Liquid`Drone Norway. Aug 18 2012 11:29. Posts 3096
On August 18 2012 01:05 uiCk wrote:
Or you can let your emotions influence your free will, like people who don't like change. They don't like change because they use their free will to choose to be comfortable with what they know? Or do they not like change because of some psychologically based event, for example trauma, or indoctrination or anything caused by the persons environment? At what point does the event have more importance then your free will, so to speak ?
I would go further and say that free will is the synergy between genes, which is your blue print, and life experiences, aka your environment, which compromises every moment since 'birth'. Which makes free will, for me, a gradual concept, where the benefits of the environment (let's call that wisdom, knowledge) gives one more 'choices' to choose from. Where the choice is based more or less on if you apply coincious analysis, pulling knowledge you have stored to apply a benefit scale, going with the choice that you consider the most benifical. Or you do it blind and let your 'instincts' do the choosing. Which might result in low level analysis, for example, making a decision purely on color. Example would be choosing between an object that is shinny on one that is not. Majority would choose the shinny object, which can be argued is a predetermined choice made by our DNA.
Best I can explain it.
this actually confirms my notion that the "free will" discussion is mostly one of semantics rather than actual disagreement. This, because you did a perfect job explaining behavioral influences, and zorglub agrees with you. However, because you used the word "free will" he didn't understand that you are in agreement.
The random number generator is indeed a computer program written by man. The number it generates isn't caused by any line of code that favours one number to another. The magical random number appears out of nowhere, the statistical probability for any number to appear is the same. Yes, someone has to start the program but the outcome isn't affected by anything other than randomness. Am i throwing a wrench in the God/spirit/overminds whole scenario if i keep letting PS RNG rule my life? I made a program that picks a number from 1-100, the outcome was 10. and on my list it corresponds to "do ten pushups" and i did them. Why didn't the universe implode ?! Did i piss off the overmind atleast ?
On August 18 2012 10:51 cariadon wrote:
The random number generator is indeed a computer program written by man. The number it generates isn't caused by any line of code that favours one number to another. The magical random number appears out of nowhere, the statistical probability for any number to appear is the same. Yes, someone has to start the program but the outcome isn't affected by anything other than randomness. Am i throwing a wrench in the God/spirit/overminds whole scenario if i keep letting PS RNG rule my life? I made a program that picks a number from 1-100, the outcome was 10. and on my list it corresponds to "do ten pushups" and i did them. Why didn't the universe implode ?! Did i piss off the overmind atleast ?
If you choose to make the RNG decide your will, then something made you choose that option, and you still wouldn't have any free will, you would have the will of pokerstars RNG.
If you think about how such an overmind might look, I would say there is a good chance that we derived everything we know and are from it, including humor, irony, hornyness, trolling, deception, etc. and perhaps even the very concept of "being human", every kind of behaviour, personality and concept that exists. And there would even be a chance that the overmind would do those same things to us (trolling, joking, etc), without us realizing it. In fact we would be part of the overmind ourselves, but it would make us believe we are humans.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 01:05 uiCk wrote:
Or you can let your emotions influence your free will, like people who don't like change. They don't like change because they use their free will to choose to be comfortable with what they know? Or do they not like change because of some psychologically based event, for example trauma, or indoctrination or anything caused by the persons environment? At what point does the event have more importance then your free will, so to speak ?
I would go further and say that free will is the synergy between genes, which is your blue print, and life experiences, aka your environment, which compromises every moment since 'birth'. Which makes free will, for me, a gradual concept, where the benefits of the environment (let's call that wisdom, knowledge) gives one more 'choices' to choose from. Where the choice is based more or less on if you apply coincious analysis, pulling knowledge you have stored to apply a benefit scale, going with the choice that you consider the most benifical. Or you do it blind and let your 'instincts' do the choosing. Which might result in low level analysis, for example, making a decision purely on color. Example would be choosing between an object that is shinny on one that is not. Majority would choose the shinny object, which can be argued is a predetermined choice made by our DNA.
Best I can explain it.
this actually confirms my notion that the "free will" discussion is mostly one of semantics rather than actual disagreement. This, because you did a perfect job explaining behavioral influences, and zorglub agrees with you. However, because you used the word "free will" he didn't understand that you are in agreement.
Yes it is because I define "free will" as a truely free will not influenced by any prior experience or forces you don't control yourself, while uiCk defines a will influenced by prior experiences and forces/the environment as "free".
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 14:28 cariadon wrote:
Do you really sincerely honestly believe that there is no true free will as you put it ?
Yes, how can there be when there are trillions of factors outside of my control, that decide what I will be able to choose and will choose? Then I didn't really choose anything, the factors I don't control did it for me. I just think it was my conscious choice, but in reality the deciding factor can hardly be said to be me, when everything I can choose and the eventual choice isn't really decided by me but is decided by my experience (which I did not choose either, my mom and dad did that for me).
If I experienced the exact same situation again, with the exact same options and experiences in my mind, I would not somehow magically pick another option. I would choose the exact same thing, and come to the exact same conclusion every time. I have no other option than to pick what seems like the "right" choice in the situation, and that conclusion of what would be the right/wrong choice would be exactly the same every time, given the exact same preconditions.
So even if it seems like my choice, it isnt, because my experience, the situation, and preconditions made me pick exactly that option, and I would do it over and over again for an eternity if conditions were the same. I would not somehow come to another decision or conclusion in the exact same situation and I did not choose or control the events that lead me to that situation in the first place, so I did not really choose or control anything at all. I have the choice but I don't decide which option I pick.
In fact this would mean that every single decision you take each and every microsecond is not something you really control yourself at all.
How can you even will anything in a world you don't control? It is not like the sun obeys my will, don't you think it might be the other way around then?
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 17:11 cariadon wrote:
Who decided the experience of your parents? What were they influenced by?
Their parents. You know inheritance, genes and such. Even after they die, they stil have an influence on your life and experience, and they will pass some kind of influence on down the chain forever as long as the chain exists. So every single ancestor you ever had will influence you and your experience in some kind of way.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
There is a difference between direct influence and perceived influence, which is just influence created by oneself using past experiences and present events (say you make a decision based on what you perceive as something your dead dad would do). If you have never had a direct contact with your grandfather, all his influences on you are actually just influences created by whoever was directly influenced by your grandfather, say your living dad. Basically saying that it is only the preset moment that directly influences you and the past is all perception, a collection of knowledge that has no actual power to influence you, unless you use that data in the present moment.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On August 18 2012 01:05 uiCk wrote:
Or you can let your emotions influence your free will, like people who don't like change. They don't like change because they use their free will to choose to be comfortable with what they know? Or do they not like change because of some psychologically based event, for example trauma, or indoctrination or anything caused by the persons environment? At what point does the event have more importance then your free will, so to speak ?
I would go further and say that free will is the synergy between genes, which is your blue print, and life experiences, aka your environment, which compromises every moment since 'birth'. Which makes free will, for me, a gradual concept, where the benefits of the environment (let's call that wisdom, knowledge) gives one more 'choices' to choose from. Where the choice is based more or less on if you apply coincious analysis, pulling knowledge you have stored to apply a benefit scale, going with the choice that you consider the most benifical. Or you do it blind and let your 'instincts' do the choosing. Which might result in low level analysis, for example, making a decision purely on color. Example would be choosing between an object that is shinny on one that is not. Majority would choose the shinny object, which can be argued is a predetermined choice made by our DNA.
Best I can explain it.
this actually confirms my notion that the "free will" discussion is mostly one of semantics rather than actual disagreement. This, because you did a perfect job explaining behavioral influences, and zorglub agrees with you. However, because you used the word "free will" he didn't understand that you are in agreement.
Yes it is because I define "free will" as a truely free will not influenced by any prior experience or forces you don't control yourself, while uiCk defines a will influenced by prior experiences and forces/the environment as "free".
Unless you have already explained this, I'm curious to hear you define this 'truly free' concept. Unless that concept is your god/creator concept?
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On August 18 2012 17:41 uiCk wrote:
There is a difference between direct influence and perceived influence, which is just influence created by oneself using past experiences and present events (say you make a decision based on what you perceive as something your dead dad would do). If you have never had a direct contact with your grandfather, all his influences on you are actually just influences created by whoever was directly influenced by your grandfather, say your living dad. Basically saying that it is only the preset moment that directly influences you and the past is all perception, a collection of knowledge that has no actual power to influence you, unless you use that data in the present moment.
I would say it is the other way around: The collection of knowledge and perception of the past will decide or influence everything you "decide" in the present. If you don't use your knowledge and perception of sucessrate of previous "choices", to make a decision about present choices, what exactly do you use to decide?
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 17:41 uiCk wrote:
There is a difference between direct influence and perceived influence, which is just influence created by oneself using past experiences and present events (say you make a decision based on what you perceive as something your dead dad would do). If you have never had a direct contact with your grandfather, all his influences on you are actually just influences created by whoever was directly influenced by your grandfather, say your living dad. Basically saying that it is only the preset moment that directly influences you and the past is all perception, a collection of knowledge that has no actual power to influence you, unless you use that data in the present moment.
I would say it is the other way around: The collection of knowledge and perception of the past will decide or influence everything you "decide" in the present. If you don't use your knowledge and perception of sucessrate of previous "choices", to make a decision about present choices, what exactly do you use to decide?
So what you are saying is that the concept of the collection of past knowledge, data, has actually a conscious system, more powerful then the complexity of the human brain, that can take and directly create new experiences? And that we are just perceiving what this entity is creating around us and making us do new events ?
A bit confused, mostly because your lack of defining and structuring your ideas and giving some examples would help, which I have tried to do as much as I couls
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On August 18 2012 01:05 uiCk wrote:
Or you can let your emotions influence your free will, like people who don't like change. They don't like change because they use their free will to choose to be comfortable with what they know? Or do they not like change because of some psychologically based event, for example trauma, or indoctrination or anything caused by the persons environment? At what point does the event have more importance then your free will, so to speak ?
I would go further and say that free will is the synergy between genes, which is your blue print, and life experiences, aka your environment, which compromises every moment since 'birth'. Which makes free will, for me, a gradual concept, where the benefits of the environment (let's call that wisdom, knowledge) gives one more 'choices' to choose from. Where the choice is based more or less on if you apply coincious analysis, pulling knowledge you have stored to apply a benefit scale, going with the choice that you consider the most benifical. Or you do it blind and let your 'instincts' do the choosing. Which might result in low level analysis, for example, making a decision purely on color. Example would be choosing between an object that is shinny on one that is not. Majority would choose the shinny object, which can be argued is a predetermined choice made by our DNA.
Best I can explain it.
this actually confirms my notion that the "free will" discussion is mostly one of semantics rather than actual disagreement. This, because you did a perfect job explaining behavioral influences, and zorglub agrees with you. However, because you used the word "free will" he didn't understand that you are in agreement.
Yes it is because I define "free will" as a truely free will not influenced by any prior experience or forces you don't control yourself, while uiCk defines a will influenced by prior experiences and forces/the environment as "free".
Unless you have already explained this, I'm curious to hear you define this 'truly free' concept. Unless that concept is your god/creator concept?
I don't think it exists, but lets try. It could be 1: Being able to do anything you want to. 2: Being able to do anything possible 3: Being able to do anything humanly possible. 4: Being able to change your mind and do something you would not have done. But none of these are possible in the reality we live in.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 17:41 uiCk wrote:
There is a difference between direct influence and perceived influence, which is just influence created by oneself using past experiences and present events (say you make a decision based on what you perceive as something your dead dad would do). If you have never had a direct contact with your grandfather, all his influences on you are actually just influences created by whoever was directly influenced by your grandfather, say your living dad. Basically saying that it is only the preset moment that directly influences you and the past is all perception, a collection of knowledge that has no actual power to influence you, unless you use that data in the present moment.
I would say it is the other way around: The collection of knowledge and perception of the past will decide or influence everything you "decide" in the present. If you don't use your knowledge and perception of sucessrate of previous "choices", to make a decision about present choices, what exactly do you use to decide?
So what you are saying is that the concept of the collection of past knowledge, data, has actually a conscious system, more powerful then the complexity of the human brain, that can take and directly create new experiences? And that we are just perceiving what this entity is creating around us and making us do new events ?
A bit confused, mostly because your lack of defining and structuring your ideas and giving some examples would help, which I have tried to do as much as I couls
Yes that is about right. That collection of data is infact "the human brain" illustrated by the mind. And this entity is infact only mind like we are but it cheats us into believing we are humans for entertainment purposes. Or you could call it God in a myriad of different forms enjoying his own creation. Like a musical symphony or a big theater act. Like Shakespeare said "The world is a stage". Others call it Valhalla, play of the gods, afterlife, paradise etc.
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
Free will is an topic concept, that we will never archive to perfection but we can improve and work towards it like all other man created concept. We there they are universal concepts or not, the human experience is unique to humans, and in a micro level it is unique to each person giving them what we call individuality.
And example of achieving an improved free will would be to apply the concept of persevirence to archive certain things. For example someone who has been thought to eat fat and sugary food and suddenly becomes aware of health risks and uses perseverance (and materialistic wealth obv) to one point enjoy eating healthy. At that point, that person , if offered fat corrosive food and healthy beans and vegetables, he will no longer be stuck to be choosing only the fat food because they hated (was not accustomed to it) it. That would be what I call free will, being more aware and broader data library.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Free will is an topic concept, that we will never archive to perfection but we can improve and work towards it like all other man created concept. We there they are universal concepts or not, the human experience is unique to humans, and in a micro level it is unique to each person giving them what we call individuality.
And example of achieving an improved free will would be to apply the concept of persevirence to archive certain things. For example someone who has been thought to eat fat and sugary food and suddenly becomes aware of health risks and uses perseverance (and materialistic wealth obv) to one point enjoy eating healthy. At that point, that person , if offered fat corrosive food and healthy beans and vegetables, he will no longer be stuck to be choosing only the fat food because they hated (was not accustomed to it) it. That would be what I call free will, being more aware and broader data library.
Man didn't create any concepts, if fact even the concept of "man" was created by something which was "not man" and that is the sole reason why "man" believes he is "man".
I started out with nothing and I still got most of it left
On August 18 2012 17:41 uiCk wrote:
There is a difference between direct influence and perceived influence, which is just influence created by oneself using past experiences and present events (say you make a decision based on what you perceive as something your dead dad would do). If you have never had a direct contact with your grandfather, all his influences on you are actually just influences created by whoever was directly influenced by your grandfather, say your living dad. Basically saying that it is only the preset moment that directly influences you and the past is all perception, a collection of knowledge that has no actual power to influence you, unless you use that data in the present moment.
I would say it is the other way around: The collection of knowledge and perception of the past will decide or influence everything you "decide" in the present. If you don't use your knowledge and perception of sucessrate of previous "choices", to make a decision about present choices, what exactly do you use to decide?
So what you are saying is that the concept of the collection of past knowledge, data, has actually a conscious system, more powerful then the complexity of the human brain, that can take and directly create new experiences? And that we are just perceiving what this entity is creating around us and making us do new events ?
A bit confused, mostly because your lack of defining and structuring your ideas and giving some examples would help, which I have tried to do as much as I couls
Yes that is about right. That collection of data is infact "the human brain" illustrated by the mind. And this entity is infact only mind like we are but it cheats us into believing we are humans for entertainment purposes. Or you could call it God in a myriad of different forms enjoying his own creation. Like a musical symphony or a big theater act. Like Shakespeare said "The world is a stage".
Well that concept is pure speculation, while I can define that data organizer, it being the brain and its nervous system, while you and others who believe in concept of spirituality can never explain nor properly define this complex data organizer and conscious being that controls us all, nor will you ever be able to explain or define rationally how and what the fictive link between that super concious and our collective consciousnesses. While I can say that the link between you and my conscious is formed through this written discussion using tools like writing, computers, electricity, internet etc. Something a person who believe in spirits and god will never be able to explain, making the discussion obsolete.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Free will is an topic concept, that we will never archive to perfection but we can improve and work towards it like all other man created concept. We there they are universal concepts or not, the human experience is unique to humans, and in a micro level it is unique to each person giving them what we call individuality.
And example of achieving an improved free will would be to apply the concept of persevirence to archive certain things. For example someone who has been thought to eat fat and sugary food and suddenly becomes aware of health risks and uses perseverance (and materialistic wealth obv) to one point enjoy eating healthy. At that point, that person , if offered fat corrosive food and healthy beans and vegetables, he will no longer be stuck to be choosing only the fat food because they hated (was not accustomed to it) it. That would be what I call free will, being more aware and broader data library.
Man didn't create any concepts, if fact even the concept of "man" was created by something which was "not man", and that is the sole reason why "man" believes he is "man".
Like I said if you re read my post, even if the concepts are universal, the human experience, perception, use of that concept is unique to humans. Prove this statement wrong, since you seem to disagree.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Contact Users: 1013 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 19:13
,
,
,
,