Do you believe everyone has a Free Mind? - Page 5

**Masked_Felix** · 08-05-2008

What you're talking about and free will are completely different. Changing someone's beliefs, opinions, and preferences doesn't alter free will. Ideology is separate of free will. The fact of the matter is that no matter how radically a choice may change based on information provided, the choices on what to do with that information are present. That is free will. Free will is the ability to be able to choose, even disobedience, though the choice may be decided against due to rationalization. If if you are the product of years of direct manipulation and false instilled beliefs, you can choose anything you wish. All of that information is part of the rationalization process of deciding which choice to pursue. It doesn't null and void the fact that the choice set is there.

Madness · 08-05-2008

But in many cases free will has been restricted by ideology and effectively anulled.

**Masked_Felix** · 08-05-2008

Not annulled, no. Because the ideology is there as part of something to base the choice on, not to replace the choice itself.

Madness · 08-05-2008

That isn't what ideology is. Ideology is a common belief running through society that this is correct. Ideology often forces you to make decisions, and going against it can make you an object of ridicule, sometimes even hatred.

Skrrp · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushimi

Take it from Ockham, most of the time the simplest explanations are the best.

Every time you misquote Ockham, a theoretical physicist kills a kitten.

**Masked_Felix** · 08-05-2008

A common belief is something to base a choice on, is it not? It may have a hand in you rejecting other choices based on projected end result, but the choice is still there.

Madness · 08-05-2008

I don't think you fully understand ideology. It's not something you're aware of. It has been ingrained into you from an early age, and going against them is very hard.

**Masked_Felix** · 08-05-2008

I understand it very well. What you're not getting is that it doesn't matter. The operation of Free Choice may draw on the information and beliefs held by a person in order to rationalize certain choices or reject them, but that doesn't change the fact that the person CAN choose any action or reaction they wish.

In any event, I believe I'm done. I've nearly said the same thing for two pages and I know that it's only going to continually spiral from here, since just about anything else you can concoct or introduce, the same answers still suffice. The solution is that basic.

Madness · 08-05-2008

Ideology doesn't matter? My god man.

I agree. This isn't going anywhere. We should just quit.

Kurushimi · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrrp

Every time you misquote Ockham, a theoretical physicist kills a kitten.

Didn't he say the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is most likely correct?

Edit: Looked it up

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Instead trying to get all deep an philosophical, can't you just see the obvious? Different people react differently to different influences. Because they think differently. They each decide to do what they feel is best for themselves (or if their a giving person, best for someone else). The fact that things have influence on your decision...is completely irrelevant when it comes to free will. If nothing ever had influence on our decision at all, we'd be dead. We take into account the information we get, which then influences us to make the best choice. We could always decide not to make the best. To ignore everything we see and hear. But that'd be kind of retarded. =/

Skrrp · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushimi

Didn't he say the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is most likely correct?

That's not what you said just up the page, but even if you did; no, he did not.

Over time, people have merged the famous Holmes quote with that of Ockham and wildly attributed it to him.

Note that what you said is what most people generally believe to be the quote, but most people believing the grass was blue would not make it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

It has nothing at all to do with deducing or proving that the simplest answers are truth, only that the search for truth should not be hindered by unnecessary assumptions and complication.

Kurushimi · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrrp

That's not what you said just up the page, but even if you did; no, he did not.

Sorry, I simplified it.

Quote:

It has nothing at all to do with deducing or proving that the simplest answers are truth, only that the search for truth should not be hindered by unnecessary assumptions and complication.

Mm 'kay. I still don't see how you could deny you make your own choices.

Quick question, though. Where are you getting this information from?

Skrrp · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushimi

Mm 'kay. I still don't see how you could deny you make your own choices.

I'm not quite sure that I have argued this point. I have argued the evils of advertising (lying through omission, being dishonest), but if I have argued that stance I don't remember (though I don't remember a lot of things I do while drunk).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushimi

Quick question, though. Where are you getting this information from?

Maybe the quote just above the sentence in question. And let's not start the 'Wiki is crap' thing. If you want to do that, pick apart one of their articles for me, using quotes and sources.

Kurushimi · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrrp

I'm not quite sure that I have argued this point. I have argued the evils of advertising (lying through omission, being dishonest), but if I have argued that stance I don't remember (though I don't remember a lot of things I do while drunk).

To tell you the truth...neither do I. ;>_>

But do you agree that we have a free mind, then?

Quote:

Maybe the quote just above the sentence in question. And let's not start the 'Wiki is crap' thing. If you want to do that, pick apart one of their articles for me, using quotes and sources.

Wiki is reliable as long as it has sources that check out.

Anyways, if you think about it, what's the difference really? He says that explanations shouldn't be hindered by unnecessary assumptions. Why? Because the more assumptions you make, the better chance you get of being wrong. Thus the explanation with fewer assumptions (i.e. the simpler one) will have a better chance of being correct.

08-05-2008	#61 (permalink)
Masked_Felix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Randland Posts: 4,070 Rep Power: 104	Re: Do you believe everyone has a Free Mind? What you're talking about and free will are completely different. Changing someone's beliefs, opinions, and preferences doesn't alter free will. Ideology is separate of free will. The fact of the matter is that no matter how radically a choice may change based on information provided, the choices on what to do with that information are present. That is free will. Free will is the ability to be able to choose, even disobedience, though the choice may be decided against due to rationalization. If if you are the product of years of direct manipulation and false instilled beliefs, you can choose anything you wish. All of that information is part of the rationalization process of deciding which choice to pursue. It doesn't null and void the fact that the choice set is there. __________________

08-05-2008	#63 (permalink)
Masked_Felix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Randland Posts: 4,070 Rep Power: 104	Re: Do you believe everyone has a Free Mind? Not annulled, no. Because the ideology is there as part of something to base the choice on, not to replace the choice itself. __________________

08-05-2008	#66 (permalink)
Masked_Felix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Randland Posts: 4,070 Rep Power: 104	Re: Do you believe everyone has a Free Mind? A common belief is something to base a choice on, is it not? It may have a hand in you rejecting other choices based on projected end result, but the choice is still there. __________________

08-05-2008	#68 (permalink)
Masked_Felix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Randland Posts: 4,070 Rep Power: 104	Re: Do you believe everyone has a Free Mind? I understand it very well. What you're not getting is that it doesn't matter. The operation of Free Choice may draw on the information and beliefs held by a person in order to rationalize certain choices or reject them, but that doesn't change the fact that the person CAN choose any action or reaction they wish. In any event, I believe I'm done. I've nearly said the same thing for two pages and I know that it's only going to continually spiral from here, since just about anything else you can concoct or introduce, the same answers still suffice. The solution is that basic. __________________

08-06-2008	#75 (permalink)
Skrrp (16) Master of Kaio-ken Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wales Posts: 625 Rep Power: 53