by Rod P 134 Replies latest members private
EW:
An illusion? How do you syncrete man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, or are you content to let it remain a dichotomy?
What is man responsible for? To answer yes or no to said calling?
As far as "illusion" what can you really "will" yourself to do thats beyond your nature?
How ya been Ross?
darkuncle29,
Sort of like an old favorite of mine, "All extremists should be shot!"
EW: As far as "illusion" what can you really "will" yourself to do thats beyond your nature?
Do you make no distinction between "capacity" and "nature"? If not, then you could do nothing that is beyond your nature and free will is an illusion.
But, my understanding of "nature" in this context, is that nature is a tendency toward a certain course, pressured by various factors, which nearly anyone can choose to ignore and pursue a different path within their capacity. In this case, free will would be much more than illusion. I prefer this world view but will certainly not deny you yours.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
I beleive free will is an illusion.
When we talk of free will just what do we mean anyway? Do we mean freedom to decide with in a very narrow boundary? Like take a human he basically has the appearence of having a very limited free will, that is he can only choose between things that his being a human allows him to choose. He can not choose therefore to blow up the sun, he is limited to only choices that are with in his grasp to do.
Basically then there is no such thing as absolute freedom.
Then we have the mind and its thoughts and feelings and predispositions. Since we don't know all the particulars of what exactly is the process that makes thought come into the conscious, and exactly how certain feeling are formed, and since these things are the basics that appear to make us choose this or that, we are not really in a position to say for sure if we have free will.
frankiespeakin: Basically then there is no such thing as absolute freedom.
There is no need for absolute freedom for free will to be more than illusion. Terry took this discussion in the vein of absolutes at the cost of logic and reason. Exercise of free will occurs every time a human disregards instinct and chooses otherwise.
Free will does not denote "absolute freedom", it denotes an ability to disregard pressures (environmental, instinctual, and/or genetic) in the making of decisions. Humans demonstrably have this capacity. Although Terry has not said, one way or the other, I believe he really agrees. His thread discussions on his Ayn Rand topic presents the view that humans are capable of choosing objectivity, despite their inclinations (pressures) to choose otherwise. That is a manifestation of free will.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
OS,
Just because we over ride certain instincts in our choices, doesn't mean we have free will. Don't forget the many other inclinations we are dealing with that determine our choices. Cultural pressure that shapes us from infancy, worry about what society might think, hunger, curiousity etc....
In effect what I'm saying is we need to take in a lot of variables that force us into a certain action even though it may look like free will.
frankiespeakin: Don't forget the many other inclinations we are dealing with that determine our choices.
I'm sorry, FS, but I can't accept that premise without first proving that inclinations "determine" our choices. By that statement, the only way to accept that free will isn't free will is not to forget that inclinations determine our choices, which would, by definition, be an admission that free will isn't free will. Inclinations "influence" our choices, but I do not believe they "determine" our choices unless we allow them to. "Go with the flow" and you will never choose to exercise free will.
Human decisions are often, but not always, nothing more than a rationalization of desire. Whenever they are not, free will was exercised. Can you quantify free will? No. Can you weigh it? No. Nor can you detect it through your senses. But you have probably experienced it.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
OS,
When ever we move or make a choice, the reason behind those movements or choices is a sort of measuring or tipping the scales in a certain direction. We have a wide variety of things that influence and it is by some type of hard to explain mathematics that determine the action once a threshold is reached.
So while it may appear we have choosen, it is really all "cause and effect" just like the rest of the universe.
Rod P
I had to leave this discussion yesterday because we are 5-8 hours ahead in the UK and it was late.
I read your comments with interest and agree with you. Perhaps I have not explained my observations clearly enough. I do not dispute that we cannot ever know or see reality clearly. When I said - our own actions are also a reality, regardless of how they are perceived by us or others - I mean exactly that.
If a one kills another man his actions will be viewed differently by people. If it is his neighbour he will be viewed as a murderer. Even if he has killed in battle, there are many ways that his action will be perceived, by different people and he will be confused himself about his action. The question is not whether it was right of wrong nor are the details of how he killed important in this debate. Despite all the different perceptions of his action, the reality is that he killed a man and we now have a corpse.
The relevant question that we ask is, was he exercising free will or was he acting as he had been genetically and culturally programmed to do, or just responsing to the situation? He may have a cloudy memory of the incident himself and be in denial, in which case this will be one action he can only ask this question of if he accepts the evidence that he did kill a man. His grasp of reality or perception of what he did do not alter the reality of the dead man. Other peoples perception alters nothing.
I see the problem with examining our actions. Killing is an absolute act but most of our actions are obscure and often we are the last be aware of how we really are. We do not see ourselves as others do. Despite this if we look at major choices we have made we can ask whether we were exercising free will to the degree that we thought we were. My suggestion was that - examining our own actions was a good place to start - It is only a start not a conclusion.
I think your point is, that if our own view of reality is so distorted and unreliable, then any conclusion we come to about free will, using the same mind, will be equally distorted. This means we can never know for sure how accurate the conclusion we come to is.
If this is what you are saying then once again I agree. As I said in my first comment on this thread - I do not think anyone has ever come to a conclusion that all agree on because each new question leads to three more - and I called it - a never ending subject. Your comment conveyed the same thought:
The fact that all of us here on this thread are even debating whether we have free will or not tells me that we simply do not know for sure whether we do or do not have free will.
Thanks for your thoughts on this and all the others who have joined in. I think that all debate is valuable because a single diamond cannot shape itself.
It's limited, like playing golf, we have boundaries. These boundaries do not hamper our limited free will, we can still enjoy the game and life! Are you not thankful for gravity?
Golf
