Free will and determinism

[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.

And when i say Bradskii is right, i just mean regarding freewill and determinism as i understood it. I don't believe everything he says is right and i don't really agree a hundred percent with anyone. Not sure if i even have everything right, but i do believe i do have several things right, like foundational things, and feel quite good about the rest.

Me thinks Bradskii is too smart for his own good, but what does this smart alec really know about him?

Ok. Ok. I'm leaving. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The questions are becoming more inane...

How in heaven's name can you ask how we prove that we make choices?

I recall hearing of a cultish society that supposed 'the gods' watch for what we expect; and that we are not actual players, they moving the elements around for us. Why couldn't they move us around too?

I've even heard Christians who claim to believe that this whole OMNI is a video game of sorts, God the programmer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess existence could be neither, and we're stuck looking at a false dichotomy as well.

Huh? How could our existence not be determined? It just springs into being all on its own?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You've lost me. Did you say the same thing for determinism?

My use of 'determinism' in this thread, contrary to what some might think, while related, is not for the purpose of proving that God determines all things. (Not that you said it was, but just to head that off at the pass...)

I mean it as it was introduced in the OP. Not that there is a being that, through causes, determines all things, but that whatever causes there are, determine all effects, all things being effects, (except, I add, first cause). Whether the dictionary agrees is immaterial at this point, and whether I am misusing the dictionary or assuming meaning that I should not, is irrelevant. In the OP, "determined" means caused, and that, by antecedent conditions. Reducing the thread to its essence, the question being pursued is not whether all things are 'determined' (if the use of determined as the OP has done is mistaken), the question is whether or not all choices are caused.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

I hope you mean, "that's [within] the scope of the discussion." I certainly didn't stop there.

 

[Jo555]

Corey, here is an example of a Christian living by the knowledge of good and evil, therefore, being influenced by knowledge.

A Christian I know told me she doesn't have to explain herself when someone accuses her because Jesus didn't open his mouth when they accused him and were going to crucify him.

I hear a good number of Christians make that statement and feel it is borrowed knowledge from someone else's teaching.

I asked her, what about what Jesus said about if your are making an offering and remember someone has something against you, leave your offering at the alter and try and be reconciled to your brother, then come back and make the offering.

They were stiff necked and said, well that's just about unforgiveness.

Huh?

Even if there was unforgiveness, we are told we should make an effort.

And did he not explain why he healed on the Sabbath, amongst other things?

Really, it is the Spirit that will show us and guide us by God's love. He knows what is called for in each situation. That's what i told her. Not sure how receptive she was or if she threw out my food, but i think she was chewing on it afterwards.

Now i believe this is a good example of being influenced by knowledge over being influenced by God's Spirit. Ok. Going to sleep. Good night all.

 

[Jo555]

One more Corey. Listen, try and keep it simple because it really all is so simple. We complicate it, but it is very simplistic. Don't miss the forest for the trees. All these words and technicalities sometimes only serve to complicate matters. Sure some details matter, but some don't .

Tomato
Tom-ah-to.

Choose your preference and let it go. My advice.

Did i say choose and preference?

Momma mia.

 

[Bradskii]

In the OP, "determined" means caused, and that, by antecedent conditions. Reducing the thread to its essence, the question being pursued is not whether all things are 'determined' (if the use of determined as the OP has done is mistaken), the question is whether or not all choices are caused.

Maybe I need to clarify something.

It may be that some people think that if a decision is determined then it's a waste of time them making the decision because it is going to happen anyway. That is not the case. You have to make the decision. It's the decision which will tell us what determined your choice.

But...you will always decide to choose the option that you prefer. To say otherwise is truly nonsensical. When we know what you've decided it's then that we can say that if that is what you prefer then you could not have chosen differently. The antecedent conditions truly determined what you did.

It's almost like people are saying 'I refuse to accept that I am doomed to choose that which I prefer'. But what else would you want to do?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

This makes sense for recreational activities.

So how about when it's work and it is one of those tasks "you don't want to do" but you do it anyway via muscle memory? How does that affect the dynamic of free will and determinism?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Huh? How could our existence not be determined? It just springs into being all on its own?

Something more organic, an idea not conceived by humans, something else. Okay to not know.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I hope you mean, "that's [within] the scope of the discussion." I certainly didn't stop there.

To some people subconscious comes off as uncontrollable, so determining how it is perceived in context of "this conversation" is helpful.

 

[Bradskii]

This makes sense for recreational activities.

So how about when it's work and it is one of those tasks "you don't want to do" but you do it anyway via muscle memory? How does that affect the dynamic of free will and determinism?

I guess that if 'you don't want to do' it then you feel obliged to do so to complete your work. So if you're doing it consciously, that is if you have made a decision to do it then that decision was determined by your sense of obligation.

If you're not doing it consciously then no decision has been made. So free will doesn't come into it.

 

[Bradskii]

To some people subconscious comes off as uncontrollable...

I'd say uncontrolled as opposed to uncontrollable. The latter implies that you wouldn't be able to stop an unconscious act if you became aware of it (help me, I can't stop playing the intro to Hotel California!). And if you weren't aware of it then defining it as uncontrollable wouldn't make sense.

Subconscious simply means that your frontal lobes, where you do your moment to moment thinking, has passed on a particular task to some other area of the brain. Which is generally the cerebellum: Muscle memory - Wikipedia.

No decisions being made in there.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So if you're doing it consciously, that is if you have made a decision to do it then that decision was determined by your sense of obligation.

If someone made a decision to do it, why is it not free will?

If someone chooses to not work and become homeless, would this be free will? or determinism as well?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No decisions being made in there.

Apparently some sales theories say that people make their decision in their subconscious, regardless of what is said, then proceeds with the usual "how to manipulate them" type of talk.

So the theory would apply as follows. You have already decided what you think, words are just an excuse for thinking that.

The scope of this discussion seems to look at the conscious mind making the decisions and it being determined by motives and external stimuli. I guess there's a lot of theories out there.

 

[Jo555]

Maybe I need to clarify something.

It may be that some people think that if a decision is determined then it's a waste of time them making the decision because it is going to happen anyway. That is not the case. You have to make the decision. It's the decision which will tell us what determined your choice.

But...you will always decide to choose the option that you prefer. To say otherwise is truly nonsensical. When we know what you've decided it's then that we can say that if that is what you prefer then you could not have chosen differently. The antecedent conditions truly determined what you did.

It's almost like people are saying 'I refuse to accept that I am doomed to choose that which I prefer'. But what else would you want to do?

Because for some Christians I believe what they first hear is that they don't really have a choice, therefore, for them, it paints God in a false / dark light and they don't like it because they know better. They know He is a good and loving Spirit and don't like others calling Him ugly when He is beautiful.

Sometimes we know something in spirit because it has been revealed to us by God's Spirit, but we don't fully understand the mechanics of how something operates so our first response may be reactive.

An example may be someone comments that your wife's dress is tight and your first response at hearing that may be that they are calling her fat. Well, that don't sit well with you because you know she isn't fat, her dress is just tight and how dare they insult your wife's figure. Loving her, your first response would be to come to her defense.

But they never called her fat, they just commented that her dress was tight. Maybe they were just trying to get you to see that, or, maybe they were trying to plant a seed that she is fat.

And Christians plant seeds too. Seed planting is a common occurrence in life.

So which is it? That is to be decided by each individual and they will come to believe by what they put their faith in more.

Reminds me, i need to pass on making a cake tonight.

Sorry folks, i won't be serving cake tonight.

 

[Jo555]

Maybe I need to clarify something.

It may be that some people think that if a decision is determined then it's a waste of time them making the decision because it is going to happen anyway. That is not the case. You have to make the decision. It's the decision which will tell us what determined your choice.

But...you will always decide to choose the option that you prefer. To say otherwise is truly nonsensical. When we know what you've decided it's then that we can say that if that is what you prefer then you could not have chosen differently. The antecedent conditions truly determined what you did.

It's almost like people are saying 'I refuse to accept that I am doomed to choose that which I prefer'. But what else would you want to do?

Because for some Christians I believe what they first hear is that they don't really have a choice, therefore, for them, it paints God in a false / dark light and they don't like it because they know better. They know He is a good and loving Spirit and don't like others calling Him ugly when He is beautiful.

Sometimes we know something in spirit because it has been revealed to us by God's Spirit, but we don't fully understand the mechanics of how something operates so our first response may be reactive.

An example may be someone comments that your wife's dress is tight and your first response at hearing that may be that they are calling her fat. Well, that don't sit well with you because you know she isn't fat, her dress is just tight and how dare they insult your wife's figure. Loving her, your first response would be to come to her defense.

But they never called her fat, they just commented that her dress was tight. Maybe they were just trying to get you to see that, or, maybe they were trying to plant a seed that she is fat.

And Christians plant seeds too. Seed planting is a common occurrence in life.

So which is it? That is to be decided by each individual and they will come to believe by what they put their faith in more.

Reminds me, i need to pass on making a cake tonight.

Sorry folks, i won't be serving cake tonight.

Just noticed a small flaw in my example, I think. If you smarty pants catch it, the main point of how we can react still stands.

I don't know if my example is the case with everyone, but i suspect it is what is happening with some Christians upon hearing about determinism and freewill

 

[Mark Quayle]

Corey, here is an example of a Christian living by the knowledge of good and evil, therefore, being influenced by knowledge.

A Christian I know told me she doesn't have to explain herself when someone accuses her because Jesus didn't open his mouth when they accused him and were going to crucify him.

I hear a good number of Christians make that statement and feel it is borrowed knowledge from someone else's teaching.

I asked her, what about what Jesus said about if your are making an offering and remember someone has something against you, leave your offering at the alter and try and be reconciled to your brother, then come back and make the offering.

They were stiff necked and said, well that's just about unforgiveness.

Huh?

Even if there was unforgiveness, we are told we should make an effort.

And did he not explain why he healed on the Sabbath, amongst other things?

Really, it is the Spirit that will show us and guide us by God's love. He knows what is called for in each situation. That's what i told her. Not sure how receptive she was or if she threw out my food, but i think she was chewing on it afterwards.

Now i believe this is a good example of being influenced by knowledge over being influenced by God's Spirit. Ok. Going to sleep. Good night all.

Reminds me (yes, a little OT) of the fast receding teaching that the Church is not to be involved in politics!

 

[Jo555]

Reminds me (yes, a little OT) of the fast receding teaching that the Church is not to be involved in politics!

Yes.

And thing is Mark, as I am sure you know. God may impress on me to stay out of politics, but He may impress on you to run for office. There really is a difference between being led by partaking of the knowledge of good and evil, and being led by his Spirit.

You are what i call a very valuable smarty pants. Now if i always knew what you are saying ... But I'm learning and from what i can make of it, I'm digging it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe I need to clarify something.

It may be that some people think that if a decision is determined then it's a waste of time them making the decision because it is going to happen anyway. That is not the case. You have to make the decision. It's the decision which will tell us what determined your choice.

But...you will always decide to choose the option that you prefer. To say otherwise is truly nonsensical. When we know what you've decided it's then that we can say that if that is what you prefer then you could not have chosen differently. The antecedent conditions truly determined what you did.

It's almost like people are saying 'I refuse to accept that I am doomed to choose that which I prefer'. But what else would you want to do?

Correct. It is more than obvious, just from experience.

It is also proven by the abstract. They want to call it theory, but it is axiomatic, that whatever comes 'after', comes as a result of whatever came 'before'.

Pretty much every supposed 'argument' that I have seen posited on this thread fails to deal directly with either of those two 'proofs'. They dance all around it, because it is in their way. They say, "no, *I* make the decision!" or, "yes, 'influenced' but not 'caused'", or, "no, that 'influences' can be ignored or even opposed shows that they do not actually influence", or even say, "yes, 'caused', but not 'determined', therefore, Freewill"

And every one of those who claim that choice is uncaused fail to recognize that nothing happens from a vacuum. "I can't explain. All the sudden there I was choosing, and that is what I chose --I don't know why--there is no "why"-- but I know for sure that there was nothing that determined it."

But the notion that, as you put it, "if a decision is determined then it's a waste of time them making the decision because it is going to happen anyway", is what I think of as "insisting on self-determinism", or "shaking the fist at fate", (or, for the believer, "shaking their fist at God"). They don't even seem to realize that cold fate not only doesn't care what they think and will continue on regardless, but that it even determined that they would shake their fist at it! (Or, for the believer, they don't realize that their attitude IS rebellion against God, and that it was what God predetermined that they would do, resulting in further condemnation. Oooh they hate hearing that! --"That isn't the God of love that *I* know!")

WHO do we think we ARE, anyway???