so then the illusion of free will exists because of uncertainty? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Doesn't this question amount to whether materialism is true or is not true - if the former, then free will is false, if the latter, then it is most likely true.
I suppose you could consider it an illusion. Whether it's real or an illusion is essentially indistinguishable from our point of view.
Description of the mechanism of choice is exactly what I intended. I wasn't trying to negate the existence of choice in my use of the word "tricky". I was implying that the relationship between choice as it actually occurs, and our usual experience of "me" deliberately choosing between two alternatives, may not be nearly as cut and dry as we normally would suppose. Specifically. the unconscious mechanism of "choice" at the level of brain functionality has a surprising relationship in time (and thus causality) to the mechanism(s) that we experience as "me" becoming aware of that choice. The former precedes the later, many times by seconds. It's as if our conscious experience gets painted well after the actual determination has been made - sort of like updating an HMI. The experience of making a specific, deliberate, free will choice stems from the physical brain functionality that goes into producing the experience of "me" being updated with the results of a specific result of a particular unconscious neural weighing and subsequent selection. Many experimental measurements have been made between the point in time when a deliberate choice has been made vs. when it is experienced as "my choice". Results indicate that as researchers began to recognize a subject's fMRI real time brain activity patterns for each of the two possible selections she was repeatedly making, they could predict with almost 100% accuracy which button a test subject was GOING TO press well before the subject indicated that she was aware of making the choice! See "Neuroscience and Free Will - the Libet Experiment". These experiments and many other subsequently more refined ones aren't without criticism. And I'm not totally sold on them either. But I have little doubt that our very experience of ourselves - even as agents of free will - is, at the root causal level, a matter of brain chemistry, as Alzheimer's and many other neural degenerative diseases can easily attest.
To believe in Fate puts ones self at a higher importance. Sorry but we're not very important in the grand scheme of things. There is no evidence for fate. And if there was a master controlling our lives, he would be contemplating trillions of decisions for other beings simultaneously. I choose the only option. Free will.... "I'm to drunk, to taste this chicken" -Talladega nights
Fate does not necessarily imply that there is a conscious being that is controlling everything. It is far more likely that everything is just one huge chain of action-reaction. Everything that happens is caused by something preceding it. All that has ever happened was bound to happen based on what happened before. The only question is who (or what) knocked over the first domino? Was there a first domino? Perhaps time is circular and existence is just one big loop...
Do you believe in spontaneity (excluding the big bang) Sorry if you covered this I'm high. I believe that existence istelf is proof of spontaneity. Furthermore I see no reason spontaneity can't still exist. People misunderstand this idea though. Spontaneity would have to happen at the smallest level. The 1's and 0's of the universe. Just as it happened the first time. For no reason a variable happens. The effects on the universe would be minor but evolve and cumulate over time. This would explain why the universe isn't perfectly symmetrical. I believe this uncertainty has a lot to do with the experience of free will Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I think your choosing the BEST choice... cuz what's determinism EVER gotten anybody lmfao ♡Mrs Bunie
Well of course everything is action-reaction. That's one of the laws of physics. But free will is how one reacts to these reactions. All of use are at the tip of the spear of all those past reactions. So now we're the ones who create the action. The present sows the future. "I'm to drunk, to taste this chicken" -Talladega nights
I don't think anything just happens. Everything happens because of what happened before. This reminds me of an experiment I once read about where the conditions of primordial Earth were simulated in a small scale laboratory setting. The researchers observed atoms of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen coming together to form carbohydrate and amino acid molecules, the basic building blocks of life. This suggests that under the right conditions, living matter will arise out of nonliving matter. It doesn't just happen, it is the result of everything that came before to make the situation just right for what will come next. But are there any original actions left or are all our actions just reactions? I can't find any action today that isn't also a reaction. From birth to death all actions anyone makes are just reactions to previous actions. The chain goes action-reaction-reaction-reaction-reaction etc. for eternity. The unanswered question I have is what was that first action?
Then how do you explain existence? At some point something had to happen without cause. There can be no cause and effect if there is nothing How did the universe get here if not from spontaneity? Do you believe it's just always been here in some.form and.just evolved into what it is today? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I don't know how it began, if it began at all. That is the unanswered question. That we can't explain how it all began isn't evidence of how it works now though.
Why does there need to be a first action? Time goes on for eternity. Forwards and backwards. "I'm to drunk, to taste this chicken" -Talladega nights
right but either way it proves there doesn't have to be an action preceding each action. There are 2 scenarios here. Either the universe appeared Or it was always there Either way its an effect with no cause. So spontaneity must exist Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Spontaneity in the universe is not tantamount with free will/choice. I do not understand how a materialist view could be tenable with free will - for that a subject requires to sit ''outside'' of the mechanical processes that govern each and every physical entity.
At best you have proof of one singular instant of spontaneity. If the universe always was then the chain of action-reaction should be infinitely traceable. If the universe came out of nowhere you have your singular instant of spontaneity.
I'm with the stance that time is eternal. And that includes events such as the Big Bang. Which in my opinion is a cycle. That's why there is no need for a first action. "I'm to drunk, to taste this chicken" -Talladega nights
Every living thing on earth is a product of it's environment, that is the nature and truth to reality. However, asking someone to realize this from their own perspective is a true dilemma of introspection or paradox and is a part of self-realization that most people refuse to understand about themselves. You can't ask someone to explain why they are the way they are, they simply can't answer the question truthfully because they are answering from their own perceptions that lead them to be the way they are answering this question in the first place lol. I hope that makes sense somehow....it's hard to put into words.
I accept that as a possibility because there isn't anything solid that proves or disproves it. I still consider other possibilities. The way I see it, there are three: -Time is linear and infinite in both directions. -Time is circular. It eventually repeats itself in an infinite loop. -Time is linear but only infinite in (at most) one direction. There was a beginning but no end (not yet at least)