CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego (page 16)

notverylikely

LOL - but remember: The WTS actually believes just that - Eve was fooled by Satan, but Adam was not.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

/I just love saying that.

I think the problem is that you don't understand probability and uncertainty in math and science. Uncertainty doesn't mean "we have no idea what the outcome will be". It's related to probablity in that there are a range of outcomes depending on conditions and we are UNCERTAIN which one it will be until some action is taken to observe it.

Well, we can all be grateful we have you here to set us straight!

You said the human mind was adaptive and a singularity in nature. Since natural things have no choice but the follow the laws of nature, if the human mind is a singularity (generally defined in physics as a point in space time where the laws of physics as we know them break down, an undefined area, so to speak), our minds do not necessarily follow the laws of nature.

NATURE is all there IS. The LAWS of nature are what humans observe and can plot predictably. The human mind exists in nature. It hasn't been predictable enough for us to apply "laws" of nature. To say that our minds DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS of nature is kind of silly, don't you think?

Our mind does not exist outside of nature, but, it does what it does naturally.

Seems like the burden is not on nature but on science to find the right way of plotting the chaos to make its result meaningful.

You did know what a singularity was, right? Or were you using some other definition that doesn't involve, math, randomness and physics?

strangeness by virtue of being remarkable or unusual
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

notverylikely

Well, we can all be grateful we have you here to set us straight!

So....when you don't understand something and someone explains it, you choose to get all snarky? That would explain a lot. And actually, most people I've seen talking about it get it. So you're really just thanking me for setting you straight. And you're welcome, I am always happy to help.

The human mind exists in nature. It hasn't been predictable enough for us to apply "laws" of nature. To say that our minds DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS of nature is kind of silly, don't you think?

So, our mind follows the laws of nature yes you can't predictably apply them? Since we know that uncertainty and probability ARE laws of natures, I would totally agree with what you said. Free will at the conscious level is in no way precluded by any of this.

Seems like the burden is not on nature but on science to find the right way of plotting the chaos to make its result meaningful.

That's what they are doing. Why would you think they aren't? Is that what you are suggesting?

strangeness by virtue of being remarkable or unusual

Ah, so the mind must follow the laws of nature, but it is a singularity in nature in that it is remarkable or unusual? If I am understanding that correctly, then free will certainly would make it remarkable or unusual as compared with the largesse of the rest of observable nature.

Terry

Ah, so the mind must follow the laws of nature, but it is a singularity in nature in that it is remarkable or unusual? If I am understanding that correctly, then free will certainly would make it remarkable or unusual as compared with the largesse of the rest of observable nature

Choice may be a mere illusion. That is the theme.

Our discussion is variations on that theme.

The mind is what the mind is---which we do not yet fully grasp and, consequently is a singularity. Compared to all the things science does grasp and measure and find predictable it is remarkable and unusual.

FREE will---to be "free" must be free of nature itself--which it cannot be inasmuch as it is produced by nature.

Is that pithy enough?

And, by the way--I am grateful you are here to set us straight.

notverylikely

The mind is what the mind is---which we do not yet fully grasp and, consequently is a singularity.

Backup...you provided the definition of a singularity as being unusual or remarkable. Simply not fully grasping how something works is not mentioned or referenced or alluded to in that definition. This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say you redefine words to suit your purpose.

Compared to all the things science does grasp and measure and find predictable it is remarkable and unusual.

That's highly subjective. Some would agree, some would not. Since you earlier said things had to be objectively agreed upon as true to create an objective reality that everyone can agree on, I am afraid you'll have to retract that.

FREE will---to be "free" must be free of nature itself--which it cannot be inasmuch as it is produced by nature.

You have yet to prove that or provide any evidence. In fact, on a macro scale, one could view uncertainty in nature as a low level macro version of free will that is primarily and observably manifest in intelligence and conciousness.

Why must free will be free of nature? Perhaps, if consciousness IS a singularity, then that's what's remarkable or unusual about it.

And, by the way--I am grateful you are here to set us straight.

So you agree with me then? I'm glad we settled that. Free will exists.

THE GLADIATOR

I have stopped commenting on this thread because I am completely out of my depth in this particular subject. It is not my area of expertise. I suspect that many others who are interested have stood aside for the same reason.

notverylikely, I said on page 6 that: "You appear to have a need to paste - dissect and contradict everything that is placed before you. It is unlikely that you are aware of this need. You see it as a preference to make things clear in other people's mind."

This does seem to be an overriding need in you, driven by forces that you have no control over. A lack of free will no less! Terry has, as always, avoided becoming rattled. His overriding need appears to be a thirst for truth and intellectual exercise; perhaps caused by being tricked as a JW.

Let me thank you both for the entertainment and insight you are providing. I watch and learn.

JWoods

I have stopped commenting on this thread because I am completely out of my depth in this particular subject. It is not my area of expertise. I suspect that many others who are interested have stood aside for the same reason.

Me too. The supposition is unprovable (i.e. that CHOICE or FREE WILL is an illusion) and the thread has just descended into tautology.

Interesting idea, but not worth a 10 page argument.

notverylikely

This does seem to be an overriding need in you, driven by forces that you have no control over. A lack of free will no less!

You are free to think that. You are incorrect, but free to think it. Imagine that, free will at work.;)

Terry has, as always, avoided becoming rattled.

I think I would disagree with that, but again, perhaps I don't know him well enough.

notverylikely

Interesting idea, but not worth a 10 page argument.

But totally worth 9, right?

Razziel

I nominate "it is what it is" as the most overused cliche of the last year.

CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego

Share this