Free will

[Psyquis52]

I hope he doesn't crush my nuts.

[Dja Majista]

Clearly you are outclassed my friend. My arguing skills are far beyond that of your own.

Bwahahahahaha!! We'll see about that.

May 13, 2008 21:22:06 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

May 13, 2008 12:28:52 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

ok cool beans. Key word because implies the voluntary action has some kind of reason for it: I wanted a Sprite.

What about involuntary action? What if I was sleep-walking?

Were you? If you were, it would have nothing to do with your will in the first place. And that would destroy your argument. So were you?...

Oh and by the way, the keyword wasn't because. If you were paying attention you'd notice it was wanted because it's what I desired. Therefore making it my keyword. I wanted to use that word because it was what I desired therefore I wanted it.

And you wanted that sprite for some sort of reason, which your brain determined. uh huh.

Well your brain is the organ that determines how clumsy you are. And the brain follows the laws of nature exactly (presumably).

My brain has nothing to do with the idea of me tripping on something that wasn't there! Which I did just the other day.
Also what does my brain have to do with getting soap in my eyes in the shower? Huh?
My clumsiness is a literal example of chaos personified.

So when you're clumsy, the laws of nature just start going haywire. I see. That's fascinating. But clumsiness is caused by a lack of coordination, which starts in... the brain!

[Psyquis52]

Lack of coordination. Please. I have no lack of coordination.
(yeah...that really is my arguement)

What if the Sprite was blown out of my hands?
Or what if a moose came in and knocked it down?

What if clumsiness is not the result of a lack of coordination but rather an intense response the brain has for something else?

What if you're stupid?

(that last one's just a joke but argue it anyway. Like I said, I'm arguing like an idiot for now)

[Dja Majista]

May 17, 2008 3:21:51 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Lack of coordination. Please. I have no lack of coordination.
(yeah...that really is my arguement)

Just a short spurt. Even the greatest gamers have things like this happen every once in a while. You simply lacked coordination under the circumstances. I'm not saying you have a dexterity score of 7.

What if the Sprite was blown out of my hands?
Or what if a moose came in and knocked it down?

That's not your will, that's just an influence. But I could see it happening. Say, your sprite suddenly explodes in your face, and it gets in your eyes and you start screaming bloody murder etcetera etcetera. I could see how you'd rather have a coke after that. Now if it's blown out of your hands, do you feel like picking it up? Depends on what your brain wants to do. I'd opt against chasing the moose myself though.

What if clumsiness is not the result of a lack of coordination but rather an intense response the brain has for something else?

OK, same thing. Either way, it's an influence that isn't happening outside the bounds of causality. Granted if your claiming that this something else, is not an instance of causality in action, then that would be something.

What if you're stupid?

I am. So is everyone else.

(that last one's just a joke but argue it anyway. Like I said, I'm arguing like an idiot for now)

This is fun. We need to keep doing this. ;D

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 17, 2008 3:21:51 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Lack of coordination. Please. I have no lack of coordination.
(yeah...that really is my arguement)

What if the Sprite was blown out of my hands?
Or what if a moose came in and knocked it down?

What if clumsiness is not the result of a lack of coordination but rather an intense response the brain has for something else?

What if you're stupid?

(that last one's just a joke but argue it anyway. Like I said, I'm arguing like an idiot for now)

When are you going to stop holding back and show us your alter ego?

[Psyquis52]

May 17, 2008 11:17:00 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Just a short spurt. Even the greatest gamers have things like this happen every once in a while. You simply lacked coordination under the circumstances. I'm not saying you have a dexterity score of 7.

I'm not a gamer and I fail to see what that statement has to do with me. You don't know me! How could you tell whether it was a lack of coordination or divine intervention?

That's not your will, that's just an influence. But I could see it happening. Say, your sprite suddenly explodes in your face, and it gets in your eyes and you start screaming bloody murder etcetera etcetera. I could see how you'd rather have a coke after that. Now if it's blown out of your hands, do you feel like picking it up? Depends on what your brain wants to do. I'd opt against chasing the moose myself though.

But let's say I brought the Moose with me, now it is my will. Ah! You see: Personal moose = personal will
Or do I have to explain how ownership of said item is in accordance to personal will?

OK, same thing. Either way, it's an influence that isn't happening outside the bounds of causality. Granted if your claiming that this something else, is not an instance of causality in action, then that would be something.

I think owning a pet moose and taking him to a soda machine is right outside the bounds of causality no matter how you look at it. Or do you think there are other people out there with a moose on a leash?

I am. So is everyone else.

I'm not stupid. C-master isn't stupid. As best as I can tell you're the only stupid one here. Maybe you're just so stupid that you think everyone else is stupid too because that would be something that a stupid person might think because they're stupid.

This is fun. We need to keep doing this.

Oh we will. we will.

When are you going to stop holding back and show us your alter ego?

Patience now. A little at a time.

[Dja Majista]

May 19, 2008 21:46:10 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

I'm not a gamer and I fail to see what that statement has to do with me. You don't know me! How could you tell whether it was a lack of coordination or divine intervention?

See, I always think that if people really had free will, it would have to be brought about through divine intervention. But you're saying divine intervention could cause you to do something. Again that's cause, something you have no control over.

But let's say I brought the Moose with me, now it is my will. Ah! You see: Personal moose = personal will
Or do I have to explain how ownership of said item is in accordance to personal will?

See, at first you were trying to prove you had free will by an example. But these are hypotheticals. They don't really prove anything.

I think owning a pet moose and taking him to a soda machine is right outside the bounds of causality no matter how you look at it. Or do you think there are other people out there with a moose on a leash?

again hypothetical. The thing is, I would call it free will IF you could honestly say you've done this, and for no reason whatsoever.

I'm not stupid. C-master isn't stupid. As best as I can tell you're the only stupid one here. Maybe you're just so stupid that you think everyone else is stupid too because that would be something that a stupid person might think because they're stupid.

pffft. Typical stupid person words.
I like how I just admitted that I was stupid, and you didn't use that against me for the sake of argument like you could have. You're just telling me how you and C-Master aren't stupid. I don't care what you are, personally. I'll argue with a retard if I need to.
j/k ;D








...
maybe.

Patience now. A little at a time.

*yawn*

[Psyquis52]

Every influence on the brain existing in the natural world occurs strictly by the constant laws of nature.

Ah! So we set perimeters. I see. The NATURAL world.
Well now. What if we aren't operating the natural? And don't give me that hypothetical bullcrap. This is all hypothetical and has been from the start.
I'm asking what if the "Free will" question transcends natural order?

Laws of nature are inevitable.

Totally untrue! There's nothing inevitable about the laws of nature and I'll prove it:
The law of gravity can be defied by jumping
The three laws of motion:
A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an outside net force acts upon it.
Untrue! My physical body remains at rest until I've had enough sleep, then I wake up. This guy is stupid.

Rate of change of momentum is proportional to the resultant force producing it and takes place in the direction of that force.
Yeah! Your mother. This one's so bogus I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The other day my wife punched me in the shoulder and I didn't do anything! What do you call that? Huh smarty-pants science wanta do a loppa guy?

Therefore every voluntary action a human is capable of occurs inevitably.

What about every involuntary action taken voluntarily?....



Let's see you wiggle out of that one.

[Psyquis52]

May 20, 2008 16:25:39 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

See, I always think that if people really had free will, it would have to be brought about through divine intervention. But you're saying divine intervention could cause you to do something. Again that's cause, something you have no control over.

REally. So now we're saying we don't believe in free will unless God or some form of diety presents us with the option?
How droll.
So who's to say that free will can't have perimeters?
Sure we can't defy natural law but if we could that wouldn't necessarily be free will anymore but would make us more like super heroes.
Just because one can predict what I'm doind next doesn't make it any less my choice to do so.

See, at first you were trying to prove you had free will by an example. But these are hypotheticals. They don't really prove anything.

Everything is hypothetical because life is a dream and we're not going to live much longer anyway.

again hypothetical. The thing is, I would call it free will IF you could honestly say you've done this, and for no reason whatsoever.

I said that for no reason whatsoever. Does that count?

pffft. Typical stupid person words.
I like how I just admitted that I was stupid, and you didn't use that against me for the sake of argument like you could have. You're just telling me how you and C-Master aren't stupid. I don't care what you are, personally. I'll argue with a retard if I need to.
j/k ;D
...
maybe.

You're so stupid you don't even realize how I've gotten you to admit you're stupid twice so far.
That's what a stupid person does. Stupid!
And you called me a retard. That's a hate crime! Bigot.

Patience now. A little at a time.

*yawn*[/quote]Oh! I'm sorry. Am I boring you? D-d-d-did you want to go pick on some poor retarted children instead?
Want to go find an autistic child and put carrots up his nose? Huh? Is that what you want?

[Dja Majista]

May 20, 2008 21:26:00 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Ah! So we set perimeters. I see. The NATURAL world.
Well now. What if we aren't operating the natural? And don't give me that hypothetical bullcrap. This is all hypothetical and has been from the start.
I'm asking what if the "Free will" question transcends natural order?

Good point. "What if we aren't operating the natural?" If we aren't, and you can give me some reason believe this, then maybe you could demolish my entire argument. How's that for a hypothetical? If-and If also-Then maybe.

Totally untrue! There's nothing inevitable about the laws of nature and I'll prove it:
The law of gravity can be defied by jumping
The three laws of motion:
A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an outside net force acts upon it.
Untrue! My physical body remains at rest until I've had enough sleep, then I wake up. This guy is stupid.

Rate of change of momentum is proportional to the resultant force producing it and takes place in the direction of that force.
Yeah! Your mother. This one's so bogus I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The other day my wife punched me in the shoulder and I didn't do anything! What do you call that? Huh smarty-pants science wanta do a loppa guy?

Are you serious? Should I dignify this with a response?
But I have to admit, after long periods of pecking, you do manage to poke a little hole in my argument. When using the term "laws of nature", you're right, I would be relying on something very fallible if I went off of the ones we have today. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm assuming (which is why it is a weaker premise) that the universe works from laws of nature that we haven't even identified yet, making the universe completely causal in nature. So that's my answer. You can prove every law we have now incorrect
if you want to, but the premise assumes that the universe works on causality such that the most fundamental laws of nature have a place in every aspect of the universe.

What about every involuntary action taken voluntarily?....

Are you talking about habits that we purposefully develop but don't have to think about them? or something else?

Let's see you wiggle out of that one.

pfft. I don't gotta wiggle outta nothin.

[Dja Majista]

May 20, 2008 21:34:51 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

REally. So now we're saying we don't believe in free will unless God or some form of diety presents us with the option?
How droll.
So who's to say that free will can't have perimeters?
Sure we can't defy natural law but if we could that wouldn't necessarily be free will anymore but would make us more like super heroes.
Just because one can predict what I'm doind next doesn't make it any less my choice to do so.

When you say "perimeters" you're not really doing it justice. Perimeters would be fine if they allowed multiple yet restricted paths. But the laws of nature force everything down one single path. Do you think free will can occur in that kind of situation?
And the God thing. Think about it; if God created the laws of nature, he's most definitely capable of altering them if he's sees fit to do so. No one else could possibly do that. Essentially we'd never be defying natural law, there would simply be no natural law to defy. Because this deity would have gotten rid of it for us.

Just because one can predict what I'm doind next doesn't make it any less my choice to do so.

That's a fair point. Just because your actions follow inevitably from causality doesn't mean I'm not actually choosing them. This is true to an extent. Despite our actions being inevitable, there is still something that gives us the illusion (so to speak) of choice.
But the point is that in free will, shouldn't you be equally capable of choosing one thing as you are the other. Say I ask you a question and you have the option between yes and no. If I can predict your answer exactly like with the super computer we were talking about, wouldn't that make your will completely subservient to something (nature) and therefore not free?

But more importantly, where does the illusion of free will come from if free will is not something we actually have?

Everything is hypothetical because life is a dream and we're not going to live much longer anyway.

Nobody believes that "Life is a Dream" crap. Please.

I said that for no reason whatsoever. Does that count?

Yeah, but you said that hypothetically. What would that prove if it didn't actually happen?
Ok so are you capable of voluntarily doing something for no reason whatsoever?

You're so stupid you don't even realize how I've gotten you to admit you're stupid twice so far.
That's what a stupid person does. Stupid!
And you called me a retard. That's a hate crime! Bigot.

I didn't call anybody a retard. And yes I am stupid. Consider this the third time. What are you gonna do about it?

Oh! I'm sorry. Am I boring you? D-d-d-did you want to go pick on some poor retarted children instead?
Want to go find an autistic child and put carrots up his nose? Huh? Is that what you want?

That sounds tempting. Stop tempting me. Please.

[Psyquis52]

May 21, 2008 7:48:39 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Good point. "What if we aren't operating the natural?" If we aren't, and you can give me some reason believe this, then maybe you could demolish my entire argument. How's that for a hypothetical? If-and If also-Then maybe.

We aren't operating in the natural and here's your proof:
#banana#

Are you serious? Should I dignify this with a response?
But I have to admit, after long periods of pecking, you do manage to poke a little hole in my argument. When using the term "laws of nature", you're right, I would be relying on something very fallible if I went off of the ones we have today. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm assuming (which is why it is a weaker premise) that the universe works from laws of nature that we haven't even identified yet, making the universe completely causal in nature. So that's my answer. You can prove every law we have now incorrect
if you want to, but the premise assumes that the universe works on causality such that the most fundamental laws of nature have a place in every aspect of the universe.

Are you talking about habits that we purposefully develop but don't have to think about them? or something else?

Sure. Habitual responses. Like catching a bowl with your foot after you drop it. After playing years of hackeysack I've learned to catch things with my foot to the point that I'm automatically catching things with them.

SPOILER: Click to show

Actually that's total crap because I was just jerking around.

pfft. I don't gotta wiggle outta nothin.

WIGGLE DAMN YOU! WIGGLE!!!

[Psyquis52]

May 21, 2008 8:18:02 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

When you say "perimeters" you're not really doing it justice. Perimeters would be fine if they allowed multiple yet restricted paths. But the laws of nature force everything down one single path. Do you think free will can occur in that kind of situation?

The laws of nature as WE'VE defined them force everyone down one path but we also used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe er....and that Pluto was a planet....that sucks.

And the God thing. Think about it; if God created the laws of nature, he's most definitely capable of altering them if he's sees fit to do so. No one else could possibly do that. Essentially we'd never be defying natural law, there would simply be no natural law to defy. Because this deity would have gotten rid of it for us.

If we believe in God (and I do) then you should probably already have plenty of evidence that supports the claim that nothing's outside of His abilities. Therefore it's impossible to define what one would be capable under His definition of free will.

That's a fair point. Just because your actions follow inevitably from causality doesn't mean I'm not actually choosing them. This is true to an extent. Despite our actions being inevitable, there is still something that gives us the illusion (so to speak) of choice.

But I'm still not thoroughly convinced that my actions are inevitable. I find it hard to believe that someone looks at Chris Benoit's life and his past and found that it was most certainly possible for him to hang himself in a circle of Bibles.

But the point is that in free will, shouldn't you be equally capable of choosing one thing as you are the other. Say I ask you a question and you have the option between yes and no. If I can predict your answer exactly like with the super computer we were talking about, wouldn't that make your will completely subservient to something (nature) and therefore not free?

The thing about free will is that I don't have to answer your question at all.

But more importantly, where does the illusion of free will come from if free will is not something we actually have?

If we don't in fact have free will then I would say that it comes from a sense of self-importance. We want to feel like a dominant species or that we're in control of our environment.

Nobody believes that "Life is a Dream" crap. Please.

Then why the heck do we keep asking it?

Yeah, but you said that hypothetically. What would that prove if it didn't actually happen?
Ok so are you capable of voluntarily doing something for no reason whatsoever?

I'm certain I could do something for no reason whatsoever.

I didn't call anybody a retard. And yes I am stupid. Consider this the third time. What are you gonna do about it?

First of all, no you didn't "call" anyone a retard but you did "imply" you evil little bugger.
Secondly, I might kick your can!#nunchucks#

That sounds tempting. Stop tempting me. Please.

I had no idea autistic children were so tempting for you.

[Dja Majista]

May 22, 2008 21:44:18 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

We aren't operating in the natural and here's your proof:
#banana#

I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

Sure. Habitual responses. Like catching a bowl with your foot after you drop it. After playing years of hackeysack I've learned to catch things with my foot to the point that I'm automatically catching things with them.

SPOILER: Click to show

Actually that's total crap because I was just jerking around.

I'm confoosed.

WIGGLE DAMN YOU! WIGGLE!!!

I'm gonna spin in this chair, put my hands in the air, like I don't care!
Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!

[Dja Majista]

May 22, 2008 22:06:13 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

The laws of nature as WE'VE defined them force everyone down one path but we also used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe er....and that Pluto was a planet....that sucks.

That's a fair point too but it's still an appeal to ignorance.

If we believe in God (and I do) then you should probably already have plenty of evidence that supports the claim that nothing's outside of His abilities. Therefore it's impossible to define what one would be capable under His definition of free will.

I usually try to make philosophy as universal as possible when I talk about it publicly, but yeah I do believe in God. And I know this is a stretch but, I don't actually believe that we don't have free will. I don't believe that we do have free will either. I simply don't know. And by arguing that we don't have free will, I'm really trying to get people into a state of perplexity. Why? No I'm not a !@$%. Thanks for asking. It's just that, perplexity is so much more exciting than certainty.

Regarding God, I've been wrestling with it for a while and it seems necessary that we should actually have free will. So on one hand, I think God is giving us free will, but on the other hand, it might not be free-will and it might not be slave-will. It might be... something else. DUN DUN DUNnnnn...
OK moving on.

But I'm still not thoroughly convinced that my actions are inevitable. I find it hard to believe that someone looks at Chris Benoit's life and his past and found that it was most certainly possible for him to hang himself in a circle of Bibles.

You don't know everything that goes on in a person's brain. It would be absurd to think we could predict what a person will and will not do in the future with such limited knowledge.

The thing about free will is that I don't have to answer your question at all.

Yeah cause you can only "fight the power" with free will... NOT!!

If we don't in fact have free will then I would say that it comes from a sense of self-importance. We want to feel like a dominant species or that we're in control of our environment.

Yeah, I guess that probably helps strengthen the notion, even in the face of reasoning to the contrary. But what I'm really talking about is what makes us feel like we actually have free will? I mean there's a serious problem with the no free will thing. That is, it's quite reasonable, but it's kind of paradoxical. I mean we still feel perfectly capable of making choices.

So this is the question. Are we equally capable of taking one choice as we are the other. Let's play around with this a bit. Let's say Person A is given a choice between coke and sprite. Person A opts to take the sprite. Now person A gets dragged into the operating room, where the great neurosurgeon, Dr. Tenma's evil twin brother, removes Person A's brain, and replaces it with an externally controlled computer. The computer has outlets to send commands to the body, but the external controls can only control things like conscious thought and voluntary actions. Things like breathing are taken care of by the computer inside. Okay so now person A is taken back to the testing room (assume for the sake of discussion that the body has taken on all the same influences as before). Naturally regular person A in this situation wants the sprite, but the guy at the controls orders the body to take a coke, and it does, no problem.

So far we have that the body (sans brain) is capable of doing whatever it's ordered to do. Given a body, with a variable brain, the body is capable of making any choice. So the question is, is a single brain equally capable of making any order?

Let's play around with it some more. Let's follow that last question with "If so, how might that be?"

Mr. Will lives inside his humble abode he calls person A's brain. He sits in front of a computer screen 16-18 hours a day, and has a small interface. The computer monitor displays the brain's reasoning
on it and Mr. Will decides which action should be taken from that. Mr. Will is equally capable of pushing any button, and nature's laws do not have any sort of grip on him. But do any laws have a hold on him? If no laws have a hold on him then, sure Person A has free will, but wouldn't that make his will completely random? Isn't that worse than having a slave will?

That's all to say that perhaps free-will is not an ideal. Granted, neither is the slave will. I'd say the ideal will would be a restricted free will.

whoa brain is frying right now. Did all of that make sense?

Then why the heck do we keep asking it?

Because it's fun. duh.

I'm certain I could do something for no reason whatsoever.

Voluntarily, trust me it's harder than you think. Go ahead and try it, but we do honors system here. Unfortunately I can't read your mind.

First of all, no you didn't "call" anyone a retard but you did "imply" you evil little bugger.
Secondly, I might kick your can!#nunchucks#

Let's make idle threats to eachother across cyberspace, like all the little kiddies on chat rooms that have nothing better to but get mad!
...
I'm gonna take this pistol, point it at your sig, and fire! @!$% yeah! what? you want some o' dis? I can find out where !@$^ you live, you stupid !$%@!!!

I had no idea autistic children were so tempting for you.

They are. Like, *yum yum*

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

What happened here? Did it just stop?

[Psyquis52]

Give me a minute. I'm distracted with other things.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Your minute is up punk... though I know what you mean by distractions...

[Psyquis52]

May 23, 2008 0:02:38 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I usually try to make philosophy as universal as possible when I talk about it publicly, but yeah I do believe in God. And I know this is a stretch but, I don't actually believe that we don't have free will. I don't believe that we do have free will either. I simply don't know. And by arguing that we don't have free will, I'm really trying to get people into a state of perplexity. Why? No I'm not a !@$%. Thanks for asking. It's just that, perplexity is so much more exciting than certainty.

Boy I really don't remember asking if you were a !@$%.

I suppose the bottom line is that one could or could not possess free will solely based on the definition one has established for himself.

Notice I didn't do any of that Him/her crap? That's because women are things therefore do not have free will.
*THWACK!*
OW! @#$%! Honey, I told you not to use the racket anymore.
That really hurt. Now we have to go to the hospital again.

Regarding God, I've been wrestling with it for a while and it seems necessary that we should actually have free will. So on one hand, I think God is giving us free will, but on the other hand, it might not be free-will and it might not be slave-will. It might be... something else. DUN DUN DUNnnnn...
OK moving on.

Well, on the premise that God gives us free-will then you could say that said "free-will" only extends so far as to determine whether we accept Him or not. Then based on said decision our life takes a preset course.
One could say that. I don't believe it but one could say that.
That's a tidbit of Christian philosophy. ;D

You don't know everything that goes on in a person's brain.

YOU don't know everything that goes on in a person's brain!

It would be absurd to think we could predict what a person will and will not do in the future with such limited knowledge.

YOU have limited knowledge!

Yeah cause you can only "fight the power" with free will... NOT!!

Hey! Don't knock it man! You've got the touch. You've got the power. YEAH! #pumpfist#

So this is the question. Are we equally capable of taking one choice as we are the other. Let's play around with this a bit. Let's say Person A is given a choice between coke and sprite. Person A opts to take the sprite. Now person A gets dragged into the operating room, where the great neurosurgeon, Dr. Tenma's evil twin brother, removes Person A's brain, and replaces it with an externally controlled computer. The computer has outlets to send commands to the body, but the external controls can only control things like conscious thought and voluntary actions. Things like breathing are taken care of by the computer inside. Okay so now person A is taken back to the testing room (assume for the sake of discussion that the body has taken on all the same influences as before). Naturally regular person A in this situation wants the sprite, but the guy at the controls orders the body to take a coke, and it does, no problem.

So far we have that the body (sans brain) is capable of doing whatever it's ordered to do. Given a body, with a variable brain, the body is capable of making any choice. So the question is, is a single brain equally capable of making any order?

Let's play around with it some more. Let's follow that last question with "If so, how might that be?"

Mr. Will lives inside his humble abode he calls person A's brain. He sits in front of a computer screen 16-18 hours a day, and has a small interface. The computer monitor displays the brain's reasoning
on it and Mr. Will decides which action should be taken from that. Mr. Will is equally capable of pushing any button, and nature's laws do not have any sort of grip on him. But do any laws have a hold on him? If no laws have a hold on him then, sure Person A has free will, but wouldn't that make his will completely random? Isn't that worse than having a slave will?

That's all to say that perhaps free-will is not an ideal. Granted, neither is the slave will. I'd say the ideal will would be a restricted free will.

whoa brain is frying right now. Did all of that make sense?

That did make sense and didn't make sense all in the same sitting.

First of all I loved the Dr. Tenma reference. Way to play to the nerd in me.
Secondly there is so much conjecture in this statement that it's incredibly complicated to come up with a sound thought. So... poo on you.
Thirdly on the first example. Now the person still wanted Sprite even though he was forced by outside means to choose Coke. So does he still have free will if he's being deliberately controlled to go against his nature. Not by my definition he doesn't.
Fourthly on your ideal free will. I agree. The problem with people is too often they see things in major definites. Either you're completely free or you're completely slave. I don't see it that way either but in your words as more of a "restricted free will". Various paths converge in my life and I have the option to do as I wish with said paths but I can't diverge completely from my path no matter how much I wish it.
For instance - even if I wanted to be a astronaut I couldn't be one due to my heart condition (I don't have a heart condition but you get the idea.

Let's make idle threats to eachother across cyberspace, like all the little kiddies on chat rooms that have nothing better to but get mad!
...
I'm gonna take this pistol, point it at your sig, and fire! @!$% yeah! what? you want some o' dis? I can find out where !@$^ you live, you stupid !$%@!!!

:(Nobody wants to be spoken to like that. You're heartless.
[/quote] They are. Like, *yum yum*[/quote]
....... .......


May God have mercy on you.

[Dja Majista]

Boy I really don't remember asking if you were a !@$%.

You were thinkin' it though. o_0...
...nah, I got nothin'.

I suppose the bottom line is that one could or could not possess free will solely based on the definition one has established for himself.

the definition of the self or of free will?

Notice I didn't do any of that Him/her crap? That's because women are things therefore do not have free will.
*THWACK!*
OW! @#$%! Honey, I told you not to use the racket anymore.
That really hurt. Now we have to go to the hospital again.

ok... sadist fantasies aside, yeah, gender neutral language sucks. But the thing is, some college professors will really chew you out for not using it. So I'm just practicing.

Well, on the premise that God gives us free-will then you could say that said "free-will" only extends so far as to determine whether we accept Him or not. Then based on said decision our life takes a preset course.
One could say that. I don't believe it but one could say that.
That's a tidbit of Christian philosophy. ;D

That's interesting. But it could also be that we possess a soul, which acts as the catalyst for the will. It exists outside of the natural laws and still has a substantive effect on what the body does. Something like that.

YOU don't know everything that goes on in a person's brain!

YOU have limited knowledge!

Let's talk about obvious things and try to make a point with it!

Hey! Don't knock it man! You've got the touch. You've got the power. YEAH! #pumpfist#

......

That did make sense and didn't make sense all in the same sitting.

First of all I loved the Dr. Tenma reference. Way to play to the nerd in me.
Secondly there is so much conjecture in this statement that it's incredibly complicated to come up with a sound thought. So... poo on you.
Thirdly on the first example. Now the person still wanted Sprite even though he was forced by outside means to choose Coke. So does he still have free will if he's being deliberately controlled to go against his nature. Not by my definition he doesn't.
Fourthly on your ideal free will. I agree. The problem with people is too often they see things in major definites. Either you're completely free or you're completely slave. I don't see it that way either but in your words as more of a "restricted free will". Various paths converge in my life and I have the option to do as I wish with said paths but I can't diverge completely from my path no matter how much I wish it.
For instance - even if I wanted to be a astronaut I couldn't be one due to my heart condition (I don't have a heart condition but you get the idea.

yeah the only real conjecture is in the second part. The first part was meant as an illustration to show that the body with a variable brain is capable of free-will, given the mechanical brain, person A was capable of choosing the coke. Given his own brain, he chose the sprite. It's not meant to prove that we can't have free will with a single brain, as furthermore...
The second part is an idea about how we might have a free will with a single brain. Replace Mr. Will with a soul and it fits quite nicely with Christian philosophy. Yet that presents another problem. We want it such that our wills are dependent of certain things, if the will is independent of everything, there can be nothing guiding it but chaos. We know this much as certain. The will is dependent (partially or fully) on reason. Reason is partially or fully dependent on the brain which creates it. Ideally, the will is fully dependant on something or multiple things, or else it is subject to chaos. So if it's partially dependant on the things listed above, what else might it be dependant on? Would it be in our power?

Another thing I think is important to understand is what the self is. If we have the capacity to make choices. Where does that power come from? It has to exist in the self or it isn't our power, right? So what is the self? It's possible that the reason we find this concept of no free will so impossible is because we have such an ingrained idea that we are all selves. Is it possible that the self is simply an illusion?

It seems like all of us make the idea of the self much more concrete than it actually is. When you use the word "I" or "me" you don't realize how much of an abstract concept that is. It's ingrained into our language as well. words like "you" "we" and "I" are nigh impossible to avoid (I'm experiencing this as we speak). But the body is simply a mass of flesh. Putting a label on it, a name, this is just part of our nature. It's not necessarily true that out of this mass of complex flesh (even speaking of it as a masterpiece) there exists some central entity called the self. In addition, apparently there is a section of the brain devoted to creating this concept of the self (Presumably, electrically stimulating this part of the brain will simulate an out-of-body experience). So let's say as an illustration, that ingrained into every humans brain is the idea that two and two make five. Do you think we'd be inclined to question it? I mean, how many times have you questioned whether the self exists? It's one of those ideas that's so difficult to speculate just because it's right under our noses.

So all that said, the idea of no free will makes much more sense when, in the body, there exists no central entity to hold that will in the first place.

:(Nobody wants to be spoken to like that. You're heartless.

They are. Like, *yum yum*

....... .......

......

May God have mercy on you.

That's what it's all about.