No Free Will?

What did PanA do that was so douchy?

[Choobus]

Nothing I care about anymore, but he did ask.

[Sternwallow]

PanAtheist wrote

Sternwallow, I am saying that IF oneself (and the parts of oneself) are not just reacting within their environment (reaction being nonfreewill)
then the only alternative for the source of actions is randomness.
I am not saying that there is a random generator in the brain.
I am just saying that freewill would equal randomness.

I am saying that a behavior that is not traceable to deterministic processes can still show patterns that can seem meaningful to humans and so are still not random. Even the decision to abide by an external random source, like coin flipping (which is also not random, but nearly) is itself deterministic.

So I don't think randomness has a place in discussing free will or its lack.

We are all wind-up toys who must feel in control in order to function in life and not go crazy.

[Sternwallow]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

the ethical fall out is huge to this mind you. after all killers would not be able to be senr down as if they had conciously thought to kill, as it would be a predetermined action that their concious just went along with. id still ay fry them though

Exactly right. The prosecution would have no more free will than the supposed criminal and would feel (wrongly) that it was his choice to fry the guy.

[PanAtheist]

Sternwallow, I think our thoughts agree, and our choice of words differ.

To make things clear,
I'll re-iterate my initial statement:

"Freewill" is a "god"
- and I am an athiest!

"Freewill", like "god", is a word that is used insanely.

Regarding your use of "random", you might want to start using True Random™ and make clear that you don't mean anything random like the fall of a dice. (Possibly you mean something of a quantastic nature and any hidden variables be damned! )

[ILOVEJESUS]

well the idea of free will stern is an illusioncreated by our concious minds to allow us to feel in control so i think were peeing in the same bucket here. choobus your a penis, and a very small one at that

[Choobus]

OMG YOUR A PENIS LOL. You is be the most baddest speler of all pennis that is slap on keyboard by chuggers and is then spel most ungoody out of all the everyones. If to know spells and hows of ritings is then show how good is brane at workings and fink then U B teh WURST and is retard. OMG PWNED, lol

I can force myself to not blink, even though the action is usually subconcious. Conciousness has the power to stop a certain subconcious action.

Hanevet wrote

I can force myself to not blink, even though the action is usually subconcious. Conciousness has the power to stop a certain subconcious action.

We have discussed this before, and this is a salient point. As a sentient, you CAN override (temporarily) intense desires.

Animals cannot do this.

This doesn't affect the reality... that actions are queued ahead of time by the brain prior to execution and 'display' to the conscious mind.

My hypothesis here, is that we differ from animals in our ability to MONITOR this process. This overview ability, which we refer to as the stream of consciousness, allows 2 astonishingly powerful mental faculties:

One: The ability to temporarilly overide the predetermined decisions the servo part of the brain has made.

Two: The ability, through intentional override, to eventually REPROGRAM the mind to accept a new system of goals.

Animals simply cannot do this.

Prove me wrong. My hypothesis is disprovable... if an animal can unilaterally retrain itself for a new purpose, then my hypothesis is toast.

But... If the animal you use as an example is genetically similar to humans... perhaps it shares some degree of sentience?

Sorry, I somehow managed to double post. This is the erased double.

We don't know enough about animal intelligence to know if they can override their subconcious like we do. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans most likely can.

[ILOVEJESUS]

but how do you know that your subconcious isnt telling you to override your blinking... and that your concious brain is under the illusion that it itself is responsible? thats the amazing thing here. what is actually concious in your thought, is it a decision. or merely just an action with the illusion of control. it appears that from the article it is the latter.

[ILOVEJESUS]

oh choooooooooooooooobus your a is penis and is all not to very clever at things to be known . i take pity on yours as friends notvery many do they like you so taking out here frusty angers making you look all penis like. omg pawned owned lol spastication alert . your a nob, and like all good nobs your unaware of just how big a nob you are. and your a very big nob but a very small penis.

you're bringing it on yourself ILOVEJESUS.

[ILOVEJESUS]

no not really. im actually trying to have a reasonable discussion, only to have to deal with juvenile insults so far below me theyre almost out of view. this thread is about the illusion in our conciousness of free will. not about how many prick like insults you can throw