tecoyah

As far as the accident hypothesis goes , hows this.
You take a left turn at a corner-free will
I take a right turn at the corner-free will
our cars run into each other-free will with an oops.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

CSflim

I wasn't arguing that
a) we don't have free will
or
b)we are not responsible for our actions.

I was arguing that the question "do we have free will" doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense, or at least is very misleading, and prone to causing a lot of confusion. I tried to use the question "are we alive" above to illustrate why I believe this is so.

Put in the terms that you seem to be adopting, I don't believe in Free Will.
I don't believe that our brains at any time defy the laws of physics.
As the laws of physics are external to us, we cannot influence them, we cannot be said to be in control, ergo, we don't have free will.

But does this conclusion actually MEAN anything? Are we all nothing more than mechanical zombies? Are we doomed to never have any input into how we behave?

On this level the discussion of whether we have Free Will is both pointless and confused. The simple answer is that we don't have Free Will in this sense.

The only way to argue with this is to bring your religious beliefs into it and talk about things such as souls, or metaphysical homunculi, but if you are to argue about such things on this level, you should simply dismiss the argument altogether, as OshnSoul demonstrated, as he does not believe that we are physical beings.

So if we are to argue without bringing religious beliefs into it, we need to first diagnose the question before attempting to answer it.

I think that, as Mantus said, there are two separate concepts of free will involved, and there is a confusion about them.

There is Free Will (in caps), which requires a soul, or some other non-physical mechanism to work. As I stated above, arguing from this perspective is pointless, as it can only be done with people who share your religious beliefs. Anyone who takes science seriously is forced to conclude that we don't have Free Will.

There is however another thing: free will (in lowercase). This is a type of free will, which can exist in an empirical world, (deterministic or not) which does not require magical intervention. It is a real philosophical question (as opposed to a religious one).
This discussion asks questions such as "Can we blame someone for committing a criminal act? Can we justify punishing them? Can we attribute a work of art/poetry/music/literature/scientific theory/etc to a particular person? Did they really create them?" and other such questions.

I was attempting to push this thread in the direction of "free will", but is seems that everyone else wishes to talk in terms of Free Will.

That is fine, although I believe the latter argument is much more interesting, I will discuss the former.

I don't believe that we have Free Will, as there is no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics are broken inside the human brain (why would they? There is no reason to believe that they would).
If you don't believe that the laws of physics hold inside the human brain, then the burden of proof lies with you to prove such a thing.
If you have to bring up your religious beliefs to prove we have Free Will, then you have not won the argument, merely shifted to a completely different argument (that question that which we will never agree on..."is religious view X correct?").

__________________

Mantus

:::OshnSoul:::,

If a divine being can experience the universe both as one and from our limited perspective, then the divine being experiences everything there is. I believe this is where you assume that this equals freewill.

The divine being experiences every choice. Yet, the divine being does not have a choice in this experience, it experiences the universe by default just like it exists by default.

Everything in the universe is where is as it is. God being the universe is as it is; there is no changing that, there is no choice.


Csflim,
Human beings are naturally curious, we always want to know how things works. We pop open free will’s hood and free will disappears. So either free will is a fictional concept used to dress up the machinery of circumstance and causality or we do not understand something about ourselves that makes us miss the source of our free will. Both options seem plausible, which leads me to conclude that for now I will be doing some double-think.

:::OshnSoul:::

Mantus- see, the thing is us coming to earth into this form, creates "fogetting" of what We (our Souls) know. We are here to remember- remember that we do have complete Free Will and no limitations to that free will- and that We All are Divine Beings.
Wouldn't it be boring just to "be" and not "experience"?
I think it is an amazing and wonderful thing that we have been given- the opportunity where "God" says: "Okay, here you go- have fun, experience, re-member, and I will always love you, no matter what choices you make. It's your ride. You're the driver. My will is your will."
And- we do experience every choice, from the lowest to the highest, just not in every experience. It's all spread out. In order to evolve faster, we listen to our choices and choose the highest choice. We ALL at times choose lower choices, which is ok. We learn more from them- or should I say we "remember".
It seems as though there is no choice for God being the universe is as it is- but that is all the human mind knows and the human eyes sees. Stretch your abilities beyond that, and you will know that there is more out there than the universe being the way it is. Also, the universe being as it is, is a glorious, limitless, boundless, infinite thing- so we could say that the universe (God) is infinite. How is their no choice for that which is infinite?

I have a 4-yr old son. The second he was born, my life was completely different. I would hold him and look into his eyes, and not be able to even come close to explaining my love for him. It is unonditional, to say the least. To be able to say to him that I would love him, yet tell him what to do, judge him, stop him from experiences of this life he has been given would be quite contradicting. Of course, as a child, it is merely impossible to let him choose whatever he wants- there are some guidelines. But as far as him maturing, speaking his mind, making a career choice, love life, etc.- I won't stop him. I won't love him any less by any choice that he makes. He is my son- my offspring- a piece of me. So for me with free will and unconditional love for him, why would he have to have any different? I would want to give him everything I have.

Mantus

:::OshnSoul:::,

If god gave us free will then we should be able to identify it in this world. We should feel it. All we have is a concept, which we attach to actions. Yet the mechanics of these actions contradict the meaning of the concept.

Now you can say, “we have free will” all you want but that will not convince me. My problem is that I do not comprehend what free will actually is. I see actions, and I can label them as of free will, yet when I dissect them they become things of circumstance.

You have this wonderful theology built upon free will, but until I can understand free will everything else you say is a moot point.

By this line I suppose that if we did not have free will then we would not be able to experience? I don’t agree. We do not perceive events, events force themselves onto us. They cause us to sense them, the sensory data goes into our brains where it is interpreted and memorized. Hence experience. Then we can make a choice on how we respond to the event based on our disposition that is created mainly though previous experiences.

Event > Perception > Response > Event > Perception > Response …

Indeed, but we cannot use possibilities until we grasp them.

Simple, everything is either a caused or a random event. The wonderful thing about infinity is that we do not need to worry about a first or last cause as there is infinite regress and progress.

:::OshnSoul:::

Mantus- I will just leave it that. I won't reiterate because I spoke my Truth, not expecting it to be yours. I would hoped to have helped clarify anything for you.

But, really- the only way you will get a solid answer to your question is to ask yourself.
Just ask- "what is Free Will to me?" write it out. Usually jotting down how you feel- everything you feel- what ever comes to your mind, can help you find your answer. You could say "oh, the answer's been right in front of me the whole time!"
So- what do you think is Free Will?

Dilbert1234567

hmm interesting concept, all though I would agree that free will is an illusion i would also think that we technically do have free will because we can not see all of the causes (due to the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics) so does this lead to the illusion of free will actually being a true free will due to these unforeseeable forces? i would say not, there is no free will.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Yakk

So, can we have Free Will without violating the laws of physics?

Lets toss out a standard test.
Describe a theoretically observable side effect of having Free Will.

Describe a theoretically observable side effect of not having Free Will.

Unless you can describe your definition in that sort of sense, your term doesn't mean much to science.

Free Will means the Brain violates the laws of physics? This is just evidence that the laws of physics are incorrect, not evidence of Free Will.

The laws of physics are those laws which describe the behaviour of the universe. Insofar as any part of the universe fails to follow them, the laws of physics are flawed. This would be true if there was a soul wandering around plucking at causality or if the universe was a simulation on a computer with some high school student changing the rules at a whim.

However, you have to realize that at a very fundamental level, even if things follow the laws of physics, doesn't mean their behaviour is predictable. Even ignoring quantum mechanics, the orbits of the solar system are unpredictable in very fundamental ways.

Then you throw in quantum mechanics, where cause and effect, and even the concept of "happens" aren't easily seperated.

You could wander off into the universe of QM philosophy, and wonder what it means to have free will in a universe where every alternative happens.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

asaris

We do feel it -- where do you think the concept came from? The problem is that over centuries of philosophy, the concept has become reified, so that rather than saying 'Some of our actions are free', some people feel free to compelled to say 'We have a free will'. But you can agree with the first and not the second.

I don't understand what you mean by 'things of circumstance'. Could you explain it a bit more?

First, not everything is an event, therefore, not everything is either a caused or a random event. Second, even if all events are either caused or random, there is a simple way to define a free action. Suppose agent A performs action X. X is free if and only if A caused X. Admittedly, it's more complicated than that, but the idea is that I'm responsible for the causal chains I start or contribute to. If I'm caught up in a causal chain that I neither started nor contributed to, I'm not responsible for my action. Third, even if there is an infinite regress, since, as you say, everything is either caused or random. If the infinite regress is caused, it needs a cause external to the regress. If it's random, there is no meaning in the world, either intrinsic or extrinsic, and we are deceiving ourselves if we think our relationships or anything else we do has meaning.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Bekkle

I have to say that I think everyone does have Free Will, but also that experiences and events in one's past will shape what decision someone will make. For instance, I could get up, break into my neighbor's house, and knife her to death right now, but I'm not going to. Isn't that just what Free Will is, the ability to choose?

:::OshnSoul:::

Choosing what we will do, what we will say, how we will act.....
There are tons of options, tons of path, but to every situation, there is a higher choice. No bad or good choice, no right or wrong.
And taking the choice we have chosen will help us realize and see the consequences (not good or bad) of that choice.
Taking the time, quieting our minds, and seeing all the options, before acting, can better the opportunity for choosing the highest choice.
Rushing through, not taking the time to gather thoughts, facts, the whole situation and the choices' consequences, may leave us taking another (other than the highest) choice, by which we can pay attention to and see why we made that choice and how we can gain from that choice.

wilbjammin

This will either sound stupid, or... well, it won't sound stupid. But I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "higher choice".

What makes something "higher"?

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

wilbjammin-

Think of this. Take any situation presented to you. Look at your options- they are virtually limitless.
Now, think of the consequences (outcomes, not necessarily good or bad) of each option you could choose.
By seeing what makes you feel good, truly good- without hurting anyone or yourself, what instantly pulls you in as a "feel good" option? Even if you don't think that something is wrong or too difficult or impossible on the outside, your instincts are your true voice, and the "highest" choice is usually the choice that you are led to first. Usually people with see that choice as not being "right", but your first insticts always tell the truth. That first instinct, even if the option doesn't feel 'right" to you, remember the "outcome" that would occur. That outcome is what matters, therefore showing you the "highest choice".

I hope that makes sense. remember- it's not the option that you choose that will make you feel good (your highest choice) but the outcome.

Yakk

Why restrict hurting others?

Really, in some situations, hurting another would make one feel the best.

Saving someone's life by killing a psychopath.

Or, being a psychopath, and killing people for enjoyment.

Really? So, thinking about what to do in a situation will only result in making a "lower" choice?

Damn. I mean, this does make life simple. Would be nice if it was true, but all I am seeing is assertions that it is true. And my first instinct is that it is all wrong. Which, by your own rules, means that it being wrong is the "highest" choice.

What is "outcome", in quotes?

Your statement is phrased like logic, with a therefore, but my first instinct is that there is no connection between your phrases.

So, by selecting the option which I think of first, the universe will provide me with an outcome that will make me feel good, and if you think about your options and try to weigh which is best using actual thought and brains, you will end up selecting a "lower" choice whose outcome won't make you feel as good?

I'd hate to live in your universe. Sounds like a futile and frustrating place.

:::OshnSoul:::

Yakk, I think our words are crossing, but not meeting, here.

Too many assumptions and misinterpretations. I am sorry you were drawn to the conclusions of my thoughts & ideas. That which you wrote above is not Who I Am.

Please be patient with me- I am also really taking into consideration your thoughts on this. I think you are misunderstanding me- I am sure I didn't word things better to begin with, I apologize.

-Frist of all, by hurting others, it may feel good to you momentarily, but nothing will be satisfying long-term about hurting someone- you will notice that you will be right back where you started, not feeling better at all. I am speaking of non-selfish feelings of goodness here. You may not understand why until the outcome appears. But it is an overall, feel good, love feeling.

-I am not saying that "wrong" is "right". I see it as there being no wrong or right. There is a "highest choice" and there are other choices to any & all situations. The point of the matter is that you DO need to think it through, not rush into something without weighing all options and the outcomes of each option. It is difficult to distinguish your first instinct right off the bat, that is why it is wise to take your time and think it all through. What is best? Following your heart, taking the non-selfish, overall feel-good, loving option. What Would Love Do Now? Would love cheat? Would love hurt? Would love be selfish? Would love not think things through? Would love get mad? Would love kill? Those are all things that define love through you and your choices.

wilbjammin

Er... this block quote totally confused me!

Ok, now that I've established for myself that I didn't say that (it remarkably didn't sound like something I would say!), I have a few things to say.

Nope, I disagree! This does rather sound Machiavellian, and maybe you are of the mind that the ends justify the means... but this kind of thinking lends one to believe that life is an end in itself! This is unnecessarily nihilistic. First, what I don't understand is this "first instinct" concept. Many, many times in my life I've been confronted with situations so difficult and convoluted that I couldn't gain a "first instinct" response - either all possible choices are bad, or all possible choices are equal.

Think of the classic political realism. The whole basis for most political decisions is self-interest. In fact, the whole idea of the social contract that we have guaranteeing our freedoms come from Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes that say we do everything out of self-interest (and natural sociability with Grotius)! Can it be, in fact, that our first instincts are at times the absolute worst options? Have you ever had a bad day and your first response to it is to simply give up? Or maybe go out and just kill everyone that's pissing you off?

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Hobbes, but I think that choices that are made grant themselves to giving someone something that they want. That is all. The "highest choice" reasoning hovers in the realm of imagination and postulating... I'm not comfortable doing that because for me, my life is defined by action.

There is not a quote I could be more uncomfortable with. I think that many people value power over love.

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

wilbjammin-

I am not here to persuade you of anything.
I am simply explaining myself, though it may seem unfathomable or confusing. Words can do that.

We have different views and our own ideas of Free Will and Choice, so be it. That is what free will is all about, really- being free to think, believe, and idealize as we wish.

Now, my question for you right now is could you please clarify this:

Are you speaking in terms of reality as most people see it or how you truly think IT IS? What I mean is, Do you think that the world could be in a better shape IF more people, if not all, followed their hearts and made choices revolving around Love? I am speaking of the universal, unconditional Love. Or are you saying that people choose and value power over love, and that's just how it is and it couldn't be any different?
I hope you can clarify that, because I am a bit confused as to where you are coming from.
My truth, what I have felt, and also applied, and by noticing the results in the way I choose, has brought me to realize that choice can be more than human, on a higher conscious level, keeping in mind all things, all options, all possiblities, and all people involved and affected.

And here is an example of choice and outcome that I thouroughly understood:
The show Joan of Arcadia- have you seen it?

This girl has had many encounters with God, who comes in human forms of different kinds, and God asks her to do things.
One time, God asked her to destroy her friend's favorite and best art sculpture right before an art show. For the longest time, neither one of them understood why she ruined it, and the friend was pissed at her for a long timenot speaking to her. She apologized just like crazy and tried to make peace with him, but the friend refused.
Throughout the time they weren't speaking, she discovered that he always made the sculptures for his mother when he was young, but she died. He kept making them as his way of trying to connect with her, and he was really starting to withdraw and become really depressed and in denial, keeping in the pain that he felt. He even stopped making his art.
Another friend told her that the boy's mother commited suicide and that she wrote him a letter before she killed herself. Joan took the extra measure of having her mom go to his place and ask him a favor of just talking with her. He agreed, but he didn't realize that Joan was right behind. Joan told him that she knew of his mother's suicide and the letter. She asked why he hadn't read it yet, and he said that he feared that she wrote that it was his fault for her escape. Joan pleaded him to just read the letter, saying that "it's worse to wonder what it says than knowing what it says".
The next morning he brought the letter over to Joan's house and he had her mother read it to him. In the envelope was a poem, basically saying that he was and always will be her light.
After that, Joan and the boy were friends again and he was happy and smiling. All of that worry and frustration and fear was released.
The outcome of this showed that Joan broke the art sculpture for a reason- that he would soon be released of the pain inside of him. The art was the holding point of all of his pain, and by breaking it, and persistance in speaking with him, soon Joan realized why God suggested to do what seemed to be a horrific, outrageous, morally "wrong" thing to do.

Sometimes it's hard to see why and hard to see what outcomes may happen, but thinking through things will help you understand more. I am by no means saying I am a pro at this, but I apply it as much as possible and with each new choice I make, the reasons become clearer and clearer and the overwhelming sense of Love truly shines through and consumes me, helping me realize that I have made a "higher choice".

wilbjammin

Er... ok.

I'm saying that people value different things. If I were to apply my values to other people, then maybe I could come up with a universal claim such as yours, but I refuse to do that. Some people value the self more than the whole of the community. Some people value their nation more than the world. Some people just care that their family is taken care of, and the rest is too much to pay attention to. Of every choice we make, its relationship to suffering and power need to be taken in account of because people don't want to feel pain or helplessness. Some people like to be martyrs, in which case pain and helplessness are necessary or even embraced for an ideal of love. I am not that kind of man.

Also, I think often times that what some people do out of "love" is actually very detrimental towards that well-being of that individual and/or their self. Examples:

Enabling someone to do destructive activities such as drug abuse or skirting responsibilities towards others or their self. Attempting to make decisions for others because they don't see the "right decision" well enough on their own, so they need to be told what to do. Letting yourself get walked on emotionally by another because that is just "who they are", and they don't know any better. Etc etc.


As for your Joan of Arcadia example, I just have one thing to say: God doesn't talk to me and tell me to destroy things in a seemingly random fashion, or otherwise converse with me in ways that cause me to do things that I don't understand that eventually make their meaning known later. I don't understand how to apply this television example to my real life.

I am reminded of the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Would you trust God to tell you to end the life of another for the greater good? I most certainly would not. For me, there is no teleological suspension of the ethical. I would not kill my son, and I would not destory someone's piece of art... they are nearly on an equal plane, since they are productions of creation.

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

Your view is just fine. That is what makes us human and which gives us the value of interaction and free choice.
I am not saying that I am right or your wrong.

I will say that God communicates with everyone at every moment, through the most powerful and effective way: experience. Some choose to listen, some choose not to. That is the free will in our life.
God is the voice of energy- speaking in the wind, the waves of the ocean, the beauty of a flower, the words of a song, a billboard. But to be able to hear the message is to be open and ready for anything at any given moment.

I see us as one, that i belong to everything in existance, and everything in existance belongs to me. Because we are all made up of the same thing.
Now, you may not see that way and that is fine. Yes, people fo see things differently. That is what keeps us going. We all learn more of who we are by the differences of others. I accept and value the differences between you and I.

Yes, that is true. But explain how doing things out of Love is detremental? I am not saying that we are to tell others what to do. No, no. Each person has their own will to choose. It's their own life, their own path. But doing things such as telling them they care, and just being there for them, that is not harming the other person, but for some situations, doing things out of love is just showing them there are other options, but not that you would tell them what to do.
Now, what we can distinguish here, still is what Love is. What is Love to you? To me, I see love as grander- especially coming through situations in the past that were difficult. It is to distinguish it from the romantic-type love, filled with emotions, the limnited love in which you love someone unless they cheat, betray, or lie to you. In which, the love that you have been enveloped in is not love. It's fear. Fearing that they would hurt you. Love does not feel hurt. It does not know pain, it does not have limits or exceptions. It is unconditional.
And, of the story of Abraham- first of all, we must realize that that was a man-written story. Second of all, God would not wish to have killed a piece of Him, as killing someone is an action going against another's free will. If God does not interfere with our free will, He would not ask us to interfere with one anothers'. Killing is not a wise choice.
But that is where the human mind sets a block towards the reasons outside of it seeming just "wrong". We choose to assume that breaking someon's art piece as wrong, and not think otherwise of it. Not like I am out destroying other people's things. But if I had a great sense of the reason to do so, in which I would have the open mind to see the grand picture, then I would do so, even if it meant another being mad at me for a very long time.


Sweetie, you're walking your path, I am walking mine- but we have crossed paths for a reason. i won't deny or ignore that. Nor will I attempt to persuade you of anything. I respect you for seeing differently than me- I have learned a lot from you. Thank you.

wilbjammin

You live in a different world than me. All that humans do is in relationship to suffering. Love can experience pain and fear. It doesn't have to, but the relationship of love to suffering and fear remains. You're probably of the mind that humans also have eternal spirits, I would imagine... or believe somehow in our relationship to eternity. I could be wrong, but I assume that out of your belief in being connected to all of existence that you feel this isn't a temporary thing. Not to say that I entirely disagree, but I think that death is final when it comes to the individual. The impermance of all relationships, and, in fact, everything creates suffering and simultaneously gives meaning to what we do love. If everything was simply given to us, we could not appreciate it fully. The difficulty is that people hold on too tightly. I don't have an ideal of love; I used to, but it just doesn't take into account human behavior from what I've seen over and over and over again. I don't see anything of life as transcendent, we are grounded in our existence.

I recognize the story of Abraham as being man-written, but I certainly have no access to what God would and wouldn't do - again, because I don't have any access to that.

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

Right, again- we see differently as to the definition of Love. You see it as a humanly experience, I see it as a spiritual experience.
The problem is we as humans tie together fear and love. Yet, they are total opposites. Let's put it in other words: a fear-based love reality limits the true experience of love, thus creating that fear-based love in your life and every relationship you have...both the giving and the receiving of conditional love-the fear is what limits us from the full experience of unconditional love.
But, we are still in the same world, my friend. We are still the same, yet different at the same time. That's what is so wonderful about it.

wilbjammin

Is there anything you experience that isn't a humanly experience?

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

oh, sure- but then I remind myself that this is only a costume- a tool to experience life in a physical manner. Why not think beyond the mind and the body and what we see right in front of us? There is so much more out there that simply goes unseen to the naked eye and the wandering mind. I choose to just experience it all.

wilbjammin

Because the mind and body are the tools we have to perceive the world around us, we are stuck in the physical world. Johnson and Lakoff address this in their work Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Metaphorically, I understand what you're saying, but in a practical manner that I can apply to my existence it doesn't quite work. I appreciate the metaphor of unity, and I understand it as something we all strive for. I just don't experience it, not on a universal level. I experience as much as I can...

__________________
Innominate.

wipeout

havent you heard the rush song--of course there is free will--even 80's rockers know that

__________________
My memories are of fun and friendship,
Of weakness within the strength of youth...

prosequence

I personally think they shoulda kild the damn whale and made candles and stuff outa him.
Free Willy.... how absurd can you get???

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...