[subversion]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

When the ancient philosopher Socrates took the poison or the pre-existentialist Nietzsche's self-induced mental collapse, were they all exercising their free will?

Who knows. Because time never happened again, we cannot say can we? Thus again I will state that the argument is a matter of belief and concerns the axiom of choice which says that you can choose but any choice you make is equally valid and will not change the truth.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

Spacetime or a view from the "outside" does not have a reality. It is a tool to explain General Relativity. Reality lives within, in between the stars with us, as Quantum Mechanics. The concept of the "spacetime loaf" has helped us envision the flexibility of the spacial canvas and how it is connected to a time arrow, but we need to let go of it, if we want to unify GR and QM.
By letting go the outside view, the impossible angle that does not exist, you will come to the conclusion that nothing is pre-determined. Time does not exist as a static entity. If nothing is pre-determined than free will is not an illusion.
Free will means cognitive decisions with derivable motivations, but without true cause. I chose to write this and no law in the universe can trace the intent of my writings. There are solely a product of my interlect and proof of my existence as autonom. However, we do interact and live in accordance to rules that formed to serve the next higher order, the society. Societies possess a consciousness and live as more than the sum of their parts not unlike the conglomeration of your cells that make the You. Societies compete, unite and wage wars until one day, one uniform culture will emerge (the internet)
Indeterminism exists as the random fluctuations of energy fields, they exit that fog and step onto our stage of reality and are exposed to competition, a war of attrition to serve the struggle against entropy as they evolved to form the structures we see.

I beg for you to clarify. How is it that you think you have proven free will simply by ignoring an "outside" view? I am tempted to think that ignorance does not yield insight.

[baudrunner]

The fact of whether we have free will should never be questioned in the first place. The fact that we all understand why it is questioned only reflects the subjugation which mankind has been under over a history where millions of years into the evolution of his being and almost one thousand years ago men were still arguing over the divine rights of kings. The process of democracy has given uis more free will than ever before in history but it appears that most of this world has yet a long, long way to go. Even though, it is illegal to whistle a tune in some places in the U.S.

[Mr. Nobody]

The modern recurrence of strict pre-determinism as a philosophy, to my knowledge, can be traced to the term "spacetime" as the object. If spacetime is strictly viewed and misinterpreted as one object, as one thing, than the past, present and future is represented at once within that object and choices become meaningless.
Ignorance as used above alludes to the fact that there is something to see, that there is something big at work behind the scenes, that there is an obvious truth but that we are all helpless subjects to an illusion with the exception of a few who can see their life as a futile struggle against an inevitable pre-determined outcome
Well, if this is the case, than I am proud to be ignorant with my illusion of free will.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by subversion

here's my strange theory about objectivity vs. subjectivity

Subjectivity is really the only true and absolute objectivity. The reason is because life is designed as the ultimate judge of reality. For example, let's say you lived in a world where everybody suffered. Well, to a degree we do live in this world, I mean, things could theoretically be better right? We think so, but how do we even know any better if it doesn't exist objectively in our world. Because it simply doesn't exist but only in potential as an idea, objectively it is technically bullshit. But it's not bullshit, so in this way our minds override the objects that are currently in place. Subjects override objects because subjects create objects as thoughts.

Let me put it this way, if everybody suffered daily then objectively this would be considered not suffering, because it would be commonplace. Yet humans would still be able to ascribe to some sort of non-objective reality (i.e. subjectivity) and thus be able to say that this is not normal, this is suffering. Only then could we reach beyond and transcend what is our objective circumstances to be able to understand that there could be something better in our "subjective" yet absolute opinions. Therefore subjectivity is the only true absolute and thus is the only way to see the non-objectivity, i.e. non absolution of objectivity. If you ascribe complete absolution to objectivity, you will not see that this itself is subjective. Does this make sense? So in other words all we really want is an absolute standpoint, and since we are subjects the only absolute standpoint we can ever have is subjectivity, and thus in this absolute sense subjectivity is not subjective at all in the classic sense but is really the only true objectivity. So objectivity is just a word for pure absolute subjectivity. I'm not sure if I described myself well, but do you understand?

What can I say? This is very intelligent. (The way you explain it; I think everybody knows it's true).
I think you have the TOI.

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by subversion

here's my strange theory about objectivity vs. subjectivity

Subjectivity is really the only true and absolute objectivity. The reason is because life is designed as the ultimate judge of reality. ...

...

So objectivity is just a word for pure absolute subjectivity. I'm not sure if I described myself well, but do you understand?

I like it. Subjectively, I mean. It's dialectic and that wakes me up, and I go oooh, I like that.

Objectively, I have no idea why I like it. Once I discover that I like it, I no longer care about being objective - too busy enjoying the oooh, and that is just a mechanics. Because dialectics somehow pushes all my buttons.

This very mechanicalness means I have no choice, doesn't it?

Anyway, I still like it. And I do not think I am able to be objective once I am sure I "like" it, because subjective connection disconnects any objectivity.

Maybe.

[Robert]

Here's a thread titled Free Will vs Determinism and also includes a public poll so you can officially state your position. This might make some good background reading for tomorrow's chat. See you there!

[Guille]

Hi, I'm back! Happy new year: 2006! I've been in the Dominican Republic (Carribean Sea) for a week, and I couldn't come to TOE quest in all that time. I'm back to Spain now, with lots of energy but also lots of things to do. I'll be on the chat if I manage not to sleep: the time zone difference is distorting.

Great topic by the way, and interesting theories from many.

[Mike 5]

Originally Posted by Robert

... chat sessions are usually scheduled every other Saturday at 3pm (CST). They are usually moderated with a chat transcript available for later review.

We'll meet in Flash Chatroom. Hope to see you there!

Flash in the pan chatroom more like. clearly wormholes in the quantum fabric of space and time contrived to fry my laptop - Crusoe processor. Less than 1kg less than 1cm thick BUT, not up to the pressure of the combined brain power here...

Nice to giggle with all you guys by the way, a real sense of community, tribal, kayotic (Isn't that some shamanic drug), surreal, all pretending to be mentally sane!

I very much doubt everything I can, it amuses me to doubt, and question, and wonder, but perhaps I should spend my saturday evenings lapdancing or something instead.

Life? I'm off to Bangkok probably, Phnom Penh, New York, Ibiza, maybe California, then again, Brazil, I don't know - but FREE WILL? Nope. I'll have none of it.

Honoured to have appeared to have free will with some strangely dressed people.

Ciao. For now.

PS: talking of my laptop frying, MICHELLE wherefore wer thou? It all got so macho in there, like a bloody gay sauna, Carly was there but we all know that's just Robert in a miniskirt.

[harmonygirl]

Maybe free will is a necessary illusion. Wouldn't we all go squirrely if we truly believed that there was no real choice? I don't know if I believe that order and chaos are distinct. To me, the Mandelbrot set (sp?) unified the chaos of nature. Sorry I missed this discussion.