Free Will

[Neogaia777]

Again, this is a little out of my league, but I would say we do the dictating -- not "what is coming in from what was outside of it" -- whatever that means.

What "comes in" from the outside is still outside.

If a car goes by, leaving its impression on our memory, that car is still going to be going on down the road.

What we saw and heard though, will be stored in our "memory banks".

"Green cheese" is in my memory banks; but when I think "green cheese," I don't equate it with the moon.

I learned to equate "green cheese" with cheese that hasn't matured yet.

Well, I disagree that we do the dictating, but I think that whatever it is/was prior to it (and it doesn't have to be just everything outside of you at the moment, but that's just what you said, etc) but I think that it is whatever it is/was prior to it, that does the dictating for us, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Sorry I couldn't help. :/

You were a big huge help actually, I got to see what I would come up with next that was caused by what you said and your interacting with me, etc...

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I disagree that we do the dictating,

Like I said, we are our choices.

... but I think that whatever it is/was prior to it (and it doesn't have to be just everything outside of you at the moment, but that's just what you said, etc) but I think that it is whatever it is/was prior to it, that does the dictating for us, etc...

Were Klebold & Harris just following some preprogrammed script, entered into their minds like a card reader loading a JCL?

 

[AV1611VET]

You were a big huge help actually, I got to see what I would come up with next that was caused by what you said and your interacting with me, etc...

God Bless!

Okie-doke!

 

[Neogaia777]

Like I said, we are our choices.

But we still don't yet know yet if those choices are/were already dictated for us, etc...?

Were Klebold & Harris just following some preprogrammed script, entered into their minds like a card reader loading a JCL?

I have little to no knowledge of what you are talking about right now, etc...?

Sorry...

I would have to look it up, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

But there is only one future.

Why?

Present conditions now are objectively true. And now used to be the future.

Who can cite the relationship with certainty between presently 'true' conditions and those in the supposedly single future, in order to justify that claim there?

QM for eg, only describes the future in terms of probabilities ... and particles say, in the future, can be in several places, or states, all at the same time (superposition), so I don't see how one can state with certainty that the present used to be the future? In fact the two are entirely different(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's easy.

Ex 7:11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
Ex 7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
Ex 8:7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
Ex 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
Ex 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Notice that Pharaoh's magicians could only go so far, then couldn't go any further.

God can go the full distance.

And believe me, Pharaoh's magicians were not the typical magicians we have around today, who pull those Chriss Angel stunts.

Pharaoh's magicians had access to ... well ... a source of power that is myopic to science.

You know? not subject to thermodynamics, no ON/OFF switch, wires, or anything of that sort.

Stories from your old book are not evidence or argument for the quality of God or magic as explanations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, we might not be convinced that "Jesus is the Christ" or that He was anything more than a mere humanly historical figure who was reputed with works of wonder, but at the same time I don't think we should equivocate the nature of Jesus' reported miracles and His reported Resurrection with some silly, meandering notions of "magic" which have been culturally variable through time and all too easily conflated with each other and amalgamated.

'equivocate' -> 'equate' ?

I can understand that you would think that, given your beliefs, but for someone outside that belief system, those stories are indistinguishable from the thousands of other stories of miraculous or magical events; their religious context gives them a spurious sense of gravity.

But that's not the point I was making - which is the claim that, by reasonable criteria for a good explanation, the concept of God is no better an explanation for events in the world than the concept of magic, however silly and meandering you may find it. Can you argue otherwise?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I can ignore the evidence if there is more cogent evidence about reality that convinces me of its truth.

That's not how it works. If you really have evidence that conflicts with other evidence, then you cannot simply ignore the evidence that says you are wrong.

The evidence says it is the brain that thinks. The only evidence you have found to contradict this is the words of an ancient book. If you have a book that contradicts the clear physical evidence, perhaps your book is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'equivocate' -> 'equate' ?

I can understand that you would think that, given your beliefs, but for someone outside that belief system, those stories are indistinguishable from the thousands of other stories of miraculous or magical events; their religious context gives them a spurious sense of gravity.

But that's not the point I was making - which is the claim that, by reasonable criteria for a good explanation, the concept of God is no better an explanation for events in the world than the concept of magic, however silly and meandering you may find it. Can you argue otherwise?

I think you know that whether or not I indeed "can," either way I will.....

... the operative caveat in this, however, is that as an existentialist, I don't really care two nickels for amorphous notions about either "God/gods" or "magic." Existentially, I sit in the chair of the atheist when general meanings of immaterial notions are casually juggled like rubber balls. In other words, I need to know analytically which 'god' and which forms of 'magic' are considered to be definitive for comparison and contrast. Otherwise, without such specific denotation, we're just playing with the wind.

Now, with Christianity, that's a bit different in the comparison with so-called "magic." Although, at the beginning, I will readily note and agree that in the history of the Christian faith much of its contents has been treated and applied by Christians in superstitious ways, ways sometimes (sadly) that seem akin to 'magic/sorcery.'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...the ability to make one choice or other, only depending on how they feel about it.

But what if we begin with a completely different understanding of free will. One which is based solely upon whether or not my own personal preferences, ideologies and beliefs are a predominant factor in my choices, then I absolutely do have free will...

That's not completely different, it's the same!

... what we're really discussing is how I came to have those preferences, ideologies, and beliefs in the first place.

Did I come to have those preferences of my own accord, or were they simply the product of deterministic processes?

Those two are the same if your 'own accord' is the product of experiences you have had and/or inherited predispositions. IOW, if there are reasons for your preferences - and if there are no reasons for them, they're random... yes?

I could argue that it doesn't make any difference. No matter how I came to have them, they are MY preferences, ideologies, and beliefs. My existence, and everything about it may be completely deterministic, but it still constitutes ME.

I'm not an uncaused cause, but it doesn't matter, I still am what I am, and my preferences, ideologies, and beliefs are still mine, and any choices that arise because of them are completely the product of what I am. They are the product of MY will, no matter how I came to have that will.

Now you may or may not accept this argument, and I'm not saying that you should, but it is an alternative to the belief that determinism invalidates the idea of free will.

Yes, I completely accept that argument - I think it's the only coherent way to formulate a concept of free will. It is a compatibilist definition of free will.

The choices you make are uniquely yours because they depend on the preferences, ideologies, and beliefs that are the unique result of your genetic inheritance interacting with the world over your life to date; i.e. what makes you uniquely you. As a result, your choices reflect your unique individuality.

When you feel that your choices freely express that individuality, they can be said to express your free will.

But there are (at least) two unresolved issues - what constitutes 'free' expression, i.e. what makes it 'free' will, and how to account for moral responsibility - if you think it exists.

For example, 'free' expression is often said to be unconstrained and uncoerced - but what counts as constraint and coercion, and who judges, the individual concerned, some external observer, society? Society itself is built on constraints (laws, rules, conventions, etc). Is is just how you feel about your choices?

And if everything you've ever done is the result of deterministic interactions, you're physically responsible for your actions, but what does moral responsibility mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've said before, I'm curious to know if anyone can give any argument for how God is a better explanation than magic ...

That's easy.

Stories from your old book are not evidence or argument for the quality of God or magic as explanations.

Then you'll take that curiosity to your grave, won't you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not only do such expressions admit we are not really in control, but we don't even know where the words come from to make those sentences. Something had to look through our internal dictionary of English words and select the words and put them together. Our brains must have considered hundreds of words to use before selecting these. But somehow words such as, "I didn't mean to do that" are suddenly just there, and we speak them, without the slightest awareness of the immense computation needed to create that sentence.

At least we've started to explicitly acknowledge that consciousness has little direct control - we no longer tell people who are depressed to "snap out of it" and "pull yourself together", but give them indirect strategies to regain equilibrium rather than control.

 

[durangodawood]

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".

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.

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.

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.

Pretty interesting.

I had mentioned imagination earlier as an part of a function free will capacity. But if we take a physical-determinist view, I'm dont see how imagination, the "could be" work, is untethered from the cause/effect chain any more than anything else.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, let's take something what/that appears to say that other possibilities most definitely exist and examine them for a minute, ok...

And let's just take quantum superposition for a minute, ok, and it this case let's just go with one sense for a minute, like the sense of "sight" for a minute, ok...

It would appear that everything is any number of maybe an infinite amount of positions, or that all things are in every position at once, etc, until the observer actually takes a look at it, etc, and then it actually changes or actually pops into something recognizable to us in that instance, correct...

Well, it also changes or pops into what we expect, correct...?

And what do you think forms or shapes those expectations/supposed choices if not whatever was happening or was going on, or had happened/was happening/was going on, etc, with both the observer and his environment, and the observer in his environment, etc, prior to it, etc...

And then that, with what had happened/was happening, and/or was or had been happening, or was going on, etc, etc, etc, with the observer and his environment, and the observer in his environment, etc, etc, etc, prior to that, etc...

And then that prior to that, etc, and then that prior to that, etc, and so on and so forth, etc, etc, etc; "etcetera", so that all is, or ever was, or ever had been/has been/will be, etc, all cause and effect, etc, going all the way back to the beginning with however all of this began, etc...

So that what we choose to see, has already been made up or has already been chosen for us, etc...

And that, maybe going all the way back to the very beginning of how all of this began maybe, etc...

What we expect to "see" (in this case) has already been chosen for us, it is/already has been, etc, caused, etc, from and/by, etc, whatever was happening or going on, etc, prior to it already, etc, and is evidenced by the fact that we can't just choose or change what we are already expecting to see, at random, etc...

And if you think I am wrong about that last part, then I encourage you to try that last part, at random, etc, and see if you can generate anything random, etc, and let me know or see the results or how it goes/works out for you, ok...

Because I don't think it will work, etc...

Because I think that, that, has already been chosen for us, etc...

And that it is the same with all of our other supposed choices as well, etc...

Some of what I think we are seeing on the quantum level, is not unlike when we all used to have TV's that had "snow" as it's background when you sometimes first turned on the TV, until you/me/we actually changed it (most usually by turning the dial back then, etc) into something recognizable to us, etc, only in this case we're not even in control of the dial, etc...

God Bless!

 

[John Owen]

Jonathan Edwards wrote a massive book that I read a few years ago called "The Freedom of the Will."

You can read it for free here:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/edwards/Freedom of the Will - Jonathan Edwards.pdf

He asserts that we do not actually have Free Will. And he proves it conclusively.

 

[AV1611VET]

He asserts that we do not actually have Free Will. And he proves it conclusively.

How did Mr Edwards explain this passage?

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

 

[John Owen]

How did Mr Edwards explain this passage?

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Honestly? I don't know if he specifically dealt with that verse. However, his general logic went like this.

Every decision is preceded by a decision to make that decision. And if you take that to it's logical end, there has to be a beginning and he shows how it always leads to God ordaining everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if you take that to it's logical end, there has to be a beginning and he shows how it always leads to God ordaining everything.

Okay, thanks for the info.

I somehow can't see God ordaining the string of decisions that led to Klebold & Harris' choices.

 

[John Owen]

Okay, thanks for the info.

I somehow can't see God ordaining the string of decisions that led to Klebold & Harris' choices.

D. A Carson in his wonderful book "How Long, O Lord: Reflections on Suffering and Evil" concluded that God is Sovereign, Man makes responsible decisions, and in the end, the origin of evil is shrouded in mystery. That is because God cannot be the author of evil, yet he ordains all things.