Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

[Me Myself]

It's as relevant as the dice analogy. Einstein said "God does not play dice" with the universe because he refused to believe the then accepted view of QM. If there is no true randomness, then free will is not even possible. Einstein opted for a deterministic universe. (It may turn out that way after all)

But as you indicated there is no current 100% consensus on the interpretation of QM, and until the outcome is decided, if it ever can be, experiments allow for a universe where God truly does throw dice, which, in my opinion, is neccessary for free will.

My dice analogy is good as for what we know from science for now. Once your idea becomes confirmed enough, we may argue with that perspective in mind. Until then, everything simply seems to point quite obviously that the dice relies on the factors I detailed and that what makes "random" is merely the not knowing, and it would not inherently suggest a lack of order or determination.

 

[Falvlun]

You still have the capacity to imagine something that will allow you to fly, design it, build it, and learn to operate it. You still have to do the work. We have airplanes, hot air balloons, etc, that now allow us to fly.

I think you knew what I meant. In case you didn't, by the "ability to fly", I meant the ability to leap off a building in jeans and t-shirt and then soar through the air.

Or, if you'd prefer, I'd like to shoot web out of my hands like spiderman. Free-will, even if it did exist, wouldn't allow me to do that either.

 

[1137]

I specifically stated you needed to do work. How did you miss that?

I didn't miss that. Cut the condescending copouts.

Work is not necessarily all mental--there is such a thing as physical labor as well.
If a hindrance has a physical component, then of course it would require physical (mechanistic) work. If a hindrance has a mental component, it would require psychological work.
With the neutralization of each hindrance, you open up a greater range of possibilities in which you can act and work. Greater possibilities means greater freedom.

So what are you saying here; that one would need to do physical labor as well as mental to cure depression, or that one needs to take medicine to cure depression? I hate to inform you (maybe it is a personal issue) but there is no cure for depression. We can manage the deterministic symptoms, but that is not free will. So, your idea of creating free will either falls apart here, or there must be some way for someone with depression to simply become free of all influence.

 

[Willamena]

I hate to inform you (maybe it is a personal issue) but there is no cure for depression.

There's no cures for anything, there's only treatments, and there's treatments for everything.

But that's off-topic, so nevermind.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't miss that. Cut the condescending copouts.



So what are you saying here; that one would need to do physical labor as well as mental to cure depression, or that one needs to take medicine to cure depression? I hate to inform you (maybe it is a personal issue) but there is no cure for depression. We can manage the deterministic symptoms, but that is not free will. So, your idea of creating free will either falls apart here, or there must be some way for someone with depression to simply become free of all influence.

So your argument is the equivalent of the flying one, that if we have free will we can do anything we want?

 

[1137]

So your argument is the equivalent of the flying one, that if we have free will we can do anything we want?

It's not my argument. But I'm sure you know that.

 

[Willamena]

It's not my argument. But I'm sure you know that.

No, that seems to be it.

 

[crossfire]

I didn't miss that. Cut the condescending copouts.

Then where did you get that I said you can cure depression simply by stopping being depressed?

So what are you saying here; that one would need to do physical labor as well as mental to cure depression, or that one needs to take medicine to cure depression?

If a hindrance is physical/mechanistic in nature, than physical/mechanistic work would have to be done that can remove that hindrance.

I hate to inform you (maybe it is a personal issue) but there is no cure for depression. We can manage the deterministic symptoms, but that is not free will.

You are freeing yourself of a hindrance, or at least working at it.

So, your idea of creating free will either falls apart here, or there must be some way for someone with depression to simply become free of all influence.

No, my idea of creating free will is of removing hindrances. In this case, I'm starting by working at removing a bad definition of free-will. (It is certainly a stubborn hindrance, though.)

 

[1137]

No, that seems to be it.

My argument against free will is that everything is 100% caused, there is no room for freedom. The inability to fly is a ridiculous argument against free will, as the laws of the universe do not invalidate free will. I never said anything of the sort, I said that if we can take control of our minds, have free will, we should be able to choose not to be depressed. Once again, you prove a miraculous ability to never argue my actual point!

Then where did you get that I said you can cure depression simply by stopping being depressed?

That was not what I said.

f a hindrance is physical/mechanistic in nature, than physical/mechanistic work would have to be done that can remove that hindrance.
You are freeing yourself of a hindrance, or at least working at it.

Exactly what I was actually arguing against. You quite blatantly believe that we should be able to cure depression. You have said that if we do not our anger issues, work on it and remove it. Same should apply to depression. You cannot remove neither anger issues nor depression. Working at / managing it has nothing to do with free will, and you only just decided to add that in now.

No, my idea of creating free will is of removing hindrances.

Yes, exactly. And I said that we cannot remove depression. How are you not following?

 

[Willamena]

My argument against free will is that everything is 100% caused, there is no room for freedom. The inability to fly is a ridiculous argument against free will, as the laws of the universe do not invalidate free will. I never said anything of the sort, I said that if we can take control of our minds, have free will, we should be able to choose not to be depressed. Once again, you prove a miraculous ability to never argue my actual point!

Oh! You misunderstood. I meant your argument for free will.

Your argument for free will is this: free will is "taking control of our minds"; free will is "choosing not to be depressed" (the equivalent of choosing to fly).

 

[NIX]

For some people life is a rollercoaster, for others a scrambler, or a ferris wheel, or a merry go round. I guess the question is, if you don't like the ride you're (presently) on, can you manage to get off and find a new one, to which you are more suited. (ie. that you 'like' more)

If not, it can only benefit you to experiment, to find a way (some ways) to 'enjoy' (or get in the groove of) whatever ride you presently find yourself stuck on/in. At least until you find an opportunity to get off and try some other one that appeals more to your sensibilities.

Beyond this, I cannot figure out what else this 'free will' might point to?

 

[1137]

Oh! You misunderstood. I meant your argument for free will.

Your argument for free will is this: free will is "taking control of our minds"; free will is "choosing not to be depressed" (the equivalent of choosing to fly).

1. I do not believe in free will
2. How is controlling your mind the same as defying the laws of the universe?

 

[crossfire]

My argument against free will is that everything is 100% caused, there is no room for freedom. The inability to fly is a ridiculous argument against free will, as the laws of the universe do not invalidate free will. I never said anything of the sort, I said that if we can take control of our minds, have free will, we should be able to choose not to be depressed. Once again, you prove a miraculous ability to never argue my actual point!



That was not what I said.

Hmmm

It was not a straw man. According to what you said, a person with depression should be able to simply stop being depressed, at least if we can create / enforce free will.

Exactly what I was actually arguing against. You quite blatantly believe that we should be able to cure depression.

You are the one who keeps bringing up depression, not me.
We can still work on neutralizing the multiple factors that lead to depression, be it through mechanistic means, and/or psychological means. The multiple factors contributing to each case of depression would be unique to each individual. Just because something might be difficult does not make it impossible.

You have said that if we do not our anger issues, work on it and remove it. Same should apply to depression. You cannot remove neither anger issues nor depression.

Who says you can't remove anger-related hindrances?

Working at / managing it has nothing to do with free will, and you only just decided to add that in now.

Well, if working on it has nothing to do with free-will, then what does it have to do with? One can give someone medication to calm their anger, but that will wear off and does not remove the hindrance. Only you can do the work needed to take control of yourself and change your responses. If it is dependent upon your wanting to do it, then how is that not a free-will matter?

Yes, exactly. And I said that we cannot remove depression. How are you not following?

You can also remove the effects of a hindrance by working around it. If something stands in your way, you can go around it, and it is no longer a hindrance.

 

[Willamena]

1. I do not believe in free will

I didn't say you did.

2. How is controlling your mind the same as defying the laws of the universe?

I don't know--neither is free will as I know it.

 

[George-ananda]

Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

Well let me give my hindu-ish perspective.

In one sense free will is relative to the experiencer. To us we have free will; I am free to respond to this OP at 1:30AM or to slam my laptop closed and go to bed. In my normal day-to-day perspective, my free-will is real to me.

Now if I think of things from the ultimate perspective; Brahman alone is real (pure Conciousness to which all life is connected) and everything else is illusion. So even this seemingly seperate entity I call 'me' is my own illusion. And my free-will is just a part of the illusion.

I call this the ' George-Ananda theory of free-will relativity '. I'm not expecting as much acclaim as Einstein received for his 'theory of relativity'. I'll settle for one frubal.

 

[NIX]

Even if there was only somehow one top spot ultimate probablility choice, still it was a choice if there were other possible options available. "Choosing" is an experience that human beings generally like. (assuming they are not given choices only of things they do not 'like')

I think 'free will' is about (has to do with) the (human) experience of choosing things.

 

[Me Myself]

Even if there was only somehow one top spot ultimate probablility choice, still it was a choice if there were other possible options available. "Choosing" is an experience that human beings generally like. (assuming they are not given choices only of things they do not 'like')

I think 'free will' is about (has to do with) the (human) experience of choosing things.

Very interesting claim. But whether or not it is a reality or merely an "experience" becomes very important for concepts like hell for example.

If one is merely "experiencing" his /her choices then at least a supernatural omnipotent deity shouldn't judge this person for his un-chosen experiences of feeling like if s/he´d chosen anything

 

[NIX]

Very interesting claim. But whether or not it is a reality or merely an "experience" becomes very important for concepts like hell for example.

If one is merely "experiencing" his /her choices then at least a supernatural omnipotent deity shouldn't judge this person for his un-chosen experiences of feeling like if s/he´d chosen anything

I guess some hells are 'chosen' (picked with 'deliberation') and other hells are thrust upon us (from out of nowhere).

 

[NIX]

Come to think of it, the experience of 'free will' (or 'deliberate' choice) for humans, could aptly be restated as 'the (human) ritual of deliberation'. Some people live for it (the ritual of deliberation). Other's not so much, preferring to proceed more 'by the seat of their pants'*.

*Blind chance, or 'felt' trust in intuition (ie, 'being moved').

In any case, we all "do something".

 

[Sir Doom]

If I assume there is no free will, then why is it that I am discussing free will?
What has determined that free will must be discussed?
What has determined that although free will does not exist, it must be thought to exist by some so that it can be denied by others?
If it has been determined that someone will believe in free will, can they decide not to?