Free Will

[Neogaia777]

@Bradskii

For example, even an atheist who still dies an atheist, for example, his judgement might greatly depend on his exact reasons for why he said all his life that he didn't believe, just as much as it might almost anything else, etc, because nobody knows that one's background, or his upbringing in life, or what he has been through, or maybe what he didn't go through in life, etc, or any other number of innumerable factors, etc, that only God and God alone, can only fully know, and can only 100% truly and justly judge completely, etc...

Way, way too many people think they fully know about this, when they really don't, etc...

In my opinion, they are the ones the most in danger of quote/unquote "hell", etc...

I think a lot of people are going to be very, very shocked, and very, very surprised when that time comes, etc...

I make it my goal and aim in life, not to be counted in among them though...

God Bless!

@Bradskii

Now many people, many Christians, might disagree with me 100% completely, but that's ok, I'm used to that, etc, but they should wonder what their all getting all up in arms about it, is really truly about, etc...

Unfortunately they don't usually put nearly enough time or thought into it though, and it's most usually forgotten about the very next day, or as soon as they get off of here, etc...

I'm used to it by now though, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

We're dealing with semantics here. So, the problem I'm going to have in using the definition of sin above to reason upon is that, in the determination, sin can be a positive in the subjective view of one who commits an action that has negative consequences for another, but a positive consequence for themselves. Without an objective meaning for sin such as not loving others as yourself, the term sin cannot be objectively seen as a negative in that it's hypocritical.

I'd agree that the golden rule should be considered. But even if it's not, then we can see that someone stealing a car is a harmful act, even if the act only affects two people at that time - one positively and one negatively. Because if stealing were to become the norm, then society wouldn't function. So we go back a few posts to the discussion on punishments and we can see that we try to protect society by formulating laws that will punish those that do steal. It's a priori appreciated that such acts are detrimental to society as a whole, even if the act itself only concerns a limited number of people.

The guy who had his car stolen may want a custodial sentence for the perpetrator as retribution. It didn't affect me in any way, but I'd want the same as a deterrent.

That is the rationale of the selfish. What is the rationale of the unselfish?

Reciprocal altruism. I'll scratch your back as I may need mine scratched sometime. Is there such a thing as a truly altruistic act? Even if no-one is aware of a kind act you perform, even the recipient, you still get that warm inner glow for having done it. Or maybe that's just me being uber cynical.

Note that so called unselfish acts happen in nature quite frequently: Reciprocal altruism in bats and other mammals

 

[Bradskii]

By understanding that our own will contributed to said circumstances.

But any decision you make is a combination of your character (genes) and your upbringing - plus the conditions current at the time (environment). How much weight should we give to these?

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm going to throw this out there as I haven't yet seen it fully addressed yet, etc, but, if everything on any one of the levels of the "building blocks", can be absolutely proven beyond any kind of doubt to always and in every single case always behave deterministically, etc, then can it not also be said that any of the levels under them/it or above them/it must all always behave deterministically also, etc...?

Because I think it is already proven beyond any kind of doubt at the level of atoms, or on the atomic level, etc, so even if we do not yet fully understand how the other ones are or do yet, then they still must, even if we do not fully understand it all yet, or yet have all the complete "math" for it all just yet, etc...

Yes...? No...?

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Please note that these deliberations presuppose a monadological view of mind.

Which presumes a soul. Which I reject, being a practical sort of guy. Free will can only occur when we have something associated with us, but separate to our mind that can reason and make choices. Otherwise determinism wins the day.

Part of the reason why we have these deliberations on Christian forums is actually to determine if there is a soul, what form it takes and how it interacts with the mind. Free will is the first course as it were. The amuse bouche before we settle down to the main meal. If you start the deliberations with 'what I say already supposes the existence of a soul' then you're cutting the conversation short. And allows you to cut to the chase by simply saying 'we have a soul, therefore free will obviously exists.' The rest is just window dressing. Or maybe thousand island.

Anyway, I've mixed enough metaphors for now...

 

[Bradskii]

I'm going to throw this out there as I haven't yet seen it fully addressed yet, etc, but, if everything on any one of the levels of the "building blocks", can be absolutely proven beyond any kind of doubt to always and in every single case always behave deterministically, etc, then can it not also be said that any of the levels under them/it or above them/it must all always behave deterministically also, etc...?

Because I think it is already proven beyond any kind of doubt at the level of atoms, or on the atomic level, etc, so even if we do not yet fully understand how the other ones are or do yet, then they still must, even if we do not fully understand it all yet, or yet have all the complete "math" for it all just yet, etc...

Yes...? No...?

God Bless!

If you were arguing against it then there might be a fallacy of composition involved. In that at the quantum level, things are indeterminate so therefore life is indeterminate. But from what I understand,the indeterminancy is only at the quantum level and actions at a macro level are still determinate.

Your argument would be an example of strong determinism. And I'm off to Stanford to brush up on the types. Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Bradskii]

The existence of at least one spirit is provable. See my paper Gödel's God Theorem, which introduces the computer-verified Gödel-Scott proof of the necessary existence of God.

If you start with the answer (and presuppose the definitions which you describe as axiomatic) then you'll not have any difficulty in finding a suitable proof.

 

[Neogaia777]

I am calling it a night guys...

Goodnight.

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

It seems you didn't look at the proof, which raises the question, "Who is assuming the conclusion, you or me?" Where, precisely, does the proof assume the conclusion? Where does it go wrong?

'God doesn't exist because GSS works; rather GSS works because God exists.'

You've written a proof to obtain an answer which you have already determined.

 

[Bradskii]

Euclid knew there were infinitely many primes before he proved it. Indeed, if the set of primes were finite, how could Euclid prove otherwise? What you are saying is no objection and fails to engage the proof.

Do you realize that quote is from a section entitled "my view"? It's not part of the proof, and the proof holds independently of my personal views. In other words, you still have to say where the proof fails.

Additionally, Gödel wrote the proof, not me.

Colour me unimpressed.

Meanwhile, back to free will...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I tell people, all people, no matter who they are, or what their sin is, etc, known to them, or not fully known to them at the time, etc, that all and any kind of sin could maybe be a possible risk to your salvation...

If you can sin without intent or even realisation, i.e. you don't know you've sinned, how could you repent that sin?

In school, I was taught that you could blanket repent all your sins, but that always seemed like an unlikely 'get out of hell free' card...

 

[Neogaia777]

If you can sin without intent or even realisation, i.e. you don't know you've sinned, how could you repent that sin?

In school, I was taught that you could blanket repent all your sins, but that always seemed like an unlikely 'get out of hell free' card...

Nobody knows how God is going to judge in any kind of future judgement or judging, which is why we have to err of the side of caution with what we tell others, etc.

It could all maybe be a possible risk maybe, etc.

And I was mainly talking about those who have been confronted about a sin many numerous times over, but that, out of pride or whatever, have continued over and over again to deny it and remain ignorant of it, etc, like a proud religious pharisee, etc...

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

I'd agree that the golden rule should be considered. But even if it's not, then we can see that someone stealing a car is a harmful act, even if the act only affects two people at that time - one positively and one negatively. Because if stealing were to become the norm, then society wouldn't function. So we go back a few posts to the discussion on punishments and we can see that we try to protect society by formulating laws that will punish those that do steal. It's a priori appreciated that such acts are detrimental to society as a whole, even if the act itself only concerns a limited number of people.

The guy who had his car stolen may want a custodial sentence for the perpetrator as retribution. It didn't affect me in any way, but I'd want the same as a deterrent.

It's true that the term 'harmful' is a resolute term, but unlike love/compassion, it's a negative; Wherefore it's counterpart, 'harmless', is a neutral term. So, subjectively there still remains a positive and a negative aspect of sin in that it's harmful to one and beneficial for the thief who does the harm so long as they're not caught. The law may work as a deterrent to some degree, but it's limited. The law can't make a person care about how their actions affect others, and when the law is too heavy handed it can also be harmful to a society.

Reciprocal altruism. I'll scratch your back as I may need mine scratched sometime.

I don't think that example qualifies as altruism. I scratched yours longer than you scratched mine. No, my itch was worse than yours.

Is there such a thing as a truly altruistic act? Even if no-one is aware of a kind act you perform, even the recipient, you still get that warm inner glow for having done it. Or maybe that's just me being uber cynical.

Actually, I think you're asking a good question. I observe that a negative always usurps from a positive, and a positive does not ever usurp from a negative. In that circuit of energy altruism can only denote a positive. Therefore, an act of Love/compassion is prompted by the suffering of someone else, and without any consideration of the opportunity to feel a warm inner glow. So, yes there are truly altruistic acts.

And for what it's worth, I applaud your pondering if you're being cynical. Cynicism is a negative prejudice. So, when we question cynicism, I'd say that amounts to some measure of faith in Love/compassion.

Note that so called unselfish acts happen in nature quite frequently: Reciprocal altruism in bats and other mammals.

I'm not sure I actually agree with the articulation "reciprocal altruism". I don't see why the term reciprocal is necessary if it's to be considered a behavioral instinct. Anyway, there are some informative studies on altruism in nature when observing compassion. I've seen and experienced love/compassion my entire life, and I would expect that most everyone has.

 

[Bradskii]

It's true that the term 'harmful' is a resolute term, but unlike love/compassion, it's a negative; Wherefore it's counterpart, 'harmless', is a neutral term. So, subjectively there still remains a positive and a negative aspect of sin in that it's harmful to one and beneficial for the thief who does the harm so long as they're not caught.

I was saying that sin needs to cause harm. And that stealing a car, although it could be neutral in its immediate effect (one positive and the other negative) it has an overall negative effect because stealing in itself has a negative effect. But some things that are classed as being sinful do not cause harm. I don't want to be seen to promote something that is understood to be a sin by Christians, so I'm averse to giving specific examples but I'm sure that you'll appreciate the point.

I don't actually agree with the articulation "reciprocal altruism". There are better studies on altruism in nature observing compassion. I've seen and experienced love/compassion my entire life, and I would expect that most everyone has. Just look at what we refer to as the Maternal instinct.

Altruism in itself can be simple compassion for another. But reciprocal altruism has nothing to do with compassion. It can be seen as a deal between two agents that allows a benefit given to one will be returned by the other. And it can be done without an immediate expectation of that favour being returned. Or even an understanding that the process is ultimately beneficial. As I linked, even bats exhibit it and I'm pretty sure that they aren't balancing the pros and cons before sharing their food. It's an automatic, evolutionary act.

 

[childeye 2]

I was saying that sin needs to cause harm. And that stealing a car, although it could be neutral in its immediate effect (one positive and the other negative) it has an overall negative effect because stealing in itself has a negative effect. But some things that are classed as being sinful do not cause harm. I don't want to be seen to promote something that is understood to be a sin by Christians, so I'm averse to giving specific examples but I'm sure that you'll appreciate the point.

I can appreciate the sentiment as intended, so I'm going to say this. We're trying to talk about free will in the context of morality/immorality. And we're dealing with semantics. Since it's not possible to devalue something with zero value, it's through negative denotations and connotations that we evaluate only the positive aspect of morality, and not the other way around. So, we need to have an objective and resolute positive to reason upon, otherwise communication breaks down through futile subjective evaluations of what is harmful whether we call it immoral or sin.

"Love others as yourself" is an objective positive that includes the subjective nuances of moral/immoral terms by framing immorality in the context of hypocrisy both subjectively and objectively. I don't see a better tool for checking a misguided love. No sensible Christian will disagree that scripture identifies God as brotherly Love, and also that the Christ in scripture teaches that God will judge us by what measure we judge others. And finally, that God desires mercy and understanding, not self-condemnation through hypocritical judgment.

Altruism in itself can be simple compassion for another. But reciprocal altruism has nothing to do with compassion. It can be seen as a deal between two agents that allows a benefit given to one will be returned by the other. And it can be done without an immediate expectation of that favour being returned. Or even an understanding that the process is ultimately beneficial. As I linked, even bats exhibit it and I'm pretty sure that they aren't balancing the pros and cons before sharing their food. It's an automatic, evolutionary act.

Since you understand that compassion is altruistic, you should also understand why it's altruistic. Being 100% selfless is never dependent upon reciprocation, because it's dependent upon serving no self-interest. Certainly, as a moral energy a goodness goes out in the abstract and does good for the whole. But under this reciprocating description, the altruism can range from vampire bats who can't comprehend they're serving no self-interest and therefore do not deliberate over pros and cons, to being perceived by humans as a deal between two agents, even though it's not a product of mental deliberation. So, to me it's a nuanced quasi misnomer able to morph in meaning in our psycholinguistics and go unrealized. For what it's worth, I think it would better serve the evidence if it were described as an intrinsic altruism, or an altruistic instinct and leave it at that.

And so, I currently stand more convinced than not, that altruism means the same thing as an incorruptible love/compassion. I can see how mercy out of a sincere compassion could be selfless yet calculated. But as I see it, if I experienced a free/voluntary will/desire to be selfless, it's love not me. Someone might point out that I can deny that desire, and I would ask why would I?

 

[Bradskii]

I can appreciate the sentiment as intended, so I'm going to say this. We're trying to talk about free will in the context of morality/immorality. And we're dealing with semantics. Since it's not possible to devalue something with zero value, it's through negative denotations and connotations that we evaluate only the positive aspect of morality, and not the other way around. So, we need to have an objective and resolute positive to reason upon, otherwise communication breaks down through futile subjective evaluations of what is harmful and sin.

Morality determines whether we can or cannot do something (more specifically, ought or ought not). If someone says 'That's immoral' they are saying that the act will cause harm (if it didn't then it's impossible to define it as immoral). So an agent (Joe) is 'allowed' to do something or he is 'prohibited' from doing it. If you want to claim that the act is immoral, then you must, I repeat must, make a case that it is harmful. Else Jim is free to do what he likes.

And it entirely depends on the relevant conditions. There is no such thing as an absolute morality in the sense that 'Do not steal' or 'Do not lie' is always valid. Joe may lie on his CV and that will harm another person applying for the same job. Or he may lie to save someone's life. He may steal some food simply because he'd rather not pay for it. Or he may steal food because he is destitute and his child is starving to death.

Are those reasons always objectively valid? I can't think of a case where that wouldn't be true. To the point where I would say that Joe is allowed to do literally anything he likes unless it can be shown that harm will come from it. So that objective determination you mentioned should be to determine if there is a negative.

So if you declare that something is immoral in a specific situation, then the onus is on you to prove that harm will occur.

That said, there are obviously situations where one has to consider the greater good - the Trolley Problem is an obvious example (I'll assume you're aware of it). Quite often that's where people reach a point where no agreement is possible. I think then that we move from a position where we try to find the answer to one where it has to be agreed that one can't be found that will satisfy all parties.

Since you understand that compassion is altruistic, you should also understand why it's altruistic. Being 100% selfless is never dependent upon reciprocation. Under this reciprocating description, the label of altruism can be perceived by humans as a deal between two agents, even though it's not a product of mental deliberation over pros and cons amongst vampire bats. So, it's a nuanced quasi misnomer able to morph in meaning. For what it's worth, it would be more coherent to me if such actions were labeled as intrinsic altruism, or an altruistic instinct. And so, I currently stand more convinced than not, that there is some relation to love/compassion. As I see it, if I had a free will/desire to be selfless, I would not have a free will/desire to be selfish, and visa-versa.

Maybe I didn't word it as well as I should have. I didn't mean that compassion is altruistic. It can be - you hope that it's reciprocated, but the hope that it is or the fact that it might be, is not necessarily so.

And I agree when you say that reciprocal altruism can be described as an instinct. It obviously is when bats do it. And my point was that it was an instinct when we did it back in the evolutionary past. And those that didn't have that instinct were removed from the gene pool. Just like those that didn't instinctively jump back when the grass rustled. It was probably just the wind 99% of the time, but once in a while, it's a snake. And if you didn't have that startled instinct then your genes won't be part of the next generation. Similarly, if you had the instinct for reciprocation, then it was an advantage. If you didn't, then...you're out of the game.

And you really don't need to love someone or to have compassion for them to share your food. It's simply game theory. You can actually despise the guy but if you share your food and he shares his then you both come out in front. You might really dislike your neighbour, but if he agrees to cut down his tree which is blocking your light if you agree to fix the fence, then we have a win/win situation.

And you can be selfish and selfless. You are selfless when it comes to your kids - you give them food and shelter and you expend time, effort and finances to do so. But you are selfish when it comes to you and yours versus some starving family on the other side of the planet. Likewise you can be personally selfish in spending your money on yourself (hey, nice watch), versus giving it to the needy (here's enough food for a month).

Let's not kid ourselves that it's either/or.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was mainly talking about those who have been confronted about a sin many numerous times over, but that, out of pride or whatever, have continued over and over again to deny it and remain ignorant of it, etc, like a proud religious pharisee, etc...

OK. Not being a mind reader, I could only go by what you actually said...

 

[Neogaia777]

OK. Not being a mind reader, I could only go by what you actually said...

Understandable, sorry I didn't clarify more...

God Bless!

 

[Chriliman]

But any decision you make is a combination of your character (genes) and your upbringing - plus the conditions current at the time (environment). How much weight should we give to these?

When someone makes a choice, it’s them who made the choice, no matter how complex the factors are(including their own desires) that led them to that choice.

You know, if it’s true we’re not responsible for our actions then there’s really no point in thinking you can make any difference in society through democracy because the future is set, no matter what you try to do differently. We’re just characters in a movie. I’m sure you’re aware.

 

[Bradskii]

When someone makes a choice, it’s them who made the choice...

So what caused the choice? Give me an example.