Determinism vs chance

Then your mind has no control at all.

Well, you've asserted that. And from your perspective, you had to. You had to think it makes sense. You had to think you logically and rationally evaluated the issue.

I believe I have encountered your belief that you do not have beliefs. But by any normal or even scientific definition of the word beleif, you have beliefs. And that was one of them.

Your belief is getting in the way. Also, you may be right about yourself, perhaps you are a robot controlled by your genes and environment to think others are like you.

So you have no control over them and no way to be objective in evaluating them. They simply are, like the color of your eyes.

Honestly, I don't think you understand what a belief is.

Other than being wrong about others I have no ideas. The way we conceive of ourselves can affect us in many ways that are hard to track.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you can prove that influence is linear? And can not be circular. Maybe that is why our answers sound 'circlular' because the 'influence' you are talking about is not complete influence.

Rolling dice only influences the roll, not the color. Conciousness is influenced in some aspects but not in all.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Note:

Quite right QQ.

It should go without saying herein that we are all held to such a standard.

 

Which is precisely the point I brought up in post#50.

While there's little doubt that scientific definitions and/or models of randomness/determination converge on the philosophical scope you're focusing on here QQ, it behooves you to delineate the topic such that its philosophical import is clear.

 

I've sort of reached a point where I need to think of way to rephrase my approach to this subject. So you will have to excuse me for not posting much on the topic today.
I do have a notion I am attempting to express but the difficulty is rather extreme in that all three aspects are interwoven so closely.
1] determinism, 2] freewill 3] randomness and chance.

It would take a long story to write but one could start with the Peter Lynds consciousness of time dilemma

wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds
which can only be resolved one way beyond Peter Lynds explanation.

The solution I arrived at to his dilemma [ and as far as I can conceive the only possible solution] indicates that freewill does have a physical manifestation of absoluteness yet remain fully self determining simultaneously.... we shall see how I go regarding reappraisals as the explanation will be tough going and inevitably long winded. [ for those that are familiar with my stuff it refers to Zero Point Theory [unpublished] and is in part evidence to support it's primary contentions]
So what this means to me is that all three aspects to this issue are actually able to be resolved and descriptions such as randomeness and chance are as I have stated mental abstractions used to aid in satisfying our need to know what we can not possibly know due to limited resources and time.

 

Hey, feel free to take all the time you need. Never a need to rush here...

On this though, I do have one question:

- my emphasis


What dilemma?

 

Like most of these seemingly intractable issues of philosophy and science they all converge towards the missing and as yet to be completed T.O.E.
A theory of everything must incorporate philosophy and physics by this I mean metaphysics and physics.
The resultant theory must define consciousness/freewill etc in a physical scientific manner and clarify issues such as randomness and chance.

I would contend that freewill certainly has a physical manifestation within consciousness and I might add a manifestation that is universally applied to inanimated matter and animated matter simlutaneously.
So philosphy and physics find their "Golden Mean" hinging on the one thing that is central to all fields of human scientific endeavour and free will is the human analogue of that universal constant.

It is tough I must admit to show it as purely philosophical.

 

I dont thank of the "mind" as a seperate entity from the body/brane... much less that this seperate entity makes unifluenced choises.!!!

Yes i agree.!!!

Well prolly not... but here is perty much what im talkin about when i refer to "beleif":::

What i thank of as a beleif... is thankin somptin is absolutely true wit-out verifiable evidence... or that somptin is true in spite of evidence to the contrary.!!!
------------------

Personaly i dont see problematic consequences in thankin the comcept of free will is an illusion... what prollems do you see it has caused me.???

I thank i coud be rong about others... do you have a beleif that you coundnt be rong about others???... an if not... then ther ant much difernece between us in that respect... so when you suggested that not bein a beleiver in free will coud lead to mor problematic consequences than if a person did beleive in free-will... aparently it was little mor than an idle statement sinse you now clame you have no ideas of what those problematic consequences mite be... im a bit disapononted... i thout you was gonna analize me an mayb atempt to "cure" me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In brief he poses the dilemma in his contra to Albert Einstiens and therefore current sciences notions of time that:
"How is it so that we can percieve movement so precisely if we are traveling at the same rate through time as what it is we percieve?"

There is only one solution as far as I can tell.

 

I have to admit, I don't see any dilemma....

 

Sorry... i cant prove anythang that i know of.!!!

Wasnt ther influences which caused the color of the dice to be what it is... an give an esample of consciousness which ant influenced.???

An jus qurious... are you certan that we have free-will.???

 

The problem is that the solution is easy to say in a few words but it's a devil to explain.

The answer I came to and is support of Zero Point theory is that to observe movement we must perceive it from an Absolute Rest Perspective.
Thus it can be concluded that the centre of our perception is absolute zero.

We see things hear things and perceve things from an absolute zero perspective and because it is absolute zero we have freewill in absolutumm.

basically for the drama queens "we gotta singularity inside our heads!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and what is worse for those drama queens is that " we all share the exact same singularity with the entire universe" "oh no!" "oh yes!" [ so go on to redefine the notion of GOD]

 

not easy Glaucon....but it has been the subject of heated debate for some time in a few forums and offline thinking communities.
If both the observer and the observed are traveling at the same velocity no movement is detectable.
This relates to velocity.

Peter Lynds is talking about movement through time and not velocity persee. Therefore we are all inertial as we all travel through time at the same rate therefore we should appear stationary and not moving relative to each other.
"example: why do we not feel the Earths rotation?"
and
"why is it I can "visually see" no relative movement between two inertial objects on my desk?"

 

It is the fact that you can determine that NO movement is occurring that tells us the solution. And of course as soon as there is relative movement we can detect it.
But the important point is that we can say "there is no relative movement but time is ticking by" and this is only possible from a perspective of absolute rest.

 

I still don't see any dilemma....

??

 

see? I told you it wasn't easy.....

 

Maybe the key question to ponder upon is:
"To percieve the passage of time we must see it from what vantage point or perspective do you think?"
and there can only be one correct answer...IMO

 

BTW ..there would be no doubt that Peter Lynds has been thoroughly discredited by mainstream physics...which is saddening in a way as his ability to conceive of this question [ even if indirectly] is IMO staggering.

 

last post to allow for some time thinking:

try this:
absolute zero = infinite possibility = freewill