Author Topic: Freedom and Free Will  (Read 7412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 01, 2016, 09:46:29 PM
Reply #15

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Quote
Because knowledge of the starting events are not known, you are saying that we cannot deterministically know where things will be per an induction fallacy. Mathematically, that is Newtonian and deterministic. Your point is bad because you are presupposing that things have a unique trajectory in time. Not all particles do; rather, you are dealing with all of their trajectories so there is no definitive starting point.
Are you confusing an assumption of probability theory as though it is a factual certainty? Are you mistaking the premise of probability theory which purposefully ignores specified values, as though we cannot determine certain values for things?

No, because it is a factual certainty that some particles have a path integral versus a single, unique trajectory, and because of this, their history is  intrinsically not definitive (where it is definitive and we are just ignorant of particular properties of it); rather, it is intrinsically probabilistic. You are pretty much attempting to rehash the whole Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Well, this issue has been revisited so many times by so many scientists that people can say, with certainty, that the apparent indeterministic properties of systems are not due to a hidden variable or factor we are ignorant about or purposefully ignore. Due to it being so counter-intuitive, people have tried every which way to disprove it, so there are experiments after experiments after experiments that have not done so.     

Path Integral Formulation 

Also, http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm This guy is a licensed Physician and Surgeon, so I should listen to him, right?

What was that called again... fallacy of ... authority? Or can I say that you have to listen to me and trust me, and have no alotment to question me because I have a degree too? Can I do that?

You misrepresented this fallacy... If a person has a degree in something, this means they likely know more than someone who does not. The fallacy only emerges deductively when a person says because they have a degree they absolutely know more than someone who does not. I said nothing that implied absolute or infinite knowledge; rather, I am implying that I likely know more than you because of my degree; therefore, no fallacy was committed. In order for there to be no possibility of being wrong, because of my degree, I have to have infinite knowledge. Since I do not have infinite knowledge on a topic(I logically cannot) because of my degree, I cannot state that I can 100% say I know more than you because of this without a deductive error. Since I never said this, you can't say I am committing the argument from authority fallacy. I am implying that it is highly likely that I know more than you on this topic because of my degree, which is acceptable. It amuses me how people incorrectly attempt to argue that such a fallacy has been committed when people bring up credentials...

Quote
You've also kind of already lost, in that what I am saying is the model that Science uses
The topic is Philosophical. So you're arguing about world soccer while trying to watch an american football game. You're trying to argue that we should talk about something entirely different, because you can't discuss the current topic. You know what, maybe that's my fault. I mentioned the brain or something ... no wait... *checks* You mentioned the brain and the processes. But maybe it's still my fault for engaging you in these slightly off-kilter discussions about science in a philosophy thread.

Science can address this topic just fine, and in a better way, so there is no reason why it has to be a Philosophical conversation. People tend to relate the below quote in Science vs Philosophy debates. See counting the amount of teeth a horse has is Scientific.

Quote
In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

I'm not addressing the other points, because they are repetitive or have nothing to do with my point. I've proven my point more than enough.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 11:35:07 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 01, 2016, 11:51:23 PM
Reply #16

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
And I just stopped caring entirely. You can go ahead and claim whatever victory you want in this discussion.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 03, 2016, 03:46:19 AM
Reply #17

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Sorry for not entirely paying attention to this thread but pro-longed walls of text using words are qualitative, proteins, code, chemistry, neurons in same sentences seriously bore me.

This thread is based on an older thread in which I participated, so I will just try to repeat what I have said. The thing I have originally said was that majority of people aren't free anway, there isn't any freedom without free will and there isn't any free will without freedom.

For a person to be truly free, that person has to have all following conditions:
[ul]
  • Salary big enough to cover basic necessities
  • Salary big enough to be able to have some savings
  • Salary big enough to be able to pay also for the unnecessary things
  • Enough spare time for the personal development
[/ul]

As I have said many people have just enough money to cover basic necessities and when they get home after the work they are just happy they can turn on the TV and switch off their brains. The thing is that without money, spare time and a desire to do something about themselves they can never break this circle, therefore effectively being slaves of the system (education is expensive and often even horribly obsolete). Another problem is that people can make a decision about their future careers very early in their lives. Many people study for a server (because many of their friends do the same) and later in life they are horrified about their decisions that directly ruined their lives).

So, as described above, only person with money and spare time can develop, can study and can have the experience so only such person is truly free. You could say that a person without any money but with enough time on their hands can still learn a lot of new things and it is true, but the options for such a person are very limited (e.g. for public libraries, not a personal library).

You could also say that a person with enough money and spare time still can lack the desire to learn new things and therefore cannot develop and I say yes to this, too, but that person still has that possibility if wanted but a person that is a slave to the system cannot change its position no matter how harder he/she would wish so.

January 03, 2016, 07:12:34 AM
Reply #18

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Sorry for not entirely paying attention to this thread but pro-longed walls of text using words are qualitative, proteins, code, chemistry, neurons in same sentences seriously bore me.

This thread is based on an older thread in which I participated, so I will just try to repeat what I have said. The thing I have originally said was that majority of people aren't free anway, there isn't any freedom without free will and there isn't any free will without freedom.

For a person to be truly free, that person has to have all following conditions:
[ul]
  • Salary big enough to cover basic necessities
  • Salary big enough to be able to have some savings
  • Salary big enough to be able to pay also for the unnecessary things
  • Enough spare time for the personal development
[/ul]

Money can be thought of as the abstract brokerage of power within society. Power can abstractly be treated as the ability to do and actualize things. The ability to do and actualize things does not imply it is a necessary condition for the ability to make a decision. This has already been covered within this thread.

Quote
My point is that freedom from jail is not necessary to decide something.
Yes yes. I agreed with that already. The ability to make a decision is not dependant upon whether someone can carry the decision out. We've been over this multiple times. Stop talking about it as though we disagree.

I am stating that one cannot deduce that everyone who is in jail cannot decide to escape, logically. This is because actualizing their goal is implied via their decision. Their decision is not necessarily implied by the actualization. This means that if a person were attempting to figure out who is likely to decide to escape, concluding that because they are in jail, they cannot decide to escape would be incorrect, logically. You are making a deductive error in your reasoning.

Since power does not imply the ability to make a decision and power(where an example of power is money) can be thought of as being able do things, this means that the ability to freely decide things is not derived from having the power to do what is decided. We cannot deduce that people in poverty, for example, have no agency. Conventionally, personhood encompasses agency, so if we were to say poor people have none because they have no money, then this would imply that poor people are not people. Tables and rocks have no agency, so the implication of this logic would be that poor people can be treated like rocks.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 04:44:36 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 08:11:29 AM
Reply #19

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Rayn: I don't know if you already read my whole post or not, so let me just give you a summary. There is this thing called reality we all live in, this reality and the society within has certain rules and wrapping the discussion into the pseudo-academic mumbojumbo doesn't solve a turd, what I speak about are real people with real problems and the way I speak about it let people to think about a number of solutions, all your philosophical approach does is to fill the thread with a waste.

January 03, 2016, 01:06:06 PM
Reply #20

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Akenu:
So would you classify animals as without freedom? As they are slaves to the system of "find food, eat food, reproduce, sleep, find food, eat food, sleep, etc" and don't have the human money to get themselves out of it? Or were you simply talking about the system of freedom from versus slavery to human society, and ignoring the rest of the world (which is perfectly fine. It would just change the scope any potential reply I might make)?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 03, 2016, 04:13:12 PM
Reply #21

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Akenu:
So would you classify animals as without freedom? As they are slaves to the system of "find food, eat food, reproduce, sleep, find food, eat food, sleep, etc" and don't have the human money to get themselves out of it? Or were you simply talking about the system of freedom from versus slavery to human society, and ignoring the rest of the world (which is perfectly fine. It would just change the scope any potential reply I might make)?

~Steve

I would omit animals from the equation now as they are part of a little bit different system.

January 03, 2016, 04:41:55 PM
Reply #22

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
@Rayn: I don't know if you already read my whole post or not, so let me just give you a summary. There is this thing called reality we all live in, this reality and the society within has certain rules and wrapping the discussion into the pseudo-academic mumbojumbo doesn't solve a turd, what I speak about are real people with real problems and the way I speak about it let people to think about a number of solutions, all your philosophical approach does is to fill the thread with a waste.

You and I are real enough, so this conversation is a real example. You have decided to write this post out to me where it can be taken for granted that a goal of this post is to influence or change my mind. Here is the thing, though. You have not. This means you have not actualized your goal; however, you have decided you would try. The inability to change my mind did make you incapable of deciding to write this post out, and if you did not decide to type out a post, I would not be reading it would I? The inability to pay for something does not keep people from deciding they want it just like your inability to change my mind does not keep you from deciding to post this.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 04:50:14 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
Reply #23

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
@Rayn: I don't know if you already read my whole post or not, so let me just give you a summary. There is this thing called reality we all live in, this reality and the society within has certain rules and wrapping the discussion into the pseudo-academic mumbojumbo doesn't solve a turd, what I speak about are real people with real problems and the way I speak about it let people to think about a number of solutions, all your philosophical approach does is to fill the thread with a waste.

You and I are real enough, so this conversation is a real example. You have decided to write this post out to me where it can be taken for granted that a goal of this post is to influence or change my mind. Here is the thing, though. You have not. This means you have not actualized your goal; however, you have decided you would try. The inability to change my mind did make you incapable of deciding to write this post out, and if you did not decide to type out a post, I would not be reading it would I? The inability to pay for something does not keep people from deciding they want it just like your inability to change my mind does not keep you from deciding to post this. 

Well, you are wrong. I wasn't trying to change your mind but to mock you and the reason is that I do not like you and I am pretty sure this vibe can be understood by many people (obviously with you being the exception) so I have actualized my goal of showing my distaste for you.

P.S. I was never part of the discussion regarding goal actualization and I think that whole part could be easily erased without any damage to the discussion ;-).

January 03, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
Reply #24

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
P.S. I was never part of the discussion regarding goal actualization and I think that whole part could be easily erased without any damage to the discussion

You can't erase it, in your case, because that is what your argument is predicated on. The argument you presented, above, is based on money. Well, money is power within society, so you can't base your argument on power and then say it is irrelevant to your point. Money is power within society, and you said that freedom is, in part, contingent on how much money you have. Since money is power and power is an abstraction for being able to actually do things, this makes it critical to your point. You can't side-step it without negating your whole point.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 04:56:36 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 04:58:41 PM
Reply #25

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
P.S. I was never part of the discussion regarding goal actualization and I think that whole part could be easily erased without any damage to the discussion

You can't erase it, in your case, because that is what your argument is predicated on. The argument you presented, above, is based on money. Well, money is power within society, so you can't base your argument on power and then say it is irrelevant to your point. Money is power within society, and you said that freedom is, in part, contingent on how much money you have. Since money is power and power is an abstraction for being able to actually do things, this makes it critical to your point. You can't side-step it without negating your whole point.

Oh, that is wrong. A person with one gun worth of $100 can kill a person owning $50000. Money doesn't equal to power, Rayn, but a possibility.

January 03, 2016, 05:04:24 PM
Reply #26

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Oh, that is wrong. A person with one gun worth of $100 can kill a person owning $50000. Money doesn't equal to power, Rayn, but a possibility.

That is an irrelevant point, and in terms of economics, money is treated as an abstract brokerage of power within society in that it allows us to pay for goods and services and do things. That is one of the key concepts behind money. If a person can't buy something, this does not mean a person is incapable of deciding they want something they cannot afford. Your argument implies that if a person cannot afford something, then they cannot freely decide they want it. That is not reality, because they are plenty of people who want what they cannot afford.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 05:10:02 PM
Reply #27

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Oh, that is wrong. A person with one gun worth of $100 can kill a person owning $50000. Money doesn't equal to power, Rayn, but a possibility.

That is an irrelevant point, and in terms of economics, money is treated as an abstract brokerage of power within society in that it allows us to pay for goods and services and do things. That is one of the key concepts behind money. If a person can't buy something, this does not mean a person is incapable of deciding they want something they cannot afford. Your argument implies that if a person cannot afford something, then they cannot freely decide they want it. That is not reality, because they are plenty of people who want what they cannot afford.

So based on your definitions slaves are actually free people because they can want anything? This isn't about wanting, Rayn, to be truly free, you should be able to become anything, not just desire it.

January 03, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
Reply #28

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
So based on your definitions slaves are actually free people because they can want anything? This isn't about wanting, Rayn, to be truly free, you should be able to become anything, not just desire it.

No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 05:25:39 PM
Reply #29

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
So based on your definitions slaves are actually free people because they can want anything? This isn't about wanting, Rayn, to be truly free, you should be able to become anything, not just desire it.

No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.

Logically, empirically and historically a slave that misbehaved so punished by a whip in better case. Slaves along the history of the humanity as the whole were tortured, sterilized and often beaten to death because their master had a bad dream the night before. What you speak about is just one instance or two (considering Spartacus, as well), the problem is that in those instances slaves had the resources to revolt so they actually had the possibility to free themselves temporarily, the thing that would allow such a possibility now would be money, in that time it were weapons and military training gladiators had. But anyway, we both know how Spartacus ended, didn't we?