Proof of nonexistence of free will

Perhaps you should look into the limitations of language.

I do not assume subjectivity can be reduced to objectivity.

I am saying that our notion that thought is produced by our individual minds is an assumption we have no facts to support.

That physical matter exists anywhere but within consciousness is another assumption we have no facts to support.

In addition, most philosophical discussions about "self" quickly reveal that the concept is as controversial as god, and equally a matter of belief.

consciousness is both matter ( brain ) and energy based

consciousness is both matter ( brain ) and energy based

I hardly know what "matter" refers to, but energy, well... that's an even further, ever greater mystery...no one knows really !

(...besides that one can carry matter and that energy usually is hot and burns we still don´t know more then our cave ancestors did...all we have are some metaphors dress up with some maths...)

Perhaps you should look into the limitations of language.

I do not assume subjectivity can be reduced to objectivity.

I am saying that our notion that thought is produced by our individual minds is an assumption we have no facts to support.

That physical matter exists anywhere but within consciousness is another assumption we have no facts to support.

In addition, most philosophical discussions about self quickly reveal that the concept is as controversial as god, and equally a matter of belief.

That is not my assumption: I said our thought depends on our brains. The fact that you read it as our brains producing our thought already shows your bias...

If you doubt self, then why are you trying to reduce the physical world to a product of consciousness? Perhaps because consciousness itself is for you just an object -- or an objective effect -- rather then a dimension of self: one that only exists... within our consciousness? You must stop oscillating between idealism and materialism, or you will end up dizzy...

Quote:

That is not my assumption: I said our thought depends on our brains. The fact that you read it as our brains producing our thought already shows your bias...

Give it a rest guigus. This is typical behaviour from you when you are asked for proof.

I said that the belief that consciousness reqires brain is an assumption.

To which you replied that it is not, that it is fact and proceeded to claim I am assuming all sorts of things.
And now you\'re commenting on my bias, and saying I\'m an idealist. A few posts ago you called me a materialist. Irrelevant ramblings from you. Like I said, give it a rest.

Quote:

If you doubt self, then why are you trying to reduce the physical world to a product of consciousness? Perhaps because consciousness itself is for you just an object -- or an objective effect -- rather then a dimension of self: one that only exists... within our consciousness? You must stop oscillating between idealism and materialism, or you will end up dizzy...

Can you not see the assumptions this is loaded with?
It seems to me that you are oblivious to my perspective, and that\'s why you think I am \"oscillating between idealism and materialism\".

I do not doubt self. I merely believe it isn\'t nearly as individual as we tend to believe. But consciousness is not self.

And yes, I am saying physical matter is something that is only percieved by consciousness.

And I know you have objections, but as I said, those objections are also merely assumptions.

Here's what Heidegger has to say about "free will" in Being and Time. Dasein is translated as Being-there.

"The "they" has its own ways in which to be. That tendency of Being-with which we have called "distantiality" is grounded in the fact that Being-with-one-another concerns itself as such with averageness, which is an existential characteristic of the "they". The "they", in its Be-ing essentially makes an issue of this. Thus the "they" maintains itself factically in the averageness of that which belongs to it, of that which it regards as valid and that which it does not, and of that to which it grants success and that to which it denies it. In this averageness with which it prescribes what can and may be ventured, it keeps watch over everything exceptional that thrusts itself to the fore. Every kind of priority gets glossed over as something that has long been well known. Everything gained by a struggle becomes just something to be manipulated. Every secret loses its force. This care of averageness reveals in turn an essential tendency of Dasein which we call the "levelling down" of all possibilities of Be-ing."

"Distantiality, averageness, and levelling down, as ways of Be-ing for the "they", constitute what we know as 'publicness'. Publicness proximally controls every way in which the world and Dasein get interpreted, and it is always right — not because there is some distinctive and primary relationship-of-Being in which it is related to 'things', or because it avails itself of some transparency on the part of Dasein which it has explicitly appropriated, but because it is insensitive to every difference of level and of genuineness and thus never gets to the 'heart of the matter'. By publicness everything gets obscured, and what has thus been covered up gets passed off as something familiar and accessible to everyone."

"The "they" is there alongside everywhere, but in a manner that it has always stolen away whenever Dasein presses for a decision. Yet because the "they" presents every judgement and decision as its own, it deprives the particular Dasein of its answerability. The "they" can, as it were, manage to have 'them' constantly invoking it. It can be answerable for everything most easily, because it is not someone who needs to vouch for anything. It 'was' always the "they" who did it, and yet it can be said that it has been 'no one'. In Dasein's everydayness the agency through which most things come about is one of which we must say that "it was no one"."

"Thus the particular Dasein in its everydayness is disburdened by the "they". Not only that; by thus disburdening it of its Be-ing, the "they" accommodates Dasein if Dasein has a tendency to take things easily and make them easy. And because the "they" constantly accommodates the particular Dasein by disburdening it of its Be-ing, the "they" retains and enhances its stubborn dominion."

"Everyone is the other, and no one is himself. The "they", which supplies the answer to the question of the "who" of everyday Dasein, is the "nobody" to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in Being-among-one-another."

Entirely beside the point.

Here's a fun thought or two:

To a scientist, right down at the lowest level of reality the universe is not 100% casual. As Hawking's would say the Universe doesn't have one past - it has many. This comes out of Heisenberg's uncertainity principle. Lack of absolute position and velocity is hardwired into everything in the universe - its probably the most inviable laws of physics. Viewed another way - randomness is build into everything in existence. Such a model means situation plus trigger = knownable outcome is not 100% invariable true. So randomness doesn't prove free will - but it certainly opens the door to chance and other factors that mean your original thought model can have just two hard and fast absolute cases.

To a christian - God's greatest promise to mankind was free will - its about the only restriction God puts on his (new Testament) behaviour; else he'd had a web address and a mobile phone number.

If uncertainity is build into the universe - at its lowest level of reality and all its fundamental laws must comply with the Heisenberg principal (stating any laws can be broken for a finite time in a finite space with a finite probability) - then I'd vote non determinise trumps absolutism every time and this itself posits free will may very well certainly exist.