Freewill vs. Determinism

[Maitreya]

Do you believe in freewill or determinism? Or both? Please elaborate.

[yyyesiam2]

perhaps each unit has partial control over the whole. each cell of our body is partially controlled through our awareness, partially through its own. i feel this is the same with the human race and our collective unconscious. determinism is so bland and ugly to me. i'd rather not see things that way.

[enk]

How can one choose choicelessness?

[gib_0101]

I can appreciate determinism, but I think I believe in free-will on several levels.

[Okiefreak]

I think we sometimes confuse "free will" with indeterminacy or our ability to predict. Quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle provide the classic illustration. Locating a particle makes the particle's momentum uncertain, and conversely, measuring it's momentum makes its location uncertain. But "free will" suggests something more than just unpredictability, although unpredictability would be part of it. And our sense of making choices may be an illusion, if what we perceive to be our choice is entirely predictable by a psychologist. I do think that an android can be programmed to deal with new environmental stimuli that the programmer did not expect the android to encounter--i.e., to solve problems. Is that free will? For example, a Catholic android encounters puberty and/or a pedophilic priest; a fundamentalist android encounters Darwin in college. Conflicts in the programming can cause strains that must be resolved. We've seen it on StarTrek, where the contradictions can lead the computer to become paralyzed or blow a fuse, but the pressures for humans to function in the world may lead to different solutions. Through feedback and memory, the solution may be incorporated into an expanded program and might alter the existing program. When a person encounters a robber in a dark alley, and the robber tells him "Your money or your life", whatever decision the victim makes is likely to be a function of values that were acquired through earlier conditioning, as well as a calculation of odds that is a function of reasoning or logic. Neither of those is exactly free will. Is it any different when a person is given the "choice" "Heaven if you follow these rules, and Hell if you don't"? I find the concept of "free will" to be almost oxymoronic and on the same plane with the Trinity and virgin birth, something impossible to get one's mind around.

[yyyesiam2]

that's what happens when you can't see outside of your own logic.

[Okiefreak]

that's what happens when you can't see outside of your own logic.As none of us can.

[yyyesiam2]

i said see, not think. we all can see without our logic.

[Jedi]

Do you believe in freewill or determinism? Or both? Please elaborate.Have you seen the adam sandler movie "click"? I think its like that. You do things like a robot unless there is a moment of self reflection, where you realize that you can consciously make a change in your behavior. However, there is always an uncertainty of whether the new choice will have a positive or negative outcome.

[gib_0101]

Quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle provide the classic illustration. Locating a particle makes the particle's momentum uncertain, and conversely, measuring it's momentum makes its location uncertain. But "free will" suggests something more than just unpredictability, although unpredictability would be part of it.Yup. Quantum mechanics is one of the "levels" that I mentioned in my last post, a level on which I can imagine free-will existing. Though I don't think it works unless you bring a theory like quantum consciousness (see Penrose and Hameroff) into the picture.

Some other levels I've considered are:

Compatibilism: The idea that it's not freedom that defines our will (at least, not in the sense that we aren't controlled by the laws of nature), but that it's always "us" who initiate our actions. We may be controlled by natural laws, but these laws have to work through us in order to have their effects.

Universal Freedom: this is an idea of mine in which I conceive of the universe in its entirety as free, and our freedom comes from our partaking in the universe's freedom in virtue of our being part of it. But this view only works when you consider the universe outside time and space - in which case the only thing it chooses (or can choose) is to exist.

Subjective Freedom: this is another idea of mine in which I conceive of our subjective experiences as more fundamental to defining reality than what most people take to be objective fact. So if we feel free, we are free. But there's still a mapping that links the objective rules of determinism to our choices, and the scheme for that mapping is to link physical causes with our reasons or justifications for the choices we make and physical effects with the actions we take in response to our reasons and justifications. If there is a necessary link between physical causes and effects, this link corresponds to our free-will in the subjective paradigm, linking our reasons and justifications to our actions. Reasons and justifications don't force us to act, but they always seem to be there backing up our actions. For this reason, I sometimes refer to this view as the "third way" view - meaning that free-will isn't determinism yet it isn't really something that breaks from determinism either - it's a "third way".

[Okiefreak]

Have you seen the adam sandler movie "click"? I think its like that. You do things like a robot unless there is a moment of self reflection, where you realize that you can consciously make a change in your behavior. However, there is always an uncertainty of whether the new choice will have a positive or negative outcome. I haven't seen the movie, so my response might not be relevant. I wonder though about that "moment of self reflection, where you realize you can consciously make a change in your behavior." Where does it come from? What causes it to happen? Your choice? And if so, how does that work?

These things are difficult for me to handle in the abstract. Let's take a topical issue: homosexuality. Often the ethical/moral arguments on this are presented in terms of determinism versus choice. Are people "born that way" or do they choose it? The implication is that if the former is true, they can't be blamed or held responsible for it, and if the latter is the case, they can. It seems to me that it's worth distinguishing, as some Christian denominations do, between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. The orientation, same-gender attraction, is very difficult to conceptualize as a choice without being absurd. It's unlikely that anyone sits down and thinks about what to be attracted to, or if they did, to pick the one that seems to offer few advantages and many disadvantages. It is possible that if a person really put his mind to it (s)he could change orientation by deliberating blocking certain thoughts and willing others. It is somewhat more possible that a person might submit to some kind of thought reprogramming--"reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy"--which claim to be successful in a minority of cases. But why would anyone do that? Because of pressures or influences so strong that they motivate the efforts--fear, guilt, shame, etc. Should we say that that is free will at work? And if it were successful, would the subject be free or brainwashed? I think it would be probably easier to work on homosexual behavior--i.e., abstention from same sex relations and/or practice of opposite sex relations. Celibacy is possible, given proper motivation, although certainly difficult. The same issues exist, although maybe in lesser form: is the overriding motivation that brought about the change really free, or is it determined by some more powerful stimulus: guilt, fear, shame, etc.? And does that count as free will? And would it have been possible for psychologists knowing all the facts to have predicted that this would happen, given the totality of influences on the particular person concerned?

[Jedi]

wow, what you say probes very deep into the understanding of human psyche and human society as a whole, I am just a simple being, I don't think I know the right answer. However, these are very good questions.
I will try to give you my perspective which is more based on religion than medical science or any serious understanding of any social philosophies. It seems that every action that we carry out has some sort of result on many levels. For instance, you brush your teeth everyday, then the physical result maybe that your teeth may not likely rot in the near future, but there is also a mental result, you may start liking the feeling of freshness in your mouth. You may not like to drink your coffee in the morning without ever brushing your teeth. Similarly, the moment of self reflection where you all of a sudden are aware of your behavior or actions is a similar result of certain actions. Maybe this involves a random act of kindness on your part or a girlfriend dumps you and you start reflecting on what is it that truly makes you happy. Anything really...but is that result good or bad? well that depends on how you look at it.
In hinduism, we call that karma. Your past actions and their results cause you to self reflect.
Now you may not be satisfied with this, and ask "Is it karma that a homosexual in this society faces so many difficulties pertaining to self identification?" ,my biased Hindu answer would be, "yes".
How do you account for the society's effects over the individual? Its still past karma , karma that he has acquired in a previous life.
So was this karma good or bad? Is Homosexuality an abnormal condition?Thats really up to your interpretation.

[yyyesiam2]

if you decided to sit and do nothing, not even think, for the rest of your life, would that action be predetermined? i don't have an answer.....just thought it was a cool question....

[Jedi]

if you decided to sit and do nothing, not even think, for the rest of your life, would that action be predetermined? i don't have an answer.....just thought it was a cool question....The real question is can you sit and do nothing? Even when you are sitting, you are acting. Your muscles - some of them maintain your posture, thoughts rush into your mind as your mind races elsewhere, or if you were lets say completely paralyzed and lie down, still you are doing something, you are breathing. When your body dies, it still does something- it decays.

[yyyesiam2]

true, but would physical drives support someone sitting and doing nothing else until they died? (assuming they aren't depressed)

[Jedi]

No because they have to eat, they have to do other things. If you ever work in a hospital, physically one cannot stay in one position for a long time without forming sores. In hospitals, patients who are bedridden are moved to a different position least every two hours, so you see it is not possible to even sleep, how would it be possible to sit?

[yyyesiam2]

how about lie down? is it not possible to let the body die?

[yyyesiam2]

my point, of course, is to see if there is a difference between the drives of the body and personal will.

[FreakerSoup]

Determinism.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a soul. I don't think that there is a divine plane of existence where other beings can influence our thoughts. I don't think that conciousness or the mind is more than the product of neural interactions in our brains. This leads me to the same conclusion concerning thoughts.

If you will take it as given that all your thoughts are a product of electrical interactions between cells, then you must conclude that your beliefs, choices, and actions are the same. If there is no being or particle in the universe that is not governed by the laws of physics, then the all interactions, including electrical, chemical, atomic, etc, can all be organized according to physical laws. If this is true, then everything that happens in your cells, between your cells, in your body, and in your brain can be defined by physics. This would mean that everything everywhere is run by interactions between atoms, molecules, electrons, quarks, and whatever else goes in that category. This means that if you knew the exact placement and motion of every particle everywhere, along with how all these interactions worked, you could extrapolate that backwards through time and know everything that ever happened. Similarly, you could extrapolate it forward and know everything that ever would happen, precisely the way that it MUST happen. Of course, it is doubtful that anyone will ever have anything close to this knowledge, but whether we understand it or not, it remains true.

I have no reason to think that this is not the case. I don't think our bodies are immune to physics just because we are alive. In fact, as creationists have so often pointed out, our being here relies on a lot of physical laws and values.

yyyesiam - I don't think there is a difference between these two things. Of course, you can ignore things like hunger and fatigue for a while, but then things start shutting down. I don't think you can decide to passively die. You could starve, freeze, any number of things if you had that willpower to override your bodily signals, but I don't think a person can have enough control over their own body to just shut it off.

[FreakerSoup]

repeat.

[Jedi]

yyyesiam - I don't think there is a difference between these two things. Of course, you can ignore things like hunger and fatigue for a while, but then things start shutting down. I don't think you can decide to passively die. You could starve, freeze, any number of things if you had that willpower to override your bodily signals, but I don't think a person can have enough control over their own body to just shut it off.But there were human rights activists who starved themselves to death - and ofcourse have died.

[FreakerSoup]

Yes, but they died by starving, they didn't just decide to die.

What I meant was that there are a number of ways one could choose to die if they had the will for it, but they can't just say "I'm going to die tonight" and then do it.

[yyyesiam2]

i don't think i ever mentioned someone willing themselves to die within a set time......i do see your point that we would still be subject to the laws affecting the body, but i was only trying to establish a difference between these laws and one's ability to choose one's actions.

[FreakerSoup]

Gotcha. I may have misinterpreted one of your posts.

[Jedi]

Yes, but they died by starving, they didn't just decide to die.

What I meant was that there are a number of ways one could choose to die if they had the will for it, but they can't just say "I'm going to die tonight" and then do it.
Oh in that case, yea that can't happen .

[yyyesiam2]

it happens, freaker. i appreciate your views and i wouldn't mind hearing (reading) you re-response to my original question.

[Okiefreak]

Determinism.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a soul. I don't think that there is a divine plane of existence where other beings can influence our thoughts. I don't think that conciousness or the mind is more than the product of neural interactions in our brains. This leads me to the same conclusion concerning thoughts.
This may be your opinion, but it hasn't been established yet by scientific proof. Let's not confuse science with pseudoscience.

[Okiefreak]

Determinism.
I don't think that conciousness or the mind is more than the product of neural interactions in our brains. This leads me to the same conclusion concerning thoughts.
According to Chalmers, "the hard problem" is how "something as immaterial as consciousness" can arise from something as unconscious as matter". Philosopher Jerry Fodor agrees that "nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea how anything could be conscious." McGinn denies that the problem can be solved at all, and atheist guru Sam Harris is convinced that a lot of the naturalistic explanations that have been offered are pseudoscientific windowdressing for fundamental ignorance. An important group of brain researchers, including Penrose, Bohm, Jibu, and Vitiello make a case for quantum brain dynamics instead of the mechanical model you suggest.

[FreakerSoup]

yyyesaim - if you decided to sit and do nothing, not even think, for the rest of your life, would that action be predetermined?
I think so. I would say that the interactions of particles since the beginning of time could have predicted that a person would make that decision, since it was just a flow of energy in the brain.



Okie - I know it isn't completely scientific, but I think there are a number of logical problems with the concept of a soul. That I do not think that there are supernatural forces acting upon our consciousness is just my starting point for my view on this.

The problem with studying consciousness is that it is subjective. I cannot prove that someone else is conscious at all, I just have to assume so. What would a person without a conscious mind be like? Who knows? Do dogs have consciousness? Frogs? Bugs? What is different between what goes on inside us and what goes on inside a problem-solving computer? Why wouldn't something material be able to form consciousness?

[yyyesiam2]

what is the difference between a spec of sand and a single celled organism?

[stigmerica]

How can one choose choicelessness?
There you have it, folks.

[Jedi]

what is the difference between a spec of sand and a single celled organism?Something is a spec of dust only in your eyes, so is it a "single celled organism" only in your eyes.

It is your mind that classifies, finds the difference between both based on physical characteristics or certain phenomena it classifies to that particular object in the study.

So, Lets hypothetically presuppose that consciousness is in existence, whether that is caused by matter or whether it is energy is a different story entirely. If we assume that there is consciousness then the only "consciousness" that we can truly presuppose is our own.

With that said, the true study of consciousness would have to start with oneself. How he views the world should be more important , because the differences like that single celled organism and dust is made by the human mind within him. therefore, if he starts to study the difference itself, then what he is truly doing is trying to figure out the nature of consciousness.

So I think, the important thing to think about here would be "why the difference" rather than "What the difference".

[Jedi]

There you have it, folks.The problem here is the "choice" of "choicelessness" is a predetermined phenomena or whether there is really a choice.

[hippie_chick666]

I can't agree w/ the notion of hard determinism. I feel that hard determinism diminishes personal choice and completely opposes free will. If free will is diminished by hard determinism, why is hard determinism not accepted as a defense by criminals? After all, an accused rapist could blame his crimes on his bad genetics and upbringing if his father was the rapist of his mother and he was raised by her family as the unwanted by-product of his mother's shame. I don't think this would fly in any courtroom, because we hold that his actions were not ultimately determined by those factors but by his choices. Ultimately, he chose to rape his victims. If he tried to destroy evidence or killed his victims for fear of being caught, these actions illustrate that he had a choice and was trying to avoid punishment.

If anything, I believe there are influences on our decisions, but we have free will to choose our action. If one considers influences as weights and choices as balanced scales, outside influences may weigh down one side of the scale, but ultimately, we can choose either, although we may lean towards the weighted option. However, the weight imbalance does not determine we will pick that option. I guess I agree w/ compatibilism out of the choices, but I try not to think heavily on this debate b/c it gives me a headache after a while.

Peace and love

[yyyesiam2]

i appreciate the answer jedi, but i have no desire to debate it. the question was simply designed for someone with a different viewpoint than your's.

[Jedi]

If anything, I believe there are influences on our decisions, but we have free will to choose our action. exactly, but most of the time we don't make a choice, and I think our society even understands that. For instance, we are inborn with some abilities, a successful salesman is someone who has a very good innate ability to convince and relate to people. Is it possible for someone to learn the same skills? yes, but it would be very hard for him to do. So it seems, without a choice, there is a predetermined result.

[Jedi]

i appreciate the answer jedi, but i have no desire to debate it. the question was simply designed for someone with a different viewpoint than your's.yea I was just saying what I wanted dude, not exactly looking for debate.

[hippie_chick666]

exactly, but most of the time we don't make a choice, and I think our society even understands that. For instance, we are inborn with some abilities, a successful salesman is someone who has a very good innate ability to convince and relate to people. Is it possible for someone to learn the same skills? yes, but it would be very hard for him to do. So it seems, without a choice, there is a predetermined result.I have to disagree. The salesperson is a succesful salespercon if he chooses to become a salesperson. If he decides to become a con man, he may be equally successful or he may choose a field that has nothing to do w/ his natural abilities of convincing and relating to people, such as mathematics or biology.

Personally, I am good w/ presenting arguments from different view points. When I was younger, I wanted to use this skill in the courtroom. What I am majoring in now? Geology. My skills of bullshitting and creating convincing arguments are not as important as they are in law. Also, I have strong interests in history and psychology. Sure, there are many influences in my life, but ultimately, it is my choice to pursue the goal I pick, not one that is pre-determined.

I don't think there is a way to prove or disprove determinism and what degree it exists, if it exists at all. I guess I find it pointless to focus on this debate for long periods of time, b/c why would it matter? If everything is predetermined (hard), then we can do only what we can. If there is only free will, then we have a choice. If there is a middle ground, then we have some choice. If any of these philosophies are correct, arguing about it will not change the fact of what is true. It's like trying to use science to disprove God or theology to prove God's existence. It is as it is and debate does not change the fact of what is.

Peace and love

[FreakerSoup]

I can't agree w/ the notion of hard determinism. I feel that hard determinism diminishes personal choice and completely opposes free will. If free will is diminished by hard determinism, why is hard determinism not accepted as a defense by criminals? After all, an accused rapist could blame his crimes on his bad genetics and upbringing if his father was the rapist of his mother and he was raised by her family as the unwanted by-product of his mother's shame. I don't think this would fly in any courtroom, because we hold that his actions were not ultimately determined by those factors but by his choices. Ultimately, he chose to rape his victims. If he tried to destroy evidence or killed his victims for fear of being caught, these actions illustrate that he had a choice and was trying to avoid punishment.

If anything, I believe there are influences on our decisions, but we have free will to choose our action.
I would say that in the case you gave, the rapist made that choice, but it was predetermined that he would do so. He made the choice because he was in a certain place at a certain time, the electrons in his brain were going through certain motions. So in a way, he made a choice. And in a way, he didn't. I guess I would say that he didn't choose to make the choice.

To have a functioning society though, we have to assume that people make choices. Even if actions are predetermined, 20 years of a person's life would be different depending on whether they were in jail or not. And the jury is really predetermined to sentence this guy, so there's that.

I think that my problem with free will is this: What is will? What makes it more than just electrons moving in our brain? Can we choose to fire neurons and initiate thoughts and actions, or are they just natural continuations of previously fired neurons?

[hippie_chick666]

I think your idea of hard determinism makes life rather pointless. If my actions are predetermined, why does it matter what choice I make b/c I will make it no matter what. I cannot agree with this.

There is much more than just "electrons moving through the brain." Yes, brain chemistry has a very real effect on our decisions, but I am proof that brain chemistry does not determine our choices. When my brain chemistry is screwed up, I have unwanted suicidal thoughts which caused by this imbalance, even if "I" don't want to die. If brain chemistry completely determined my actions, I should have killed myself a long time ago when suicide would not leave my mind. However, there was something else going on, something that cannot be understood by the mind.

I am not going to convince you one way or the other. You have your opinions and that's fine. I *know* there is a spiritual aspect of myself b/c I have experienced. It is something you have to experience for yourself.

Peace and love

[gib_0101]

There are many ways to understand free-will that don't go completely against the mechanistic/deterministic picture of the brain. It's not as black and white as most people make it out to be.

[yyyesiam2]

"what is will" is a great question. what causes electrons to do what they do, single-celled organisms to do what they do, our brains to operate in the way they do, groups of people to behave similarly when put together, the planet to rotate around the sun?, etc. to say our thoughts are caused by certain forces is like saying we rotate around the sun because of gravity. if you don't know what gravity is, that's not much of an answer is it? if you don't know the origin of matter and energy, how can you explain the origin of thought with an explanation based on the patterns of matter and energy? as usual, this all goes back to the question of origin, which, if followed far enough, will enivitably lead you either to or beyond the brick wall of the limits of your logic.

[Jedi]

If everything is predetermined (hard), then we can do only what we can. If there is only free will, then we have a choice. If there is a middle ground, then we have some choice. If any of these philosophies are correct, arguing about it will not change the fact of what is true. It's like trying to use science to disprove God or theology to prove God's existence. It is as it is and debate does not change the fact of what is.

Peace and loveOfcourse what you and i say here doesn't change the truth at all. It never did, and it is obviously a debate.

What I was getting at is that there are some innate skills and tendencies in everyone of us. To what degree and how they are expressed depends on us, but alot of people don't make any choice, so they let their innate tendencies to play out their daily lives.

[OlderWaterBrother]

I believe in both. I believe that as individuals we have free will but as for the Earth and mankind as a group, their future has been determined.

[yyyesiam2]

that seems like a logical fallacy to me.....

[FreakerSoup]

I think your idea of hard determinism makes life rather pointless. If my actions are predetermined, why does it matter what choice I make b/c I will make it no matter what. I cannot agree with this.
I might actually agree with that. The thing is, your choices do affect your outcomes. It's just that both the choices and the outcomes were predetermined. If you believe what I do, all your choices, every fleeting thought, every strange and wonderful dream, and this conversation we are having all had to happen, and could not have happened any other way. Because we can't understand it, it doesn't mean a whole lot, and we really can't act like our decisions are not our own.

There is much more than just "electrons moving through the brain." Yes, brain chemistry has a very real effect on our decisions, but I am proof that brain chemistry does not determine our choices. When my brain chemistry is screwed up, I have unwanted suicidal thoughts which caused by this imbalance, even if "I" don't want to die. If brain chemistry completely determined my actions, I should have killed myself a long time ago when suicide would not leave my mind. However, there was something else going on, something that cannot be understood by the mind.

Yes, certain chemicals in certain amounts can mess up the brain, but what I'm talking about is less general and more specific. So a part of your brain might think about suicide. All the pictures would flash through your mind, the emotions, etc. Some of the things that you picture in your head would convince you that this is not a good idea. Your prefrontal cortex is the part of your brain generally regarded as the part for impulse control. When people have this part damaged, they can become totally different people, because their personality actually changes. People won't like them as much, and they'll blurt things that they would normally keep to themselves. There was a story a while ago about a woman (christian, loyal, chaste) who had a head injury and then couldn't stop coming on to and having sex with random guys, even when her husband around. Can she really have chosen to do that? Where does her soul come in there? The way we act and the people we are are both very reliant on how our brain is formed.

[yyyesiam2]

please consider my above statement, freaker. i would like an intelligent response if possible. i value your perspective, as it so different from my own and there has obviously been much work put into the creation of it.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi yyyesiam2,
I was wondering when you said: "that seems like a logical fallacy to me" were speaking about my comment?

[yyyesiam2]

yes sir. i meant no disrespect. i just don't see how the individual can have free will if the fate of their race is determined. this would mean that no matter how free the individual thought his or her actions were, they would only be predetermined steps leading to the fate of his/her race.

[enk]

If you believe what I do, all your choices, every fleeting thought, every strange and wonderful dream, and this conversation we are having all had to happen, and could not have happened any other way
If

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi yyyesiam2,
No disrespect taken.

I don’t know if you’ve read The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov but in it he comes up with the idea of psychohistory. Which is that in large groups mankind is predicable the larger the group the more predicable but on the individual level no such predictability is possible. Now I know that it is only science fiction but that is along the line of what I was talking about and it's a good read.

Assuming an Omniscient God, the only way that an individual can have free will is if that God chooses not to know how that individual will use his free will. Because as soon as an Omniscient God decided to foreknow what that individual would do, that individual would no longer have free will in the matter. But as for the whole of mankind he could foresee what they as a group would do with out foreseeing the individual. To simplify it would be a little like us guaranteeing that the result of a million coin flips would be 50/50 but not being able to tell you whether the next flip would be heads or tails.

[Maitreya]

All things are predetermined. Every reaction must have an action placing it in motion, otherwise it can not occur. This is obvious in nature, so why is it that humans find it necessary to distinguish themselves as something "higher" than nature? We exist in the same reality as all other things and are liable to the same fundamental truths.

Every decision we make can be translated into a formula made up of an unimaginable number of variables. When we come to be, we begin to process information nano-second by nano-second. Each bit of information is stored in the brain and effects the other information in our brain accordingly, even creating new bits of information through combination, so that no information can be retreived that has not already been processed, consciously or subconsciously. When we make a choice, these bits of information are the variables in the equation that decides what decision we will make. And even though the formula itself is unimaginable, doesn't mean its non-existant.

Just because WE can't predict what a person is going to do with any degree of certainty, doesn't mean that it isn't determined. It only indicates our inability to calculate such a complex equation, especially since it is an equation that can change multiple times in just a single second, and fluctuates as we age.

One can not argue that a person has freewill just because they realise they have the power to make a decision. Because the realization then becomes a variable in the equation. Anytime a human acts unpredictably, there is a reason, and that reason was a result of all that came before it. Nothing can come into existance on its own, accept maybe existance itself.

[hippie_chick666]

Yes, certain chemicals in certain amounts can mess up the brain, but what I'm talking about is less general and more specific. So a part of your brain might think about suicide. All the pictures would flash through your mind, the emotions, etc. Some of the things that you picture in your head would convince you that this is not a good idea. Your prefrontal cortex is the part of your brain generally regarded as the part for impulse control. When people have this part damaged, they can become totally different people, because their personality actually changes. People won't like them as much, and they'll blurt things that they would normally keep to themselves. There was a story a while ago about a woman (christian, loyal, chaste) who had a head injury and then couldn't stop coming on to and having sex with random guys, even when her husband around. Can she really have chosen to do that? Where does her soul come in there? The way we act and the people we are are both very reliant on how our brain is formed.To answer an earlier question, I believe there is much more to free will than the ability to choose an action or make a decision. This is my own opinion, so take it at face value. I think free will can be linked more closely to the human ego than anything else. I have not been able to come up w/ a concrete definition, so I will try to explain what I mean.

A paralized person cannot move, but does this eliminate will? I say no, that although the choice of walking has already been decided for him, he still can want to walk and imagine walking. He cannot choose to walk b/c his physical condition does not allow that, but his thought process can still be focused on a choice he cannot make.

Likewise w/ your example of the woman w/ the brain injury, she has lost the ability to control impulses due to a physical injury, much like the paralyzed person. So although she cannot choose not to have sex w/ multiple partners b/c of the lack of impulse control, she still can feel regret, remorse, and other thoughts which condemn her actions. She may want to stop having sex w/ strangers, but like the paralyzed man who cannot walk no matter how much he wants to, she cannot control her impulses.

So in short, I believe the will has much to do w/ the ego rather than the ability to choose freely. After all, we can learn how to change negative thought patterns, attitudes, and many other aspects of our thoughts, wishes and desires. A person may be a pesstimist, but that does not mean that person will always be one.

Just an alternative idea on the classic free will vs. determinism debate...

Peace and love

[gib_0101]

To answer an earlier question, I believe there is much more to free will than the ability to choose an action or make a decision. This is my own opinion, so take it at face value. I think free will can be linked more closely to the human ego than anything else. I have not been able to come up w/ a concrete definition, so I will try to explain what I mean.

A paralized person cannot move, but does this eliminate will? I say no, that although the choice of walking has already been decided for him, he still can want to walk and imagine walking. He cannot choose to walk b/c his physical condition does not allow that, but his thought process can still be focused on a choice he cannot make.

Likewise w/ your example of the woman w/ the brain injury, she has lost the ability to control impulses due to a physical injury, much like the paralyzed person. So although she cannot choose not to have sex w/ multiple partners b/c of the lack of impulse control, she still can feel regret, remorse, and other thoughts which condemn her actions. She may want to stop having sex w/ strangers, but like the paralyzed man who cannot walk no matter how much he wants to, she cannot control her impulses.

So in short, I believe the will has much to do w/ the ego rather than the ability to choose freely. After all, we can learn how to change negative thought patterns, attitudes, and many other aspects of our thoughts, wishes and desires. A person may be a pesstimist, but that does not mean that person will always be one.

Just an alternative idea on the classic free will vs. determinism debate...

Peace and love
I like this account. I agree wholeheartedly. This is like the compatibalist account. It says that a will does not have to be something to goes against the laws of nature or the mechanics of the brain, it just has to be something that eminates from YOU, the agent. As long as it's YOU who are making the decisions to act, that constitutes a will. If it's a question of the agent's ability to control their body or impulses, that has more to do with whether the will is free or not, but an unfree will is still a will (just think of someone shackled up in chains).

[yyyesiam2]

to OWB: this may be true most of the time, but not always. we tend to behave like sheep in herds because we're programmed to be so. the greatest changes in society are usually brought about by those who strayed from the herd, or group mind. i do feel there is a group mind at work here, but that, because of freewill, we do not have to accept what that group mind is headed for, or what seems to us to be "fate". it is possible to predict what a group of people will do, but the prediction will not always be right. i still have to say i don't see any proof that our future is predetermined, just that there are more likely scenarios than others. the power of the individual stands far above that of the herd.

[tikoo]

yaya , we have a will that only a god may command . you shall do it . maybe only once or twice in a lifetime you'll experience this . it's only been intuited as a reality of goodness and purpose and is most difficult to express in concrete social language - thus the god idea . to understand and prove anything about it may require natural evolutionary time : an evolution of communal concious awareness , that is , a more objective One-Life mind and a like-wise advanced way of remembering .

reasoning the nature of will from moment-to-moment observation seems inadequate . since we reason with pattern language , events need to show a pattern . oh , Time ...

who shall will the phoenix to rise and sing ?

[yyyesiam2]

forgot to mention....there is no gauruntee that a million coin flips will be 50/50

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi yyyesiam2,
Thanx for writing back.
Also from what you have said, I think you would like The Foundation Series. It also talks about the anomalies you speak of, as being predicable. It just has a number of interesting ideas.

But anyway I digress; I’m just trying to show why I believe that both are true under differing circumstances. Normally when one enters in to a discussion of freewill versus predetermination an Omniscient God is the balance point. As in, if life is predetermined then someone had to predetermine it. And as I mentioned before assuming an Omniscient God all he would have to do is foreknow something and by definition it would be predestined to happen or he could not by definition be Omniscient. Thus taking my example of coin flips, if a million coins where tossed into the air an Omniscient God could say 500 of them will be heads at that point the amount of heads and tails would be predetermined but if one of the coins was marked by you so you could later find it, that coin would so to speak have free will and could be either heads or tails because the individual coins had not been predetermined just the out come of all the coins.

[mati]

if a person believes that they will sprout wings and fly away after jumping off a cliff, does that mean it will happen? Can we willingly change the laws of gravity? Many people, when faced with choices, feel their mind move easily from one idea to the other and think that if they wanted, they could choose either one, but it only a trick of the mind.

[Maitreya]

The point that is being missed is that although the choice comes from the agent, the agent is basing that choice off of prior experience. It doesn't matter is the person has the ability to do as he or she pleases, it only matters that that decision is completely dependent upon what occured before it.


The example of the woman with brain damage: it been said that her will is illustrated through her ability to judge the situation how she feels, even if she doesn't have the ability to control it. But her will and her ego are products of her experiences. Nothing can come from nothing.

It would be easier to rephrase: we have will, but that will is predetermined.

OR because we have freewill we are predetermined to make the decisions we do. The will is just another variable in the equation calculating what we are going to do next.

[yyyesiam2]

if one acts in complete silence, is this based on anything prior?

[gib_0101]

How 'bout this:


Everything that has come prior does not determine what you do, but what you are. What you are, in turn, determines what you do, but only through you. So if my experiences with dogs, say, are bad ones, then I become a person who doesn't like dogs. My dislike for dogs means that I will choose not to buy a pet dog.

Does that change anything?

[tikoo]

a passionately created cause may by artful design have an indeterminate effect . some people get angry at such a causation and complain of its powerful nonsense . it's how art can cause a riot , tho that was not at all intentional .

[Maitreya]

If someone acts in complete silence, there is a reason they do so. They have found the virtue in it. If a person chooses to remain silent for no reason, it is for that lack of reason they choose to do so.


Our arguements can be distinguished as such: you are defining the decision making process as freewill. So that when a person has to make a choice between X and Y, when all the factors have been considered, they still have the choice to choose either. But as a machine that has deduced its way to the top of the food chain, we do not stop reasoning until we come to a decision that we are comfortable. The process doesn't stop until there is an answer to the problem.

If R + T + L + J = X, and R + T + L + K = Y, then we must necessarily weigh the value of J and K. But J and K are not independent either. They both have their own equations. The more someone logically sifts through the variables, the closer they come to a decision. A decision that is dependent on all others.

Another example, if the first occurance in existance was A, and B was the second, then B is completely dependent upon A because there were no other variables to effect it. So that C is completely dependent upon A and B. And so forth and so on. To think that we humans are somehow seperate from this line of dependence is prideful.

[yyyesiam2]

i agree that to relax into silence begins with a decision based in the brain, which is subject to all these forces we are discussing, but are there any that follow?

[Maitreya]

Silence has many repercussions. The choice to be silent then determines the next occurance in accordance with what ever else exists. And your choice for silence will then effect your next decision, along with the rest of reality that is within your scope.

It is interesting, though, to imagine a person in an enclosed system without any other variables choosing to remain effortless. This action would definitly have a reaction, and all I could imagine is that that person would make exponential leaps into enlightenment. But this can only be imagined. Besides, if that person were on an enclosed system with no other variables, death would be the only outcome, and would necessarily be accepted, thus the person would remain effortless.

[FreakerSoup]

Enk - Of course. I am not saying that I am definitely correct, but I obviously think that I am. That does not make it so.

OWB - I don't think that knowledge of the way things will happen matters. If things must happen a certain way, they will, regardless of whether anybody knows it. Also, I read one of the Foundation books in high school, and just started reading the trilogy. So good.

Predetermination does not require a predeterminer. Circumstances beyond control are quite natural. If a tree is sawn through, it will fall. It will not rise up. If a rock is rolled down a hill, it will stop. If a cow is slaughtered, it will bleed. If a person is kicked, they will feel pain. If a person meets someone they despise, a certain brain pattern will show up at that point. Certain neurons fire certain ways. You can't control that.

Hippiechick - I think Maitreya and I are trying to say the same thing. Sure, people may or may not make choices. If they do, these choices are predetermined. They cannot control the things in their mind that influence their choices. If they don't make a choice, that may itself be a choice. Again, you can't control the impulses your brain. You are the impulses in your brain. Whether someone makes a choice or not is predetermined itself. Whether people use whatever will they have, or how they use it, is predetermined. As Maitreya said, every action has a reaction. Maybe if a grain of sand had not been washed from a mountain a million years ago, we would be taking different sides in this conversation.

A paralyzed man may not move, but he has thoughts. Why do you ever think the things that you do? They come into your head based on what came before. Previous thoughts, actions, and circumstances make present thoughts.

The instance of the woman with the head injury was less to illustrate my free will argument and more to illustrate my choice/personality argument. The article said that she did indeed feel terrible about her problem, but she couldn't do anything about it. Maybe if she injured her brain again, she wouldn't feel terrible. But the choices we make, the thoughts we think, everything we do, are very much controlled by our brain. A little thing like a chemical imbalance can change your whole outlook on life. A couple thousand molecules of certain hormones can change your personality.

Gib - The will of a man shackled to a wall is very different from the will of a man in whom the position of every atom at a particular time has been predetermined. I would call both will, but one is (in your theory) making a choice to think a certain way, whereas the other (in mine) only has the illusion of that choice, when really his choice was going to be such since the beginning of the universe.

Your last post is simply different language for the same thing. Using the chain rule, everything that comes prior determines what you do.

yyyesiam - Once one decides to remain silent, one must keep deciding to continue that. What was the question you wanted my response to? I'm going to assume it's post 42. In response to that:

I don't think an origin is required. Just that everything was at a certain place at a certain time. I'm not sure many people do indeed understand gravity, but it is nonetheless a good explanation. Consider this example: There is a square. At each corner is a point, of equal mass. There are points A, B, C, and D arranged like this:

AB
CD

All points repel at a certain acceleration, depending on mass. Like antigravity. So A and D will go directly opposite from each other, as will C and B. The four points will always form a square, and if you know the acceleration, you can predict where each point will be for a given time after time 0.

Now, add another point. Right between A and B. Point E, same mass. Now it looks like this (proportionately).

A E B

C D

Now the calculation is more complex. I don't know exactly how it would work, but it would probably look like non-equilateral pentagon after a while. If you really wanted to do all the trigonometry, you could figure it out.

The forces of the natural world are too complex, especially in a system with so many points, so many variables, and so much time, for anyone to do such a calculation for the real world. But that doesn't mean such a calculation doesn't exist or doesn't mean anything.

[FreakerSoup]

Whew!

I forgot to add this:

http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/funny_cat_pictures_23.jpg

[Bradley1107]

yyyesaim -
I think so. I would say that the interactions of particles since the beginning of time could have predicted that a person would make that decision, since it was just a flow of energy in the brain.



Okie - I know it isn't completely scientific, but I think there are a number of logical problems with the concept of a soul. That I do not think that there are supernatural forces acting upon our consciousness is just my starting point for my view on this.

The problem with studying consciousness is that it is subjective. I cannot prove that someone else is conscious at all, I just have to assume so. What would a person without a conscious mind be like? Who knows? Do dogs have consciousness? Frogs? Bugs? What is different between what goes on inside us and what goes on inside a problem-solving computer? Why wouldn't something material be able to form consciousness?
You don't think that there are "supernatural" forces at work, but how can you define "supernatural." If something IS than it is natural, and certainly there are things that we cannot yet even come close to explaining through modern science. It doesn't mean they are "supernatural" it just means that our science is only as good as our tools and methods allow it to be.

[gib_0101]

Gib - The will of a man shackled to a wall is very different from the will of a man in whom the position of every atom at a particular time has been predetermined. I would call both will, but one is (in your theory) making a choice to think a certain way, whereas the other (in mine) only has the illusion of that choice, when really his choice was going to be such since the beginning of the universe.
Well, we may not be talking about entirely different things here. Let me see if I understand you.

I just think of "will" as what a cause becomes when you are that cause. I also leave the freedom of the will out of the picture at this point (i.e. if freedom is to be inserted, it requires an additional argument). So it's possible for a will to be a genuine will without being free.

Something you said though makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing:


whereas the other (in mine) only has the illusion of that choice, when really his choice was going to be such since the beginning of the universe.

It sounds like you're thinking of the causes of the choices one makes from the outside - that is, as if you've stepped outside your brain and are observing the neurons and chemicals at work, causing your actions. That's typically how we objectify things, and we do this in order to arrive at an objective understanding of how certain phenomena (in this case, our will/brain) work. This is OK but it does change things slightly, but crucially, from the 1st person perspective. From a 1st person perspective - that is, by thinking of it in terms of what the subjective experience of choosing is like - we find that we cannot be separated from the illusion and the "true" cause of our choices. They really are one and the same.

As I said though, the issue, once this subjective perspective is taken, is whether the will really is "free" in the sense that there are no prior causes determining it. We don't experience the causes from the subjective point of view, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Interestingly, though, if we are to speculate on the existence of such causes, we find that we are forced to go back into that 3rd person perspective, stepping outside ourselves so to speak, in order to observe them (in a hypothetical thought experiment, of course).

The question of freedom is not something I'll argue for or against at this point, but I just wanted to point out that a "will", at least as how I've defined it, is not necessarily an illusion. It might be said, on this basis, that our "choices" aren't either.

[yyyesiam2]

if we can agree that decisions and thought go together, how can there be decisions in silence?

to freaker: my point was that will and gravity are the same force and we actually don't know what either are. we just see their effects and give them names. another name, i suppose, would be movement, or action. something without definition logically ought not be used to define something else, right? when one does this, they aren't really saying or explaining anything, are they?

also, to say things were just in a certain place in a certain time still leaves the question of origin, logically: where did these certain things come from? where did that come from? where did that come from? etc.....

[Maitreya]

Thought and decisions do not necessarily go together. We do not think about the subconscious factors that come into play when a decision is made. When a person decides to be silent, the choice to remain silent is a continuous decision.


Just because our decisions are predetermined doesn't mean that our choices are only an illusion. There is a theory about that though, but I won't go into that. Our choices have real consequences. Far from the characteristics of something that doesn't exist.

Freaker, it seems that you are trying to pull predetermination away origin, perhaps to rule out a higher power. I won't debate a higher power since this isn't the topic of this thread, but one can not seperate predetermination from origin, since each occurance is the effect of that which came before. The origin I speak of isn't defined at all. It has no characteristics other than an abstract definition of the first occurance. One may give it what ever weight they wish, but it still exists as vital to the process. If you begin to work backwards, the occurances must naturally become less and less, until there is but one.

And just as there is a first occurance, lets call it "A", then there necessarily is a final occurance, lets call it "Z". So that every occurance between the two must be for Z to occur. Each choice we make it vital the chain, which makes them far from pointless. Again, Z is undefined, and it isn't important to do so. But one of the laws of energy is that everything that is, will one day cease to be.

[FreakerSoup]

Bradley - In this case, I would define "supernatural" as something that is not affected by the same effective relationships as the things that otherwise govern our destiny. So if there is a god and god is outside this whole system we are discussing, but can insert influence into the system, that is supernatural. That intrusion would throw off predestination for a period where the start is before this event and the end is after.

Gib - I think I can agree with that. I don't have a problem with saying that people have will, but I think that a person's will is predetermined. Since this is the case, I wouldn't call it free will. A person cannot make a certain choice or have a certain will without their brain chemistry/morphology being a certain way.

yyyesiam - What kind of silence? A person can be audibly silent, but will have a hard time being mentally silent. A mentally silent person is like a simple robot. They will have reflexive reactions, maintain bodily functions, but will be a vegetable. I think that, like dying, that is something a person cannot arrive at by sheer will.

What are you saying is undefined?

I don't think origin is important. If you could understand all the reactions and interacting forces, you could go back to see if there is one and what it is like, but I don't think it is necessary for determinism.

Maitreya - I see what you mean. Origin meaning an action to set all of history in motion. An action without a cause. To expand on my thought above...

I don't shy from an origin because of a higher power thing. But it would make as much sense to have a non-divine origin as a divine one. Maybe more, since instead of supreme intelligence springing from nothing, it would be a bit simpler, but still. You need an effect without a cause, which I think is a bit nonsensical. Even if there was a time when the universe did not exist, shouldn't there be a cause to bring it into existence?

Why would you come up with one occurrence if you work backward? That assumes that reactions reduce in number as you go back, and increase as you go forward, doesn't it? Why would that be the case?

What is this law of energy of which you speak?

[Bradley1107]

I think that certainly our brain chemistry or biology has a lot to do with the decisions we make on a daily basis. BUT that being said, some recent studies point to the idea that we can effectively change our behaviors, and after some time our newly formed habits will CHANGE our brain chemistry..

[yyyesiam2]

by silence, i mean lack of internal dialogue and thought forms. i have experienced this and it was the least robotic experience i have been through. our internal chatter is what is robotic and "predetermined". i am saying that gravity is undefined. without origin, all of the forces that you say determine our actions are also undefined and just as much a philosophy as anything else. we only see it's effects. look into it a bit. we call it an attraction between two forces, among other things. i don't feel that explains anything. i see we can agree that predeterminism requires an origin. we don't have to use the word divine, but this origin would have to non-logical. logic requires that everything have an origin. something without origin is non-logical and could not be subject to time. in fact, being the origin of all of these forces, it could not be subject to them, either. the reason things would naturally go back to one, is that there can be only one true origin-as far as i can see. i'm really enjoying this. i await your response.

post add-on: if we cannot agree that determinism requires an origin, i would really like to hear a logical explanation for that. it has probably been said, but to rely on previous forces to explain the present directly implies either origin or a completely non-logical existance existing outside of time, which determinism is based on.

[Bradley1107]

I hear you YYY... and by the way that is a great Einstein quote you got there.
I think he also said something to the point of,' if you can't express your ideas in simple ways, then you really don't understand them.' I think some of us here might be getting a little over our heads in theories that we may not have a complete grasp of.

[yyyesiam2]

eh.....some people see debating as a battle to be won, while others (myself and seemingly freaker included) see it as an (hopefully mutual) exchange and assimilation of information. it is my hope that we all get something out of this. personally, i am a bit more open, now, to the idea of a greater will than my own acting through me, though i feel that this greater will seems to have compartmentalized itself into individual freewill. this would mean that though this being's will is greater than my own, even "it" cannot predict what i will choose to do, just as i cannot predict what the cells of my body will always do. i can make an effort to be loving to my body, but only through direct experience on a cellular level (through meditation), could i even hope to understand the experience and will of these individuals (my cells). this being, to me, would not be an ultimate origin, of course. it seems like that could only be what has been labeled void ( a concept representing lack of concepts, lack of forces, lack of origin-which, i know, is very puzzling. this is why i stress the point that our logic is limited). i feel this may leave things open enough to accept there being a "will of god" that acts through me, combined with my own individual will. any thoughts? (i would still appreciate your response to my previous post, freaker.)

[yyyesiam2]

one more thing-bradley, i have no problem with you whatsoever, but i do feel the need to ask you to confront whoever you are talking about directly or not bring up such comments. if you feel someone isn't grasping something (me, freaker, or anyone else) it's probably much better to bring it to their attention, after making sure you grasp it yourself. if you feel you have some information one of us doesn't, please show some compassion and share. that probably came off pretty critical and i didn't intend any negativity. (insert polite concerned tone of voice)

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi FreakerSoup,

Thanx for giving my comment a thought, I appreciate that.

It very well might be true that as you say: Predetermination does not require a predeterminer. But that seems to me to at the same time that eliminates all freewill.

But I was trying to show that both freewill and predetermination can coexist. So in making my comments I made a couple of assumptions, which may or may not be true.

The first assumption I made was that the argument of freewill versus predetermination needs an Omniscient God because without one really what difference does it make whether a person has freewill or not.

The second assumption I made was to then go ahead and assume an Omniscient God. An Omniscient God is by definition is one that has the ability to know all things past, present and future. The past is not really a problem but this God knowing the present and future is a problem to freewill. Because if this God knows what will happen in the future it has to happen, if it does not happen, then by definition this God would not be an Omniscient God. This is why I believe, that in the case of an Omniscient God, knowledge of the way things will happen matters.

Thus in any area that this Omniscient God decides to know what will happen, it must happen and is thus predetermined, and any area that this Omniscient God decides not to know what will happen, any thing could happen and leaves room for freewill. Showing that freewill and predetermination can coexist.



PS I liked The Foundation Series because of the many ideas and concepts it had and I like any book like that, that makes you think.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi yyyesiam2,

“some people see debating as a battle to be won”
I think that the winner in a debate is the one that comes out of the discussion with a better understanding of both sides.

[FreakerSoup]

Bradley - If we change our own brain chemistry, what makes it more than just our brain chemistry changing our brain chemistry? Certain actions have certain reactions, maybe some actions in the brain result in different neural linkages and chemical changes.

yyyesiam - How do you eliminate this internal thought? How do you end the silence? Once such a state is entered, it would be handy to exit from it again. What causes a person to pick a particular time to do so? Do you still react to your environment?

Whether gravity has an origin or not, I don't see why it is undefined. As a physical being perhaps. Perhaps we don't (at least I don't) understand a physical mechanism by which it works, but I don't think that makes it less useful. Perhaps the only way to know gravity is by its effects. Glass can bend and separate light, but by the same standards, I think this mechanism is undefined. And yet this concept has been put to many practical arguments. Both of these things are universal as far as we know. It seems that many things follow the same laws. Many things will behave in a predictable manner in a closed system. This is why I think determinism is so compelling.

i see we can agree that predeterminism requires an origin. we don't have to use the word divine, but this origin would have to non-logical. logic requires that everything have an origin. something without origin is non-logical and could not be subject to time. in fact, being the origin of all of these forces, it could not be subject to them, either. the reason things would naturally go back to one, is that there can be only one true origin-as far as i can see.

I don't think it requires an origin. It seems to me that an origin would be its own kind of illogical, since something would happen without any inducement. The only way I see to avoid this and hold to origin would be to say that our universe sprouted from another, or from a multiverse, or something like that, but then those things need an origin as well.

What about time itself? Does time have an origin? Would time exist even if there were nothing to mark it by? There must be something without an origin, for how can something spring from nothing? If something exists outside of time, what does that mean? Does it mean that it remains constant through time, subject itself to none of the actions and reactions time may bring with it? If so, I would say that some things control actions and reactions, and some things are the actions and reactions. Forces in the universe direct and control actions and reactions.


OWB - I would reply that even if nobody knows what must happen, it must happen. Assume for a moment there is no god. It is 600 BC, and some random dude decides to drop a small rock and a large rock down a long chute which contains no air. Somehow. Those rocks would reach the ground at the same time regardless of whether anybody knew it. It had to be that way. The laws of the universe make it so.

Now assume again that there is no god. Scientists have discovered ways to really read what's going on inside a person's brain, so that they know that if Person A meets Person B at 10:13:29 AM on December 2, 2033, and the temperature is X, and the amount of pollution in the air is Y, and the distance between the closest edges of the Earth and Sun is Z, then Person A will say "Good morning" using a certain amount of lung capacity, at a certain pitch, with a certain expression. These scientists, upon figuring this out, seal this prediction in a vault to be opened no sooner than 10:14 AM, 12/2/2033, and then move on to completely different areas of study, never once doing anything differently now that they have this knowledge. When the right time rolls around, everything happens as predicted. Everything. Even the 12 thousand pages of variables I didn't mention were exactly as predicted. Here's the question: Did it happen like that because the scientists made that prediction? Did they, by knowing exactly what would happen when and where, change it from chance to destiny? I would answer no. It was always destined, but these scientists were merely able to discover it. Chance, then, is just our inability to understand destiny.

[yyyesiam2]

all you've shown me here is that you can't prove any of this. i have to say i think you skipped over the origin subject pretty fast. for there to be no origin requires that things always have been and always will be. this is pretty illogical and sounds like we're discussing the nature of god at this point. if there is no end and no beginning, things don't need to be one way or another.

[Bradley1107]

If we change our brain chemistry through a change in behavior, this implies that we had a choice in how we behaved, and the way in which we behaved (a decision we made) has effectively changed us. In my mind, this means that we control our destinies more than we realize.

[OlderWaterBrother]

Hi FreakerSoup,

You say; “I would reply” but I would say reply to what? Because what you say really does apply to what I was talking about. What I’m talking about is that tricky word omniscient. You say if “scientists predicted” see that’s the problem scientists are men and men are not now nor have they ever been nor will they ever be omniscient. Omniscience, by definition is having the ability to know all things past, present and future. Now I not saying that there is an omniscient being but if there is, if he chooses to know that something will happen in the future that very knowing means that thing will happen. It is then predestined to happen. If it doesn’t happen then that being can not be said to be omniscient.

That brings us to what I was talking about; assuming that there is an Omniscient God that can predestine things just by knowing them can there be such a thing as free will. And I was trying to show that, yes, freewill and predestination can coexist.



PS You may be trying to tell me that you think all things are predestined to happen and thus it doesn’t matter what anyone knows or doesn't know and that there is no such thing as freewill. In that case you would be right, but the trouble for me is that solution is unsatisfactory even though it could be true. I kind of like to think that I have a choice in the matter, let’s say I find it comforting to think that. With that in mind I like to assume that we have freewill.

[Reefer Rogue]

I believe in absolute freedom, mainly based on Sartre's Atheist existentialism. That's as much as i feel to elaborate for now.

[tikoo]

are you skillful of will ?

a skillful determinist shall be called manipulator .

the skillful artist of creative will is freedom maker , a kind and true friend .

[tikoo]

the illusion of freewill has been determined . it can be manipulated . yes , it is useful to the state that citizens believe they choose freely . this illusion of freewill is akin to the illusion of eternal life - at the root essence of the idea may be a vital and emotive reality relating to survival . the literal actuallity is repressed as idea and the illusions are most useful to the masters who have been determined to rule . this has been your civilization .

[yyyesiam2]

nothing has been determined here. we're all at a stand still.

[tikoo]

yes , this civilization is stand-still dying and determinism can do nothing about it . survival is creative . peace is creative . eternal life is creative . i am pushing your belly button ... i am laughing with crows ... i am free to give you freewill .

freewill by nature does not manipulate an arguement . it touches , it tickles . it may cause indeterminate motion and this , like life , is good .

play free , think free . tis the divine anarchy .

[Maitreya]

The idea of an origin doesn't necessarily convey a time where nothing existed. Everything has existed for all time in a repetative pulse. A big bang that causes a big contraction that causes a big bang that causes a big contraction. These two occurances are dependent upon each other and they cause existance be born and die over and over. This balance is associated with a divine power, although the use of divine here is not meant to carry with it the baggage that so many people place on it. It is an abstract idea, and one that can not be explained through normal language, but can be felt.

All future actions depend upon those that occur before them. It is necessity. The assumption that humans have freewill is used to give ourselves a sense of control. We fear the realization that we are not in complete control of our destiny. And this fear causes us to be violent, sneaky, and selfish. We have lost our connection to existance because we consider ourselves something special. But this is only an illusion.

Maitreya

[yyyesiam2]

i don't know about anyone else, but i was talking about an original origin. an origin of all, including the process you speak of.

[tikoo]

i am speaking of this moment as an origin . this origin can be touched by the will . at least you can hold it and know something from it . touch it with the will like an artist of peace , please .

cuz itsa shared moment ,
the origin moment

[yyyesiam2]

nicely said.

[tikoo]

a determinist is caused to be a determinist who causes determinism . ha ha ha , destined to be a cause in a closed system . entropic .