Originally posted by George Spigot:
When good decreed that we must have free will I guess we had no choice in the matter.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Me too, but one of the things I've learned here on the Ship is that there is an amazing range in what people mean when they use the term.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me.
quote:What baffles me is that you think very many people believe this.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me.
quote:Now that is an intriguing approach!
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
In other words, the proposition "There is no free will" is trivial, because it has no implications for action if it is applied to oneself. And a proposition that can only be meaningful about others isn't really defensible, unless you're prepared to claim that you aren't really human like all those other automata.
quote:I've never studied philosophy so can only really examine this sort of thing in the most simplistic terms. It certainly feels like I have free will. What is it exactly about the "naturalistic approach" that causes a quandary?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would not say it's fashionable really. I think if you support naturalism, then free will becomes very questionable, since there does not appear to be any agent to exert free will. This goes hand in hand with notions of physical determinism.
So I would say that an absence of free will is an inevitable consequence of many versions of naturalism.
However, I chat with quite a lot of people who also say that free will just seems intuitively apparent, so they are in a quandary, if they support naturalism.
I guess for theists, there is less difficulty with free will, but maybe there are still problems, e.g. do I choose my beliefs? I would say not. But yes, it is very complicated.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Never said that.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The idea that we have complete free will over our acts and choices kind of baffles me. [/per sQUOTE]What baffles me is that you think very many people believe this.
quote:If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[QB] Some people I've spoken to think that we don't have free will as, given our genetic make-up, upbringing and culture they believe that our thoughts, desires, words and actions are inevitable. Nobody, in their eyes, is therefore responsible for his or her behaviour, as they could do no other.
P
While I understand the reasoning, by observation the theory fails. We're able to learn, to change, and to exercise self-control, all of which require a will, a determination, a readiness for perseverance. We're able to discover our tendencies, whether learned or inherited, the triggers which initiate undesired behaviour, and deny them oany progress.
Free will is for me a vital aspect of faith in God. We're able to freely choose whether or not to seek and find God, and if we do, we're able to freely decide whether or not to continue the relationship once started, and whether or not to serve God. We're therefore fully responsible for all we say and do. [B]
quote:Got a bit delayed there. I'm being devil's advocate here, by the way, since I'm not an atheist.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
quote:Whatever one's philosophy about it all, everyone acts as if they were an agent. I don't think you can do otherwise.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think these arguments are often contradicted by a kind of intuitive sense that I am an agent.
quote:Maybe all children have limited free-will, as they are dependant on their parents. But as they mature into adulthood, these persons have more free will to seek out God for themselves.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
And that doesn't even address the idea that if you seek you shall find.
quote:You seem to be confusing opportunity with freedom. Free will refers to ability to choose any of various options that are available to one. It doesn't refer to whatever processes or circumstances it would require to have things be(come) available.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
quote:How a child is raised has so much to with his eventual choices as an adult that it limits his free will.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Maybe all children have limited free-will, as they are dependant on their parents. But as they mature into adulthood, these persons have more free will to seek out God for themselves.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
And that doesn't even address the idea that if you seek you shall find.
Let's face it, these days plenty of children which were nurtured in a christian household end up atheists, and not a few which were brought up atheists find religion - they maybe have lacked guidance, which is why they can fall prey to all kinds of wierd cults, but they have free will.
And don't forget that "seek and ye shall find" was addressed to Jesus' disciples - not to people who were looking for God.
quote:Ok.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You seem to be confusing opportunity with freedom. Free will refers to ability to choose any of various options that are available to one. It doesn't refer to whatever processes or circumstances it would require to have things be(come) available.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If a person is born into a family that does not present God he does not have the same freedom of will to seek God as a child who was raised to seek God at some point.
quote:That I will not deny.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
But even "ability" varies greatly.
quote:I like this explanation! Even if our sub-conscious mind decides on an action before the conscious mind knows it, I think it is quite reasonable to think that free will is involved, since each person's brain has an individual collection of experiences and information which make that individual behave in whichever way he/she does. Sounds as if Epicurus was a man ahead of his time, who would enjoy the modern world!
His theory differs from the earlier atomism of Democritus because he admits that atoms do not always follow straight lines but their direction of motion may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve' (clinamen). This allowed him to avoid the determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and to affirm free will.
quote:I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
quote:And it's interesting that physical determinism is pretty much old hat now, as far as I can see. Word on the street, is that we are involved in many stochastic processes, i.e. that are unpredictable.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Wikipedia on Epicurus:quote:I like this explanation! Even if our sub-conscious mind decides on an action before the conscious mind knows it, I think it is quite reasonable to think that free will is involved, since each person's brain has an individual collection of experiences and information which make that individual behave in whichever way he/she does. Sounds as if Epicurus was a man ahead of his time, who would enjoy the modern world!
His theory differs from the earlier atomism of Democritus because he admits that atoms do not always follow straight lines but their direction of motion may occasionally exhibit a 'swerve' (clinamen). This allowed him to avoid the determinism implicit in the earlier atomism and to affirm free will.
quote:The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
Why does the fact that my brain is made of nerves and cells stop it from being able to choose one thing over another?
Or do I have the wrong definition of free will? I could have toast or cereal for breakfast. If I decide to have one rather than the other then I'm exercising free will. Are people using free will in a different context here?
quote:Ah I understand now. That's a really good way of putting it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:I'm not sure I agree with your use of the word just. What if you were to point to an aeroplane and comment on it's ability to fly and I responded don't be silly it can't possibly fly, it's just bits of metal and plastic.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
Why does the fact that my brain is made of nerves and cells stop it from being able to choose one thing over another?
Or do I have the wrong definition of free will? I could have toast or cereal for breakfast. If I decide to have one rather than the other then I'm exercising free will. Are people using free will in a different context here?
Otherwise, it begins to sound a bit like some arguments for theism - I know that God exists, because that's my experience. To which the atheist can of course reasonably reply, well, it's not mine, so I know God does not exist.
quote:Actually, George, that's the one thing we cannot say - because no-one can know God, apart from what He chooses to reveal of Himself to us.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
...So we could say that it's possible that no being, not even God has free will.
quote:I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Actually, George, that's the one thing we cannot say - because no-one can know God, apart from what He chooses to reveal of Himself to us.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
...So we could say that it's possible that no being, not even God has free will.
My signature (a quote from the current Pope) tells us that He most definitely does have free will. What Revelation is there to contradict this?
quote:The theory would be that the cells, nerves and processes are George Spigot's 'you'.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
quote:Clearly?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Clearly people with such abnormality are not choosing to behave as they do, any more than I have chosen to see so imperfectly that I need two lenses superimposed on my face before I start to drive a car.
quote:If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
Currently, unlike my shortsightedness, we are unable to overcome such brain abnormality so fairness(?) would suggest that we should find a decent way of protecting society from such dangerous individuals whilst accepting that prison, punishment, retribution, revenge, indoctrination (religious or not) and education are inappropriate (through inevitable ineffectiveness) responses.
quote:This does not follow. Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision.
There seems to be a considerable body of experimental evidence, including using fMRI scanners, which suggests that our conscious brain plays no part in making decisions, but that, as with memory and sight for example, we tell ourselves stories to explain what we would like to believe is true, to smooth out the uncomfortable bumps in our mental processes. This evidence suggests that when we decide what to do the decision is made in our unconscious mind and relayed to our conscious mind. We kid ourselves that we are making a decision when, in fact, the decision is already made and we may have already started to act on the unconscious thought.
quote:Well, the radical naturalists and atheists would probably deny that persons exist. Although, in my experience, they tend to get a bit tongue-tied over that one, since as with free will, it seems to take them into complete eliminativism, which is a scary place. I think maybe there are then not really any ideas even.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The theory would be that the cells, nerves and processes are George Spigot's 'you'.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The thing is, George, that there is no "you" (according to naturalistic theory) - it is just cells, nerves and processes all working on autopilot, so to speak.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ok but what stops me being an agent carrying out free will actions?
After all, normally should you meet that bundle of cells, nerves and processes at a shipmeet you'd say you'd seen the person, even though you hadn't seen anything apart from the cells and processes.
It's not just naturalistic theories. Thomas Aquinas writes somewhere, 'I am my body'.
quote:On this path solipsism lies. If we're not to all become Skinnerians, we're going to have to trust each other's reports of their internal states.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
quote:This seems eminently reasonable.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
quote:On your point about solipsism, surely the point here is that if we trust X, who narrates that he experiences God, and experiences free will, then we are duty bound also to trust Y, who says he doesn't. This is OK, I guess, since then we are led to relativism!
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have long liked the formula I heard whilst a grad student in Philosophy: the soul or self is an epiphenomenon of the body. It's something that the body does, so to speak. A function as much as a thing.
quote:On this path solipsism lies. If we're not to all become Skinnerians, we're going to have to trust each other's reports of their internal states.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble with that argument is that we only have your word for it. Is there any evidence that you have free will, or that your brain does?
quote:This seems eminently reasonable.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can just as easily say no-one can know me, apart from what I chooses to reveal of myself to them.
quote:Some people may have experiences of God, and some not. I don't see why that's a problem, or what kind of "relativism" you think this leads to. I certainly wouldn't expect Y to believe in God because of X's experiences; but nor should Y denigrate X for believing in God based on his experiences. But this is about epistemology not free will.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On your point about solipsism, surely the point here is that if we trust X, who narrates that he experiences God, and experiences free will, then we are duty bound also to trust Y, who says he doesn't. This is OK, I guess, since then we are led to relativism!
quote:Would they? Do you have any examples that make you think that? I'm not sure even the most eliminative of materialists go that far.
Well, the radical naturalists and atheists would probably deny that persons exist.
quote:Interesting. Explain please? (I'm sorry, I had a great time in Ghana. I'll try to get back to you soon)
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Like Kaplan Corday
, I agree with Dr. Johnson on the question of human free will. What really intrigues me, however, is whether God, given his nature, has free will. I don't think he does.
quote:Why? – in my teens I read The Screwtape Letters and some book that involved “Perelandra” (I glanced at Amazon and recall the word but nothing more). I'm not a literature critic and he may be an excellent writer in some learned people's opinion but from circa fifty years ago I remember thinking that he was an artless preacher wrapping his brand of proselytization in a sugar coating of pseudo science-fiction - I was into the likes of Pohl, Ellison, Heinlein, Clarke and Asimov (the extended Foundation trilogy is one of the few works I’ve re-read several times). Perhaps I'm being unfair since the last book I read because it was recommended to me was The Shack - I don't recall when I last worked so hard to keep a promise. (No link - if you insist upon investigating on your own head be it).
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
HughWillRidMe
Two points: it is time you read C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength.
quote:Your point has some merit – it would be interesting to know what evidence was available from post-mortem examinations on the population at large.
Secondly the problem is that we can say that about psychopaths because that is not enough evidence. What we know is that Psychopaths have brain damage in a particular area. What we do not know is how many people in the population have similar brain damage but aren't psychopaths. Ay psychopaths are a very small portion of the population the ONLY way to find that out is population screening.
quote:We all make choices - some people probably are restricted in the breadth of the choices they can make - but the experimental evidence seems to suggest that we make those choices in our unconcious according to routines we cannot deliberately alter - we have no element of what most would regard as free will
Originally posted by Dafyd:
All you're saying is that psychopaths haven't chosen to be psychopaths. That doesn't show that they don't make choices.
quote:You can’t imagine any way to protect society without imprisonment (incarceration within a building) other than terminal violence? An adaptation of Bastoey with no prospect of release? (almost splitting hairs but it's not technically banging them up in a building and regulating every minute of their existence).
If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
quote:Of course it doesn’t – it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
quote:That's what it means only if you define free will as something that requires our conscious mind to operate completely apart from our subconscious mind. All you are pointing out is that our conscious mind doesn't operate that way. Why should free will or any other mental ability require no involvement of our subconscious?
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Of course it doesn’t - it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
quote:Why is that so crazy? Remember that our posts are themselves causes that will have an effect.
Originally posted by The Midge:
I am amused by the observation of those who are compelled by cause and effect to post on a thread to argue that free will does not exist.
Are they hoping to change minds are compelled by cause and effect to believe there is such a thing as free will? Perhaps they better decide to find something more constructive to do.
quote:I would have certainly have described that as imprisonment myself. Admittedly, probably more effective at rehabilitation than what passes for a penal policy in a country where relevant decisions are governed by how they will play with the Daily Mail - but you already said that rehabilitation wasn't a factor and you'd also ruled out education.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:You can’t imagine any way to protect society without imprisonment (incarceration within a building) other than terminal violence? An adaptation of Bastoey with no prospect of release? (almost splitting hairs but it's not technically banging them up in a building and regulating every minute of their existence).
Originally posted by Dafyd: If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
quote:Why does it mean that? Why does free will have to be conscious?
quote:Of course it doesn’t – it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
quote:In the case of human beings freedom of choice in moral and ethical terms means a choice to do good or ill. Sometimes our will impels us in one direction and at other times in the opposite direction. In the case of God, however, who is the quintessence of love, it is difficult to conceive of his will being any other than to do the loving thing. He cannot be unloving or do evil.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Like Kaplan Corday, I agree with Dr. Johnson on the question of human free will. What really intrigues me, however, is whether God, given his nature, has free will. I don't think he does.
Fool on the hill: Interesting. Explain please?
quote:Is morality/ethics the only sphere of choice? The only sphere that matters? I'm not sure any Christian would say that God could choose to do evil, would they? In terms of good and evil, God must act in accordance with God's nature/character. But that isn't the only kind of choice humans are capable of making, and conceivably God could be capable of making other choices, choices between something good and something equally good.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In the case of human beings freedom of choice in moral and ethical terms means a choice to do good or ill.
quote:I take your point, but what sort of choices do you have in mind?
In terms of good and evil, God must act in accordance with God's nature/character. But that isn't the only kind of choice humans are capable of making, and conceivably God could be capable of making other choices, choices between something good and something equally good.
quote:The largest one is, I think, is usually said to be: to create a physical world or not. Unless it can be shown that it would be evil not to.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethiefquote:I take your point, but what sort of choices do you have in mind?
In terms of good and evil, God must act in accordance with God's nature/character. But that isn't the only kind of choice humans are capable of making, and conceivably God could be capable of making other choices, choices between something good and something equally good.
quote:Why do you think he made the choice so to do?
The largest one is, I think, is usually said to be: to create a physical world or not.
quote:The evidence appears to suggest that our decisions are made within our unconcious.
Originally posted by The Midge:
I am amused by the observation of those who are compelled by cause and effect to post on a thread to argue that free will does not exist.
Are they hoping to change minds are compelled by cause and effect to believe there is such a thing as free will? Perhaps they better decide to find something more constructive to do.
quote:Yes we did George, we have the choice to go with the flow and not use it, or deny its existence altogether.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
When good decreed that we must have free will I guess we had no choice in the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Why? – in my teens I read The Screwtape Letters and some book that involved “Perelandra” (I glanced at Amazon and recall the word but nothing more). I'm not a literature critic and he may be an excellent writer in some learned people's opinion but from circa fifty years ago I remember thinking that he was an artless preacher wrapping his brand of proselytization in a sugar coating of pseudo science-fiction - I was into the likes of Pohl, Ellison, Heinlein, Clarke and Asimov (the extended Foundation trilogy is one of the few works I’ve re-read several times.)
quote:When we try to apply the idea of free will to God, I think we go astray because when we apply it to ourselves we imagine dilemmas. But God has no dilemmas--she simply acts spontaneously according to her nature. And God's nature is simple, with no internal conflicts (unlike ours). God creates because God's nature is creative.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think there are two things going on here and it's important to distinguish between them:
1. Was God compelled (so to speak) to create because of something in His nature other than the impossibility of doing evil?
2. Was God compelled to create because it would have been evil not to?
Up until now we have been discussing #2, in conjunction with the question of whether "free will" in humans is merely a matter of judging between good and evil. (Or in other words, merely has to do with questions of morality/ethics.) So if I say, "No, I do not believe God was free to not create," it is important to distinguish in which of the two above senses I believe this unfreedom falls. I do believe God was compelled to create, but the reason, for me, falls into the first of these.
But this thread is primarily about human free will. I was trying to make the point that human free will concerns other things than just questions about good and evil. It seemed that you were equating "free choice" and "free choice in matters of good and evil" without explicitly saying so and as if everybody agreed on the equation.
quote:No, it doesn't.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some people I've spoken to think that we don't have free will... While I understand the reasoning, by observation the theory fails
my edit
quote:No, they don't.
We're able to learn, to change, and to exercise self-control, all of which require a will,
quote:None of which supports a contention for free will.
a determination, a readiness for perseverance. We're able to discover our tendencies, whether learned or inherited, the triggers which initiate undesired behaviour, and deny them any progress.
quote:Only some christian allegory?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
HughWillRidmee, me ol' mucker - "That Hideous Strength" is the third book of C. S. Lewis' space (sci-fi) trilogy. "Perelandra", is the second and the first is "Out of the Silent Planet." They are fiction, but with some christian allegory - some have called them "Narnia for adults." Having said that, I accept they may not be everybody's cup of tea, christian or atheist. But instead of heeding to preconcieved ideas about Lewis' fiction, why not give them a try?
I remember many years back, trying to get into Asimov, but for some reason I just couldn't.
quote:However the act of crafting a post, honing and argument, selecting words and thinking through a position would seem to be an example of making a conscious decision and choice; or the exercising of free will.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:The evidence appears to suggest that our decisions are made within our unconcious.
Originally posted by The Midge:
I am amused by the observation of those who are compelled by cause and effect to post on a thread to argue that free will does not exist.
Are they hoping to change minds are compelled by cause and effect to believe there is such a thing as free will? Perhaps they better decide to find something more constructive to do.
These decisions appear to be the result of interplay between routines that are "hard-wired" through two causes.
One of those causes is inherited from our biological parents, the other is the result of our experience - we call this learning.
Additional learning can lead to new routines.
If you read posts on SoF you may learn something.
New routines may result in decisions which differ from those previously made based on a smaller number of routines.
If you think that making decisions within your unconcious mind constitutes free will - then you probably have free will.
If you think that free will involves a concious process the evidence suggests that we don't have free will.
One online dictionary defines free will as follows - feel free to argue with the compiler(s) if you disagree.
Definition of free will
noun
[mass noun]
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
adjective
[attributive]
(especially of a donation) voluntary: free-will offerings
quote:I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
quote:Is there really a difference? Do birds/fish/reptiles have any free will or are they simply at the mercy of their instincts?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
quote:I'm tempted to use the word 'balderdash', but by my free will and determination I've resisted, as my desire to resist is greater than my desire not to.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
No, it doesn't.
No, they don't.
None of which supports a contention for free will.
Let's suppose I was a little over-weight; I learn that this situation has arisen primarily because of my prediliction for the gourmet chocolates available at a small shop I pass on my way home. Because of my desire to be slimmer, I determine to avoid these delicate delights, yet am unable to pass the particular establishment without popping in for one, two or fifty (they just melt in your mouth). Later however, when my desire to be slim is once more the stronger, I recognize that within the shop's immediate vicinity my desire for the chocolates is too powerful to resist, I thereby select a different route for future journeys.
But will (free, Frank, or purchased for $5.95 at the local off-licence) had nothing to do with it - just another example of the myriad and conficting desires which constitute that which we call 'the self'.
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
You are a Christian because it satisfies various desires which you possess; just as conversely I am an atheist because I lack similar desires - or at least they are out-weighed by my desire to believe the explanation most likely. The relative intelligence/stupidity of either of us is irrelevant - we are each merely vessels for our desires.
But there is a simple way in which you can prove me wrong - become an atheist for a month!
You can still live by the prescibed Christian moral strictures and I'm sure that God will understand as you will be demonstrating a fundamental precept of your faith. Then, after a month, you merely will yourself back to being a Christian.
Cheers
S-E
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I'm not quite sure how this came about, but I can see no reason to deny that animals (incl. birds, fish, reptiles) have no free will once we've decided that we ourselves do.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do birds/fish/reptiles have any free will or are they simply at the mercy of their instincts?
Do we have free will because we can think through our options?
quote:The obvious difference is that belief is supposed to be governed by the way the world is. The direction of fit is belief to world. Beliefs that don't represent the world accurately are false. So whatever we think of free will, we want our beliefs to be as bound to the world as we can make them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is there really a difference? Do birds/fish/reptiles have any free will or are they simply at the mercy of their instincts?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
Do we have free will because we can think through our options?
quote:This doesn't quite ring true to me. Yes, many of our beliefs are simple expressions of what we think to be true -- that the sun will rise tomorrow and the like. But many of our most cherished beliefs strike me as aspirational -- that our spouse loves us forever, that God is in His heaven and all is right with the world, etc.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The obvious difference is that belief is supposed to be governed by the way the world is. The direction of fit is belief to world. Beliefs that don't represent the world accurately are false. So whatever we think of free will, we want our beliefs to be as bound to the world as we can make them.
quote:Timothy, thanks for expressing with clarity the point I was fumbling to express earlier.
When we try to apply the idea of free will to God, I think we go astray because when we apply it to ourselves we imagine dilemmas. But God has no dilemmas--she simply acts spontaneously according to her nature. And God's nature is simple, with no internal conflicts (unlike ours). God creates because God's nature is creative.
quote:I did.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
quote:I agree that belief shades off into h***. And h*** is not governed by precisely the same rules. But still, I don't think one ought to h*** things that aren't true - such h***s are misguided or misplaced.
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb]Yes, many of our beliefs are simple expressions of what we think to be true -- that the sun will rise tomorrow and the like. But many of our most cherished beliefs strike me as aspirational -- that our spouse loves us forever, that God is in His heaven and all is right with the world, etc.
quote:Sounds like you could be being called
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Socratic-enigma wrote:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian. You are a Christian because it satisfies various desires which you possess; just as conversely I am an atheist because I lack similar desires - or at least they are out-weighed by my desire to believe the explanation most likely. The relative intelligence/stupidity of either of us is irrelevant - we are each merely vessels for our desires. But there is a simple way in which you can prove me wrong - become an atheist for a month! You can still live by the prescibed Christian moral strictures and I'm sure that God will understand as you will be demonstrating a fundamental precept of your faith. Then, after a month, you merely will yourself back to being a Christian.
Interesting stuff, and I have puzzled over this for years. I certainly did not choose to be interested in Christianity - that seems entirely non-volitional. You could say that I chose to take it further, by going to a church and so on.
But I have to confess I don't really know what 'I chose to' means. What is the I that did this? A part of the brain?
The same with the idea of will. What is it? To carry out a desire I suppose. But again, what is it that is doing that?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Have you forgotton all about irresistible grace already mousethief?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I did.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
quote:Consciousness, unprovable by scientific standards, is forever, then, the impossible phantom in the predictable biologic machine, and your every thought a genuine supernatural event. Your every thought is a g****, dancing. - Alan Moore
Originally posted by The Midge:
However the act of crafting a post, honing and argument, selecting words and thinking through a position would seem to be an example of making a conscious decision and choice; or the exercising of free will. The appearance of conscious thought is demonstrated, at least sometimes, to be simply the way the unconscious informs the conscious of a decision already made B Libet & others 1983, B Libet 1985, J D Haynes 2011. Decoding and predicting intentions. Ann. NY Acaad. Scui. 1224(1):9-21 and I. Fried, R. Mukamel & G. Kreiman, 2011. Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition. Neuron, 69: 548-562; plus P. Haggard, 2011 Decision time for free will. Neuron, 69: 404-406 What experimental evidence exists either to counter these studies or demonstrate that the opposite is sometimes true?
I think that the truth lies between the polls of determinism and complete free agency. We are given a dealt a hand of cards and can make a choice about which card to play. Sometimes we are dealt a bad hand and have limited or difficult choices. Other times we have much more or more powerful/ significant choices. Some choice is limited through our nature others by nurture. I agree with all but your first sentence – it is not a consequence of what follows it. I suspect that all choices are limited by both nature and nurture, both lay down routines within the unconscious and our decision is formed by the balance/conflict resolution of the existing routines.
Some choices require training before an event to enable us to make a good decision at a crucial time. Training in CPR allowed me to *****ister** life saving first aid when I came across a casualty. If I hadn’t made a choice to learn and practice the skills, the choice would not be available when the crunch came. However I knew the routines almost subconsciously. I could have just walked past on the other side of the road. Spiritual disciplines work in the same way; practice them and we are able to live godly* lives, neglect them and we are much weaker.
*I would like to say better but let’s be real! The oath of religion that some choose to follow is far from better.
No problem with training, I learnt my multiplication tables by rote, I obviously don’t accept the suggestion that spiritual discipline inevitability = a godly (or better) life. What you would presumably call spiritual discipline could perhaps lead to a better life - though only for a given value of better.
By consciously practising skills etc. we create unconscious routines which we can then use without reference to the (comparatively slow) conscious mind; riding a bike for instance. If you conciously think about correcting each wobble you'll soon fall off - leave it to the unconcious to make all those minor, instant, multi-muscle involving adjustments for you and you may arrive intact.
In “Incognito” by David Eagleman he claims that a baseball batter has less than 0.4 seconds to react and hit a fastball, though the conscious brain takes about half a second to react to the ball leaving the pitcher. Similar observations have been made about cricket (Wikipedia – the fastest delivery officially recorded was clocked at 161.39 km/h (100.3 mph) and was bowled by Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan during a match against England in the 2003 World Cup. The batsman facing the delivery was Nick Knight, who guided it into the leg side. = 20.5 yards in 0.42 seconds) and tennis – (8 servers recorded at over 150mph = 30 yards in 0.41 seconds). Eagleman also develops the idea that the brain acts* by arbitrating between multiple networks within itself.
*actually o p e r a t e s but it previews as ***rates
It may be said that at times when we feel we do not have a choice are times when we made decisions further back in the past. at some levels we don’t have choice – try committing suicide by holding your breath and, so I’m told, you will start breathing again as soon as you fall unconscious (I’ve not tried it and I don’t suggest anyone else does – just in case the trying induces a heart attack etc.). We can always change our mind if the networks (increased by learning?) produce a different arbitration to that resulting from the previously fewer networks. Some people may have greater hardwired tendencies to conservatism whilst others naturally feel good about embracing change. (I tend to go along with “Don’t worry about what other people think – most of them don’t do it very often”) Sometimes we feel that we change our mind “I’ll have a Mocha rather than a black coffee today” – but that may simply be the way we interpret the unconscious decision to deviate from habit – for whatever unconscious reason.
quote:It helps you understand whatever you want if you start from a position based only on your currently preferred superstitious belief; it's a bit like starting to build a tower block by beginning with the (unsupported) fifth floor - Oooops - crash.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"Free will bears witness to the Creator."
So says this article from Russia. If so, it makes a nonsense of the claim that God has no free will! It also helps us understand why atheists have such a problem with 'free will.'
quote:Why does the unconscious need to inform the conscious of anything in the first place? (I mean, being conscious, however it's done, must use up energy and neurons that could be used for something else.) At least some people working in neuroscience, and I don't have a reference because I read it a few years back in New Scientist, theorise that the role of the conscious mind is to vet decisions made unconsciously. And that would imply that the conscious mind can overrule the unconscious mind at some point.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The appearance of conscious thought is demonstrated, at least sometimes, to be simply the way the unconscious informs the conscious of a decision already made. (snip reference)
What experimental evidence exists either to counter these studies or demonstrate that the opposite is sometimes true?
quote:Boogie, you are vying with Marvin for the title of Ship's Sage.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Really? You didn't want to know whether God exists? You weren't at all curious? There was no event, or series of events (such as having a relationship with a Christian) which sparked your interest?
I am a Christian because I chose by my free will to find out whether or not God exists.
quote:Ah, well you have an advantage over me there. I long ago gave up any thought of discovering 'A' truth, let alone 'THE truth' - and must content myself with best expanations, which can of course be over-turned at any time. But I'm curious as to where these thoughts came from - they arose spontaneously? You willed them into existence? Perhaps quetzalcoatl can provide some insight -
My thoughts influenced my desire and determination to discover the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting stuff, and I have puzzled over this for years. I certainly did not choose to be interested in Christianity - that seems entirely non-volitional. You could say that I chose to take it further, by going to a church and so on.
But I have to confess I don't really know what 'I chose to' means. What is the I that did this? A part of the brain?
The same with the idea of will. What is it? To carry out a desire I suppose. But again, what is it that is doing that?quote:How do you know? Which is your primary desire - to believe in God, or to believe in 'the truth' (even if that entails that God does not exist). I'm sure that you will say the latter, and that through your investigations you have conclusively determined that God does indeed exist and that Jesus was/is his son. But what if unconsciously you are being steered by the former... and only believe that you are following the latter? How would you know? How can we know? As Hume said (see my sig), 'Reason is the slave of the passions', particularly with something as esoteric as the question of God's existence - which is why the interminable arguments of the respective parties are to some degree irrelevant and the more pertinent question is:
Originally posted by Raptor eye:
We by our free will decide what our primary desires are, don't we?
"What is their motivation for holding that particular view?"
quote:No worries; I have no time (nor do any of the atheists I know) for the thirty-somethings, going on twelve* who hold such a view.
Originally posted by Squibs:
[Tangent]Still, it's nice to see an atheist admit that they are an atheist because of their desires and not merely because it is the inevitable outcome of being really, really smart and rational.[/Tangent]
(I apologise to all twelve year-olds for the unwarranted imputation).
As for my challenge; it was only partially tongue-in-cheek, because if (as yourself and Raptor-eye contend) we are able to control our desires with such alacrity, then surely such a task is not unreasonable in order to demonstrate your free and independent will - or are you saying that 'foundational' beliefs are determined solely by desire?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is there really a difference? Do birds/fish/reptiles have any free will or are they simply at the mercy of their instincts?
Do we have free will because we can think through our options?
quote:"Did not!" *Thwack*
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
didn't
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
did
quote:I'm always forgetting the names of the various heresies.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Have you forgotton all about irresistible grace already mousethief?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I did.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
quote:I love the comparison to a mahout riding an elephant. The elephant is our desires, and the little mahout is our rational mind.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
we arrive at an interesting view of human beings, who are driven by desires, over which they have no control.
quote:Yes, Freud has the analogy of a horse and rider, but he states that a lot of the time, the rider is well advised to just let the horse go where it wants. Of course, Freud's - and Schopenhauer's - point is that we didn't create the elephant or the horse. In some ways, they create us.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I love the comparison to a mahout riding an elephant. The elephant is our desires, and the little mahout is our rational mind.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
we arrive at an interesting view of human beings, who are driven by desires, over which they have no control.
The elephant can do whatever it wants. Often it does, and often the rider fails to effectively direct it. But more often the mahout works cooperatively with the elephant to accomplish what only an elephant can accomplish.
One thing that I like about the comparison is that although we might like to think that our true self is the driver, in reality our true self is the elephant. It is the elephant that does the work. Without direction, though, the elephant is useless.
Unless, of course, it is a wild elephant running free on the plains - but that is a different analogy!
quote:Like I was saying, some times we have a choice and other times we get buggered around by Host and Admins. (As a consequnce of not chosing to add an epigram or something)
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:Consciousness, unprovable by scientific standards, is forever, then, the impossible phantom in the predictable biologic machine, and your every thought a genuine supernatural event. Your every thought is a g****, dancing. - Alan Moore
Originally posted by The Midge:
However the act of crafting a post, honing and argument, selecting words and thinking through a position would seem to be an example of making a conscious decision and choice; or the exercising of free will. The appearance of conscious thought is demonstrated, at least sometimes, to be simply the way the unconscious informs the conscious of a decision already made B Libet & others 1983, B Libet 1985, J D Haynes 2011. Decoding and predicting intentions. Ann. NY Acaad. Scui. 1224(1):9-21 and I. Fried, R. Mukamel & G. Kreiman, 2011. Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition. Neuron, 69: 548-562; plus P. Haggard, 2011 Decision time for free will. Neuron, 69: 404-406 What experimental evidence exists either to counter these studies or demonstrate that the opposite is sometimes true?
I think that the truth lies between the polls of determinism and complete free agency. We are given a dealt a hand of cards and can make a choice about which card to play. Sometimes we are dealt a bad hand and have limited or difficult choices. Other times we have much more or more powerful/ significant choices. Some choice is limited through our nature others by nurture. I agree with all but your first sentence – it is not a consequence of what follows it. I suspect that all choices are limited by both nature and nurture, both lay down routines within the unconscious and our decision is formed by the balance/conflict resolution of the existing routines.
Some choices require training before an event to enable us to make a good decision at a crucial time. Training in CPR allowed me to *****ister** life saving first aid when I came across a casualty. If I hadn’t made a choice to learn and practice the skills, the choice would not be available when the crunch came. However I knew the routines almost subconsciously. I could have just walked past on the other side of the road. Spiritual disciplines work in the same way; practice them and we are able to live godly* lives, neglect them and we are much weaker.
*I would like to say better but let’s be real! The oath of religion that some choose to follow is far from better.
No problem with training, I learnt my multiplication tables by rote, I obviously don’t accept the suggestion that spiritual discipline inevitability = a godly (or better) life. What you would presumably call spiritual discipline could perhaps lead to a better life - though only for a given value of better.
By consciously practising skills etc. we create unconscious routines which we can then use without reference to the (comparatively slow) conscious mind; riding a bike for instance. If you conciously think about correcting each wobble you'll soon fall off - leave it to the unconcious to make all those minor, instant, multi-muscle involving adjustments for you and you may arrive intact.
In “Incognito” by David Eagleman he claims that a baseball batter has less than 0.4 seconds to react and hit a fastball, though the conscious brain takes about half a second to react to the ball leaving the pitcher. Similar observations have been made about cricket (Wikipedia – the fastest delivery officially recorded was clocked at 161.39 km/h (100.3 mph) and was bowled by Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan during a match against England in the 2003 World Cup. The batsman facing the delivery was Nick Knight, who guided it into the leg side. = 20.5 yards in 0.42 seconds) and tennis – (8 servers recorded at over 150mph = 30 yards in 0.41 seconds). Eagleman also develops the idea that the brain acts* by arbitrating between multiple networks within itself.
*actually o p e r a t e s but it previews as ***rates
It may be said that at times when we feel we do not have a choice are times when we made decisions further back in the past. at some levels we don’t have choice – try committing suicide by holding your breath and, so I’m told, you will start breathing again as soon as you fall unconscious (I’ve not tried it and I don’t suggest anyone else does – just in case the trying induces a heart attack etc.). We can always change our mind if the networks (increased by learning?) produce a different arbitration to that resulting from the previously fewer networks. Some people may have greater hardwired tendencies to conservatism whilst others naturally feel good about embracing change. (I tend to go along with “Don’t worry about what other people think – most of them don’t do it very often”) Sometimes we feel that we change our mind “I’ll have a Mocha rather than a black coffee today” – but that may simply be the way we interpret the unconscious decision to deviate from habit – for whatever unconscious reason.
<small>[ 12. February 2013, 06:56: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]</small>
quote:
[Marcus Valerius Martialis, c. AD 40–c. 104]
Philaenis the bulldyke buggers boys
and hornier than a married man
she screws eleven girls a day.
quote:Curiosity, a desire to find out, call it what you will. I wanted to know the truth, and made the free will decision to try to do so. There was no prompting from anyone, I didn't tell or ask anyone else, or go to a church. The recent event of a death in the family gave me to wonder whether there was a God and/or an afterlife. My thoughts led to a greater desire to find out than to continue to do something else with my time. ( I couldn't get anywhere ref the afterlife, btw. I hold out hopes for that but won't find out until I die.)
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Really? You didn't want to know whether God exists? You weren't at all curious? There was no event, or series of events (such as having a relationship with a Christian) which sparked your interest?
quote:I can't say that I have a particular desire to believe in God. It would be like saying that I have a desire to believe in the existence of the keyboard I'm using. God is, that's the truth. Its a truth which continues to be verified as I live each day in relationship with God. It affects my passions, my reasoning, and my motivations. I'm fully conscious of that, and I welcome it as it increases my resolve for self-knowledge and self-control, for the good of all people. I'm convinced of God's existence by my experiences of God. I am certain that they don't originate from my mind, whether conscious or sub-conscious. Rather, I think that they're fed into the spirit by God, and from there they feed into the mind - perhaps the sub-conscious mind initially.
How do you know? Which is your primary desire - to believe in God, or to believe in 'the truth' (even if that entails that God does not exist). I'm sure that you will say the latter, and that through your investigations you have conclusively determined that God does indeed exist and that Jesus was/is his son. But what if unconsciously you are being steered by the former... and only believe that you are following the latter? How would you know? How can we know? As Hume said (see my sig), 'Reason is the slave of the passions', particularly with something as esoteric as the question of God's existence - which is why the interminable arguments of the respective parties are to some degree irrelevant and the more pertinent question is:
"What is their motivation for holding that particular view?"
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Like I was saying, some times we have a choice and other times we get buggered around by Host and Admins. (As a consequnce of not chosing to add an epigram or something)
Like "Little things please little minds" you mean?
Epigram n. A short, sharp saying in prose or verse, frequently characterized by acidity or acerbity and sometimes by wisdom.
quote:I never stated that one can control their desires with ease. That is a misunderstanding on your part.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
As for my challenge; it was only partially tongue-in-cheek, because if (as yourself and Raptor-eye contend) we are able to control our desires with such alacrity, then surely such a task is not unreasonable in order to demonstrate your free and independent will - or are you saying that 'foundational' beliefs are determined solely by desire?[/QB]
quote:If only I could go back and edit that sentence. There are a couple of mistakes in my last post but I hope it still makes sense.
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE]one can control their desires...
quote:Classical philosophy tends to be a bit all-or-nothing - a will that is totally free or totally unfree.
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE]Just because it's not possible to turn an oil tanker on a 6-pence doesn't mean that you don't have some manner of control
quote:So, you equally could have decided not to find out, by virtue of your 'free will'?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Curiosity, a desire to find out, call it what you will. I wanted to know the truth, and made the free will decision to try to do so
quote:* You were curious as to whether God existed
I'm convinced of God's existence by my experiences of God. I am certain that they don't originate from my mind, whether conscious or sub-conscious.
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
(my edit)In some parts it seems fashionable to challenge the notion of free will....on what I generously describe as a curious belief to hold
quote:I'm a bit confused Squibs. In the OP you denigrate those who hold the notion that we do not have free will, but now you are proposing that we only have a limited free will? Perhaps you could ease my confusion by providing just one example (it can be anything you like) of when you have exercised 'free will'
I believe that you have set the bar unrealistically high which allows you to ignore the countless smaller decisions we make in our day to day lives.
quote:Yes, I could have decided not to bother, or I could have put it off.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
So, you equally could have decided not to find out, by virtue of your 'free will'?
quote:If this implies that whatever we decide to look for we'll find if we believe it exists, then it's nonsense. If it's saying that our greatest desires may inspire our free will decision and energise our determination to act if we believe that we might achieve a goal by doing so, then it has some merit.
I'm reminded of a discussion Dafyd and I had eons ago, where I introduced a philosophical model for action (excluding involuntary/reflex)
Desire + Belief = Action
A desire ( I want to know whether God exists ) leads to a belief ( By reading, discussion and prayer I should be able to ascertain whether such is the case) which results in the aforementioned reading, discussion and prayer that does indeed demonstrate God's existence. I think it's pretty much accepted that desire always comes first; the only question is - within a realm of competing desires: Do we determine which one we follow, or does the stronger always predominate.
quote:By our free will we search for God, draw near to God, invite God into our lives, accept God's invitation into relationship, and remain in relationship with God.
* You were curious as to whether God existed
* God exists - no free will there either
The only possibility for free will would be in your 'decision' to search:
* By my free will, I decided to discover the truth about God, despite the fact that my desire to maintain the status quo was stronger than my curiosity.
This is logically impossible. Clearly, by virtue of the fact that you did search at that time, your desire to ascertain the truth about God's existence was stronger than any other to the contrary.
quote:A couple of points here. Firstly, I did not denigrate people. You just quoted my opening post (which consisted of 4 relatively short sentences) so you should know this. I'll be generous and assume that this was simply a misunderstanding. Please re-read it for reproof, for correction, and for instruction.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I'm a bit confused Squibs. In the OP you denigrate those who hold the notion that we do not have free will, but now you are proposing that we only have a limited free will? Perhaps you could ease my confusion by providing just one example (it can be anything you like) of when you have exercised 'free will'
