NipNip wrote: » I agree with the first two levels. Not so sure about the third level!
.jacksparrow. wrote: » Nice response to a thought provoking topic!
NipNip wrote: » I recall having a similar discussion with my best friend many moons ago. She went on to study philosophy. I believe she now works with balloons in Australia somewhere. Believe me, she would find this introduction to her hilarious. I also don't believe we have free will. It's like expecting a molecule of water to know where it's going to end up when it is exposed to heat at a certain degree in a set container. Which begs the question, why do the lotto balls not always end up in the same place and get picked out in the same sequence everytime, when they are released into the drum in the same time/ space sequence every time? I think my physics teacher finally concluded that I was in fact thick, when I couldn't understand her response to that one lol.
Snowpavlova wrote: » The lotto balls don't end up in the same position every time because the conditions are different every time. The air molecules inside the drum are bouncing around differently, the balls are slightly different atomically etc etc.
NipNip wrote: » So if I knew enough about the air conditions etc at the time, and had listened intently at physics class, I could predict what balls would come out? Like life, just 42 balls and already too many variables
Snowpavlova wrote: » The actual thought processes you are having right now we're always going to happen just this way.
NipNip wrote: » My argument at the time was that the speed of the balls being released into the drum should be enough to make the variances in conditions negligible. This is the point she gave up on me haha! Same teacher argued that physics was useful in playing golf. What a load of balls!
Reg'stoy wrote: » He had no choice but to post his comment according to you jack, therefore you can't rebuke him for it. If as ye both claim, all this is simply us following some script, then there is no point to the thread. Neuroscience shows us that the brain and mind are one in the same and the majority of 'decisions' made are done by the unconscious portion of our brains. The majority of the time the unconscious is acting upon experiences learned. To say we are simply devoid of any randomness in our daily lives goes against the chaos theory and as for the non existence of 'time' entropy for me shows the passage of time. A cup falls and breaks, the universe is moving forward to a state of ultimate disorder. I will chose to go out based on a number of random factors, weather, money even my choice of clothing is based on random events. The keys I hit to type this sentence is based on me trying to articulate my ideas, the level of my education or lack of limits my vocabulary and so changes the keys I've used. Granted the number of decisions choices etc that we make and assume are done consciously are few but to say that the unconscious is somehow preordained is over simplifying our world and the experiences both learned and genetically inherited.
Snowpavlova wrote: » Nothing is really random, for example the only reason you don't know which side of dice will land upwards facing is that you don't understand the conduits and interactions well enough.
Snowpavlova wrote: » It's something that was always going to happen, make of that what you will.
Hotfail.com wrote: » But only one thing can ever happen? But I could have chosen to do something else if I wanted to. Is the argument here really that because you can only choose to do one thing at a specific time that it's impossible you could ever have chosen to do otherwise?
ressem wrote: » Newton had his view of a clockwork universe but it's not really true. Supercomputers are needed just to make better estimates at modelling a lump of decaying radioactive metal. A stray cosmic particle emitted thousands of years ago from another part of the galaxy and striking a vulnerable piece of electronics can incentivise me to travel a hundred KM tomorrow. The path of that ray is influenced by so many factors, turbulences and unsolvable mathematical equations that it really is unknowable. And that's trivial to thousands of years of accumulated interactions of 800 billion neurons with 7000 interconnections multiplied by billions of people and how any of their behaviour can be altered by a drop of rain or a noticed shadow and any of the collisions that have happened in the past. If you are exposed, even by one of these happenstances, to something that your brain retains, like a lesson in self control then it can have cause you to choose a different option than you would previously. Others can observe your likelihood to choose this option and make a guesstimate about whether you will choose this option in future and change their own actions due to more or less trust in you.
Snowpavlova wrote: » You're missing the point, no one is saying that we can ever know what will happen as it's far too complex, but what will happen is predetermined nevertheless.
Snowpavlova wrote: » That decision was a product of interact of molecules in your head, unless you have the ability to periodically change the laws of physics you were always going to make that decision.
debit2credit wrote: » Please explain why the decision was a product of (I.e. caused) by the interaction of the molecules? Please note I don't deny that 'molecules' interact in the brain when decisions are made.
.jacksparrow. wrote: » Spot on! I think it gives me peace of mind knowing whatever happens was always gonna happen, just sit back and enjoy the ride!!
Hotfail.com wrote: » Is there any proof of this? Like I said, only one thing can ever happen at a specific point in time.. So you can easily say it's all predetermined because of that, but is there actually any proof that I couldn't have made a different decision?
NipNip wrote: » I could tell you, but a brain cell would die per milli second
debit2credit wrote: » Are you predetermined to give sarky replies? :pac:
Snowpavlova wrote: » What do you think causes your thought processes to take place? Does it just occur independent of an rational cause and effect?
