What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

[Thief]

Alright, I'll rephrase it for you. Are you basing your evidence for God on an absence of an alternative explanation?

Cause and effect.

God said....I AM!....
The universe is.....


Substance is not 'self' starting.
Dead things do not beget life.

 

[leibowde84]

Cause and effect.

God said....I AM!....
The universe is.....


Substance is not 'self' starting.
Dead things do not beget life.

So, yes, your claimed evidence for God is the absence of an alternative explanation then, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay. You go ahead and address those.

Thanks for the permission. Or something.

 

[LuisDantas]

Cause and effect.

God said....I AM!....
The universe is.....


Substance is not 'self' starting.
Dead things do not beget life.

That is just dogma, not an explanation.

 

[Banjankri]

I say....someone had to be first.
On the spiritual plane....that would be God.

No God.

The first of Man had no names....no law.....see Chapter One of Genesis.
The first to have a soul would be Adam.
His bride and wife is also his twin sister.
Eve is a clone....no navel.(Chapter Two)

It doesn't solve anything, especially the problem of lack of choice. If God was the source of it all, then he is to be blamed for the original sin.

 

[Marisa]

If he has any grasp on free will I doubt very much that he expands on your mistaken notion.

Well, he's a neuro-scientist and this sort of thing is well within his wheelhouse. And he's not approaching the subject from a religious standpoint. And no, he's not answering me in the book, but then who am I? Just some idiot with a computer clacking away and expounding great volumes of knowledge? Please don't mistake me for thinking I'm so expert on the subject as to run around telling other's all about their "mistaken notions". Read it or don't.

 

[Marisa]

Omniscience and omnipower does not necessarily entail caring about people. You'd have to make that argument to make your post work.

I was addressing the generally accepted concept of capital "G" god as given by christians. I'm content to allow them to define their god, since they are the one's worshipping him.

 

[Marisa]

Why not?
I choose to eat in such a manner that I am not hungry.

Sure. But you still can't choose not to be hungry, you have to eat something in order to not be hungry.

Not paying attention to our experiences and bodily functions and or ignore them until they become a factor is not the same as having no choices.

That's a valid point.

 

[Marisa]

I do understand determinism. Because I have Asperger's syndrome, many aspects of me are just because, and could not be any other way. Because I was born and raised in Mid West America, there are many things of me that just are and could not be any other way. Because I had a difficult childhood, there are many things of me that just are and could not be any other way.
But I can choose to learn how to socialize better and understand how certain things effect people, I can choose to gain understandings into how those from other places and cultures think and perceive the world and not be bound to Mid West norms, and I can choose to make efforts to get over past struggles and not dwell upon those pains.
Black-and-white approaches generally do not work, and they are almost always ill-fitted for approaches to life.

My mother was BiPolar. She would often comment that she felt like she was outside of herself, watching herself do things that she knew were not right and would cause harm to herself or the people she loved, but that she could not make herself do anything different despite knowing this. Some forms of mental maladay are situational, but others are chemical imbalances in the brain and in the case of the latter, it seems to be really true that those sufferers cannot choose to behave any other way, and no amount of cognitive behavioral therapy is likely to change that. They can learn how to function, but they aren't ever going to change that internal script that gets played in their heads.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, he's a neuro-scientist

So am I. So are plenty of people who don't publish almost nothing other than popular literature for those incapable (whether because of inadequate background or inability to access the requisite literature) of evaluating the evidence. Also, neuroscientists are generally not ideally suited to say anything about "free will" because most aren't familiar with both cognitive neuroscience, computational neuroscience, and the physics of complex systems applicable here. Sam Harris' specialty is perhaps LEAST ideal here in terms of possible neuroscience specialties.

And he's not approaching the subject from a religious standpoint.

Nor a physics standpoint.

 

[Marisa]

So am I. So are plenty of people who don't publish almost nothing other than popular literature for those incapable (whether because of inadequate background or inability to access the requisite literature) of evaluating the evidence. Also, neuroscientists are generally not ideally suited to say anything about "free will" because most aren't familiar with both cognitive neuroscience, computational neuroscience, and the physics of complex systems applicable here. Sam Harris' specialty is perhaps LEAST ideal here in terms of possible neuroscience specialties.

Nor a physics standpoint.

Okie dokie. Of course, all I meant to suggest is that he's probably more qualified to speak to the subject that I am. Perhaps even the person to whom I was responding, who seems to feel him/herself an authority on the subject. I cannot fathom how anyone would take the complete wishy-washyness with which I have posted anything about this subject as me somehow speaking from a position of knowledge and authority. But I suppose to each their own.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okie dokie. Of course, all I meant to suggest is that he's probably more qualified to speak to the subject that I am. Perhaps even the person to whom I was responding, who seems to feel him/herself an authority on the subject. I cannot fathom how anyone would take the complete wishy-washyness with which I have posted anything about this subject as me somehow speaking from a position of knowledge and authority. But I suppose to each their own.

Fair enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, @LegionOnomaMoi , who would you recommend to explain free will?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, @LegionOnomaMoi , who would you recommend to explain free will?

Me. I can give hundreds of citations, many written by those whose knowledge and expertise is superior to mine, but unless you can access not only these sources but the entirety of the requisite background, this isn't of much help. Granted, I'm not either, but you asked what I would recommend and I don't know of anyone else who has the knowledge of the field and access to the sources I do that you know.

 

[Thief]

No God.

It doesn't solve anything, especially the problem of lack of choice. If God was the source of it all, then he is to be blamed for the original sin.

Denial solves nothing either.

Some'thing' set the universe in motion.
I say Spirit first.
Science would have you believe an object at rest will stay that way.....until....'something' moves it.
I attribute that initial Cause to Spirit.
substance is not 'self' starting.

as for original sin.....I have no lean to dogmatic belief.

I do believe the way we think and feel can separate us from the Spirit.
(it is written....a sin against the Spirit will not be forgiven)
Sin means to be 'without'.

 

[Thief]

That is just dogma, not an explanation.

Cause and effect is not dogma.

I raise my finger in the air and pronounce loudly.....SCIENCE!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. But you still can't choose not to be hungry, you have to eat something in order to not be hungry.

High amounts of stress and using speed are two other ways to not be hungry.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, @LegionOnomaMoi , who would you recommend to explain free will?

In addition to what I stated above, I addressed this here in a thread I started that took up several posts even just for my intended initial post (thanks to character length).

 

[McBell]

Sure. But you still can't choose not to be hungry, you have to eat something in order to not be hungry.

I choose to not be hungry by eating before I get hungry.
Of course, having Crohn's Disease i pretty much have to unless I want to be in agony.

That's a valid point.

Thank you.

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect is not dogma.

As you have already stated:

Denial solves nothing either./QUOTE]