4
   

proof of free-will

 
 
north
 
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 07:10 pm

is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?

discuss

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,098 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:31 am
@north,
north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell upon, things , well beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?

discuss



free-will is exactly this

0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 01:17 am
@north,
north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?

discuss




Discuss what? There is no such a thing as "free will," not in any meaningful sense of the expression. Any and every choice that you make (thinking that you are exercising your so-called 'free will') is based on a combination of your DNA and your upbringing. In reality, you have no choice.
Hermod
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 06:15 am
Free will, to do what? Think? That isn't free. We are all confined to finite function. Even then, we apparently only use a small percentage of our brains capacity. Sure, you can mechanically tear the facts apart on what Free will truely is, but the fact you could be wrong about your conclusion means you are not free.

But then of course you could say finite function is in fact infinite in nature, but that gets complicated.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 06:29 am
@Merry Andrew,
What is morality then? Do you think we can be moral? If so, on what premise?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:25 am
@north,
north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?



discuss




It is true, I think, that in a society in which there are fewer restrictions on what can be thought or said there is more likely to be progress.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 10:38 am
@north,
north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?

discuss
How does this relate to your headline?
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 10:43 am
@Ding an Sich,
What we call 'morality' is largely a cultural construct. Different societies can -- and do -- have wildly differing concepts of what is 'moral', what is 'immoral.' We can be moral only within the norms of our cultural values.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 10:44 am
"Free" will? There ain't no free lunch--and your will does you little good if you don't have the price of admission.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:22 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:

What we call 'morality' is largely a cultural construct. Different societies can -- and do -- have wildly differing concepts of what is 'moral', what is 'immoral.' We can be moral only within the norms of our cultural values.


Even then what is at the heart of morality aside from the cultural veneer?

I'd imagine we can be moral outside of these cultural norms, but this is beside the point.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:13 pm
@Merry Andrew,
It does n´t much matter what code of rules...is the way they assemble together which makes Order and Equilibrium as a Whole.
I wonder how many get to know this...do you ?
...I do much pay attention to Pattern and Function...as you call it there in the States, the "Real Deal" !
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:18 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

I'd imagine we can be moral outside of these cultural norms, but this is beside the point.


Then you would have to define "moral" in terms suitable to everone in the world. And that, I submit, is not possible.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:22 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Moral refers to the Social "functionality" of a Code of Rules...its inner cohesive algorithmic self support.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Moral refers to the Social functionality of a Code of Rules...its inner cohesive self support.


Yes, and my point is that this code of rules differs from one culture to another; hence, a universal definition of morality is not possible.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:34 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Oh, but you see...there is a pattern !
There are Rules common to all Moral codes...

promote:

1 - "Darwinian Cooperation" in Genotypes Evolution
2 - Stability Common Goals and Progress to a given Group and between them...
3 - Stablish the boundaries of warfare and competition...(minimum common background) etc etc
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't consider those to be rules of 'morality', Fil. That's just self-preservatory action for the species as a whole. Within different cultures, different societies, the actual rules and the conception of what is moral, what immoral in achieving this self-preservation will differ.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:57 pm
@Merry Andrew,
They are the "skeleton" on how Moral is build...they are the Rules to making rules...

What other function would Moral preserve if not Stability through Evolution to allow complexity to flourish ?

Moral is like the difference between micro and macro management...
There is the State "Roman" Law and then there is Moral...Moral is about micro community management, if you get my metaphor...it still serves a macro purpose.
...without Moral you don´t get to the State Law phase...
(layers upon layers building blocks upon building blocks)

0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2010 04:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?



discuss




It is true, I think, that in a society in which there are fewer restrictions on what can be thought or said there is more likely to be progress.


Does this progress equate to an increased exercise of freewill?
For instance, when did progress reach the point of the first catch and release fisherman.
Did early man have anything like the freewill we have today?
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Oct, 2010 09:05 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

north wrote:


is the advancement of understanding , thought , therefore thinking upon , therefore new ideas

beyond instinct

instinct naturally is a way of thinking upon survival , only , and has no free-will associated with it

therefore free-will is the ability for the advanced brain to think , understand and dwell beyond the instinctual brain

is this not obvious ?



discuss




It is true, I think, that in a society in which there are fewer restrictions on what can be thought or said there is more likely to be progress.


Quote:
Does this progress equate to an increased exercise of freewill?
For instance, when did progress reach the point of the first catch and release fisherman. {/quote]

what has this have to do with free-will ?
explain
Quote:
Did early man have anything like the freewill we have today?


early man , meaning ?

otherwise no but it was the start

0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2010 11:22 am
@Merry Andrew,
Understandable. But this is not what I was trying to get at. In fact, I said it was besides the point of our discussion. The question above it was what I was really asking.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » proof of free-will
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/09/2019 at 08:19:25