Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
some implications of free will
Re: some implications of free will
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.16.30.55@comcast,net ...
| On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:25:34 +0100, Spencer ©¿©¬ wrote:
|
| > I amuse myself--
|
| implies free will
No it doesn't. I have to amuse myself as there's nobody else here to do it.
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.16.30.55@comcast,net ...
| On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:25:34 +0100, Spencer ©¿©¬ wrote:
|
| > I amuse myself--
|
| implies free will
No it doesn't. I have to amuse myself as there's nobody else here to do it.
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 2, 6:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
> let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
> the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
That's not a very productive way of defining free will, as the
defintion itself excludes it from investigation, by defining it as
something outside the physical realm.
The only thing this definition tells us, is that you have a religious
understanding of free will.
> I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
> choices but myself,
The cental word here is BELIEVE. You don't have any evidence for this
point of view, you just apriori choose to belive that this is how it
is.
That however was clear already from the way you defined free will.
A more productive way of defining free will could be, the subjective
experience feeling that you are making choices,
For my own part I think that a satisfactory explanation to
consiousness will never be given. Sure, we will be able to pinpoint
the location of specific thoughts and decissions in the brain with
still better accuracy.
But you cant't have an explanation of a subjectiv experience, although
we may be able to explain how this experience arises.
J.O.
On Apr 2, 6:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
>
> let us also define free will as the ability to have any response in with
> the same criteria above, under conditions of no stimuli
That's not a very productive way of defining free will, as the
defintion itself excludes it from investigation, by defining it as
something outside the physical realm.
The only thing this definition tells us, is that you have a religious
understanding of free will.
> I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
> choices but myself,
The cental word here is BELIEVE. You don't have any evidence for this
point of view, you just apriori choose to belive that this is how it
is.
That however was clear already from the way you defined free will.
A more productive way of defining free will could be, the subjective
experience feeling that you are making choices,
For my own part I think that a satisfactory explanation to
consiousness will never be given. Sure, we will be able to pinpoint
the location of specific thoughts and decissions in the brain with
still better accuracy.
But you cant't have an explanation of a subjectiv experience, although
we may be able to explain how this experience arises.
J.O.
Re: some implications of free will
<jenspolsen@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1175510020.026985.284090@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 6:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
| > I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
| > choices but myself,
Choose to choose.
Choose to lose.
Choose to go.
-- Velvet Underground
| The cental word here is BELIEVE. You don't have any evidence for this
| point of view, you just apriori choose to belive that this is how it
| is.
| That however was clear already from the way you defined free will.
|
| A more productive way of defining free will could be, the subjective
| experience feeling that you are making choices,
Very good.
| For my own part I think that a satisfactory explanation to
| consiousness will never be given. Sure, we will be able to pinpoint
| the location of specific thoughts and decissions in the brain with
| still better accuracy.
| But you cant't have an explanation of a subjectiv experience, although
| we may be able to explain how this experience arises.
The Origin of Consiousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind by Julian
Jaynes
explains this to my satisfaction. This book should have been recognised as
the most important text of the 20th C. It's also a damn good read.
<jenspolsen@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1175510020.026985.284090@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 6:20 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
| > I, for one, believe I have free will and that NOTHING determines my
| > choices but myself,
Choose to choose.
Choose to lose.
Choose to go.
-- Velvet Underground
| The cental word here is BELIEVE. You don't have any evidence for this
| point of view, you just apriori choose to belive that this is how it
| is.
| That however was clear already from the way you defined free will.
|
| A more productive way of defining free will could be, the subjective
| experience feeling that you are making choices,
Very good.
| For my own part I think that a satisfactory explanation to
| consiousness will never be given. Sure, we will be able to pinpoint
| the location of specific thoughts and decissions in the brain with
| still better accuracy.
| But you cant't have an explanation of a subjectiv experience, although
| we may be able to explain how this experience arises.
The Origin of Consiousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind by Julian
Jaynes
explains this to my satisfaction. This book should have been recognised as
the most important text of the 20th C. It's also a damn good read.
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:33:40 -0700, jenspolsen wrote:
> I think--
implies a choice of free will
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:33:40 -0700, jenspolsen wrote:
> I think--
implies a choice of free will
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
On 2 Apr., 18:32, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:33:40 -0700, jenspolsen wrote:
> > I think--
>
> implies a choice of free will
>
I implies a subjective experience of being a consious self making
decisions. I does not however imply anything about how this subjective
experience comes about.
And your point was?
J.O.
On 2 Apr., 18:32, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:33:40 -0700, jenspolsen wrote:
> > I think--
>
> implies a choice of free will
>
I implies a subjective experience of being a consious self making
decisions. I does not however imply anything about how this subjective
experience comes about.
And your point was?
J.O.
Re: some implications of free will
Sorry I don't get this disconnect you talk about.
Can you speak to me in more plain English? I like your ideas that we
have free will, but no one in everyday life speaks like "Let us assume
that bla bla bla".
I just find formality hard to read, and to be honest it detracts from
your message by making it more boring,w hich is a shame as you are
talking about an interesting subject.
Anyhow, I agree we have free will...
My take is that biology affects our decisions. And that biology can
even affect what kind of soul chooses to reincarnate in a body. Kind
of like a driver's tastes affects what car he's gonna buy. But we
still have free will even if biology affects us.
I still don't get the disconnect...
My free will can affect anything. Not just my body but the world
around me. It's just a few trillion times tighter integrated into my
body. And even then, only into certain parts of my body.
Unfortunately, that is because I've inherited a body created by evil
souls, as I live on a planet of evil. Earth is the planet of evil you
know. On other dimensions, there is no war, no lies, no misery or
fear, and the creatures don't eat each other, although there are
things to eat, such as fruits and drinks or other things given to eat
instead of taken.
I think it should be possible to create a "soul attachment material",
sort of like a velcro patch for the soul, to allow souls to
reincarnate into robots... Of course, they'd have to WANT to
reincarnate there, or else they'd arrive, be like "oh wow this feels
funny.... but kinda boring, OK lets go now", and leave! If you wanted
someone to reincarnate into a robot you'd have to make it worthwhile
reincarnating there.
Sorry I don't get this disconnect you talk about.
Can you speak to me in more plain English? I like your ideas that we
have free will, but no one in everyday life speaks like "Let us assume
that bla bla bla".
I just find formality hard to read, and to be honest it detracts from
your message by making it more boring,w hich is a shame as you are
talking about an interesting subject.
Anyhow, I agree we have free will...
My take is that biology affects our decisions. And that biology can
even affect what kind of soul chooses to reincarnate in a body. Kind
of like a driver's tastes affects what car he's gonna buy. But we
still have free will even if biology affects us.
I still don't get the disconnect...
My free will can affect anything. Not just my body but the world
around me. It's just a few trillion times tighter integrated into my
body. And even then, only into certain parts of my body.
Unfortunately, that is because I've inherited a body created by evil
souls, as I live on a planet of evil. Earth is the planet of evil you
know. On other dimensions, there is no war, no lies, no misery or
fear, and the creatures don't eat each other, although there are
things to eat, such as fruits and drinks or other things given to eat
instead of taken.
I think it should be possible to create a "soul attachment material",
sort of like a velcro patch for the soul, to allow souls to
reincarnate into robots... Of course, they'd have to WANT to
reincarnate there, or else they'd arrive, be like "oh wow this feels
funny.... but kinda boring, OK lets go now", and leave! If you wanted
someone to reincarnate into a robot you'd have to make it worthwhile
reincarnating there.
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> I still don't get the disconnect...--
since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> I still don't get the disconnect...--
since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 2, 5:35 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> > I still don't get the disconnect...--
>
> since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
> system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
> illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion
Erm.... no. They are both true.
> , and why not all
> of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
> nervous system to control our bodies
CNS helps to interact with our bodies... but it's not the only way. It
can be done with free will alone.
I can push my car without getting into the driver's seat. But it's
easier to move by getting inside and using the controls. The same with
our bodies. The driver is not an illusion, and the controls are not an
illusion.
On Apr 2, 5:35 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> > I still don't get the disconnect...--
>
> since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
> system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
> illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion
Erm.... no. They are both true.
> , and why not all
> of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
> nervous system to control our bodies
CNS helps to interact with our bodies... but it's not the only way. It
can be done with free will alone.
I can push my car without getting into the driver's seat. But it's
easier to move by getting inside and using the controls. The same with
our bodies. The driver is not an illusion, and the controls are not an
illusion.
Re: some implications of free will
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.16.36.11@comcast,net ...
| On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
|
| > I still don't get the disconnect...--
|
|
| since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
| system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
| illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
| of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
| nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
| there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
| REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
| free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
| materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
I KNOW the opposite is true therefore you don't exist and neither do I.
Only the so called material world is real and that is immaterial.
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.16.36.11@comcast,net ...
| On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
|
| > I still don't get the disconnect...--
|
|
| since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
| system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
| illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
| of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
| nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
| there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
| REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
| free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
| materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
I KNOW the opposite is true therefore you don't exist and neither do I.
Only the so called material world is real and that is immaterial.
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 3, 2:35 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> > I still don't get the disconnect...--
>
> since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
> system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
> illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
> of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
> nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
> there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
> REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
> free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
> materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Can you breathe without willing it? Or does the central nervous
system cut in even against your will? You can shoose to alter your
breathing rate for a short time, but really you have no control over
it ultimately. What does this tell you?
On Apr 3, 2:35 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:01:16 -0700, collection60 wrote:
> > I still don't get the disconnect...--
>
> since we have a free will, and the body operates by the central nervous
> system, and by will ALONE do we control our body, either free will is an
> illusion, or the central nervous system is an illusion, and why not all
> of what we percieve as materialism? We do not interact with a central
> nervous system to control our bodies, we do so by will alone, therefore
> there is a disconnect, either we don't have will power, or we don't
> REALLY have a central nervous system, I for one am convinced that I have
> free will, therefore I believe the central nervous system, and all of
> materialism, is an illusion, because of this disconnect
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Can you breathe without willing it? Or does the central nervous
system cut in even against your will? You can shoose to alter your
breathing rate for a short time, but really you have no control over
it ultimately. What does this tell you?
Re: some implications of free will
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:20:22 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:20:22 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> let us define free will as the ability to respond to stimuli with choice
> in a manner that is not determined by any factor but itself
Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
have choice?
if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
robots, more like plants than animals
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
have choice?
if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
robots, more like plants than animals
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:37:56 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time,
How do you "know" this? At best we observe what appears to be
"free will."
> and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
Because it is socially responsible to do so. See the chapter on
the subject in "Black Holes and Baby Universes:" the correct
answer is in there.
> if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
> robots, more like plants than animals
All the evidence thus far points to the fact that humans do not
have "free will" and that we live in a clock-work universe where
effect always follows cause. There has never been an observation
on the not sub-atomic level that has been otherwise.
So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free
will" exists before you can start saying what its properties are.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:37:56 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time,
How do you "know" this? At best we observe what appears to be
"free will."
> and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
Because it is socially responsible to do so. See the chapter on
the subject in "Black Holes and Baby Universes:" the correct
answer is in there.
> if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
> robots, more like plants than animals
All the evidence thus far points to the fact that humans do not
have "free will" and that we live in a clock-work universe where
effect always follows cause. There has never been an observation
on the not sub-atomic level that has been otherwise.
So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free
will" exists before you can start saying what its properties are.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:12:54 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free will"
> exists before you can start saying what its properties are.--
wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:12:54 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free will"
> exists before you can start saying what its properties are.--
wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:03:27 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:12:54 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free will"
> > exists before you can start saying what its properties are.--
> wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
> upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
> while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
Fuck your "emergent behaviorists:" the issue is reality, not
imaginary opinions from imaginary "emergent behaviorists." The
laws of physics have been studied for at least six thousand years,
and during all that time not even one person has ever been able to
show "free will."
So the ball is *STILL* in your court: you must first show that
"free will" exists before you can start saying what its properties
are.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I may be dead, but I'm still pretty." -- Buffy
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:03:27 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:12:54 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > So the ball is still in your court: you must first show that "free will"
> > exists before you can start saying what its properties are.--
> wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
> upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
> while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
Fuck your "emergent behaviorists:" the issue is reality, not
imaginary opinions from imaginary "emergent behaviorists." The
laws of physics have been studied for at least six thousand years,
and during all that time not even one person has ever been able to
show "free will."
So the ball is *STILL* in your court: you must first show that
"free will" exists before you can start saying what its properties
are.
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I may be dead, but I'm still pretty." -- Buffy
