|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Free Will
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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!
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Well, the radical naturalists and atheists would probably deny that persons exist.
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.
What this naturalistically inclined person would deny is that human beings are like little gods with a supernatural capacity to transcend the cause and effect regularities that hold everywhere else in nature, which is what those who hold to free will in the second sense in Dafyd's admirably clear and succinct definitions up the thread seem to believe. I don't know if I'm alone in wondering in what sense this idea of free will is actually free. The theists I've talked to seem to think throwing the phrase, "But God gives us free will" explains everything and gives them carte blanche to look askance at any contrary view. But what does free will in this sense actually mean? What is doing the free willing? A soul? Where does the soul come from? If god creates my soul with proclivities that determine my choices of free will, in what sense is the free will mine? ISTM that there is no substantive difference between this ultimate view of free will and the atoms/quarks/strings view.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@George
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Interesting. Explain please? (I'm sorry, I had a great time in Ghana. I'll try to get back to you soon)
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
HughWillRidMe
Two points: it is time you read C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength.
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).
quote:
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.
Your point has some merit – it would be interesting to know what evidence was available from post-mortem examinations on the population at large.
My main point was that we probably have no free will – so the question of limited free will was only introductory and not vital to the conclusion.
quote:
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.
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 quote:
If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
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).
quote:
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
Of course it doesn’t – it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
Of course it doesn’t - it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
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?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Why is that so crazy? Remember that our posts are themselves causes that will have an effect.
You seem to think that human action stands apart from the process of cause and effect. What a curious position to take.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Life's complex. Stuff happens. We observe regularities in how stuff happens, and seek to describe the process.
We have the experience of making choices.
When we come to describe how the choice-making element of the human mind works, there seem to be two "models". One model is the machine - put in this stimulus, get out that response - we're all automata. One model is the little man inside (call him a soul, an animating principle, free Will, whatever) we're agents but haven't explained anything just moved the question one level back.
Seems to me that neither model is an adequate description. just don't say that there are no other possibilities.
Someone mentioned weird cults, which brings to mind the "brainwashing" of individuals - people choosing to do things that with their current mindset they wouldn't choose to do.
De--brainwashing is justified on the supposition that there is some sort of "real self" that individuals can be brought back to.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd: If prison is inappropriate, what is left? ... Oh. Killing them.
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).
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.
quote:
quote:
Just because we make a decision unconsciously does not mean we do not make a decision. .
Of course it doesn’t – it means that we don’t use free will when making the decision
Why does it mean that? Why does free will have to be conscious?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Fool on the hill quote:
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?
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
mousethief quote:
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.
I take your point, but what sort of choices do you have in mind?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
mousethief quote:
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.
I take your point, but what sort of choices do you have in mind?
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
mousethief quote:
The largest one is, I think, is usually said to be: to create a physical world or not.
Why do you think he made the choice so to do?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
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.
The evidence appears to suggest that our decisions are made within our unconcious.
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
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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)
Yes we did George, we have the choice to go with the flow and not use it, or deny its existence altogether.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.)
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
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
No, it doesn't.
quote:
We're able to learn, to change, and to exercise self-control, all of which require a will,
No, they don't.
quote:
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.
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
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Only some christian allegory?
I suppose That Hideous Strength is interesting if you can stand the bad plot and misogyny. I wouldn't call it a good book by any stretch. Very different from the first two in the saga and not in a good way. But then by the time he started writing it he'd read far too much Charles Williams.
Don't go spilling allegory all down your shirt. - Terry Pratchett
[ 11. February 2013, 20:23: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
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.
The evidence appears to suggest that our decisions are made within our unconcious.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
*I would like to say better but let’s be real! The oath of religion that some choose to follow is far from better.
** Whay is "A d m i n" a five letter word that UBB feel obliged to ***** out? 2nd time this has happened to me today!
I think that when you get dressed in the morning, sometimes you're really making a decision about your behavior for the day. Like if you put on flipflops, you're saying: 'H*** I don't get chased today.' 'Be nice to people in sneakers". - Demetri Martin
[ 11. February 2013, 20:26: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
None are more h***lessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
[ 11. February 2013, 20:28: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
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?
All men are equal before fish. - Herbert Hoover
[ 11. February 2013, 20:30: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
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
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. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I am a Christian because I chose by my free will to find out whether or not God exists. My thoughts influenced my desire and determination to discover the truth. As I lived for many years as an adult without being a Christian, I'm aware that it's not only possible but it's far easier than life as an open Christian. The reason for my faith is about the existence of God and not about a moral code. I'm not a Christian because it satisfies any other desire than to express my love of God in every aspect of my life. This has beneficial knock-on effects, but they don't constitute my primary desire.
I do understand the 'greatest desire' arguments, but sign off with this:
We by our free will decide what our primary desires are, don't we?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
"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.'
(btw 'Podvig' is the spiritual struggle between good and evil, which St Paul spoke about.)
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/44707.htm
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. - Wilson Mizner
[ 11. February 2013, 20:35: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
I won't not use no double negatives. - Nancy Cartwright
[ 11. February 2013, 20:38: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think this thread is about free will, not free intellect.
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?
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.
As for the rest of your questions, we can speculate but I don't think we know.
Optimism - the doctrine or belief that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly. - Ambrose Bierce
[ 11. February 2013, 20:42: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
The research showing that at least some of our more trivial decisions are taken 'unconsciously' is not a killer argument against free will. As numerous commentators have observed, these urges or impulses may arise from the unconscious but we nevertheless have right of veto over them, which can be thought of as 'Free Won't' rather than Free Will, but is in effect Free Will because we are actively, rationally choosing whether or not to take a certain action.
It is no surprise that when faced with a choice the 'back brain' supplies one or more options but it is the 'front brain' that weighs them up and decides which one to go with.
See for example here.
To think is to practice brain chemistry. - Deepak Chopra
[ 11. February 2013, 20:49: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--Tom Clune
Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
[ 11. February 2013, 20:52: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Timothy the Obscure 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.
Timothy, thanks for expressing with clarity the point I was fumbling to express earlier.
For me the greatest beauty always lies in the greatest clarity. - Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
[ 11. February 2013, 20:54: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
I did.
One good anecdote is worth a volume of biography. - William Ellery Channing
[ 11. February 2013, 20:55: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Oh, I need an epigram.
Immortalia ne speres, monet annus et almum
Quae rapit hora diem.
The year and the hour which robs us of the fair day warn us not to h*** for things to last for ever. (Horace)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
I don't have clear-cut positions. I get baffled by things. I have viewpoints. Sometimes they change. - Annie Lennox
[ 11. February 2013, 20:58: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Sounds like you could be being called ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Before I can tell my life what I want to do with it, I must listen to my life telling me who I am. - Parker J. Palmer,
[ 11. February 2013, 21:00: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The Midge
That's very interesting, and brought me up short. I've been doing Zen meditation for 30 years, and I've noticed that it has a tendency to disintegrate things such as will and volition, not entirely of course. I still want to eat chocolate.
But thoughts think themselves, and desires come into being, and actions occur, just the universe at play. Hmm.
Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates. - Fernando Pessoa
[ 11. February 2013, 21:04: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, indeedy. But it turns out that what I am, what another is, and what life is, turn out to be the same thing. Ah well, nothing to get excited about.
So it's the separation between these things which gives us great energy, as they are always yearning to be united again, like knicker elastic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
I did.
Have you forgotton all about irresistible grace already mousethief?
"If there's one thing worse than a murderer, it's a dirty rotton stinking grass... and that goes for litterbugs as well! Ta ta." (Michael Caine, well sort of)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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
[ 12. February 2013, 06:56: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
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.'
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.
Atheists don't have a problem with free will - they don't believe in a god or gods. I can't speak for others but this atheist would like to believe that he had free will, the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm unable to think of a way of convincing myself that my preference is superior to experimental evidence - others seem not to have the same difficulty. At least one view is wrong.
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. ― George Carlin
[ 12. February 2013, 06:58: Message buggered about with by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
HughWillRidmee, have you read this ?
Doublethink
Purgatory H o s t
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
An experiment in which the subject is presented with two choices - push the button or don't push the button, with nothing much hanging on it - is a fairly artificial scenario to hang large conclusions on. Evidence is only evidence after you've interpreted it.
To be conscious is an illness - Dostoyevsky.
[ 12. February 2013, 13:25: Message buggered about with by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
I am a Christian because I chose by my free will to find out whether or not God exists.
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:
My thoughts influenced my desire and determination to discover the truth.
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 -
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:
Originally posted by Raptor eye:
We by our free will decide what our primary desires are, don't we?
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 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]
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.
(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?
Boogie, you are vying with Marvin for the title of Ship's Sage.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
didn't
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
did
"Did not!" *Thwack*
S-E
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Similarly, I did not choose to be an atheist - just as you did not choose to be a Christian.
I did.
Have you forgotton all about irresistible grace already mousethief?
I'm always forgetting the names of the various heresies.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have thought that the Hume quote - reason is the slave of the passions - is a 'universal acid' which eats away at all human ideas. I tend to agree with it, but it does kind of sabotage rational thought, doesn't it?
If we couple to it the famous sentence from Schopenhauer, man can do what he wants, but cannot want what he wants, we arrive at an interesting view of human beings, who are driven by desires, over which they have no control. Oh, I remember that idea - Freud!
[ 13. February 2013, 09:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
we arrive at an interesting view of human beings, who are driven by desires, over which they have no control.
I love the comparison to a mahout riding an elephant. The elephant is our desires, and the little mahout is our rational mind.
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!
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
