16 Aug 12
Originally posted by AgergSo if we had not evolved the opposable thumb then we would never had the ability to use reason and logic to question our existence. So when is the last time you smoked some of that wacky weed?
I don't believe that everything makes sense (yet) with no mysteries. However, to that end we have some crack teams of theologi...ahem...sorry about that! I was about to say theologists!! (which would be stupid - they don't come up with anything!) I'll try again: some crack teams of scientists/mathematicians working on it!
Must there be an (objective) purpos ...[text shortened]... turn grants us other priveliges (allowing us even more thinking time) - and so on ...
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYour problem is that you interpret what I said as "we evolved with an opposable thumb - the next day (literally) we were reasoning about our place in the cosmos" when infact I started from the opposable thumb and argued for an incremental (and lengthy) convergence towards the point we have reached now.
So if we had not evolved the opposable thumb then we would never had the ability to use reason and logic to question our existence. So when is the last time you smoked some of that wacky weed?
It would be nice if you could think a little deeper.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsgood point r.j. you have thumbs and its never given you the ability to use reason or logic!! although if you didnt have you little podgy thumbs you wouldnt be able to open those tins of spam, you would starve and............eventually die. (a moment please gentlemen and suzianne, for the hypothetical passing of our beloved r.j. that man loved his spam).
So if we had not evolved the opposable thumb then we would never had the ability to use reason and logic to question our existence. So when is the last time you smoked some of that wacky weed?
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI know you just hate my guts.
good point r.j. you have thumbs and its never given you the ability to use reason or logic!! although if you didnt have you little podgy thumbs you wouldnt be able to open those tins of spam, you would starve and............eventually die. (a moment please gentlemen and suzianne, for the hypothetical passing of our beloved r.j. that man loved his spam).
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by AgergNice. But not practical. 😀
Your problem is that you interpret what I said as "we evolved with an opposable thumb - the next day (literally) we were reasoning about our place in the cosmos" when infact I started from the opposable thumb and argued for an incremental (and lengthy) convergence towards the point we have reached now.
It would be nice if you could think a little deeper.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadit's an unknown hence the provisional use of the term "assumption"
That's simply not true. As I said, you are trying to create a circular argument. You assume its a law then claim its a law based on the assumption. The current state of quantum physics suggest that it is not the case that things are deterministic. Of course there is no way to prove that quantum effects are not caused, but there is currently no known cause.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieI dont have an answer for your last question there yet, and I'm not sure if I get your post exactly - but even if one does go back in time many times and makes the same decision this is no evidence that free will is not being employed.
i think people make decisions based on the way their brains are put together. if we could watch somebody make a decision, then rewind time and watch them over and over again, as long as the variables were the same we would get the same decision being made. although the brain offers up many options the person always chooses the same. so every decision yo ...[text shortened]... prison to punish/rehabilitate them.
does anybody have any evidence of free-will in action??
(I think you would have to give a specific example to flesh that point out properly)
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritCan you explain that differently at all? I'm having trouble comprehending
it's really quiet simple. if our though process is contained fully within the physical universe, then we have no free will since it's all a bunch of particles bumping into each other. it would only be apparent free will due to the astonishingly large number of variables at work.
if however, our real "self" is located somewhere outside of the universe ...[text shortened]... ll as long as the link to the 'self' is maintained (ie. no brain damage or alteration).
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by karoly aczeli suppose another way of putting it would be;
Can you explain that differently at all? I'm having trouble comprehending
if we are all physical body located fully in the natural universe, then there can be no free will since we are subject to the natural laws of the universe.
if however we have a supernatural body (or a soul/spirit), located where it is not subject to the natural laws of the universe, then the possibility of free will exists.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by karoly aczela person stands in front of 3 doors and is asked to walk through one. he steps through door A, when we rewind time he chooses A again. the test is done a million times and each time he picks A.
I dont have an answer for your last question there yet, and I'm not sure if I get your post exactly - but even if one does go back in time many times and makes the same decision this is no evidence that free will is not being employed.
(I think you would have to give a specific example to flesh that point out properly)
each time the mans brain offers him 3 choices (possibly more running away, refusing to choose and so on). if he had true free will, he would have no restrictions on what his final door choice would be. i think in a free will scenario his door selection would vary, his brain would not be dictating what decision he makes. in a no-free will scenario he makes the same decision because its the only decision he is capable of making because he is limited by the way his brain and chemical structure is made.
if in every decision we make in life there is only actually one choice we are capable of making (regardless off how many options the brain offers) then i cant see how there can be a free-will.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat depends very much on the definition of 'free will'. Under some definitions, a fully deterministic system is still permissible.
i suppose another way of putting it would be;
if we are all physical body located fully in the natural universe, then there can be no free will since we are subject to the natural laws of the universe.
if however we have a supernatural body (or a soul/spirit), located where it is not subject to the natural laws of the universe, then the possibility of free will exists.
I also don't see how the use of the supernatural changes anything whatsoever. The supernatural body (or a soul/spirit) wherever it may be located must also work via some mechanism that is either deterministic or random and in no way changes the basic issues.
The basic concept with 'free will' is that an entity is capable of making decisions without them being forced upon it by external factors. However, if we break down the mechanism by which said entity makes these decisions we find that one or more of the following must be the case:
1. The decisions are in fact a result of external factors, though possibly from the past.
2. The decisions may contain randomness.
The only possible exception is an eternal entity - in which case its decisions may contain brute facts.