-
Posts
-
Free will does exist if you go against social structure and go against the law and go against society in general.
Free will is the idea that if unknowingly placed into identical situations a person could make different choices each time. This requires that the brain has functionality outside of its biological and chemical components. The laws of physics dictate that given the same state of molecules, electrons, ect inside of the brain, and given the same environmental input, the brain must always make the same choice. It can never do anything else, it is predetermined by the state of the universe at that point in time. The is no evidence that suggests this isn’t the case.
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
Words from the heart never mean nuffink to you so so clever types how reminded am I why I don’t engage with these types of bollox conversations.
You will now argue banter intelligent words about in order to get one up on eachother and it will just be a who is more clever and knows more than the other crap bullshit conversation trying to impress eachother with who knows more and who has the most valid argument.
so I graciously back out.
I’m thick I should stick to writing crap poetry and not go beyond my limitations
Sits down in the corner waits for continuous one up mans ships.
yawn.
Words from the heart never mean nuffink to you so so clever types how reminded am I why I don’t engage with these types of bollox conversations. You will now argue banter intelligent words about in order to get one up on eachother and it will just be a who is more clever and knows more than the other crap bullshit conversation trying to impress eachother with who knows more and who has the most valid argument. so I graciously back out. I’m thick I should stick to writing crap poetry and not go beyond my limitations Sits down in the corner waits for continuous one up mans ships. yawn.
I haven’t a clue who you are talking to or what you are saying
Define free will.
That’s what my post was …
That a brain in the same state, given the same environmental stimuli would produce different behaviour each or some of the times that those stimuli are applied.
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
If you want to ‘ammend’ the laws of physics, then you need very strong evidence, of why the current laws do not work, what the new laws should be, and why the new laws are correct.
Laws of physics aren’t set in stone and are transient continually being modified through the ages – using them as a template to define if free will exists is a weak argument.
If you want to ‘ammend’ the laws of physics, then you need very strong evidence, of why the current laws do not work, what the new laws should be, and why the new laws are correct.
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
Define free will.
That’s what my post was …
That a brain in the same state, given the same environmental stimuli would produce different behaviour each or some of the times that those stimuli are applied.The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
They have remained fairly constant for a long time now.I’m not sure where you got this idea that they are always changing from.
The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
The laws of physics dictate that the same decision must always be taken, anything else is impossible. You have to prove that the laws of physics are wrong.
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
They have remained fairly constant for a long time now.I’m not sure where you got this idea that they are always changing from.
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!