Ok, I see what you mean. You're talking about the difference between ...

1) creating physical matter/energy that can be perceived by others,

and

2)simply rearranging existing matter.


Whatever my beliefs on that may be, I can hardly argue the issue. I don't believe I've ever met anyone who can do that.


So let's drop back a bit.


How would the concept of a "mental image" fit into the free will/creation issue?

When we "imagine", we usually create "mental images" in our minds (sloppy semantics I know). We can create and discard these mental images at will.

This is truly "bringing something forth from nothing". Not only that, when the image is discarded, it is completely destroyed. It's not dissolved into it's components. It is completely vanished - "something into nothing".

We are "free" to create and/or destroy these mental images at "will". This ability is always present, regardless of the open or closed nature of any systems or sets.

To me, this is the most conclusive demonstration of free will and the true nature of creation.

Well as I said before, it's pretty obvious that we're coming at the whole issue from diametrical postulates.

But as you say, we can each "call it what we may".

The proof is in the pudding.

So the real issue is, how does either postulate help one in achieving one's goals and purposes?

For me, the "decision precedes knowing" postulate is more useful in that regard.

I do not understand how one can claim that it is more useful to make uneducated decisions regarding the achievement of goals and/or purposes unless the goal and/or purpose is undefined and/or not understood. I am failing to follow the logical progression here Sky...

There is a difference between knowing "better" and knowing of "better". That distinction must not be forgotten. To know that a thing exists is much different than knowing about that thing's attributes and properties.

Can you give an example of how one can purposefully and intentionally choose something that one does not know exists?

I know that Creative. And if I held to an unshakable deterministic view of everything then I would not be able to follow it either. No harm, no foul.

I beg to differ. The attributes or properties are no different from any other “thing” in that they either exist or they don’t exist.

Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. The word was “decision”, not “choice”. There is a difference. The word “choice” definitely implies the prior existence of “options”. “Decision” however, does not.

Example: I have two possible actions, X and Y. Those two possible actions would constitute “choices”.

However, I can decide that X is right and Y is wrong. And I can decide that X is wrong and Y is right. And I can decide that neither is either right or wrong or that both are wrong or that both are right. Or I can make no decision at all as to wrongness or rightness of either.

The “rightness” or “wrongness” of either is an attribute.

The attribute does not exist before the decision is made.

The decision is what creates the attribute of “rightness” or “wrongness”.

I'm getting a funny feeling this response may wind up disjointed because I'm no doubt getting in over my head here. So be it.

First an attempt at clarification: When I spoke of free will as will that exists in an open system, I was referring to a universe in which outcomes are not predetermined. Only the illusion of will can exist in a deterministic or closed one. Should have been clearer.

I do to believe that limits or sets don't have much to do with free will. A question I've been asking myself lately is "does infinite possibility exist within any set of limits." This may be a foolish idea. I tend to think it does, but that conclusion is based more on intuition than logic. To be honest, that could also be said of my position on free will.

I dont think the issues of creation and will are interdependent. Nor do I believe that mental images spring up whole out of nothingness. I think they're synthesized projections cobbled together from scraps of prior "imaginings" and sensory input. When one disregards them, I don't believe they fall into nothingness, but pass from the conscious mind into memory or the unconscious mind, depending on on your point of view. To say that something we cease to consider ceases to exist is a philosophical point of view, I know; I just don't accept it.

I understood that. And I understood part of the issue/discussion to be about whether or not we exist in a closed system (deterministic) or an open system (where free will can exist).

I will agree with that 100%. It’s simply a matter of what postulate you wish to start with. The very nature of the two (determinism and free will) excludes the possibility of proving either one. Personally, I lean toward the “infinite possibilities” side simply because deterministm is a closed system wherein “the buck never stops anywhere”.

Maybe I need to do some clarifying myself here. One can create a machine that creates widgets. That machine has no “will” per se, it is still “creating”, thus “creation without will”. In that sense, will and creation are not interdependent. But without the will of the machine maker, there would be no machine. My point being that in order for any creation to take place, there had to be some “prime cause” to start the chain of events. And that prime cause could only be an act of free will – an action that was not a reaction from some other action. “The buck had to start somewhere.”


Another clarification… I think there are two different “types” of mental images: “Memories”, which are being continuously recorded, stored in chronological order, and never “deleted” (only hidden – i.e. forgotten), and “imaginings”, which are temporary images whose content is “created” instead of “recorded”.

Both types of mental images are “created out of nothing”. The difference being that imaginings are “vanished” when no longer needed. (Note however that there can be “memories of the imaginings” which are stored as any other memory.)

But in any case, that’s just my opinion and your opinion is just as valid.

It’s not like there could ever be objective proof of either viewpoint.

Ok - I've tried to follow the conversation, forgive me if I've missed something.

JB brought up a very good analogy but that should have led in a more logical direction. Let me reverse this ship and start from there.

JB- brought up the analogy of a woman witnessing her spouse drowning. In one instance the woman found herself amused, entertained. In the other instance she became grief stricken.

What was the difference - the situation or the state of mind?

Does grief cease to exist, when we no longer exhibit behavior associated with that grief? NO - because from the unconscious we can "recall" the state of mind and expereince the grief again.

So all expereinces are relegated to the unconscious thereby altering the state of mind which allows us to focus on the current cognitive moment.

What affects our state of mind in any particular cognitive moment, is how we relate the current expereince to the past. This is not always a conscious effort. If we expereince another moment in which there is grief, the 'state of mind' that is referrential to the expereince of grief unconsciously serfaces and will create a physiological reaction based on that state of mind.

This does not require cognitive thought, however, because the state of mind is the same, it may make one remember past expereinces.

So it was NOT thought (cognition) that evoked the state of mind, but rather the event currently being expereinced. It's like auto pilot - an event is unconsciouly related to a previously expereinced state of mind, which invokes that state of mind, which causes a physiological (chemical) reaction in the brain, consistant with that state of min ---- it is not until the body reacts that the previous experience is 'recalled' and is then the focus of that persons cognition (thoughts).

What is in the unconscious is any expereince not currently being consciously attended to.

At the deepest level of the unconscious are the repetative actions that become so imbeded as to not require any particular state of mind.

Riding a bike, playing an instrument that we've played for many years, going to bathroom, tieing a shoe, taking a drink out of a cup, waking up at the same time every single day, whether we actually get up or not. Conditioning that has become so innate that it no longer required conscious thought - therefore it no longer requires a physiological reaction, so it is not associated with any particular state of mind.

That being said - we can't rule out that genetics, and the role it plays in personality,are not, in some way, responsible for how we respond to any given situation.

I don't believe there is anything in the unconscious that is not a part of our past empirically received experences.

I do think there are thing in our unconscious which we are not able to recall on demand, however, we still have access to them, through the 'state of mind' connections. That does not mean we remember why we have reacted in a certain way, but our body does.

Wow! That was good Redy. Aside from a very few, very trivial nitpicks here and there, I couldn’t object to a single thing. Well said.

Sky,

I have read through our entire conversation several times and I am left with the feeling that you have less than honest intentions regarding it.

You had said...



To which I responded as such...



Then you had the shortsightedness to respond with this...



That is very clever Sky, but the fact is that there is no logical progression to be had. You make no sense of your claims when you are politely asked to. As before, you have offered no substance to support your claim nor the counterclaims.

Below is another fine example of your illogical stance...

I wrote...



Your answer...



Are you high?

I can know of the existence of a thing without having an understanding of all of it's properties.

Then as a result of your earlier illogical claim I asked the following...



Again your response below makes no logical sense whatsoever...



First off, if you are a believer in any reasonable notion of free will, and you have always claimed that you are, then there is always another option. Your above statement supports a strict deterministic viewpoint more-so than what I have said...

Secondly, are you still high? What the hell is the difference between a choice being made and a decision being made? You can exchange those two terms without a negative contextual effect in every situation imaginable.

Third, ok then, how can one make a decision about something before knowing it exists?????

I have nothing further to add.

Thank you for the dialogue and the exercise in mental masturbation...

The feeling is mutual.

I don’t have any overwhelming desire to make you understand it. I was simply stating what works for me. If it doesn’t work for you, then fine. Don’t use it. Just don’t expect me to discard my viewpoint because you don’t understand it.

No I can’t. But apparently you can – which is why we don’t agree.


As shown in my "rightness/wrongness" example, one can decide that a thing exists. And the thing did not exist before that decision. Beyond that I have nothing further to add either. So I'm glad you enjoyed the mental masturbation. Just clean up after yourself.

i do know and believe that all thing happen with reason,some with lessons to learn others to learn a lesson for some one else.because we are all on a melecular level.we are intwind to one another in some form.as for the drunk driver comment,take this into consideration.50% of the time the person that got hit by a drunk driver was on a cell phone.thus making them part of the cause by being limited to there attention of what was going on around them.and as far as free will,if it wasnt for it we would not know how to evolve beyound our daily lives.remember every reaction,brings forth another reaction.we just forget that there will be a reaction.

but yet we do not discard these things we creat in our minds.for they can come back at random,i myself can do this.imagine something one day.discard it.and then like it never left,entertain it again weeks later.if you imagine something and then discard it.your memory holds it like saved data.even though in your contious mind it seems to be gone.subcontiously it lingers waiting to resurfase.even if its 10 years later.even though free will tells us,let it go and we do.(at the moment)our inner selfs hold on to everything for safe keeping.incase we should need it again at a later time.whether to laugh or cry,or to prevent a mistake.what we creat in our minds we do for knowledge.what we creat out of material substance we do to feel more then simple humans.that is why so many try so hard to creat things.for a feel of greatness that others may not feel.

Now after reading that discourse I need to go vacuum out my brain and start over.

she's good like that.....hey beauties

'No kind of fun like attempting to prove the unprovable- except maybe trying to describe the ineffable. It's no wonder some people balk when philosophy is referred to as science. And no, I don't want to argue that. :)

At this time, I am not sure why I am doing this but it may be as a result of the prior failure when attempting another method or it may be all about ego and survival mode...

Either way I am compelled, so here goes.



As simple as it can be put Sky, name just one example of any decision which has no other options. How can it be called a decision if there is no other option?



Agreed.



Your making a choice Sky, no matter which of these options you choose. How can this be an example to support what you are attempting to support? Here it is again...



It sure seems to me that you not only have options but you also have recognized them and identified those which you recognize.

Need I say more?



It didn't? That's very curious. Why did you decide to label it either way then? Those features/properties which you would deem either way existed before your recognition of them.

By your logic then, no right or wrong thing exists unless you know of it first? How many rapes do you think that you know nothing about?

Need I say more?



I have just shown this position to be one without logical substance. The decision merely consciously recognizes the attributes which previously existed and warrant the moral label you provide. The attributes are whatever it is about and of that thing which your perceptual faculty chooses to label.

Listen Sky, If you choose to come into a thread that I begin and attempt to refute my beliefs or claims, you better eat your Wheaties...

I usually play nicer than some deserve.

Notice I do not come into yours without substance, I only ask the same. I even took it easy on the claims you gave regarding the musical composition...way easy.

I am not a strict determinist either.

Try again.

I think the mess has been cleaned...

This has been a wonderful snapshot of human behaviour....

fascinating, intriguing and illusionary at it's finest.


Thankyou.

The fundamental problem here is this...

In order for you to agree that a decision was made about something which does not exist, I would have to prove to you that the thing did not exist. But once you have agreed as to what the thing is that does not exist, it is then an existing thing that can be chosen. You see where I’m going here? This is the classic problem of trying to prove the absence of a thing. You’re basically requiring me to start with something that does exist and then prove that it doesn’t exist. I cannot resolve the paradox and I see no reason to even try.

The best it is possible for me to do is to describe my mental processes. But if you choose to interpret that description as being fallacious or delusory or illogical or drug-induced then so be it – I have no means of convincing you otherwise.