Free will and determinism

[Jerry N.]

Sapolski covered that in his book Determined:

'Inhibiting a behavior doesn’t have fancier neurobiological properties than activating a behavior, and brain circuitry even uses their components interchangeably. For example, sometimes brains do something by activating neuron X, sometimes by inhibiting the neuron that is inhibiting neuron X. Calling the former “free will” and calling the latter “free won’t” are equally untenable.'

It's just the other side of the same coin.

Thanks, I was curious about what you thought about it.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

...

I would actually like to say something to you in private. But I can't private message yet, I need more posts/likes apparently. Can you private message me so I can say it?

 

[Jerry N.]

@Jerry N.

Let me know if you think I'm full of it, and don't want to hear anymore, k. No need of both of us wasting our time, etc.

God Bless.

I wouldn’t say you are “full of it.” I have known Hindus who have a slightly similar idea. If you take reincarnation and multiverses and mix them real good, add a supreme being and some Christian thought, one could see your point. However, it is not a discussion that I would like to continue. You have obviously put a lot of thought into your ideas, and that is commendable.

 

[Jerry N.]

The ability to choose and free will are not the same thing.

I know that you defined “free will” as not having any preexistent inputs. I was referring to the common use of “free will,” meaning that we are free to make choices within a limited number of possibilities. I’m not trying to restart our discussion. I was just trying to point out that God can allow variation in His plan for our lives based on Biblical evidence.

 

[Jerry N.]

You can help the old lady across the street. Or you can steal her handbag. What you do will confirm the type of person you are at that point when you make the decision. I don't believe in retributive punishment, but I have no problem in you being punished in some way if you steal her handbag, because that will encourage you to see the error of your ways and you may repent.

You and @Neogaia have somewhat different ideas about determinism. If I am correct, you believe that our actions can be modified by constant inputs of determinants through time, but @Neogaia seems to think that the determinants are all fixed by God from the beginning. Correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[Jerry N.]

I like that!

Strangely enough, it almost echoes things many Reformed/Calvinists say, that before being reborn of the Spirit of God, we freely choose, only sinfully.

I never could figure out if I’m a Calvinist or an Arminian, but Libet does sound more Calvinist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never could figure out if I’m a Calvinist or an Arminian, but Libet does sound more Calvinist.

I find the biggest difference to be the identification of the Reformed with Covenant Theology. It's an interesting study.

You won't likely find many Presbyterians that hold to Dispensationalism, but not all of them see the timeline of history through a Covenant Theology lens, either. I tend toward the Covenant thinking, but only, or mainly, toward what I call the Covenant between the 3 of the Trinity, even 'before' Creation. Redemption. To me, THAT is the whole force of history, to include every little particular.

Other than that and a couple other items, such as the federal headship of fathers over their families, I'm more Baptistic in most ways than Presbyterian, but definitely not Dispensationalist.

 

[Bradskii]

You and @Neogaia have somewhat different ideas about determinism. If I am correct, you believe that our actions can be modified by constant inputs of determinants through time, but @Neogaia seems to think that the determinants are all fixed by God from the beginning. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Apart from the obvious distinction that I don't believe in God, I can't see there being any difference. If you keep doing something wrong (your actions) and you keep getting punished for it (constant inputs) then at some point you're going to think about changing your actions. But Neogaia's God will know all my actions through time and will know all the constant inputs and my continued decisions based on them.

We can't see what determinants will lead to a particular action as there are an infinite amount of them. So I say 'they can't be known'. And Neogaia will say that they are known. By God.

 

[Neogaia777]

I would actually like to say something to you in private. But I can't private message yet, I need more posts/likes apparently. Can you private message me so I can say it?

I sent you a private message, let me know if you can respond to it, k.

Later/Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Apart from the obvious distinction that I don't believe in God, I can't see there being any difference. If you keep doing something wrong (your actions) and you keep getting punished for it (constant inputs) then at some point you're going to think about changing your actions. But Neogaia's God will know all my actions through time and will know all the constant inputs and my continued decisions based on them.

We can't see what determinants will lead to a particular action as there are an infinite amount of them. So I say 'they can't be known'. And Neogaia will say that they are known. By God.

Yes, we have to try correcting other people's behaviors when they break societies rules regardless, and I don't see how determinism changes any of that. And also, we don't know everything, say, the God I believe in knows (if there is some being/entity knows that is the original cause that determined everything else, etc) so we don't know how anything is supposed to be, or will go in the very next moments, or is fixed to go in the future, etc, so from our perspective or point of view, things at any point in the future can still be altered/changed/affected from our position, and this happens with our choices or decisions that we make, and so we should still try to alter them or change them sometimes, etc.

And whether there's some kind of being that knows, or already decided what it is going to be, or it's already fixed by the mathematical rules and laws of determinism, etc, we don't know any of that from our perspective, and probably won't or can't ever, because it's just far too complex/complicated, etc, so when something is wrong, we should still exercise our wills to try and change it, etc. Including trying to.alter of change other people's behavior when they break societies laws, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, we have to try correcting other people's behaviors when they break societies rules regardless, and I don't see how determinism changes any of that. And also, we don't know everything, say, the God I believe in knows (if there is some being/entity knows that is the original cause that determined everything else, etc) so we don't know how anything is supposed to be, or will go in the very next moments, or is fixed to go in the future, etc, so from our perspective or point of view, things at any point in the future can still be altered/changed/affected from our position, and this happens with our choices or decisions that we make, and so we should still try to alter them or change them sometimes, etc.

And whether there's some kind of being that knows, or already decided what it is going to be, or it's already fixed by the mathematical rules and laws of determinism, etc, we don't know any of that from our perspective, and probably won't or can't ever, because it's just far too complex/complicated, etc, so when something is wrong, we should still exercise our wills to try and change it, etc. Including trying to.alter of change other people's behavior when they break societies laws, etc.

Take Care.

I want everyone to be clear on this, and so I'm going to say it again, etc.

Even though the future is fixed, has only one possible way all of the time, and there is a already a way that it will happen and go, and that can't be changed from a certain perspective (God's, etc) for us, we don't know what that is, or going to be/supposed to be (and cannot go any other way, etc) so from our perspective or point of view, our choices, decisions, actions/inactions or us exercising our wills, or trying to alter/change/affect things, we don't know if that is a part of that determinism or not, etc, and none of knows if we're supposed to try or exert our wills or not for any given situation, etc.

It could be that your supposed to try and do something, or not try to do something, cause we just don't know that ever, etc. So from our perspective or point of view the future is still always open, and it can go any kind of way still, etc, still a very great number of different possibilities, etc.

Even if there is a way it is already supposed to go, and it will always happen that way (and it must) and it cannot be changed and cannot go any other way, it's not at all ever that way from our perspective, and since we don't know what has already been written/chosen for us to do, or whether or not we're supposed to exercise our wills or not (to try and change or alter something or not) at any point in time in this existence, then we still need to think about what we're supposed to do or try to do or not (or exercise our wills or not) for any given situation, because we never will know what that is supposed to be from our position, etc.

People often get in a huff about this, and say to other people when they first hear about this and before they have accepted it as to why any of us should try to do anything then, etc? And it's just simply because we don't know if trying or exercising our wills or not, is still what we're supposed to try and do still, for any given situation, etc.

Anyway, I hope this makes it a little bit more clear?

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

I find the biggest difference to be the identification of the Reformed with Covenant Theology. It's an interesting study.

You won't likely find many Presbyterians that hold to Dispensationalism, but not all of them see the timeline of history through a Covenant Theology lens, either. I tend toward the Covenant thinking, but only, or mainly, toward what I call the Covenant between the 3 of the Trinity, even 'before' Creation. Redemption. To me, THAT is the whole force of history, to include every little particular.

Other than that and a couple other items, such as the federal headship of fathers over their families, I'm more Baptistic in most ways than Presbyterian, but definitely not Dispensationalist.

The term “Covenant Theology” is rather new to me. So I looked it up, and I have studied it without knowing that was what it was called. The succession of covenants (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and New) is obvious, but I see them more as historical markers rather than a “lens” by which to interpret Scripture. You need them to understand the events of the Bible in context, and I can understand the relationship to Dispensationalism. However, I am not a dispensationalist in the traditional sense. I see the history as maturation. After obtaining faith in Christ, how one acts out one’s faith is influenced by knowledge and experience. This takes place on a personal level much like with humanity as a whole. Each new covenant builds on the previous ones, rather than replacing them.

 

[Neogaia777]

(I posted this just now elsewhere, thought it should also go here)

A posters post to someone else in that forum/thread:

"The question itself implies responsibility. "What must I do to be saved?" If unconditional election were true, the only correct answer would have been "There is nothing you can do to be saved." Instead the answer given actually specifies a condition."

My reply in to that comment in that thread:

The real answer is we don't know if there is anything we can do to be saved, etc. God knows, but we don't, and so that changes everything from our perspective.

If there is, or we can, then God already knew it, and even already chose it for you/caused it, etc, but because we don't ever know that, or know if there is or not (that has been already written in stone for our future) or know anything about that, it changes absolutely everything from our perspective.

If you don't ever know what's supposed to be, or how the future is already fixed/writen/chosen for you, and can't go/happen any other way, etc, anyway, if none of us ever gets to know anything at all about that ever, can you not see how that changes absolutely everything from our perspective?

God knows the future/already wrote it for me, etc, but I don't, etc, so how am I supposed to know what I'm supposed to do/choose, or how I'm supposed to act or not act, use my will to try to do something or change something, or else not, or whether I should refrain or not refrain, for any given situation?

Even if God already knows it/wrote it/caused it/chose it for me already, it doesn't change a thing from my perspective, unless I can have all of his knowledge, or know everything he knows, etc. Which is probably impossible for anyone but him, so even if he already knows it/did it all already, it doesn't change even one single thing from my perspective. I have no choice but to use my ability to make decisions/use my will/choose, etc. Even if there is no such thing for us with God right now from his perspective, etc.

And this isn't fatalism, the fact that we don't ever know should be somewhat exciting, etc, because it means the future can go any kind of way from our perspective, and also from our perspective, that we basically have the will/power/ability to do or change/alter anything by the exertion or use of that will from our perspective, even if that's not really actually the case from an always all-knowing being/entities perspective, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

(I posted this just now elsewhere, thought it should also go here)

A posters post to someone else in that forum/thread:

"The question itself implies responsibility. "What must I do to be saved?" If unconditional election were true, the only correct answer would have been "There is nothing you can do to be saved." Instead the answer given actually specifies a condition."

My reply in to that comment in that thread:

The real answer is we don't know if there is anything we can do to be saved, etc. God knows, but we don't, and so that changes everything from our perspective.

If there is, or we can, then God already knew it, and even already chose it for you/caused it, etc, but because we don't ever know that, or know if there is or not (that has been already written in stone for our future) or know anything about that, it changes absolutely everything from our perspective.

If you don't ever know what's supposed to be, or how the future is already fixed/writen/chosen for you, and can't go/happen any other way, etc, anyway, if none of us ever gets to know anything at all about that ever, can you not see how that changes absolutely everything from our perspective?

God knows the future/already wrote it for me, etc, but I don't, etc, so how am I supposed to know what I'm supposed to do/choose, or how I'm supposed to act or not act, use my will to try to do something or change something, or else not, or whether I should refrain or not refrain, for any given situation?

Even if God already knows it/wrote it/caused it/chose it for me already, it doesn't change a thing from my perspective, unless I can have all of his knowledge, or know everything he knows, etc. Which is probably impossible for anyone but him, so even if he already knows it/did it all already, it doesn't change even one single thing from my perspective. I have no choice but to use my ability to make decisions/use my will/choose, etc. Even if there is no such thing for us with God right now from his perspective, etc.

And this isn't fatalism, the fact that we don't ever know should be somewhat exciting, etc, because it means the future can go any kind of way from our perspective, and also from our perspective, that we basically have the will/power/ability to do or change/alter anything by the exertion or use of that will from our perspective, even if that's not really actually the case from an always all-knowing being/entities perspective, etc.

God Bless.

Also posted this just now in the other forum/thread:

Might not apply as much here, but here it is anyway, etc.

And the only reason I'm talking about it right now, is not really to affect the way you make choices/decisions, but is just because I want you all to know the truth, and also get to know this always all-knowing being that is always the first cause of everything, etc. Right now you don't at all know Him, etc.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

God knows the future/already wrote it for me, etc, but I don't, etc, so how am I supposed to know what I'm supposed to do/choose, or how I'm supposed to act or not act, use my will to try to do something or change something, or else not, or whether I should refrain or not refrain, for any given situation?

Actually, there are many ways.

First is innate knowledge of right and wrong. For example, when you give a kid a cookie, and then their sibling two cookies, they'll get up in a rage about it, because it's unfair. This is based on the innate knowledge of fairness.

Second is dreams. God can give you dreams that are very different from other dreams. They can also contain commands, suggestions, knowledge, etc.

Third is holy books. But this is a hornet's nest so I won't say more.

Fourth is revelation. When you realize something massive, you can derive right and wrong. Etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, there are many ways.

First is innate knowledge of right and wrong. For example, when you give a kid a cookie, and then their sibling two cookies, they'll get up in a rage about it, because it's unfair. This is based on the innate knowledge of fairness.

Second is dreams. God can give you dreams that are very different from other dreams. They can also contain commands, suggestions, knowledge, etc.

Third is holy books. But this is a hornet's nest so I won't say more.

Fourth is revelation. When you realize something massive, you can derive right and wrong. Etc.

In other words, by causal means.

 

[Neogaia777]

Actually, there are many ways.

First is innate knowledge of right and wrong. For example, when you give a kid a cookie, and then their sibling two cookies, they'll get up in a rage about it, because it's unfair. This is based on the innate knowledge of fairness.

Second is dreams. God can give you dreams that are very different from other dreams. They can also contain commands, suggestions, knowledge, etc.

Third is holy books. But this is a hornet's nest so I won't say more.

Fourth is revelation. When you realize something massive, you can derive right and wrong. Etc.

Yes, we have no choice but to guess on how to use our wills (or choice) based on the information we have/had available to us up to that point, etc. But however we ultimately choose/decide, it will always be what was supposed to happen and couldn't have gone any other way, etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, we have no choice but to guess on how to use our wills (or choice) based on the information we have/had available to us up to that point, etc. But however we ultimately choose/decide, it will always be what was supposed to happen and couldn't have gone any other way, etc.

I love the irony in the old Shakespeare play, Macbeth, where the king attempts to prevent what The Fates prophesied, and his efforts to prevent it end up instead bringing about what had been prophesied.