Free will and determinism

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, yeah. You could just be a brain in a vat. But on the assumption that we're all living in reality...

That's a good one.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know why he did. I'd need some context. Maybe he decided they needed to escape a dangerous situation. Maybe he suddenly remembered he left a pie baking in the oven back on Earth.

The dangerous situation and the pie in the oven were antecedent conditions that he was aware of that determined his decision.

I think I agree with that.

Cool.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Free will, but cravings.

Determinism, but telepathy.

lol.

 

[Chesterton]

The dangerous situation and the pie in the oven were antecedent conditions that he was aware of that determined his decision.

No, Picard's mind determined the decision. He was completely free to do otherwise. He could have even stayed in a dangerous situation. I'd tell you or remind you of Germanwings Flight 9525, where in 2015 the co-pilot chose to lock the pilot out of the cockpit so he could fly the plane into a mountain and kill all 150 people on board.

 

[Bradskii]

No, Picard's mind determined the decision.

He made the decision, yes. But nobody is denying that he, or anyone else has that ability! Please stop arguing against that. No-one is arguing for it. Why do I constantly have to keep pointing that out?

And why on earth do I have to keep asking some people why they made it? It wasn't for no reason at all. Rather obviously. It was because of some situation that determined it. Again, rather obviously. You gave two possible examples. And that's it.

We make decisions. That's undeniable.
They are made for reasons. Again, undeniable.
The reasons determine the decision. That's why they are called reasons.

He was completely free to do otherwise. He could have even stayed in a dangerous situation.

Yes, he wasn't being coerced. Again, he was free to make a decision. But that isn't a description of free will. If he decided to stay in a dangerous situation then he'd have a reason to do so. That reason would have determined his decision. I mean, all this is blindingly obvious.

I'd tell you or remind you of Germanwings Flight 9525, where in 2015 the co-pilot chose to lock the pilot out of the cockpit so he could fly the plane into a mountain and kill all 150 people on board.

And..? The guy was mentally unstable. That was one of the reasons he flew the plane into a mountain. Probably the main reason. The one that determined his actions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You know how in first aid they train you practically so your muscle memory will know what to do if there is an emergency?

How does muscle memory figure into free will and determinism? (my hand moved on its own)

How is this different than when someone consciously performs the same action?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not think anything of God fails.
I am using what @Jo555 and you are saying, that the holy spirit determines.
If the holy spirit - god's influence determines, and it was God's will for cain to do the right thing, why did God's influence fail?
Can you answer the question?

The promptings, nor even the direct acts of the Holy Spirit in regard to asking people to do what is right, is quite what this is about. No doubt those too are influences and therefore are causes, but the original intentions of God in creating are what always come to pass, and that, in every particular. I'm not sure why you think God's influence failed. It did not. His 'command' can be resisted and disobeyed --it is not his 'decree'; what he ordained would come to pass.

This would be a different topic, and does not change nor affect the question. Unless you are saying God ordained Cain to kill Abel, and then turned around and told him not to do it.
Is that what you are saying?

Not sure where you are saying he told him not to do it. He told him he had no call to be angry, and it was AFTER that, that Cain killed Abel. But yes, God ordained that Lucifer fall, that Adam and Eve fall, that Cain kill Abel, and every other event and the means by which every event and motion happens in this universe. There are no rogue particles. Everything is caused, except for first cause.

So, you believe that God, intended Cain to kill Abel, and then played out the drama for us in Genesis 4:6-10?

For us and for everybody that has heard or ever will hear of it, and for many other subsequent effects, and every scriptural reference to the matter.

Do you think Adam and Eve being obedient was plan A, and when that failed he had to revert to plan B, etc. ? How disappointing to God the work of his hands must be!

Do you think that the "two wills of God" notion implies that whatever anyone does, eg Satan's rebellion, is obedience? I can't help but wonder what you do with Acts 2:32, "This man [Jesus Christ] was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge"

I'm not getting into a theological argument on this.
It will take us into another subject, and I would be showing and asking for scripture to back up what is said.
That would be for a different thread. I am sure @Bradskii isn't interested in a scriptural debate.

My bad. I meant to get into more, but got distracted, then forgot.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You know how in first aid they train you practically so your muscle memory will know what to do if there is an emergency?

How does muscle memory figure into free will and determinism? (my hand moved on its own)

How is this different than when someone consciously performs the same action?

Both are a result of reasons. Muscle memory causes. The muscle memory was causes. Whatever caused the muscle memory was caused.

Conscious choices are caused by all the many influences that cause the particular thoughts, preferences and so on, by which one decides what to do.

As @Bradskii says, this is blindingly obvious. I can't help but think we are arguing two different questions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is an uncaused choice?
How do we get a caused choice?

"Uncaused choice" of the human is the false notion you have been arguing for.
"How do we get a caused choice?"? Through the many many 'chains of causation'. Influences, all of them causes negative or positive, strong or weak, resulting in the choice.

 

[Chesterton]

We make decisions. That's undeniable.

Agree.

They are made for reasons. Again, undeniable.

Agree.

The reasons determine the decision. That's why they are called reasons.

Disagree. Do you agree that the word "reason", used as a verb, implies that there are two or more options to choose from? Do you agree that reasoning is a thing which humans engage in, and that reasoning would be completely unnecessary if some "reason", used as a noun, were the sole determinant?

And..? The guy was mentally unstable. That was one of the reasons he flew the plane into a mountain. Probably the main reason. The one that determined his actions.

I'm glad you brought up mental instability. From a determinist's view, what is the difference between a mentally unstable person and a mentally stable person? They are both the same "process" as you like to call it. There is no difference.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Both are a result of reasons. Muscle memory causes. The muscle memory was causes. Whatever caused the muscle memory was caused.

Conscious choices are caused by all the many influences that cause the particular thoughts, preferences and so on, by which one decides what to do.

As @Bradskii says, this is blindingly obvious. I can't help but think we are arguing two different questions.

So if subconscious is the cause, then it is determined. Okay, that's the scope of the discussion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You don't understand the question?
I'll rephrase it.

Can a person have a negative influence - someone around them that encourages them to do X, and positive influence - someone around them, that encourages them to do B, and can the person choose between those, or ignore both and choose a path of their own making - K?

Of course, if he is aware of the influences, he can choose from among them, or choose to turn his back on them, or whatever else, and those choices also being a result of other causes, influences, whatever you want to call them. How is that ability relevant to whether those influences are causal or not?

Please explain how a person is influenced by something that they turn their back on.

That's a more to-the-point question, at least. Thank you. If a person turns their back upon the influence it has already had that effect. The person rather obviously reacted to it, by your own attestation.

I remain, however, curious why you would want to deal with only one influence at-a-time, when there are myriad influences affecting every one of our decisions.

The link is a definition, which shows influence to be something that has "power to sway" or "a determining factor believed by some to affect individual tendencies and characteristic".

In the former, there is the potential to affect, and not the effect, which the determinist are arguing for, because they believe an influence is a determining factor.

It doesn't say "potential to affect" but "power to sway" which rather obviously to you means only "potential to affect", but more likely is intended to mean, simply, "ability to influence" but to avoid using the word defined in the definition, they said, "power to sway". They may as well have said, "an influence sways", except that that would have raised objections from some who want to claim that someone reacting to an influence has not been caused to react.

However, an influence is not necessarily a determining factor, as your answer to my question will show.

How did my answer show that? The very fact that a person can ignore an erstwhile influence means that it influenced them to ignore it! How hard is this??? Do you want to get into the further psychological effects of consciously influences, or even of forgetting something that has been suggested or told a person? Do you ever feel guilty and don't know why? Do some chemicals make you more affectionate? Is the state of your mind controlled by you, by mere chance? Why do you prefer things over others? All influences.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Either God is a free willed agent, or he is not.

Why? Does "free-willed agent", in the common use, describe God? It would seem to claim that he is like us, but more able to do as he pleases. But he is not like us. The term simply does not apply to him. He need not live up to it, in order to do everything he 'wants'. But if it applies to anyone, it is him, since he does everything he chose to do. "Agent" seems to imply someone who takes from one fact to effect another fact. God has no external facts from which to draw further facts. ALL facts come from HIM, not from outside of him. He is not just a powerful resident within a larger reality.

If God cannot choose to know or not know something - so called omniscient in the misunderstood view, which is not according to scripture, then God is not omnipotent - in control of his own decisions, but predetermined.

It is not a question of whether he can or not. It is a question of whether the notion of him choosing to not know something runs logically afoul of what Scripture says about it. It is an inferential notion of self-deterministically thinking humans, that try to bring him down to our understanding. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything. Period. If he chooses not to know everything, then he does not know everything and the notion of omniscience is gone. And if not omniscient, then not omnipotent.

So, do you believe God can choose to know something, and choose not to know? Genesis 22:11, 12

That's a poor use of that passage, by the way. But it is common for the self-determinist to misunderstand what God means by "know" in that passage (and other similar passages, including the passages with anthropomorphic terms). Take a look at some of the concordances, and the use of that verb in the Hebrew text.

So, I don't believe God chooses to know or not know. He simply knows. Existence is what it is, because he exists. Knowing is what it is, because God knows. You seem to think our use of words is THE meaning, and that from them we can know truth, and to propose notions we come up with our minds to include the self-contradictory, proposing that Omnipotent God is either like us, or is able to do the self-contradictory. Again, it is not a question of whether he can or not, but whether the question even makes any sense --particularly from God's point-of-view.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Duty calls.
The soldier prefers to go to the battle field, rather than be with his family.
In other words, he always does what he prefers.

You are that soldier.
Please tell your wife and children that you prefer to be on the battle field, rather than be with them.
Would you do so? Yes or no?

This is bullying tactics. You want the argument on your terms. I've already answered this in many ways, before you even went into such a noxious generalization. The preference at the moment of decision is rather obviously, perhaps somewhat variable between different soldiers in different situations, to protect their family, to avoid hanging as traitors, to continue down a path already set upon, to continue a habit of obedience to their military superiors, etc etc etc. Why do you want to reduce it to your contentious terms? To be on the battle field is not in itself the preference, unless they love battle more than their family. Be honest.

 

[Jo555]

I don't know how to make it any plainer Corey, so i guess i have nothing else to share on it.

Do you think this undermines the gospel?

It doesn't. It only strengthens it.

Maybe with more time i may try again.

And thank you. I'm quite sober today, for a change.

I'm coming Corey. Going to speak to you in a language i believe you know.

Do you not agree that we are either rooted in Christ to bear fruits unto life, or rooted in our own self bearing fruits unto death?

Do you not agree thar there is a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness?

Do you not agree that our choices are either influenced by the kingdom of light found in Christ, or the kingdom of darkness found in the self life?

Do you not agree that partaking of the knowledge of good and evil is forbidden fruit because it represents trying to be like God without God and just creates a mess?

Do you not agree that Jesus came to unite us with Himself in Spirit and give us Godlikeness, not of ourselves, but totally reliant on God?

I would assume (I know what they say about assuming, just saying) that most atheists would argue that this moral compass that believers have is just a product of our knowledge of good and evil, experiences, and preferences, which has shaped our moral code.

Why argue. They are right. It's so unfortunate many Christians miss that.

What you have to remember is the first command, do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil for when you do you will surely die.

And we died spiritually, with the body eventually following for their is no life without God.

From then on man lived by knowledge and a moral code. This was never how it was meant to be. We are meant to live above that with the Spirit of God within us.

Do you see it?

Remember the law was only brought in as a temp measure because we chose to live partaking of the knowledge of good, so God simply said, ok, you think you can be like me apart from me. Here is a shadow version of my heart: Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not bear false witness, etc.

But as Jesus said, the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. We have all fallen short of God's glorious, impossible of ourselves, essence. The only way to get there is through Christ we take it on.

The darkened mind will think that God is just some selfish, need to be Lording it over us being. The darkened mind will think that God created laws as some control freak or something. The darkened mind cannot see that his plan was so much more loving and unselfish than we could have imagined, but God was just working with what took place in the fall and ys trying to go about it ourselves.

What is he saying that contradicts scripture? He may see it as this idea of good and evil is shaped by your knowledge and experiences and such, and it's true, but what you have to understand is that is not the life the believer has been called to live in, and never was.

 

[Jo555]

I'm coming Corey. Going to speak to you in a language i believe you know.

Do you not agree that we are either rooted in Christ to bear fruits unto life, or rooted in our own self bearing fruits unto death?

Do you not agree thar there is a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness?

Do you not agree that our choices are either influenced by the kingdom of light found in Christ, or the kingdom of darkness found in the self life?

Do you not agree that partaking of the knowledge of good and evil is forbidden fruit because it represents trying to be like God without God and just creates a mess?

Do you not agree that Jesus came to unite us with Himself in Spirit and give us Godlikeness, not of ourselves, but totally reliant on God?

I would assume (I know what they say about assuming, just saying) that most atheists would argue that this moral compass that believers have is just a product of our knowledge of good and evil, experiences, and preferences, which has shaped our moral code.

Why argue. They are right. It's so unfortunate many Christians miss that.

What you have to remember is the first command, do not partake of the knowledge of good and evil for when you do you will surely die.

And we died spiritually, with the body eventually following for their is no life without God.

From then on man lived by knowledge and a moral code. This was never how it was meant to be. We are meant to live above that with the Spirit of God within us.

Do you see it?

Remember the law was only brought in as a temp measure because we chose to live partaking of the knowledge of good, so God simply said, ok, you think you can be like me apart from me. Here is a shadow version of my heart: Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not bear false witness, etc.

But as Jesus said, the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. We have all fallen short of God's glorious, impossible of ourselves, essence. The only way to get there is through Christ we take it on.

The darkened mind will think that God is just some selfish, need to be Lording it over us being. The darkened mind will think that God created laws as some control freak or something. The darkened mind cannot see that his plan was so much more loving and unselfish than we could have imagined, but God was just working with what took place in the fall and ys trying to go about it ourselves.

What is he saying that contradicts scripture? He may see it as this idea of good and evil is shaped by your knowledge and experiences and such, and it's true, but what you have to understand is that is not the life the believer has been called to live in, and never was.

Here is the thing Corey. God's plan was always to make us like Him. That's scriptural, as children embodied by his Spirit. Problem was that we thought we could attain that of ourselves.

We can't. We are not the Source of all life and light. He does it. We don't.

A branch does not have a life of its own and will be influenced by what root it finds itself in.

 

[Bradskii]

You know how in first aid they train you practically so your muscle memory will know what to do if there is an emergency?

How does muscle memory figure into free will and determinism? (my hand moved on its own)

How is this different than when someone consciously performs the same action?

As @Mark Quayle said, there was a cause for gaining that muscle memory. I use it when I play the guitar for example. I practice the same lick over and over again. If I try to teach it to my grandson, then I have to think about where this finger goes and where that one should be going and it's quite difficult when I consciously think about it. But the muscle memory, effectively doing it without conscious thought, is relatively easy (I have to say that it can be quite odd watching what I'm doing without thinking about it. It seems as if my fingers have a life of their own).

I would suggest that we have both conscious and unconscious acts in play here. The former being the practice of the piece. The practice is because I want to be able to play it. And that's the reason that determined my decision so to do. The second is subconscious. I play the piece again because I want to but the act of playing it is subconscious. I am not even deciding where my fingers go, so we haven't even got to a point where free will could even be considered.

Edit. Just reread that to check for grammar and it maybe sounds like I've made myself out to be a guitar virtuoso. On a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the knowledge of which way to hold the thing and 10 being the next Dave Gilmore, then I barely make 2 1/2 on a good day

 

[Jo555]

Here is the thing Corey. God's plan was always to make us like Him. That's scriptural, as children embodied by his Spirit. Problem was that we thought we could attain that of ourselves.

We can't. We are not the Source of all life and light. He does it. We don't.

A branch does not have a life of its own and will be influenced by what root it finds itself in.

I should add that not all Christians are partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. Many are led by the Spirit of God, but even they are not perfected in Christ and his love of yet for we are told we won't get there on our own, but as we come together in Him. So, we still at times contend with the result of the fall, but now we have the power to overcome.

Remember, love the Lord your God with all, and neighbor as self. In these two are the whole law fulfilled for if one loves one does not murder or steal or bear false witness.

God's love is not a moral code created by conscience, but a Spiritual force, his Spirit that drives us by his love.

 

[Bradskii]

Agree.

Good.

Agree.

Good again.

Disagree. Do you agree that the word "reason", used as a verb, implies that there are two or more options to choose from? Do you agree that reasoning is a thing which humans engage in, and that reasoning would be completely unnecessary if some "reason", used as a noun, were the sole determinant?

Yes, we can use reason as a noun and as a verb. I was using it as a noun, saying that there were reasons (note the plural) for a choice being made. Meaning that, whatever they were, they were the antecedent conditions that caused the decision to be made. Or at least one of them did. As I said a few posts ago. To repeat:

'why did you do that' or
'what was the reason you did that' or
'what caused you to do that' or
'what determined that you should do that'

They all mean the same thing. And nobody is, or has, argued that there aren't two or more options from which to choose (rather obviously as there's nothing to choose between if there's only one, even if it's 'Do X or don't do X'). I hardly need give an example. It's then that we use reason to choose between one or more conditions. And again, using reason (the verb) is not the definition of free will (please don't ask me to repeat it).

So...you are free (assuming that you are not coerced) in making a decision (using, obviously the power of reasoning) to decide between two or more options. And at least one of those options will have determined your decision. It will be that which you prefer.

I'm glad you brought up mental instability. From a determinist's view, what is the difference between a mentally unstable person and a mentally stable person? They are both the same "process" as you like to call it. There is no difference.

There is a difference because the antecedent conditions are different. The man might have been entirely sane but his wife who wanted a divorce was on board with their kids and he wanted to kill them all and commit suicide. As opposed to him having a mental illness which determined his actions.

 

[Jo555]

I should add that not all Christians are partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. Many are led by the Spirit of God, but even they are not perfected in Christ and his love of yet for we are told we won't get there on our own, but as we come together in Him. So, we still at times contend with the result of the fall, but now we have the power to overcome.

Remember, love the Lord your God with all, and neighbor as self. In these two are the whole law fulfilled for if one lives one does not murder or steal or bear false witness.

God's love is not a moral code created by conscience, but a Spiritual force, his Spirit that drives us by his love.

Excuse the typos. I get self-conscious about that around all these smarty pants, says the smart alec still growing out of self conscious too.