If there was no heaven, would you still want to be a Christian?

[Dorothy Mae]

I think we can say that someone can spend 20 minutes choosing between two options. But for the sake of progress, I'll grant you that definition. We can still arrive at a choice at the end of deliberating and that choice is still determined. At the very least, that's what I mean when I say I still have the ability to choose.

We are likely going in circles now. You still say we have the ability to choose by redefining what "choose "means and then say we have the ability to choose, which is generally defined as the decision, no matter how one got there. So we have reached a point where each has expressed their views and we do not agree. I do not see that further discussion on this topic will help.

You are describing the first time you experienced something, which doesn't mean there was no influence to encourage you to choose to experience that thing. Let's talk about the first time you tasted something in specific. I'd like a very specific example of your choosing. Yes, I believe you have the ability to choose.

The problem is that you allow yourself to invent influences for which there is no evidence of influence. If that does not work, you select "unknown" influences which by definition cannot be known.

That's important. I include within the description of "outside coercion" things like brain tumors, chemical imbalances, and other internal processes we aren't directly selecting for ourselves.

Those are inside influences. Outside influences are those outside of us, by definition.

But let's meet again on a different discussion. You and I and Brad have covered this pretty well now. Agree?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

We are likely going in circles now. You still say we have the ability to choose by redefining what "choose "means and then say we have the ability to choose, which is generally defined as the decision, no matter how one got there. So we have reached a point where each has expressed their views and we do not agree. I do not see that further discussion on this topic will help.

If humans have free will and that's why we can choose, then either other animals have free will or no other animals make choices.

The problem is that you allow yourself to invent influences for which there is no evidence of influence. If that does not work, you select "unknown" influences which by definition cannot be known.

I wonder why you will not give me one specific example for us to explore.

I'm still quite amazed that you think you can make decisions that are not influenced at all by anything. That's quite a position to hold and I wonder if anyone else here would be so bold.

Those are inside influences. Outside influences are those outside of us, by definition.

A tumor is an inside influence? I guess literally, sure. But it is an unwelcomed influence, I reckon?

But let's meet again on a different discussion. You and I and Brad have covered this pretty well now. Agree?

Looks like I get the last word on the topic.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If humans have free will and that's why we can choose, then either other animals have free will or no other animals make choices.

How does that logically follow?

I wonder why you will not give me one specific example for us to explore.

I can answer that easily. Because you will make up influences and you have to do so because you cannot observe me. I recall one influence was what my mother ate.

I'm still quite amazed that you think you can make decisions that are not influenced at all by anything. That's quite a position to hold and I wonder if anyone else here would be so bold.

There has to be a first decision with no influence, at least. You cannot everyone on the planet always making the second decision based on the first.

A tumor is an inside influence? I guess literally, sure. But it is an unwelcomed influence, I reckon?

There are unwelcome influences, true, inside and outside. The wise man KNOWS what is influencing his decisions and chooses which to go with.

Looks like I get the last word on the topic.

Depends upon what you write.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

How does that logically follow?

If you define free will as an ability to make choices, it absolutely follows. I wonder which you think it is. Do animals make choices and thus have free will? Or do they not have free will and thus aren't able to make choices?

I can answer that easily. Because you will make up influences and you have to do so because you cannot observe me. I recall one influence was what my mother ate.

I didn't make up an influence for you. I gave a list of all kinds of things that could influence a decision. But try me and see if I'm unfair.

There has to be a first decision with no influence, at least. You cannot everyone on the planet always making the second decision based on the first.

Let's find a specific example of a decision where there can be no influence.

There are unwelcome influences, true, inside and outside. The wise man KNOWS what is influencing his decisions and chooses which to go with.

Can someone be wise and not aware they have a brain tumor?

Depends upon what you write.

I wrote this stuff!

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t say it was a waste of time. I said actually your thoughts are interesting. It teaches me how people sometimes think. Actually it’s fascinating.

I have come to see, for example, it’s quite common for people to hold to theories or philosophies they cannot actual live with it apply to real life. These are the ones who never arrive at understanding the world. But how this works out is quite different in different people.

But let's not confuse the way the world works (or at least the way that we think that the world works) with how we react to it. The physicist Richard Feynman (that's not my piccie on the left, it's Feynman's) said this:

"I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

Knowing more about the world makes it that much richer. And as far as free will goes, if I discovered that there was a materialistic explanation for literally everything and my wife is my wife because the stars aligned in such a way and there was a sequence of events going back to the begining of time where everything had to have happened exactly as it did for us to be together...then how lucky can I possibly be?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But let's not confuse the way the world works (or at least the way that we think that the world works) with how we react to it. The physicist Richard Feynman (that's not my piccie on the left, it's Feynman's) said this:

"I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

Knowing more about the world makes it that much richer. And as far as free will goes, if I discovered that there was a materialistic explanation for literally everything and my wife is my wife because the stars aligned in such a way and there was a sequence of events going back to the begining of time where everything had to have happened exactly as it did for us to be together...then how lucky can I possibly be?

Like "Unweaving the Rainbow"

 

[Bradskii]

Like "Unweaving the Rainbow"

My grandson was at our place a few months back and a rainbow appeared just before a shower came over. And I took the opportunity to explain how the sunlight shining through small drops of water was causing it. And showed him the colours you could get shining a light through glass held just so. He's a smart kid. Listened and took an interest.

Then our daughter turned up and the rainbow was still there. 'Mum, do you know the sun is making that?' Hard to explain the amount of pleasure I felt at that moment.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you define free will as an ability to make choices, it absolutely follows.

Add the ability to make choices without outside coersion or influence. Doesn't mean those are not there. Just means we can decide independently of them. [/quote]I wonder which you think it is. Do animals make choices and thus have free will? Or do they not have free will and thus aren't able to make choices?[/quote] Since we have no inside information as to what goes on in an animal's thinking, we cannot know.

I didn't make up an influence for you. I gave a list of all kinds of things that could influence a decision. But try me and see if I'm unfair.

But there was no evidence for those things. And you have no way to get evidence for this. We are talking the thinking processes and how one comes to a conclusion. You say it is not free because it always results from previous mostly unknown influences. I say it can be free if we choose no to be influenced. So how can you know if there are influences? You do not know me and yet insist they are there.

Let's find a specific example of a decision where there can be no influence.

But you will just make up influences without requiring any real information or evidence.

Can someone be wise and not aware they have a brain tumor?

Depends upon how large it is and where it is.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But let's not confuse the way the world works (or at least the way that we think that the world works) with how we react to it. The physicist Richard Feynman (that's not my piccie on the left, it's Feynman's) said this:

"I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

Knowing more about the world makes it that much richer. And as far as free will goes, if I discovered that there was a materialistic explanation for literally everything and my wife is my wife because the stars aligned in such a way and there was a sequence of events going back to the begining of time where everything had to have happened exactly as it did for us to be together...then how lucky can I possibly be?

Feyman's friend was putting him down and Feyman did not recognize it. Not much of a friend. The guy was painting himself as superior. Tells us something of his character, I might add.

Interesting that he thinks evolution adds to his appreciation but doesn't ask how the flowers cross pollinated before the insects where attracted to it. That is the question I have had since I learned about the interdepency of living organisms.

How did you verify that there is a materialistic explanation for literally everything? How did you establish this to be true in real life? Do you ever experience anger at what other people do? Why if they did it for reasons that they cannot control? Do you have children? Do you discipline them? Why if what they do is the result of a sequence of events going back to the beginning of time where everything they did had to have happened exactly as it did? Your anger at anyone makes no sense. How far do you apply your theory to real life? Just think about it a bit.

Now I am a Christian and I can take a totally different view of the world. I can get angry at the wrong people do because I think they really chose to do wrong and maybe for wrong reasons (more often than not.) I can also extend mercy to them as I have received mercy. I can encourage people to change and help them do so if they wish. I can make the world, my little bit of it, a better place.

You, on the other hand, are stuck in a cage of events that began at time. There is nothing you can do to make the world a better place. It is all preprogrammed, right? What men do to you was all set at the beginning of time and you hit your head against a rock to try and encourage change, both privately and in the culture you live in at large. Do you see how the Christain world view fits better in the real world? Can you see why Christians have fought against wrong in the cultures they lived and over time ended terrible wrongs and established caring societies? (That is a whole other discussion but many of the things we enjoy in the west comes right from Christianity and how it changed people.)

 

[Bradskii]

How did you verify that there is a materialistic explanation for literally everything? How did you establish this to be true in real life? Do you ever experience anger at what other people do? Why if they did it for reasons that they cannot control?

I'm really struggling to get this across: A lack of free will does not mean you cannot choose. I've repeated that in every post and you have ignored it each time.

If I tell my child not to steal and he does then that's the decision he would always make given the exact same circumstances. And if he chose not to, then the same applies. But he has the ability of forethought. He can see my reaction to either decision. And he will make his choice based on that (it goes deeper than that and he'll consider pride, guilt, love of the self, empathy for others, possible punishment etc). The possible results of his choice are part of the conditions under which he makes it (which makes his decision different from Phil's because Phil knew the results and could rerun the choice as many times as he wanted, which gave him access to free will).

If his decision is to ignore the risks then he may well pay the price and suffer the consequences. Which will then form part of the conditions applicable when next he has a similar choice. And so on. So as I have said previously, we aren't trapped in a specific sequence of events for all eternity. We learn from each choice we make and the sequence of events branch at that point. Otherwise learning would be impossible. Experience would count for nothing. But each individual decision would always be made the same way if the conditions were exactly the same. But future decisions, even about exactly the same matter, are based on conditions which have changed and include the results of past decisions.

Learning is a matter of changing internally. Punishment can obviously do this ('I was grounded last time, I won't do it this time'). So can guilt and pride and fear of being thought unworthy by one's peers. So conditions change (we have changed even if nothing external has). And we change our decisions accordingly.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Add the ability to make choices without outside coersion or influence. Doesn't mean those are not there. Just means we can decide independently of them.

I'm unaware of any decision that isn't influenced in part by prior circumstances.

Since we have no inside information as to what goes on in an animal's thinking, we cannot know.

We have information, but if you mean "inside information" as we have never thought as another animal before, that is true. I won't argue that point. Haha.

I don't think animals spend a lot of time planning out possible futures or "what if" type scenarios. I think that's a feature unique to the human mind. But that does mean animals have fewer potential ideas and unwelcome thoughts to impinge on their decision making. So maybe they have more free will than we do! I don't know.

But there was no evidence for those things. And you have no way to get evidence for this. We are talking the thinking processes and how one comes to a conclusion. You say it is not free because it always results from previous mostly unknown influences. I say it can be free if we choose no to be influenced. So how can you know if there are influences? You do not know me and yet insist they are there.

But you will just make up influences without requiring any real information or evidence.

I'm not going to tell you what you experienced though. What I would do is suggest ways you might have been influenced and ask if you think that impacted your decision.

Let's do this, and maybe we can converge here in some sense. You've referenced learning before as part of decision making. You have knowledge that you have acquired throughout your life. Things that you have learned both actively and passively. You are constantly taking in new information whether you intend to or not. At the moment you are making a choice, you are accessing the available information in your mind to make an informed decision. But what you can't do, in that moment, is choose what information you have acquired. And you don't have access to all the information in the universe, so you are already influenced by the limited set of life experiences you have had. Add in the fact that you can't utilize information you do have but that didn't occur to you to choose. That's to say, you can't even reference everything you've ever learned in that moment to help with your decision.

Can someone be wise and not aware they have a brain tumor?

Depends upon how large it is and where it is.

"Depends" answers my question. Thank you.