God, Free Will & Contingency

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The other pics emphasized human originality stemming out from Free Will.

Nobody creates anything that is truly original. We get it all from our past and present environment and remold it. But it always consists of bits and pieces of already existing ideas and therefore is never completely original. This was not pointed out to me by a scientist, it was pointed out to me by my Art Professor in College. Could an artist's environment, genetic predispositions and past experiences dictate what he paints?? You bet it can and does.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Love is beyond the conceptualizing mind.

Did you know that Love is viewable in the brain under fMRI?

That's not love, that's a thrill, a burning desire met. Two entirely different things where one is misunderstood as the other. But don't even bother to ponder that. That is a topic you will never get your mechanical arms around.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Reference: viewtopic.php?p=111042#p111042" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This jump (to save another's life) is not spontaneous; it is the result of the teaching and conditioning. You jump because you are pre-programmed. Most of the thinking takes place in the subconscious at a super speed; actually I don't think much thinking is possible through the conscious mind. An act can be spontaneous only if there is no subconscious processes going on, and when you are fully aware.

The jumper is fully aware that the other fellow is drowning. So he jumps instantaneously without 'asking' his pre-programmed subconscious if its agreeable to save someone,

How do you know?? How fast would this subconscious process happen? In a nanosecond? Of course it could be happening without you even realizing it and therefore thinking it's spontaneous. Where do you get these arbitrary answers from that you say with such assumptive certainty?

[AbdulRahman]

Mohammad Bin Lying, The Cat and Fathom,

Did you read this article fully?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... e-will-an/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You can also read people's comments below the article.

Posted by: Tom Clark | 04/14/08 | 8:52 am |
Your honesty about the psychological difficulties involved in abandoning the notion of free will is admirable. But many people have done precisely this, including Susan Blackmore, former parapsychologist and author of The Meme Machine. She no longer is under any illusion that she chooses her behavior independent of what her brain is doing. But life goes on much as before, minus the scientifically untenable idea that we exist as immaterial mental agents, pulling our own strings. For instance, we can still hold each other responsible, but minus the idea that people deeply deserve punishment, whether or not it does any good. We’ll become less retributive and more focused on what works to prevent criminal behavior in the first place.

There are manifold personal, social and existential implications of seeing we don’t have contra-causal free will. As Spinoza put it: “The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.” The Center for Naturalism is working to get this message out, since we believe it leads to a more humane, progressive approach in many domains, including criminal justice, addiction, behavioral health, and economic policy.

best,

Tom Clark, Director
Center for Naturalism
http://www.centerfornaturalism.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.naturalism.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One more favorite.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert | 11/10/08 | 1:32 pm |
Even if we are conscious of making a decision, that is no evidence that the decision is free.

I can not even think of an experiment to show freewill, as it seems to require having the universe in exactly the same state as when a decision was made before and observing if a different outcome occurs. Even if you travelled back in time to the point of a previous decision, your memory (being part of the universe) would need to revert to that state as well, so you would not even remember making the decision before (if before is actually the right word to use in discussing time travel) similar conditions will not suffice, they must be exact.

I have a theory that goes someway to explaining why people believe in freewill. During some decision processes, we compare various modeled/theoretical outcomes of our decision, so we appear to have a selection of choices, this comes about because we do not have the capacity to model the objective world exactly so we rely on possibility/probability. If we could model the world exactly, we would no longer have a model, but the thing being modeled, we would hold the universe itself in our minds. I don’t believe probability is an attribute of the objective world, but a measure of the information we have about the objective world in our model of it. But in the objective world we only ever observe 1 outcome (a complex universal outcome, but still 1 outcome). The freewill belief arises from confusing our multiple models of outcome with the single outcome that actually occurs.

I don’t belief my non belief in freewill is a free belief and neither is the belief of others in freewill. This is not to say that mine or their beliefs will not change. I also believe that in expressing my theories, it is possible that others will change their beliefs (and that possibility is a recognition of my limited model, rather that what will occur)
All thought is theory. That is not to say that my observation of thought in my mind is not real, just that the thoughts themselves are theoretical. Unless thought is defined as all cognition, which opens up a whole can of worms which I am still working on (Thinking about) Do we cognitively create our observations? If so, I only ever have access to my subjective mind (does it even make sense to call it subjective?).

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Mohammad Bin Lying, The Cat and Fathom,

Did you read this article fully?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... e-will-an/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You can also read people's comments below the article.

Posted by: Tom Clark | 04/14/08 | 8:52 am |
Your honesty about the psychological difficulties involved in abandoning the notion of free will is admirable. But many people have done precisely this, including Susan Blackmore, former parapsychologist and author of The Meme Machine. She no longer is under any illusion that she chooses her behavior independent of what her brain is doing. But life goes on much as before, minus the scientifically untenable idea that we exist as immaterial mental agents, pulling our own strings. For instance, we can still hold each other responsible, but minus the idea that people deeply deserve punishment,<SNIP>

Are we responsible or not?? See the cheating to MAKE it work?? If we have no free will, we simply cannot be even remotely held responsible for our actions. How can somebody say, "I know you are not responsible for your actions because you have zero free will, but we're going to punish you anyway, but only lightly". Is Tom Clark that much of a deluded lunatic?? Look at how he fools himself. Look at it. Look at it. Stare at the stupidity.

whether or not it does any good. We’ll become less retributive and more focused on what works to prevent criminal behavior in the first place.

Why would he decide to do that instead of retribution?? Shouldn't the forces of the universe giving us negative stimulus like that cause us to unavoidably seek retribution?

There are manifold personal, social and existential implications of seeing we don’t have contra-causal free will. As Spinoza put it: “The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.”

But apparently, it still doesn't prevent us from seeking retribution, whether that be less retribution or not. Look at the load of sh!t Tom tells himself to make his problem work. And, you, look at what a dummy you are. You never even as much as considered any of this until I brought it up. There is so much that you have yet to consider.

One more favorite.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert | 11/10/08 | 1:32 pm |
Even if we are conscious of making a decision, that is no evidence that the decision is free.

I can not even think of an experiment to show freewill, as it seems to require having the universe in exactly the same state as when a decision was made before and observing if a different outcome occurs. Even if you travelled back in time to the point of a previous decision, your memory (being part of the universe) would need to revert to that state as well, so you would not even remember making the decision before (if before is actually the right word to use in discussing time travel) similar conditions will not suffice, they must be exact.

I have a theory that goes someway to explaining why people believe in freewill. During some decision processes, we compare various modeled/theoretical outcomes of our decision, so we appear to have a selection of choices, this comes about because we do not have the capacity to model the objective world exactly so we rely on possibility/probability. If we could model the world exactly, we would no longer have a model, but the thing being modeled, we would hold the universe itself in our minds.

And then we choose whether to do what what we believe in our self interests or not necessarily in our self interest. That's the final stage of the entire question and I've been repeating this to you over and over and over again to no avail

I don’t believe probability is an attribute of the objective world, but a measure of the information we have about the objective world in our model of it. But in the objective world we only ever observe 1 outcome (a complex universal outcome, but still 1 outcome). The freewill belief arises from confusing our multiple models of outcome with the single outcome that actually occurs.

[/quote]

Assuming the person will decide to react in a way that they believe is in their own self interest. If not, then we could never predict with 100% accuracy, how the person will react to the stimulus. The final assumption is that, of course, they will react in a way that they believe to be in their ultimate self interest. If that assumption is 100% true, then it is all deterministic and can be predicted with 100% accuracy if we had 100% knowledge of all of the factors. If it is not 100% true, then in that case, it is not entirely deterministic and a person still has a choice to react in a way that meets their perceived self interest or doesn't meet their perceived self interest. Remember, when talking about free will, it's ultimately all about people, not forces of the universe, as people are the only ones claimed to even have free will. And therefore the last stage of the process, when assessing free will, is the human reaction to the stimulus. I'm convinced that you understand this point because you even tried to say that it is impossible for someone to not react in their self interest. So I know you understand it, no matter how much you try to ignore it. And you hate this additional point and ignore it because it never even remotely occurred to you, and now that it has, you do everything you can to block it. You're not here for learning and/or two way conversation, you're here to preach with a stupid bullhorn, and that's fine, but you better have your sh!t together before you do. You don't even have a firm grip on QP, and yet you're going to tell everybody how it is.

[The Cat]

The Cat is a scitzophernic moron. He has no business with reason or science or truth. His brain is damaged. I feel sory for him.

You should avoid typo when you want to ascertain that you're on the side of reason and truth. It doesn't exactly help your case!

Just because your theistic mind says the No Free Will is discredited doesn't make it so. read this.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... e-will-an/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are not there yet to overcome your own cognitive dissonance.
In the beginning "No Free Will" is very disappointing. You might be better off staying as baby.

I've proven that you are the one displaying the theistic mind, yet you come up with your answering tape #2.
viewtopic.php?p=111012#p111012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=111451#p111451" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now to underline your 'scientific' position you came up with... a blog, not a scientific review! Are you left to that for 'scientific' proofs?

Did you read some comments therein and ponder? Nooops, your answering tape mechanically repeated its ad nauseam.
Clearly you cannot think by yourself and yet pose as a model of reason. So much for the truth...

g947
First of all, it’s naive reductionism to assert that the mechanisms involved in a low-level motor decision can be extrapolated to apply to higher-level behavioral decisions that include such issues as weighing the benefits and tradeoffs of actions, the ethical framework in which one has been raised, and so on. Second, those who wish for a deterministic brain are out of luck, see also Hameroff & Penrose re. the influence of borderline-quantum-scale subcellular structures on the flow of information in the brain. Hameroff’s track record includes successfully predicting that glial cells are not merely inert structural tissue but also play a role in information processing in the brain, a hypothesis that was subsequently confirmed empirically.

Third, a paper published in 2007 in PLOS One (May, Hsieh, Sugihara, and Brembs) finds that even fruit flies exhibit behavior that fits neither a deterministic model nor a random model of brain processes, but seems to imply voluntary choice, from which one can infer free will. In fruit flies. Fourth, just as the dualist theory of mind as soul was displaced by the monist theory of mind as identical with brain processes, the monist theory is now being displaced by the “interactionist” theory of mind as emergent interaction of brain and information. In short: consciousness can arise in defined classes of information-bearing systems, usually nondeterministic, and not necessarily requiring the complexity of human brains. For more detail see David Chalmers et. al

What I personally think is likely, is that the brain runs both deterministic and non-deterministic processes, and in the latter category are both random processes and chaotic processes. There is a finely-tuned balance between these processes, and the sense of free will is one element of the experience of consciousness that arises at the intersection of these processes. Decisions and actions that are repeated frequently, are delegated to subroutines that can run algorithmically or for the most part so. As the consequences of a decision or action increase, or in cases where a type of decision or action has not been repeated enough times to drop to the level of a subroutine, there is a correspondingly increasing degree to which that decision or action becomes subject to conscious choice and intention.

I was intrigued by his third point so searched about Free Will and Fruit flies
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1532077920070516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... uit_flies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://brembs.net/spontaneous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 071806.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Using a combination of automated behavior recording and sophisticated mathematical analyses, the international team of researchers showed for the first time that such variability cannot be due to simple random events but is generated spontaneously and non-randomly by the brain. These results caught computer scientist and lead author Alexander Maye from the University of Hamburg by surprise: "I would have never guessed that simple flies who otherwise keep bouncing off the same window have the capacity for nonrandom spontaneity if given the chance." .... "We found that there must be an evolved function in the fly brain which leads to spontaneous variations in fly behavior" Sugihara said. "The results of our analysis indicate a mechanism which might be common to many other animals and could form the biological foundation for what we experience as free will".

Our subjective notion of "Free Will" is an oxymoron: the term 'will' would not apply if our actions were completely random and it would not be 'free' if they were entirely determined. So if there is free will, it must be somewhere between chance and necessity - which is exactly where fly behavior comes to lie.

I do think with g947 that Free Will is in-between determinism and randomness, thus acting as sudden originalities within patterns.
Can we imagine a soccer game thoroughly pre-determined? It would be of no interest without the Free Will canalizing randomness.

[AbdulRahman]

So, where does your Free Will come from?
Ghost, soul, God in the brain?

[yeezevee]

So, where does your Free Will come from?
Ghost, soul, God in the brain?

No., no. that comes from that brain, just brain. Take it out nothing works including free will, everything stops., hell why take out?? inject some propofol , it will stop working.

That is also there in animal brain. They also act upon using the sensor signals they get from those traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste..

But you are a WASTE
your posts are a Waste
your threads are Waste
your food is waste dear Abdul

[charleslemartel]

But you are a WASTE
your posts are a Waste
your threads are Waste
your food is waste dear Abdul

Yes, you just have to say it, and it is supposed to be accepted as truth.

How about trying to counter Abdul's arguments as others are doing?

@MBL,

Your argument about acting in self-interest or otherwise is not very strong simply because there is no way to determine if a person is acting in self interest or not. Even if one gives up his life for some other person or cause, it can always be argued that he/she was acting in self-interest.

I am really interested in hearing Abdul's take on responsibility - a question which you have been asking him. I think that is a key question. Are we responsible for our deeds or not?

@Abdul,

I really think it is the time to move on to the subject of responsibility of the individual for his acts. It is an issue which is closely related to the issue of free will. You can't say that the responsibility question arises AFTER the issue of free will is settled. It is an issue which must be discussed BEFORE the issue of free will is concluded. The question of Free will is not very easily settled either way. I think philosophers, as well as scientists are yet to come to a definite conclusion. I concede your point about absolute freedom which obviously does not, and cannot, exist. But I feel you do need to give a thought to my position regarding degrees of freedom. After the most basic struggle of humans, which is for survival, the next struggle is for freedom and nothing else. The pursuit of power, money etc is nothing but struggle for more and more freedom.

[charleslemartel]

Acts aren't necessarily from a thought process when carried as an act. They do not have to be related and they do not even belong to the same time equation: an act is NOW and, as an act, doesn't belong to the past in the being-done instant

Unless the thought process is stopped, one can never claim that his actions are not the result of his thoughts. The scenario you paint is childish. Each and every act takes place after a complicated process of thoughts and decision making most of which is subconscious. And I have already mentioned that these processes happen in such a short time span that human mind is incapable of registering.

Even the thoughts happen in the NOW irrespective of whether they are about the past or the future.

There can be no "spontaneous" desire. Each desire is the result of programming....

There is. In one word it's a caprice, a sudden or spontaneous desire, sometimes so gratuitous that we wonder.

I am sorry, but that is only an assertion. Can you give me an example of a SPONTANEOUS desire which in NOT programmed?

Free will might be instantaneous, but not every spontaneous impulse is free will. It is, most of the times, the result of predispositions.

So you acknowledge Free Will after all. Then again these predispositions aren't necessarily dictating us what to do, they are merely tendencies without will power.

I only acknowledge the possibility of free will just as I acknowledge the possibility of existence of aliens. You can't really claim that those predispositions are without will power unless you acknowledge that one must be aware enough to be able to see his own predispositions. Unless one is fully aware of them, one can't really escape their influence.

Awareness is not to marvel at anything. It is simply awareness of whatever is happening in this very moment. It is simply like a mirror; if there is creativity, it would reflect it, and so on. It doesn't distinguish between good and bad, or creative or destructive.

I hope you don't get aware while an earthquake happens then. You'll get into trouble if you don't distinguish anything out of 'awareness'.

You have been quoting J Krishnamurti all along. Now I do wonder if you have understood him at all. What do you think he meant by "Choiceless Awareness"? What do you think Sosan was talking about when he said, "The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart. If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against. The struggle of what one likes and what one dislikes is the disease of the mind"?

If you disagree with Sosan's statement, explain to me what you understand by "choiceless awareness".

I'll tell you how it goes from a personal experience: I'm a guitarman and once I was alone in my room when That came to me. You may feel some dizziness when it rushes in. So I picked up my guitar but didn't feel like really playing. So all I did was to hit a note of open A and kept on listening to those 440 vibrations per second for as long as I could hear it. It was astonishing! Amazing! Never did I heard anything like that! So I repeated the note, again and again. My ears never listened to anything as marvelous as this single note and I thought: ''Why did we made other notes? This one is -perfect-!'' I looked at my watch and five hours had past since the beginning of the experience. This kind of 'moment' you never ever forget: I was listening then, not just hearing.

Ever taken marijuana or LSD? These drugs alter the normal state of consciousness in a way that one can easily experience what is normally called "mystic" experiences. I have experimented with these drugs and I have also had glimpses of the "awareness" Krishnamurti never tired of talking about. From my own experience I can assure you that your experience was nothing more than what can be experienced very easily with the use of drugs.

So I picked up my guitar but didn't feel like really playing. That was the moment you could have experienced what Krishnamurti talked about; you were on the verge. You shouldn't have done anything at all. But "So all I did was to hit a note" destroyed it.

You can easily refute me by saying that what I am claiming is subjective and doesn't hold any value; I don't have anything to refute that statement. But I do think you will try to understand what I am saying.

Creativity has no relationship with awareness. The only criterion for a mystic is awareness; creativity and/or expression is only incidental.

I do not use creativity in the sense of writing a poem or painting but creativity as in the constant renewal of life's flowing. That's awareness!

If you can be truly aware, you wouldn't even experience the constant renewal of life's flowing. To realize that something is getting renewed, or that life is flowing, you need to remember the past moment too which no longer exists.

When you've seen beyond yourself -then you may find, peace of mind, Is waiting there-

, this is where it goes wrong and proves that the lyricist doesn't have much idea of what he is talking about. Awareness is seeing within yourself, not beyond. The whole of the sleeping humanity sees only beyond itself normally, and probably never within.

I really think that you are mistaking awareness with Free will. Kids are more aware, but not necessarily more free. In fact they are greater slaves to their instincts. Someone has famously said that to him buffaloes seem to be more enlightened than humans.

The more you are aware of your predispositions, the less they are to influence you and thus liberate more Free Will.

That is what I too THINK; but I am not sure.

Then you say that kids are more aware yet greater slaves to their instincts. Do you realize your equation? I'll spare you the buffaloes.

I fully realize what I am saying; I don't talk of awareness simply to score a point or two. I stand by my statement. To make my point still clearer, I would say that any wild animal is far more aware than us. Do you disagree?

Children, like those wild animals, are far more aware of their surroundings than us. Do you disagree? If not, then think about the thing(s) which differentiates their awareness with that which was talked about by Krishnamurti.

Enlightenment is acquired; it is not a given.

Noops. It's neither acquired (no guru will bring it to you nor see through your eyes) or given. Try again...

I give up; I can't see any third possibility. Teach me.

It frees you from the tyranny of programmed emotions, but not every emotionless moron can be said to be enlightened.

1. Programmed emotions are 'tyrannical' ? Do you think we should fire at our TV, shot down Internet ? Or not enjoy a sport match ?

I can see that you did not understand my point. A TV program, or internet, or a sport match, doesn't force us to behave in a particular way as our programmed emotions do.

2. Enlightened people are emotionless ? Maybe buffaloes are more enlightened than humans after all. What about the ants? I'll ruminate on this...

Let me say it again: not every emotionless moron can be said to be enlightened. Does this statement tell you that Enlightened people are emotionless?

EDIT: My bad; it does, in a way. What I mean to say is that enlightened people don't seem to be controlled by emotions as others do.

[The Cat]

So, where does your Free Will come from?
Ghost, soul, God in the brain?

Solicited conscience in the realm of the present time being. Thus, an actuality stemming out of conscience.

So it shouldn't be confused as you do with potentiality, which belongs to data and computing, nor with any absolute.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

So, where does your Free Will come from?
Ghost, soul, God in the brain?

Solicited conscience

Can you explain what "solicited conscience" is? So far, I see a term as an answer to his question, but no explanation of what that term means, and there is nothing intuitive about that term and therefore the answer is of no value greater than a "word" or "term" without further and clear explanation of it's meaning.

[The Cat]

Nobody creates anything that is truly original. We get it all from our past and present environment and remold it. But it always consists of bits and pieces of already existing ideas and therefore is never completely original. This was not pointed out to me by a scientist, it was pointed out to me by my Art Professor in College. Could an artist's environment, genetic predispositions and past experiences dictate what he paints?? You bet it can and does.

I don't think they 'dictate' anything, just a canvas or set up. Whatever is created (not copied) is intrinsically original, within degrees. But anything dictated has no creativity or originality and still things like Picasso's cubism came out of nowhere. Says wikipedia: ''In cubist artworks, objects are broken up, analyzed, and re-assembled in an abstracted form—instead of depicting objects from one viewpoint, the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints to represent the subject in a greater context...'' So originality is an acknowledge basis in creativity.
A woman Playing Mandolin, Pablo Picasso.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Originality is the aspect of created or invented works by as being new or novel, and thus can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works. An original work is one not received from others nor one copied based on the work of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Creativity is the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality. The process involves original thinking and then producing. The process of creation was historically reserved for deities creating "from nothing" in Creationism and other creation myths. Over time, the term creativity came to include human innovation, especially in art and science.......

Creative thought is a mental process involving creative problem solving and the discovery of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the existing ideas or concepts, fueled by the process of either conscious or unconscious insight. From a scientific point of view, the products of creative thought (sometimes referred to as divergent thought) are usually considered to have both originality and appropriateness. Although intuitively a simple phenomenon, it is in fact quite complex.....

Another adequate definition of creativity, according to Otto Rank, is that it is an "assumptions-breaking process." Creative ideas are often generated when one discards preconceived assumptions and attempts a new approach or method that might seem to others unthinkable.

I assume that creativity is mainly found in three forms: artistic, scientific and awoken consciousness. They are related in the incredible scope involved (''to see a world in a grain of sand'', William Blake). So maybe you should get away with the statement of your Art professor, who might have been sour because he couldn't achieve much in terms of originality... Life itself being the ultimate creativity: we never bath in the same river twice.

[The Cat]

The jumper is fully aware that the other fellow is drowning. So he jumps instantaneously without 'asking' his pre-programmed subconscious if its agreeable to save someone,

How do you know?? How fast would this subconscious process happen? In a nanosecond? Of course it could be happening without you even realizing it and therefore thinking it's spontaneous. Where do you get these arbitrary answers from that you say with such assumptive certainty?

I know because he jumped from an emergency. All those nanoseconds you're talking about are merely computing the options, they have no acting WILL. The act of jumping happened in the being moment. It wasn't dictated by the computing of options but by the fact that someone was drowning.

So my computer computes but I take the decisions. My computer doesn't have Free Will but I do. It looks more and more that humans aren't the only ones using Free Will, but that Fruit Flies also act spontaneously. According to the Free Will Theorem, it might be the source of the particles interactions !
http://brembs.net/spontaneous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/theorem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What about Free Will?
Recognition that the Conway-Kochen theorem makes it unscientific to accept determinism would not directly support free will. Quantum mechanics treats the indeterminism involved in the results of such measurements as being random within probability parameters specified by the mathematics; and as has often been pointed out, randomness is inimical to free will rather than supportive of it.

However, as I have argued in various publications, there are other reasons for believing in free will associated with rational conscious decisions and actions; and refutation of determinism supports an argument that the physical world is not closed to influences from rational conscious processes, and thus that there is ‘room’ for free will. Much recent philosophical debate concerning free will has concentrated on the question whether free will is compatible with determinism.

The substantial refutation of determinism supported by this theorem may have the beneficial effect of encouraging philosophers to give more attention to other questions concerning free will, in particular the relevance and role of conscious mental processes in our decisions and actions.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Nobody creates anything that is truly original. We get it all from our past and present environment and remold it. But it always consists of bits and pieces of already existing ideas and therefore is never completely original. This was not pointed out to me by a scientist, it was pointed out to me by my Art Professor in College. Could an artist's environment, genetic predispositions and past experiences dictate what he paints?? You bet it can and does.

I don't think they 'dictate' anything, just a canvas or set up. Whatever is created (not copied) is intrinsically original, within degrees.

Right, within degrees, which means it is not entirely original. At most, it's reorganization can be said to be somewhat original, but it still merely consists of pieces of what the creator has been made aware of or has already experienced. Has anybody ever created something that cannot be tied to past knowledge somehow? And if the answer is no, then how can all of these things we call "original" really be original? And if the answer is yes, please give us an example or demonstrate. I do not consider those paintings to be original although I find them very interesting and appealing. If someone could, perhaps, paint a C flat chord, or maybe play the color green, maybe that might be original or "creative" where something brand new, independent of anyone's past experience or knowledge was created. If someone behaved like a divining rod and sudden;y started to paint all sorts of things that are related to things he could have never been exposed to, then maybe that would be original or creative. Other than that, it's just a reorganization of our past experience and knowledge and our mind tricks ourselves into thinking that this idea came out of the blue, out of thin air. Of course it didn't.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The jumper is fully aware that the other fellow is drowning. So he jumps instantaneously without 'asking' his pre-programmed subconscious if its agreeable to save someone,

How do you know?? How fast would this subconscious process happen? In a nanosecond? Of course it could be happening without you even realizing it and therefore thinking it's spontaneous. Where do you get these arbitrary answers from that you say with such assumptive certainty?

I know because he jumped from an emergency.

That's not an answer, that's just you repeating "I know". I know you think you know, but why do you think you know?

All those nanoseconds you're talking about are merely computing the options, they have no acting WILL. The act of jumping happened in the being moment.

You have nothing to back that up at all. Nothing. For all you know, saving your child, or whatever is such a strongly ingrained emotion, that you almost make no decision to save that child. But that does NOT necessarily mean it is spontaneous, and a process that takes a nanosecond would not be detected by your conscious mind. So thus far, you are all assumptions, and others have pointed that out as well.

Here's a good question. If you had a child, it might be assumed that you would risk your life to save your child. Would that be spontaneous?? An intrinsic act of altruism at the heart of the "great" human nature?? Or would that child be so important that it simply requires far less of a decision to act because the importance is so ingrained in your mind??? And how come some "altruistic" people will risk their lives to save their baby, but will certainly think twice before they risk their life to save someone else's baby?? It's the "theirs". Granted, a small amount will still take the risk for reasons that can be further explored, but most won't. So was it ever spontaneity or something ingrained inside and not detected by the conscious mind??

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

But anything dictated has no creativity or originality and still things like Picasso's cubism came out of nowhere.

You mean we can't trace that to anything he had experienced and/or seen?? Come on.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Life itself being the ultimate creativity:

The only one, if we assume that life is actually a thing with a conscious.

[The Cat]

All those nanoseconds you're talking about are merely computing the options, they have no acting WILL. The act of jumping happened in the being moment.

You have nothing to back that up at all. Nothing.

You're only contradicting... yourself!
viewtopic.php?p=111022#p111022" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion.

I would agree. There are things done to us, things done by us and things done through us. The second one cannot be considered free will because we are still a slave to pleasing ourselves, whether we are even conscious or aware of that or not

This cock weather attitude is nothing new, anyone going from:
viewtopic.php?p=54774#p54774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We fought World War II over American values?? What frickin planet are you from? Where do you get these stupid ideas from? Yeah, let's restore the values of sticking American Japanese in camps.

then switching to:

It's so popular to kick America and conveniently forget what the other side did. But all he is doing is just listening to the lying propagandists who will seek to demonize America any way they can for their own benefit.

viewtopic.php?p=35890#p35890" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cannot be given any credibility whatsoever. So Bye-Bye...

[AbdulRahman]

Love is beyond the conceptualizing mind.

Did you know that Love is viewable in the brain under fMRI?

That's not love, that's a thrill, a burning desire met. Two entirely different things where one is misunderstood as the other. But don't even bother to ponder that. That is a topic you will never get your mechanical arms around.

You should have said the actual "Feeling" of love can't be seen in fMRI. you did not even used the word "feeling" also called "Quala"
You are such a moron and ill-educated that you couldn't even defend your own stance. I had to do it for you.

Now back to love.
Are you trying to tell me the feeling of love is not due to the electrochemichal action/reaction and release of oxytocin in the brain?