Ah, but the determinist might argue that we must not mix up determinism in human action and decision making, with life-cycle path determinism; at the human level, the dynamics are relatively simple but appear to us very complex (the chemical processes regulated by physical laws thing above). Path determinsm is incalculably complex because its a massive multi-player temporal game, though it may appear relatively simple IF we assume free will; complex, yes; but not theoretically incalculable, he/she might argue.
On Aug 6, 8:24 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually do think we really have free will, If we look back at our lives > from as far back as we can remember there are always choices. and we choose > the path we want to follow .. and the effect of those choices. once the > choice is made.. once the sands of time have written it moves on and can > never be changed.. we live with the effects of our individual choices. > Yes there are those with the sever problems in Africa, yes many of them are > man made , that also goes for the rest of the world and many of them are > beyond our control, what becomes important is not the situation we are in > but how we respond to to that situation and doing nothing is both a choice > and a response. How we respond to the outside stimulus is what we are held > accountable for. > Allan > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:24 AM, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you really, Allan? Or do you really think you do? If you always > > have a choice of 'A', 'B', or 'C', but you were always ever going to > > choose 'C', you have free will, but is your decision freely made? > > > On Aug 5, 8:04 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You lays have free will no matter how you seeing it created. It is the > > consequences of those choices that can be a bitch, > > > Allan > > > > On 4 aug. 2011, at 17:48, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There are a number of approaches to this question, Jo; but essentially > > > > and in summary (and i do a great injustice to a very powerful > > > > philosophical school), the deterministic tradition suggests that since > > > > we''re fundamentally bounded chemical systems immersed in a "sea" of > > > > ever more elaborate chemical processes, regulated by immutable > > > > (replicable and predictive) physical laws, and nothing else (which > > > > takes you back to the mind/brain question), our actions are no more > > > > than expressions of these chemical processes, constrained at an > > > > aggregate level by universal physical laws. When we think we make > > > > decisions based on choice, it is the mind "stroking" itself since, in > > > > terms of "proximate" action, we know that our decisions are preceeded > > > > in time by a neuro-electrcal "footprint" (interesting work by Benjamin > > > > Libet, presented in his book "Mind Time"); and in terms of more > > > > deliberative action, we are pretty certain to make the same decisions > > > > over and over again given the same set of variables, since our > > > > cognition is hard wired, and its operations are governed by the self > > > > same chemical processes and physical laws. Hence the question: do we > > > > have free will? and if we do, how much free will do we have? > > > > > On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I don't understand how some can say we don't have free will. You can > > > >> choose to do anything you want at any given time. How is that not free > > > >> will? > > > > >> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> "We have access to a technology that would have looked like sorcery > > in > > > >>> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head and read > > > >>> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any nearer to > > > >>> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure brainwaves, > > > >>> you can never know exactly what experience they represent," says > > > >>> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If > > > >>> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. You, too, > > > >>> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford > > > >>> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you don't > > > >>> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the belief, > > > >>> particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain scans, that > > > >>> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; our > > > >>> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond our > > > >>> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion. > > > >>> So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in which > > you > > > >>> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie and so > > > >>> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New Scientist) > > > > >>> We range over debates in free will and what it is to be human. So far > > > >>> we haven't established free will or even that we are not merely > > > >>> avatars in 'something else's game'. > > > > >>> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering ourselves as > > > >>> creatures limited by programming and also capable of it?- Hide quoted > > text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
