Free Will?

[yuri_sakazaki]

water, what would you say makes free will work in the ways it does? What I mean is that you acknowledge emotions are bi-products of other things, and they don't magically happen. So what factors would sway somebody's free will to hold a certain belief (belief affects free will according to you, but free will affects beliefs too obviously) over another? It seems to go in a circle with no real origin, which is mostly why I started the thread anyway- to understand how we have an origin of free will independent from dictation. If you say that there are no factors unaffected by free will that determine free will, that means it is almost random, which negates free will to begin with. I'm not challenging your view because everything you've said makes sense but it seems you have left this part of the explanation out.

 

[water]

Very true. Personally I don't see how having someone outside of time looking in, seeing everything that has happened, is happening and will happen effects the process of how it is has occured, is occuring and is going to occur. I guess it is all from perspective really.

But let's not forget that Christianity also states that God is an acting God. God doesn't just sit there and watch, it's not that He never interfers with His creation.


* * *

But how would you define an incoherent/inconsistent belief system? Even the most well-adjusted people are walking paradoxes, holding many different beliefs that seem mutually exclusive: reality and myth, knowledge and ignorance, love and fear. This is where relationships come in: with humanity, society, nature, God. I think what makes a belief system coherent or not, is how it integrates all these archetypes, in whatever form or symbolism, visible or invisible, tangible or intangible, into our everyday lives - through words, thoughts and actions.

Coherence is all about the relationships between things, and our consistencies and the coherence of our beliefs are a function of how we relate to ourselves, each other and the universe we inhabit, temporal and spatial.

How to define an incoherent/inconsistent belief system? The theory presented here (by me, and then by you), seems to work, but how to prove it in practice? By observing the corpus of a person's beliefs. Ie. they can be written down, and analyzed logically for consistency and coherence.

There is a problem though: People don't always do what they *say* that they believe. How to accout for this discrepancy? By finding out how they themselves account for this discrepancy.


* * *

I don’t believe we do actually have full free will and our emotions are one of the factors that influence how we exercise our free will. We have free will but it is not always under full control of the self.

This depends on what you mean by "self". Does this "self" refer to what you *are*, or to what you think you want to be?

We don't exist apart from our emotions, neither do they "have an impact on our free will". What they have "impact" on is rational thinking -- but this "impact" is possible only when a person's rational thinking is inconsistent and incoherent.

Your are saying that your emotions only influence you when you are not thinking clearly and consistently.

No, I am not saying that my emotions only influence me when I am not thinking clearly and consistently.
Two things: One, I say emotions do not influence our free will. Two, we do not have emotions only when we are not thinking clearly and consistently. As I explain later, there are "secondary emotions" that appear as a reaction to inconsistent and incoherent thinking.

Anger and frustration are not the only emotions we have, what about peace, contentment, satisfaction, desire, happiness, loyalty, trust, etc. all of these will influence how we exercise our will. If the will is influenced it is not free.

It seems to me that you think that your emotions are *not* an integrative part of your self. That your self exists somehow apart from your emotions. If you indeed think so, then explain what basis do you have for assuming that emotions are not just as part of your self as your rational thinking is.

I think that the "impact of emotions" as described above is actually about "secondary emotions" (for the lack of a better term), emotions that come as a reaction to specific cognitive states. These emotions have nothing to do with our free will, they do not limit it. They are reactions to cognitive inconsistency and incoherence -- and these are indicative of our limited knowledge and abilities, not of a limited free will.

In the example you gave they do fit and they may well be ‘secondary emotions’ they have something to do with our free will if they influence our will in some way thus making it influenced will rather than free.

Please read again what I said.

Being happy or sad may not effect your free will in a given situation but being happy or sad may effect your free will in another.

Do you really believe that your emotions are not part of your self?

If a person pereceives a tension between his emotions and his agenda of himself, this is once more indicative of there being a cognitive inconsistency and incoherence between the beliefs he holds. Again, something that is indicative of our limited knowledge and abilities, not of a limited free will.

Granted, identified incongruence is not necessarily indicative of limited free will, but incongruence could influence the will making it influenced will. Limited knowledge and abilities do not(or do they?).

That that incongruence could influence the free will making it influenced will -- how? The incongruence can be overcome, with a sheer effort of will. You identify the incongruence, think why it happened, if you can't do it yourself, you can go and ask someone, and it will be resolved.

Note: If you go and ask someone this isn't indicative of your limited free will to figure out something yourself -- we have limited knowledge and abilities, but knowledge and abilities can be gained, in different ways, from various sources. It is when you accept that knowledge, integrate it into resolving those inconsistencies, that you have applied your free will.

I feel the ground shifting beneath my feet.

Why?

I disagree. As soon as we accept the theory that we have only limited free will, we're on a slippery slope.

This is we are getting stuck, you are saying that are free will is unlimited uninfluencable (is that a word?) and there is nothing that can sway your decisions or you determination to carry out your decision?

If I have indeed decided and I am clear about my beliefs (my knowledge and my abilities), then nothing can sway my decision (other than new, additional information -- but this, depending on the situation).

So when you say ‘my love, my love I Will never betray', and you mean it so much that it is enblazened in your heart like a cattle brand(sorry). You Will be able to not betray love, even when over come by desire for the tall gentleman with the greasy hair and stubble(just geussing hes your type). If you can then, you have the will you are in tune with your true will, if you cannot resist your will is weak it has been influenced and lead astray.
But now I realise a question, what is the true will in that situation above the true will is to meet your desires, the will to not betray love has become secondary for that night, the primary will is satisfaction of desire.

If I love my man, and am committed to him, I would never even see another one, I'd be, in effect, blind for other men.

You are describing a situation where the person isn't sure about her beliefs, holds inconsistent beliefs. Like:
1. I love my man.
2. Desire is great.
This can lead to betrayal, as her desire isn't believed to be only about her man; the desire is treated as something more general.

I agree, and we have agreed on this before. The example with the prisoner is also about environmental factors knowledge and ability rather than Will. We have said it before and agreed we cannot swim to the moon, etc, it cannot be done no matter how strong our will is. it is unrelated to free will,
though i am getting a sense of missing something, in how environmental factors are an influence in some way.

Our mind basically functions in such a manner that we can combine *any* two phenomena: you can imagine an elephant rollerskating, you can imagine fish flying, you can imagine having green woolen hair growing on your soles.
But our experience with the environment is such that not any combination of phenomena is possible to observe; not all combinations of phenomena exist as real things (at least not to our knowledge). As such, the real world is limited in comparison to what we can imagine. The real world provides us with information we can then process into knowledge, and we can handle the phenomena in the real world with our abilities. The limitations of the real world are the limitations of our knowledge and abilities, but they are not a limitation of our free will, -- as it should be clear by now.

We should not judge a person's free will (that preceded the action!) by the outcome of the action!

We should try not to judge a person full stop. They have their role to play, they have their life to live, they have their lesson to learn. Peters actions where what they where, he done what he was best able to do in that situation.

No no no, you misunderstood. I said: We should not judge a person's free will (that preceded the action!) by the outcome of the action! -- we should not judge free will by the outcome of the action planned and performed on this free will.
Free will is not the same as the action planned and performed by it!

But was his will free from influence? I think not!

If we argue that free will is limited, we get ourselves into an infinite analysis of *how* this free will is limited, *when* it is limited and when not, *why* it is limited ...

Example: Martin has dyslexia. We could say that Martin has troubles reading and writing due to his freewill being limited by dyslexia. But Martin is also a top soccer player. If his free will is limited -- then how can he be a top soccer player? In order to be a top soccer player, it takes a lot of talent, effort, and especially discipline. But how is Martin to maintain that discipline if he supposedly has only limited free will? To keep up with the idea that Martin has limited free will, we would have to denigrate his soccer success!!

What definitely is influenced are our knowledge and abilities, our options. Martin's abilities to speak and write are definitely influenced by dyslexia.
But as already the example above shows, the idea that free will is limited is methodologically hard to sustain -- we get a mess of situations where the same person supposedly has free will in one, but has only limited or no free will in another situation. If free will is to be about the ability to make decisions, then how are we reconcile these contradictions -- without denigrating the situations where the person obviously excells in what we consider free will?


The argument "free will is limited" is the same as the "nobody's perfect" argument -- they both suppose that humans *ought* to be perfect, absolute, omnimax, but due to some very unfortunate way of things, humans aren't so. The argument "Free will is limited" displays a lack of understanding of how we make decisions and perform actions; or it displays a certain ethical (negativistic) stance towards humans.


* * *

Humans are about as free as a dog on a leash.

Then think: When an owner goes out for a walk with his dog -- who is leading whom? Who has whom on the leash?


* * *

You didn't answer my question. The reason you didn't answer it is because you know where I am going with it and you don't like the answer.

You've got some nerve! You think you know what I'm thinking, even though I haven't told you? Huh?

The answer to my question was obviously that God Y was more powerful than God X because God Y had all of the abilities of God X plus one more ability that God X didn't have.

Generic gods ...

Why do you say that I am not talking about the God of the Bible? That is exactly the God I am talking about because there is no other God. The God of the BIble is the God of our universe. He is the one true God.

Non sequitur. Just because there is one true God does not automatically mean that when you talk about God/god, you are talking about the God of the Bible.

My example above was just a little hypothetical based on 2 fictitious gods to try and prove a point.

And this is exactly what you shouldn't do if you are talking about real phenomena.

I frankly do not understand why you say that God does not have the ability to choose not to know something.

When have I said that God does not have the ability to choose not to know something? Quote me.

Why do you say that God (meaning the God of the Bible) is like God X in my example and not like God Y?

I've never said that.

Let's go over my first post to you here:

1.

Nobody, including God, knows what we will do.

This is against the axiom that God is omnimax.

If we are to discuss anything about Christianity, we have to keep to the axioms given by the Christian theology.

2.

Who are we to say what the nature of an omniscient God should be? The truth is that God can choose not to know something if he wishes.

If we are not to say what the nature of an omniscient God should be, then we also can't say what the truth about this God's omniscience is.

3.

God could indeed know in advance every choice you will ever make if he wanted to know that. But God deliberately chooses not to see what choices we will make as individuals so that you will feel your life is not predetermined.

I see how this makes sense to you, but you are basing it on a non sequitur: You are starting from the supposition that if God knows things about us, this automatically affects the way we think about ourselves. (In effect, you're saying we're puppets with no free will.) So, to keep our free will, you infer that God must strip Himself of His omniscience, modify it -- for if God were omnimax, we'd have no free will. According to you.

According to you, as far as I understand, humans can have free will because God has decided to not see what choices humans will make. This implies that you think that if God would know what choices humans would make, this would mean that humans have no free will.

As you confirm my understanding of your thinking later, when you say:

Also if God had known what Abraham would do it would not have been a real and honest test.

So according to you, Abraham's "test" wouldn't be honest if God knew how it would turn out.
I said, "The "test" was meant for Abraham, to show Abraham that he has the right faith, and, what is more, that God is with him."

Why you aren't talking about the God of the Bible? Because you completely fail to see the axiom that God is loving. Can you not understand that a *loving* omnimax God (who knows the future) would do things, "test" His children -- because He wants to show His children that he loves them, that He is with them? Abraham wasn't sure of his faith in God, but God loved him, and He wanted to make clear to Abraham that his faith is right. Hence the "test".
Humans do not exist completely apart from God, without God having any power over them -- even though humans may think so. But just because humans think they are apart from God, this doesn't mean that God is apart from them.

You have come up with an elaborate theory to exaplin how humans have God-given free will (by God choosing not to know what choices they will make) and in this you completely circumvent God's love.

I point out two things in critique of your theory:
1. If God knows what choices we will make, this does not diminish our free will. We have free will given by God, and this is undisputable (if we keep to Christianity).
2. God reconciles His omniscience with human free will (given to humans by Him) in that He is loving. He loves, and His knowing the future (and everything) is not met with disdain.


* * *

P.S. ellion said - to water - "when over come by desire for the tall gentleman with the greasy hair and stubble(just geussing hes your type)" I hope so because that is me to a tee. Ha ha. Oh, except the gentleman part. Damn!

Yes, you have lost your gentlemanness by saying the above.
A gentleman doesn't talk about his being a gentleman. He *is* a gentleman.


* * *

But the question was asked and those whom God has allowed to understand will.

Adstar: Your comment here would completely negate free will. If it's all down to who god 'allows', then there isn't a personal choice in the matter.

You argued yourself into a corner.

No, he hasn't argued himself into a corner. According to Christianity, free will is given by God, one cannot give oneself free will. One is under God's rule, and God decided what He will do with this person. One of these decisions is to give this person free will. But one is still under God's rule.
Christianity is consistent here.


* * *

My understanding of omniscience is that God knows what will happen at any time in the way that we know the past. Take the history of the world, for example. We did not cause the events to happen, but we can look back and see what happened. As we can know the past, God can know the past, present and future without causing the events to happen.

This is an interesting approach. A very good one.

Now, we must account for that God does interfere with His Creation. And He can do so and be *just* only because He is omnimax.


* * *

§outh§tar,


Here comes my man!
(Do you know the song Here comes your man by the Pixies?)

"Free will" seems to be a certain summary term that can, in certain contexts, certainly be interpreted in opposition to "determnism". But otherwise, "free will" seems to be a summary term for a list of cognitive, emotive, ethical, practical strategies -- and when we act on our "free will", we actually act on those cognitive, emotive, ethical, practical strategies.

* * *

To be elaborated. But the main problem I have with anti-free-willers is that they consider free will to be something absolutistic, that free will would exist if under necessary conditions C phenomeon P could either happen or not. In other words, that free will would exist if objective reality were inconsistent.
Now this, this is a plunge into insanity to have such a definition of free will, and an unforgivable laziness to go and refute free will from this presupposition.

Before I begin to dismantle this , would you like to condense it and say 'free will' the ability to choose (or any such variation of your liking centered on choice)? By this way we eliminate the need to talk about not being able to sprout wings on will and so on.

That you raise the objection "By this way we eliminate the need to talk about not being able to sprout wings on will and so on" shows that you confuse will with the action performed on this will. See above in my reply to Ellion.

As for your previous post, I see nothing to comment on - all good stuff, well done!

But.

Can't say a word of praise without doubting it, huh?
Rich gifts wax poor if givers prove unkind.

You argue from false axioms... and these we will now inspect for 'consistency' and 'coherence' with the outer circle.

You mean -- you will transpose concepts from one discourse into another and when in the non-native discourse they prove to be inconsistent with the rest, or even nonsensical, you will treat this as "proof" that they were faulty to begin with?
This is the classical atomist fallacy.


* * *

water, what would you say makes free will work in the ways it does? What I mean is that you acknowledge emotions are bi-products of other things, and they don't magically happen. So what factors would sway somebody's free will to hold a certain belief (belief affects free will according to you, but free will affects beliefs too obviously) over another? It seems to go in a circle with no real origin, which is mostly why I started the thread anyway- to understand how we have an origin of free will independent from dictation. If you say that there are no factors unaffected by free will that determine free will, that means it is almost random, which negates free will to begin with. I'm not challenging your view because everything you've said makes sense but it seems you have left this part of the explanation out.

Like we have not given birth to ourselves, or chosen to be born, we do not choose to have free will. We have been given free will, and it is beyond us to change this. Some things are essentially pre-choice -- like being born; some things simply are not up to us.

Note: My free will had nothing to do with me being born; but me being born had everything to do with the free will of my parents. So, actually, free will was involved in me being born, but that wasn't *my* free will -- as at the point before my inception, there was *no me* to decide about my coming to existence.


I would also like to comment on something else that you've said:

water, what would you say makes free will work in the ways it does? What I mean is that you acknowledge emotions are bi-products of other things, and they don't magically happen.

Clarity: I said that *some* emotions are by-products of other processes.

Also, I believe ("primary") emotions are an integrative part of our self. Emotions never just "magically happen", they are native to our self just as our reason is.

So what factors would sway somebody's free will to hold a certain belief (belief affects free will according to you, but free will affects beliefs too obviously) over another?

Nothing would sway my free will. We hold certain beliefs according to the information that we have. If there is sufficient information, we believe -- unless we have a ulterior motive, or are mentally ill. What is "swayed" -- what changes are the *contents* of our cognitive system.

I never said beliefs affect free will: I say beliefs affect -- or better: effect -- our actions, the way we conceptualize ourselves and the world.

If you say that there are no factors unaffected by free will that determine free will, that means it is almost random, which negates free will to begin with.

According to Christianity, free will is given by an omnimax entity. Just like existence.
I understand how this looks as if a given free will isn't free at all.But if free will (as an ability to choose, make decisions and act on them), is given, this doesn't mean that it is directed or determined (it is not so, it is *free* by definition -- if we are to consistently keep to the terminology of the discourse).

If free will is given this doesn't mean that the decisions made on this free will are determined. We do not make the options between which we choose -- and to some, this seems to be a proof against free will. To some, human free will would exist if we would both be able to 1. make the options, and 2. choose between them.
This is a nonsensical demand, as it also leads to the supposition that if we are to have free will, we should also be able to decide whether to be born or not: that if we are to have free will, we should be able to decide even about things that precede our existence (our existence being the condition for us to have free will in the first place!).

We don't make our options, but we can choose between them. That we don't make our options speaks only about how our environment and our body are of a certain kind, providing certain options. And from this environment being of a certain kind, comes our knowledge that is also of a certain kind, and it is safe to assume that this knowledge is limited (the assumption proves true every time we learn something new). Our bodies being of a certain kind, we can't do everything, but some things we can do. It is certainly true that our knowledge and our abilities are limited, but I don't see why our free will would therefore be limited as well.

I'm not challenging your view because everything you've said makes sense but it seems you have left this part of the explanation out.

I'm glad you brought his up!

 

[cole grey]

Water,

Free-will is a valid term when used in a theological discussion, as it is one way of distinguishing humanity from the other, more powerful, more free (to act), "being" (and I use the term loosely), that we call "GOD", and to distinguish humanity from the less powerful, less free to act, beings we call "animals".

When used in other types of arguments, to judge humans against each other, it may become a rather complex and unusable term (as you seem to be pointing out).

I think, even more than the ability to choose to act, God also has an ability to choose to think, an ability which humanity is not only limited in, but also purposefully chooses to limit. Then again compared to animals, we are much more able to freely think.

Also, regarding Abraham-

I said, "The "test" was meant for Abraham, to show Abraham that he has the right faith, and, what is more, that God is with him."

This is a good explanation of this event, the most valid in my opinion.

Something about this bothers me though, it reminds me of a question you asked me a little while back, "what about the people who don't feel that God is with them?" What about the people who fail the test? What if you are in over your head?

I was thinking of how the christian reads everything Jesus says to his disciples as having a direct application to them. Then I thought, if I ask you to be in my band, I expect you to practice every song, becoming expert at playing them all. But what if one is just a fan? Obviously you aren't required to do that. Just a thought.


P.S. The term "gentleman" is used by the bourgeoise who have forgotten that they are animals too.
***Cole Grey walks to the kitchen to "forage" for breakfast.***

Edit- ***finishes a banana***
re: the pixies - "dig for fire"
I think that is what we are trying to do here in our discussions.

 

[yuri_sakazaki]

Water: You didn't answer what I intended my question to mean. I'll rephrase it: What makes your free will decide to make choice b rather than choice a? And if the beliefs make you decide choice b, what made you decide those beliefs? Accepting presented information makes you decide your beliefs, but doesn't that mean that if we are going to automatically accept the information then we'll automatically come to certain beliefs and automatically make certain decisions? My problem was wondering how you (or anyone) explain our free will manifests and decides to freely will one choice over another.

PS: I was using affect instead of effect correctly, I am pretty sure. I looked both of them up and still think so. You affect something, and then an effect occurs. There are nouns and verbs for both words, but I think I'm using them correctly and you aren't. No hard feelings =P

 

[ellion]

This depends on what you mean by "self". Does this "self" refer to what you *are*, or to what you think you want to be?

THE SELF IS THE TOTALITY OF THE EXPERIENCE. THAT WHICH IS WHAT IT IS AND THAT WHICH THINKS WHAT IT WANTS TO BE ARE THE SAME SELF IN DIFFERENT STATES.

We don't exist apart from our emotions, neither do they "have an impact on our free will". What they have "impact" on is rational thinking -- but this "impact" is possible only when a person's rational thinking is inconsistent and incoherent.

Your are saying that your emotions only influence you when you are not thinking clearly and consistently.

No, I am not saying that my emotions only influence me when I am not thinking clearly and consistently.
Two things: One, I say emotions do not influence our free will. Two, we do not have emotions only when we are not thinking clearly and consistently. As I explain later, there are "secondary emotions" that appear as a reaction to inconsistent and incoherent thinking.

IN THE FIRST SENTENCE HERE YOU SAY THAT EMOTIONS DO NOT HAVE IMPACT(INFLUENCE) ON OUR FREE WILL
BU THEY HAVE IMPACT ON OUR RATIONAL THINKING. HOW DO YOU SEE THEM IMPACTING ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. THIS SUGGESTS THAT ONE OF THESE THINGS IS A NOT AN INTEGRATED PART, THE EMOTIONS HAVE NO CONNECTION TO FREE WILL BUT DO HAVE CONNECTION TO COGNITION.

YOU THEN SAY THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT REAFFIRM 1EMOTIONS DO NOT INFLUENCE OUR FREE WILL
2SECONDARY EMOTIONS ARE BORN OF INCONGRUENCE. THIS SUGGEST AGAIN THAT EMOTIONS (SECONDARY) ARE SOMEHOW DETACHED FROM ASPECTS OF THE SELF AND ARE A FUNTION OF COGNITIVE PROCESS.

I CAN SEE HOW (SECONDARY)EMOTION CAN BE BORN OF COGNITIVE PROCESS BUT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE NO IMPACT ON FREE WILL IS TO DETACH THEM FROM THE WHOLE (A BLACK AND WHITE PAINTING).

A QUESTION DOES FEAR EFFECT FREE WILL?
TO THE SAME EXTENT ANXIETY IS AN INTERNAL FEAR (A SECONDARY EMOTION IN YOUR TERMINOLOGY) BEING BORN OF COGNITIVE PROCESS, WOULD ANXIETY EFFECT FREE WILL?

Anger and frustration are not the only emotions we have, what about peace, contentment, satisfaction, desire, happiness, loyalty, trust, etc. all of these will influence how we exercise our will. If the will is influenced it is not free.

It seems to me that you think that your emotions are *not* an integrative part of your self. That your self exists somehow apart from your emotions. If you indeed think so, then explain what basis do you have for assuming that emotions are not just as part of your self as your rational thinking is.

I DONT, BUT I THINK YOU DO, AND YOU THINK I DO, SO THIS MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH HOW WE PROCESS INFORMATION DIFFERENTLY.

Being happy or sad may not effect your free will in a given situation but being happy or sad may effect your free will in another.

Do you really believe that your emotions are not part of your self?

THIS IS QUITE CONFUSING FOR ME, HOW DOES BEING EFFECTED BY THESE EMOTIONS MAKE THEM NOT PART OF MYSELF. BEING EFFECTED BY EMOTION (HAPPINESS / SADNESS) MEANS THEY ARE SO MUCH A PART OF ME THAT THEY CAN AND DO HAVE A VERY REAL EFFECT ON THE WHOLE OF MYSELF, EMOTIONS ARE FELT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF MY BEING EVEN IN FLESH AND BLOOD.

That that incongruence could influence the free will making it influenced will -- how? The incongruence can be overcome, with a sheer effort of will. You identify the incongruence, think why it happened, if you can't do it yourself, you can go and ask someone, and it will be resolved.

Note: If you go and ask someone this isn't indicative of your limited free will to figure out something yourself -- we have limited knowledge and abilities, but knowledge and abilities can be gained, in different ways, from various sources. It is when you accept that knowledge, integrate it into resolving those inconsistencies, that you have applied your free will.

HOW INCONGRUENCE EFFECTS FREE WILL!
THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE AND MOST PREVALENT IS THE SEXUAL INSTINCT. IN BOTH GENDERS SEXUAL URGE IS A VERY REAL PHYSIOLOGICAL DRIVE. THROUGH SOCIALIZATION, AN INDIVIDUAL MAY AQUIRE FEELINGS OF GUILT ABOUT THERE SEXUALITY, THEY HAVE REAL NEED TO EXPRESS THERE SEXUALITY BUT THEY HAVE A REAL NEED TO NOT FEEL GUILTY, WE NOW HAVE AN INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN TWO REAL NEEDS, THIS INCONGRUENCE IS NOW GOING TO BE A HUGE PROBLEM FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL EVERYTIME A SITUATION ARISES THAT AROUSES FEELINGS AOF A SEXUAL NATURE, THE INDIVIDUALS FREE WILL, TO SATISFY THERE SEXAUL APPETEITE IS INFLUENCED BY THERE FEELINGS OF GUILT(WHICH FEELINGS ARE LESS NATURAL, THAN THE SEXUAL URGE)

IN THE QUOTE ABOVE YOU AGAIN MOVED INTO A BLACK AND WHITE PAINTING, THE INCONGRUENCE CAN BE OVERCOME IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS AND IF THE WILL OF THE INDIVIDAUL IS FREE ENOUGH BUT NOT EVERYBODY HAS THE STRENGTH OF FREE WILL TO OVERCOME SSITUATIONS. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE SOMONE WHO SMOKES BUT HATES SMOKING, ALL FORMS OF ADDICTION, EATING DISODERS. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE NO FREE WILL BUT THERE WILL IS NOT FREE ENOUGH(THATS SUCH AN AWKWARD EXPRESSION, SORRY) IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION

I feel the ground shifting beneath my feet.

Why?

I WAS IDENTIFYING INTERNAL PROCESSES WHICH ARE EFFECTED BY ENVIROMENTAL FACTORS, AND SEEING A POSSIBILITY OF OUR FREE WILL BEING INFLUENCED AT SOME UNCONSCIOUS LEVEL BY THESE FACTORS. I HAVENT HAD TIME TO EXPLORE THIS YET.

If I love my man, and am committed to him, I would never even see another one, I'd be, in effect, blind for other men.

You are describing a situation where the person isn't sure about her beliefs, holds inconsistent beliefs. Like:
1. I love my man.
2. Desire is great.
This can lead to betrayal, as her desire isn't believed to be only about her man; the desire is treated as something more general.

YOU HAVE RESPONDED IN A WAY WHICH IS UNIQUELY YOURS NOT ALL PEOPLE WILL HAVE THESE SAME VALUES / BELIEFS AS YOUR SELF. WITH THE EXAMPLE I WAS TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE WILL CAN BE COME INFLUENCED IN GIVEN SITUATIONS BY EMOTIONAL STATES.

If we argue that free will is limited, we get ourselves into an infinite analysis of *how* this free will is limited, *when* it is limited and when not, *why* it is limited ...

NOT NECESSARILY(BLACK AND WHITE PAINTING)
IT IS LIMITED WHEN IT IS LIMITED, IT IS NOT LIMITED WHEN IT IS NOT LIMITED, THE REASON WHY IS DEPENDENT UPON THE SITUATION, ANALYSING IT IS AS INFINITE AS THE AMMOUNT OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE LIMITS ARE INPLACE

Example: Martin has dyslexia. We could say that Martin has troubles reading and writing due to his freewill being limited by dyslexia. But Martin is also a top soccer player. If his free will is limited -- then how can he be a top soccer player? In order to be a top soccer player, it takes a lot of talent, effort, and especially discipline. But how is Martin to maintain that discipline if he supposedly has only limited free will? To keep up with the idea that Martin has limited free will, we would have to denigrate his soccer success!

NON SEQUITIR, THE ARGUMENT DOESNT FOLLOW.
A LIMITATION DOES NOT EQUAL COMPLETE NEGATION

DOES MARTIN HAVE FREE WILL? YES! HE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HIS LIFE FREE FROM INFLUENCE. IS HIS FREE WILL LIMITED? YES! IN SITUATIONS THAT PLACES CONSTRAINTS ON HIS WILL (WHATEVR THAT WILL MAY BE AT THAT TIME)

The argument "free will is limited" is the same as the "nobody's perfect" argument -- they both suppose that humans *ought* to be perfect, absolute, omnimax, but due to some very unfortunate way of things, humans aren't so. The argument "Free will is limited" displays a lack of understanding of how we make decisions and perform actions; or it displays a certain ethical (negativistic) stance towards humans.

THE ARGUMENT FREE WILL IS LIMITED IS NOT LIKE THIS FOR ME. FOR ME IT IS ABOUT SEEING INDIVIDUALS AS PART OF AN INTERCONNECTED FIELD OF PHENOMENAL EXPERIENCES, THAT FIELD TOGETHER WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL GIVE RISE TO REACTIONS AND BEHAVIOURS THAT CAN NOT BE SEPERATED ONE FROM THE OTHER. IT MAY SEEM TO YOU THAT YOUR ARGUMENT OF FREE WILL IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND MORE FULLY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DESCISION MAKING FACULTY AND HAS A MORE POSITIVE ETHICAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS HUMANS, BUT TO ME IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF BEING THAN MY OWN. IT IS ONLY RIGHT OR WRONG IN ITS EFFECTS ON THE SELF AND OTHER PEOPLE (WHICH IS MY ETHICAL STANCE FROM WITHIN MY PHENOMENAL FIELD)

 

[cole grey]

I believe water is asking for a definition of free-will that is consistent with the idea that humans (all of them) are endowed with it.

This idea is consistent with a discussion of the christian God, not necessarily so when discussing hypothetical Gods (such as a God which contains all the universe as a thought in it's "mind", for example, but then again, even that God would be described by eastern religions as giving free-reign to the thoughts so they can amuse "God").

When discussing free-will with this type of definition, free-will can not be something one person has a lot of, while another person is mostly lacking it.

Therefore, it can not be the ability to act freely, nor can it be the ability to make decisions for yourself, but rather it must be a universal quality of humanity. I am trying to think of a definition that will fit southstar's idea that we don't have it (because we kind of don't), and water's idea that we have a lot of it (because we do). I am still trying...

P.S. Or, we can describe it as something God gives to some people to counteract their slavery to a "fallen" existence, in which case some people have more than others and this is still consistent with the idea of free-will. EDIT- or maybe this is just determinism creeping into the mix.

 

[Jenyar]

Something about this bothers me though, it reminds me of a question you asked me a little while back, "what about the people who don't feel that God is with them?" What about the people who fail the test? What if you are in over your head?

I was thinking of how the christian reads everything Jesus says to his disciples as having a direct application to them. Then I thought, if I ask you to be in my band, I expect you to practice every song, becoming expert at playing them all. But what if one is just a fan? Obviously you aren't required to do that. Just a thought.

I've come across this in some Christians as well, who often come across as trying to intimidate you. But that supposes that all people are the same, and there is no room for being yourself. Scripture contradicts this notion in a few places. 1 Cor. 1:26-27 emphasizes that its not amazing wisdom or influence on people that makes faith useful. God acknowledges our differences, and can use us where we are and with what we have. If we are true fans, we will at least whistle the tune!

Romans 12:3-8 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.​

Abraham acted in faith, and his test was not something extraordinary in his times: most neighbouring religions considered the sacrifice of firstborn sons as the highest and most pleasing to gods. Although it surely seemed more than he could bear, he acted on his faith, "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25). Because of his faith, we know how to take comfort in God's faithfulness. We are in over our head, which is why he provided a substitute for Isaac, and Christ for us.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.​

All this seems to say: If we have the will, God will free it.

 

[water]

Free-will is a valid term when used in a theological discussion, as it is one way of distinguishing humanity from the other, more powerful, more free (to act), "being" (and I use the term loosely), that we call "GOD", and to distinguish humanity from the less powerful, less free to act, beings we call "animals".

When used in other types of arguments, to judge humans against each other, it may become a rather complex and unusable term (as you seem to be pointing out).

Hm. I wasn't pointing that out, but it's good you do it now.
In general, it holds true that a concept is fully useful only in its native discourse. While if transposed into another discourse, said concept may become useless.

I think, even more than the ability to choose to act, God also has an ability to choose to think, an ability which humanity is not only limited in, but also purposefully chooses to limit. Then again compared to animals, we are much more able to freely think.

... this, from the human perspective.

I said, "The "test" was meant for Abraham, to show Abraham that he has the right faith, and, what is more, that God is with him."

This is a good explanation of this event, the most valid in my opinion.

Something about this bothers me though, it reminds me of a question you asked me a little while back, "what about the people who don't feel that God is with them?" What about the people who fail the test? What if you are in over your head?

Then you are in over your head -- and I take God doesn't perform "tests" on you to show you something about Himself or your faith.

That we don't know what God knows is both a burden and a relief: It is a burden because if we knew what God knows about us -- if we knew our future, we could complacently fall into fatalism, and say "That's just the way it is, I can't do anything about it". Having the knowledge about us as God has it would make us lazy.

On the other hand, our not having that knowledge is giving us freedom to act. We see how very free we are, since we truly don't know our future -- and this freedom is sometimes very scary. It is also a relief though -- as we feel that we *can* do something, and that things *can* go the way we want them to go.

What about the people who don't feel that God is with them? -- Do they know for sure that God is not with them? To answer this question is a statement of faith.

What about the people who fail the test? -- Who fails the test? How does one know that one has failed the test? Unless one has God's knowledge, one doesn't know whether one has failed the "test" or not.

I was thinking of how the christian reads everything Jesus says to his disciples as having a direct application to them. Then I thought, if I ask you to be in my band, I expect you to practice every song, becoming expert at playing them all. But what if one is just a fan? Obviously you aren't required to do that. Just a thought.

That's right: You aren't required to do that. One can be just a fan (imagine: to be a fan of Jesus!). However, a fan never gets to play in the band, and if he does, he plays badly.

P.S. The term "gentleman" is used by the bourgeoise who have forgotten that they are animals too.
***Cole Grey walks to the kitchen to "forage" for breakfast.***

It is a mistake to identify virtue with refinement. A bourgeois is merely refined. But a gentleman has virtue.

Edit- ***finishes a banana***
re: the pixies - "dig for fire"
I think that is what we are trying to do here in our discussions.

... Monkeys gone to heaven that we are.
I'm weird, aren't I? Going down to the well I am.


P.S.
Is "dig for fire" an idiom? What does it mean?


* * *

Water: You didn't answer what I intended my question to mean. I'll rephrase it: What makes your free will decide to make choice b rather than choice a?

Free will doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Free will is *applied* in a situation where options are present, and a decision must be made.
My free will is observable in me choosing b.

Why do you think something *makes* my free will to make choice b rather than choice a?

And if the beliefs make you decide choice b, what made you decide those beliefs?

Accepting presented information makes you decide your beliefs, but doesn't that mean that if we are going to automatically accept the information then we'll automatically come to certain beliefs and automatically make certain decisions?

My problem was wondering how you (or anyone) explain our free will manifests and decides to freely will one choice over another.

Accepting presented information makes my beliefs.

That this is a decision is implied afterwards.

One cannot really decide what to believe; that one has decided to believe something is said afterwards, in recognition that it happened while we were conscious of ourselves, in control of ourselves -- as opposed to unconscious or forced.


We don't automatically "accept information".
If
1. the presented information is such that it fits into our already existing belief system,
or
2. if the presented information is such that by our criteria of what we find acceptable information qualifies as acceptable
-- then the presented information is accepted; and unless we have ulterior motives or are mentally ill, this process of accepting information happens automatically.

As you can imagine, this doesn't happen so easily though: at least the two above criteria must be satisfied. And they aren't easy to satisfy.

And while the process of accepting/rejecting information goes on, we can observe our free will at work.

Accepting presented information makes you decide your beliefs, but doesn't that mean that if we are going to automatically accept the information then we'll automatically come to certain beliefs and automatically make certain decisions?

Yes, that would happen if humans were not limited beings.

My problem was wondering how you (or anyone) explain our free will manifests and decides to freely will one choice over another.

I think this is the crucial point; and I also think this reply won't answer your question satisfactorily. But hang on, I think we can solve this!


What you have said above is said from the position that to have free will means 1. making your options, 2. choosing one of these options. Or that free will is observable in a vacuum (with the implication that if free will can't be observed in a vacuum, then it isn't free).

You asked how our free will manifests and decides to *freely* will one choice over another.
Then say what it means to "freely will one choice over another".

If by "freely" you mean 'not influenced by beliefs' -- then free will free in such a manner has no target, no aim, no application.

PS: I was using affect instead of effect correctly, I am pretty sure. I looked both of them up and still think so. You affect something, and then an effect occurs. There are nouns and verbs for both words, but I think I'm using them correctly and you aren't. No hard feelings =P

I know how you were using "affect" and "effect", and you were using them correctly.
And I was using them correctly as well: only that I meant something else than you. I used "effect" to mean 'to cause', not simply 'to influence'. "Affect" and "effect" are visually similar, and this is misleading; but their meanings are quite different.

 

[everneo]

The argument "free will is limited" is the same as the "nobody's perfect" argument -- they both suppose that humans *ought* to be perfect, absolute, omnimax, but due to some very unfortunate way of things, humans aren't so. The argument "Free will is limited" displays a lack of understanding of how we make decisions and perform actions; or it displays a certain ethical (negativistic) stance towards humans.

Can i fly over clouds like birds if i will ? If i 'can' then it will qualify for freewill otherwise it is a dream if not fantasy. Unlimited free will has no meaning other than fantasy , if you are not omnipotent.

 

[water]

Ellion,


Are you angry with me?

 

[water]

Can i fly over clouds like birds if i will ? If i 'can' then it will qualify for freewill otherwise it is a dream if not fantasy. Unlimited free will has no meaning other than fantasy , if you are not omnipotent.

You are equating the will with the action performed upon this will.
You are judging the will by the action performed upon the will.

Does this equating not bother you?

 

[ellion]

Water,
Definitely Not. You Are One Of The Blessed,
I Am Guided In The Way Of Treating You As Such.

 

[water]

Ellion,


I am sitting here, giggling, not surely knowing why ...
I'll reply to your post when I get my marbles together.
No offence.

 

[yuri_sakazaki]

Water: Once again, you misinterpret me. I wasn't asking about influence by beliefs limiting it or not. I was more asking where free will resides in a person (though it is still hard to verbalize). For example, is our free will a series of mental calculations deciding what is best or our soul trying to move toward our essence, or whatever other things it may be in. And if it is mental, would it not work just like a formula? If it is in our soul, what makes our essence what it is? And what could we do that we could be accountable for to change the formula or manipulate our essence? I'm sorry if that makes little sense. And the affect/effect is nice to know; I thought you were correcting me because you said 'affect- or even better: effect-' but I guess you weren't. Damn the public schools English teachers incorrectly correcting things like that.

 

[everneo]

You are judging the will by the action performed upon the will.

Does this equating not bother you?

In fact, i am judging the will by the actions that cannot be performed upon the will. In such case we don't call it a will, but dream/fantasy. But you can try and fail thats also your freewill.

 

[Jenyar]

Isn't "will" just the ability to express ourselves - thoughts, desires, impulses - in some way? In that sense, what is the difference between will and "free" will to a determinist?

 

[Silvertusk]

But let's not forget that Christianity also states that God is an acting God. God doesn't just sit there and watch, it's not that He never interfers with His creation.

Agreed. I don't see any problem with that. This is also why I do not have a problem with Jesus effectively praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsename. God, Outside the timeline was seeing himself inside the timeline praying to effectively a different person, but the same.


I think the athiests are going to chuck me in the lunacy bin now..

 

[everneo]

not only the atheists..

 

[Silvertusk]

not only the atheists..

LOL Fair play.

 

[everneo]

This "effectively 3 different persons but same God" logic is going to haunt christians for ever.