• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free Will and the Soul/Spirit.

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
but there is no actually no true reason to believe in the spirit considering that all traits about how we think and reason are physical in nature.

Even paranormal and mystical ones? I think these materialists are guilty of sweeping too much under the rug. They don’t even understand why we are conscious.

If this was not true then a perfectly healthy male soldier when coming home from a war with brain damage would not be affected the way he is if he had a supernatural soul/spirit.

Brain damage does affect how a soul can reflect itself on the physical plane. But, if you damage a reflection of the moon, the moon itself is not affected.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
So the above post that you typed, did you freely choose to type it, or was your post the result of a force independent of you?

There is no independent force behind it.

I typed it the same way I type any other post. Notice how I habitually use certain letters and quirks that make my posting distinctive?

These are unconscious habits. I am extremely selective about who I respond to when posting as well for example. Is it not free will that I happened to respond to your posts simply because of my previous readings of your posts?


All of my actions are justified by my reasons which are not of free will. They are my individuality and by that concept I have no free will in many things.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
This discussion seems to me to indicate that souls are fictional. It seems hard for folk to get around the lack of need of souls in explaining anything.

My considered opinion is that the notion of souls is just an ancient error along the lines of "Where does the fire go when the fuel runs out?".

Religious teachers promote this error since it helps give them control over people.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
There is no independent force behind it.

I typed it the same way I type any other post. Notice how I habitually use certain letters and quirks that make my posting distinctive?

These are unconscious habits. I am extremely selective about who I respond to when posting as well for example. Is it not free will that I happened to respond to your posts simply because of my previous readings of your posts?


All of my actions are justified by my reasons which are not of free will. They are my individuality and by that concept I have no free will in many things.

You claim you are not exercising free will, but yet you say you are "extremely selective" about who you respond to. If that isn't free will, then I don't know what is.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
You claim you are not exercising free will, but yet you say you are "extremely selective" about who you respond to. If that isn't free will, then I don't know what is.

The funny thing about will is that it will always appear to exist because there is no way to go and check that if X happened instead of Y that Z would still occur.

And then you have to start delving into the Quantum issues and all that good stuff, as things start getting really strange when you look at the things that make us up.

Essentially there is no way of actually telling, Free will cannot really be tested for, but it is accepted merely because we have been told we have it...and we question it because we have been told we have it.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
The funny thing about will is that it will always appear to exist because there is no way to go and check that if X happened instead of Y that Z would still occur.

And then you have to start delving into the Quantum issues and all that good stuff, as things start getting really strange when you look at the things that make us up.

Essentially there is no way of actually telling, Free will cannot really be tested for, but it is accepted merely because we have been told we have it...and we question it because we have been told we have it.

I will ask you the same thing I asked Sterling. If you don't have free will, then it is because of what force that you typed the above post? Who is responsible for it (in terms of accountability)? Did you type it because you wanted to?
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
I will ask you the same thing I asked Sterling. If you don't have free will, then it is because of what force that you typed the above post? Who is responsible for it (in terms of accountability)? Did you type it because you wanted to?

Did I say we don't have free will? I personally believe we have the ability to see choices, and to some degree exercise those choices, but since we don't exist in a vacuum, very little of our decisions are made without some influence. But my point is that there is no way to really tell. We accept that we have free will because we are told we do, and we question it because we are told we do. The idea perpetuates itself.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Because then the question is what is the purpose of the soul? If all the things which were once attributed to the soul, such as personality, penchants for right and wrong, love, hate, envy, if all of those things can be tracked to the brain (which maybe a receiver or may be the cause), what is the point of the soul?

That's an interesting question; I can only reply by my understanding - that my mind is part of my physical body (which will decay and "turn to dust" at the time of my death, whereas my soul is what will survive my death - and that is the part of "me" that will be judged by God.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The funny thing about will is that it will always appear to exist because there is no way to go and check that if X happened instead of Y that Z would still occur.

And then you have to start delving into the Quantum issues and all that good stuff, as things start getting really strange when you look at the things that make us up.

Essentially there is no way of actually telling, Free will cannot really be tested for, but it is accepted merely because we have been told we have it...and we question it because we have been told we have it.
Then what is the difference between how it appears to exist and it existing?

It would seem we question it because we have been told we don't have it.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Then we have free will, right?
No we don't. We don't have particular characteristics because of what we perceive to be the truth, but because of what they happen to be. Although it appears we have a free will and even operate as if we do, the fact is, we don't have any such thing. You couldn't have done differently than you did.
 
Last edited:

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Then what is the difference between how it appears to exist and it existing?

It would seem we question it because we have been told we don't have it.

Hence why I believe it's perpetuated. We have free will because we believe we have it. As such we act within the confines if the only reality we have...our own.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
That's an interesting question; I can only reply by my understanding - that my mind is part of my physical body (which will decay and "turn to dust" at the time of my death, whereas my soul is what will survive my death - and that is the part of "me" that will be judged by God.

Except as far as we know all actions are taken by the mind, which most of the time I think we are pretty much more neutral than good or evil. What's the most evil thing you've done today? So if that's the mind, what will the soul be judged for?
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
You claim you are not exercising free will, but yet you say you are "extremely selective" about who you respond to. If that isn't free will, then I don't know what is.

I have made a selection based upon my ability to reason. Reasoning skills are limitations we all have and we reason the best we can.

This is not free will. The only way it is free will if if you perceive it as a linguistics issue.

Our ability to make decisions does not imply free will. Does a toaster have decisions? Yes it does. It can be on or off, toasting or roasting. But it does not initiate it's own decisions. The user does.

The same way our instinctive and habitual nature determines our actions.

If I asked you why you chose a certain pair of shoes you would most likely say "because they looked nice". This is a lack of free will in itself and on top of it it only goes further to display that the shoes appeal is subjective implying further lack of free will.

I am not denying there is free will. I do not deny many things actually. But I see the evidence for the lack of utter free will greater than the ability for it.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What free will we may have is very minimal at beast and considering later breakthroughs in neuroscience, free will of any kind may be further more debunked altogether.

Speaking as a neuroscientist, there are no such breakthroughs (as I said before).
I was at an APA conference in DC not long ago, and a lot of the exhibitors were book companies that publish academic series, textbooks, reference material, etc. One was Springer (probably the largest publisher of scientific journals, monographs, textbooks, volumes, etc., around), and one of the new books was Is Science Compatible with Free Will? It was, alas, outside of my price range, but luckily Springer has begun to include its books within its online database and I have access (although downloading a chapter at a time is annoying and I hate not being able to hold what I'm reading). I was primarily interested because one chapter/paper was by Gisin, the physicist who published the first test of nonlocal correlations at extreme distances (Aspect being the first to test it at all). He's "a name" in physics. He also believes that science is compatible. So does Penrose (an atheist) and Stapp (not sure about his religious views but he critiques Eccles's theory because it "brings in a kind of 'soul'").

But this isn't the only over-priced volume written by and (usually) for specialists. In 2010, Oxford University Press (OUP) put out Free Will and Consciousness, a volume with papers by PhDs from MIT, Cornell, Berkeley (that was Searle), etc. 2 years before that the same OUP put out Are We Free? with papers mostly from cognitive psychologists from some of the top cog. sci. centers in the world.

Actually, it wasn't even the first volume put out recently by Springer. In 2009, Springer's series Springer Complexity (which includes at least one monograph/volume series and some journals) put out Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will. It wasn't great, but at least one of the contributors is on the editorial board for Advances in Consciousness Research (alongside such notables as David Chalmers, Searle, Ray Jackendoff, and others whom those who keep up on these things would likely recognize). It's a volume/monograph series (akin to a peer-reviewed journal, but as these can only feature paper-length studies editorial boards also put out series), and it regularly gets into the how's, what's, and why's, of consciousness and free will.

Chalmers' is also on the editorial board of the series Philosophy of Mind, which published Hodgson's Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (I'm not sure if the equation is correct, but the publishing company was again OUP) as well as Beyond Reduction and other pro-free will monographs.

Then there are the individual volumes or monographs by academic publishing companies that are behind e.g., Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem (MIT Press), The Mechanical Mind (Routledge), the volume Being Reduced (OUP), Did my Neurons Make me Do It? (OUP), the volume Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? (MIT press), the numerous books and volumes with papers written by physicists, neuroscientists, and MDs, etc., that are published in Springer's series The Frontiers Collection, one of which (Stapp's 3rd edition of Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics) containing material going back to a journal paper he wrote on the Copenhagen interpretation in the 70s I believe, and that's just some of the books I happen to own. I'm sick of listing them and they pale in comparison to what is out there and even that has nothing on the number of peer-reviewed studies dealing with consciousness and free will.

Basically, I wouldn't write it off so quickly.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Speaking as a neuroscientist, there are no such breakthroughs (as I said before).

I may be throwing the word "breakthrough" out to hastily but do you not consider the recent knowledge about alcohol dependence as somewhat relevant?

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA77/AA77.pdf

I have a sister who does lab work for this garbage(alcoholism is not bad. It simplifies natural selection).
Would you not consider this a sort of progression of some sort or do you just like opposing anything stated for the fun of it :D

But again, perhaps I am being over dramatic in my speech.
 
Top