Would that require also same time? I assume you only mean same event, same material things,? But how about time????? Two event cannot occur at the very same place at the very same time, IMpermeability...

Or does time effect at all or not at all?

It's an impossible scenario from the beginning: there can be no one exactly like you, and much less living your exact same experiences. So let's rephrase the question: if you were born again in the exact same place and at the exact same time; would you be in the exact same place you are now?

In essence we are all hardwired and programmed to be pleasure seekers and pain avoiders. Every decision we make is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; just that we all have different ideas of happiness and how to get there in short and long run.

Free will would imply that we can deviate from that path. Can we?

 

Free will would imply that we can deviate from that path. Can we?

We can make choices knowing we will hurt ourselves because of some upside down belief,
and can also make choices that don't lead to pleasure... seemingly selfless acts.

What I don't think we can escape
is the evaluation of day to day choices based on our beliefs
leading to the same set of choices over and over.

 

We can make choices knowing we will hurt ourselves because of some upside down belief,
and can also make choices that don't lead to pleasure... seemingly selfless acts.

Yes, that's true; but when we hurt ourselves it's always with a purpose; it's because we think it would avoid us greater pain or provide us greater pleasure in the long run. For example: in terms of beliefs, a priest makes some sacrifices in life because he believes that will granted him an eternity in heaven. And in terms of selfless acts, that's in itself what's providing the pleasure; for example: if you give to the poor it will make you feel better and will also alleviate the pain of seeing them suffering.

What I don't think we can escape
is the evaluation of day to day choices based on our beliefs
leading to the same set of choices over and over.

Then, that implies that there is no free will; doesn't it? If we are destined/programmed/predisposed to do certain things, to make certain choices, how can there be free will?

 

Then, that implies that there is no free will; doesn't it? If we are destined/programmed/predisposed to do certain things, to make certain choices, how can there be free will?

I wouldn't say that. Arriving at the same outcome does not imply you had no free will. It just means your own choices (based on free will) happened to lead you to the same end.

I'm not sure that's quite what Art was saying, but it's a point we might want to consider. Seemingly opposite choices made through free will may still lead to the exact same outcome.

 

I wouldn't say that. Arriving at the same outcome does not imply you had no free will. It just means your own choices (based on free will) happened to lead you to the same end.

I'm not sure that's quite what Art was saying, but it's a point we might want to consider. Seemingly opposite choices made through free will may still lead to the exact same outcome.

Not sure I understand your point. If the outcome is always predictable; where is the free will?

 

So, how should the poll results be interpretted.

If we don't have free will, then people don't have a choice in whether they said they believe in free will or not. I choose not to participate in self-selective polls -- but do I have really have a choice in chooing not to do so?

Then consider that this thread has over 300 views but only 12 votes cast in the poll. On what basis can it be claimed that the 12 votes in any way are indicative of the views of any group other than the self-evidently non-representative group of people that chose to participate in the poll?

Self-selective polls not only are meaningless, they produce negative information because they tend to make you believe you have learned something when you haven't.

 

So, how should the poll results be interpretted.

If we don't have free will, then people don't have a choice in whether they said they believe in free will or not. I choose not to participate in self-selective polls -- but do I have really have a choice in chooing not to do so?

Then consider that this thread has over 300 views but only 12 votes cast in the poll. On what basis can it be claimed that the 12 votes in any way are indicative of the views of any group other than the self-evidently non-representative group of people that chose to participate in the poll?

Self-selective polls not only are meaningless, they produce negative information because they tend to make you believe you have learned something when you haven't.

The poll is intended only for knowing whose members voted for "Yes" or "No" in the question "Do you believe in Free Will"? Under no circumstances shall the results be used a statistical data. There will be members who will say Yes, or No. so let's just segregate 'em. This is kind of debate... So we should know whose saying yes or No... .. BTW, the votes represent NOT the whole AAC, but rather the indivuals of AAC debating....

The bold part is what I want to hear. Now, what if I say is that, "I am destined to ask this question."

btw, pure altruism... seems to cannot be happened. For every action, there is a motivation???

 

Why can't altruism be the motivation?

 

Why can't altruism be the motivation?

Now, i ask you how can altruism be the motivation?

In my opinion, altruism is the end product of a certain motivation [at least in our discussion], maybe reward or self-satisfaction.

In adam555 example,

Yes, that's true; but when we hurt ourselves it's always with a purpose; it's because we think it would avoid us greater pain or provide us greater pleasure in the long run. For example: in terms of beliefs, a priest makes some sacrifices in life because he believes that will granted him an eternity in heaven. And in terms of selfless acts, that's in itself what's providing the pleasure; for example: if you give to the poor it will make you feel better and will also alleviate the pain of seeing them suffering.


ex 1)
Motivation: he believes that will granted him an eternity in heaven

Reaction: a priest makes some sacrifices in life [altruism]

ex 2)

Motivation: you feel better and will also alleviate the pain of seeing them [poor]suffering

Reaction: you give to the poor [altruism]



But I don't know, in this thread, altruism is the reaction or WHAT WE DO because of a certain motivation. Maybe altruism can also be A MOTIVATION to a certain reaction...

Motivation: Altruism (e.g. you want to give to the poor, etc)

Reaction: You build a charity/foundation (for the giving to be easy)

 

ADDITION: Oh, I already answered my question: "Now, i ask you how can altruism be the motivation?"

anyways, no one said that altruism can't be the motivation.

 

And, shock of all shocks, sometimes people do something simply because they believe it is the right thing to do and/or because they believe they have a moral obligation to do it. Whether they will be punished or rewarded is irrelevant. Whether they will feel good or bad is irrelevant. They simply believe they have a moral obligation to do what they believe is the right thing.

 

Again according to adam555,

"when we hurt ourselves it's always with a purpose; it's because we think it would avoid us greater pain or provide us greater pleasure in the long run."

Although adam555 said "when we hurt", but I think he also suggests it doesn't matter if you're hurt or not.

Moral obligation? Like what? Hmmm, raising your kids well? Oh, even if you would not like it, and you still do. Right? That's because

1)it's because we think it would avoid us greater pain

—we do not want to be told that we are worthless parents, that we are evil, that we do not have the capability. Hence we're avoiding pain, though not physical pain, but emotional and mental. SO we AVOID.

2) provide us greater pleasure in the long run.

—maybe we see our kids as only asset. I mean our kid's going to be the next President of the USA, so we should raise him/her well so that we'll be showered with his FUTURE blessings when we grew up. Our motivation here is that we'll be rich, powerful, because our kid's going to be the next pres. and we ANTICIPATE that

3)BOTH 1 and 2

 

Not sure I understand your point. If the outcome is always predictable; where is the free will?

Don't confuse the ends with the means. Free will has to do with the means, but destiny has to do with the ends. You can have a "destiny" while still having "free will". And I am not saying the outcome is predictable. Just saying that it may be your purpose in life, so to speak, and you won't know it until you get there.

Now, I'm not saying that's my personal view, regarding destiny. All I'm saying is that sometimes the outcomes can be the same, regardless of the choices you make.

 

And, shock of all shocks, sometimes people do something simply because they believe it is the right thing to do and/or because they believe they have a moral obligation to do it. Whether they will be punished or rewarded is irrelevant. Whether they will feel good or bad is irrelevant. They simply believe they have a moral obligation to do what they believe is the right thing.

I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, sometimes we do things without expecting a reward and without any coercion; as you say, we just do it because it's the right thing to do. But doing the right thing is in itself the reward. When we do the right thing we feel better with ourselves, we get some satisfaction out of it and we get rid of the pain that the doubt and guilt produce in us.

 

I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, sometimes we do things without expecting a reward and without any coercion; as you say, we just do it because it's the right thing to do. But doing the right thing is in itself the reward. When we do the right thing we feel better with ourselves, we get some satisfaction out of it and we get rid of the pain that the doubt and guilt produce in us.

But sometimes doing the right thing produces more pain and guilt than doing the wrong thing -- or doing nothing at at all -- wouild produce. Many people choose the wrong thing -- or nothing at all. But not all. Some still do the right thing even then.

 

I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, sometimes we do things without expecting a reward and without any coercion; as you say, we just do it because it's the right thing to do. But doing the right thing is in itself the reward. When we do the right thing we feel better with ourselves, we get some satisfaction out of it and we get rid of the pain that the doubt and guilt produce in us.

I would disagree.

No matter the action or not every single thing we do has an underlying self based intention behind it.

Selfless act? Nope. Just wanting a feel good plus hoping the act gives me positive credit in the afterlife.

Doing something physically or emotionally painful to oneself? Nope. Just trying to avoid the potential for worse possibilities later.

Sacrificing your life for that of your children? No again. Just making sure your genetic offspring have a chance to go forth and multiply thusly spreading your genes out.

Sacrificing your life for a strager? Still no. You want to go out being seen as a hero instead of a burden plus are really hoping that this will buy you a good ticket into the afterlife.

Hurting someone else to prevent further pain for them later? Not really. Self awareness and personal experience of having been in those situations or having deal with someone going through it and all their fussing whining complained and whatnot just make you want to lessen it so you or someone else doesn't have to listen and deal with that **** later like you did before. Basic preservation and appreciation of peace.

 

http://phys.org/news186830615.html


"...Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the

University of Pennsylvania​

, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces."


"...Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the

University of Pennsylvania​

, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces."

"...Vitalism was discarded more than 100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that biological systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special biological laws for living things."

“I would like to convince biologists that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism (or, as I say, a belief in magic),” Cashmore told


My question:

1) Do you believe in Free Will?

2) Are there really random? If so, what is cause-and-effect?

3) Is the event of scientists arguing this kind of stuff been predetermined before?

Thanks!~

I believe this is a dumb question !

Do I believe in Free Willy ? ...... Yep , it was a decent movie !

 

I would disagree.

No matter the action or not every single thing we do has an underlying self based intention behind it.

Selfless act? Nope. Just wanting a feel good plus hoping the act gives me positive credit in the afterlife.

Doing something physically or emotionally painful to oneself? Nope. Just trying to avoid the potential for worse possibilities later.

Sacrificing your life for that of your children? No again. Just making sure your genetic offspring have a chance to go forth and multiply thusly spreading your genes out.

Sacrificing your life for a strager? Still no. You want to go out being seen as a hero instead of a burden plus are really hoping that this will buy you a good ticket into the afterlife.

Hurting someone else to prevent further pain for them later? Not really. Self awareness and personal experience of having been in those situations or having deal with someone going through it and all their fussing whining complained and whatnot just make you want to lessen it so you or someone else doesn't have to listen and deal with that **** later like you did before. Basic preservation and appreciation of peace.

I don't see how any of that is different from the point I'm trying to make. As I said before, we all have a different idea of what will be more beneficial for us at the end, but whatever path we choose is always due the the fact that we think it will be the one that would be the less painful and the most pleasurable -whether physical or emotional-.

But sometimes doing the right thing produces more pain and guilt than doing the wrong thing -- or doing nothing at at all -- wouild produce. Many people choose the wrong thing -- or nothing at all. But not all. Some still do the right thing even then.

I don't think anyone would ever consciously choose to do something that would end in greater pain than pleasure. So, if someone does the wrong thing, or does nothing, it's because he judges it will be more beneficial or convenient for him either in the short or the long run. Maybe we personally think he's right, and maybe we think he's wrong; but his judgment is always based on that balance between pain and pleasure.

Therefore, if we are hardwired by our nature and programmed by our life experiences and the environment to always choose what we judge will overall give us more pleasure and avoid us the greater pain, even though different people make that call in different ways, how can we say that we have free will?

 

It is pretty clear that Man has never been able to live alone, mostly out of necessity of life, and therefore has inherited or acquired tribal tendencies.
The formation of a tribe (country) and the necessary formulation of laws and standards results in the some kind of restriction to individual behavior.
Therefore although we have the ability to reason, we cannot exercise our will as we please, we are subject to the decisions made by the group as a whole.
Even in so called free and democratic countries, whose group behavior has been outlined in some kind of constitution or in the absence of this, formulated by common law for example.
Ironically, tribalism can result in group endorsed actions that are contradictory to will, namely taking the life of another person, the majority of individual humans and human societies in general place very high value on individual life and have severe punishment for the taking of another life, and this is reinforced by most religious credo's where religion is used to re-enforce the tribal bonds.
But if one looks at a very short period of human evolution, namely the 20th century, just in this 100yrs it is estimated that between 200 and 300 million people died at the hands of other human beings in what can only be called tribal conflicts.
So it would appear obvious that the surviving population was on the whole responsible for carrying out this taking of life.
Therefore the conclusion might be drawn that this tribalism is a necessary part of human evolution, and therefore are instances where the taking of life against ones will is necessary for the survival of the Tribe?
Max.

 

I don't see how any of that is different from the point I'm trying to make. As I said before, we all have a different idea of what will be more beneficial for us at the end, but whatever path we choose is always due the the fact that we think it will be the one that would be the less painful and the most pleasurable -whether physical or emotional-.



I don't think anyone would ever consciously choose to do something that would end in greater pain than pleasure. So, if someone does the wrong thing, or does nothing, it's because he judges it will be more beneficial or convenient for him either in the short or the long run. Maybe we personally think he's right, and maybe we think he's wrong; but his judgment is always based on that balance between pain and pleasure.

Therefore, if we are hardwired by our nature and programmed by our life experiences and the environment to always choose what we judge will overall give us more pleasure and avoid us the greater pain, even though different people make that call in different ways, how can we say that we have free will?

You are making an assumption and assertion about how people make decisions that precludes the notion of free will and then using that to form a conclusion that people don't have free will. A completely circular line of reasoning.