Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Discussion on freewill with friends.

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:34 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2025, 12:04 PM
Ex-Muslims on Mythvision ...
by zeca
November 02, 2025, 07:58 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 02, 2025, 09:14 AM
ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
October 30, 2025, 08:24 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 23, 2025, 06:54 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM
New Britain
October 21, 2025, 01:10 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM
What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM
Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Discussion on freewill with friends.

 (Read 22970 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #150 - November 22, 2010, 01:53 AM
    I'm not asking about your interactions with them, more how they fundamentally differ from you. I'm a little confused, is "I", that is - you, one monad?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #151 - November 22, 2010, 01:56 AM
    They don't fundamentally differ from me. The monad that is me is the same monad that joins with countless others to make up a book for instance. The difference is that I, as a monad, receive a far more complex causal representation of the world from my body than the book does from the world and so my level of freedom is far greater and my ability to self-cause events is far greater too.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #152 - November 22, 2010, 01:58 AM
    So which monad in your body is you? :/
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #153 - November 22, 2010, 02:03 AM
    The one that is my experience. I think you are starting in the wrong place, you are taking the body as a given and trying to fit experience into it. However, it is your experience that is a given and your body is just a conceptual construct that is used to explain your interactions with the world.
    When I refer to 'my body', I do not mean this collection of nerves and veins and fibres, I mean the apparatus through which my experience causally interacts with the rest of the world. The a posteriori abstract notion of "body" as a biological entity is not really under discussion. I do not really care for the biology involved because this isn't a scientific discussion. We are trying to see how experience can have freedom to choose its interactions with the world, with the experience of choice as a given - everything follows from there.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #154 - November 22, 2010, 02:11 AM
    I just don't see how you can say that the monad that is you is not fundamentally different from a monad that is in 'your body'. There seems to be a world of difference. I accept the ubiquity of science. Everything is made up of the same physics, but I also thinkcertain arrangements of that physics gives rise to properties that other arrangements don't have. It just seems kind of convenient to divide the system so that you, ultimately, are a part/portion of it and then claim every other portion is the same. Perhaps if you made it more clear what 'you' actually are...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #155 - November 22, 2010, 02:25 AM
    I don't understand your question. The difference between monads is in the causal influence other monads have upon me. I have a greater influence upon me, by virtue of having a body of monads, than a simple book or part of my body and thus have a greater freedom in which to act.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #156 - November 22, 2010, 02:27 AM
    Ok and, say, a monad that is in your hand, does it have an equally strong causal influence over your body?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #157 - November 22, 2010, 02:32 AM
    No, because that monad is not receiving the complexity of sounds/ sights/ emotions/ memories/ smells that I am receiving. That monad is only receiving the causal influence of touch and upon completion of its experiential process, it becomes an object for me as final causal decision to transmit that sensation.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #158 - November 22, 2010, 02:32 AM
    z10 interesting posts as usual. So you think this monad/unit of "Self" is one absolute that is fragmented and identifying individually etc ?

    Do you think there is room for exploring this concept on a philosophical and perhaps bringing it even into science, Monotheistically?

    I'm interested in this because in Vaishnavism, Monotheism collapsed into Panentheism/Panentheistic-ish due to interpretation of scriptures.

    In the Quran this verse is Monistic/Panentheistic

    "And indeed We have created man, and We know whatever thoughts his inner self develops, and We are closer to him than (his) jugular vein," [50:16]
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #159 - November 22, 2010, 02:34 AM
    Yes, lm, I think this metaphysical system can provide a basis for having a pantheistic/ panentheistic view. After all, as I am the monad that is the final subject of all of my body's monads, then there is no reason not to think that the cosmos as a whole can function as one monad too.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #160 - November 22, 2010, 02:35 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 22, 2010, 02:32 AM
    No, because that monad is not receiving the complexity of sounds/ sights/ emotions/ memories/ smells that I am receiving. That monad is only receiving the causal influence of touch and upon completion of its experiential process, it becomes an object for me as final causal decision to transmit that sensation.


    This you (the monad that you refer to as 'I') is it a fundamental entity of the world or can it be divided/simplified?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #161 - November 22, 2010, 02:36 AM
    Yes, I would say that this monad is the fundamental entity of reality.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #162 - November 22, 2010, 02:37 AM
    And if you were a different monad, say that in your hand, how would your experience of the world differ?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #163 - November 22, 2010, 02:39 AM
    I think I explained that above.  Smiley
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #164 - November 22, 2010, 02:42 AM
    The word 'convenience' is jumping out at me like mad. Tongue But maybe I should remember the anthropic principle, or at least its general point...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #165 - November 22, 2010, 02:44 AM
    Hmm, are there other monads with an equivalent level of causal influence over your body as you? or do you have the most (influence)?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #166 - November 22, 2010, 02:45 AM
    Well, of course, every theory that attempts to explain everything will want everything to fit into its conceptual scheme conveniently and efficiently. I don't know if this theory is correct, but it explains human agency better than any other theory that I've come across.

    And no, seeing as I am the monad that sits atop the pyramid (a vague analogy) then there can be no other.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #167 - November 22, 2010, 02:51 AM
    Do you think its possible to differentiate between an action committed by another person for which the 'top' monad is ultimately responsible and one for which another monad is (ultimately) responsible?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #168 - November 22, 2010, 02:53 AM
    How would that be possible? Seeing as I am not the subject in that case I cannot know how the experiential process plays out with any sort of certainty.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #169 - November 22, 2010, 02:56 AM
    Well then I think we only differ in the sense that I consider the top of the pyramid rather flatter than a single vertex/point.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #170 - November 22, 2010, 02:59 AM
    I think the theory that I am outlining will have every monad as a vertex of its own experience.
    How do you propose this flatness to be?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #171 - November 22, 2010, 03:10 AM
    That's the million dollar question isn't it.

    Perhaps a collection of monads that together create a sort of illusory vertex which would disappear if one (or, more likely perhaps, a significant number) of them were to be removed. This illusory vertex would have the same proporties as the "I" that you outlined but it is virtual... it is a different entity to the monads which are on their own single 'vertexes of experiences'.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #172 - November 22, 2010, 03:28 AM
    So basically you are saying that you agree with my theory but you think that the specifics of it are merely conceptual and not ontologically real? I would agree with that, because I'm not sure how it is possible to distinguish between the two with any sort of certainty.
    I will however say that it seems to me that the vertex is an ontological entity because that way every atomic decision can be accounted for. If all the monads however are just seen as one process without any atomicity involved it is difficult to sidestep the fact that I am making choices with every experience.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #173 - November 22, 2010, 03:34 AM
    I am not fond of atomicity. :/
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #174 - November 22, 2010, 03:38 AM
    Neither am I, but if I am just one process and not a collection of processes that have begun and ended then it is difficult to see how it is that I am making decisions. After all to self cause, it seems logical that an experience has to come to an end and a new experience has to start after choice. And thus atomicity.
    Processual metaphysicians like Rescher have had the same problem with atomicity that Whitehead introduced but they haven't been able to come up with as clear a system of agency and choice as Whitehead so I would favour the Whiteheadian view.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #175 - November 22, 2010, 03:40 AM
    Maybe you aren't making decisions after all?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #176 - November 22, 2010, 03:41 AM
    That is a possibility ofcoure. This theory is attempting to show how it is possible to make decisions given that those decisions are being made.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #177 - November 22, 2010, 03:44 AM
    Hmm. Well I can't see how true decisions could be made without atomicity either....
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #178 - November 22, 2010, 03:45 AM
    Ofcourse, atomicity doesn't imply that reality is of seperate parts instead of one whole unity. All it implies is how that unity functions.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #179 - November 22, 2010, 03:50 AM
    So if we are taking the Universe as one deterministic structure (one atom if you will), then parts of it cannot make decisions. If indeterminism holds true... then, given what I've concluded about will/free-will, I can't actually see an alternative to your theory...

    What options aren't I covering here?
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »