Does Free Will Exist?

@Alientcp said in #59:
> We do not follow nature, you use clothing, you use shoes, the walking part is relative, we drive mostly, whether are cars, motorcycles, bikes, scooters, skates, we fly.
>
> Our disabled use glasses, wheelchairs, prosthetic arms and legs, hearing aids.
>
> We broke "Our nature" a long time ago.

Innovation is our nature

@Alientcp said in #60:
> I said consciousness is a property of the brain. Without a brain, you cant have the property.
>

You said consciousness is abstract, it's not, it is complex but that's not the same as abstract

@Alientcp said in #60:
> I do not know why is that even a topic.

Because it is scary to think we lack control so we make up stories about how we're special

@PureProgressionFTW said in #62:
>
>
>
>
> Because it is scary to think we lack control so we make up stories about how we're special

if you are aware that you lack control it means you are aware that there are choices but you dont have the ability to choose wich is bullshit.being aware of different choices means you have the ability to decide wich is the one you want to choose.And thats called free will.for example an engine looks at all choices in a chess game and decides the move it calculates as best,we do that too but we can on purpose play a move wich is not the most winning but it leads to a position you enjoy playing more.an engine cant do that cause it doesnt enjoy the game and can choose only according to certain goals it is programmed,we can choose the second best move just to make the game last longer or even lose on purpose make the worst move to make oponent happy,free will is connected to feelings and only living things have free will,computer just plays what is ordered not what he enjoys or likes.

@Oportunist said in #63:
> if you are aware that you lack control it means you are aware that there are choices but you dont have the ability to choose wich is bullshit.being aware of different choices means you have the ability to decide wich is the one you want to choose.And thats called free will.for example an engine looks at all choices in a chess game and decides the move it calculates as best,we do that too but we can on purpose play a move wich is not the most winning but it leads to a position you enjoy playing more.an engine cant do that cause it doesnt enjoy the game and can choose only according to certain goals it is programmed,we can choose the second best move just to make the game last longer or even lose on purpose make the worst move to make oponent happy,free will is connected to feelings and only living things have free will,computer just plays what is ordered not what he enjoys or likes.

If people could "just choose" no one would be addicted, no one would make bad choices, they'd just choose not to.

Every living creature is trying it's best to make wise choices, even the bum on the street or person in a mental institution, everyone is already using the equipment they've got and are trained on to the maximum.

If you watch people moving about in a big city it's no different than watching raindrops falling. The human ego likes to think it's special, that our decisions are more noble or wise than bacteria in a petri dish gobbling up resources but it's the same basic mechanism.

You can't point to a free action that's independent of any influence. Try. Try to choose your next thought. If you had free will you could think any thought you want & stop any thought or feeling you didn't like.

@PureProgressionFTW said in #64:
> If people could "just choose" no one would be addicted, no one would make bad choices, they'd just choose not to.
>
> Every living creature is trying it's best to make wise choices, even the bum on the street or person in a mental institution, everyone is already using the equipment they've got and are trained on to the maximum.
>
> If you watch people moving about in a big city it's no different than watching raindrops falling. The human ego likes to think it's special, that our decisions are more noble or wise than bacteria in a petri dish gobbling up resources but it's the same basic mechanism.
>
> You can't point to a free action that's independent of any influence. Try. Try to choose your next thought. If you had free will you could think any thought you want & stop any thought or feeling you didn't like.

i said feelings are connected to free will,when you choose ,you choose acording to your feelings and intelligence,lets say someone offered you heroin,your intelligence says no it is dangerous,your feelings says i gota try this,your intelligence also says what bad can happen from one time,your feelings also says how upset my mom would be if something happened to me etc..in the end you make a choice to take it or not to take it.its not as simple as not choosing anything bad for you,like you say.

when you choose sometimes your feelings win,sometimes your logic wins what you decide to choose,its very complicated

you're all ignoring the arguments i gave, that make your discussion futile cos' about 350 years (Sir Isaac Newton era) obsolete & deprecated.

the arguments against determinism were:

• chaostheory

• theory of complexity

• uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics

@Alientcp said in #56:
> A stream is electromagnetic radiation. Consciousness it is not.

Stream of water is not radiation. Stream of consciousness is not radiation.

> Depends on how do you define existence. If you define it as an object that exist in space, then yes. it doesnt exist.

No I don't define existence like that.
How do you know that consciousness does not exist in space?

> No, you didnt,

Yes I did, look: "Even if consciousness were abstract, it could still be locked in determinism. Thinking follows a path and is affected by everything you experience, think and learn. One thought causes another one. This endless chain of thought also causes your 'will', your decisions."

> Cause and effect only applies to objects that exist in reality as far as we can tell.

In which reality does it happen that something causes you to think something else?

> Of course thinking follows association, else it wouldnt be called thinking. We wouldnt be able to recognize intelligence if we coudlnt communicate.

Association means idea A strongly influencing to think idea B. This happens via cause and effect. One thought leads to another. Your will is partly created by such chains. You can choose to modify or teach that will, but you can never escape the chain of thought (unless you destroy all your knowledge i.e. your memory). And then you would just be more imprisoned by your innate urges created by genes.

> Can you give me 1 kg of red? Can you give me 1 kg of speed? 1 kg of height? 1 kg of weight?
> No you cant. Why? Because red is not an entity, nor speed nor height nor weight.

If you mean consciousness is an attribute then you could have just said so.

> The genetic code, you know its not a actual code right?

That is irrelevant. It is even more forcing when it is a chemical reaction inducer vs. an 'actual code'.

> The decisions are not forced. You decide. Thats the point. You are deciding to continue replying.

This is just an assertion, not a justification. You are not addressing the implications of everything in me, including my will, being shaped by past events.

> If the objects that exist in nature are inanimate they cant do a single thing by themselves and have no option but to follow determinism. But if they can do something, they can use opposite force to fight against it. If they are strong enough, fast enough, they can do something about it. They wont change nature, but they can change the outcome for themselves.

If their will is part of that nature, then they can't rise above it. All their attempts to rise above are doings of that same nature.

If I want to eat chocolate cake (that I do not currently perceive) it is possible only because I have learned such a dessert exists and maybe even experienced its taste. I can't want it if I haven't learned chocolate cakes exist. Learning that chocolate cakes exist causes or participates - alongside with eg. hunger that is caused by not eating and my genes that produce the digestive system and my brain - in causing the effect of wanting to eat chocolate cake. Endless chain of cause and effect. If I resist the temptation then something has caused in me an effect of wanting to resist the temptation to eat chocolate cake.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said in #67:
> you're all ignoring the arguments i gave, that make your discussion futile cos' about 350 years (Sir Isaac Newton era) obsolete & deprecated.
>
> the arguments against determinism were:
>
> • chaostheory
>
> • theory of complexity
>
> • uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics

Could be because you entered the discussion with troll-like comments in which you just wanted to shut down the whole conversation calling it waste of time. Even still you are just naming theories in physics, instead of explaining how they in your view refute determinism.

You've been trolled!