xplain how quantum randomness/fluctuations/indeterminacy/what-have-you actually makes things meaningful??? — VagabondSpectre

The creative, explorative, evolutionary aspects of the Mind brings meaning to life. Arguing about Free Will vs. Determinism, or whether God is logical, is an amusement of the Mind. Philosophy is about understanding this Mind.

So your "Mind" doesn't determine your behavior? — VagabondSpectre

Can please think your questions through?

OF what, exactly is it free? — charleton

I don't know how many times I've repeated on this forum that NOTHING IS FREE. Such a stance is as far from life experience as is Determinism. Both ideas are just concocted ideas for people to argue over, as a way of amusement in their lives.

Everything is entangled. There is no separation, emptiness or nothingness that can create separation, anywhere. Nothingness may exist but only in the absence of duration. Lacking separation, we have entanglement which means we have Choice in the direction we apply Will, but it cannot possibly be free of constraints or otherwise.

And you know this how? — Pseudonym

Practice. Philosophy is not arguing about what someone read in a book. Philosophy is experiencing life in all forms, having patience, and practicing. Then new knowledge comes.

The only remaining free-will question is from where do we get our will? - from some non-physical realm, or from our previous thoughts/senses. — Pseudonym

Will is an energetic force just like any other force in nature. The Mind produces and stores it in the body by normal process of eating, drinking, and breathing. The body is a tool of the mind.

We are talking about immediate consequence rather than long term one. — bahman

Immediate consequences are always uncertain, though some more probable than others.

So what you're saying is that your behavior is determined by a conglomeration of quantum fluctuations (as opposed to some kind of ethereal spirit or eternal soul or otherwise god-like-source of hard free will)? — VagabondSpectre

I think I said Mind. Quantum fluctuations are Mind.

Maybe you could enumerate which quantum bits in your brain take part in your decision making processes? — VagabondSpectre

They all do including the enteric mind.

No, free will is an illusion. Can you see how going from X is an illusion to EVERYTHING is an illusion is over-blowing things just a bit? — VagabondSpectre

Really? I am afraid your own illusions have caught up with you. Everything you claim about illusions is still illusion - unless you have somehow self-inoculated yourself against your in admitted illusions. Absolutely everything your mind imagines is an illusion including your illusion that there is no Choices. That's the way illusions work. As much as this may surprise you, but materialism is a kindred spirit to Hinduism. They have all kinds of recommendation in how to break through the Maya that all materialists
are suffering from.

We can only better and better approximate the laws of nature — VagabondSpectre

You are making some major call claims about v the Laws of Nature and how they create materialistic, mind illusions of all sorts, including want of Big Macs. It would be nice if you could enumerate them. Maybe it is just a nice myth?

I don't see right through the illusion, nobody does, — VagabondSpectre

Don't sell yourself short. Despite the best efforts if these (presumably) illusionary particles and equally illusionary Laws of Nature (everything is an illusion), you are able (or should I say that the illusion allows you) to see right through it as an illusion. This is no small feat. On the otherhand, understanding that all be is an illusion, then everything you see as materialistic is an illusion, in which case you are having an illusion about illusions as is all is science. My best guess this is the case.

I have no idea what any one is talking about when they talk about Free Will. It is as silly as Determinism. What we clearly have, is the ability to make choices in the direction we wish to take action, but that is all. We have willful energy directed by the mind, both being non-material in nature.

There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature, and the last time I asked someone to enumerate them he just fabricated some. Why not? Would you like to take a stab at it? I don't suppose you are going to include quantum mechanics in your Deterministic theory if nature (which is necessarily an illusion)?

But since the illusion is so complete, pragmatically we're forced to behave in all the same ways that we would if we actually knew we had free will (aside from a couple caveats). — VagabondSpectre

Apparently it is not so complete. You see right through it. What is odd is that your bouncing particles illusion allows you to see right through it while mine doesn't. One just never knows what bouncing particles might do and what illusions they might create. They are just little magicians. Some even prefer anchovies to pepperoni on their pizza. Probably because they are operating under different Laws of Nature or different Universes.

Philosophy can be so much fun when you put your Mind to it.

I don't believe Determinists for the most part really believe believe what they are preaching.

You get the point. One of course can argue that one can choose worse option when he practice his freedom. — bahman

Worse or better is a judgment performed after the consequences are revealed. And then it is made in comparison to some idealized possible consequence which never happened. There are no better or worse options. There are only possible choices of action which we feel may achieve some desired results, but results are always unpredictable. There is no control over outcomes. Only desires to achieve one. In Life, almost nothing turns out as expected.

Determinism is meaningless and says absolutely nothing (well it says something about its adherents, but v that is a different story).

The meaningless of Determinism can be felt. One must quietly ponder all the Determinism is suggesting including the meaningless of pondering about it. It is a cute game - pretending we are robots. I use to play it as a child. But how many people really believe it? I suspect few, and those who do are walking down a path of meaningless, where ever it may leave them.

A healthy life is one that embraces life. There is enough there to discover to last many lifetimes.

But those patterns could be generalized to include, what would happen in the hypothetical case it was possible and happened? — BlueBanana

I use my creative thought to conceive of new patterns that fit all observed patterns. I've never witnessed anyone who has ever come back in time nor have I ever traveled through time, not has anyone ever told be that they have observed such phenomenon.

In philosophy I attempt to understand life/nature. When writing fiction, I'll use a different aspect of my creative mind. The two are different - with similarities.

The fundamental problem with both modern philosophy and science is that creative fiction is replacing direct observation. It is the way it is being taught. Writing friction requires limited experience. It can be taught in a course, both science and philosophy. Developing observational practice takes much time and experience. It requires patience.

But you can, based on those patterns, make expectations and generalizations? — BlueBanana

Yes, in this case I can have a high expectation that time travel in real duration is not possible.

There is a You and I. It v is the Observer/Mind. It is it very, very real. It is creating and exploring and evolving. This is how everything evolves through duration.

Is it safe to assume that for something to exist it has to come into existence first? — Daniel

No. It might have always "been there".

Sure, there are traditions, teachings, about those matters, that go back for millennia. That doesn't discredit them. — Michael Ossipoff

People most definitely come into their lives with different "abilities".

Why do brains create comics? To amuse their particles?

So you have no opinion at all on what would happen in the case an observer was able to travel backwards in time? — BlueBanana

Philosophically no. As I said, I look for patterns. Similarities within differences and differences within similarities. And from this, I build new patterns which explain more and give me a new understanding. For me, new observations by myself or others are golden.

So a thought experiment is not an argument anymore because it's impossible? — BlueBanana

Sci find is just not part of my particular way of practicing philosophy. I prefer to look at patterns and c patterns that others bring to my attention. For example, the minds of people making choices of all sorts for different reasons are patterns that I've observed. I have never observed anyone going back in time, not even in my dreams, so it is difficult to make anything if it, other than it is another excellent example of the creative potential of Mind. Yes, that it is!

There is certainly no way to go back in time so there is no reason to think about what could have happened. It is as we are observing it and changing it with our Minds. We call this evolution.

What is missing from our culture is the sense of being and our active involvement in change. We are all involved. Nothing is determined by "something else". Our minds are creating it via our chosen actions.

Violence?? Do you have any conception of what violence is? Or are you talking about philosophical violence? The type that one uses so as to allow their cherished beliefs left to propagate unchallenged?

Apparently you are quite comfortable with non-stop ad hominem, but any commentary on the mythical basis of modern cosmology is totally verboten. The Emperor has Clothes!?

This thread is evidence of the mess that current scientific cosmology had found itself in. It speaks for itself and should be read and reread for all that it reveals.

And don't bother sending me any private messages. They are unwanted.

As this thread demonstrates, all of modern cosmology is a myth in which enumerable mystical forces are being invented and named as needed which is directly analogous to the way ancient way myths and gods were invented to explain things. None of modern cosmology makes any sense other than to keep some priests busy.

The whole scientific cosmology needs to discarded. It is fundamentally flawed because it was constructed with the sole purpose of proving a pre-ordained goal, i.e. that the Universe can come into being without resorting to anything but particles, which as it happens, no longer exist in physics. Hence a mess of construction and deconstruction, similar to modern culinary fads.

You do realise how utterly pointless — Pseudonym

If nothing else, at least you have successful uncovered how pointless academic philosophy has become.

Philosophy is the art of shared observation and discovery. This is simply a manifestation of the nature of Life, i.e, the ability to create, learn, and evolve. To understand and acknowledge this brings us back to philosophy. What academic teaches us pointless, merry-go-round argumentation.

So I suggest that the timeless sleep at the end of lives is only for those very few life-completed people who have no remaining needs, wants, inclinations or un-discharged consequences. — Michael Ossipoff

This would be very close to the beliefs of some Buddhist sects, with all kinds of possible variations.

I find most Buddhists who believe this believe it because they were taught it. Being taught is much different from learning from experience. They yield a qualitative different feeling of knowing.

To realize that all one's beliefs amount to zero. — TheMadFool

As if now, it is clear to me that my Mind is evolving. I also observe strong evidence of the persistence of Mind (at different levels). Here and there I observe flashes of evidence of new and interesting patterns of observations that may bring new meaning to my Life (evolution). One thing I've learned is that Life requires patience. Things come when they come. There are no shortcuts.

My doubt is whether or not we understand nonexistence. — TheMadFool

I don't think we understand it at all. By understanding non-existence we would be able to much better undertand existence. Eastern philosophical cultures (e.g. yoga, some forms of Buddhism) believe that the route of mediation might provide a path toward this understanding but I've seen no evidence so far c that thus is so. Meditation provides interesting insights though. I think understanding comes spontaneously out if no where. There may not be a "path".

You entirely missed the point of my responded. Until you get your arms around your schizophrenic use of "I", everything else you described is nonsense. Do you really believe in the myth of Determinism? If so, then fully embrace its implications. Or, is this just a game of pretend?

I am asking what is the using free will considering the fact that it always allows us to choose the worst. — bahman

I responded that there is no such thing as better or worse choices since consequences (long-term and short-term) are totally unpredictable. What people do is make choices based upon their experiences and emotions (there is an enteric mind that makes gut decisions) and then learn something new from now their decisions. Choices is what defines all of life. It is the essential element of Mind Evolution.

What are your arguments for not believing in determinisn again? That you dislike its implications? — BlueBanana

It makes no sense at all from any perspective. There is not one statement about Determinism that can withstand any scrutiny.

Determinism says that B is an effect of A; nothing more, nothing less — WISDOMfromPO-MO

While there are as many flavors of Determinism as there are flavors of Christianity (for exactly the same reasons), it is so-named name because it is meant to describe a deterministic existence. Pretty dismal and I hope most people understand it is a completely fabricated myth.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."

That sounds like fatalism, which is not the same thing as determinism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A difference in taste, that is all. Both render life meaningless. Luckily, despite academic indoctrination, most people simply ignore it though since if it lingers with the mantra, "it is the fault of dna".

I didn't say that you don't experience a time after there was nothing. I said that you don't experience nothing ) — Michael Ossipoff

The mind loses consciousness and then somehow issues a spark to regain consciousness. In between there is nothing. One knows they were unconscious due to a discontinuity if memory. Similarity, one feels a similar discontinuity when one enters a dream state.

To understand life, one should study the nature of duration and memory, the key aspects of life.

No one ever experiences Nothing. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course they do, when they are unconscious or asleep and not dreaming. If I may relate, it feels like no duration had transpired.

To try to end death would be to end sleeping - it ain't going to be happen. Rather than extending life, the medical system has successfully shortened life span in the U.S. as life expectancy last year had actually decreased for the first time in two decades. Understand that most of the increase in human life expectancy is due to better infant mortality rates, better sanitation, and greater access to food.

The Daoist felt the maximum life span (based upon observation) was about 120 years, which might be increased somewhat with specialized health practices. Most people don't get any where near that for a number of reasons, mostly lifestyle related. About 30% of the population in the U.S. is obese, and it is getting worse so life expectancy will probably keep going down unless people are kept artificially alive but incapacitated.

Death is part of the cycle of life. One should understand it and there cycle and not look for some magic bullet which will never come, though I am sure the promise will be a great marketing slogan fundraising. For sure? People are willing to believe in almost anything other that their own responsibility for maintaining their own health.

thermodynamics — Akanthinos

So we have life that works opposite of entropy to create. It's that a Law?

And everything is on constant motion.

The Second Law of Biology: all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells. — Akanthinos

That's not a Law. It's a simple observation and becomes totally meaningless once one looks deeper for boundaries.

The Third Law of Biology: all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. — Akanthinos

In have idea what this means. It's not a Law, just some ambiguous statement about things happening and changing.

The rest is utter speculation. A good story. And in total explain practically nothing about the nature of life. You are, shall we say, getting over-enthusiastic about some simple observations. In other words, you are just making things up. Nothing that you call a Law (other than thermodynamics) is considered a Law in any literature. That you should choose to claim that they are is your privilege because it is your story. You are free to make up stories. The choice is always yours. No one else has chosen to do this. (Just illustrating the nature of Choice).

Please try to me more rational. Your over-exuberance about some some observations tends toward the irrational and quite emotional. Rather religious-like in my estimation.

What is your opinion about OP? — bahman

If you are asking what is the use of Free Will, then I would respond that we see humans are constrained in our choices, but the choices we make are the essence of Life. From these choices we learn and evolve. This is Life.

Right. It is a nice story.