Free Will

[_subgenius]

Supernatural is a huge grey area. Since we cannot know what all the natural laws are, we can never know what supernatural is under the view that anything not natural is supernatural. I only bring up that there are other views as well, especially with LDS.

actually we can always know what the supernatural is...the definition is quite simple perhaps you should read it?
supernatural....beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
see, does not say it is beyond the "known"
does not say it is "unknown" or even "unknowable"
it does say "beyond"....so i am not sure why you are so persistent in trying to cram it back into the definition of natural.
it is a simple distinction and i can not understand why you have yet to comprehend this; it is beyond me why you.......wait! perhaps your logic is supernatural?

[_Themis]

Again, i have assumed all natural law, known to date and whatever may or may not be known.
Your position of "anything may be possible" is absurd and useless.

So far I only see assumptions from you. I have never made the position of anything is possible, only that you don't know what is or is not possible.

In other words, what does it matter what natural laws we do not know yet? They are still laws and we would still be bound to them...The laws of the universe are simply that, and either they are capable of being violated or they are not.

So? You still don't make a case for why they would interfere with free will, which you also don't really say what is is other then an ability to choose.

Your position of "lets wait and see" is....well.....is one of obvious intellectual cowardice....which is often the cause of why a person actually "never knows" (ironically).

Incorrect as usual. I just say we don't currently know, so you are just making things up until we do know.

My argument does, in fact, take into account all natural law....but i am willing to entertain your argument that one of these "yet to be known" natural laws is that natural law can be violated...or put simply, that a natural law is not a natural law.

I will wait for you to show evidence for your assumption first about free will being limited by natural laws.

and yes, i have stated that God is bound by Law as well, what of it?.....He has no ability to lie and He can not subvert justice, etc...
all of which has no influence on the human ability to choose otherwise.

So some laws don't interfere with with free will but others do. You just keep making things up as you go.

[_Themis]

Supernatural is a huge grey area. Since we cannot know what all the natural laws are, we can never know what supernatural is under the view that anything not natural is supernatural. I only bring up that there are other views as well, especially with LDS.

actually we can always know what the supernatural is...the definition is quite simple perhaps you should read it?
supernatural....beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
see, does not say it is beyond the "known"
does not say it is "unknown" or even "unknowable"
it does say "beyond"....so i am not sure why you are so persistent in trying to cram it back into the definition of natural.
it is a simple distinction and i can not understand why you have yet to comprehend this; it is beyond me why you.......wait! perhaps your logic is supernatural?

I guess words can never have more then one meaning. I have never said the definition you want to limit it to is wrong, only that there is more then one definition of it. Don't complain to me about it, complain to all those other people, many of which are LDS.

[_PrickKicker]

i used a car because it is a simple example, one that seemed appropriate for how you were viewing the situation.
No,no,no...Don't try and place your views as my own, I wanted a biological example not a man made one.
However, if it makes you feel better, note how the point does not change:
Being a car is not a restriction on being a car
.....compare with.....
Being a fish is not a restriction on being a fish
...or better...
Being a complex system of biological processes is not a restriction on being a complex system of biological processes
...and best...
Being a human being is not a restriction on being a human being.
I can see the Mormon hand & GLOVE, in your analogy. I am asking for a biological analogy.
But as I have tried to point out, leaves that fall from trees do not have a spirit body, nor does the hair that falls from ones head. the limbs do not the individual parts do not, but the brain/mind is the hub of free will, when this fails to thrive one expires, sans phantismo.

i looked and could not find it...sorry for the inconvenience, but again if there are so many examples is it too much trouble for you highlight one for me?
The CFRs are everyone of your previous posts, I am not going to waste time and space repeating your meanderings.

you are unable to provide any evidence, support, or reason for your belief in "free-will", especially as it contradicts your belief that "We are biological / chemical creatures".
Biological/chemical creatures can not possibly violate natural law..and choosing otherwise is a clear violation of natural law.
I have provided examples of living things, plants and animals this is evidence that freewill (or the ability to do as one pleases) is due to a physical existence

at least you recognize it as a fact, and it is a valid challenge to make.
which is why i have tried to demonstrate the logical conclusion should our "minds" not be distinct from the biological processes of the brain - ergo - sans free-will.
Skirting again are we? Do you fail to understand that I believe that fish swim and birds fly and plants grow, without a ghost inside them?

using a movie to affirm your position is rather amusing...actually very amusing.......you do realize that movies are written and constructed and are "not real", correct?
(the real ones we call "documentary").
I am referring to a concept a idea, a way of thinking, a thought, a mindset that is portrayed in a moive, But some how I thought you'd miss it.

Can we use any movie to justify our position? and does gross box office receipts determine which movie is "more true" than another?

Do you apply this same logic to religious membership numbers and Literature? Is the Bible Historically accurate?

[_subgenius]

So far I only see assumptions from you. I have never made the position of anything is possible, only that you don't know what is or is not possible.

all of which is irrelevant to my premise.

So? You still don't make a case for why they would interfere with free will, which you also don't really say what is is other then an ability to choose.

its about to the ability to choose otherwise, and the case has been made quite clear.

Either you believe natural law can be violated or you believe it can not.

To rely on the idea that "we may or may not know" is simply cowardice. Imagine your physician standing over you in a similar mental paralysis, because "he is not sure which option it could be". Yours is a position without confidence or understanding and relies solely on question with little regard for answer....much like a little child who constantly offers "why" after every response, all the while never hearing or understanding; just amused with their new toy...admirable and cute with a little child, but do not dismay eventually progress and maturity will beckon.

Incorrect as usual. I just say we don't currently know, so you are just making things up until we do know.

Incorrect, we do know. We know that natural law is not violated. For you to presume that we could find out one day that it is both absurd and dishonest. Or perhaps you have such "faith" in the law of gravity when you get in an airplane?

I will wait for you to show evidence for your assumption first about free will being limited by natural laws.

already done, definitions have unequivocally proven it. I provided various references that prove chemical reactions are unable to choose otherwise.
In order for free-will to exist it would have to be "beyond" natural law in order to violate natural law. Even if we discover that our bodies our not simply biochemical reactions, we would still have to discover another natural law...because of its very definition, we are unable to "discover" the supernatural.

So some laws don't interfere with with free will but others do. You just keep making things up as you go.

Yes, that is not a difficult concept either. Your posts seem unable to distinguish the difference between a character trait and an ability.
Just because my eyes are not able to detect the infra-red spectrum does not mean i can not see.

[_subgenius]

I can see the Mormon hand & GLOVE, in your analogy. I am asking for a biological analogy.
But as I have tried to point out, leaves that fall from trees do not have a spirit body, nor does the hair that falls from ones head. the limbs do not the individual parts do not, but the brain/mind is the hub of free will, when this fails to thrive one expires, sans phantismo.

your examples do not allow for free-will.
The leaf is unable to choose otherwise when the biochemistry produces the disconnect from the stem reaction. The leaf is unable to "fall tomorrow rather than today"...it simply falls when the natural law avails it.

i looked and could not find it...sorry for the inconvenience, but again if there are so many examples is it too much trouble for you highlight one for me?
The CFRs are everyone of your previous posts, I am not going to waste time and space repeating your meanderings.

i noticed the CFRs and have responded when applicable BUT, you have claimed that i have be contradictory of myself...and you have yet to provide the example for your claim (for the obvious reasons)

I have provided examples of living things, plants and animals this is evidence that freewill (or the ability to do as one pleases) is due to a physical existence

nope...and i have been clear about the ability to "choose otherwise" which is impossible as it would violate natural law.

Skirting again are we? Do you fail to understand that I believe that fish swim and birds fly and plants grow, without a ghost inside them?

i understand that as your view completely....which is why i still maintain that you see the car without a driver.
Nevertheless, that does not prove free-will but actually argues against its existence.
According to you, something from the world stimulates my senses, which puts some chemical reactions in motion, which stimulate neurological reactions in your brain organ, which produce chemicals that direct my body to react...all the while, my brain organ has created a "self" which is chemically stimulated as being "aware" of what the brain organ is doing...ergo, the brain organ is "telling" the brain organ what the brain organ is telling the brain organ....yet all of this relies on processes which are unable to deviate from their product...unable to create, at will, something else.
hmmm....your idea of free-will seems an awful lot like not-free will.

I am referring to a concept a idea, a way of thinking, a thought, a mindset that is portrayed in a moive, But some how I thought you'd miss it.

no, i got it...enjoyed the movie even...thought the ending was a little predictable and trite, but it was entertaining. However, it hardly stands as "proof"...unless you are conceding that fictional stories can somehow provide "truth"....are you?

Do you apply this same logic to religious membership numbers and Literature? Is the Bible Historically accurate?[/color]

I am just trying to determine what rules you are playing by, so....you tell me.

[_Themis]

all of which is irrelevant to my premise.

Wrong again, but I understand why you want to think so.

its about to the ability to choose otherwise, and the case has been made quite clear.

Either you believe natural law can be violated or you believe it can not.

Which is one of your main assumptions. The other one you haven't backed up is that free will exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

Incorrect, we do know. We know that natural law is not violated.

Yet you want to say that it is violated. You should at least try to stay consistent.

already done, definitions have unequivocally proven it.

That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have read. How does one making a definition prove it.

I provided various references that prove chemical reactions are unable to choose otherwise.

What does that have to do with free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Pay attention to the word agent.

In order for free-will to exist it would have to be "beyond" natural law in order to violate natural law. Even if we discover that our bodies our not simply biochemical reactions, we would still have to discover another natural law...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

because of its very definition, we are unable to "discover" the supernatural.

Then you cannot know anything about it.

Yes, that is not a difficult concept either. Your posts seem unable to distinguish the difference between a character trait and an ability.
Just because my eyes are not able to detect the infra-red spectrum does not mean i can not see.

LOL More dumb statements that are trying to avoid your earlier one about some laws don't interfere with free will while others do. Can you be any more inconsistent.

Again you still are not providing evidence or proof for free will, or that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I suggest you do more reading.

[Guest]

your examples do not allow for free-will.
And the car without the man does? So get rid of the car and lets talk about the man.
The leaf is unable to choose otherwise when the biochemistry produces the disconnect from the stem reaction. The leaf is unable to "fall tomorrow rather than today"...it simply falls when the natural law avails it. the leaf is a living thing a car is not. If the leaf is a appendage of the tree, and the tree is a living thing with a life force or 'spirit' then you must concede that it has free will. Now, explain to me about the life force that existed in the cars front nearside tyre?

i noticed the CFRs and have responded when applicable BUT, you have claimed that i have be contradictory of myself...and you have yet to provide the example for your claim (for the obvious reasons)
I provided a perfect example the other day Here. Page2, 5th post.

nope...and i have been clear about the ability to "choose otherwise" which is impossible as it would violate natural law.
What is the Natural Law that inhibits an animals brain from thinking?

i understand that as your view completely....which is why i still maintain that you see the car without a driver.
Nevertheless, that does not prove free-will but actually argues against its existence.
If you understand my view why are you debating it? why are you still claiming that freewill is not exercised though the evolved brain, rather than a ghost man sitting in a car?

According to you, something from the world stimulates my senses, which puts some chemical reactions in motion, which stimulate neurological reactions in your brain organ, which produce chemicals that direct my body to react...all the while, my brain organ has created a "self" which is chemically stimulated as being "aware" of what the brain organ is doing...ergo, the brain organ is "telling" the brain organ what the brain organ is telling the brain organ....yet all of this relies on processes which are unable to deviate from their product...unable to create, at will, something else.
hmmm....your idea of free-will seems an awful lot like not-free will.
Good you understand then, All your organs work in harmony without conscience, your brain is consciously and unconsciously controlling your body and its actions, and there is no good or evil ghosts controlling those mental functions, semen have a motivational force, is that an 'adult spirit being' is it thinking? motivating the sperm to swim? I do not believe that the amalgamation of the fathers DNA in the sperm and the mothers egg DNA make choices, I do not believe there is actual freewill until the organ known as the brain begins to function causing movement to the limbs, in the womb babies are independent movers and thinkers, they experience feelings thoughts and feelings, contentment, joy, hunger, anger, fear they are all natural instincts, Mormons believe that unless the foetus takes a breath it never actually lived, in your opinion why is the mature adult spirit within a child not accountable until the physical body reaches a certain age? a spirit is able to exercise your external functions as a child to commit frowned upon acts of freewill without being accountable. now explain to me why you believe a ghost or legions of ghosts can enter your body and make your body parts work? Like that film Visa-Versa, body swapping would be possible in your religious way of thinking. According to Mormon theology, Who what When Where Why and How do you believe the spirit enters the body?

no, i got it...enjoyed the movie even...thought the ending was a little predictable and trite, but it was entertaining. However, it hardly stands as "proof"...unless you are conceding that fictional stories can somehow provide "truth"....are you?
I don't believe I claimed the film was proof of anything, I was simply recalling from memory a film about the human mind. I know that fiction can intertwine with fact, what is your point?I am not trying to sell my irreligious ideas for money

I am just trying to determine what rules you are playing by, so....you tell me.

I am not playing a game.

[_subgenius]

Wrong again, but I understand why you want to think so.

yet it is apparent that you actually do not understand.

Either you believe natural law can be violated or you believe it can not.

Which is one of your main assumptions. The other one you haven't backed up is that free will exists.

weird, because the whole discussion up to this point has been about how free-will can not exist....which conversation are you having?
The only premise in support of free-will's existence has been that if it does exist it surely must be supernatural because natural law can not be violated.
Now, enter your naïve stance of "we don't know that natural law can not be violated" - but we do know. For example, a rock is a rock regardless of whether we know of the rock or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

:yawn: study grade school philosophy on your own time.

:lol: Yet you want to say that it is violated. You should at least try to stay consistent.

i am being consistent.

:lol: That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have read. How does one making a definition prove it.

it just clicked...you have no idea about what this discussion is about.

What does that have to do with free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Pay attention to the word agent.

are you suggesting that you know human beings to be composed/comprised of something other than biochemical reactions and systems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

you think you would have read that link by now, and possibly come to understand it....but, maybe you should actual read some links on the topic at hand, not the topic you think is at hand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatur ... s_theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will# ... psychiatry

because of its very definition, we are unable to "discover" the supernatural.

Then you cannot know anything about it.

a claim you can most certainly not prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
But perhaps you mis-spoke and you meant "Then you cannot scientifically know anything about it"...which i would agree with.

or that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I suggest you do more reading.

your struggle is not uncommon, many people have trouble resolving this issue once they get distracted with determinism/indeterminism etc..
and while that discussion is somewhat entertaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_a ... _free_will
it is quite off this topic....yet still requires that, perhaps, you that link.

I have clearly stated that if a person considers human existence as solely comprised of sensory experiences (as i believe you have) then those experiences are bound by natural laws, laws of the universe like gravity, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and whatever yet-to-be-discovered laws there are and are not...for which there is only one logical conclusion. Free-will, in order to even be considered as true and existing as to one's ability to choose otherwise, must be able to violate these laws...must be, by definition, supernatural.
Likewise, it can only be concluded that beings solely composed/comprised of biochemical systems are delusional when it comes to claims of individuality, free-thought, and self-responsibility...for those are non-existent as they are manifest only at the whim of external stimuli and random uncontrollable processes.
A basic undergraduate understanding of these premises is required but they are quite simple and quite reasonable as proposed.

So, while you may want to continue with such nonsense as "we don't know what we don't know" the result is still the same....that it is more apparent that you actually do not know of that which you speak of...and to your credit, you have been honest about that from the start.

[_Themis]

weird, because the whole discussion up to this point has been about how free-will can not exist....which conversation are you having?

I have only asked you to provide evidence or proof for your big bags of assumptions. You have failed so far.

The only premise in support of free-will's existence has been that if it does exist it surely must be supernatural because natural law can not be violated.

An assumption you have not backed up. You haven't shown that free will is limited by natural law, and trying to define it that way is not evidence.

Now, enter your naïve stance of "we don't know that natural law can not be violated" - but we do know. For example, a rock is a rock regardless of whether we know of the rock or not.

You love your assumptions. Maybe it's because you don't pay attention. I have made no position, only asked you to back up yours.

:yawn: study grade school philosophy on your own time.

You might want to start.

are you suggesting that you know human beings to be composed/comprised of something other than biochemical reactions and systems?

I made no position, only challenged to to provide evidence for your position that free will cannot exist under natural laws.

a claim you can most certainly not prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
But perhaps you mis-spoke and you meant "Then you cannot scientifically know anything about it"...which i would agree with.

My statement would still be true based on what you said. You don't even pay attention to what you are saying.

your struggle is not uncommon, many people have trouble resolving this issue once they get distracted with determinism/indeterminism etc..
and while that discussion is somewhat entertaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_a ... _free_will
it is quite off this topic....yet still requires that, perhaps, you that link.

This doesn't help you in what I have been asking you to provide.

I have clearly stated that if a person considers human existence as solely comprised of sensory experiences (as i believe you have) then those experiences are bound by natural laws, laws of the universe like gravity, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and whatever yet-to-be-discovered laws there are and are not...for which there is only one logical conclusion.

This is the big if that is still an assumption you haven't backed up. I'm fine if you want to play some logic games, but don't act as though it is fact when you start with unsupported if's.

Free-will, in order to even be considered as true and existing as to one's ability to choose otherwise, must be able to violate these laws...must be, by definition, supernatural.

You are still making up if's and definitions in your logic game as though they are facts. It's fine within the logic game, but you cannot know it applies to the real world without evidence.

Likewise, it can only be concluded that beings solely composed/comprised of biochemical systems are delusional when it comes to claims of individuality, free-thought, and self-responsibility...for those are non-existent as they are manifest only at the whim of external stimuli and random uncontrollable processes.

Based on how one wants to define it in the logic game. Lets get back to the real world. I suggest you read up a lot more.