Freewill Revisited

[stvdv]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want. Does that make sense?
Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when distracted no judgement... back to the breath. I want to focus on that time period...
I think we clearly don't have free will. ... if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently.
People and environments ... in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.
We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those ... its hard to argue I'm free.

Most people confuse "Free Will" and "Free Desires". Most people follow plenty of "Free Desires" BUT have "no Free Will Power" to control these

 

[Twilight Hue]

From the way people are making it sound, as a lot of people are making it out to be, free will is actually interpreted as the ability for personal choice. To basically choose this or that.

While we can choose, I don't think we're exactly free in respect to how choices come about.

 

[sealchan]

Is that an argument? Really? Our sense of meaning and purpose to be, in some sense, masters of our destiny and keepers of our morality is for you a good reason to infer that one of the most fundamental physical assumptions is wrong?

Are you sure? How is that not simple narcissistic anthropocentrism?

Aww, the poor great ape homo sapiens does not want to be a physical machine subject to the laws of physics. Otherwise it will lose all purpose and meaning.

What can I say? Man up. Or woman up. Or whatever up.

I "person'd up" and said (or meant to say) both were true.

It is as important that we honor our subjective values and beliefs as it is that we establish objective, reproducible truth. This is because there is a great vacuum left behind by science when it comes to making practical decisions in our human experience and our subjective perspective is our best available source of information for how to make decisions in this void.

I told you, not linear systems are deterministic. Unpredictability does not refute determinism.

I am not sure why you even mentioned them, since they actually make my case.

I'm not arguing against you so much as saying that the argument to be made becomes more difficult. If you say such and such is determined...but for practical reasons I can't prove that...that isn't as pretty an argument to make.

 

[sealchan]

Most people confuse "Free Will" and "Free Desires". Most people follow plenty of "Free Desires" BUT have "no Free Will Power" to control these

What is the value in choosing whatever we want after all? Is wanting not a form of determinism acting in the psychological sphere?

Meaning seems to come along with desire and desire is based on need.

Freedom comes from having options that we want and get to choose. The want comes, in large part, from our biological givens such as the need for food and warmth and safety and oxygen. I think that our social-political sense of freedom is much more tied up in our sense of our personal sense of free will than we might realize. With Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am", we have this really strong sense of subjective reality. It is like the ultiimate act in language of self-creation or self-assertion. We take it for granted in a culture where individual choices are constantly, annoyingly given to us through advertising.

That is why I like to mention how ambivalence is an important aspect of our sense of free will. Having a choice between this parking space or that, or this flavor of potato chip or that, is like a barrage of free will experiences although they are trivial. They help to perpetuate our sense of agency power and personal mastery.

This too in an affluent society where one's satisfaction of instinctual needs can become routine and low risk. And we all shed fake crocodile tears when we hear about some rich person who doesn't know what to do with themselves. Certainly they have the most powerful and free of wills, but does that mean they enjoy or appreciate it like someone who dreams of having the means to fulfill their personal passions?

 

[viole]

I "person'd up" and said (or meant to say) both were true.

It is as important that we honor our subjective values and beliefs as it is that we establish objective, reproducible truth. This is because there is a great vacuum left behind by science when it comes to making practical decisions in our human experience and our subjective perspective is our best available source of information for how to make decisions in this void.



I'm not arguing against you so much as saying that the argument to be made becomes more difficult. If you say such and such is determined...but for practical reasons I can't prove that...that isn't as pretty an argument to make.

Yeah, person up sounds politically correct.

I think we have to agree to disagree here. I will never be able to see how our subjective values can change or influence in any way or form the way the Universe is done. Or why the latter should be concerned with our needs.

But let me ask you a question. If I managed to convince you that determinism is true and human experiences are all predetermined, what would you do? Would you feel like a different person? Would you feel your love for your family, wife, children, etc is less strong, or has less value? Would you feel that morality is not important and we can basically do whatever we want?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

I disagree. There is no reason why free will cannot exist in the domain of an
omnipotent and omniscient God.

How can God know an outcome before it has been decided?

Do I really have to tell you to look up the definition of "omniscient"?

Christians, of which you claim to be one, consider omniscience to be one of their God's attributes.

 

[stvdv]

With Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am", we have this really strong sense of subjective reality

With Ramana Maharshi "Who Am I" ..... In the silence (no thought state) following this enquiry one has the possibility to realize who one "really is"

some rich person who doesn't know what to do with themselves. Certainly they have the most powerful and free of wills, but does that mean they enjoy

That is what I implied saying "some confuse `free WILL` with `free desire`". Free Will is kind of the opposite of `freedom to choose what you desire`.

 

[sealchan]

Do I really have to tell you to look up the definition of "omniscient"?

Christians, of which you claim to be one, consider omniscience to be one of their God's attributes.

My question was as much to start a discussion on what omniscience implies as anything else. Do you know what the logical consequences of God being omniscient are?

If you've read the Bible you would know that God has been portrayed as if He doesn't know the outcome of future actions or that He has acted as if He doesn't know. That would be a topic for another thread, of course.

 

[sealchan]

But let me ask you a question. If I managed to convince you that determinism is true and human experiences are all predetermined, what would you do? Would you feel like a different person? Would you feel your love for your family, wife, children, etc is less strong, or has less value? Would you feel that morality is not important and we can basically do whatever we want?

Ciao

- viole

I'm already convinced that determinism is true...

Do you have a subjective perspective in addition to an objective one?

 

[stvdv]

My question was as much to start a discussion on what omniscience implies as anything else. Do you know what the logical consequences of God being omniscient are?

For me it's very easy to believe that omniscience exists.

In the past 30 years I have had at least 70 premonitions about the future that proved right. Those were things I could never have known. I consider myself to be a drop of water compared to God being the ocean. So if I have already 70 experiences of omniscience then God, being the ocean+++, easily is omniscient to me. But I prefer to attribute my experiences to "Sai Baba's Grace only" to prove to me that this "omniscience attribute" exists.

About logical consequence "of God being omniscient"
I do not believe in God as described by humans in Bible
I do believe in consciousness (indian definition)
In that concept omniscience is no "big deal"

 

[Trailblazer]

And of course if one believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient then by definition free will cannot exist either.

Hi, I am back with one of my explanations. I have others if this is not clear.

We are not robotically controlled by God. We are causing things to happen by making a choice and then acting on it. We are doing what God knows we will do by virtue of our own free will. Our free will has constraints but that is a separate issue.

In brief, we do not have any choice except to do what God knows we will do because what God knows what we will do is identical with what we will do. God knows what we will do because God is omniscient, but God does not cause it to happen, we do. Thus we play out our own script according to what God already knows we will do. God does not play out the script by causing things to happen; we cause things to happen by virtue of the free will decisions that we make and the actions that follow. God knows how the script will play out before it plays out because God is omniscient.

To say that we have no free will is the same as saying that we cannot make any of our own choices, which would means that God (or something else) is making our choices for us. If God is making our choices, that would mean we are puppets on a string, programmed robots.

The fact that God is omniscient and knows what the future will be is not what causes the events to happen. Free will decisions humans make cause things to happen. For example, more people were on the road on a certain day so traffic was bad so the bus was late. The fact that God knew that would happen (since God is omniscient) is not what caused it to happen. Peoples’ choices to be out driving caused more traffic, which caused the bus to be late.

God's knowledge surrounds all things, before during and after their existence, but it is not the cause of their existence. It is identical with the reality of things.

God’s knowledge of what will happen in the future does not CAUSE it to happen, not any more than the astronomer’s knowledge of an eclipse causes the eclipse to happen.

 

[Skwim]

From the way people are making it sound, as a lot of people are making it out to be, free will is actually interpreted as the ability for personal choice. To basically choose this or that.

While we can choose, I don't think we're exactly free in respect to how choices come about.

If we don't have any power in determining how a choice arises, then what constitutes the act of choosing?

.

 

[Skwim]

I'm already convinced that determinism is true...

Except, I assume, when it comes to acts of the will.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi, I am back with one of my explanations. I have others if this is not clear.

We are not robotically controlled by God. We are causing things to happen by making a choice and then acting on it. We are doing what God knows we will do by virtue of our own free will. Our free will has constraints but that is a separate issue.

In brief, we do not have any choice except to do what God knows we will do because what God knows what we will do is identical with what we will do. God knows what we will do because God is omniscient, but God does not cause it to happen, we do. Thus we play out our own script according to what God already knows we will do. God does not play out the script by causing things to happen; we cause things to happen by virtue of the free will decisions that we make and the actions that follow. God knows how the script will play out before it plays out because God is omniscient.

To say that we have no free will is the same as saying that we cannot make any of our own choices, which would means that God (or something else) is making our choices for us. If God is making our choices, that would mean we are puppets on a string, programmed robots.

The fact that God is omniscient and knows what the future will be is not what causes the events to happen. Free will decisions humans make cause things to happen. For example, more people were on the road on a certain day so traffic was bad so the bus was late. The fact that God knew that would happen (since God is omniscient) is not what caused it to happen. Peoples’ choices to be out driving caused more traffic, which caused the bus to be late.

God's knowledge surrounds all things, before during and after their existence, but it is not the cause of their existence. It is identical with the reality of things.

God’s knowledge of what will happen in the future does not CAUSE it to happen, not any more than the astronomer’s knowledge of an eclipse causes the eclipse to happen.

Your version of God now runs into the problems that Epicurus wrote on:



Quote by Epicurus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? T...”

By claiming that your God knows of the evil that would arise from your version of freewill, and doing nothing though able, he becomes the cause of evil.

 

[Trailblazer]

By claiming that your God knows of the evil that would arise from your version of freewill, and doing nothing though able, he becomes the cause of evil.

There is NO REASON to think that just because God can prevent evil God should prevent evil. God does not cause evil. Humans cause evil. God gave humans free will to prevent evil. Good people help to prevent the evil of bad people. All evil cannot be prevented in this material world because that is not according to God's Will. However, good people will no longer have to endure evil in the afterlife. Evil people will be nowhere near good people so they will have no effect upon them, as they do in this world.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If we don't have any power in determining how a choice arises, then what constitutes the act of choosing?

.

Can you choose to live forever? Would free will guarantee that?

It's a reason why I'm not privy with any such notion as free will. Limitations of choice can and do exist , such as a person's will to live.

 

[sealchan]

Except, I assume, when it comes to acts of the will.

.

If I say I'm a compatibalist would that clear everything up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is NO REASON to think that just because God can prevent evil God should prevent evil. God does not cause evil. Humans cause evil. God gave humans free will to prevent evil. Good people help to prevent the evil of bad people. All evil cannot be prevented in this material world because that is not according to God's Will. However, good people will no longer have to endure evil in the afterlife. Evil people will be nowhere near good people so they will have no effect upon them, as they do in this world.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient he knows about all evil and how to avoid it. If he is omnipotent he is able to avoid it at no cost to himself. That makes him responsible for it himself and evil for doing nothing.

 

[sealchan]

In the end, understanding free will will require fleshing out all those intuitions we all have about what it is. Then reasoning about them in the context of how important it is that our morality seems to require the existence of free will is also required. Unless you think that the human cognitive ability of placing value is of no value, I think this is a fair statement.

And if this seems to be an exercise in futility then maybe one should examine one's intuitions to see if the contradiction stems from there.

Also, of course, neuroscience will end up telling us the right answer in any case.

 

[sealchan]

If God is omnipotent and omniscient he knows about all evil and how to avoid it. If he is omnipotent he is able to avoid it at no cost to himself. That makes him responsible for it himself and evil for doing nothing.

That's what I meant by understanding the consequences of omniscience.