Free Will

[Neogaia777]

I'm happy to stand on my convictions if asked. You didn't ask.

Well, I asked you before, a while back or a while ago on here, and I thought you had already told me (after some prying, finally) but I might have been mistaken I guess...?

Ok, then, what are your own personal views or convictions on the concept or idea of there being a free will in this life or in this reality or not, etc...?

But you did, really, here - in post #7 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I only talked about only the possibility of there only maybe being some kind of free will in the life hereafter, and that is only because I am forced to say "I can't know" right now, etc, and/or/but, other than that, I think I have been pretty clear on my views about it in this life here so far, etc...?

But just in case I did not, or was not so clear, let me say that I don't think there is any kind of true free will in this life or this side of life ever at all ever, etc, but is only the illusion of it based on what we do not know only, etc, which really isn't any kind of real true free will at all now, is it, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Im trying to cobble together a sense of how the individual could truly be the author of possibilities, at least in some small way.

Essentially this is about how strictly material reality could give rise to a "higher level" system (some element of human consciousness) thats not completely bound by the rules of physical reality.

Its just base speculation to support a sense of self I feel intuitively. Im certainly not wedded to it. But by the same token Im not wedded to pure materialism. Im skeptical of all the big philosophical "certainties" about conditions at the edge of understanding.

The idea of being, 'not completely bound by the rules of physical reality', seems incoherent when talking about what we do in physical reality. In fiction, it's fine.

The question of what comprises 'physical reality' is another matter. I'm quite prepared to accept that there are aspects of physical reality we haven't yet discovered that may not precisely conform to the rules we currently accept. General relativity did this for classical mechanics, as did quantum mechanics. But whatever lies undiscovered, it can't be significantly inconsistent with our current observations. For example, both GR and quantum mechanics are consistent with our everyday human-scale observations.

The idea of strictly material reality giving rise to a "higher level" system that's not completely bound by the rules of physical reality sounds like 'Strong Emergence', the idea that the behaviour of a system can't ultimately be reduced to the interactions of its parts and their properties. I've seen various claims of strong emergence, but none that don't seem reducible to multiple levels of weak emergence.

I can understand the feeling that some things are too complex & mysterious to be reducible to simpler things interacting, but close investigation of apparent examples in nature suggests that they are so reducible and that the intuition is misleading. We're making slow but steady progress on working out how the brain does what it does, and I think we'll eventually come to some understanding of how subjective experience is generated - just as we discovered that life itself didn't require some mysterious vital force.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, I asked you before, a while back or a while ago on here, and I thought you had already told me (after some prying, finally) but I might have been mistaken I guess...?

Ok, then, what are your own personal views or convictions on the concept or idea of there being a free will in this life or in this reality or not, etc...?

I told you in #34

I only talked about only the possibility of there only maybe being some kind of free will in the life hereafter, and that is only because I am forced to say "I can't know" right now, etc, and/or/but, other than that, I think I have been pretty clear on my views about it in this life here so far, etc...?

But just in case I did not, or was not so clear, let me say that I don't think there is any kind of true free will in this life or this side of life ever at all ever, etc, but is only the illusion of it based on what we do not know only, etc, which really isn't any kind of real true free will at all now, is it, etc...?

I'm puzzled by your logic - if you don't know what 'true free will' might be (#15), how can you say you don't think there is such a thing, and that the illusion of it really isn't it?

 

[Neogaia777]

I told you in #34

I'm not asking you what you will accept for the sake of argument, etc...

You see, this is exactly where I had to back you into a corner about this before, etc, and I don't feel like dancing around the same mulberry bush because you want to play with words again, etc...

So, if you can, please answer this with either a "yes", or a "no" please, ok...

Do you think think there is a such thing as free will or not...?

Yes or No...?

And if you think it is a mix, or you "don't know", etc, then please say that, and then elaborate or explain a bit more on that please, OK...

Think you can handle that, etc...

I'm puzzled by your logic - if you don't know what 'true free will' might be (#15), how can you say you don't think there is such a thing, and that the illusion of it really isn't it?

The illusion of it isn't, etc, and other than that, about the next life or whatever, I have to admit I don't right now know where I currently cannot yet know right now, etc...

Just because I can't explain or imagine right how it either might or might not be possible there right now, doesn't mean that I can also say with absolute certainty "it's absolutely not possible there" right now, etc...

I only know about where I currently am at right now, and I have no idea of what the reality might be like in the afterlife right now, and is why I say that right now, etc...

Why can you not understand that, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, we are human beings, and yes, human beings think. But what does the thinking? As we are discussing at How Can Molecules Think? , it sure seems to me that it is the physical brain made of molecules that thinks. So when I say that I, as a human being, think, I mean the physical me thinks.

We do the thinking. Us. No one else can do it for us. And no one can make us.

You might ask: what are we? We are an integration of matter and consciousness. We have the ability to direct our consciousness to a certain extent. We couldn't exercise our human form of consciousness without this ability. That is free will in a nutshell.

Molecules can't think but brains can. Our brains can. A grasshopper's brain can't think. It reacts automatically to what it senses in preprogrammed ways. So there's more than just molecules at play here. You have to have a brain of a certain type to be able to think.

By thinking I mean using the conceptual faculty. Identifying what our senses bring in. making connections of logic. integrating our knowledge into a consistent whole. Inducing principles and applying those principles to particulars. Judging right from wrong against a standard.

Now, if you think that something external is controlling your brain you deny your own humanity.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Does our thinking result from material pre conditions that we are entirely subject to? Or is there something else we draw upon?

Yes of course. It requires a certain type of brain to think. The kind that can selectively attend. The kind that can form abstractions by the process of measurement ommission. The kind of brain that can have awareness of things beyond our perception through inference. Our senses bring us awareness of everything within their range and according to their nature. For everything else, we have concepts.

I know that that doesn't seem like much but it is a whole lot. It's our fundamental attribute, the one that separates us from the other animals and makes music, art, bridges, skyscrapers, medicine, generators, nuclear power plants, and interstellar probes possible. It's what brought us out of the caves and the jungle.

And unfortunately that same brain and free will make murder, theft, war, cruelty, torture, ignorance, and envy possible. That's free will. It can be used for good, i.e., supporting life, or for evil, which is that which destroys life.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, we are human beings, and yes, human beings think. But what does the thinking? As we are discussing at How Can Molecules Think? , it sure seems to me that it is the physical brain made of molecules that thinks. So when I say that I, as a human being, think, I mean the physical me thinks.

And, this is also a solid validation of the primacy of existence principle. Consciousness, thinking, is dependent on existence in several ways. First it depends on the right physical structures, i.e., a brain and nervous system. Second, it depends on something, an object, to be aware of. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Before it could be said to be conscious, it has to be conscious of something.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok @FrumiousBandersnatch, I started asking questions to you in this thread here (below) starting with this post here (below), and runs from about post #203 (that you "liked" @FrumiousBandersnatch) to about post #???, well, let's just "onward" a bit after that, etc...

Does determinism really negate free will?

Well then lets just say this whole thread here (below), etc, but with special attention to the last three or four pages besides the earlier ones I just linked, etc, it's a word mess, so some people may have to sort through it, but I'm going to resurrect it again for the time being, etc...

Does determinism really negate free will?

I'm working on another post to address the issue of the compatibilism, or compatibilist free will, and causal determinism or universal causal determinism, and whatnot, and will post it soon, etc...

For now, I guess try to sort through the word mess of that other thread I just now linked, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

OK, google search "compatibilist view of free will"...

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

"What is the compatibilist view"...

Compatibilism, Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism.

"Universal causal determinism"...

Universal Determinism: Everything is the effect of some cause or causes. For everything that exists there are antecedent conditions. Thesis of determinism: everything whatever is caused.

"Causal determinism"...

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century.

Determinism is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

"Hard determinism"...

The doctrine that human actions and choices are causally determined by forces and influences over which a person exercises no meaningful control. The term can also be applied to nonhuman events, implying that all things must be as they are and could not possibly be otherwise.

"What is Hard Determinism and soft determinism"...?

Determinism – there is Hard Determinism with the belief that all actions are caused and then there is Soft Determinism or Compatibilism – a third position that tries to combine the best of the other two positions, which says that although everything is determined we can still act voluntarily (but fails to adequately explain how, etc).

And going back for a moment to "What is the compatablist view", etc...

Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism (but fails to explain how, etc).

About "moral responsibility", etc, I do think that if you are going to accept the hard determinist view, or just about any true determinist view for that matter, you have to say that people or animals, or any living thing or whatever, cannot be held morally responsible or accountable for their actions, or their inactions, etc, and also thoughts or anything, etc, and I accept that because of what my views of quote/unquote "hell" is, and why people really truly go there, or perhaps I should say "stay there", etc, and "stay there forever", etc, and it is not because of any kind of sin or moral reasons, etc, but is just because they were never ever made for, nor were ever really ever meant for anything more than just only more of this here, etc, and that is "forever", etc, but with very, very long periods of sleep in-between, but that they are not consciously aware of each time, etc, nor are they aware of "each time" either, etc, but only those who go on beyond here are, or ever were/are/will be ever, etc...

And as for the rest of what I just said/quoted (above) (from google, etc), can you not see the contradictions or the incompatibility, etc...?

Because I sure as heck can, etc...

Comment is invited.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

OK, google search "compatibilist view of free will"...

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

"What is the compatibilist view"...

Compatibilism, Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism.

"Universal causal determinism"...

Universal Determinism: Everything is the effect of some cause or causes. For everything that exists there are antecedent conditions. Thesis of determinism: everything whatever is caused.

"Causal determinism"...

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century.

Determinism is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states.

"Hard determinism"...

The doctrine that human actions and choices are causally determined by forces and influences over which a person exercises no meaningful control. The term can also be applied to nonhuman events, implying that all things must be as they are and could not possibly be otherwise.

"What is Hard Determinism and soft determinism"...?

Determinism – there is Hard Determinism with the belief that all actions are caused and then there is Soft Determinism or Compatibilism – a third position that tries to combine the best of the other two positions, which says that although everything is determined we can still act voluntarily (but fails to adequately explain how, etc).

And going back for a moment to "What is the compatablist view", etc...

Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism (but fails to explain how, etc).

About "moral responsibility", etc, I do think that if you are going to accept the hard determinist view, or just about any true determinist view for that matter, you have to say that people or animals, or any living thing or whatever, cannot be held morally responsible or accountable for their actions, or their inactions, etc, and also thoughts or anything, etc, and I accept that because of what my views of quote/unquote "hell" is, and why people really truly go there, or perhaps I should say "stay there", etc, and "stay there forever", etc, and it is not because of any kind of sin or moral reasons, etc, but is just because they were never ever made for, nor were ever really ever meant for anything more than just only more of this here, etc, and that is "forever", etc, but with very, very long periods of sleep in-between, but that they are not consciously aware of each time, etc, nor are they aware of "each time" either, etc, but only those who go on beyond here are, or ever were/are/will be ever, etc...

And as for the rest of what I just said/quoted (above) (from google, etc), can you not see the contradictions or the incompatibility, etc...?

Because I sure as heck can, etc...

Comment is invited.

God Bless!

You know, one thing I use to say to some Christians, etc, is, "if no amount of good deeds or works can get you into heaven, then how can any kind of sin send you to quote/unquote "hell", except only the sin of unbelief/lack of faith in either case, and that, that you are not even responsible for in the first place also, etc...?"

And man some of them would get mad at me, etc, but that's because in either case, either good works or deeds getting you into heaven, or bad or evil works or deeds sending you to quote/unquote "hell", etc, it does not in either case, but some do still go to quote/unquote "hell" for not believing, and some get to go to heaven by just simply believing, but that neither is responsible for in either case, etc, because those are not the reasons people go to either place, but it is all at "God's good pleasure", etc, and some were not ever made for any more than just only more of this here, and that is forever, etc, because it has already been determined even from way, way before, and even in very many numerous creations before this, and that will be after this, etc, but some get to escape it, or go beyond it, but it is not because of them, etc...

More on "God's good pleasure" starting here: How Can Molecules Think?

Starting I said, etc, got to look at posts after it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[TedT]

Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want.

Molecules do not think... The spirit thinks causing the changes in the electrical patterns of the molecules in the brain as the interface between the spirit and the body. The molecules only relay the effects of the spirit's thinking...

Your strictly materialistic definition of thinking is decidedly not Biblical because angels have no molecules yet they think and have emotions in the same way human people do.

That is, angels, spirits without bodies, are thinking people too.


1. Angels worship GOD:
Hebrews 1:6 points out that angels worship the Lord. We also see the heavenly host praising God in Luke 2:13–14. Robotic praise and worship is a parody of the real thing and worthless in heaven. When you put on a dvd and listen to a worship song singing praises to GOD, do you think or allude to the dvd as worshipping? Of course you don't.

2. Some angels are elect:
1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels. implying the fallen angels are non-elect demons ie the people of the evil one, the tares, sown into the world by the devil. IF angels can choose to sin and become demons, they can also choose to be holy and work for GOD...angel being a job description, NOT a race or type of being.

3. Angels are holy:
Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the HOLY angels. This verse contrasts the sinfulness of men with the holiness, that is, the righteousness of angels, not just their consecration to GOD. Robotic holiness is a farce...a stone cannot sin but it is not righteous and a robot neither can be holy, that is, in the context of this verse, righteous. As well, Satan's fall is proof of his free will as he is not guilty of anything if he is a robot...

4. Angels have emotions such as love, joy, desire, sadness, pride, and anger:
Luke 15:10 indicates that angels are joyous when one person repents. The devil has great wrath in Revelation 12:12. The angels and the devil have desires (1 Peter 1:12; John 8:44). Why would anyone create a robotic group with emotions to drive them when HIS will is all that is necessary to drive them? Robotic emotions??? Surely only people have emotions...proof of their personhood in the image of GOD.

5. Angels are Persons in the image of GOD:
In the resurrection, man will be as the angels of God. Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. In the resurrection, man is restored to the image of God in which he was created. The angels of God must, therefore, bear the image of God.

The image of GOD cannot contain sin therefore for man to be a sinner, the image must be broken. In the resurrection we will be restored to the full image of GOD and like the angels as this verse hints, who therefore must also be in HIS image. When did they receive the image of God unless it was in creation?

The image of GOD? I think it means things like personhood that is, self awareness, intelligence, emotional ability, curiosity and creativity and the ability to make true free will decisions. Therefore any being that fits this description fits the image of GOD... It also means they are suitable as marriage partners for our GOD, part of those who make up HIS Bride who were elected to be conformed to HIS Son and to heaven.

Not only does the ability to worship, to praise, to be elect and to be holy imply personhood, they also imply they have free will and if you combine free will with election of some angels and the fall of others, the Satanic demons, you get angels going through an Adam like choice with some staying holy and Satan and his crew choosing that which made them forever evil in HIS sight.

Pre-Conception existence (PCE)
theology contends that EVERY PERSON was created in the image of GOD, that is, able to be HIS Bride. None were created with GOD knowing they would end in hell but as true innocents we only had the potential for perfection, ie, we had to choose by our free will to accept GOD and HIS life for us in heaven to fulfill our potential to become perfect in righteousness. The fall of the elect into sin delayed the fulfillment of that potential by making it impossible to fulfill without grace. The redemption of His sheep (elect) gone astray into sin, His sinful good (elect) seed, is a restoration to that potential and the new creation is the fully realized fulfillment of HIS purpose for our creation in us.

Peace, Ted

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not asking you what you will accept for the sake of argument, etc...

You see, this is exactly where I had to back you into a corner about this before, etc, and I don't feel like dancing around the same mulberry bush because you want to play with words again, etc...

So, if you can, please answer this with either a "yes", or a "no" please, ok...

Do you think think there is a such thing as free will or not...?

Yes or No...?

And if you think it is a mix, or you "don't know", etc, then please say that, and then elaborate or explain a bit more on that please, OK...

As I thought was clear, it depends on what you mean by 'free will'. This is why I ask people what they mean by it. My position is that human brain activity, which in my view is the seat of consciousness, is effectively deterministic, so the decisions and choices we make are, FAPP, deterministic.

But we do have the experience of making decisions and choices, so if you define free will in compatibilist experiential terms, or well-defined technical compatibilism (e.g. Dennett's view of it as involving degrees of freedom of potential action), I don't have a problem with that. As I said before, I think libertarian (dualistic) free will is incoherent.

The illusion of it isn't, etc, and other than that, about the next life or whatever, I have to admit I don't right now know where I currently cannot yet know right now, etc...

Just because I can't explain or imagine right how it either might or might not be possible there right now, doesn't mean that I can also say with absolute certainty "it's absolutely not possible there" right now, etc...

I only know about where I currently am at right now, and I have no idea of what the reality might be like in the afterlife right now, and is why I say that right now, etc...

Why can you not understand that, etc...?

I was simply pointing out that what you said - which might not be what you meant - was logically incoherent.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I'm in town, and am busy right now, and have to work from my phone, which is limited, and I'm kind of busy right now also, so I'll have to get back to you later on, and maybe later tonight, or possibly tomorrow, ok, thanks for talking with me though, get back to you later, ok.

I know you sometimes don't like this, but I've been putting it and the end of all my posts, no matter what they are about, or who they are to, for years now, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok @FrumiousBandersnatch, I started asking questions to you in this thread here (below) starting with this post here (below), and runs from about post #203 (that you "liked" @FrumiousBandersnatch) to about post #???, well, let's just "onward" a bit after that, etc...

Does determinism really negate free will?

Well then lets just say this whole thread here (below), etc, but with special attention to the last three or four pages besides the earlier ones I just linked, etc, it's a word mess, so some people may have to sort through it, but I'm going to resurrect it again for the time being, etc...

Does determinism really negate free will?

I'm working on another post to address the issue of the compatibilism, or compatibilist free will, and causal determinism or universal causal determinism, and whatnot, and will post it soon, etc...

For now, I guess try to sort through the word mess of that other thread I just now linked, etc...

I remember that thread - is there a reason you addressed this post to me? something you'd like me to explain maybe?

BTW, I 'liked' #203 because I thought it was an interesting question.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes of course. It requires a certain type of brain to think. The kind that can selectively attend. The kind that can form abstractions by the process of measurement ommission. The kind of brain that can have awareness of things beyond our perception through inference. Our senses bring us awareness of everything within their range and according to their nature. For everything else, we have concepts.

I know that that doesn't seem like much but it is a whole lot. It's our fundamental attribute, the one that separates us from the other animals and makes music, art, bridges, skyscrapers, medicine, generators, nuclear power plants, and interstellar probes possible. It's what brought us out of the caves and the jungle.

And unfortunately that same brain and free will make murder, theft, war, cruelty, torture, ignorance, and envy possible. That's free will. It can be used for good, i.e., supporting life, or for evil, which is that which destroys life.

I dont see an argument for free will there. Just a statement of intuition or possibly faith.

How do you deal with the objection raised earlier?:

Our genetics and the environment are fixed. Axiomatic. The genes that we have are the cards we are dealt. The environment is the only environment. If you re-run the film, nothing changes. Literally nothing. There is no 'soul' that observes everything outside of what we experience. It's just us.

So if you re-run the film, what is it that causes us to make a different freewill choice? There is, there cannot be, anything. So in that sense (and I think it's the only sense), free will doesn't exist. There's nothing external to the situation that says 'hang on, maybe there's another option here'.

Free will exists only if there is something like that which people describe as a soul. I see zero evidence for that. Hence...no free will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

About "moral responsibility", etc, I do think that if you are going to accept the hard determinist view, or just about any true determinist view for that matter, you have to say that people or animals, or any living thing or whatever, cannot be held morally responsible or accountable for their actions, or their inactions, etc, and also thoughts or anything, etc.

Yes, I agree. I think the idea of moral responsibility is a social construct built on the idea of libertarian free will. Contrary to what some quotes(?) in your earlier post implied, not all compatibilists see moral responsibility as a necessary consequence, some see it just as a cultural tool for social control.

I don't see the need for it, in principle - I understand the feelings underlying it but I'd like to hear rational justification for it.

... as for the rest of what I just said/quoted (above) (from google, etc), can you not see the contradictions or the incompatibility, etc...?

Because I sure as heck can, etc...

You'll need to be more specific - what contradictions or incompatibilities do you see?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know you sometimes don't like this, but I've been putting it and the end of all my posts, no matter what they are about, or who they are to, for years now, etc...

IOW, you're consciously and deliberately not prepared to stop doing something pointless despite believing that I don't like it... Nice.

Actually, I could care less - I just think it's just a waste of time (pointless).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Molecules do not think... The spirit thinks causing the changes in the electrical patterns of the molecules in the brain as the interface between the spirit and the body. The molecules only relay the effects of the spirit's thinking...

I have shown the evidence that it is indeed the brain that thinks at Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free

 

[SelfSim]

As I thought was clear, it depends on what you mean by 'free will'. This is why I ask people what they mean by it. My position is that human brain activity, which in my view is the seat of consciousness, is effectively deterministic, so the decisions and choices we make are, FAPP, deterministic.

Some choices I make are simply because: 'I want to'. I don't have any clue as to why I want to, nor do I choose to think about why I want to. The motivation there is undistinguished and is preserved as undistinguished, by some kind of truly obstinate 'something', there.

Sure my consciousness has deterministic explanations, (ie: genetics, physics, biology, etc) but the basis of my above mentioned 'sometimes' choices, are unknown to me .. (and anyone else for that matter).

It seems such choices are rendered impervious to the intrusions of deterministic reasoning and thus they cannot be claimed as being determinstic choices(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch and others...

Ok, let's just try to take this one thing at a time for now, ok, and let's go back to @Bradskii's argument for a minute, ok...

If you could go back say ten years or so, and make all your choices or actions or decisions, etc, all over again, etc, but only you could not at all take any of the knowledge and/or experience that you have now, etc, not any of it at allwith you, etc, would you still make the very same choices/actions/decisions that you did back then if you got to go back, but not with anything that you have now, would you still make the very same choices/actions/decision, or even have the very same thoughts/feelings you did back then, if you could go back, but without any of what I mentioned just now, etc...?

Yes or No...?

And "why", etc...?

Because if the answer to that is "yes", then there would be no such thing as other possibilities or other ways things could happen or go, correct...?

And you don't see how that creates a problem, etc...?

Other issues involved that I might bring up later, one involves having to believe in a truly all-knowing from the beginning intelligence or entity who gave rise to all of this, and us, etc, which may or may not apply to some of you, etc, and another has to do with physics, and how if things on one level, like the level of atoms example I used in the other thread, etc, most definitely is deterministic, and behaves deterministically always and in every single case, etc, then how can not that which makes up it, or that is built upon it, or is made up of it, etc, not also always be deterministic also, etc...?

Same could be said for maybe the level of cells, or the animal kingdom as well maybe, etc, unless you think that there is something unique about humans that sets them apart from that, etc, but then that could almost be like a religious or spiritual belief also, since you would have to define just exactly what that is, etc, and where it comes from, etc, which can almost be deemed a religious or spiritual belief, etc...

Or if you think we have a higher consciousness than those other creatures, where that comes from, if it comes from something that is separate from this physical or material world, of which almost all of the physical and material world is deterministic, except from your argument, just not us human beings, etc, anyway, what makes you think that? because it sounds like it borders on a religious or spiritual belief to me, etc...?

Anyway, what about all of these things so far, etc...?

Are you going to say we evolved a consciousness that is different from all of the other creatures or the rest of the material world around us, etc? because that almost sounds like a religious or spiritual belief that has to be taken on faith if you ask me, etc...?

God Bless!