Are there limits to free will?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

I have been reading your exchange with itsnowagain . Do you honestly believe the two of you are acting out of free will?

It is perfectly clear to an intelligent observer that you are each simply reacting when the other pushes his or her button.

The same, naturally, is true of my own post.

Forget about 'our little exchange'...run me through a description of how you came to notice 'our little exchange'...and to make it true to your comment, remove any mention, reference or semantic gymnastics that include You 'deciding' anything...

the height of ridiculousness

Å99

originally posted by: Scouse100
a reply to: akushla99

But by my reasoning, as every choice is based upon past experiences and influences then that includes that choice to realise the past experience.

For me, the way we can make a decision is by weighing up (instantaneously at times) things that we know and have experienced before that moment. Having said that, I do feel part of this may be lead by genetic predisposition, but of course, that is also beyond our control.

Yes, I hear you about the escape hatch and some folk are more likely to use that than others, again based on their past experiences and even just having the knowledge that that is an option. Some may lie and blame certain past experiences for a 'bad' decision, when in fact it is a different set of past experiences that have lead then to that decision. They know (from past experience) that one set will garner more sympathy than the other.

Folk carry out detrimental actions all the time knowingly. Just because something is detrimental it doesn't mean someone will always decide not to do it. Perhaps they know they will get some instant gratification from it for example, and for them that outweighs the detriment, at least at the time of the decision.

My thoughts on this are really hard to put into words so I hope I am making sense

In context though, how can any 'decision' or result of a decision of a decision - be bad, wrong, detrimental etc - if nothing is your decision?

no-one haphazardly, spontaneously, impulsively went through the process of registering on ATS to be able to respond to another ridiculous post about no free will - tell me that's what happened...honestly...

Å99

narp just control mechanisms in sentient societies for some order called civility... most of that just comes from lines of demarcation called born here so mine and stay on that other side called yours... and the earth sighs shut up a holes you all were born here and die here unless youre lost in space then the universe says girlfriend aint that the truth?

a reply to: akushla99

who's 'pushing' whose buttons if free will doesn't exist?

Why, you and itsnowagain, of course. Is free will needed to push a button? Or even to want to push it?

ridiculous idiocy

It seems like that until you think it through.

a reply to: akushla99

run me through a description of how you came to notice 'our little exchange'...and to make it true to your comment, remove any mention, reference or semantic gymnastics that include You 'deciding' anything

Frequent experience has conditioned me to notice whenever an unwary member is inspired to engage itsnowagain in debate, because much amusing frustrated thrashing about generally ensues. I am always alert for such occurrences -- they are now rare because most of us have been once bitten already.

And as itsnowagain's stance on this thread is the same as mine, so I was drawn to comment. The urge was quite compulsive, I assure you.

See? Not at all hard. Or ridiculous.

From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

run me through a description of how you came to notice 'our little exchange'...and to make it true to your comment, remove any mention, reference or semantic gymnastics that include You 'deciding' anything

Frequent experience has conditioned me to notice whenever an unwary member is inspired to engage itsnowagain in debate, because much amusing frustrated thrashing about generally ensues. I am always alert for such occurrences -- they are now rare because most of us have been once bitten already.

And as itsnowagain's stance on this thread is the same as mine, so I was drawn to comment. The urge was quite compulsive, I assure you.

See? Not at all hard. Or ridiculous.

'Your' fey assurance and amateur mental gymnastics are irrelevant - but, from 'your' stance can hardly be blamed for its gauche-ness...You merely reacted...

...least of all to the seat before the screen of a computer upon which you at some stage made a decision to turn on, go through the process of registering on ATS to 'notice' that T&C ask you to read and understand its parameters to be able to 'notice' anything any other members post...in effect, admitting 'you' are NOT responsible for 'your' posts...

...yes, ridiculous...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

You can trace the chain of causation just as far back as you please and it will be the same.

Science and philosophy are both deeply sceptical of free will. What have you got to offer, apart from an argument from incredulity?

a reply to: Astyanax

"Why, you and itsnowagain, of course. Is free will needed to push a button? Or even to want to push it?"

I want a front row seat at the trial for 1st degree, when you plead insanity...

...completely ridiculous...

Å99

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

You can trace the chain of causation just as far back as you please and it will be the same.

Science and philosophy are both deeply sceptical of free will. What have you got to offer, apart from an argument from incredulity?

I will readily admit that I did read and understand the T&C of (at least) ATS, thereby taking full responsibility for anything I post...you either lied, or are not responsible...and in the light of those little mental gems, I can dismiss any haphazardly occuring replies on those grounds.

Similarly, science has proven nothing of the sort...and can be dismissed under the same conditions...

Å99

a reply to: Astyanax

"Science and philosophy are both deeply sceptical of free will. What have you got to offer, apart from an argument from incredulity?"

They can be as 'deeply sceptical' of anything they like...why would I trust anything from anyone who will admit they are not responsible for their own thoughts, and therefore determinations or conclusions?

...the idiocy continues

Å99

originally posted by: ausername
From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

yes...there's a fair chance that if you hang out (haphazardly or decidedly) with criminals, that you will find yourself in a place, in the future, which can be 'predicted' to some degree - but that would depend on choices...that shouldn't be a revelation...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername
From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

yes...there's a fair chance that if you hang out (haphazardly or decidedly) with criminals, that you will find yourself in a place, in the future, which can be 'predicted' to some degree - but that would depend on choices...that shouldn't be a revelation...

Å99

If the future already exists (it does) you only have the illusion of choice and free will, as all of the choices you will make are predestined, unless you have access to extremely detailed information from the future, only then will you actually have the free will to make a choice apart from your predestined choices. Then comes the paradox of altering destiny. For example..

If I give you information from the future detailing how you and others with you will be killed in a crash, date, time, location etc. And you choose not to go that day, there is now a future where you died in that crash, and a new and uncertain future ahead of you now...

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername
From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

yes...there's a fair chance that if you hang out (haphazardly or decidedly) with criminals, that you will find yourself in a place, in the future, which can be 'predicted' to some degree - but that would depend on choices...that shouldn't be a revelation...

Å99

If the future already exists (it does) you only have the illusion of choice and free will, as all of the choices you will make are predestined, unless you have access to extremely detailed information from the future, only then will you actually have the free will to make a choice apart from your predestined choices. Then comes the paradox of altering destiny. For example..

If I give you information from the future detailing how you and others with you will be killed in a crash, date, time, location etc. And you choose not to go that day, there is now a future where you died in that crash, and a new and uncertain future ahead of you now...

that's very nice...keyword 'choose'...

If either (the amorphous) science or philosophy were able to completely remove any and all reference to any and all 'choice' between one 'thing' or another, by an entity that (at the pointy end) does the 'choosing'...it is a ridiculous position to hold, as I've said - I have no reason to believe anyone who 'determines', 'reasons', 'concludes' without the element of choice, that there is no choice...Is that clear?

The 'time' discussion is probably better left off for the sake of simplicity...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername
From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

yes...there's a fair chance that if you hang out (haphazardly or decidedly) with criminals, that you will find yourself in a place, in the future, which can be 'predicted' to some degree - but that would depend on choices...that shouldn't be a revelation...

Å99

If the future already exists (it does) you only have the illusion of choice and free will, as all of the choices you will make are predestined, unless you have access to extremely detailed information from the future, only then will you actually have the free will to make a choice apart from your predestined choices. Then comes the paradox of altering destiny. For example..

If I give you information from the future detailing how you and others with you will be killed in a crash, date, time, location etc. And you choose not to go that day, there is now a future where you died in that crash, and a new and uncertain future ahead of you now...

that's very nice...keyword 'choose'...

Å99

Your entire life, past, present and FUTURE is the result of choices already made, most your own, some not your own. You can choose to believe that or not. In fact, you already have made that choice....

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: ausername
From the present looking at the past there is NO free will. In the present there is the illusion of unlimited free will. You can't change your past, you can change your present and your future IF you already know your future with absolute certainty.

yes...there's a fair chance that if you hang out (haphazardly or decidedly) with criminals, that you will find yourself in a place, in the future, which can be 'predicted' to some degree - but that would depend on choices...that shouldn't be a revelation...

Å99

If the future already exists (it does) you only have the illusion of choice and free will, as all of the choices you will make are predestined, unless you have access to extremely detailed information from the future, only then will you actually have the free will to make a choice apart from your predestined choices. Then comes the paradox of altering destiny. For example..

If I give you information from the future detailing how you and others with you will be killed in a crash, date, time, location etc. And you choose not to go that day, there is now a future where you died in that crash, and a new and uncertain future ahead of you now...

that's very nice...keyword 'choose'...

Å99

Your entire life, past, present and FUTURE is the result of choices already made, most your own, some not your own. You can choose to believe that or not. In fact, you already have made that choice....

I don't inherently disagree with that.

If all possible and probable futures already exist (which incidentally I believe they do) this does not mean, there is no free will to choose between them...that IS what is being discussed...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

They can be as 'deeply sceptical' of anything they like...why would I trust anything from anyone who will admit they are not responsible for their own thoughts, and therefore determinations or conclusions?

Because the facts support the position, obviously.

You suppose that responsibility is a consequence of free will. This is a common error — so common, in fact, that most legal codes are predicated upon it. But it is a false supposition. Nature holds us responsible for our actions whether or not we will them. Responsibility exists whether or not free will exists.

Can you murder someone and escape the consequences of it, even if you are a lunatic who is held in court to have ‘diminished responsibility’? No, they’re going to lock you up all the same, and put a guard on you, and make your life miserable.

Now please stop calling people liars and fools, or I will report you. If there is any folly in this thread, it is your refusal to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

a reply to: artistpoet

They were unaware they were being rounded up for extermination. They thought they were being re located

that may have been true at first, but it was a well known fact that by 1942 if you were one of the "racially undesirable elements" of German society, such as Jews, Criminals, Homosexuals, and Romani and others, that were picked up and taken to one of the camps. your chances of coming out alive were slim.

a reply to: Profusion

here ya go,

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

They can be as 'deeply sceptical' of anything they like...why would I trust anything from anyone who will admit they are not responsible for their own thoughts, and therefore determinations or conclusions?

Because the facts support the position, obviously.

You suppose that responsibility is a consequence of free will. This is a common error — so common, in fact, that most legal codes are predicated upon it. But it is a false supposition. Nature holds us responsible for our actions whether or not we will them. Responsibility exists whether or not free will exists.

Can you murder someone and escape the consequences of it, even if you are a lunatic who is held in court to have ‘diminished responsibility’? No, they’re going to lock you up all the same, and put a guard on you, and make your life miserable.

Now please stop calling people liars and fools, or I will report you. If there is any folly in this thread, it is your refusal to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

Where did I call anyone a 'liar' outright? You need to reign in those chemicals...and it'd probably be a good idea to refrain from assuming what You think(?) that I 'suppose' - You have no way of knowing this...

If there is any folly, it is in the blind acceptance that whoever 'determined' that we have no free will needs to explain how they got to the point of determining anything without at any point making a choice, decision or anything else (without free will) that would get them to the point of designing experimentation (without free will), to produce and present thier findings (without free will)...and presumably, if it is the mind-blowing discovery everyone seems to think(?) it is; they will refuse any awards for work which is not thiers...ya know, because all along the way everything just randomly arranged itself for them to tell you that they had no control over how it all went...

completely and utterly ridiculous...

Å99