All events which happened in the past have some present value.

All past events are frozen instances of choice. They are choice made inaccessible to Will.
As such the past exemplifies us through what choices we’ve made and, often, influence our future choices by establishing a familiar pattern we tend to prefer as less resistant to our Will.

Our past is who we are; our future is who we want to be.

Our past is who we are; our future is who we want to be.

To me, the future is just what will happen to be (that is, free-will is no where to be found).

Free-will could be a myth or human frailty wanting to find hope or a possibility awaiting its realization by the few.

What do you mean by realization? Like few people have free-will and they had to work to find it?

Absane
What do you mean by realization? As in to make it real, complete, manifest.

Like few people have free-will and they had to work to find it?More like earn it or create it.

To me, the future is just what will happen to be (that is, free-will is no where to be found).

Free-will is a very tricky topic. The idea of "cause and effect" tends to lead me to the idea that free will doesn't exist --because deep down we're nothing but non-living atoms, right? Where is the magic that gives us true choice? While outside influences may affect what we do, at the very core these influences still are based on non-living interactions and processes.

Nevertheless, I, like every other human (I assume) am under the illusion of free will -> Of course, I feel that I can choose between tapping my finger or not tapping it--but I also understand that the ultimate decision is still based upon "cause and effect," no matter how subtle it may be.

From your post, Absane, I gather that you take a similar view. Am I right?

Free-will is a very tricky topic. The idea of "cause and effect" tends to lead me to the idea that free will doesn't exist --because deep down we're nothing but non-living atoms, right? Where is the magic that gives us true choice? While outside influences may affect what we do, at the very core these influences still are based on non-living interactions and processes.

Nevertheless, I, like every other human (I assume) am under the illusion of free will -> Of course, I feel that I can choose between tapping my finger or not tapping it--but I also understand that the ultimate decision is still based upon "cause and effect," no matter how subtle it may be.

When you REALLY think about it (and not just pretend), you get the sense that cause and effect cannot exist with free-will. That it, they are contradictory ideas.

From your post, Absane, I gather that you take a similar view. Am I right?

90% of the time I do not believe in free-will... but moments I am pissed off, depressed, or just fed up with the ambiguity of the universe, I will feel like free-will does exist (probably just so I can feel better... as it is so much easier to say magic makes the universe work).

When you REALLY think about it (and not just pretend), you get the sense that cause and effect cannot exist with free-will. That it, they are contradictory ideas.

What do you mean by "and not just pretend"?

What do you mean by "and not just pretend"?

I have known people to pretend they do not believe in free-will. I think you have to actually accept that this could be the case to really understand it. Otherwise, you might work on faulty assumptions that convince you that it might not be the case.

Does that make sense?

I have known people to pretend they do not believe in free-will. I think you have to actually accept that this could be the case to really understand it. Otherwise, you might work on faulty assumptions that convince you that it might not be the case.

Does that make sense?

Making a difference is more than a matter of will, it is also a matter of opportunity and proclivity. Absolute free will assumes that we can alter reality, similar to "The Matrix". That would assume that reality allows itself to be altered by "human beings" (whatever that means). Many human beings make it a practice not to change anything. Does that mean that human beings who defy reality are no longer human beings?

There is free will because of the history of the past as proof. If a higher power wanted to intervene so that we wouldn't have done the things we did like wars and other horrible things they would have done but because of free will they do not. That is because it is our decision to make.
Sometimes it may seem like things are not in your control because there are always things meant to be, but you also had a choice in the matter. You just may not remember or know it.

All events which happened in the past have some present value.
I simply intend to reply to this without reading the previous posts.


I, existabrent, hereby declare, that I, the son of mr exista, was torn a part by events.



Therefore my mental state has relevance to this discussion:
The reason is simple. My memory is relevant to my present greatly.
With that said, I go on to say, my memory is a damaged part to me.

However I cannot be assured to your accuracy of "all" events. It is confusing. It is possible. At least, interesting.

I can however be certain my past is disconnected to my present.
I have always loved memory. Psychology and the way they talk about it. It is fairly important I believe.
Strongly. Tell me a person who doesn't need their life to have memory? A functioning person must have it. A functioning person must have relevance to their past.

:confused:

There is free will because of the history of the past as proof. If a higher power wanted to intervene so that we wouldn't have done the things we did like wars and other horrible things they would have done but because of free will they do not. That is because it is our decision to make.
Sometimes it may seem like things are not in your control because there are always things meant to be, but you also had a choice in the matter. You just may not remember or know it.

How are past events proof of free-will? It is equally possible that a predictable chain of events made today they way it is. One needs to stop looking at the world as rocks, humans, planets, and anything else that is a general collection of much smaller parts. Look at the smaller parts and how they interact.

Past events meaning like what people decided to do. Things people decide are alot of the times really bad or horrible decisions they make. I am not looking at the world as rocks, humans and planets, it's actually the opposite.

Everything can't be that predictable. The world is always in chaos. Past events are proof of free-will in the sense that people made decisions and had many alternate choices to pick from. If there was no such thing as free-will they wouldn't have the choices that made the world what it is today. The reason a predictable chain of events at least not in sense of the way the world is today is not possible is because of the too many choices and the many different decisions made by people from these choices is too great. Also the way the world is, is too big of an event to call it predictable.

All events which happened in the past have some present value.

I agree.

I think that in each moment, there are three things present: the results of past action, the present intention and the present action.

The results of past action are where one is right now, how one feels and thinks about things.
The present intention is where free will factors in.

However, in order to be able to register these things in the present moment, one needs to have a mind concentrated enough to notice these things.

If we're not concentrated enough, we're just reacting, are unaware of the present intention, are not employing our free will, and are simply functioning on whatever past actions brought us to. This seems to be happening a lot of the time -- often, we simply act or think in a particular way, not asking ourselves what our intention is for that; we tend to notice that an action is preceded by an intention only when we're facing a difficult decision; and often, we actually conceive of intention as something we interpret into our action in hindsight.



How are past events proof of free-will?
Past events meaning like what people decided to do.

I don't think past events are proof of free will. Past actions are only proof of past actions, but they are not proof of how these actions came about, whether they were intentional or habitual.

We are responsible for all our actions -- we carry their effects. But as we take actions, we are not always aware whether we are acting out of free will or not.

Backtracking

RetardationEn retard – late –
The retarded mind comes late to thought.
It acts first and then justifies its actions afterwards – usually to others through itself.
The advanced mind comes late to action.
It thinks first to justify its acting beforehand – usually to itself through others.

The first will appear decisive and daring, especially to itself, even if it is thoughtless in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, after the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in hindsight.
It will convince itself that it had thought itself forward when it has done so backwards.

The second will appear indecisive and cautious, even if it is thoughtful in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, before the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in foresight.
It will convince itself that it has acted forward when it has done so backwards.

It is true that of the two methods the first is the most ubiquitous, owing to the fact that it is always an easier task to explain circumstances when they have already occurred and that have now become established instances of the past which can then be analyzed and memorized from the distance of the present. This requires neither great insight nor a completeness of thought or accuracy of awareness. It only requires the ability to construct a reasoned plausibility drawn from the selective interpretation of details as they become available through others – such as in history – and an instinctive drive to release oneself to whims and desires in the most primitive way.
The added advantage of this method of being is that it allows for the constant reinterpretation of events and the distance created by time creates some objective clarity, if the mind can retain the memories intact and devoid of egotism and if it has access to the details, either through abstracted memory or historical documentation, that participated in it.

It is for this basic reason why history repeats itself and why many people seem to fall into a pattern of action that can make them predictable and irrational. By the time an event is comprehended it has already occurred in imitation of previous events and the mind(s) that participated in recreating it took little heed, beforehand, of the signs that pointed back to a previous time.
The ego, often, resists projecting itself forwards, choosing instead to believe that the errors of the past were caused by another’s weakness and another’s inferiorities which it can avoid or surpass or correct; it resists learning from the experiences of others and is forced to repeat them in order to understand them – limiting itself to first-hand knowledge and placing emotional barriers between itself and the vast amounts of information available in its surroundings.
This lack of imagination coupled with arrogant egotism is a fundamental aspect of human frailty and establishes a limit to reason.

The second method will have the more difficult task of projecting into the future the accumulated result of its abstracted perceptions of the past and present – whether these accumulated perceptions were first-hand or second-hand experiences is of little importance.
The accuracy of its imagination and of its consequent predictions will be determined by how closely the results correspond with its expectations and how well it has perceived and incorporated details into its plan.

The first will rarely be disappointed or disheartened - it has few projected expectations but adapts its abstractions to whatever occurs, and interprets them according to its needs and desires; acting occurs intuitively and instinctively and is then incorporated into expectation.
The second faces the specter of disappointment and disillusionment constantly and will often feel unconfident with its ability to perceive and control its destiny, due to the vast amounts of information needing incorporation into a reliable abstraction and the acknowledgment that much more has been lost. It will often turn on itself in condemnation because, being a mere human mind, it cannot fully avoid error or control circumstances - taking full responsibility for its failings.

Where the first will blame it all on others, since it has participated little in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for others through which it finds itself there in its past and explaining its present as predestined - the second will mostly blame itself, since its participation is greater in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for itself and then imagining itself there in its future; a future that can never perfectly correspond to expectation and so always a source for dissatisfaction.

The retarded thinker will be weary of thinking – calling it “over-thinking” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of thoughtlessness – because it is a hindrance to its acting through which it discovers itself in how others appreciate and value its acting.
The advanced thinker will be weary of acting – calling it “foolish” or even “meaningless” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of inaction – because it is a hindrance to its thinking through which it realizes itself.

Backtracking

RetardationEn retard – late –
The retarded mind comes late to thought.
It acts first and then justifies its actions afterwards – usually to others through itself.
The advanced mind comes late to action.
It thinks first to justify its acting beforehand – usually to itself through others.

The first will appear decisive and daring, especially to itself, even if it is thoughtless in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, after the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in hindsight.
It will convince itself that it had thought itself forward when it has done so backwards.

The second will appear indecisive and cautious, even if it is thoughtful in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, before the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in foresight.
It will convince itself that it has acted forward when it has done so backwards.

It is true that of the two methods the first is the most ubiquitous, owing to the fact that it is always an easier task to explain circumstances when they have already occurred and that have now become established instances of the past which can then be analyzed and memorized from the distance of the present. This requires neither great insight nor a completeness of thought or accuracy of awareness. It only requires the ability to construct a reasoned plausibility drawn from the selective interpretation of details as they become available through others – such as in history – and an instinctive drive to release oneself to whims and desires in the most primitive way.
The added advantage of this method of being is that it allows for the constant reinterpretation of events and the distance created by time creates some objective clarity, if the mind can retain the memories intact and devoid of egotism and if it has access to the details, either through abstracted memory or historical documentation, that participated in it.

It is for this basic reason why history repeats itself and why many people seem to fall into a pattern of action that can make them predictable and irrational. By the time an event is comprehended it has already occurred in imitation of previous events and the mind(s) that participated in recreating it took little heed, beforehand, of the signs that pointed back to a previous time.
The ego, often, resists projecting itself forwards, choosing instead to believe that the errors of the past were caused by another’s weakness and another’s inferiorities which it can avoid or surpass or correct; it resists learning from the experiences of others and is forced to repeat them in order to understand them – limiting itself to first-hand knowledge and placing emotional barriers between itself and the vast amounts of information available in its surroundings.
This lack of imagination coupled with arrogant egotism is a fundamental aspect of human frailty and establishes a limit to reason.

The second method will have the more difficult task of projecting into the future the accumulated result of its abstracted perceptions of the past and present – whether these accumulated perceptions were first-hand or second-hand experiences is of little importance.
The accuracy of its imagination and of its consequent predictions will be determined by how closely the results correspond with its expectations and how well it has perceived and incorporated details into its plan.

The first will rarely be disappointed or disheartened - it has few projected expectations but adapts its abstractions to whatever occurs, and interprets them according to its needs and desires; acting occurs intuitively and instinctively and is then incorporated into expectation.
The second faces the specter of disappointment and disillusionment constantly and will often feel unconfident with its ability to perceive and control its destiny, due to the vast amounts of information needing incorporation into a reliable abstraction and the acknowledgment that much more has been lost. It will often turn on itself in condemnation because, being a mere human mind, it cannot fully avoid error or control circumstances - taking full responsibility for its failings.

Where the first will blame it all on others, since it has participated little in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for others through which it finds itself there in its past and explaining its present as predestined - the second will mostly blame itself, since its participation is greater in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for itself and then imagining itself there in its future; a future that can never perfectly correspond to expectation and so always a source for dissatisfaction.

The retarded thinker will be weary of thinking – calling it “over-thinking” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of thoughtlessness – because it is a hindrance to its acting through which it discovers itself in how others appreciate and value its acting.
The advanced thinker will be weary of acting – calling it “foolish” or even “meaningless” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of inaction – because it is a hindrance to its thinking through which it realizes itself.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

nice satyr but remember, i know that. besides i think u were talking to me.

Past events meaning like what people decided to do. Things people decide are alot of the times really bad or horrible decisions they make. I am not looking at the world as rocks, humans and planets, it's actually the opposite.

This is what your arguements looks like to me: We had free-will in the past, therefore we have free-will now. I would like to know... in the evolutionary process that made a primate have free-will. Even before that (if you argue primates have/had free-will). How do you know decsions in the past are not pre-determined patterns of neuron firing?

Neuron firing since birth is an impossibility. If you were born free, you are only a free being.

What?

Right. Born to be wiiiiI-Ild.
I'm cutting the arguement you make about non-free will down
:p

Well the whole free-will arguement is just like the arguement as to whether God exists or not. There is a wealth of evidence in support of the nonexistance of free-will but virtually none for the existance of free-will.

If the whole free-will arguement is just like the arguement as to whether God exists or not, will you believe either if one or the other arguement is discovered to be true?
Primates did have free-will when they existed because they developed so slowly and died quickly that they didn't have almost any intervention.

If the whole free-will arguement is just like the arguement as to whether God exists or not, will you believe either if one or the other arguement is discovered to be true?

Yes.. but how could it be proven true?

Primates did have free-will when they existed because they developed so slowly and died quickly that they didn't have almost any intervention.

Primates did have free-will? Wow.

How does free-will just develop? Do you know what free-will even is?

Seriously... LOL.
I'm very pissed.
I am going to leave sciforums.
I have one intention.
To talk to wes.

What's free will?
Everything that isn't an excuse.

Seriously... LOL.
I'm very pissed.
I am going to leave sciforums.
I have one intention.
To talk to wes.

What's free will?
Everything that isn't an excuse.

blah blah blah blah blah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing the discussion:

I believe that the human brain is able to analyze a sitution and respond accordingly. However, this response is not an arbitrary choice no matter how subtle the choice is (such as choosing to tap your right finger or your left finger). The response is based on billions of years of evolution that have governed the way that microscopic processes and interactions work in living organisms. In this way, the "choices" that we are making are more like evolutionarily "pre-programmed" responses.

One problem to this idea of mine, however, is that I believe that blaming one's actions on "destiny" is complete bullshit. But hey! My beliefs arn't always correct.

True true. If we are to discuss free will we have to leave out, personal bias.

Therefore, existabrent always triumphs.

True true. If we are to discuss free will we have to leave out, personal bias.

True enough. One cannot say "I experience free-will, therefore there is free-will." That makes no sense. Experience could be wrong.

agreed.
Indeed though Sartre claimed to experience free will. So much stuff out there somewhere.

If only some SCIENTEST would come tothis thread and post,
"You are all a bunch of newbie dumbies. There is free will, and, there is not free will. Here are the claims made on and aganist, which tend to lead..."

psh.

I mean... if we made an AI machine that acted just like a human (it's CPU processes information and strores information just like a human) and we programmed the belief that it has free-will... it would be just as hard convincing the robot it doesn't have free-will as it does convincing the average person.

I mean... if we made an AI machine that acted just like a human (it's CPU processes information and strores information just like a human) and we programmed the belief that it has free-will... it would be just as hard convincing the robot it doesn't have free-will as it does convincing the average person.This is just a statement of doubt, you really haven't taken both sides into account, like existabrant said.

This is just a statement of doubt, you really haven't taken both sides into account, like existabrant said.

What do you mean?

Seriously... LOL.
I'm very pissed.
I am going to leave sciforums.
I have one intention.
To talk to wes.

What's free will?
Everything that isn't an excuse.

Exista,

Every time I try to comprehend your meanings only one thought comes to mind. Perhaps the only humans truly representative of free will are ones that are mad. I mean fuck, who can predict what they'll come up with next. Maybe down the road you'll come up with some genius idea that will bring you fame and fortune.

Exista,

Every time I try to comprehend your meanings only one thought comes to mind. Perhaps the only humans truly representative of free will are ones that are mad. I mean fuck, who can predict what they'll come up with next. Maybe down the road you'll come up with some genius idea that will bring you fame and fortune.

To tell you, and everyone else the truth, I think brent has great potential... he is just trapped in a perplexing world of his own design that he is struggling to make sense of.

I experience "free-will" just like everyone else here experiences "free-will." The question is how exactly to define free will. --At least to me.

I experience "free-will" just like everyone else here experiences "free-will." The question is how exactly to define free will. --At least to me.

Whatever free-will is "made of," it's the ability to have made a different choice given the same same conditions (time, spatial relation to everything, everything).

The past is the prelude to the present. Everything that has ever ocurred is how the present now exists. Therefore the present is the average value of the past. We must realize only that there was, there is, and it is presumable that there will be.

Whatever free-will is "made of," it's the ability to have made a different choice given the same same conditions (time, spatial relation to everything, everything).

I agree with you , but it could just as justifiably be defined as a persons ability to do what they want to do. Example: Joe rides his bike because he wants to ride his bike, and it is he who is choosing to ride his bike --not some external being.

yeah. it's difficult interperitation...

I agree with you , but it could just as justifiably be defined as a persons ability to do what they want to do. Example: Joe rides his bike because he wants to ride his bike, and it is he who is choosing to ride his bike --not some external being.

Even in this interpretation, Joe could have chosen to walk... he had the choice. That's free-will. Had we set up an infinite instances of the same circumstance, how instances would he have choosen otherwise?

Even in this interpretation, Joe could have chosen to walk... he had the choice. That's free-will. Had we set up an infinite instances of the same circumstance, how instances would he have choosen otherwise?

Defining free-will as the ability to have made a different choice given the exact same circumstance is but one definition. What if I were to argue that whether or not Joe could have made a different choice is irrelevant, because it was his free-will (choice) to ride his bike at that certain moment --not to walk? I could justifiably define the lack of free will as a circumstance in which one is doing something that he/she doesn't want to do (in the since that that person can't control what they are doing)

-I think what you're really trying to say is that the choices we make are the only choices that we could have ever made -given the idea of "cause and effect" in relation to the chemical processes and interactions that define everything we do -and because of this we are not really choosing anything. ->At least this is what I mean when I say I don't think free will exists.

My point in the first paragraph is that free-will can also be defined as the bodies ability to follow the normal, or intended actions of the "host" (human), irrelevant to whether or not the situation could have turned out differently.

somebody should quote out of being and nothingness.
gee god

somebody should quote out of being and nothingness.
gee god

I could dig up my definition of "nothingness." lol.

somebody should quote out of being and nothingness.
gee god

I have no idea what that post means. Somone explain.

I have no idea what that post means. Somone explain.

I know exactly what he means... nothingness/out of being/free-will... it's all related.

I know exactly what he means... nothingness/out of being/free-will... it's all related.

I'd ask you to explain, but I'm going to be in England for a month (starting tomorrow) with very little computer access.

I'd ask you to explain, but I'm going to be in England for a month (starting tomorrow) with very little computer access.

It would take me a month to be able to put it into words. So, I got plenty of time between the formulation and the presentation :)

It would take me a month to be able to put it into words. So, I got plenty of time between the formulation and the presentation :)

You got yourself a deal.

Absane, free-will doesn't develop. You just have it and nobody can take it from you.
The things that stop people from doing what they want to do and think is because of their negative thoughts or the negative and paranoid interference from the world.

Absane, free-will doesn't develop. You just have it and nobody can take it from you.
The things that stop people from doing what they want to do and think is because of their negative thoughts or the negative and paranoid interference from the world.

I think you are missing my point. I am not talking about when it developes in the person.

Absane, free-will doesn't develop. You just have it and nobody can take it from you.
The things that stop people from doing what they want to do and think is because of their negative thoughts or the negative and paranoid interference from the world.

Absane isn't talking about free-will developing at all. He's discussing the idea of whether or not, given the exact same circumstances of the time when a choice was made, a person could have just as easily made a different choice. To me, the answer is 'no' --and therefore doesn't allow for the existence of a (100% unrestricted) free will.

" All events which happened in the past have some present value."


The present is infinite.

" All events which happened in the past have some present value."

True...


The present is infinite.

Why do people throw around "infinite" or "infinity" all the time? And it's common usage around here just irritates me.

It's probably because the infinity I deal with is mathematical :cool: