Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, but a very compelling one, as well. RTP.

However, I do not believe that evil is justified. I believe people afford sympathy and should not be accused of being monsters for their actions. But despite this wrong is still wrong and should still incur rehabilitation.

Okay, I'm not sure how you do this:

If will is chemicals, how can we not call anyone whose chemical
make up that causes them to act out in ways we call evil or
monstrous, evil or monstrous? After all they are made that way,
what they do is simply acting out as they are put together? They
are acting like a lion does in the jungle, it kills, it eats, and it is
doing what a lion does, it will do nothing else. Why shouldn't
anyone be called a monster who acts like one obeying their own
chemical makeup? Why isn't what we call evil justified in that
respect, are those acting according to their chemical makeup
just obeying how their DNA put them together, what choice is
there for them?

Why do we say things like "power corrupts, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely" we should say, "power reveals corruptions,
and absolute power will reveal corruption absolutely" Both of
those saying about power either corrupting or revealing
corruption were said by others, but it is telling on which is true.
If will is chemicals why bother attempting to rehabilitate anyone,
once they act out in a way that we call evil, don’t they reveal
what they are made of and we should lock them up or kill them
depending on how‘bad’ they are, forget rehabilitation, that is for
those that can change. We do not change anyone's chemical
makeup by putting them in jail or somewhere else, unless we
put them to death, and their chemical bonds start to fall apart.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not dispute that a will exists. However, for it to be free it must not coincide with chemicals on a physical realm. Or otherwise it would be dictated by physical laws (everything in the universe is!). Unless of course the free will is just some nebulous substance that does not abide by the laws of the universe and is capable of choosing two mutually ex ...[text shortened]... is impossible).

With the smoking analogy there is no WHY the chemicals quit. They just do.

“Will” can be influenced and still be able to be free, as I pointed
out before we can addict ourselves to chemicals, and we can
still reject what once dominated our lives too, including our
addictions. I use to go through about 2 packs of Marlboro red
cigarettes a day, and when I quit the cost was $0.55 a pack. Even
if you acknowledge, and add into the this discussion demonic
forces attempting to influence we still have a "will", we can still do
what it is we are being tempted to do, or not. Even if the "will" is
all spiritual, spiritual beings do not negate our "will" being what
it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
How can consciousness not be chemicals? How do you know?

For free will to exist, it must be inferred that something else must exist (i.e.
soul) which is not chemical. Surely this claim is sweeping. Why don't we assume the exisence of various other things to make obscure theories plausible. Lets assume God exists so that we can enjoy the pleasur ...[text shortened]... s it provides society. Lets assume you don't exist so that i can claim that i won this debate!

It still isn't clear to anyone else what you mean when you say that consciousness is "chemicals". You seem to have adopted your own private idiosyncratic meaning for "chemicals" which has nothing to do with what everybody else understands by the term. You are perfectly free to do so. However, don't be under the illusion that it allows to have meaningful discussions with everyone else.

The rest of your post is just rhetorical hot air. I wish you would address arguments, rather than grandstanding like a petulant child.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I teach statistics to a class of students.

I could tell my class to blindly follow a series of instructions to convert a set of inputs (questions) into a set of outputs (answers). Would it thereby follow that my class of students were reasoning or understanding?

Well, I don't think my Head of Department would agree. He would think I was not doin ...[text shortened]... Therefore, citing input-output relations in computer code doesn't suffice to prove your point.

I'm going to assert that reasoning is just a form of problem-solving. To solve a problem requires reasoning. Now problem theory has been developed in collusion with computer intelligence studies. Now computers can use problem solving rules on a less sophisticated level to humans. However, ALL class students will use these problem solving methods. If you look at the their reasoning, if you look at the way they understand it, a student will use problem solving rules, always. So in this way humans are reasoning like computers. They will always understand things according to their programming (as I acknowledge Coletti said).

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, I'm not sure how you do this:

If will is chemicals, how can we not call anyone whose chemical
make up that causes them to act out in ways we call evil or
monstrous, evil or monstrous? After all they are made that way,
what they do is simply acting out as they are put together? They
are acting like a lion does in the jungle, it kills, it eats, a else, unless we
put them to death, and their chemical bonds start to fall apart.
Kelly

Your right, I don't think that we are accountable for our actions. However, that doesn't mean that there is no evil. I also believe people should be rehabilitated. As i have stated before we humans are more then just chemicals (however consciousness is chemical). We are the result of environmental influences as well. Hence, rehabilitation is possible if we create a suitable environment (in some cases it wont be possible I accept that).

Originally posted by KellyJay
“Will” can be influenced and still be able to be free, as I pointed
out before we can addict ourselves to chemicals, and we can
still reject what once dominated our lives too, including our
addictions. I use to go through about 2 packs of Marlboro red
cigarettes a day, and when I quit the cost was $0.55 a pack. Even
if you acknowledge, and add into th ...[text shortened]... ll" is
all spiritual, spiritual beings do not negate our "will" being what
it is.
Kelly

Of course we have a will. It can be free. But i dont think it is. You may have quit smoking due to Christian conscience or because certain chemicals responded to their environment in such and such a way. Your example does not prove that free will is occuring. Of course, it does prove that there is a will.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It still isn't clear to anyone else what you mean when you say that consciousness is "chemicals". You seem to have adopted your own private idiosyncratic meaning for "chemicals" which has nothing to do with what everybody else understands by the term. You are perfectly free to do so. However, don't be under the illusion that it allows to have meaningful ...[text shortened]... air. I wish you would address arguments, rather than grandstanding like a petulant child.

Well, I'll explain what I mean by '"consciousness is chemicals". My first assumption is that our consciousness can be described fully by processes in the brain. The brain composes of cells, and cells are just an assortment of chemicals. Thus, i think consciousness is chemicals. I have already defined what I meant by this. Its been asked twice (or three?) times. And each time I have answered concisely (a matter of conjecture I suppose). Apologies if my explanations have been vague.

You are correct the rest of my post is rheotorical. I believe it was accepted that if a free will exists it must transcend the physical laws of the universe. So we mut make an implausible or rather an unjustifiable assumption. In my post i then continued to demonstrate how implausible it is byt comparing to other such assumptions.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I teach statistics to a class of students.

I could tell my class to blindly follow a series of instructions to convert a set of inputs (questions) into a set of outputs (answers). Would it thereby follow that my class of students were reasoning or understanding?

Well, I don't think my Head of Department would agree. He would think I was not doin ...[text shortened]... Therefore, citing input-output relations in computer code doesn't suffice to prove your point.

Is doing mathematics reasoning?

Statistics involves rules, mathematical formulas, definitions etc. If you misapply the rules, you are not reasoning correctly. If you apply the rules correctly, you are reasoning correctly.

The only difference is that the computer does not make as many errors. I think however what you are looking for is creativity. That is harder to define, but is not really reasoning. Reasoning is more conscience of the rules of correct thinking and objectivity, where creativity seems to involve "random" guesses and subjective evaluations.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm going to assert that reasoning is just a form of problem-solving. To solve a problem requires reasoning. Now problem theory has been developed in collusion with computer intelligence studies. Now computers can use problem solving rules on a less sophisticated level to humans. However, ALL class students will use these problem solving methods. If you loo ...[text shortened]... y will always understand things according to their programming (as I acknowledge Coletti said).

This is fair descriptions. I might only add a little. Sometimes the problem is not predefined, but reasoning is still moving from premises (like mathematical equations) to conclusions (the solution to the the equations). How that is done, correct thinking, the rules of thinking, is the science of logic.

Logic is not simply arbitrary rules for reasoning, logic is the science of how we in-fact think when we think correctly. Not every one agrees with the fundamental laws of logic, but some are basic to all rational thinking - such as the law of non-contradiction and identity. Without the reality of these laws, no thinking would be valid, no knowledge possible, no reasoning true. (Now I will step off my logic soapbox.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Of course we have a will. It can be free. But i dont think it is. You may have quit smoking due to Christian conscience or because certain chemicals responded to their environment in such and such a way. Your example does not prove that free will is occuring. Of course, it does prove that there is a will.

I quit several times, the first few were when I was still doing drugs
for fun. I thank God I did quit, and I did for good when I was a
Christian, which was why I quit doing drugs as well, back in 1979/1980.

Define "will" and "free will" as you understand the terms.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I do not know who said that freewill exists outside of the physical
realm since we exist in the physical realm, a huge part of our being,
what makes us, us, is our will. How free it is, is a matter of discussion,
I’m more incline to call us free moral agents than say I believe we
have free will.

Free will must exist outside the physical real ...[text shortened]... isn't that part of the "carry your cross" ethos. Which by the way is utterly ridiculous.[/b]

Free will must exist outside the physical realms (i.e it cannot be chemical). If it were it could not be free at all. It would be determined by the reactions of chemicals or the behaviour of Quantum partcles. Thus, they [free will and chemicals] cannot "occupy the same space," but even if they did free will must be constrained. "Free moral agents" is a very difficult thing to swallow. What exactly is moral? If my family ingrain me with the belief that decadence is a good thing, will i be morally free if i commit murder?

As I define 'free moral agents' it, is that we are currently bound by
sin, negating total freedom of will. Sin in our nature corrupts how
we view all things, it corrupts our ability to see clearly right and
wrong; we find we have strong tendencies to act in ways we know
are wrong given circumstances we find ourselves in, or desires that
are within us at the time. Free moral agency goes to right and
wrong, if one does desire to walk in righteousness, and is
successful, are they now bound from doing evil, is that being free
since evil is now denied?

Where can we place the boundaries of what is freedom and what it is
to be bound and without freedom? If we want to be evil, are we now
bound by what makes one evil, and no longer free to do good? If we
want neither, we don’t care about being either good or bad, but want
our own way when they want it, does this make us and the universe
fractured and broken as we bounce between what is called or thought
of as good and evil? For example we wanted to have sex with
someone who does not want to have sex with us, are we denied now
our freewill? If we act out to get what we want, just because we want
to, does this cause evil to enter into the universe because of our
selfishness?

I love the passages in scriptures where God says this is the way, walk
in it. He leads us in paths of righteousness, grace, and mercy for His
name’s sake, following God’s lead is a choice. Walking through life
where God leads is a choice, walking away from God is too, and
both set us apart from something, does free will get taken away as
soon as a choice is made, even if the choice made is not making a
choice?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Free will must exist outside the physical realms (i.e it cannot be chemical). If it were it could not be free at all. It would be determined by the reactions of chemicals or the behaviour of Quantum partcles. Thus, they [free will and chemicals] cannot "occupy the same space," but even if they did free will must be constrained. "Free moral agents" is a v ...[text shortened]... away as
soon as a choice is made, even if the choice made is not making a
choice?
Kelly

Consider: this free will can choose either a,b,c or d. What makes it choose a,b,c or d? Is it random?

Well, of course you will retort that it is not random. So what makes me choose a,b,c or d. Well, I would speculate (and with brevity) that you would use the same word as 'pressures."So this nebulous iubstance called "free will" which can choose mutually exclusive actions (call them a,b,c, or d) is dictated by pressures. How is it in anyway free?

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b
Define "will" and "free will" as you understand the terms.
Kelly[/b]

Well, i think you gave me a satisfactory definition of the will. I suppose a free will is one that can choose (a will can't do this).

Originally posted by Conrau K
Consider: this free will can choose either a,b,c or d. What makes it choose a,b,c or d? Is it random?

Well, of course you will retort that it is not random. So what makes me choose a,b,c or d. Well, I would speculate (and with brevity) that you would use the same word as 'pressures."So this nebulous iubstance called "free will" which can choose mutually ...[text shortened]... xclusive actions (call them a,b,c, or d) is dictated by pressures. How is it in anyway free?

If I understand your position, and I may not so please correct me
if I am getting your point wrong.

You are complaining that having only those choices before us to
make is really the limiting factor, so saying we have free will cannot
be done because we only have those choices before us, not the ones
we want to have? With those choices you present a,b,c, or d simply
reveals that who or what that gave us only those choices a,b,c, or d
is the one that really has a free will, or just causes us to not really
have free will.

Even scripture has God limited in ways if you use that as a means
to define 'free will', because God once He says that He will not do
something, now limits His ability go go back on His Word, because
He does not lie. Not lying is also a boundary towards freewill too if
not being able to make all choices when ever is not having freewill.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I understand your position, and I may not so please correct me
if I am getting your point wrong.

You are complaining that having only those choices before us to
make is really the limiting factor, so saying we have free will cannot
be done because we only have those choices before us, not the ones
we want to have? With those choices you present a, ...[text shortened]... s freewill too if
not being able to make all choices when ever is not having freewill.
Kelly

What I mean is, that if you have free will you might be able to choose a or b. As in give up smoking or not. What makes this free will choose a or b?