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

[Skankatron Ltd]

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]

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

 

[Clive]

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]

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."

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.

1. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

 

[Clive]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...