In a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom.
So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty, or you can only be admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. So the question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all our decisions are really just a charade.
Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those - every part of that process is actually governed by physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on.
So now it just looks like the big bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of human history, and even before, is really just the playing out of subatomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we're special. We think we have some kind of special dignity, but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.
So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's going to enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving. We think we have some kind of special dignity, but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.
So we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons with all that that entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality.
There is no any problem with free will definition. It is an ability to create completely new cause-effect chains in the universe. It have nothing to do with probabilities or whatever. You could imagine universe as an infinite number of cause-effect chains going from past to future. And only those who have free will are able to create new ones. That simple.
You could assume it as kind of superpower humans have.
a) consider being PHONETICIAN (from phonics; sound) or DEAF PHONETICIAN aka one who adapts to perceivable sound or ignores it?
b) can you give me a definition for "no"? What defines nothing?
c) DEFINITE (having certain limits) -TION (action)...explain the limitation of action?
Can you interact with any of the above without utilizing free will "of choice"?
a) CREATION (the act of causing to exist) aka something out of nothing. How could one create without reacting to surrounding to create within?
What if being within (center) implies in response to (surrounding)? Wouldn't that imply perceivable transmutation (out of everything) instead of suggested creationism (out of nothing)?
b) can you show me something complete that isn't in the process of falling apart? How could a partial aka "one among other ones" with free will, create anything complete? If it's complete; then there couldn't exist anything besides it...
c) "new, néwos, now"...what if others suggest "new" to tempt one to ignore perceivable "now"? Can one shape anything "new" without shaping it out of everything existing "now"?
Motion represents the cause (ongoing action) which chains every effect within (temporary reaction) aka CHAIN (fitted into one another; that which binds).
Choice is bound to balance (momentum) through motion...
a) NUM'BER (designation of a unit) + UNIT (Latin unus; one)...aka finite ones (partials) within infinite oneness (whole).
b) others suggest counting to distract one from that; which when consented to, shapes other ones into the counting ones accountants.
This entire post was plagiarized from the movie Waking Life.
Just a shill trying to waste people's time.
Acceptance of plagiarism is consenting to limit your communication/understanding through allowing others to "own" words/ideas. Allowing the few to control the spread and development of said words/ideas. Nowhere did I claim this writing as my own. What is your point?
My point is that you plagiarized and have no thoughts of your own.
Everyone knows their own thoughts. The point of interaction is to hear the thoughts of others.