Thread: Where Do You Stand on Free Will?

Summerlander- Thank you for the explanation. My example wasnt good. My point was that on both views you need to accept consciousness on evrything. If we are the consciousness created by the phisical components (brains, body, etc) then a stone is the consciousness or perception created by its atoms, for example. If we are the phisical components (we are our brains, bodies, etc) then a stone is its components. Nothing differences a human from a stone (on this argument) If we say the human is conscious the stone needs to be too. the computer example was unnecesarily complex. Just saying that then, free will is also consciousness, and then we (as consciousness) are free will, then we are free. To negate free will, you need to either negate consciousness or accept that free will is not it by defending that only phisical things are consciousness.

Also, sorry for assuming you said that on the babel library post, i remembered wrong. Thank you for explining your view on the matter

Moonage- I believe that in these matters the main issue is that the parts dont have a clear view on what is exactly free, free will, consciousness, etc. Once the matter itself is defined, its way easier to experiment and get a conclusion, for example, the scientists agree that one is lucid in a dream when the person knows that is a dream. Before it, lucidity was just an abstract thing and it was nearly impossible to define what is a lucid dream and whats not. Those limits may be arbitrary but are necessary for science. If scientists agree that a free human is someone capable of swimming for example, science can experiment and determine who is free and who is not quite easily following the scientific method. Mainly because if there arent any limits between things to difference them we need to accept that they are the same thing and only our view (or the limits we make) makes them different. They arent less different for that, at least for us, but it would be way simpler to just accept that and stop trying to change things in my opinion.

Vvilliam- yeah, we can assume that at some point we will be free if we consider we arent. You see, if we take death off the equation, we just need to keep going for enough time and it will necessarily happen. Even death could be considered also our imagination, when we dien in dreams what happens is what we expect, even if we dont want to. "here" is no different, even if you expect nothing and try to evade it, you are expecting something to happen, or death wouldnt exist and you dont die, nothing happens you keep living like now. But if you die something should happen differently from your normal life, what you expect. To differ one needs to find a difference between dreams and reality. It can be subjective, like saying we are more conscious here and less in dreams (if you dream you are more conscious in the dream than in the reality, then when you dream relity is the dream?)

Voldmer- everything being imaginary if we see it as illusory doesnt mean that its meaningless or less real if we dint want it to be without meaning. Things are real for one that believes so. And an imaginary things is not meaningless for one that doenst believes so. Please note that your view on the meaning you give defines the meaning you perceive on that thing. Same for its degree of "realism" Also, note that a difference needs to be made between real and non rel things for both to exist. Why call everything non real if real things dont exist? its like telling a person he is bad when everyone is, a bit pointless. For example, you can say that the only real thing is the one that imagines everything, you, god, or someone else