I did not cause you to post this. Consequently, I am not in your causal chain. Whatever caused you to write this has manipulated you. (Beware the manipulator with the will to trick you,)Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:39 pmConsider that the endpoint of rationality is that all phenomena can be causally explained, in theory. A thought is a phenomenon, as you’ll agree when your memory starts to go, because a phenomenon is change, and thought is a change. Blank awareness changes to thought when the thought appears to memory, as many fogies will attest. To say that a causal chain of thought, or mind, is not true means that the existing causal train exists, but has yet to be discovered either empirically, reasonably, or inherently. Example: rationality indicates the existence of knowing other than linear thought. Example of inherently: love can weave a strange, twisted, but predictable path once all the conditions are known … knowledge which often arrives both rationally and empirically at the end of a lifetime of lovin’, which is why Casanova retired to a monastery, to conceptualize all that he had to do in the past, and the consequences. But, who has time to read of such adventures when the present is all consuming and the sand is piling up.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:16 am In determinism the physical universe moves step by step. Each step comes from a previous state and the previous state is part of an ever progressing causal chain.
The brain also functions step by step but the mind often leaps from one line of thought to another. The leap is causally unexplainable. It could have a cause but that cause is unknowable. To say that it comes from a causal chain is not true. To say that it comes from a causal leap is unknown.
So believe what you want but don't say you have definite proof.
I believe I have free will. Why? That's what I want to believe.
The Death of Free Will
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: The Death of Free Will
Re: The Death of Free Will
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:22 pm But isn't choosin to go along to get along just a reaction to a desire?
I'm not a fan of JP, but he got this right: Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
no one gets a pass: no one gets to deny they choose...they may choose poorly, may choose for all the wrong reasons, but choose they do...and, always, they're responsible for that choice, any choice
Free will must be free and to be human must reflect human conscience. A man may be dedicated to and having the free will to murder women but without conscience, in reality it causes more harm than good.
that's the thing, Nick: if a will is free then it's free to choose wrong
if we declare that only good choice, or choice connected to conscience, reflects free will, then we gut the very notion of free will...we render man, robot
no, man is free all the time...it's his natural state...and it's a double-edged sword
If she is right it means politics lack conscience, free will, and the ability to think out of their indoctrinated box. What does this say about the human potential for free will actualizing in the world dominated by politics?
politics is sumthin' men do...it's an endeavor, it's propaganda, it's activity, and it's violence...of course politics lacks conscience and free will...only men have (are) those
one might say politics is the on-going consequence of bad choices, bad choices made by free wills
But who or what is a person responsible to? In society we are responsible to the law. In Christianity Jesus' sacrifice made forgiveness possible.I'm not a fan of JP, but he got this right: Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
It seems to me that free will is only the potential for conscious humanity but as we are, we are limited to reacting to desires incapable of free will. If that is true, the future for animal Man can only be dust to dust or being preserved as good seed in the body of the Christ. Being responsible to anything other than societal law is our potential and as you mentioned it is a double edged sword
But isn't a living robot reacting to external influences the definition of organic life on earth? That is what it does. I am saying that Man on earth has the possibility of evolving from mechanical man, a creature of reaction, or the living robot, into conscious Man with free will serving a universal rather than an animal purpose. Conscious Man is capable of choice and responsibility while animal Man is not. As Jesus said, "forgive them for they know not what they do."no one gets a pass: no one gets to deny they choose...they may choose poorly, may choose for all the wrong reasons, but choose they do...and, always, they're responsible for that choice, any choice
Free will must be free and to be human must reflect human conscience. A man may be dedicated to and having the free will to murder women but without conscience, in reality it causes more harm than good.
that's the thing, Nick: if a will is free then it's free to choose wrong
if we declare that only good choice, or choice connected to conscience, reflects free will, then we gut the very notion of free will...we render man, robot
Re: The Death of Free Will
That's what you think, which you can't help but.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:54 pm
I did not cause you to post this. Consequently, I am not in your causal chain. Whatever caused you to write this has manipulated you. (Beware the manipulator with the will to trick you,)
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: The Death of Free Will
But who or what is a person responsible to? In society we are responsible to the law. In Christianity Jesus' sacrifice made forgiveness possible.
as I reckon it: the Creator
understand, I'm a deist, I have no scripture to turn to, no holy writings to advise me...conscience and reason is all I have to guide me, so, what I've sussed out is raw and simple...as the expression goes: always trust your gut (conscience), your brain (reason) can be fooled, and your heart (emotion) is an idiot, but your gut (conscience) doesn't inow how to lie...my conscience, backed by reason, tells me the Creator is who I'm ultimately responsible to
as I reckon it: the Creator
understand, I'm a deist, I have no scripture to turn to, no holy writings to advise me...conscience and reason is all I have to guide me, so, what I've sussed out is raw and simple...as the expression goes: always trust your gut (conscience), your brain (reason) can be fooled, and your heart (emotion) is an idiot, but your gut (conscience) doesn't inow how to lie...my conscience, backed by reason, tells me the Creator is who I'm ultimately responsible to
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: The Death of Free Will
That's what you think but no one knows why you think the way you do.Walker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:10 amThat's what you think, which you can't help but.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:54 pm
I did not cause you to post this. Consequently, I am not in your causal chain. Whatever caused you to write this has manipulated you. (Beware the manipulator with the will to trick you,)
Re: The Death of Free Will
No I don't. You do.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:10 pmThat's what you think but no one knows why you think the way you do.Walker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:10 amThat's what you think, which you can't help but.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:54 pm
I did not cause you to post this. Consequently, I am not in your causal chain. Whatever caused you to write this has manipulated you. (Beware the manipulator with the will to trick you,)
Re: The Death of Free Will
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:41 am But who or what is a person responsible to? In society we are responsible to the law. In Christianity Jesus' sacrifice made forgiveness possible.
as I reckon it: the Creator
understand, I'm a deist, I have no scripture to turn to, no holy writings to advise me...conscience and reason is all I have to guide me, so, what I've sussed out is raw and simple...as the expression goes: always trust your gut (conscience), your brain (reason) can be fooled, and your heart (emotion) is an idiot, but your gut (conscience) doesn't inow how to lie...my conscience, backed by reason, tells me the Creator is who I'm ultimately responsible to
I agree with you. God is not within the universe interacting with mankind telling people what to do so why are we responsible to it? As I understand it God is the creator of the essence of our universe but the details of the universe is maintained and governed by the demiurge or artisans of the universe making this living machine what it is.de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Do we have choice and free will associated with it. The only way we can know is through sincere efforts to "Know Thyself" and have the conscious experience of ourselves to see if we are masters of ourselves. If not, than we lack choice and free will.
But what of this minority whose gut feelings do not refer to worldly events but are directed at truths not associated with the world? Simone Weil is perfect example:
For these people the world cannot answer the callings of the heart attracted to "an infinite and perfect good". Their gut feelings that they live in an absurd world may be true but how can they grow with it when the world is against them? They may not have choice and free will as they pertain to this deeper calling but is their situation hopeless?"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
Can humanity learn from this minority or should they just be killed off for the sake of peace? An ancient question.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: The Death of Free Will
we're kinda goin' in circles, aren't we, NickNick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:30 pmhenry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:41 am But who or what is a person responsible to? In society we are responsible to the law. In Christianity Jesus' sacrifice made forgiveness possible.
as I reckon it: the Creator
understand, I'm a deist, I have no scripture to turn to, no holy writings to advise me...conscience and reason is all I have to guide me, so, what I've sussed out is raw and simple...as the expression goes: always trust your gut (conscience), your brain (reason) can be fooled, and your heart (emotion) is an idiot, but your gut (conscience) doesn't inow how to lie...my conscience, backed by reason, tells me the Creator is who I'm ultimately responsible toI agree with you. God is not within the universe interacting with mankind telling people what to do so why are we responsible to it? As I understand it God is the creator of the essence of our universe but the details of the universe is maintained and governed by the demiurge or artisans of the universe making this living machine what it is.de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Do we have choice and free will associated with it. The only way we can know is through sincere efforts to "Know Thyself" and have the conscious experience of ourselves to see if we are masters of ourselves. If not, than we lack choice and free will.
But what of this minority whose gut feelings do not refer to worldly events but are directed at truths not associated with the world? Simone Weil is perfect example:
For these people the world cannot answer the callings of the heart attracted to "an infinite and perfect good". Their gut feelings that they live in an absurd world may be true but how can they grow with it when the world is against them? They may not have choice and free will as they pertain to this deeper calling but is their situation hopeless?"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
Can humanity learn from this minority or should they just be killed off for the sake of peace? An ancient question.
we both keep sayin' what we say and neither of us moves a jot
we're not so far apart, you and me, but we have differences
Re: The Death of Free Will
Some differences but I think we would both agree with Einstein who wrote:henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:45 pmwe're kinda goin' in circles, aren't we, NickNick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:30 pmhenry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:41 am But who or what is a person responsible to? In society we are responsible to the law. In Christianity Jesus' sacrifice made forgiveness possible.
as I reckon it: the Creator
understand, I'm a deist, I have no scripture to turn to, no holy writings to advise me...conscience and reason is all I have to guide me, so, what I've sussed out is raw and simple...as the expression goes: always trust your gut (conscience), your brain (reason) can be fooled, and your heart (emotion) is an idiot, but your gut (conscience) doesn't inow how to lie...my conscience, backed by reason, tells me the Creator is who I'm ultimately responsible toI agree with you. God is not within the universe interacting with mankind telling people what to do so why are we responsible to it? As I understand it God is the creator of the essence of our universe but the details of the universe is maintained and governed by the demiurge or artisans of the universe making this living machine what it is.de·ism
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Do we have choice and free will associated with it. The only way we can know is through sincere efforts to "Know Thyself" and have the conscious experience of ourselves to see if we are masters of ourselves. If not, than we lack choice and free will.
But what of this minority whose gut feelings do not refer to worldly events but are directed at truths not associated with the world? Simone Weil is perfect example:
For these people the world cannot answer the callings of the heart attracted to "an infinite and perfect good". Their gut feelings that they live in an absurd world may be true but how can they grow with it when the world is against them? They may not have choice and free will as they pertain to this deeper calling but is their situation hopeless?"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
Can humanity learn from this minority or should they just be killed off for the sake of peace? An ancient question.
we both keep sayin' what we say and neither of us moves a jot
we're not so far apart, you and me, but we have differences
For some reason objective conscience normal for our universe has atrophied in the majority and has been replaced by man made interpretations called morality.Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Albert Einstein
Since you value your conscience you are in good company. It seems many of our founding fathers were also Deists.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: The Death of Free Will
Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:13 pmSome differences but I think we would both agree with Einstein who wrote:henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:45 pmwe're kinda goin' in circles, aren't we, NickNick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:30 pm
I agree with you. God is not within the universe interacting with mankind telling people what to do so why are we responsible to it? As I understand it God is the creator of the essence of our universe but the details of the universe is maintained and governed by the demiurge or artisans of the universe making this living machine what it is.
Do we have choice and free will associated with it. The only way we can know is through sincere efforts to "Know Thyself" and have the conscious experience of ourselves to see if we are masters of ourselves. If not, than we lack choice and free will.
But what of this minority whose gut feelings do not refer to worldly events but are directed at truths not associated with the world? Simone Weil is perfect example:
For these people the world cannot answer the callings of the heart attracted to "an infinite and perfect good". Their gut feelings that they live in an absurd world may be true but how can they grow with it when the world is against them? They may not have choice and free will as they pertain to this deeper calling but is their situation hopeless?
Can humanity learn from this minority or should they just be killed off for the sake of peace? An ancient question.
we both keep sayin' what we say and neither of us moves a jot
we're not so far apart, you and me, but we have differences
For some reason objective conscience normal for our universe has atrophied in the majority and has been replaced by man made interpretations called morality.Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Albert Einstein
Since you value your conscience you are in good company. It seems many of our founding fathers were also Deists.
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: The Death of Free Will
That's right. When a person is dreaming, his mind suspends disbelief. Your mind suspends disbelief when you are awake.
Re: The Death of Free Will
That’s right.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:58 pmThat's right. When a person is dreaming, his mind suspends disbelief. Your mind suspends disbelief when you are awake.Walker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:27 pmNo I don't. You do.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:10 pm
That's what you think but no one knows why you think the way you do.
You’ve just identified open-minded inquiry.
Open-minded inquiry first seeks to understand how something inexplicable can be true, then these possibilities are explored.
Bigotry automatically rejects what doesn’t fit the pre-determined narrative, without inquiry.
Ignorance rejects all explanations on the basis that many people think many different things.
Blind stupidity accepts no evidence, without basis.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22265
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Death of Free Will
Sincere Question: In your view, is "open-minded" inquiry ever legitimately, eventually, and after investigation, rightly drawn to the conclusion that the "inexplicable" thing is actually false?
Or can it only choose among different explanations of how it is "true"?
-
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: The Death of Free Will
Right again. When someone has a mind free of the past, he/she is open minded. When someone is bound to his past thinking, he is close minded.Walker wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 10:43 pmThat’s right.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:58 pmThat's right. When a person is dreaming, his mind suspends disbelief. Your mind suspends disbelief when you are awake.
You’ve just identified open-minded inquiry.
Open-minded inquiry first seeks to understand how something inexplicable can be true, then these possibilities are explored.
Bigotry automatically rejects what doesn’t fit the pre-determined narrative, without inquiry.
Ignorance rejects all explanations on the basis that many people think many different things.
Blind stupidity accepts no evidence, without basis.
Re: The Death of Free Will
Free will cannot be an illusion given an illusion decieves and deception requires the choice between truth and falsity.MustaphaTheMond wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:55 pm I have just published an essay putting the final nail in the coffin of free will over on Malady:
https://philosophical-malady.blogspot.c ... -free.html
In it I have attempted to describe the "standard argument" against free will and interrogate the salient evidence from neuroscience and physics. I would be interested to hear peoples' views/responses.
(Apologies if posting links is not allowed, I can reproduce the essay here in its entirety but it is 5000 words long)