Why did we get free will?

Billy T said:
Two questions for you, a comment with third question related toQ1: Are you thus stating that non-material "karma" modifies the discharges of nerves in the brain, causing them NOT to be coverned by the natural laws, which science attempts to understand? I.e. thought, choices etc. proceeds under the influence of continuous miracles? (Only one question , stated twice to be clear.)
Click to expand...

Basically, yes.


Q2: Again I define a miracle as a violation of the natural laws that scientist postulate/ believe control ALL material changes, nerve discharges included. - Is that your definition of a miracle also? And again, please note that the accepted "laws of physics" are not identical with the partially un-known "natural laws."
Click to expand...

I don't concern myself with "miracles", so I can't comment on this.


To believe in Karma being effective on matter, you must be rejecting the concept that the material universe, human brain included, is controlled solely by natural laws.
Q3: Is that your POV? -(or have I misunderstood? -if so, please try to state more clearly so I CAN UNDERSTAND.)
Click to expand...

This might come as a disappointment, but I will bow out at this point. I have been using these discussions lately for myself to check whether and how I understand certain Vedic concepts about free will, karma, existence of a soul and Supersoul. I feel I have reached a limit here and that it would be best that I do not continue any further on this, at least not for some time.

Thank you for the discussion and take care. :)
 
greenberg said:
...I will bow out at this point. I have been using these discussions lately for myself to check whether and how I understand certain Vedic concepts about free will, karma, existence of a soul and Supersoul. I feel I have reached a limit here and that it would be best that I do not continue any further on this, at least not for some time.
Thank you for the discussion and take care. :)
Click to expand...
You are welcome. I am glad if the exchanges with me has helped you in this effort.

While we disagree on much of this, or at least lean to different POVs, I know that it is neccesary to think thru ones positions, trying to be internally consistent at least. That is why when I accidently discovered (in my study of brains visual processing details) how genuine free will can be consistent with the natural laws (the third alternative I gave link to in post 148 footnote) I was happy to resolve an old confict within my system of beliefs.

One final question, as I am very ignorant on much of Eastern thinking on these matters: Is "Supersoul" roughly equivlent to "God" in western belief? - I note you did capitalize it but not soul.
 
Myles

Myles said:
I have noticed from a number of your posts that "application" is one of your favourite words, which seems to imply that if you stick at something long enough you can come to belive anything. Well, I happen to agree. It's even better if you apply yourself knowing what you wish to be convinced of; you get faster results that way.

Stand in a bucket, grasp the handle and, by "aplication", lift yourself off the ground.
Click to expand...
pehaps before I apply myself I might inquire about how I apply myself.
Since I am not sincerely interested in lifting myself off the ground in a bucket, I probably wouldn't bother to inquire. Perhaps in this sense, you and I share the same feelings .... I would argue that the difference between us however is that I wouldn't bother posting on a forum that was discussing these things
:shrug:
 
Myles said:
That argument has been shot down so often that I am surprised anyone still uses it. We need neither god nor religion to be moral.
Click to expand...
given that you can't indicate a single moral that doesn't draw from some metaphysical system attributed to some form of religion, I can only assume that you have a myopic view of history or feel free to extrapolate with fiction rather than fact
 
greenberg said:
Myles, we both know by now that the only option you find "viable" is your option.

In your vocabulary, "viable" pretty much means "in accord with Myles' ideas of how things should be". So anything that is in discord with your ideas of how things should be, is "not viable", according to you.
Click to expand...


For the sake of others on here, why not explain what, other than physics, explains the world. Don't dodge the issue ! You made the statement implying there is more than physics. All I want to know is what alternatives you believe there are. Whether I think it's "viable" or not is irrelevant. Support your position or we may feel you are knocking physics because it is not your thing and that is your only reason.
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
Myles


pehaps before I apply myself I might inquire about how I apply myself.
Since I am not sincerely interested in lifting myself off the ground in a bucket, I probably wouldn't bother to inquire. Perhaps in this sense, you and I share the same feelings .... I would argue that the difference between us however is that I wouldn't bother posting on a forum that was discussing these things
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Direct me to a thred on self-elevation on buckets and I'll go there.
 
Billy T said:
You are welcome. I am glad if the exchanges with me has helped you in this effort.

While we disagree on much of this, or at least lean to different POVs, I know that it is neccesary to think thru ones positions, trying to be internally consistent at least. That is why when I accidently discovered (in my study of brains visual processing details) how genuine free will can be consistent with the natural laws (the third alternative I gave link to in post 148 footnote) I was happy to resolve an old confict within my system of beliefs.

One final question, as I am very ignorant on much of Eastern thinking on these matters: Is "Supersoul" roughly equivlent to "God" in western belief? - I note you did capitalize it but not soul.
Click to expand...

I wish someone would explain how something immaterial interacts with material. I have never heard an explanation, just waffle about energy of a kind unknown to physics and which, conveniently, cannot be measured.
 
lightgigantic said:
given that you can't indicate a single moral that doesn't draw from some metaphysical system attributed to some form of religion, I can only assume that you have a myopic view of history or feel free to extrapolate with fiction rather than fact
Click to expand...

You can assume what you want, and you will, but try checking out anthropology.
 
Myles said:
I wish someone would explain how something immaterial interacts with material. I have never heard an explanation, just waffle about energy of a kind unknown to physics and which, conveniently, cannot be measured.
Click to expand...
Myles, there is no explanation in terms you (or I) can accept. That is why you and I refer to such postulated interaction as a "MIRACLE" - some people BELIEVE miracles do occur. I think Greenberg believes they are a continuous process that lets his "spirit" at least partially produce his thoughts, control his actions, and is the origin of his "free will." Others who may not have thought as much about this tend to (I think) think miracles are relative rare exceptions to the natural laws.

You and I see no evidence that miracles actually occur ever. I forget who said it, but our position was well stated, long ago, as: "I have no need of that hypotheses." - refering to God originally, but equally well (for us) it applies to miracles.

Perhaps we slightly differ in the degree to which we reject God and miracles in our systems of belief. I am quite willing to admit that both could be real, but prefer to undersand the observables ONLY by theories that have been tested and not yet found to be false. I.e. by the "laws of physics." Thus far I have no need to include God or miracles in my set of beliefs.*

For reasons discused in post 56, here is a link: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1942525&postcount=56
I do not even find Pascal's argument (sometimes called Pascal's wager) persuasive reason to accept God. - In fact as discussed in post 56, If that agrument has any validity, it seems to me to be more likely that only those who reject God will get into heaven (if heaven exists).
---------------
*My behavior is sometimes in conflict with my rational beliefs. For example once, when St. Elmos's fire was visible on the top of the aluminum mast of the sail boat (late on a moonless night) and I heard it hiss, and I was too far from land to change the probablity that lightning would strike the mast, I was praying to the God I usually have no need of! As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes, when morter shells are falling all around."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
*My behavior is sometimes in conflict with my rational beliefs. For example once, when St. Elmos's fire was visible on the top of the aluminum mast of the sail boat (late on a moonless night) and I heard it hiss, and I was too far from land to change the probablity that lightning would strike the mast, I was praying to the God I usually have no need of! As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes, when morter shells are falling all around."
Click to expand...

This is interesting.
Why did you pray to god when you knew it wouldn't make any difference ?
Were you raised religiously ?
 
Enmos said:
This is interesting.
Why did you pray to god when you knew it wouldn't make any difference ?
Were you raised religiously ?
Click to expand...
You guess well. Yes I have a very religous youth. Wanted to be "medical missionary" and was the acalite (guy who lites the candles on the alter) of the Luthern Church where I lived. This was in West Virginia where I went to the public schools (not known for leading the nation academically, to put it kindly) My best friend was the rabbi's son. He too was deeply religious. We often slept in the other's house as we lived on different sides of town.* (I was well accepted in his house -even had the very unusal honor of shairing their pass-over meal once and went on month long vacations with them -I was only one who could clean the fish Friday eves etc.)

My "spiritual awakening" came from this interaction with my friend (and I strongly suspect his came from the interaction with me) I was very conflicted by my Christian need to save my friend from the "fires of Hell" and the trust his family extended to me. I tried to see the merits in the Jewish beliefs - even leaned how to put on the Tifilian etc. - I liked the idea of symbolically binding my heart and mind to the will of God, but it was not my firend's God I was thinking of when doing so. I still have great respect for the Jewish culture despite a low opinion of the State of Israel, as it is currently behaving.

My friend graduated Harvard first in his class (I only in the upper 10% at Cornell)** He became an MD, and a leading pathologist - now he is a "full fledged" atheist and I only progressed to the stage of agnostic.
-----------------
*We feed him on Al foil covered plates as ours had been used for both milk and meat etc. There were lots of adaptions both ways.
**Indefense of my intelectual abilites, I will note that I was in a very select 5 year experimental program at Cornell - It satisfied all the requirements of Both the enginneering AND the liberal arts divisions of Cornell for graduation. Too rough for Cornell to continue as more than half of my class did not make it. I was very badly prepared by the public schools of W.Va. but too stuborn to fail as most expected - I just worked like two dogs to get thru as I was also very poor and needed to wash dishes for my food, etc. (Had lots of short duration jobs, including tutoring other students and repair of lab equipment.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
Myles, there is no explanation in terms you (or I) can accept. That is why you and I refer to such postulated interaction as a "MIRACLE" - some people BELIEVE miracles do occur. I think Greenberg believes they are a continuous process that lets his "spirit" at least partially produce his thoughts, control his actions, and is the origin of his "free will." Others who may not have thought as much about this tend to (I think) think miracles are relative rare exceptions to the natural laws.

You and I see no evidence that miracles actually occur ever. I forget who said it, but our position was well stated, long ago, as: "I have no need of that hypotheses." - refering to God originally, but equally well (for us) it applies to miracles.

Perhaps we slightly differ in the degree to which we reject God and miracles in our systems of belief. I am quite willing to admit that both could be real, but prefer to undersand the observables ONLY by theories that have been tested and not yet found to be false. I.e. by the "laws of physics." Thus far I have no need to include God or miracles in my set of beliefs.*

For reasons discused in post 56, here is a link: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1942525&postcount=56
I do not even find Pascal's argument (sometimes called Pascal's wager) persuasive reason to accept God. - In fact as discussed in post 56, If that agrument has any validity, it seems to me to be more likely that only those who reject God will get into heaven (if heaven exists).
---------------
*My behavior is sometimes in conflict with my rational beliefs. For example once, when St. Elmos's fire was visible on the top of the aluminum mast of the sail boat (late on a moonless night) and I heard it hiss, and I was too far from land to change the probablity that lightning would strike the mast, I was praying to the God I usually have no need of! As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes, when morter shells are falling all around."
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing. Hume has a good argument against miracles but, on a more prosaic level , as a Dublin schoolboy I used to say that when I see a man going to Lourdes with one leg and coming back with two, I'll call that a miracle. Surely one miracle is as easy as another.

My view of Pascal is that he was a moral coward.


As far as souls, spirits, psychic energy and so on are comcerned, I am not aware of an iota of empirical evidence to support their existence. I am not prepared to abandon my reason or stifle it so I can believe in fairytales. Atheism has a bad press in some quarters but it never seems to occur to its detractors that it comes at a price. I have to live with the consequences of my actions because I am denied the luxury of asking for forgiveness and believing it has been granted.

As far as your irrational behaviour is concerned, I have been there more than once as, I suspect, have many others. It's a human reaction to some circumstances to look for comfort or an assurance that things will turn out all right. But in the end I know full well that if I were to succumb, I would be betraying what I believe in. So I soldier on. This is where religious people have a dubious advantage which I do not envy.
 
Myles said:
...This is where religious people have a dubious advantage which I do not envy.
Click to expand...
If you do not know the poem "invictus" read it. For many years I could say it flawlessly from memory. For me, and probably you, it is more inspiring than any religious text. I also had Kipling's If down by heart. Never have been able to conclude which I like more - sort of like apples and oranges - they serve different needs, but do tend to re-inforce each other.

Here is a link to Invictus:

http://wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/3981/?letter=P&spage=10

BTW - I often use the line: "Black as the pit, from pole to pole" and my own use of "icebox" (instead of refrigerator) to illustrate how conservative language is. Invictus was written not long after the steam pump had made deep minning for coal possible. Even miners who went deep into the earth to get coal still said they "worked in the pits" as the older ones in deed had work in open pit coal extraction. The word "pit" is reference to a coal mine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
If you do not know the poem "invictus" read it. For many years I could say it flawlessly from memory. For me, and probably you, it is more inspiring than any religious text. I also had Kipling's If down by heart. Never have been able to conclude which I like more - sort of like apples and oranges - they serve different needs, but do tend to re-inforce each other.

Here is a link to Invictus:

http://wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/3981/?letter=P&spage=10

BTW - I often use the line: "Black as the pit, from pole to pole" and myown use of "icebox" (instead of refrigerator) to illustrate how conservative language is. Invictus was written not long after the steam pump had made deep minning for coal possible. Even miners who went deep into the earth to get coal still said they "worked in the pits" as the older ones in deed had work in open pit coal extraction. The word "pit" is reference to a coal mine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I read and enjoyed it. If you don't know it already, you might like to read Shirley's " The Glories of Our Blood and State". It often comes to mind when I see people strutting their stuff.
 
Billy T said:
If you do not know the poem "invictus" read it. For many years I could say it flawlessly from memory. For me, and probably you, it is more inspiring than any religious text. I also had Kipling's If down by heart. Never have been able to conclude which I like more - sort of like apples and oranges - they serve different needs, but do tend to re-inforce each other.

Here is a link to Invictus:

http://wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/3981/?letter=P&spage=10

BTW - I often use the line: "Black as the pit, from pole to pole" and my own use of "icebox" (instead of refrigerator) to illustrate how conservative language is. Invictus was written not long after the steam pump had made deep minning for coal possible. Even miners who went deep into the earth to get coal still said they "worked in the pits" as the older ones in deed had work in open pit coal extraction. The word "pit" is reference to a coal mine.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: I appreciate your post. My great grandfather from Worsley, England, worked in the "pits." My grandfather, born at Worsley, immigrated to the Pittsburgh area as a child with his family. He started working in the coal mines of Pennsylvania when he was nine, along with his mother who had worked in the "pits" in England.

Do you live in the USA or elsewhere? I was born among the coal mines of Southern West Virginia, so I know what the lives of coal miners are like. My dad was also one, but he wanted a better future for us, so we left the coal mines when I was a child.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "this is the pits." People say that when they are in a situation that they don't like, such as a job.

Invictus is my favorite poem. I recited it at my mother's funeral. I've always interpreted, "black is the pit from pole to pole," as meaning "this world is a dark place."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top