you're entitled to your opinion (no matter how wrong it is) but it doesn't change the fact that accountability is fully consistent with determinism. Causality underlies everything, including intuition and accountability. If you were familiar with the hard sciences, you would know this already.

If you can explain one thing to me, I will reconsider my stand point.

Do the laws of science contain matter, or have energy, or do they only exist in the mind?

the laws of nature determine matter, energy and mind.



Rick, Dennett's views support my own claim that there's nothing free about free will and that free will is nothing but an illusion. His claim that "determination is not the same as causation" is merely semantic word play since what he means by this is that "knowing that a system is deterministic tells you nothing about the interesting causation", which is obviously the case.

There are those who say that all that is, is illusion. And we are creating it. But does this mean that illusion is of no value?

the illusion of free will has value, and plays a causative role in itself. Perhaps the ideal here is to behave like you have free will, but on an intellectual level, acknowledge that everything has a cause, though the universality of causality is not itself dependent on other people accepting it as fact.

If you believe in determinism--who cares, there is still no meaning in life. If you believe in free will--who cares there is still no meaning in life outside of meaning that you create.

Care to have your science, reason, or logic, prove the meaning of life?

Oh and you avoided my question. According to the laws of science, the laws of science do not exist as they posess no matter or energy.

Regardless, you decide what there is or isnt in your own little box called reality.



According to science, there isn't one. Life is the result of a chemical event which occured billions of years ago. We are no different than the water we drink or the ground we walk upon, life is simply taking in different elements and aligning those elements in a specific way according to a molecule known as dna.



Then nothing exists. Everything is a thing of your mind and by the way, matter and energy cannot exist either because matter and energy are concepts of physics which are concepts of the laws of science. You have created a contradiction within your own question.

can you not see where I replied, "the laws of nature determine matter, energy and mind"?


individuals are fully capable of creating their own meaning without recourse to the kind of dogmatism and superstition that you're espousing.

LD comments Good. To make myself clear: I freely choose to avoid all arrogant dogmatism and silly superstition. I would that all of us could.

as can be seen, causality gives rise to all sorts of silliness.

Individuals are fully capable of creating their own meaning I agree. That is exactly what I am talking about. Science does not give meaning to life, intuition does.

Oh and yes you did avoid my question... The laws of nature and the laws of science are two completely different things. The laws of nature are real, the laws of science are not.

The laws of science and the laws of nature are both perceptions and interpretations of reality. The laws of nature and science change as perception and understanding changes.

The laws of nature are true untill they are quanitified by science IMO

Flex, do yourself a favor and complete Science 101 before asking dumb questions about the "laws of science". There obviously aren't any "laws of science", which was why I replied in terms of nature's laws.


Science, understood as a special type of human endeavor, is certainly capable of giving meaning to life, and in fact, it has provided meaning for countless scientists. Since evidently you are not a scientist, and I seriously wonder whether you're even past high school, your opinions about science and intuition count for little.

I was debating if I should point that out.

Flex, the laws of nature are interpretations of reality by scientists, the laws are derived from observing nature and drawing conclusions based off of those observations. This is the utmost fundamental aspect of modern science and the empirical observation which goes with it.

The "laws of science" and the laws of nature are the same thing. All laws about nature as we know it are based off of human observation. One who observes nature and comes to conclusions about it through careful observation and experimentation is the very definition of a scientist.

Lucid, let's not forget that everyone has different perspectives and at times meanings and intent can be misconstrued on internet forums. Let's try to remain civil? Leonardo Da Vinci had an elementary education and very often went against the scientific views of his time and now we regard him as a genius where back then he was mocked by his contemporaries. One should always try to avoid dogmatism, including in science.

While Flex may not have such sound logical foundations for his arguments as Leonardo had, still he is showing another possibility into reality, it is never a good thing to talk down to people who are trying to contribute ideas to a discussion in a genuine way. We both agree that science as we know it will eventually be replaced, so perhaps we should look to be on that frontier of innovation? Science is going to change anyways, we might as well be a catalyst to a better understanding of our world and of reality.

true, my bad

That is a ridiculous statement IMO, are you stating that truth cannot be subjective?

Good point, Max, and I heartily agree. This prompts me to ask: What constitutes "talking down"? And. what is the best way to deal with it?
BTW, if anyone ever feels that I am talking down to you, please let me know--I was tempted to write: Hey you, pay attention!--It is something which I know I tend to do, but I am also anxious to correct. Blame my age and long experience in life.

I am having difficulty expressing exactly what I mean as words are not capable. I am saying that I believe truth is out there, but as soon as you try to name it, or classify it, it is no longer truth (it can only be experienced, not described).


Subjective -- Arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes.

I find that truth cannot be subjective. Relative truth is not truth.

Truth can be anything. According to this man's view of subjectivity and objectivy, you are implying that there is no truth to what I feel and experience. Please explain...

"In life there are three things - one: the objective world, the world of things. Everybody is able to see that. We are naturally capable of seeing the objective world. But this is only the beginning of the journey. Many have stopped there and think that they have arrived. Of course they have not arrived so they are miserable.
Beyond the objective is the opening of another world - the world of the subjective. The objective is the world of things, objects; the objective is the world of science, mathematics, physics, chemistry. The objective is very clear because naturally we are born perfectly able to see the objective.

The subjective has to be explored; nobody is born with a vision of the subjective. The subjective has to be explored; one has to learn what it is; one has to taste it by and by and move into it by and by. The world of music, poetry, art - the world of any creativity - is the world of the subjective. The man who starts moving inwards becomes more poetic, more aesthetic. He has a different aroma around him, a different aura.

The scientist lives with things; the poet lives with persons. The scientist is not at all aware of who he is, he is simply aware of what surrounds him. He may be able to know about the moon and about Mars and about the stars far, far away, but he is completely oblivious of his own inwardness. In fact, the more he becomes concerned with faraway things, the more and more he becomes oblivious of himself: He remains almost in a sort of sleep about himself.

The poet, the painter the dancer, the musician, they are closer to home. They live in the subjective - they know they are persons. And when you know you are a person, suddenly you become capable of looking into other persons. For a poet even a tree is a person, even animals are people; for a scientist even a man or a woman is nothing but an object. A scientist looks at a man as if he is also just an object. And if he is not aware of his own inwardness how can he be aware of the inwardness of the other?

When I use the word ‘person’ I mean that there is an inside which is not available to outside observation, analysis, dissection. There is a rock, it has no inside; you can break it and you can see everything. If you break a rock, nothing is disturbed, nothing is destroyed. Even if it is in pieces, it is the same rock. But if you break a person, something of tremendous value immediately disappears. Now you are left with a dead body, and the dead body is not the person. The rock broken is still the same rock, but the person is no longer the same person. In fact, the person broken is not a person at all. On the dissection table of a surgeon you are not a person, only when a poet touches you and holds your hand do you become a person.
That’s why people hanker for love. The reason for the hankering for love is nothing but this: you would like somebody to see that you are a person, not a thing.

You go to the dentist, he is not worried about you - he is simply interested in your teeth. Even if I go to the dentist - I see him…what a miracle! He is not interested in me, he just looks at my teeth. I am there, sitting in his chair, he is completely oblivious of me. A great space is available just in his room but he will not even look at me - that’s not his concern. He is only interested in the teeth, in his own technique. His knowledge of the objective world is his only world.

People hanker for love because only love can make you a person, only love can reveal your inwardness to you, only love can make you feel that you are not just that which is apparent from the outside. You are something more; you are something totally different to what you appear to be. The reflection in the mirror is not your totality; the reflection in the mirror is just the reflection of your surface, not of your depth. It says nothing about your depth.
When you come to a scientist, or a person who is absolutely absorbed with the objective dimension, he looks at you as if you are just the reflection in the mirror. He does not look at you, he looks around you. His approach is not direct, his approach is not intimate - and you feel something is missing. He is mistreating you because he is not accepting your personality. He is treating you as if you are a thing. He is doing things but he is not touching you at all; you remain almost non-existential to him.

And unless somebody touches you with love, looks at you with love, your own inwardness remains unfulfilled, unrecognized - that is what the need to be needed is.
The subjective is the dimension, the inward dimension, of poetry, song, dance, music, of art. It is better than the scientific dimension because it is deeper. It is better than the objective dimension because it is closer to home. But it is not yet the dimension of religion, remember. There are many people whose mind is obsessed with the objective - when they think about God, God also becomes an object."

You followed your statement with an excerpt from
Osho
The Art of Dying
excerpt from Chapter 9
Beyond the objective world.

Are you backing up your experience with someone elses description of life and truth?

it is an example...

I guess that means, you're not defending your truth and experience, but thinking out loud.

Hi everyone!
This post inspired me to write my blog -

What is free will?

Logic prefers extreme opposite such as
YES-NO
BLACK-WHITE
EVIL-GOOD
NEGATIVE-POSITIVE etc.

But the reality is always somewhere in between and relative. The inclination towards extremes often leads us to error. I want to explore what i consider a common contemporary collective error in psychology, namely - Free Will. Some say it exists and some some it doesn't. Those who say it doesn't tend to believe in predeterminism and those who say it does tend to fall under illusion of complete freedom of choice. The truth is - it is neither complete free will not complete lack of it. Yes we do have choice and yes sometimes we don't and the major deciding factor is not time. I believe the right question should be - to what degree do we have free will as opposed to simply logic yes/no type of question? Because its existence seems kind of obvious if we look at it purely phenomenologically.

Some people claim humans have free will and animals don't and again i think such statement flows out of cognitive errors of extremes. I think Free Will is like Heat - there are degrees to it. For example rock has 0 to 1 of free will out of 12. A plant might have something like 1-2. An ant something like 3-4. Dog 5-6. Ape 7-8. Human 9-10. Of course this is just a random guess and is probably far from truth but i think you get the point.

I believe we have potential to reach - 11 out of 12 and that is the meaning of artificial evolution and our involvement with AI and genetic engineering. Perhaps we will achieve that kind of freedom through genetically manipulating ourselves or perhaps by creating an extremely advanced robot with AI that is completely free of emotions and follows pure logic.

The next question is what is free will and is reaching 12 possible or even beneficial. If we analyze what we call free will - we usually define it as freedom to make a decision. But we always make the choice that we consider the best. We never choose something we consider inferior to the better choice. So is free will the ability to compare and contrast possible choices and follow the best solution? In that case the degree of free will is once ability to think of the most possibilities and come up to the best decision. But in that case what is the criteria for the best decision? Is it the self benefit or the benefit of others? Again altruism vs selfishness is a kind of extreme and the truth is probably in some kind of trade of. Altruism without too much sacrifice to self preservation or perhaps self preservation without too much altruism. What is better? That is a question for another topic.

If free will is ability to come to the best decision and the best decision is that which benefits oneself and others then it is not entirely free is it? Because it will always depend on the greatness of the decision. If one cannot choose an inferior choice but always follows the best then it is slavery to the best outcome. So if one truly does have free will one must be freely able to decide to follow the inferior choice. But why would he? Why would anyone consciously follow a choice that is inferior? A great paradox.

Let us redefine free will then - free will is choice independent of anything; a freedom in itself. It is no longer dependent on best choice but we must admit that the person will still be at least conscious of what is the best choice. Let us assume then that he has no drive whatsoever to choose the best choice but rather chooses without any criteria. Would that not define chaos itself? So pure free will(that of 12) is essentially pure chaos.

Is something like that beneficial and worth striving for? World of being with a 12 degree freedom would not sustain itself. There must be some kind of criteria for choice that one follows.
But we come back to that same problem- if one always chooses the best choice then free will can be redefined to pure slavery to the best choice. Again we are met in paradox.

Perhaps a solution is a being that is fully aware that acting without criteria for choice would be its own undoing and thus chooses to follow the criteria of the best choice while still having the ability to disobey. Alas now we are getting closer to the truth!

Also i forgot to include other beings. So far i was exploring the being as if it would be the only being with free will in the entire universe. Put him with 10 others and suddenly we see that what is best choice for him might be met with disagreement by others. Others might consider something else as the best choice. The only outcome in such people would be war.

What is the solution? The only solution i see is connected collective unconscious that itself would become a totally new being, kind of like how we are made of hundreds of cells. This collective being would evaluate all the "best choices" and come up with best choice+ that all must follow. Again we come to a new paradox - that would be slavery to best choice+ and not freedom.

The solution i see is again the kind of beings that would be aware of the best choice+ but still have the freedom to disobey but still mostly acting in accord just for collective preservation. But what would be the use of such an ability - to disobey. Out of principle of having free will? Then the free will is simply ability to rebel in a negative way. Thus free will is simply an ability to become a criminal? Does not make it sound all that great now.

A robot can be programmed to do what is best for itself without any self awareness and my definition of free will must include some kind of self awareness. Without self awareness it would be no different then a regular PC. In its case the best decision for the PC would be to do whatever i tell it to do and thus it has free will according to that logic. But it doesn't. It must be conscious of itself following what i tell it to do and not simply conscious but with ability to disobey.

Is it possible for a robot to be self aware without ability to disobey? Would it still constitute as free will? The more i go into this the more problems i raise.

Let us now add another factor - emotion.
Some people take emotion as the opposite of rational and logical. But i think emotion is just rationale with motivation attached to it. For example we can simply find the best solution but why would we follow it and not just choose to stay here until we die. We need some kind of motivation and emotion does just that. When our body feels its rational to drink water - we feel thirst(dopamines) which motivates us and then rewards us when we drink enough with endorphines. The emotion can be redefined as simply a collection of physiological responses to a particular rational decision. For example when one is angry - he judges situation as threatening to his self and releases a number of chemicals to motivate and prepare him for battle or defense. Of course it is only one of many possible rationales that anger is a result of but nevertheless my point is that emotion is not irrational but in fact it is very rational if we judge if from criteria of biological drives to reproduce and survive and many other once.

Perhaps it is in emotion that the key lies. If we define emotion as a certain judgment on the universe and the "feeling" it entails(collection of chemicals we perceive) then it is perhaps possible to make a number of those "feelings" in robots and thus make the best choice a little harder and give more variety to the choices. Perhaps the answer is in eliminating the objective best choice and rather make it as a bunch of subjective choices that are more or less equal. Perhaps the key is that while a person does one thing, he is also responsible for thing he does not do as Sarte stated in his philosophies. For example i can choose to go into biology or programming or become an artist but what is the best choice? If i choose art - i will not do science and visa versa. Therefore a choice will always entail an infinity of choices i did not make.
With no one objective truth and the best choice comes a variety of subjective choices that may be perfectly equal in their own way. Which is better art or science? Perhaps that is the key. The subjective expirience and emotions give rise to free will. Perhaps emotions are criterias for rationale. Is it possible then that rationale is not uniform but rather diverse? Is it possible that the existence of one best choice does not exist and thus giving rise to beautiful flower of free will that we all share?

Also as response to predeterminists,

If we are purely biologically and sensationally determined and there is no free will then explain to me why there is such phenomena as people refusing to have sex for religious purposes, people sacrificing themselves out of principles and so on. That goes against both reproduction and survival mechanisms.

That was my biological determinism argument and now my causation argument,

If will is simply a response to a particular cause then what is a response to multiple causes? There seems to be an infinity of environmental causes on the mind. Are you saying we are programmed with infinity of responses that happen upon every possible cause? That seems highly unlikely. It is more likely that we have a faculty in the brain that serves a function of evaluation of the choices and its consequences based on perceived causes from the environment. If you say that our choice is always something our mind is programmed to perceive as "the best" then explain to me why i choose to slack of very often instead of doing certain work that would improve my rank in society, give me access to more potential mates and increase my chances of survival. Why in face of all those possible benefits i still choose to slack of many times? Obviously it is because we can know the best outcome and still choose the inferior.

Thus we have free will.

You enjoy your petty head games, don't you? I find it rather humorous.

I simply stated truth can be anything, then provided an example of a perspective. You will find any way to nitpick me won't you. It must be something personal you have against me - the fact that my lifestyle differs from yours.

Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity.
Calculate what we will or will not tolerate.
Desperate to control all and everything.
Unable to forgive your scarlet lettermen.

Your manipulative ways are getting old dude, and the ego games you like to play are rather obvious now.

Obviously there are problems going on here which call for some solutiions.
I feel we need to dialogue about what is going on. In the spirit of dialogue and for the future of this forum, I am willing to help do what I can to moderate this dialogue.

BTW, I am willing to accept that no solution is possible. So be it!

Anyone, feel free to tell me to buzz off!!!!

Just my observations, that is all... it is only a problem if you perceive it that way. This IS just an internet forum