" in the natural world, from the attitude of a rock as it rests on the ground, to the mechanistic actions of an insect, to metacognition in humans. There is no dividing line, no threshold that an organism crosses in order to become "intelligent". What we classify as intelligence is nothing more than an organism having evolved the ability to gather and process increasingly massive amounts of data about itself and its environment. There's nothing magical about it.

[Greatest I am]

Then if your will can go against mine then you have free will. You make my point.

If the point was to draw out or prove free will then we have done it here.

We were testing for free will and found it so I think the test worked fine.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You've proved nothing. Your argument is circular as well as illogical. In what way did you find free will?

Free will is inherent in all of us.

Note. The terrible two's. As in two year old child.

Ta ta
Jailbird

That's not answering my question. You're just inanely spouting sound bites that have nothing to do with the discussion. If your whole point here is to jerk yourself off so you feel good, while completely ignoring any attempts to discuss the topic rationally, then I won't waste my time with you. If you actually want to discuss something, You might consider reading with the application of logic.

You said that this thread is a test for free will... and that you found free will as a result of this thread.

I asked you in what way did you find free will. A rational person with grade 2 reading comprehension would understand that I am asking what in this thread do you believe is evidence of free will.

You respond by telling me "the terrible twos". Not only is this NOT proof of free will, it's also not even remotely applicable to the question you were asked. You've completely ignored my question.

Perhaps it was poorly asked.

"You said that this thread is a test for free will... and that you found free will as a result of this thread."

Yes I did.
Did you see anything or anyone say that they were compelled to answer regardless of how they answered?

That is free will and yes I did find it here. I expected to.

You asked me what you were talking about and I gave my opinion.
You did not agree and berated my answer instead of redirecting it.

If that is your best way of communicating. Go away.


Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Who is doing the compelling?

Ta ta
Jailbird

It doesn't matter who or what is doing the compelling. Can you determine whether Valheru posted because he was compelled to do so or because he chose to do so through the action of free will?

Yes I can.

It was free will.

If not then let Valheru speak up and tell us who is screwing with his free will and compelling him to answer.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

Who is doing the compelling?

Ta ta
Jailbird

It doesn't matter who or what is doing the compelling. Can you determine whether Valheru posted because he was compelled to do so or because he chose to do so through the action of free will?

Yes I can.
HOW can you definitively tell that Valheru answer by free will and not by destination?

It was free will.Do you understand that you saying it was free will is not proof that it was free will? Your opinion, without valid support and evidence (or logic for that matter) is not proof.

If not then let Valheru speak up and tell us who is screwing with his free will and compelling him to answer.What if he is compelled by the inputs of his brain to ignore your request to tell you?


You really don't seem to understand what the difference between free will and determinism is here. You should probably consider doing some research so you know what the topic actually is.

Those who support free will generally hold that active choice is a reality for humans, and that we actively and volitionally choose our path through life.

Determinists, generally, hold that choice is effectively an illusion, and that the path we take is the result of all the experiences and other inputs in our lives, and that we act as computers in this regard - so that at each decision point, there is only one path that we can possibly take. Our experiences, the inputs to our computer-brain, compel us to make one, and only one choice. Thus, the other choices that we thought we saw were effectively illusory.

There's no person standing behind them with a gun to their heads forcing them to type something - that's not what it means to not have free will. Your entire approach is unorthodox at best... and woefully ill informed and sophomoric at the most likely.

[Greatest I am]

I would think that any time you do what someone else wants you to do, that is giving up your free will.

But what if doing that is your own uncoerced choice? Cooperation is not coercion.

I think it may be.

You might remember that English is not my first language and that I may interpret words in a different way.




Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: \kō-ˈərs\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercēre, from co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose — more at ark
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

synonyms see force

— co·erc·ible \-ˈər-sə-bəl\ adjective

Here, I use # 2.

To even just ask someone to do something, even if they would cooperate, is to my thinking coercion, as in asking for agreement.

To ask is to coerce.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

Your definition of coerce is fine: to compel to an act or choice.

The problem is that you seem to have a pretty bizarre understanding of the term compel. Let me alleviate your ignorance ;).

compel:
1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure

Asking someone to do something need not involve force or pressure, thus it is not compelling. And without that compulsion, it is not coercion.

As an aside... your view of accepting a request being equivalent to coercion means that your test does NOT prove free will, and only proves that free will does not exist. Everyone who "chooses" to respond as you wish them to (theoretically as a demonstration of their free will) is in fact responding to your coercion (by acceding to your request, since asking is coercion), and thus is NOT demonstrating free will by responding.

So yeah... You lose. As we've already said - your test is not a valid test, and it proves nothing.

[dattaswami]

Q.) If everything is according to the will of the Lord, who is the overall controller, there is no independence for any human being in this world. In such case the human being should not receive the fruits of its actions. How do you justify this?

Ans) The Lord is controlling all the souls as per Veda “Aatmeshwaram”, which means that all the souls are ruled by the Lord. Gita also says the same “Bhuthanaam Eeswarah”. But this does not mean that there is no independence for the soul. When the king rules the kingdom, all the people in that kingdom are independent in their activities, but they are within the rules of the king. Thus a short span of independence in the human life exists under the control and supervision of the Lord. A cat caught a rat by its jaws. It leaves the rat after a bite for a short span of time. In that span the rat gets independence and runs in any side as it likes.

But the cat is watching the rat and catches it again whenever the rat is out of the limits of the supervision. Similarly the Lord called “Kaala” (death) catches a human being and bites. The bite is the illness of the human being. The repeated diseases are the repeated bites of the ‘Kaala” or the Lord. During the bite the rat looses completely its independence. Similarly any human being, which is attacked by the disease becomes a patient and looses its independence completely. The cat plays with the rat for sometime like this and finally swallowes the rat. Similarly, the human being is swallowed by the Lord at the end. The whole creation itself is like a rat for the cat like Lord, which is told in Brahmasutra “Atta Charaachara Grahanaat”. Thus the short span of independence of human beings under the supervision of the overall controlling Lord, creates the full game and entertainment for the Lord. The entertainment is the basic reason of the creation by the Lord as said in Veda (Ekaaki Na Ramate) and as said in Brahmasutra (Lokavattu). Within the limits of the supervision of the cat, the rat will receive the result of the direction in which it runs.

In one direction there may be fire and the rat may receive the heat. In another direction there may be cold water and the rat will receive the coolness in that direction. The rat is independent to receive the result of the direction and has full independence to go in any direction. The final death of the rat shows that the rat is under the control of the cat during its choice of direction also, which is not interfered by the cat. Similarly the human life is with full of independence but the final end proves that the independence is under the control of the Lord. Yet, since there was no interference of the Lord during the human life, the human being receives the results according to its actions. Thus the “whole game is perfectly justified in any angle”.

[Greatest I am]

Sure you had a choice. Ignore or post.

Ta ta
Jailbird

The choice was an illusion, which only becomes descernible in retrospect.

Every living thing is a vector engine, and it follows the vector sum of all of its stimuli, both internal and external. If I responded to this thread, there was no other way I could have acted, even though I might be aware of other "possible" outcomes. At the end of the day, my resultant action was simply the vector sum of a vast array of inputs. If I had chosen not to respond, it's because I would have had other inputs. But because I had X number of inputs, the result was that I posted, and if an observer had a time machine, he/she would observe me acting in exactly the same fashion each and every time.

Does a mosquito choose to bite or ignore? Same thing as a human. With a human the number of vectors is infinitely more numerous, but the same principle applies.

You're postulating that at some point, physical laws become "fuzzy" and give way to something metaphysical that drives our actions. It's nonsense. If you overindulge with the booze at a party, your behaviour changes. Does the alcohol alter this "metaphysical will"? No, obviously it doesn't, because it doesn't exist in the first place. What's altered are the physical properties of your brain, based on physical and chemical laws, which leads to altered processing. Nothing more than that.

We have a whole range of "intelligence" in the natural world, from the attitude of a rock as it rests on the ground, to the mechanistic actions of an insect, to metacognition in humans. There is no dividing line, no threshold that an organism crosses in order to become "intelligent". What we classify as intelligence is nothing more than an organism having evolved the ability to gather and process increasingly massive amounts of data about itself and its environment. There's nothing magical about it.

Free Will is nothing more than human intelligence. Everybody has an intelligence quotient and everybody will put this to its best use from their own perspective.

Cause and effect are always in play and these are not predictable thanks to the uncertainty principle. Not all outcomes can be known.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Who is doing the compelling?

Ta ta
Jailbird

It doesn't matter who or what is doing the compelling. Can you determine whether Valheru posted because he was compelled to do so or because he chose to do so through the action of free will?

Yes I can.
HOW can you definitively tell that Valheru answer by free will and not by destination?

It was free will.Do you understand that you saying it was free will is not proof that it was free will? Your opinion, without valid support and evidence (or logic for that matter) is not proof.

If not then let Valheru speak up and tell us who is screwing with his free will and compelling him to answer.What if he is compelled by the inputs of his brain to ignore your request to tell you?

.

Self compelling, is free choice.
That is what we do all the time.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Pandora]

You continue to ignore discussion points, spout your absolutes with no consideration of whether they're relevant to the question or not, and you repeatedly insist that your opinion is proof.

Apparently your screen name is evidence of your Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and potential Megalomania.

You're not worth my effort. I don't enjoy talking to the hind end of a Burro. It never responds with any sense. I'm done with you.

[Sarpedon]

Out of curiosity, why are you also posting this thing on that counter culture forum?

[David B]

We have had a number of free will discussions on the board. It is a difficult topic, which many people in many traditions have contemplated, as have people with a secular outlook on life.

People question whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe, and some would say that in a deterministic universe making moral decisions is impossible.

Then again, if the universe we inhabit is not deterministic, but has randomness built in (which seems to be the case, according to quantum mechanics and/or chaos theory) then how does randomness help ot form a case for free will?

My own stance, built on much reading and thought, is a compatibilist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, but right now bathing, cooking and eating intrudes.

David

[Sarpedon]

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, but right now bathing, cooking and eating intrudes.


If you put off those for long enough, you will acquire magical powers!

[phands]

Q.) If everything is according to the will of the Lord,

It isn't. Invalid premise, argument invalid. NEXT......

[Alethias]

Q.) If everything is according to the will of the LordI don't accept that there is any lord that can will everything. Until you can establish its existence to everyone's satisfaction, why do you make a long complicated post that predicates on this? If everything else you say hinges on this as it seems to, then your post is pointless.

[Jobar]

This thread is being merged with another on basically the same topic. The interaction between the two should prove interesting.

[Valheru]

If not then let Valheru speak up and tell us who is screwing with his free will and compelling him to answer.


Err, you're not listening. There is no free will to screw with, and nothing to compel. We're just machines respondng in the only way we know how.

[Valheru]

Cause and effect are always in play and these are not predictable thanks to the uncertainty principle. Not all outcomes can be known.

I've already dealt with your invocation of the uncertainty principle, and I see you haven't bothered to respond.

That's fine by me, because you have limited vectors in that direction :rolleyes:

[Greatest I am]

Out of curiosity, why are you also posting this thing on that counter culture forum?

Which forum is counter culture.

All forums are within our culture.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

We have had a number of free will discussions on the board. It is a difficult topic, which many people in many traditions have contemplated, as have people with a secular outlook on life.

People question whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe, and some would say that in a deterministic universe making moral decisions is impossible.

Then again, if the universe we inhabit is not deterministic, but has randomness built in (which seems to be the case, according to quantum mechanics and/or chaos theory) then how does randomness help ot form a case for free will?

My own stance, built on much reading and thought, is a compatibilist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, but right now bathing, cooking and eating intrudes.

David

I know that the debate as to what free will means has been a never ending debate and I do not want to waste our time here going over the same old, same old.

You are right about randomness and my simple little test here shows how people can ignore the randomness that they would start a response with and prove that they have free will by giving it up to a response starting with a Y.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[dattaswami]

We have had a number of free will discussions on the board. It is a difficult topic, which many people in many traditions have contemplated, as have people with a secular outlook on life.

People question whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe, and some would say that in a deterministic universe making moral decisions is impossible.

Then again, if the universe we inhabit is not deterministic, but has randomness built in (which seems to be the case, according to quantum mechanics and/or chaos theory) then how does randomness help ot form a case for free will?

My own stance, built on much reading and thought, is a compatibilist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, but right now bathing, cooking and eating intrudes.

David

I know that the debate as to what free will means has been a never ending debate and I do not want to waste our time here going over the same old, same old.

You are right about randomness and my simple little test here shows how people can ignore the randomness that they would start a response with and prove that they have free will by giving it up to a response starting with a Y.

Ta ta
Jailbird

Lord is substratum of the whole creation and hence forms base. Without Him creation cannot sustain. Lord created the universe for entertainment. He has given free will to all the human beings to do whatever they like. But, the results will follow the deeds. So, He is indirectly controlling, that is to say that enjoyment for good deeds and misery for bad deeds. Misery is to bring realisation only and not to repeat the same bad deed. Otherwise, He is not responsible for one's deeds.
Creation is in Lord but Lord is not the creation. But such a Lord can enter creation at the request of devotees who wants Him only and His service. He comes down to give four fortunes to His devotees (to talk, to touch, co-living and to serve).

[lpetrich]

Lord is substratum of the whole creation and hence forms base. Without Him creation cannot sustain.
Seems like Metacrock's "ground of being" or "being itself" god.

Lord created the universe for entertainment.
That's actually a very interesting possibility.

He has given free will to all the human beings to do whatever they like.
Ah yes, the old free-will defense. But why complain about the results that one gets?

But, the results will follow the deeds. So, He is indirectly controlling, that is to say that enjoyment for good deeds and misery for bad deeds. Misery is to bring realisation only and not to repeat the same bad deed.
It would be easier to reprogram us and be done with it.

[Greatest I am]

We have had a number of free will discussions on the board. It is a difficult topic, which many people in many traditions have contemplated, as have people with a secular outlook on life.

People question whether free will is possible in a deterministic universe, and some would say that in a deterministic universe making moral decisions is impossible.

Then again, if the universe we inhabit is not deterministic, but has randomness built in (which seems to be the case, according to quantum mechanics and/or chaos theory) then how does randomness help ot form a case for free will?

My own stance, built on much reading and thought, is a compatibilist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

I will be happy to discuss this further with you, but right now bathing, cooking and eating intrudes.

David

I know that the debate as to what free will means has been a never ending debate and I do not want to waste our time here going over the same old, same old.

You are right about randomness and my simple little test here shows how people can ignore the randomness that they would start a response with and prove that they have free will by giving it up to a response starting with a Y.

Ta ta
Jailbird

Lord is substratum of the whole creation and hence forms base. Without Him creation cannot sustain. Lord created the universe for entertainment. He has given free will to all the human beings to do whatever they like. But, the results will follow the deeds. So, He is indirectly controlling, that is to say that enjoyment for good deeds and misery for bad deeds. Misery is to bring realisation only and not to repeat the same bad deed. Otherwise, He is not responsible for one's deeds.
Creation is in Lord but Lord is not the creation. But such a Lord can enter creation at the request of devotees who wants Him only and His service. He comes down to give four fortunes to His devotees (to talk, to touch, co-living and to serve).

Other than hear say or book say, what makes you think or believe that there is or was a creator God?
What is His name?

No dogma now please.

Ta ta
Jailbird