# "Whether the will is completely free ?????"



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 27, 2004)

I have a question for those out there who care to answer.

Is a person's will free?  Completely free, to do what it is that they undertake to do?

"Is a person's will free to undertake any of those things that they do not undertake and whether they are free not to undertake any of those things they do undertake?"


yes or no and why???????

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## WillFightForBeer (Mar 27, 2004)

Ofcourse not, not 100% at least. We are subject to always follow certain patterns in our psyche, and human nature will almost always prevail. So while we think that what we are doing is in free will, in fact, we have limits put on ourselves by our mental nature. You can say "I will go eat because I want to" but what causes you to go eat?


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 27, 2004)

WillFightForBeer said:
			
		

> Ofcourse not, not 100% at least. We are subject to always follow certain patterns in our psyche, and human nature will almost always prevail. So while we think that what we are doing is in free will, in fact, we have limits put on ourselves by our mental nature. You can say "I will go eat because I want to" but what causes you to go eat?




Yes, but am I free to not to eat even when I am conditioned or motivated to eat?????

I will go now and blow soap bubbles through my pipe now.  I contemplate my free will on not eating as I sit here and starve.  Hee Hee

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## someguy (Mar 29, 2004)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12437&page=1&pp=15
That ties in pretty well here.
Maybe we are free and bound by fate at the same time so yes we are 100% free yet we aren't.  
NOw if we say there is no fate due to a higher being then still I say there is no 100% free free will.
There are about 6 billion people out there in the world right now.  No fully controls everything and as such you are controled to some extent or another.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2004)

We are as free as we are able to imagine and decide to do something or not.  We are also limited by natural laws of inherited traits and so on.

I can have to will to lift a car over my head, and I am free to try or not try, but the laws of nature will limit how successful the outcome will be.

I can imagine murders, rapes, get rich quick schemes.... anything under the sun and I am 'free' to do or not do them - as long as I consciously take ownership of my choice.  I am constantly battling with my future in-laws programming of my fiance that "they" made me made, or "he" pissed me off.  Because she is not always conscious of her power to choose, she is not 'free' and subject to others influence (fate, higher power, authority figures - real or not).

Also there is emotion.  If a person has a tendency to be 'emotional' or 'impulsive' they are a 'slave to their primal self' according this logic and not free because they, either because of genetics (ADD/ADHD) or learning (Mom threw fits, Dad punched walls...).

Internal and external nature, culture...prior experience will influence a person's perception of free will and self determination but that doesn't mean that any one of these factors are the limiting factor.  It is perception that either opens or closes potential.  Consider Steven Hawkings (sp?), he could percieve himself as not free because of physical limits, but he has not.

As my 9th grade English teacher was so fond of saying:  You can either accept the reality of the circumstances or reject it.  Those who accept reality usually are rejected by reality.  Those who accept reality are usually nurtured/embraced by it.  This does not mean 'settling' and giving up dreams, but by looking deeply and seeing the totallity of reality, you are free to do things more so than those who only see what they want to see (racism, blind ambition,...)


----------



## tsunami (Oct 8, 2004)

Your will is completely free. However, break man's laws and soon _you_ will not be.

George


----------



## bignick (Oct 8, 2004)

you can override your self-preservation instincts...people have starved themselves to death...remember the monks that lit themselves on fire and just sat there burning...


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 8, 2004)

I'm pretty sure the will is free. Hold on while I ask my wife.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 8, 2004)

"I'm pretty sure the will is free. Hold on while I ask my wife."

well said!!!!


----------



## SMP (Oct 8, 2004)

I would believe in free will if some one can prove that we are able to be altruistic.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 8, 2004)

Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
- al·tru·ist /-tru-ist/ noun
- al·tru·is·tic /"al-tru-'is-tik/ adjective
- al·tru·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

In either case 1 or 2 I do not see the relationship of being altruistic and believing in or not believing in having free will.  I am curious to your response please explain?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 8, 2004)

i read your first post and sat thinking about what exactly you were asking.
this topic of conversation has come up many times in my household, the dojo, school....you name it.
are you asking if we are bound to make the choices we do? by "bound", i mean, while we are given options, were we simply predetermined to make the one we did?
even as options present themselves to you through your daily life.....you're given option A and option B, normally you are an option A person....but you decide to go with B....did you really have a choice? or was it simply predestined.
are we puppets in a play?
tough to say......its one hell of a cruel joke on us if thats the way it is though.

shawn


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 8, 2004)

I am not asking about "actus voluntatis imperatus" but instead "actus voluntais elicitus"

It is not "Do we ever bring about the things we intend to bring about"  But instead "Are we free to will the things that we do will"

If so or if not please explain?


Best Regards


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 8, 2004)

Just one note:  If it sounds that I am being smug or looking for a debate that is not my intent.  I am truly curious to peoples thoughts and explanations to this question.  For I myself seem to waffle back and forth on some of the aspects every time I examine it.


----------



## SMP (Oct 9, 2004)

Many Philosophers have argued that we as man (not trying to be sexist) are unable to be altruistic. So if I have free will I would be able to 1 : have unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
or 2 : have behavior that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to myself but that benefits others.
If I do not have free will then all my actions are dictated by a benefit that I recieve. The choice is dictated by benefit not by will. 
If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 10, 2004)

Choice, free-will, free agency. It's been said that is God's greatest gift to man. Where-as; according to legend/myth/doctrine Satan wanted MAN not to have any choice but to worship the Father. Jesus said " let man choose for himself." 
For that I am grateful that I have the where-withall to choose whatever I so desire and by my experience, knowledge and common sense will continue to do so even if it may not be the brightest thing I've done. If we are not free to choose then we would not learn by experience. 
A child will choose to touch that bright red thingy that mom cooks dinner on and end up burn... if they're intelligent they'll not do it again. Or they can choose to listen to the parent that catches them in time and pulls their hand back and says no-no that's hot, it'll burn you. 
We see a wallet laying on the ground and can spy a few ten dollar bills sticking out of it. We can choose to pick up the wallet and then face a myriad of choices. Keep the wallet, keep the money-toss the wallet, find the owner, etc. etc.
Our values, morals, standards, experiences and intelligence will help dictate our choices as we go through this life. It has been said that we average about 3000 choices every single day. Many of them are subconcious choices based on the values, morals, standards, etc. we have. Many choices are from our own base instincts (also on the level of the subconcious). Many choices are from concious decisions and emotional reactions based on past experiences. Still many others are from impulses and how much control we have over them. 
But yeah, all our choices/free will decisions are free. A terrified person pointing a loaded gun towards a savage, with intent to kill attacker; still makes the choice to pull the trigger or not. We can just as easily motivated by fear NOT do do anything as well as to respond. It is a choice. 
Some will say well, maybe the person is just too terrified to do anything. That is because they chose (subconciously based on their experiences and control of impulses) to be terrified. 
Consenquences? Well it's always present. They're always going to be either good or bad. We'll never know for sure until we experience them. That has been one of the oldest catch-22's known to man. We cannot experience anything without consenquences and we cannot have consensquences without (choosing to) have (that particular) experience.
And like so many Darwin Award winners and nominees we can and do choose whether or not to learn from those experiences. 
 :asian:


> Freewill by: Rush
> 
> There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
> A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.
> ...


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 10, 2004)

Please let me know if I correctly understand your logic?  I listed your explanation below in a symbolic logic outline but I do not want to assume any premises.  I copied your response and broke the main reasons into symbolic logic below.  Please correct these if I have misinterpreted anything.

Best Regards 


Many Philosophers have argued that we as man (not trying to be sexist) are unable to be altruistic. So if I have free will I would be able to 1 : have unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others or 2 : have behavior that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to myself but that benefits others.  If I do not have free will then all my actions are dictated by a benefit that I recieve. The choice is dictated by benefit not by will. 
If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will.





So to begin 

If A then (B and C)
If (B and C) then D
Therefore/ If A then D?


Moving on this premise

If ~ A then (B and ~C) or is it If ~A then (~B and ~C)  ?????
If E then (~B and ~C)
If E then ~ D
Therefore / If E then ~ A


A = have free will
B = having unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
C = behavior that is not beneficial to be harmful to myself but that benefits others
D = altruistic
E = mankind
~ Means not

Do I correctly understand your viewpoint?


----------



## SMP (Oct 11, 2004)

Yes, that is the breakdown that I used but if man can be alturistic then I could see a argument fot freewill.

Great breakdown by the way.


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> you can override your self-preservation ...remember the monks that lit themselves on fire and just sat there burning...


Last time I did that, I ran around screaming and flailing...I utimatley decided it was a bad idea.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Feb 20, 2005)

Ready for the bombshell?
We choose our fate.
That makes us 100% bound and yet 100% free.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Feb 20, 2005)

Oh, and if any of you have read existentialist writings, you will know that altruism is possible. For example, if you forfeit your identity and define it by something else; a proffession, a person, an idea, etc... Then you make choices for the proffession, person, or idea, not for yourself.
Kierkegaard, back me up here.


----------



## Clive (Feb 27, 2005)

I posted a similar question here: illusion of freedom, although the post didnt gather much momentum, there were some interesting views and comments.:lookie:


----------



## Clive (Feb 27, 2005)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> So to begin
> 
> If A then (B and C)
> If (B and C) then D
> ...



If E then (~B and ~C)
You have declared that variable E = ~(B ^ C), but you have not justified why. This states that being a member of mankind implies that you are are selfish toward the welfare of others and perform behaviour that is altrusitic. Doesn't this cause some form of paradox? Does this apply for some of E or all of E? Maybe I am just drunk and stupid.  :idunno:


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Feb 28, 2005)

"If ~ A then (B and ~C) or is it If ~A then (~B and ~C) ?????
If E then (~B and ~C)
If E then ~ D
Therefore / If E then ~ A"

I'm sorry, but take a logic class. On another note, just because something is a paradox doesn't mean it's false.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

I agree, your proposition:
*If E then (~B and ~C) *is unjustified.

In order to accept your conclusion: 
*Therefore / If E then ~ A*
as being true, we must accept your unjustified supporting proposition above as being true.

What you have failed to do in your argument is explain why we should accept your proposition *If E then (~B and ~C)*.

By the way, whether or not someone responding to your statement has taken a logic class is irrelevant to the truthfulness of your claim.  Logic is a process, not a social club.  Apparently, having studied logic is certainly not a prerequisite for claiming knowledge of its principles.


----------



## Clive (Feb 28, 2005)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Many Philosophers have argued that we as man (not trying to be sexist) are unable to be altruistic. So if I have free will I would be able to 1 : have unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others or 2 : have behavior that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to myself but that benefits others.  If I do not have free will then all my actions are dictated by a benefit that I recieve. The choice is dictated by benefit not by will.
> If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will.
> 
> A = have free will
> ...



for all of E, if (B ^ C) then A 
else ~A then ~C 
D = (~C ^ ~A)
D implies A

I am not sure if this is correct but that is how I would read it.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Feb 28, 2005)

"If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will."
Note 'beleive'. In this very sentence, in fact, choice is implied. The author of this statement implies that he would choose anothe beleif if something happened. I guess you could say that's a cause effect thing, but whatever. I revert back to Kierkegaard. To truly choose things you have to first step outside of what is expected and what cicumstances demand and then choose what you want... I can explain more in depth if people want.


----------



## Clive (Mar 1, 2005)

The freewill/determinism debate is one that appears a lot in Psychology, there are also a lot of shades of grey in between, how much is a decision based on freewill or the will of others? Take subliminal messaging for example, to the person making the decision it is based on freewill, but it has been determined by someone else. Altruism is another one of these hot potatoes, it seems unlikely that true altruism is possible to attain, the reason I suggest this is that even if there is no direct benefit, the person may do it to feel better about themselves, then the act is no longer altruistic. Two quite interesting topics.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Mar 1, 2005)

Free will does not exist. Although I used to think differently. I can choose a path but the direction the path dictates to me where I end up. I can choose to go forward or go back or choose another path, but my will is limited by the number of choices. This just begins to scratch the surface of the questions.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 2, 2005)

Free will is itself a somewhat general term. I believe that in order to better understand it in a practical way, we should look at its limitations.

It seems to me as though there is no such concept as absolute freedom. Absolute freedom implies a complete disconnect from controlling influences, as well as the ability to choose and realize any goal.

The difficulty is in the structure. In order for us to choose a goal, there must be a way to realize that goal. This must be done through understanding the mechanisms of cause and effect through which our plans to achieve our goal are actualized. This implies a stability of structure that limits possibilities, but provides us with a level of predictability. The problem is, we are necessarily bound to that structure. Without it, there would be chaos, thereby disallowing us the predictability required to achieve our goal. In being bound to that structure, we are limited in our choices, thus, not completely free.

In understanding this, it is clear that though we may, in fact, have access to a form of free will, there are limits to our choices.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 2, 2005)

freewill is different then freedom.

 I can be tied to a chair and have the will to get up and go to the fridge, but not the freedom to do so.

 Whether or not our will is free is a tricky question, simply because we have no outside reference point.  

 But, I think it is safe to say we do not have entirely free will, for example I really want a Chocolate cup cake, I am unable to bend my will to not wanting it.


----------



## Clive (Mar 5, 2005)

True, but it could be also said that your will is able to ignore that wanting...


----------



## donald (Mar 5, 2005)

Yes we are creatures with a free will. Just read GOD'S word, and you will see that in Genesis it is recorded very plainly that we have the determination to do as we will.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> freewill is different then freedom.
> 
> I can be tied to a chair and have the will to get up and go to the fridge, but not the freedom to do so.


From dictionary.com:

*



			free will
		
Click to expand...

*


> *n.
> 
> The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
> The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
> *




How can one choose a direction that is not available as an option? My argument is that the will is free within certain boundaries; that the freedom to choose is limited necessarily by the choices available. You may want to get up and go the fridge, but you cannot; ergo, the choice is not yours to make.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 7, 2005)

"Yes we are creatures with a free will. Just read GOD'S word, and you will see that in Genesis it is recorded very plainly that we have the determination to do as we will."

Firstly, in an intelligent discussion as this you have to use your own discretion and not follow the words of a book.

Secondly, you can choose something even if you are not free to do so. For instance, if you are tied to a chair, you may choose to not be in the chair, even though you can't necessarily get up. That goes into action, we're just concerned with choice. Two different things.

In regards to the chocolate shake, you can choose not to want it and still want it at the same time (carnally speaking). In THIS case though, you have to beleive that you are not in fact what you are presented as (what clothes you wear, how much you want a chocolate shake, the languages you speak) but how you are related to those things, that is how you CHOOSE them. This is a rather strange concept since it would imply that YOU in fact do not want a milk shake and then you have to ask: who wants it then?

Also look at it this way, even when you are proppelled forward by society or whatnot, you're choosing to do so. If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, you have the choice to jump off or not. If you are then pushed after choosing not to? So be it, your choice was still not to jump and thus your freedom of will is not impinged upon, only your ability to act.

How am i doing, making any sense?


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 7, 2005)

I'd say, yes, you are. 


> we're just concerned with choice. Two different things.


 I don't know, here.  What is the relevance of willing a choice that cannot be executed? 

I'd agree that if one wills something to happen, and for whatever reason is unable to manifest that will, that there was a will that existed; but I'd say at that point the will wasn't free.  Will to me implies action.


> So be it, your choice was still not to jump and thus your freedom of will is not impinged upon, only your ability to act.


 So the question then is, what bars one's ability to act?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 7, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> From dictionary.com:


 First rule of philosophy - Dictionaries are a bad place to go 



> You may want to get up and go the fridge, but you cannot; ergo, the choice is not yours to make.


 sure it is, the ability to act on it isn't.

 Many kids want to be astronauts, firefighters, dancers, etc.  Few actually will, but that doesn't mean they weren't free to choose that as what they want.



> I don't know, here.  What is the relevance of willing a choice that cannot be executed?


 A big one.  We know that a persons freedom can be taken away, but whether there free will can be (assuming they have it) is another question.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

Im fated to post the following obscene material. I cannot control my actions, so Bob you cant ban me....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Ooops...guess I was wrong.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im fated to post the following obscene material. I cannot control my actions, so Bob you cant ban me....


 Under that logic he'd be fated to ban you


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Under that logic he'd be fated to ban you


True, true...


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im fated to post the following obscene material. I cannot control my actions, so Bob you cant ban me....


 Tricky thing here, aren't you choosing to be subject to said fate? Even if you try NOT to choose, you're still choosing (choosing not to choose).

 Hey! I'm learning something in my existentialism class!


----------



## Clive (Mar 9, 2005)

I am only the person who is confused now :idunno: ?


----------



## Clive (Mar 9, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> Even if you try NOT to choose, you're still choosing (choosing not to choose)



Which leads to the question, who or what makes you choose to choose or, indeed, choose not to choose?


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> First rule of philosophy - Dictionaries are a bad place to go.


Actually, they're quite useful. Imperative in any such discussion is the factor that all involved are working within the same framework. There is a conceptual difficulty within language, namely, that the words we use are constructs, and often not accurate representations of the essence of the thought being considered. In dealing with similar definitions, the point is easier to make.

from my previous post, "the choice is not yours to make."


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> sure it is, the ability to act on it isn't.
> 
> 
> Many kids want to be astronauts, firefighters, dancers, etc. Few actually will, but that doesn't mean they weren't free to choose that as what they want.


From my previous post:
*free will*
*n. *

The ability or discretion to choose
Also from dictionary.com:

*discretion*

n 1: freedom to act or judge on one's own.

Which is to say, my free will is the ability or freedom to act or judge on my own what or how to choose.

How can those conditions be filled if the desired option is unavailable?

I believe that you're referring more to intent, as opposed to actualization. You're saying either:

a)"When July comes, I will choose to visit the coast."
or
b)"I have chosen to go to the coast in July."

If a), then a choice has not yet been made. If b), then the possibility exists that in July, going to the coast may not be an option. In that case, either:

c) a choice has been made for you,
or,
d) you must rechoose from the available options.

In neither c) not d) would I say that you have excercised your free will.

Therefore, in order to be able to excercise your free will, you are limited to the achievable options available at the time of the actualization of your choice.


----------



## Clive (Mar 12, 2005)

Today I came across this interesting quote from Human, All too Human by Nietzsche 'The strongest knowledge - that of the total unfreedom of the human will - is nonetheless the poorest in successes, for it always has the strongest opponent: human vanity'.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 27, 2005)

Clive said:
			
		

> Today I came across this interesting quote from Human, All too Human by Nietzsche 'The strongest knowledge - that of the total unfreedom of the human will - is nonetheless the poorest in successes, for it always has the strongest opponent: human vanity'.


 I think I see a pattern emerging in our arguments, a very old one.
 Which came first? (chicken or egg?)
 Most existentialists (and myself) will argue that first comes choice, then comes givens.

 Ok, so say circumstances cause you to do something. In order for them to cause you to do something, they have to matter to you. Why do they matter to you then? It would be a stretch to say that they cause themselves to matter to you.
 No, things can't matter to you unless you choose or allow them to. If I never wanted to earn a dime in my life and be a farmer, of what use would college be to me? I would not value it because I choose not to value it.

 10-4


----------



## Adept (Mar 27, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> Ok, so say circumstances cause you to do something. In order for them to cause you to do something, they have to matter to you. Why do they matter to you then? It would be a stretch to say that they cause themselves to matter to you.


 On the macro level, you are correct. However, the freedom of choice has very little to do with the macro level, instead being much more concerned with what happens at the micro level.

 If you pass an electrical current through one of your muscles, it reacts. You have no control over the reaction.

 If you apply certain stimuli to the brain, it will react. Again, you have no control over these reactions.

 So yes, you do choose what you do and do not care about. But since those choices are themselves the uncontrollable results of complex chemical reactions in the brain, it makes no difference.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> since those choices are themselves the uncontrollable results of complex chemical reactions in the brain, it makes no difference.


 oooo.... I think you're one of those people who I know is wrong and can't prove wrong. Hey, you _could_ be right.... I have come to beleive that there is far more involved with choices than just biology and the 'physically' perceivable (mainly because I have gone beyond it).

 Ok. I thought of a counterpoint. You fail to take into account the external influences which affect the chemical processes. These external influences are of critical importance (how often do you just fire brain chemicals without any external stimuli? Never, i think.) Anyway. These influences include all of existence and all the history of the universe in them. Even a distant constalation or microscopic particle can affect someone to do something. However, if you look at it in this light, since it's just cause and effect, there is no major difference between you and the rest of the universe except the complexity of your interactions with it. For example, if you look at it your way, a human brain would be _forced_ to react a certain way because of its configuration just as a star is forced to implode at the end of its life if it's large enough. So in that case, there would be neither freedom of choice nor person to make it. In fact, unless you knew of something outside of the universe, there would be only one set course of action possible for the entire universe, it would just be a long chain of pointless events.


----------



## Adept (Mar 28, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> oooo.... I think you're one of those people who I know is wrong and can't prove wrong. Hey, you _could_ be right.... I have come to beleive that there is far more involved with choices than just biology and the 'physically' perceivable (mainly because I have gone beyond it).
> 
> Ok. I thought of a counterpoint. You fail to take into account the external influences which affect the chemical processes. These external influences are of critical importance (how often do you just fire brain chemicals without any external stimuli? Never, i think.) Anyway. These influences include all of existence and all the history of the universe in them. Even a distant constalation or microscopic particle can affect someone to do something. However, if you look at it in this light, since it's just cause and effect, there is no major difference between you and the rest of the universe except the complexity of your interactions with it. For example, if you look at it your way, a human brain would be _forced_ to react a certain way because of its configuration just as a star is forced to implode at the end of its life if it's large enough. So in that case, there would be neither freedom of choice nor person to make it. In fact, unless you knew of something outside of the universe, there would be only one set course of action possible for the entire universe, it would just be a long chain of pointless events.


 Well, that _is_ my stance on the matter. Choice exists, but it is not free. Cause and effect my good man, cause and effect.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 29, 2005)

I guess you didn't understand my response.... My conclusion was that choice can't even exist in the first place since there are no individual beings to choose. You could give a set of interactions choice, but you could then lable the implosion of a star a choice just as rightfully as my decision of going to college.

Do you see that if everything truly is cause and effect, we are just a complicated part of everything? A very complicated part, yes (needlessly complicated), but a part nonetheless. There is a good deal of logic in this, but I hope to God your wrong (so does God) because it would pretty much imply that existence is purposeless, there is no God, there really is no consciousness.....I think I'm on to something here. Maybe that's why people grapple to religions, for fear that they'll discover that there's no purpose to anything. Oh how my head spins delightfully on the topic of philosophy!

Anyway, I don't mean to shoot down your philosophy or anything, just to point out the holes that have already been shot in it.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh, and quantum mechanics. Don't forget about those. Totally random as far as scientists know. TOTALLY random. What, pray tell, causes that? I have my own theories, but they're just theories.


----------



## Adept (Mar 30, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> I guess you didn't understand my response.... My conclusion was that choice can't even exist in the first place since there are no individual beings to choose. You could give a set of interactions choice, but you could then lable the implosion of a star a choice just as rightfully as my decision of going to college.


 Well, I guess it all comes back to definitions. When I say 'choice' I mean the process of chemical reactions in the brain. When faced with an option, a choice must be made. Not being able to choose differently than you did does not mean choice does not exist, simply that it isn't 'free'.



> Do you see that if everything truly is cause and effect, we are just a complicated part of everything? A very complicated part, yes (needlessly complicated), but a part nonetheless. There is a good deal of logic in this, but I hope to God your wrong (so does God) because it would pretty much imply that existence is purposeless, there is no God, there really is no consciousness.


 That is my stance, as stated before. We are no more in control of our fates than a ball bouncing around a pool table. I don't believe in any gods at all. Or at least to say, I have seen no evidence to support the hypothesis of an omniscient and omnipresent being of any kind, that takes an active interest in humanity or Earth. And it isn't so much that I don't believe in the Christian or Abrahamic God, but that I see no reason why I should pick him to disbelieve in. I find all (or most) religions equally farcical. I would find it just as likely that the Ancient Greek pantheon be real as the Christian one.

 But I digress.

 Consciousness can, I believe, only be measured by the turing test. Which is to say, after you have a random conversation with someone, you should be able to tell if they are conscious or not.



> I think I'm on to something here. Maybe that's why people grapple to religions, for fear that they'll discover that there's no purpose to anything. Oh how my head spins delightfully on the topic of philosophy!


 Quite possible. Personally, I find it very liberating. If nothing really matters, then simply doing what makes me feel good is all the reason I need to live.



> Anyway, I don't mean to shoot down your philosophy or anything, just to point out the holes that have already been shot in it.


 I'm not seeing any holes, really.



> Oh, and quantum mechanics. Don't forget about those. Totally random as far as scientists know. TOTALLY random. What, pray tell, causes that? I have my own theories, but they're just theories.


 The theories of Quantum Mechanics are also just theories. But they are certainly a facotr to consider. So, to my mind, we are left with this - Either all of existance is an incredibly intricate quilt, where each factor has a calculable effect on another, and all things are set in stone, OR, its completely random. I don't know about you, but life (and physics in general) doesn't look that random to me. I drop something, it falls. No matter how random the jumps on a quantum level.


----------



## lulflo (Mar 31, 2005)

A few quotes to ponder if you will.

 "The flaw with words is that they always make us feel enlightened, but when we turn around to face the world they always fail us and we end up facing the world as we always have, without enlightenment. For this reason, a warrior seeks to act rather than talk, and to this effect, he gets a new description of the world - a new description where talking is not that important, and where new acts have new reflections".

 "The worst thing that could happen to us is that we have to die, and since that is already our unalterable fate, we are free; those who have lost everything no longer have anything to fear".

 "The spirit manifests itself to a warrior at every turn. However, this is not the entire truth. The entire truth is that the spirit reveals itself to everyone with the same intensity and consistency, but only warriors are consistently attuned to such revelations".

 "For a warrior, the spirit is an abstract only because he knows it without words or even thoughts. It's an abstract because he can't conceive what the spirit is. Yet, without the slightest chance or desire to understand it, a warrior handles the spirit. He recognizes it, beckons it, entices it, becomes familiar with it, and expresses it with his acts".

 "The spirit listens only when the speaker speaks in gestures. And gestures do not mean signs or body movements, but acts of true abandon, acts of largesse, of humor. As a gesture for the spirit, warriors bring out the best of themselves and silently offer it to the abstract".

 I offer these as a way to express what might be underlying when speaking of will. The third chakra is will and is explored as a very young child who is determining the rules of the new world of which it is now a part. I believe one can certainly wield a will of their own, but not with a personal history or any selfishness. It is strange, but will is, to me, something like a wide eyed child figuring out how something works and following it to the end. It can be said about anything that is done with no thought to the desired outcome, just what will come from the act. So is the will free/ It is if it is not corrupted by a person's view of what should be or what one wants to be or what perception one may have of a specific outcome. Will is free whether you like what it does or not. Just my opinion again, Thanks for reading.

   Farang - Larry


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2005)

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.


----------



## Clive (Mar 31, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> I think I see a pattern emerging in our arguments, a very old one.
> Which came first? (chicken or egg?)
> Most existentialists (and myself) will argue that first comes choice, then comes givens.
> 
> ...



To be honest this quote was at the beginning of a study I was reading and thought it would be an interesting addition to the thread. It seems to me that you have this complex in that you feel you have to prove your own intellectual superiority, at least thats the vibe I get from your posts. You seem to have the exciting arguments that never acually lead anywhere, where do you actually stand on this debate as you probably will find there are quite a few people who actually agree with you.


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Apr 6, 2005)

Clive said:
			
		

> To be honest this quote was at the beginning of a study I was reading and thought it would be an interesting addition to the thread. It seems to me that you have this complex in that you feel you have to prove your own intellectual superiority, at least thats the vibe I get from your posts. You seem to have the exciting arguments that never acually lead anywhere, where do you actually stand on this debate as you probably will find there are quite a few people who actually agree with you.


 I don't THINK I have said complex, but there is still much I don't really know about myself. I just thought it was an exciting connection that could be drawn (as I was in an existentialism class at the time). I guess my purpose in bringing up the philosophers was to show that people have been thinking about these things for a long time. If you mean you didn't understand me, then I'm a lot farther gone than I think I am.

 My personal opinion actually changes a lot with what mood I'm in, at least in short range, but overall I beleive that the will is free, or rather that there truly is consciosness, mainly because I've experienced it. The problem is, when I experience these things, they feel so separate from the real world I consciously have problems acknowledging them. I do beleive in choosing things, though. I think that our lives are here, and it's up to us to choose them. Fate or not, there is still the illusion of choice, and we should do what good we can with that choice. Um... I find that language fails me often in philosophical discussions... So that may not make sense.... But like, owning up to your life and accepting it is a choice, and a choice you will eventually have to make before you die. When confronted directly with death, your question WILL be: 'what did it all mean?' And if things didn't matter to you, if you didn't choose them as an important part of yourself, if there was meaninglessness in your life, then why live in the first place?
 Do I beleive in God? Yes. However, I do not beleive in religion. If there were  a religion I would have to identify with, it would be the Tao Te Ching. All of my spiritual beleifs are, as far as I know, completely unique. Actually, that's not completely true, but they are all self-formed. I haven't just grifted everything from one holy text (though I took a lot from the Thiaoouba Prophecy, to my surprize). I tend to go with what makes sense to me and God being some old guy on a throne watching us doesn't make sense to me. I see him as more of a force, mayhaps an all encompassing passion and love which is in fact the entirety of existence. The problem is this raises the issue of individual consciousness... lots of my beleifs are contradictory and paradoxical, mainly because I think they're fun. ****. I'm rambling. I'm sorry. Um..... yeah.
 -Julian


----------



## lulflo (Apr 6, 2005)

If any of those quotes were good for anyone, I got them from reading the series from Carlos Castaneda. The first book is called "The teachings of Don Juan, A Yaqui way of learning" Don Juan is a Yaqui Indian from Mexico that speaks of men of knowledge and becoming a warrior. There is a series of eight books plus a few that are not part of that series, I recommend them for anyone who wants another outlook on '_will'_ and such.  

   Farang - Larry


----------



## Clive (Apr 12, 2005)

Skankatron Ltd said:
			
		

> Do I beleive in God? Yes. However, I do not beleive in religion.



Thats where I find myself at the moment as well, some guy on another forum I visit suggested that 'religion is heresy to God'.  :idunno:

I think the problem with religion is that it is mans futile attempt to understand something that really is beyond us. Instead of accepting things are as they are, we feel we must find this 'key' to all knowledge and understanding, which in all likeliness doesnt actually exist.

Maybe we ponder these things and search as we do to give our insignificant lives some form of purpose.

 %think%


----------



## Skankatron Ltd (Apr 13, 2005)

That's a good way of putting it. Everyone needs something to beleive in, right now I'm in transition and am finding it very difficult. I think you'll find athiests have, for the most part, very logical minds and beleive vehemently in science. 'Nowhere science can't go', but science is not absolute either. Man existence confuses me sometimes. There's so much more to find than what you've already found.


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2005)

lulflo said:
			
		

> If any of those quotes were good for anyone, I got them from reading the series from Carlos Castaneda. The first book is called "The teachings of Don Juan, A Yaqui way of learning" Don Juan is a Yaqui Indian from Mexico that speaks of men of knowledge and becoming a warrior. There is a series of eight books plus a few that are not part of that series, I recommend them for anyone who wants another outlook on '_will'_ and such.


I remember reading a few of his books many years ago {I swear in was in the 1980's}

I also remember reading about his divorce after that.  His ex-wife testified he'd get high, lay around on the floor and piss himself.  Yes, he lived in a "separate reality" but it was it anything but "real."

His words may have been pleasing...


----------

