Free Will

[Neogaia777]

Whatever originally caused or set off the original causal chain in this world/universe/creation/reality, already made all of everything's choices in it, for it, a very, very, very long time ago already...

God Bless!

 

[public hermit]

Wouldn't that be the other way around...?

Only in the first example, we are positing that if the exact same conditions were replicated exactly, and I do mean "exactly", etc, then he or she (or you or me) cannot, and does not, ever choose any differently, etc, and is therefore not ever "free"...

And this also means that nothing that is here is truly free, and everything only ever just goes, in only just one way only, or only in a straight line only, etc, and any other possibilities that you, or me, or anyone or anything (else), thinks it has, etc, is all just merely an illusion, etc, or is only the greatest vanity, etc, because what you/me/they will chose from among them, has already been chosen for you/me/we/us already, and is already chosen for us already by "not one single thing at all having to do with us" ever at all really, etc, at least not while in this world/creation/reality/universe anyway, etc...

God Bless!

Yeah, I see why you say that. I gave the same explanantion I would give you in the post you commented on...to be clear, I do not like that feature...yeah, whether we are determined by God or material processes, I agree with you.

 

[Neogaia777]

Ayer argues, and I agree, the fact that a causal chain, which includes the deliberative process that leads to her choice, although it determines her choice in the sense that it is the only causal chain, that is not the same as her being constrained against her will. It is simply the context, albeit the only one, in which her will is realized. What gives her agency is that the causal process includes what she wanted in that process.

Hogwash, sounds like a man grasping at straws and trying to ignore the obvious if you ask me, because things do not always go the way we want, or always wanted, therefore, there might be a higher will involved maybe, but that last part is just pure speculation on my part right now, etc...

Now if she had wanted otherwise and was constrained against her will, that would be different, but only in the sense that she did not act according to her "rathers." But under the normal flow of causal events, she chooses what she wants and that is freedom enough lol.

Nope, wrong, like I said, sounds like a man, or men/people, grasping at straws and trying desperately hard to ignore the all too much and oh so very obvious if you ask me, etc...

To me, the distinction is simple: freedom is either 1) we could have done otherwise or 2) we do what we want.

Yes, and the third one is that no one and nothing in this creation is truly free, and never is/was ever truly free, etc...

(But could have been dictated a very long, long, long time ago by another who originally caused it or set it all in motion to begin with "maybe", etc)...

If freedom is the ability to do otherwise, then I don't know what that means, and there is no way to show that is the case.

There might be maybe...?

We could try to get close, and then analyze the number of times people make the same exact choice(s) in similar circumstances, but leave a certain amount of room for error, since it can never be perfect, etc, but the majority of the time the same thing is always chosen in similar circumstances might give us some clues maybe, etc...?

What I do understand is the ability to do what I want or to be constrained to do otherwise.

Yes, a comfortable illusion to distract you from the obvious that nothing in this creation is truly free, etc...

Don't be led by or trust your feelings when you are looking for the truth, etc...

The second possibility also entails enough for responsibility. Even if I am determined, the fact that I wanted it, and acted in accord with that desire, is enough for praise or blame, i.e. responsibility. But, of course, if I change my mind before the final decision, it simply means that I wanted it for better or worse lol.

And this insistence on placing blame (or responsibility) comes from "where" exactly...?

Because I don't think it's all that important to have to place responsibility or blame, etc...

But, it's what you've been taught though, so I guess I shouldn't expect anything less I guess, right, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Ayer argues, and I agree, the fact that a causal chain, which includes the deliberative process that leads to her choice, although it determines her choice in the sense that it is the only causal chain, that is not the same as her being constrained against her will. It is simply the context, albeit the only one, in which her will is realized. What gives her agency is that the causal process includes what she wanted in that process. Now if she had wanted otherwise and was constrained against her will, that would be different, but only in the sense that she did not act according to her "rathers." But under the normal flow of causal events, she chooses what she wants and that is freedom enough lol.

To me, the distinction is simple: freedom is either 1) we could have done otherwise or 2) we do what we want. If freedom is the ability to do otherwise, then I don't know what that means, and there is no way to show that is the case. What I do understand is the ability to do what I want or to be constrained to do otherwise. The second possibility also entails enough for responsibility. Even if I am determined, the fact that I wanted it, and acted in accord with that desire, is enough for praise or blame, i.e. responsibility. But, of course, if I change my mind before the final decision, it simply means that I wanted it for better or worse lol.

It's a matter of semantics. Your definition of free will is different to mine. Coerciveness or constraints obviously deny the application of free will, so I don't include them.

Christians accept free will as a function of the soul. It's the ghost in the machine.

That said, our thought processes are part of any given situation so they are part of the causal chain and, in my opinion, according to how I define free will, cannot allow for it. What I am thinking now has been caused by the situation that I find myself in now, which has been caused by the previous moments etc etc. Free will needs to escape from this chain of events and consider things 'from the outside' as it were. And so appears the ghost, the soul, the part of us which is not part of us. Which can make decisions without being part of the sequence of events that cause me to have the thoughts that I do. And to make the decisions I do.

The hypothetical which to me proves that free will doesn't exist - the exact replication of the events leading to a choice, obviously cannot be replicated in real life. So even if we have no free will, it certainly seems as if we do and we might as well live our lives as if it exists.

 

[public hermit]

The hypothetical which to me proves that free will doesn't exist - the exact replication of the events leading to a choice, obviously cannot be replicated in real life.

It doesn't have to be; it is what has exactly happened. We are what we are, I don't think we have much choice about it, but it can change.

Christians accept free will as a function of the soul. It's the ghost in the machine.

That has no part in what I am saying. I am not positing any soul. All I have posited is a chain of causal events which includes my train of thought.

That said, our thought processes are part of any given situation so they are part of the causal chain and, in my opinion, according to how I define free will, cannot allow for it.

Allow for what, a soul? You need to go back and read what I wrote. Are you familiar with A..J. Ayer? You're hurting my feelings because you're not reading what I'm writing, and you're hurting Ayer's feelings because he is not Christian, and he's dead, which means you have really crossed the line to hurt dead people's feelings.

Free will needs to escape from this chain of events and consider things 'from the outside' as it were. And so appears the ghost, the soul, the part of us which is not part of us. Which can make decisions without being part of the sequence of events that cause me to have the thoughts that I do. And to make the decisions I do.

Okay, so there is a part of me that can make choices completely unrelated to the causal chain? Wouldn't that make my choices arbitrary since they are not related to anything?

The hypothetical which to me proves that free will doesn't exist - the exact replication of the events leading to a choice, obviously cannot be replicated in real life. So even if we have no free will, it certainly seems as if we do and we might as well live our lives as if it exists.

I can probably get on board with this. We make choices; therefore, that is enough for choice making. Still, I think we can ground responsibility in our desires without positing hypotheticals about what we could have done.

Bradskii, I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not. And, to be honest, I'm cool either way. I choose that.

 

[Neogaia777]

and we might as well live our lives as if it exists.

What other "choice" do we have right now currently, etc, lol...

We'd have to be God, or gods to escape it right now maybe, etc, and we are not right now, so...?

So, how else are we supposed to go about it really, etc...

I do like it when I run into things sometimes that I feel are "providential" though, or were already prearranged, etc, as it happens to me quite a bit sometimes, so much so, that if you couldn't identify it's source a lot of the time, or didn't clearly know whether it was friend or foe, etc, it could make one "batty", etc, but beyond that, I am not thinking about it too much actively, except only maybe when I am talking about it on here maybe, etc...

I go about my life pretty much the same way everyone else does for the most part, which is pretty much, most of the time, the only way you/me/we can really, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, so there is a part of me that can make choices completely unrelated to the causal chain? Wouldn't that make my choices arbitrary since they are not related to anything?

That part of you is something I don't believe exists. It's the soul, sitting outside the events of that causal chain. It's the only way I can see free will existing.

 

[public hermit]

What other "choice" do we have right now currently, etc, lol...

We'd have to be God, or gods to escape it right now maybe, etc, and we are not right now, so...?

So, how else are we supposed to go about it really, etc...

I do like it when I run into things that I feel are "providential" though, or were already prearranged, etc, as it happens to me quite a bit sometimes, so much so, that if you couldn't identify it's source a lot of the time, or didn't clearly know whether it was friend or foe, etc, it could make one "batty", etc, but beyond that, I am not thinking about it too much actively, except only maybe when I am talking about it on here maybe, etc...

God Bless!

I don't think we have to do anything more than make the choices that seem best to us. Keep in mind, we did not choose to spontaneously generate oursleves, nor did we choose to spontaneously generate our choices, we have boundaries in which to seek what is good, That is not absolute freedom, but it is a context in which we can live and seek good things.

 

[public hermit]

That part of you is something I don't believe exists. It's the soul, sitting outside the events of that causal chain. It's the only way I can see free will existing.

I'm not arguing for a soul or for arbitrary choices. I am saying we choose within a context that is given and even my choice is part of the determined flow of that context. I am incredulous at this point. Either you do not understand what I am saying or do you do not understand what I am saying. lol.

 

[Neogaia777]

@public hermit

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my last post, seems I'm always having to apologize for my lack of patience a lot lately, because this isn't my first time around this issue/subject, etc...

Anyway, I apologize, OK...

God Bless!

 

[public hermit]

@public hermit

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my last post, seems I'm always having to apologize for my lack of patience a lot lately, because this isn't my first time around this issue/subject, etc...

Anyway, I apologize, OK...

God Bless!

No, please, don't apologize to me. I don't have small feelings like that. I appreciate what you're saying.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm not arguing for a soul or for arbitrary choices. I am saying we choose within a context that is given and even my choice is part of the determined flow of that context. I am incredulous at this point. Either you do not understand what I am saying or do you do not understand what I am saying. lol.

We have free will in a way because our context in limited, and we do not know everything, or it (free will) is only a perspective based on knowledge, which is right now limited, etc, and so is also our limited "context" right now also, as you just so aptly put it just now, etc...

We don't know/can't see all of everything, so we need to just make the best choices/actions/decisions we can, and not get to entirely caught up right now in just how "free" or not it (our wills are/is) right now, etc...

It's a "technicality" at best, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

No, please, don't apologize to me. I don't have small feelings like that. I appreciate what you're saying.

Thanks man...

God Bless!

 

[public hermit]

We have free will in a way because our context in limited, and we do not know everything, or it (free will) is only a perspective based on knowledge, which is right now limited, etc, and so is also our limited "context" right now also, as you just so aptly put it just now, etc...

Right, and all that not-knowing tells me we should be gentle with ourselves and each other. That doesn't mean we have to put up with nonsense, but things are shakey and we will make mistakes.

 

[childeye 2]

It's a matter of semantics. Your definition of free will is different to mine. Coerciveness or constraints obviously deny the application of free will, so I don't include them.

Christians accept free will as a function of the soul. It's the ghost in the machine.

That said, our thought processes are part of any given situation so they are part of the causal chain and, in my opinion, according to how I define free will, cannot allow for it. What I am thinking now has been caused by the situation that I find myself in now, which has been caused by the previous moments etc etc. Free will needs to escape from this chain of events and consider things 'from the outside' as it were. And so appears the ghost, the soul, the part of us which is not part of us. Which can make decisions without being part of the sequence of events that cause me to have the thoughts that I do. And to make the decisions I do.

The hypothetical which to me proves that free will doesn't exist - the exact replication of the events leading to a choice, obviously cannot be replicated in real life. So even if we have no free will, it certainly seems as if we do and we might as well live our lives as if it exists.

For what it's worth, I definitely see that there are semantics involved here. The term free is an adjective and it's often fluid and morphs in meaning when not soundly qualified. For one thing, this is a moral/immoral decision, and I believe that Love/compassion is what actually causes us to care how our actions affect others and moves us to act responsibly. The mind therefore tends to conflate the choice/option with the choice/decision, as if the existence of both moral and immoral courses of action are somehow equally reasonable. The typical Free will is actually an equivocation implying a will able to choose both good and evil at one's own discretion. Scripture however describes sin and righteousness as two opposing masters. Jesus pointed out that a person cannot serve two masters, and those words portray such a will, that could choose either way, as a person who is uncommitted, which is not meant as an indicator of being free, but rather of being doubleminded.

Hence, scripture speaks of being "free" from sin as tantamount to being a "slave" to righteousness, and to be "free" from righteousness is to be a "slave" to sin. So, I don't see how the ability to choose between right and wrong is any proof the will/desire is free, since the mind reasons upon what it believes to be true, and what we believe will in turn manifest a desire accordingly. And since we must choose between a right and a wrong, any choice we make is going to be inevitable as a matter of circumstance.

Therefore, I'd say that we're all subject to knowledge and ignorance of what is true and the term free can only be qualified by degrees of knowledge. For example, just as a wise person does not make the same choices as a foolish person, we can be certain that any mind that would choose what is wrong is deceived or misguided in some capacity. Finally, Jesus himself said that the Truth will set you free, so he's actually implying that we're not free so long as we are blind to the Truth/Knowledge he is referencing. Wherefore Jesus can predict that the blind leading the blind will all fall into a ditch and not because they freely wanted to.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't believe that the ability to choose is that relevant since the mind reasons upon what it believes to be true and a choice is inevitable as a matter of circumstance.

If that is true, and I tend towards that, then how can we hold anyone responsible for the decisions they make? We are obviously bound to a certain degree by genetics and environment, but if there is literally no free will, then whence justice?

 

[Neogaia777]

If that is true, and I tend towards that, then how can we hold anyone responsible for the decisions they make? We are obviously bound to a certain degree by genetics and environment, but if there is literally no free will, then whence justice?

We will be shown what true justice is one day, until then, "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement, even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians seem to be the ones quickest to this, and I say this to my own past shame, etc...

They conveniently forget all the verses that tell us not to be so quick, or too quick about this, etc, many of them coming with a very strict warning label against "hypocrisy", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@Bradskii

If you're interested, maybe you might want to read some of my posts in this thread: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/i-admit-that-i-was-completely-defeated.8264697/post-77019330

 

[Neogaia777]

We will be shown what true justice is one day, until then, "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement, even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians seem to be the ones quickest to this, and I say this to my own past shame, etc...

They conveniently forget all the verses that tell us not to be so quick, or too quick about this, etc, many of them coming with a very strict warning label against "hypocrisy", etc...

God Bless!

Another movie quote/name that movie quote, "Only a Sith deals in (absolutely) absolutes"...

(Connected also to what I just linked to @Bradskii above this, etc)...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

We will be shown what true justice is one day, until then, "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement, even the very wise cannot see all ends."

OK, but I'm thinking about present day practical problems of determining justice.

And by the way, that link you have comes up unavailable.