Free Will Discussion by a neuroendocrinologist

[Razard86]

Interesting perspective on how a biologist interprets free will.

He subscribes to an absence of free will and believes in determinism.

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

Interesting perspective on how a biologist interprets free will.

He subscribes to an absence of free will and believes in determinism.

I guess he has no choice? Lol. Determinism is foolish worldview.

[Princess Arabia]

Will watch, love this Channel. 

[zurew]

 

[Osaid]

Free will is like dividing zero by zero. Error created by intellect. Completely false notion. Try proving a unicorn while you're at it.

You will only understand free will by understanding what you fundamentally are, there is no other way.

Edited January 30 by Osaid

[Ishanga]

Its all a matter of your level of Consciousness/Awareness, if it is normal/low then Karma will rule and You will have no Free Will, now since he probably is not considering Spiritual matters, and it making his deductions on how regular ppl live, he is correct. But if Your Consciousness/Awareness is at a high Level You have Free Will, complete control of Your Destiny, how You will die (other than a random accident), how Your experience is within Yourself, and even to a point of controlling the involuntary actions of the body functions normally thought not too be possible by western science... 

Its like Freud making conclusions about Human Life when only studying sick ppl, study an Enlightened Person then go from there...

[Carl-Richard]

Any compatibilists in the house? 

[Razard86]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Any compatibilists in the house? 

LOL only in his mind. He says he realized there is no GOD and that made me start laughing. He said nobody can explain the lack of a mechanism and it's like the answer is there is no mechanism. In my most recent awakening I got to experience the plain observational lack of a mechanism and its funny because duality can never explain it. 

We are too use to control. So notice his issue? He says there is no control in our lives, but argues that everything is predetermined which is an argument of control. For his argument to work according to his own paradigm a controller needs to exist. So he is arguing contradiction while denying contradiction. Its a shame such an intelligent man cannot realize he is defeating his own argument.

He doesn't realize that if everything is predetermined choice cannot exist. Which is an impossibility. The correct answer is it is both determined, and not determined. There are a set of choices, once you choose certain things you set things in motion. Certain decisions have no wiggle room while some decisions do. The less wiggle room the more deterministic. Also you can beat his argument of biology by saying that if humans become aware of the biological argument then those who have biological disorders are not doomed to be unable to get the help they need.

So awareness in the environment increases the free will of those with biological disorders by increasing their choice. Determinism excludes influence, which would take away your ability to change circumstances. This is why determinists always lose in the end their arguments have holes and are intellectually lazy. They like to show up at the end of an event and say it was always going to happen that way. Without realizing that the existence of change defeats determinism. There can be no change if it is all determined. It is both determined, and also not so. 

God is aware that it is free to make any determination and also free to not. God makes things determined to create linear time and consistency and order. An ignorant view of the existence of God will make you look foolish in these discussions.

[UnbornTao]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Any compatibilists in the house? 

Seems to boil down to this: Whichever stand you hold to be the case, you'll live as that, and then die.

Edited February 1 by UnbornTao

[Schizophonia]

Is there just one thing that isn't an illusion?

Well, I guess by debunking them into consciousness we'll end up with infinite white lights.

[Carl-Richard]

@Razard86

I can make choices, but I can't choose which choices present themselves to me.

I'm a compatibilist, so I say that Sapolsky is right in the sense that the choices that present themselves to us are determined by forces outside of our control (biology, environment, upbringing, etc.), but we can still talk about making choices, because we're doing that all the time (in a pragmatic socio-linguistic sense). I can say that I chose between eating rice vs. eating pasta today, because that is how I tend to describe what I just experienced: I was confronted with a situation where I felt like I had to pick either making rice or making pasta for dinner, and I ended up picking one of them, hence I made a choice. But that doesn't change the fact that I did not choose which choices presented themselves to me (pasta vs. rice).

Edited February 2 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

An important, unrecognized assumption that's being made is that of taking decision-making as a process of picking between predetermined options. This fails to acknowledge the creative nature of making a decision. It is created by you.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

An important, unrecognized assumption that's being made is that of taking decision-making as a process of picking between predetermined options. This fails to acknowledge the creative nature of making a decision. It is created by you.

The "you" we're referring to (mind with a small "m") is created by predetermined stuff, which is "You" (Mind with a big "M"). So "you" is created by "You", and "you" has ultimately no say in what "You" is creating. In order words, the person and their apparent choices are ultimately created by the transpersonal. From this perspective, the notion of the person making choices is mostly a pragmatic psychosocial convention, a bit like money.

Edited February 2 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The "you" we're referring to (mind with a small "m") is created by predetermined stuff, which is "You" (Mind with a big "M"). So "you" is created by "You", and "you" has ultimately no say in what "You" is creating. In order words, the person and their apparent choices are ultimately created by the transpersonal. From this perspective, the notion of the person making choices is mostly a pragmatic psychosocial convention, a bit like money.

That sounds good.

Knowing what you are would probably dissolve the question.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

You are god and manifest your Truth. 

So whatever is manifested will give you the details. 

[Yimpa]

Welcome back 

[Razard86]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Razard86

I can make choices, but I can't choose which choices present themselves to me.

I'm a compatibilist, so I say that Sapolsky is right in the sense that the choices that present themselves to us are determined by forces outside of our control (biology, environment, upbringing, etc.), but we can still talk about making choices, because we're doing that all the time (in a pragmatic socio-linguistic sense). I can say that I chose between eating rice vs. eating pasta today, because that is how I tend to describe what I just experienced: I was confronted with a situation where I felt like I had to pick either making rice or making pasta for dinner, and I ended up picking one of them, hence I made a choice. But that doesn't change the fact that I did not choose which choices presented themselves to me (pasta vs. rice).

That's why it's both. He picks determinism as an absolute.