"Everything happens for a reason" and Free Will.

Not so fast Raymondo.

I shall return tomorrow.I'm a bit tied up on Trivia tonight and it is almost snoozie hour.

Regards.

Splen -

I am not sure why free will and only physical states have to be non-compatable. I have stated this twice before in this thread and you seem to come back to that point.

As far as this thread goes I could care less abotu physical or nonphysical traits - but again, I am not sure why it matters to free will.

TTF

there is no free will and there never was. now as wether there will be in the future or not that is the question we can not change what is since we do not have that ability,otherwise we would not debate this topic,so freedom is limited to mans power to cause change or not, we all know our abilities as a man,so there fore we also are limited in our ability of choice,beyond the interference of mankind,and his laws,the laws we will be using in this debate are the laws of truth,wether you believe in an absolute or not this is the relativity of this comparison do you agree or not,i shall continue after your sumation

Re: "Everything happens for a reason" and Free Wil
thethinkfactory

When we say that everything happens for a reason, we are always making a retrospective judgement about the events. This means we are giving a reason for an event that has already occurred.
But, before it occurs?
Given a situation A, the number of possible events generated in that situation is undetermined. "A" can produce B, C, D... all we know is that A cannot originate some other events. But we cannot predict what event will become real from all the possibilities.
The assassination of Julius Caesar opened an undetermined number of possibilities. Perhaps some of them had a greater probability to become real. And there are impossibilities: with the death of Caesar one of the infinite things that could not happen was, for example, that George W. Bush took the power.
But, within the possible events, there is no reason to establish that the event B must happen. We say that, because we are looking to a situation that has already occurred. But, with Caesar's death, B, C, D... had the possibility to become real. Brutus could have taken the power, he could make an agreement to share power with Anthony, Anthony could have killed Octavius ...
I see no fate or predestination - or purpose - that decides that event B must occur instead of possible events C, D, E...
The same way that there is no reason, when I throw a coin in the air: two identical possibilities and only one can occur. But without any possible reason.

The same way, I believe free will is possible, within a set of possible events. Caesar could have decided not to go to the Senate that morning. But he could not choose to take a plain and share some advices with George A. Bush.
Given the situation A, we can choose - within the POSSIBILITIES. Because there is always multiple possibilities. There are no chains of physical events - that is an illusion, due to our observation in the present- but possibilities: again, a situation A can originate events B,C,D ... and only one of them will occur. The only scientific certitude is that "impossible events" will not occur.
As Popper said, we are in a probabilistic universe.

Re: "Everything happens for a reason" and Free Wil


This is exactly what I was trying to say above (edited for a few high points).

Thanks Val.

TF

Well at least we have some philosophy underway at last.

Quite interesting TTF but I suspect a touch of the sophisticals.I'll admit there may be no reason for head or tails apart from probability but what is the reason for tossing the coin in the first place.What is the reason for having coinage to toss.Are those two questions answered by probability.

I think you are positing these ideas on non-physical states of the brain.What is the reason for Ceasar's murder (assuming the tale is true of course which it probably is).It isn't just a question of why Ceasar went to the senate.Why was he dictator in the first place.His rise was fraught with risk and is more likely to have not happened than to have done so.It would be nowhere near 50/50.

To what extent is a belief in free will,or otherwise,or any belief, a state of the brain and is this state material or non-material.And if it is the latter,or has such a component,how would scientists study the brain in these aspects which they actually do.And that is assuming that the beliefs are sincere which they not always are.

So,I am not saying that free will and non-physical states are incompatible.I don't know enough to assert that.I'm pretty certain no one does.It is simply that only physical states can be studied scientifically.And positive medical breakthroughs can be expected by making the assumption that there are only material states.

As far as the cop out argument goes it might be easily said that the notion of free will allows dysfunctional members of society to be disposed of more easily and thus that might be a cop out.Possibly a necessary one in a poor society which we are not.

No, it is you who consistently bring in non-physical states into this discussion and then want to argue against it.

I see you attempting to set up a straw man and then attempting to knock it down.

1) Nothing can be said about non-physical states so an argument for or against seems moot. However, I have argued that this seemingly non-physical state of the 'mind' could be a demensional physical state that we simply cannot measure yet. Perhaps the 5th 6th or 7th demension hinted at in string theory.
2) You have given no reason to think that the decision of Cesear to go to the Senate or for me to make this post is not a purely physical action.
3) AND it is not pertainant to the thread. If you want to make a thread about non-physical states and free will go ahead - but this thread was about the statement "Everything happens for a reason." and free will.

Perhaps it is not 'philosophical' enough for you - but it is what it is.

TTF

TTF:-

Maybe I have seemed to argue against non-physical states of the brain but I can't see where.
Would you show me what you mean?

Anyway I'm not arguing against NPS's.I agree with you that they can't be studied and the assumption that they exist stops the study of physical states.

I don't understand #2.Actions are not brain states.

I also can't see why you think my posts are not pertinent to the thread.The physical states are the reasons for what happens and free will is thus an illusion.That seems to me to go to the root of the thread title.

Surely a philosophy discussion can't be too philosophical because otherwise it could easily become subjective.Are you setting limits because the thrust of the links is that you are not.Does the idea that there are ONLY physical states worry you?

Sorry Splen -

Let me restate.

Cesears decision to go to the senate - why can that not be purely physical?

Let's start there.

TTF

Choosing means for a "being" to decide between more than one possible outcomes. Since, all the causes is at that time, a part of our brain, then however misguided the choice is, the "being" is choosing in its own free will since at that time the cause is a part of the brain.

Is this not a possible postulate?

About non-physical matter. If physical means anything that arises in nature, then surely all things are physical. However, if physical means something that we can see or is touchable, then there is such a thing as the non-physical. Scientists know how a bat's brain works, and know that some animals can see more colours than humans do, but they don't know what the colour is like. It's like a person who has no ability to see blue knows about blue from other people but have no idea of what it actually looks like. Surely, the mind is non-physical in this sense, but it arises from something physical.

TTF:-

I'm saying it was.I can't imagine how I have given you the impression that I thought it wasn't.As a materialist I could not possibly have thought that Ceasar had any non-physical component to the brain state which was apt for taking him to the senate.
I'm not speaking of his actions which are obviously physical.I'm speaking of the state of his brain.If,speculating now,he went to the senate to confront his enemies I am saying that the idea to do that is a physical thing in time and space which might,with ideal tools for a thought experiment,be seen and measured and possibly manipulated.An arrangement of atoms,molecules,and all sorts of wierd and wonderful particles of matter and energy about which we as yet know very little.What is typing this post is a similar arrangement which is brought into being by the current environment reacting with my current inner state.In some places what we are doing here is a serious crime.North Korea for example.Hence the uselessness for philosophical purposes of the cop out/irresponsibility argument.

Andy Warhol recognised the position,or seemed to,when he said that his assassin was "just an accident".An accident of molecular geometry a bit like a motor accident when a number of factors come together.You see how tolerant materialists are.Bullets in his chest from close range is "just an accident".I think the Manson defence took a similar line.

Splen -

I see you as saying that our brain states are all material.

How is free will not a possiblity within a purely material state?

Couldn't ray be correct in that our minds simply choose between more than one possibility (perhaps even within a certain probabilitistic framework) and that be free will.

It can be manipulated - we are collections of carbon based molecules - but not absolutley controled (in that it is determined) by another force (unless we allow for an omnipotent force in that omnipotence means doing all - including the impossible).

That is one possibility but...

Let me ask you this - are you at all saying that these material states and free will are incompatable?


TTF

TTF;-

I incline that way yes.The alternative wasn't so good I don't think.

But I'll think about it more.I have to roll my fags now.My material state insists.Should be back tomorrow God willing eh?

I rather think Spendius is afraid that logic has not confirmed his desire to be immortal. Hence he will plunge into the abyss of finality without equivocation, or mental reservation.

I think in America Spen - "rolling fags" would be construed as robbing homosexuals.

I understand that you are preparing cigarettes however - fag being another word for stick.

TF

An abbreviation of fag end actually.

A cigarette stub originally being referred to as such,
or a dimp.

TTF:-Thank goodness for that.Robbing homosexuals,as you call them,has never been one of my strong suits.I prefer seven no trumps in smirking mode.Doubled and redoubled.(Before the smirking began).

Hi dimpo.Shouldn't you be in the cradle at this time of night with the teet wedged between your virginal gums.

Now Spendius, I could retaliate with candour and have you squirming, again! So behave yourself 'old boy' and Mathos will be lenient, this time.

Begin, the flame war has.

Even if all actions are determinate, the phenomenology of the realization of what actions, albeit determined, that we make still must occur. We must still witness our thought concerning the action, even if it could be said prior to our decision that we would make that very same decision, as if it was indeterminate. We are not conscious of the forces that drive our thoughts, but as unity of the matter that creates our thoughts we introspectively witness them as they unfold.