Free Will

[Smart_Guy]

Am I missing something? Was there an Arabic text mentioned in this thread before that required translation?

 

[Sundance]

يَا ابْنَ البَشَرِ

إِنْ تُحِبَّ نَفْسي فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْ نَفْسِكَ، وَإِنْ تُرِدْ رِضائِي فَأَغْمِضْ عَنْ رِضائِكَ، لِتَكُونَ فِيَّ فانِياً وَأَكُونَ فِيْكَ باقِياً.

Source:


http://bahaiprayers.net/HiddenWords/العربية/6

This is it, @Smart_Guy! I hope this helps!

 

[Smart_Guy]

This is it, @Smart_Guy! I hope this helps!

Let's see...

It says: Child of human: if you love me (the literal translates is "if you love myself"), turn away from yourself, if you want my satisfaction, close your eye from your own satisfaction, so you die (I think it means live until you die) for me and I live in you.

For the reference, this is the original text:

يَا ابْنَ البَشَرِ

إِنْ تُحِبَّ نَفْسي فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْ نَفْسِكَ، وَإِنْ تُرِدْ رِضائِي فَأَغْمِضْ عَنْ رِضائِكَ، لِتَكُونَ فِيَّ فانِياً وَأَكُونَ فِيْكَ باقِياً.

The word used for "child" could also mean "son". But in Arabic some contexts use it as gender neutral.

 

[Sundance]

Let's see...

It says: Child of human: if you love me (the literal translates is "if you love myself"), turn away from yourself, if you want my satisfaction, close your eye from your own satisfaction, so you die (I think it means live until you die) for me and I live in you.

For the reference, this is the original text:

يَا ابْنَ البَشَرِ

إِنْ تُحِبَّ نَفْسي فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْ نَفْسِكَ، وَإِنْ تُرِدْ رِضائِي فَأَغْمِضْ عَنْ رِضائِكَ، لِتَكُونَ فِيَّ فانِياً وَأَكُونَ فِيْكَ باقِياً.

The word used for "child" could also mean "son". But in Arabic some contexts use it as gender neutral.

That’s very beautiful, SG! Even translated literally! Thank you!

 

[Smart_Guy]

That’s very beautiful, SG! Even translated literally! Thank you!

My pleasure

 

[Smart_Guy]

By the way, was the Arabic of the author excellent or natively practiced? It seems kinda different than the formal Arabic I know. I don't mean disrespect, I'm just wondering.

 

[Sundance]

By the way, was the Arabic of the author excellent or natively practiced? It seems kinda different than the formal Arabic I know. I don't mean disrespect, I'm just wondering.

Yes, as a native speaker of both, Bahá’u’lláh had an astoundingly excellence grasp of Classical Arabic and Persian.

 

[Nous]

So rapists and murderers are just doing the Lord's will? (I'm certain most rapists and murderers would be happy to hear that.) Wouldn't it therefore be wrong for humans to punish these people who are merely doing what the Lord's will? Or, assuming that the Lord willed humans to arrest, try, convict and punish rapists and murderers who are just doing the Lord's will, doesn't that make the Lord rather capricious and irrational?

If individuals do not determine their own acts, then what is the issue (or all the issues) about morality and ethics? How does one explain the massive amount of energy that humans expend on trying to know the difference between right and wrong behaviors, and seeking to do (and encouraging others to do) what is right rather than the wrong? The idea that one should do unto others as one would others do unto oneself must be a big scam. How did so many people (most humans, through out history) acquire the delusion that it is good to strive to do unto others as one would have them do unto oneself?

Religions are all acutely concerned about morals and ethics. Yet it seems that, if it were true that everyone's acts are just acts that the Lord willed, religious people should especially know this. How does one explain religions' concerns about moral and ethical behavior?

How does one explain the fact that each individual's foreknowledge operates either exactly or generally as if s/he determined his/her own voluntary bodily movements? For instance, I can predict exactly what will be my next post here (challenge me), but I don't have a clue as to what anyone else's next post will be.

How do you explain the fact, as studies show, that people who believe that they can and do will their own voluntary bodily movements tend to act more ethically than people who believe their acts are determined by forces beyond themselves, and that people who believe they can and do act willfully demonstrate better job performance than those who do not so believe? (Ask me for those studies). It seems that it would be just the opposite, if having of free will were a delusion.

How does one explain that, according to the American Psychiatric Association, avolition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avolition ) and impairment in impulse control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_control_disorder ) are manifestations of several mental disorders?

Is this an example of good parenting as his/her child starts to school: "Johnny, we believe the will of the Lord is the only will. If the Lord has willed that you will make good grades and pass your tests and so forth, then you will; there is no reason for you to bother trying to make an effort to learn what your teacher is teaching"?

It is highly interesting to me that there hasn't been a single attempt to answer any of the questions I asked here.

The belief that humans are automatons, i.e., that humans lack the ability to choose among available options, seems to be one of those beliefs impervious to the evidence. If someone disbelieved in the existence of gravity, or sound waves, or angular moment, but couldn't answer any question about the evidence from which the existence of these phenomena is deduced, I think most people would understand that as an irrational belief.

Hopefully all those here who believe that they lack free will understand that they therefore lack the faculty by which to knowingly choose to believe and to state truths rather than falsehoods. Assertions by automatons are worthless to those of us who are not automatons.

 

[Sleeppy]

It is highly interesting to me that there hasn't been a single attempt to answer any of the questions I asked here.

The belief that humans are automatons, i.e., that humans lack the ability to choose among available options, seems to be one of those beliefs impervious to the evidence. If someone disbelieved in the existence of gravity, or sound waves, or angular moment, but couldn't answer any question about the evidence from which the existence of these phenomena is deduced, I think most people would understand that as an irrational belief.

Hopefully all those here who believe that they lack free will understand that they therefore lack the faculty by which to knowingly choose to believe and to state truths rather than falsehoods. Assertions by automatons are worthless to those of us who are not automatons.

Your belief is called, autolatry.

 

[Nous]

Your belief is called, autolatry.

It's self-worship to conclude that humans are able to choose between right and wrong acts? It's self-worship to conclude that humans are able to accept and assert true statements rather than false ones?

If it were true that free will is a delusion, then how do you explain how an individual can know and predict far in advance the specific bodily movements that s/he is going to perform (e.g., pay one's mortgage payment next month)?

 

[Sleeppy]

It's self-worship to conclude that humans are able to choose between right and wrong acts? It's self-worship to conclude that humans are able to accept and assert true statements rather than false ones?

If it were true that free will is a delusion, then how do you explain how an individual can know and predict far in advance the specific bodily movements that s/he is going to perform (e.g., pay one's mortgage payment next month)?

Yes, to your first question. Your second question has no place there.

Where is your source? Belief in free will says that you are your own source; that you are self-creating, ex nihilo.

Being able to observe and make predictions are gifts from God. God observes nothing, and predicts nothing- knowing all things, an eternity in each direction. These gifts are a sign to certain elect, that the observation of man has not perfected him, and neither have his predictions equated to perfect understanding.

Matthew 5:37
Let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No, and that which is more than these is of the evil.

You observe and make predictions, according to the knowledge of good and evil. But the knowledge of good does not originate with you; all things are confirmed here in space-time. You may or may not pay your mortgage next month. Both spiritually and scientifically speaking, you need to wait until your prediction becomes either a yes, or a no- only then will you know whether your will aligned with that of the insurmountable Will, or not.

 

[Nous]

It's self-worship to conclude that humans are able to choose between right and wrong acts?

Yes, to your first question.

You don't know of any scholar (philosopher or theologian) who has claimed that it is "self-worship" to conclude that humans have the ability to choose between performing moral acts and immoral acts, do you? That is your own idiosyncratic idea, isn't it?

The Bible contains lots of commands about what acts people should choose and choose not to perform. You chose to quote one such command from the Gospel according to Matthew. "Thou shalt not steal" is a command to individuals to choose to not to steal. It isn't a command to God to cause a person to not steal.

So you are claiming that when presented with two propositions of which one is true and one is false, you do not have the ability to choose to believe and assert the true one rather than the false one. That's why denial of having free will is self-stultifying (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stultify?s=t), for exactly the same reasons that belief in epiphenomenalism is self-stultifying: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/#SelStu

I asked: If it were true that free will is a delusion, then how do you explain how an individual can know and predict far in advance the specific bodily movements that s/he is going to perform (e.g., pay one's mortgage payment next month)? And your only attempt at an explanation is that "God did it"? (That's an excellent of the lack of reasoning exhibited by those who belief that humans are automatons.) So, you're saying that God is bestowing upon me a special gift by informing me of what my next post here will be, and depriving you of that information? That is objectively equivalent to saying that I have determined what my next post here will be. You cannot describe a method by which to objectively distinguish between "God did it" and I am the one who determines my voluntary bodily movements. Right?

 

[Sleeppy]

You don't know of any scholar (philosopher or theologian) who has claimed that it is "self-worship" to conclude that humans have the ability to choose between performing moral acts and immoral acts, do you? That is your own idiosyncratic idea, isn't it?

The Bible contains lots of commands about what acts people should choose and choose not to perform. You chose to quote one such command from the Gospel according to Matthew. "Thou shalt not steal" is a command to individuals to choose to not to steal. It isn't a command to God to cause a person to not steal.

So you are claiming that when presented with two propositions of which one is true and one is false, you do not have the ability to choose to believe and assert the true one rather than the false one. That's why denial of having free will is self-stultifying (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stultify?s=t), for exactly the same reasons that belief in epiphenomenalism is self-stultifying: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/#SelStu

I asked: If it were true that free will is a delusion, then how do you explain how an individual can know and predict far in advance the specific bodily movements that s/he is going to perform (e.g., pay one's mortgage payment next month)? And your only attempt at an explanation is that "God did it"? (That's an excellent of the lack of reasoning exhibited by those who belief that humans are automatons.) So, you're saying that God is bestowing upon me a special gift by informing me of what my next post here will be, and depriving you of that information? That is objectively equivalent to saying that I have determined what my next post here will be. You cannot describe a method by which to objectively distinguish between "God did it" and I am the one who determines my voluntary bodily movements. Right?

Where is your source? Belief in free will says that you are your own source; that you are self-creating, ex nihilo.

Answer the question.

 

[Nous]

Answer the question.

I did to the best of my ability. I noted that free will is the ability to choose between available options, that it is not creatio ex nihilo.

I am unsure what you might mean by a "source" for the ability to choose between available options, but given that all people and even other animals (to varying degrees) exhibit this ability, I'm certain the "source" is not terribly mysterious. I suspect that the ability to choose between options is no more puzzling than the fact of a whole being more than the sum of its parts, and actually has something to do with the fact that a whole is more than the sum of its parts.

How about answering this question: So you are claiming that when presented with two propositions of which one is true and one is false, you do not have the ability to choose to believe and assert the true one rather than the false one?

 

[Sleeppy]

I did to the best of my ability. I noted that free will is the ability to choose between available options, that it is not creatio ex nihilo.

I am unsure what you might mean by a "source" for the ability to choose between available options, but given that all people and even other animals (to varying degrees) exhibit this ability, I'm certain the "source" is not terribly mysterious. I suspect that the ability to choose between options is no more puzzling than the fact of a whole being more than the sum of its parts, and actually has something to do with the fact that a whole is more than the sum of its parts.

How about answering this question: So you are claiming that when presented with two propositions of which one is true and one is false, you do not have the ability to choose to believe and assert the true one rather than the false one?

Actually, that would certainly be creatio ex nihilo. There needs to be a causal chain, for the selection of one 'option' over that of another.

Your last question there isn't well thought out. But, the answer is no. Your physiology, i.e. your brain, and thereby your perceptive ability determine what you will believe is true or false.

 

[Nous]

Actually, that would certainly be creatio ex nihilo. There needs to be a causal chain, for the selection of one 'option' over that of another.

Your last question there isn't well thought out. But, the answer is no.

I definitely do not deny your admitted inability to choose to assert or believe true propositions over false ones.

An automaton--an object that lacks volition, such as you apparently claim to be--will never be able to state or believe a proposition that has any truth value, e.g., a proposition that is worthwhile to hear or read or consider by those of us who are able to choose to assert and believe true propositions rather than false ones.

Your physiology, i.e. your brain, and thereby your perceptive ability determine what you will believe is true or false.

Those of us who are able to choose truths over falsehoods know that your claim here is false.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If it were true that free will is a delusion, then how do you explain how an individual can know and predict far in advance the specific bodily movements that s/he is going to perform (e.g., pay one's mortgage payment next month)?

If I have a mortgage, I can predict I will pay it because I don't want to pay late penalties or loose my house. Really, I don't think we have complete and total free will, but nor are we chained to determinism. Having Asperger's, I will never be the life of a party, I will never have the inclination to visit with more than a few people at a time, and my mind is predisposed towards thinking logically rather than emotionally. However, I can still choose to put myself in uncomfortable social situations, do things I don't want to do, and learn how to better understand people and how my way of thinking can effect and be interpreted by them.

 

[Sleeppy]

I definitely do not deny your admitted inability to choose to assert or believe true propositions over false ones.

An automaton--an object that lacks volition, such as you apparently claim to be--will never be able to state or believe a proposition that has any truth value, e.g., a proposition that is worthwhile to hear or read or consider by those of us who are able to choose to assert and believe true propositions rather than false ones.

Those of us who are able to choose truths over falsehoods know that your claim here is false.

Are you sure there's ANYONE HERE, who agrees with you, that automatons e.g., computers are incapable of outputting factual information, e.g., perform mathematical and historical calculations, as well as make accurate predictions?


Is there ANYONE HERE, who doesn't understand the function of the human brain?

Where are these people? They need to be exposed here and now, for everyone's sake.

 

[Nous]

Are you sure there's ANYONE HERE, who agrees with you, that automatons e.g., computers are incapable of outputting factual information, e.g., perform mathematical and historical calculations, as well as make accurate predictions?

Where the hell do you think I said that? I said that automatons are objects that lack volition, that is, lack the ability to choose what acts they will perform, what decisions they will make, what beliefs they will adopt.

 

[Nous]

If I have a mortgage, I can predict I will pay it because I don't want to pay late penalties or loose my house.

Yes, not only do volitional individuals determine whether or not to perform the required bodily movements in order to pay a bill such as a mortgage or utility bill, we choose to perform or not perform those movements for goal-directed reasons. Particles, biological cells, electrical circuits, etc., do not have such goal-directed reasons for their actions.

Really, I don't think we have complete and total free will, but nor are we chained to determinism.

Again, yes. I would put it that we are all influenced by things--by our present surroundings and circumstances, and by past events.

There is no better example of our commonplace failure to exercise our will power than when faced with a favorite food.