Free Will

[AV1611VET]

Take some time and explain how each one denies free will.

I said DOESN'T exist.

These things are products of freewill.

 

[SelfSim]

Consider for a moment that determinism tells us that if we know the state of a system at any point in time, then we can predict the state of that system at any other point in time. Specifically, the state of the system in the past determines the state of the system in the future. It's a simple enough concept, and one that seems to completely disallow free will. But there's something absolutely bizarre that happens once a system becomes conscious, because then the state of the system isn't just determined by its past, it's also determined by its future. How the system could be actually becomes a factor in how the system will be. That's bizarre, the future of the system actually becomes a factor in determining the future of the system.

Just let that idea sink in for a moment, that what "could be" actually becomes a factor in determining what "will be". But there are so many different things that "could be", so how does determinism then explain what "will be" if there are so many different things that "could be"? It would seem that the only way that it can possibly do this is through the influence of that conscious agent. Even if the system is still deterministic it's still the conscious agent that decides what "will be" out of all the possibilities that "could be".

This is a really useful thought-provoking post however, I'm not convinced its nesessarily the system being determined by 'the future'. More like; there is additional information (previously unobserved) produced by the system, which:

- updates the conscious agent's own decisions about to how extract further useful information from the system under study;
- updates the agent's own expectations of what to expect and;
- feeds into the agent's desires to draw inferences about other examinable system behaviours.

Notice that 'the future of the system' is thus actually deduced from information produced by its own past behaviours, (eg: via probabilities).

I'd agree that its a conscious agent also making the deductions based on the outcomes there, as well as making prior decisions about how to set up the experiment in order to produce consistently meaningful results, so there's still those two major active roles being played by the agent.

Now I have to admit that I have never thought of this before, and so it's quite possible that I simply haven't thought it through sufficiently enough. But it seems to me that once the system becomes conscious such that the future becomes a factor in how the system evolves then the conscious agent has to play a role in that evolution because it's the only means by which the future can have an influence on the present.

'The future' is key to your thoughts there. What 'the future is', depends on your own past knowledge and your personal experiences in aquiring that knowledge.

Somewhere in this mess lies the groundwork for free will, that once the future begins to influence the present the conscious agent becomes the means by which that influence is expressed.

The influence there, surely comes about by the way the conscious agent realises 'what the future will be', as I don't think been excluded in your analysis .. yet(?)

I realize that this is crazy, but this is what happens when the voices in my head just won't shut up. Anyway, just food for thought.

Its a useful contribution though .. certainly made me think about it.

 

[Bradskii]

I said DOESN'T exist.

These things are products of freewill.

Feel free to give us your reason for each one. But perhaps best if you give your definition of free will first so we're all on the same page.

 

[Bradskii]

This is a really useful thought-provoking post however, I'm not convinced its nesessarily the system being determined by 'the future'. More like; there is additional information (previously unobserved) produced by the system, which:

- updates the conscious agent's own decisions about to how extract further useful information from the system under study;
- updates the agent's own expectations of what to expect and;
- feeds into the agent's desires to draw inferences about other examinable system behaviours.

Notice that 'the future of the system' is thus actually deduced from information produced by its own past behaviours, (eg: via probabilities).

I'd agree that its a conscious agent also making the deductions based on the outcomes there, as well as making prior decisions about how to set up the experiment in order to produce consistently meaningful results, so there's still those two major active roles being played by the agent.

'The future' is key to your thoughts there. What 'the future is', depends on your own past knowledge and your personal experiences in aquiring that knowledge.

The influence there, surely comes about by the way the conscious agent realises 'what the future will be', as I don't think been excluded in your analysis .. yet(?)

Its a useful contribution though .. certainly made me think about it.

I thought there might have been something there. But...the future is always considered when making a conscious choice. Do I turn right or left? Well I know turning left gets me where I want to go quicker. So my future is getting there earlier. I've made my decision based on what I think the future holds.

But if I know there are road works then my future, as I understand it at the time, is different. And if the current situation is made up of those different circumstances then the decision would always be made in respect of them.

So the future doesn't guide our choices. It's what we think the future holds. And that's all part of the circumstances under which we make decisions. And if we repeat them exactly, then we'd make the same ones.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feel free to give us your reason for each one. But perhaps best if you give your definition of free will first so we're all on the same page.

Ya -- I'll get right on it, chief.

 

[Bradskii]

Ya -- I'll get right on it, chief.

If you do, it will be read by all members interested in this thread. If not...then there's nothing to discuss.

 

[TedT]

If I may, what is the " Christian take on reality"?

I am a Christian and view things from the Christian pov.

I do not do .

 

[Bradskii]

I am a Christian and view things from the Christian pov.

There appear be many varieties.

 

[AV1611VET]

There appear be many varieties.

Is that why you're an atheist?

If so, what about the total consensus of opinion* from every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow?

If not, do you think you're making a point bringing it up?

* IN THE BEGINNING, GOD

 

[Astrid]

I am a Christian and view things from the Christian pov.

I do not do .

If you cannot or are unwilling to answer then maybe
just don't write anything

 

[Astrid]

There appear be many varieties.

Understatement.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you cannot or are unwilling to answer then maybe just don't write anything

My "Christian take on reality" is that it encompasses all of reality.

In other words, reality consists of both the physical and the spiritual realm.

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Understatement.

No biggie.

Jesus will reconcile all things when He returns.

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[SelfSim]

I thought there might have been something there. But...the future is always considered when making a conscious choice. Do I turn right or left? Well I know turning left gets me where I want to go quicker. So my future is getting there earlier. I've made my decision based on what I think the future holds.

But if I know there are road works then my future, as I understand it at the time, is different. And if the current situation is made up of those different circumstances then the decision would always be made in respect of them.

Ok .. so my future is subjective and so too, is everyone else's and therefore, the future itself, is also subjective .. (and thereby, not predetermined independently in any way other than by those collective, subjectively minded viewpoints).

So the future doesn't guide our choices. It's what we think the future holds. And that's all part of the circumstances under which we make decisions. And if we repeat them exactly, then we'd make the same ones.

What 'the future holds' is comprised of collectively subjective viewpoints and isn't some 'thing', which exists truly independently, from those above-mentioned collective, subjectively minded viewpoints. 'What the future holds' however, can be objectively tested by like-thinking minds.

Similarly, determinism can't be claimed as being some 'thing' which must exist independently (and absolutely), in some way, from the objectively thinking minds who infer it from their collectively past-verified predictions.
Its still an inference which can be tested out, (and frequently is), on a case-by-case basis. Inferences require a logically thinking human mind too, y'know(?)

I'm still not convinced that the logic used for the-determinism-overrules-free-will argument, presents us with the one consistent 'truth' in this matter. There are always exceptions .. the human mind may yet be the one .. even though it also evidently, sometimes, operates in accordance with its own invention we call 'the rules of logic'.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that why you're an atheist?

If so, what about the total consensus of opinion* from every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow?

If not, do you think you're making a point bringing it up?

* IN THE BEGINNING, GOD

I'm bringing it up because, for example, you and any other randomly selected Christian on this site will have vastly different outlooks on life. I really thought it was a given.

Apparently not.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok .. so my future is subjective and so too, is everyone else's and therefore, the future itself, is also subjective ..

The possible future could, at a push, be described as subjective. Being my opinion as to how things turn out. But there is only one future. Present conditions now are objectively true. And now used to be the future.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm bringing it up because, for example, you and any other randomly selected Christian on this site will have vastly different outlooks on life.

So?

Is that a felony, or a misdemeanor?

If you put ten people in ten different rooms and give them a binomial to multiply; and you get ten different answers, are you going to deny the existence of binomials?

Of course not.

And let me point this out:

If ALL of Christianity were in 100% agreement throughout the entire Bible -- not just the first four words -- would that really matter?

Or would unbelievers then claim the cults are now examples of "Christianity in Crisis"?

 

[Bradskii]

So?

So now you've been made aware that there isn't a generic Christian pov when it comes to matters arising in this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now you've been made aware that there isn't a generic Christian pov when it comes to matters arising in this thread.

What gave you that impression?

Something I said? or was it those passages in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians that told you?

 

[Neogaia777]

What do you think makes your decisions...?

Because in my opinion, they are all caused, etc...

Your mind is doing a calculation in your head, and that is what makes your decisions for you, and is not unlike a computer that does the same thing, etc...

So what do you think it is calculating, or what do you think that is based on...?

Because I think that, with enough knowledge, it is all fully knowable and is all fully predictable, etc...

And it bases those decisions on prior experiences/feelings/thoughts/conditions, etc, and those came to be by what was prior to them, that caused it, etc...

But those experiences/feelings/thoughts/conditions were all caused by what was prior to them, etc, etc, etc, going all the way back to the very beginning, or the first cause, or when this reality was started or was set in motion, etc, and that was not unlike a row of domino's that was set-up and the very first one was tipped over and all was set in motion, etc...

There is no such thing as other possibles, etc, but we only have the illusion of such based on what we don't know, etc...

And for the believer, if you believe God is all-knowing about everything from the very beginning, then there is no such thing as choice, because there cannot be if God is truly all-knowing, etc, because if any being knows all of what you will choose ahead of time, then you cannot make a choice, and that cannot be a choice from that One's perspective, because they were able to know it/predict it, etc, and the only way they could know/do that is/was by knowing all of how you would calculate all along the way the entire time, etc, and therefore, "no choice", etc, but that is all an delusion/illusion based on all of what we do not right now currently know, etc...

God Bless!