Free Will?

[everneo]

yeah, unless you believe in miracles.

 

[water]

What is possible -- this is very, very much open to debate.

And by this, also your ideas of what is free will and what fantasy.


Your free will is limited by what you deem reasonable or common sense, if I understand you correctly.

So you have been actually arguing about reasonability or common sense all along, not about free will. No wonder we didn't get along.

 

[everneo]

But i was sure since long back that you were talking about fantasy not freewill.

 

[water]

Now you are just being daft.

 

[everneo]

call me anything baby, fact hurts you too.

 

[water]

Watch your tongue. I could be your grandma.

 

[ellion]

ooops, i'll fix it now!

 

[ellion]

I make my theories such that I postulate that there is something in each person that remains, no matter what happens to this person. Meaning I posit a "force", an "energy" (for the lack of a better word so far), an ability that is there no matter what (except when meeting God).

can we call this 'force' the self?

i wonder why you say this self is not present when you meet god. where is god or more correctly where is god not?(hope non of those blindmen see that)when is there a moment when you are not in his presence?

But can this self exist without these possibilities? Are there some possibilities that are necessary?

your not going to like this.

the way i see it; the self does not exist except in relation to not self. and this is the meaning of individual {in-division-we-are-dual}
there needs to be something for self to reflect (a refferent) or self is not self and not self is one, being not in division. {non individual}

Well, how do emotions impact our rational thinking, I ask?

it was you that said they do here

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

but then you said they dont here

The connection fo emotions to cognition is that there are secondary emotions that emerge as reactions to certain cognitive states. These emotions don't impact our rational thinking; they are merely an indicator that our rational thinking was inconsistent and incoherent

i tried to show you in my last post but you ignored it, and now your asking me tell you why emotions impact our rational thinking when it was you that told me they did and it was me that wanted you to tell me....... *GRRRR*

any how, i know what you mean and there is an explanation later.

Well, how do emotions impact our rational thinking, I ask?

Is it the classical "When you're upset, you can't think"? or "When you're in love, you can't think"?

I disagree. When you're in love, your priorities are different, and you act and think in accordance with these priorities. This doesn't mean you can't think rationally. 2 + 2 is still 4.

If by "you can't think" is actually meant 'you don't behave the way you normally do' -- then we aren't talking about emotions influencing our rational thinking anyway. Then we're talking about the agenda one has for oneself -- and such agendas are just that: agendas, not reality.

your disagreeing with your own examples and your examples are very, very rigid any way. can you think of a time when your feelings where more powerful than your mind? when you fell in love and the power of your need to express and experience love lead you to behaviour which was totally irresponsible. even this example in its vagueness is still too rigid to include all the permutaions of the human condition in response to its circumsatnce. have you ever expereinced when your emotions are hieghtened and you think 2+2 FUCK 2+2 *RANT*RANT*FUCK*FUCK*RANT*. is that rational? i would consider that rationality affected by emotions.

If by "you can't think" is actually meant 'you don't behave the way you normally do' -- then we aren't talking about emotions influencing our rational thinking anyway.

i'm not talking about this or that i'm talking about none of them and at the same time all of them, or either of them, or any combination of them. i dont see how there is or could be a common rule to aply to all situations, when situations are inifnite. and why would you want such a rule?
because

I want to conceptualize a person's identity and their will in a manner that they remain intact regardless of circumstances

you mean like a stereotype? or an ideal? an a anolog personality? i dont know, but you seem to want something that is false and rigid to replace something real and dynamic.

With secondary emotions, the situation looks thus:

1. A cognitive dissonance (inconcistency, incoherence, incongruence) is discovered.

2. This triggers an emotional response.
Depending on other beliefs that this person holds, the repsonse is either A: defensive (anger, frustration; belief: "It is bad to find that you are wrong. It is wrong to be wrong. You must never show you're wrong."), or B: positive/affirmative (mild frustration; belief: "There's nothing wrong with being wrong. One should work out inconsistencies."). (Technically, it should also be posible to be completely indifferent upon finding an inconsistency, but I think only the mentally ill are so.)

3. The emotional response then sets the tone of thinking: whether the thinking will go A: in the direction of defense (anger continues), or B: in the direction of resolving the inconsistency.

In case A, the thinking indeed seems to be influenced by the negative emotions -- but I think it is in fact the belief that is negative, the negative emotions just accompany it.

again i have a problem with this illustration, that is, it is a limited conceptualization.

why does this person only have two types of response to his realization? the two responses are valid responses but they are not the only responses possible.
is it possible that this person had a response other than A or B?
for example indifference (the mentally ill thing was a joke, right?)

the beliefs in this and in all situations are a large part of the 'reality filter' negative beliefs will impact the self also, but this is my point again there is no hard and fast (black and white) rules as to how those beliefs or those emotions (or the not self, or the self) influence (or 'effect' or 'affect') each other in a positive (or negative) way it will be either or none or any or all or any combination, and only the individual can be certain (or the individual may be in complete confusion) of what is the appropriate (or inappropriate) experience in the situation.

i feel like i am preaching now, i dont mean to preach.

While this may be true for many people, it is way to inexact to give a reliable picture of what happens when we are "influenced by emotions" (note the quotation marks!).

exactly, and this is because there is no reliable picture. (especially if it is a monotone picture)

I want to conceptualize a person's identity and their will in a manner that they remain intact regardless of circumstances. (Aside from God, as stated above.)

i want to bring this to your attention again now, because it is important to me. when are you (or we) not with god, when are we not in the presence of god? when you speak above of losing the self (the force which is you) do you mean complete absorbtion into the not self, the anihalation of the division?



a self negating rule, yes (and no).

It first seemed to me that you deem rational thinking to be the seat of free will.
And if emotions can impact rational thinking, then they can also impact free will.

Now that we cleared up that rational thinking is not the seat of free will, and that emotions are an integrative part of the self, the picture is different

i think both are possible. that is emotion and cognition(comprehension, beliefs etc) could affect free will in given situations. as do emotions affect rational thinking, and rational thinking affect emotions in given situations. and this is what i mean about the infinite possibilities of influences. the multicoloured picture as opposed to the black and the white. not only do we have each affecting the other but each affect is an effect of the self or the not self in some or other combination of response and reaction.

It is not that emotions would impact free will.
Emotions are a content on which free will is applied. (Granted, in Western culture, we are not used to know ourselves this way, this is why emotions seem so foreign to us, something that "takes away our raitonality.)
Just as rational thoughts are a content on which free will is applied.

you say emotions are a content on which free will is applied. emotions for me are an experience of the self in relation to itself and the not self.

then you say that emotions are foreign to us, why to us. surely you mean to you (water). how do you know what level of emotional (or cognitive, or ethical) integration other people have achieved? you only have your own experience of self and the self's expereince of other selves (not self) from which to callibrate. if your experience of emotions seem to be that they are foreign to persons in western culture that does not make it so, that just makes it your experience.

experiences such as these are the content from which beliefs could be formulated.

It is not that emotions would impact free will.

it is not would, it is could.
emotions could impact free will.

it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.

what about the content which beliefs originate from, that emotional content, (or the cognitive content other than beliefs) i guess this is a lot to do with who you are water and how you relate to your reality.

We are observing ourselves, and at the same time we are the agents of and in ourselves. We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will". It is will because it does something, and it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system).

i'm wondering now if i may have overlooked something of what you mean.

if in Sitaution S the will is set upon Action A then Infleunce I affects Action.
the will in this Situation is no longer Free will, it has been Influenced.
so we dont have Free will in this Situation.
but this is only applicable to situation S.
free will is still applicable in other Situations.
so we have it or we dont dependent on the situation and the influences present but if we dont have it in situation S that doesnt mean we dont have it, at all, ever.
we can have it, but at the same time not have it. am i right?


i shall share something of how i have come to my understanding of free will. (have patience, i am going somewhere with this) the will of my cup is to hold my coffee, my cup will hold my coffee. in a sense that is the purpose of my cup. but it is not the only will of the cup my cup will stay where i put it, it is the cups will to be still.

the cup has many different wills, but many of them can be broken by my greater will. i will put in my cup tea if i will and my cup will not protest for it has not the will for protest. and there will be wills of the cup that i even with my vastly supereior will cannot break, such as the cups will to cease its existence. one day my cup will not be a cup and all though i can hasten the cups will to cease existence or i can protect my cup with the strength of my will, one day it will cease its existence as my cup.


with my self it is incredibly more complex, and my will should be seen as a dynamic process. my true will at this point in my life is to expereince and express my self to, know who is the self in relation to the not self, my whole being is evidence of this.

if you look at my expressions with a degree of comprehension of the nature of such wills of the self you will see that this expression of my experience is strikingly obvious.
and this is the same for my experience of everybody, there will is manifest through the expressions of their experience and by the fruit is the tree known.

for a large part of my life survival was my true will a sheer fight for my life with all that was not my self. before the will to survive there was a will to be loved and to give love, before that to seak pleasure, there has been a will to destroy myself and this is how i mean dynamic process of change.

many wills of the sellf have moved in and out of my experience of self and these are the larger wills, my reasons for being and the purpose of my existence. there are the smaller wills the decisions the actions the reasons reactions response and behaviour all of my will, the larger the smaller the long term the short term, will be affected (or effected) by other wills, of the self and the not self, this is the intercourse of energetic principles.

this is why now i can say yes, i have free will but also i will admit no, my will is not always free, for when it is not free from interference or influence, impact or impression it is not free will.

One either has free will, or one doesn't have free will.

i'll say this again and you can tell me if i have it right:

i'm wondering now if i may have overlooked something of what you mean.

if in Sitaution S the will is set upon Action A then Infleunce I affects Action.
the will in this Situation is no longer Free will, it has been Influenced.
so we dont have Free will in this Situation.
but this is only applicable to situation S.
free will is still applicable in other Situations.
so we have it or we dont dependent on the situation and the influences present but if we dont have it in situation S that doesnt mean we dont have it, at all, ever.
we can have it, but at the same time not have it. am i right?

Present an example where such an interpretation as I suggested doesn't apply.

first can i ask you something, in the example you presented to me below can you tell me what your free will was in this situation?

Case: I studied for an exam, but I haven't made it through all the matter, as I was tired, and I also didn't have as much time as I wanted, as I had to take the cat to the vet. I ploughed the exam.

water's interpretation of ellion's interpretation being a
false interpretation: I had limited free will, thus I ploughed the exam.
My interepretation: I had limited abilities and limited circumstances, thus I ploughed the exam.

 

[ellion]

there are many errors in my above post as i sumbitted it while editing it and i am too lazy to fart about with it to correct them, right now.

 

[cole grey]

... Monkeys gone to heaven that we are.
I'm weird, aren't I?

Yes. You are weird.
Weird is the new normal.

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

I don't know where Frank Black got this from, but I interpret it as human existence.
- There's this old woman, you can often find her kneeling beside her hole, digging for fire. -
That is just trying to catch the essence of life, when of course the "fire" is all around, or maybe it IS hidden deep within the ground. I'm sure it is different for everyone. Happy philosophy beset on all sides by assault, but existence is usually interpreted as a must, while the "fire" is only a plus.

Also, your answer to my question is the same as my answer to your question, i.e., when do you know? I add, as you have probably already thought, "in this life?"

 

[yuri_sakazaki]

So, technically, we could say that the concept of free will is redundant -- for it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.
But.
Each of us does feel like a someone, being an I -- and this is the instance in which those arrangings and re-arrangings of beliefs take place.
We are observing ourselves, and at the same time we are the agents of and in ourselves. We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will". It is will because it does something, and it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system).

Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but this answered my question whereas your reply to my question did not. So I'm going to comment on this instead. "Beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that is all there is to it." Here, you seem to think that our free will has nothing to do with a decision of our own, and that the beliefs we hold 'decide' for us. So given a situation our inherited/taught beliefs will arrange themselves in a certain way and we will have no control over it? Not free will. And I'm sorry, but I don't understand the "it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system)." part.

I didn't need so much a description of the biological process as just where it comes from (hence offering it residing in the soul or something else like that). What in us/of us makes it go one way or the other? If it is just the beliefs arranging themselves, we have no control of it, which doesn't make sense (as long as you're talking about free will anyway). Any way I go about it, I come back around to 'regardless of the origin of free will, given a situation and exposure to beliefs, the free will is going to be carried out the same every time,' and if not so, then the free will is random, beyond our control in a sense. I guess I'm just not cut out for imagining free will at all (even though I believe it exists, I have little logical reason to). What part of our being makes the choices? What variation would there be within this part? It seems that maybe free will, based on many things (including faith, which seems to be one thing Christianity says God never decides for us) is just a conscious decision of whether or not to improve consistency of beliefs in the face of the hardship of doing so. I may contradict myself a little here or repeat other people in what I'm saying, but that's just because this post wasn't completely thought out when I started it. So, rip away ^_^

 

[cole grey]

Water says, "We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will".

Yes. Free-will is the ability to think self-referentially. The ability to think that we can change our environment and ourselves. The ability to think about thinking, would seem to require an outside perspective of some sort, like a "soul" (whether it be called a gift from God, or a oneness with God.)
Sum ergo cogito. Or better, I am, therefore I think about thinking.

It is in there somewhere. We can represent it as a biological necessity for human existence to be what it is, and a spiritual necessity as a "separation" from God, and excuse for the fall of man. The existence of the other path is necessitated by the existence of the ability to choose, i.e. free-will.

*** But then, does a human that cannot think like this, severe brain damage, a semi-vegetable, have free-will? Are they just animals, or do they have a soul, that is just non-communicative with their body, the body itself being an "other" being? ***

 

[water]

I make my theories such that I postulate that there is something in each person that remains, no matter what happens to this person. Meaning I posit a "force", an "energy" (for the lack of a better word so far), an ability that is there no matter what (except when meeting God).

can we call this 'force' the self?

I don't know yet. Could be.

i wonder why you say this self is not present when you meet god.

I didn't say that. I do admit my phrasing was a bit clumsy. See below.

where is god or more correctly where is god not?(hope non of those blindmen see that)when is there a moment when you are not in his presence?

If we postulate that God is the only one who can either give or take this "force", then this "force" is there always since the beginning of a person's existence, except when God interferes in a specific way (ie. takes it away).

We are always in God's presence -- but God does not always interfere with us.

But can this self exist without these possibilities? Are there some possibilities that are necessary?

your not going to like this.

the way i see it; the self does not exist except in relation to not self. and this is the meaning of individual {in-division-we-are-dual}
there needs to be something for self to reflect (a refferent) or self is not self and not self is one, being not in division. {non individual}

Read my previous reply to Jenyar.

The self definitely can exist only in relation to an other, a non-self. I was more concerned about who this other is. For depending on what non-self the self sees itself in relation to, is what the self thinks of itself.
For example, if the self sees itself in relation to a rock, the self might deem itself better. If the self sees itself in relation to a fellow self, it might deem itself equal. If the self sees itself in relation to the universe, the self might deem itself worthless. And so on.

So the question is what non-self should the self relate to in defining its "selfness" in a most beneficient and productive way for the self?

... when it was you that told me they did and it was me that wanted you to tell me....... *GRRRR*

Uh.

your disagreeing with your own examples

I was just employing a certan rhetoric strategy. You ask yourself a question, and then explore possible answers.

and your examples are very, very rigid any way.

They are merely examples.

can you think of a time when your feelings where more powerful than your mind? when you fell in love and the power of your need to express and experience love lead you to behaviour which was totally irresponsible. even this example in its vagueness is still too rigid to include all the permutaions of the human condition in response to its circumsatnce. have you ever expereinced when your emotions are hieghtened and you think 2+2 FUCK 2+2 *RANT*RANT*FUCK*FUCK*RANT*. is that rational? i would consider that rationality affected by emotions.

I see how you come to this conclusion.
But I would still consider the above to be an example that the agenda one has of oneself may be in discrepancy with reality.

I'll give a real example: I once, in anger, smashed my sewing machine. That was very real damage. I knew why the thing didn't work as I wanted, I knew the technical difficulties behind the problem. But my anger was not due to the machine's malfunction or the specifics of the cloth -- even though it may seem so.
There are times when something doesn't work, and I, with the patience of an elephant, fix the problem, even if it takes hours.
But when some other troubles are on my mind, I can come up with little or no patience for the techincal problem. Indeed, I act irrationally.

But I contend that irrational thinking happened already BEFORE I took out my anger on the sewing machine.
Me taking out my anger at the sewing machine was a postponed reaction; I should have let out that anger long ago, at a certain person. I was angry at that person, not at my sewing machine.

The irrationality was that I haven't dealt with my anger for that person with that person, or sought some help. The irrationality was that I have let the conflict go on in me, unresolved. I brooded over it, and didn't resolve it. My agenda of myself was then that I should live with that conflict without resolving it, without giving it some kind of closure.
So we are once more at beliefs.

I contend that most irrational and irresponsible behaviour can be traced back to inconsistent and incoherent beliefs (except in cases of certain illnesses).

If by "you can't think" is actually meant 'you don't behave the way you normally do' -- then we aren't talking about emotions influencing our rational thinking anyway.

i'm not talking about this or that i'm talking about none of them and at the same time all of them, or either of them, or any combination of them. i dont see how there is or could be a common rule to aply to all situations, when situations are inifnite. and why would you want such a rule?
because

I want to conceptualize a person's identity and their will in a manner that they remain intact regardless of circumstances

you mean like a stereotype? or an ideal? an a anolog personality? i dont know, but you seem to want something that is false and rigid to replace something real and dynamic.

Not at all.

Think from this direction: God is omnipresent. Is there something rigid or stereotypical about God's omnipresence? No. God is always there with you, no matter what. (Except when God chooses otherwise -- but according to Christianity, this will happen on judgement day, not before.)

I am trying to work out a theory of the self that will be in accordance with God's characteristics; a self that *is* in relation to God. For it seems to me that only such a self can exist intact regardless of circumstances (those that aren't God).

People die, things change -- to define the self in relation to people and things makes this self as perishable and fleeting as people and things. So the self is to be defined in relation to something that is reliable, something that is lasting.

Like you said before, a self can be defined only in relation to a non-self. So it ultimately depends on the non-self what the self will be. God seems to be the best choice for the non-self, for the Other.

With secondary emotions, the situation looks thus:

1. A cognitive dissonance (inconcistency, incoherence, incongruence) is discovered.

2. This triggers an emotional response.
Depending on other beliefs that this person holds, the repsonse is either A: defensive (anger, frustration; belief: "It is bad to find that you are wrong. It is wrong to be wrong. You must never show you're wrong."), or B: positive/affirmative (mild frustration; belief: "There's nothing wrong with being wrong. One should work out inconsistencies."). (Technically, it should also be posible to be completely indifferent upon finding an inconsistency, but I think only the mentally ill are so.)

3. The emotional response then sets the tone of thinking: whether the thinking will go A: in the direction of defense (anger continues), or B: in the direction of resolving the inconsistency.

In case A, the thinking indeed seems to be influenced by the negative emotions -- but I think it is in fact the belief that is negative, the negative emotions just accompany it.

again i have a problem with this illustration, that is, it is a limited conceptualization.

why does this person only have two types of response to his realization? the two responses are valid responses but they are not the only responses possible.

Essentially, we can only be positive, negative or indifferent towards something.

is it possible that this person had a response other than A or B?
for example indifference (the mentally ill thing was a joke, right?)

No, I was completely serious about the mentally ill. A mentally ill person notices a contradiction, but sees nothing wrong with it. In this, a mentally ill person is like a person with ulterior motives. Both notice a contradiction, and both claim there is nothing wrong with it.

the beliefs in this and in all situations are a large part of the 'reality filter' negative beliefs will impact the self also, but this is my point again there is no hard and fast (black and white) rules as to how those beliefs or those emotions (or the not self, or the self) influence (or 'effect' or 'affect') each other in a positive (or negative) way it will be either or none or any or all or any combination, and only the individual can be certain (or the individual may be in complete confusion) of what is the appropriate (or inappropriate) experience in the situation.

I don't see where you disagree with me.
We hold beliefs, and we also hold beliefs about beliefs (meta-beliefs). But they are all beliefs.
"Be consistent" is a belief that organizes other beliefs, for example.

While this may be true for many people, it is way to inexact to give a reliable picture of what happens when we are "influenced by emotions" (note the quotation marks!).

exactly, and this is because there is no reliable picture. (especially if it is a monotone picture)

What we are after is a working methodology with which we can analyze a situation.
We are not after some ideal of "how it should be". I'm not interested into building a picture of what it means to be "default" or "normal".

I want to conceptualize a person's identity and their will in a manner that they remain intact regardless of circumstances. (Aside from God, as stated above.)

i want to bring this to your attention again now, because it is important to me. when are you (or we) not with god, when are we not in the presence of god? when you speak above of losing the self (the force which is you) do you mean complete absorbtion into the not self, the anihalation of the division?

Like I said earlier, it is only God who can give and take the self. We are always in God's presence.

i think both are possible. that is emotion and cognition(comprehension, beliefs etc) could affect free will in given situations. as do emotions affect rational thinking, and rational thinking affect emotions in given situations. and this is what i mean about the infinite possibilities of influences. the multicoloured picture as opposed to the black and the white. not only do we have each affecting the other but each affect is an effect of the self or the not self in some or other combination of response and reaction.

When I say "belief", I don't mean just 'rational contents". Beliefs can be about anything, with any content -- rational, emotional, ethical.

you say emotions are a content on which free will is applied.

Yes, at least so it seems ex post.

emotions for me are an experience of the self in relation to itself and the not self.

Alright.

then you say that emotions are foreign to us, why to us. surely you mean to you (water). how do you know what level of emotional (or cognitive, or ethical) integration other people have achieved? you only have your own experience of self and the self's expereince of other selves (not self) from which to callibrate. if your experience of emotions seem to be that they are foreign to persons in western culture that does not make it so, that just makes it your experience.

At least here, the word "emotion" has a somewhat negative connotation -- 'sappy, irrational'. "Emotions are bad", "I hate crying", "Only the weak are emotional", "I hate Oprah because she is so emotional" ... Ever heard such things?

It is not that emotions would impact free will.

it is not would, it is could.
emotions could impact free will.

Do you think that free will is something that exist and can be acted upon *apart* from emotions, reason and the sense of ethics?

it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.

what about the content which beliefs originate from, that emotional content, (or the cognitive content other than beliefs) i guess this is a lot to do with who you are water and how you relate to your reality.

I think it is useless to argue about the content which beliefs *originate* from -- it's an endless argument. We should grab things there where they can be grabbed -- once they are formed in a graspable (grababble?) manner. This is, when beliefs are already formed. Otherwise, we have to put up with way too much speculation.

We are observing ourselves, and at the same time we are the agents of and in ourselves. We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will". It is will because it does something, and it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system).

i'm wondering now if i may have overlooked something of what you mean.

if in Sitaution S the will is set upon Action A then Infleunce I affects Action.
the will in this Situation is no longer Free will, it has been Influenced.
so we dont have Free will in this Situation.
but this is only applicable to situation S.
free will is still applicable in other Situations.
so we have it or we dont dependent on the situation and the influences present but if we dont have it in situation S that doesnt mean we dont have it, at all, ever.
we can have it, but at the same time not have it. am i right?

Let's see:

P1: if in Sitaution S the will is set upon Action A then Infleunce I affects Action.
P2: the will in this Situation is no longer Free will, it has been Influenced.

P2 does not follow from P1. You have said that what is influenced is the action.
Unless you, too, think that action and will are one and the same thing?

i shall share something of how i have come to my understanding of free will. (have patience, i am going somewhere with this) the will of my cup is to hold my coffee, my cup will hold my coffee. in a sense that is the purpose of my cup. but it is not the only will of the cup my cup will stay where i put it, it is the cups will to be still.

the cup has many different wills, but many of them can be broken by my greater will. i will put in my cup tea if i will and my cup will not protest for it has not the will for protest. and there will be wills of the cup that i even with my vastly supereior will cannot break, such as the cups will to cease its existence. one day my cup will not be a cup and all though i can hasten the cups will to cease existence or i can protect my cup with the strength of my will, one day it will cease its existence as my cup.

I still say this is about ability, and not about will.

with my self it is incredibly more complex, and my will should be seen as a dynamic process. my true will at this point in my life is to expereince and express my self to, know who is the self in relation to the not self, my whole being is evidence of this.

if you look at my expressions with a degree of comprehension of the nature of such wills of the self you will see that this expression of my experience is strikingly obvious.
and this is the same for my experience of everybody, there will is manifest through the expressions of their experience and by the fruit is the tree known.

for a large part of my life survival was my true will a sheer fight for my life with all that was not my self. before the will to survive there was a will to be loved and to give love, before that to seak pleasure, there has been a will to destroy myself and this is how i mean dynamic process of change.

many wills of the sellf have moved in and out of my experience of self and these are the larger wills, my reasons for being and the purpose of my existence. there are the smaller wills the decisions the actions the reasons reactions response and behaviour all of my will, the larger the smaller the long term the short term, will be affected (or effected) by other wills, of the self and the not self, this is the intercourse of energetic principles.

this is why now i can say yes, i have free will but also i will admit no, my will is not always free, for when it is not free from interference or influence, impact or impression it is not free will.

You are talking about contents on which your free will is applied. Contents change over time, the will remains.

“ One either has free will, or one doesn't have free will.

i'll say this again and you can tell me if i have it right:

i'm wondering now if i may have overlooked something of what you mean.

if in Sitaution S the will is set upon Action A then Infleunce I affects Action.
the will in this Situation is no longer Free will, it has been Influenced.
so we dont have Free will in this Situation.
but this is only applicable to situation S.
free will is still applicable in other Situations.
so we have it or we dont dependent on the situation and the influences present but if we dont have it in situation S that doesnt mean we dont have it, at all, ever.
we can have it, but at the same time not have it. am i right?

See my comment above.

Present an example where such an interpretation as I suggested doesn't apply.

first can i ask you something, in the example you presented to me below can you tell me what your free will was in this situation?

Case: I studied for an exam, but I haven't made it through all the matter, as I was tired, and I also didn't have as much time as I wanted, as I had to take the cat to the vet. I ploughed the exam.

water's interpretation of ellion's interpretation being a
false interpretation: I had limited free will, thus I ploughed the exam.
My interepretation: I had limited abilities and limited circumstances, thus I ploughed the exam.

*What* my free will is in this situation?
Maybe this is the source of confusion then -- confusing the content and the form. I simply say I have free will, regardless of the specific content (studying, taking the cat to the vet). Free will is the form. Studying is the content. Tiredness, lack of time are limitations of ability to act out my free will.

I still want to see your examples of where yout think free will is limited.


Earlier, you said this:

We have free will but it is not always under full control of the self

This is confusing me. I first thought that by the self you mean the rational self, a certain agenda of the self that sees free will as reasonability or common sense (as everneo has it).
What would it mean for free will to be under "full control of the self"?



* * *

I don't know where Frank Black got this from, but I interpret it as human existence.
- There's this old woman, you can often find her kneeling beside her hole, digging for fire. -
That is just trying to catch the essence of life, when of course the "fire" is all around, or maybe it IS hidden deep within the ground. I'm sure it is different for everyone. Happy philosophy beset on all sides by assault, but existence is usually interpreted as a must, while the "fire" is only a plus.

Hm. Pixies' lyrics are a challenge to the rational mind.
Hm. We should have a special thread for that.

Also, your answer to my question is the same as my answer to your question, i.e., when do you know? I add, as you have probably already thought, "in this life?"

Indeed,

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.

in this life,w e do not know the answers to these questions.


* * *

So, technically, we could say that the concept of free will is redundant -- for it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.
But.
Each of us does feel like a someone, being an I -- and this is the instance in which those arrangings and re-arrangings of beliefs take place.
We are observing ourselves, and at the same time we are the agents of and in ourselves. We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will". It is will because it does something, and it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system).

Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but this answered my question whereas your reply to my question did not. So I'm going to comment on this instead. "Beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that is all there is to it." Here, you seem to think that our free will has nothing to do with a decision of our own, and that the beliefs we hold 'decide' for us. So given a situation our inherited/taught beliefs will arrange themselves in a certain way and we will have no control over it? Not free will.

Maybe I wasn't analytical enough. I said:
So, technically, we could say that the concept of free will is redundant -- for it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.
But.

I put qualifiers around that "the concept of free will is redundant -- for it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it".
Those qualifiers (So, technically, we could say , But.) signalize that the thing inbetween them needs to be specified further, and I have specified it further.

Beliefs arrange and rearrange themselves in accordance with other beliefs. (We also hold meta-beliefs -- beliefs in accordance to which other beliefs organize themselves. "Be consistent" is such a meta-belief. How to be consistent is something that you learn.)


As for us having control over our beliefs: We do. But maybe not in a way you would expect so far. There is a hierarchy of beliefs, the highest ones being those about your existence. Depending on those, all others are arranged and rearranged.

I'll approach the issue of free will from the other direction -- what the impact of thinking you have no (or limited) free will is: You don't have to believe you have free will. But not believing it will make you continue working as if you don't have free will.
If you don't believe you have free will (what you believe about free will is one of those highest beliefs in the hierarchy), you will feel that indeed your beliefs arrange and rearrange themselves with you having no control over them. And in each instance of the hierarchy, you will feel that you don't have free will (or only limited free will). As a result, this will demotivate you and paralyze you.

I'm not saying that you should believe you have free will and believe it for the sake of the benefits this thinking could bring you.
I posited free will as an axiom, and from there, elaborated our limitations in the sense of those limitations being limitations of our knowledge and our ability. The theory of those limitations seems sensible.
I'm not making the argument that since there seem to be no good arguments against free will (as limitations have been sufficiently explained as limitations of knowledge and abilities), this means we have free will. I don't think free will can be derived, explained with an argument (other than "Free will is given by God"). Free will is an axiom one either accepts or not.

As several times before, I have approached the issue ex negativo -- worked out what does *not* belong to free will. And those things that at first seemed to be a sign of us having limited free will, all turned out to have nothing to do with free will.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand the "it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system)." part.

Meaning that there is only one free will in you. You don't have two free wills in yourself.
(I was thinking of the paralyses a scyzophrenic experiences.)

I didn't need so much a description of the biological process as just where it comes from (hence offering it residing in the soul or something else like that). What in us/of us makes it go one way or the other? If it is just the beliefs arranging themselves, we have no control of it, which doesn't make sense (as long as you're talking about free will anyway). Any way I go about it, I come back around to 'regardless of the origin of free will, given a situation and exposure to beliefs, the free will is going to be carried out the same every time,' and if not so, then the free will is random, beyond our control in a sense.

We go one way or another, depending on our beliefs. *That* we go one way or another, this is the act of free will.

I guess I'm just not cut out for imagining free will at all (even though I believe it exists, I have little logical reason to).

Yes, that's the thing: There is little logical reason to believe anything anyway.

What part of our being makes the choices? What variation would there be within this part?

I intuitively think such questions mislead.

It seems that maybe free will, based on many things (including faith, which seems to be one thing Christianity says God never decides for us) is just a conscious decision of whether or not to improve consistency of beliefs in the face of the hardship of doing so.

Note: God doesn't decide the content for us, but God decided that we can choose between contents.

As for your definition: It seems that maybe free will /.../ is just a conscious decision of whether or not to improve consistency of beliefs in the face of the hardship of doing so. -- This would then mean to posit rational thinking as the seat of free will. This is potentially dangerous, as you get "common sense" limitations. Witness the debate I had with Everneo.


* * *

Water says, "We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will".

Yes. Free-will is the ability to think self-referentially. The ability to think that we can change our environment and ourselves. The ability to think about thinking, would seem to require an outside perspective of some sort, like a "soul" (whether it be called a gift from God, or a oneness with God.)
Sum ergo cogito. Or better, I am, therefore I think about thinking.

It is in there somewhere. We can represent it as a biological necessity for human existence to be what it is, and a spiritual necessity as a "separation" from God, and excuse for the fall of man. The existence of the other path is necessitated by the existence of the ability to choose, i.e. free-will.

*** But then, does a human that cannot think like this, severe brain damage, a semi-vegetable, have free-will? Are they just animals, or do they have a soul, that is just non-communicative with their body, the body itself being an "other" being? ***

This is where the so often scolded "free-will presuppositionalism" comes in.
Yes, even in those people, we must assume they have free will. They have free because they are humans. We recognize them as humans, therefore, they must also have free will, as free will is intrinsical to humans. Those people may not be able to act on their free will, but this doesn't mean they don't have it.

 

[water]

Raising this as we were so abruptly interrupted.

 

[ellion]

So the question is what non-self should the self relate to in defining its "selfness" in a most beneficient and productive way for the self?

the answer is the whole of the non-self as a complete field of experience.
for the self to define itself in the most beneficient and productive way requires a WAY of relating to the non-self NOT a specific non-self to relate to.

can you think of a time when your feelings where more powerful than your mind? when you fell in love and the power of your need to express and experience love lead you to behaviour which was totally irresponsible. even this example in its vagueness is still too rigid to include all the permutaions of the human condition in response to its circumsatnce. have you ever expereinced when your emotions are hieghtened and you think 2+2 FUCK 2+2 *RANT*RANT*FUCK*FUCK*RANT*. is that rational? i would consider that rationality affected by emotions.

I see how you come to this conclusion.
But I would still consider the above to be an example that the agenda one has of oneself may be in discrepancy with reality.

i dont see how you see that, i see my emotions animating my being beyond the control of rational thought..


your example of the impatient elephant and the broken sewing machine illustrates your experince of displaced anger, but like you say it is rooted in frustrations from previous experiences. therfore it is an example of a different phenomenom. the fact that you can see how i come to my conclusion means that at some level you have expereinced what i am tryin to convey. you may have taken that experience to a different place in yourself, you may have added interpretations to it or distroted it or denied it, or exageratted etc,etc.
but your able to recognize it because it is present in your self.

So we are once more at beliefs.

I contend that most irrational and irresponsible behaviour can be traced back to inconsistent and incoherent beliefs (except in cases of certain illnesses).

No you are once more at beliefs.

this is how you process reality. this is how your self relates to non self and how you define yourself. i dont. not saying your way is good or bad or my way is good or bad, both ways are good for oursleves to the point they enhance who we are as individuals relating to the world, if they did not serve us well we would certainly be suffering form certain illnesses (as you believe).

People die, things change -- to define the self in relation to people and things makes this self as perishable and fleeting as people and things. So the self is to be defined in relation to something that is reliable, something that is lasting.

other selves? if you are one of those people then you will also die your death will still be in relation to the not self, to the perishible and the fleeting but also to the imperishible and eternal. it is for me (and i would suggest you) to decide in experience how self relates to not self in a way which most enhances the evolution of the whole.

Essentially, we can only be positive, negative or indifferent towards something.

black white and grey is an improvement over black and white.

What we are after is a working methodology with which we can analyze a situation.
We are not after some ideal of "how it should be". I'm not interested into building a picture of what it means to be "default" or "normal".

i cant help you with this directly.

At least here, the word "emotion" has a somewhat negative connotation -- 'sappy, irrational'. "Emotions are bad", "I hate crying", "Only the weak are emotional", "I hate Oprah because she is so emotional" ... Ever heard such things?

i have heard such things. this is not what emotion means to me. look at the word a little (emote, emotion) to move, to move me, self.
happy, glad, sad, sorrow, hate, fear, anger, love. feel these in your being. how they animate you motivate your actions. move you. me. they are closer to my will than my thoughts/beliefs. my thoughts beliefs are filters for my emotions and my will. i would like to know how this moves in you. is it the same as i. i imagine that it is not as you have a much more cognitive process a mental not emotional processor. not that you dont process emotionally but your predominant mode is mental, you also appear very willful,(dynamic energy, activity)[reminds me of a certain star that i love but cannot be close to]

Do you think that free will is something that exist and can be acted upon *apart* from emotions, reason and the sense of ethics?

no,it is a part of the whole, it exists and is acted upon as part of the whole. as the self does not exist or act or be influenced without its relation to the whole.

*What* my free will is in this situation?

yes, what is your will here? what is your will beyond those beliefs and aggendas, behind the tiredness and time restriction. what is your will and how is it free?

Maybe this is the source of confusion then -- confusing the content and the form. I simply say I have free will, regardless of the specific content (studying, taking the cat to the vet). Free will is the form. Studying is the content. Tiredness, lack of time are limitations of ability to act out my free will.

this is where we need to focus then.
you simply say you have free will? do you experience free will as a process working in you? can you identify what your will is from moment to moment, day to day can you turn your attention to it and observe it? or is it an unconcious process/state/mode? how do you see it functioning in you?

i have already tried to describe how it animates me in a previous post but you attributed my expereince of my will to an agenda that i had set for myself. this makes me wonder if, when you expereince your will you veil it with thought, intellectualize it to a mental functions such as aggendas, beliefs.

I still want to see your examples of where yout think free will is limited.

when somebody takes my will away. through manipulation, coercion etc. when my will is distorted through the processes of my self my emotional state. i dont believe the mind is powerful enough to influence the will but that may be my understanding or the strength of my mind. how i see it is when mind is working in the will it is under the direction(an agent), of the will. like i said this may be to do with my mental integration.

Earlier, you said this:

We have free will but it is not always under full control of the self

This is confusing me. I first thought that by the self you mean the rational self, a certain agenda of the self that sees free will as reasonability or common sense (as everneo has it).
What would it mean for free will to be under "full control of the self"?

we have gotten beyond this misunderstanding of the self know havent we? for free will to be under full control of self it would have to be free from those factor of influence external to the self coming from the not self, that limit the will that restrict its process.

 

[cole grey]

"for free will to be under full control of self it would have to be free from those factor of influence external to the self coming from the not self, that limit the will that restrict its process. "

The problem with this definition is that it excludes any type of free-will that exists in reality. Saying free-will must be truly free essentially keeps it from being anything more than an idea whose time will probably never come.
I know this definition is not YOUR definition of free-will, it is rather an expanded definition, of free-will "under full control of self", but I think it points out an important mistake other people make when they try to define free-will in terms which forever precludes its existence.

 

[ellion]

free will must be free will! yes, and i think the problem is with the 'do we have it, dont we have it question?' this question asks for an either or answer. the real answer to the question is yes and no.

 

[water]

ellion,

the answer is the whole of the non-self as a complete field of experience.
for the self to define itself in the most beneficient and productive way requires a WAY of relating to the non-self NOT a specific non-self to relate to.

Alright.
However, our identities can't exist in a vacuum. A man left all alone, stranded on an island would get mad. What the other identitiy we relate to is, does matter.

i dont see how you see that, i see my emotions animating my being beyond the control of rational thought..

Can you, eventualy, "catch yourself"? Or do you have to wait until your emotions wear off?

People die, things change -- to define the self in relation to people and things makes this self as perishable and fleeting as people and things. So the self is to be defined in relation to something that is reliable, something that is lasting.

other selves? if you are one of those people then you will also die your death will still be in relation to the not self, to the perishible and the fleeting but also to the imperishible and eternal. it is for me (and i would suggest you) to decide in experience how self relates to not self in a way which most enhances the evolution of the whole.

I mean that if we relate to God, define ourselves in relation to God, then we can identify ourselves as imperishable and eternal as well.

black white and grey is an improvement over black and white.

But I want colours! A completely different way of seeing things.

i have heard such things. this is not what emotion means to me. look at the word a little (emote, emotion) to move, to move me, self.
happy, glad, sad, sorrow, hate, fear, anger, love. feel these in your being. how they animate you motivate your actions. move you. me. they are closer to my will than my thoughts/beliefs. my thoughts beliefs are filters for my emotions and my will. i would like to know how this moves in you. is it the same as i. i imagine that it is not as you have a much more cognitive process a mental not emotional processor. not that you dont process emotionally but your predominant mode is mental, you also appear very willful,(dynamic energy, activity)[reminds me of a certain star that i love but cannot be close to]

Don't let my professionalism mislead you.
If you knew me personally ....

*What* my free will is in this situation?

yes, what is your will here? what is your will beyond those beliefs and aggendas, behind the tiredness and time restriction. what is your will and how is it free?

Something that just is. I know, this is not much of an explanation, but I think such is will. It is.

i have already tried to describe how it animates me in a previous post but you attributed my expereince of my will to an agenda that i had set for myself. this makes me wonder if, when you expereince your will you veil it with thought, intellectualize it to a mental functions such as aggendas, beliefs.

It can be so, yes. And traditionally, "free will" is considered to be endowed with fix contents, something intellectual.
I don't believe so; I believe free will exists apart form any of those cognitive contents. I am not sure about emotions though -- they may be the most primary expression (?) of free will.

I still want to see your examples of where yout think free will is limited.

when somebody takes my will away. through manipulation, coercion etc. when my will is distorted through the processes of my self my emotional state. i dont believe the mind is powerful enough to influence the will but that may be my understanding or the strength of my mind. how i see it is when mind is working in the will it is under the direction(an agent), of the will. like i said this may be to do with my mental integration.

I think that to truly influence a person's free will, it would mean to kill this person. As long as alive, free will is there. What can be limited and influenced are abilities and options, which then may appear as a lessened free will. But it only appears so.

free will must be free will! yes, and i think the problem is with the 'do we have it, dont we have it question?' this question asks for an either or answer. the real answer to the question is yes and no.

I think free will is recognized, not established.

A person may believe he has no free will, but if he does so, he will continue to act as if he would have no free will.
If a person is convinced he has no free will, then he has no free will.



Cole Grey, what say you?

 

[ellion]

A person may believe he has no free will, but if he does so, he will continue to act as if he would have no free will.

this does not mean he doesnt have it. like you say he has not become aware of it.

 

[water]

this does not mean he doesnt have it. like you say he has not become aware of it.

If he is not aware, he does not act on it. *In effect*, he does not have it.