Free will. Free will?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let's leave bible and stuff like that out of this thread, else it will become ugly fast.

Humanists took the discussion of free will from the Catholic philosophers, like Aquinas. It is simply a substitution of "Inner Urge" from "God". You can't have a discussion without the origins of the discussion. No advocacy of religion is being discussed, only summarry for academic purposes, just as one must appreciate the genius of J. S. Bach's St. Matthew's Passion regardless of their religiosity.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Bunch of hogwash if you ask me. Questioning your existence is a road that only leads to insanity.

Or possibly stems from it.

On the other hand it can be argued that not questioning your existence, you motives or your sanity leads to hubris. Or stems from it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Or possibly stems from it.

On the other hand it can be argued that not questioning your existence, you motives or your sanity leads to hubris. Or stems from it.

Anything can be argued, that doesn't make it true or likely.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Skybird
Let's leave bible and stuff like that out of this thread, else it will become ugly fast.

It's your thread man ...

you want to leave the bible out?

I think it is for the same reasons that you have left it out of your life

if that's what you want then that is what you will get

I think it's not the bible that you are afraid of ...

it's the truth that is available in the bible

Let me leave you with this example of what St James the brother of Jesus
said,

"The body is dead without the spirit"

another example: what if a dog bites you?

did that dog have free will to bite you?

did you step into that dogs yard triggering something in that dog to bite you?

So you stomp the poor thing killing it in the process and now that dog is dead proving that the body is dead without the spirit.

All things are spiritual ... God is a spirit

Now I'll leave the bible out of your thread ... "it's your thread man"

by the way if you have three lighthouses in a row ...

do you get egg roll?

[Takeda Shingen]

Well my agument is now dead, at least as it pertains to SubSim, and this immediate thread. At least I have Bach to keep me company.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by geetrue

It's your...
(...)
... egg roll?

Sigh.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Free will in the context talked about by Harris, and in the context I usually base on, means not more and not less than the assumed freedom of man to chose between two or more alternatives. I would not go any further than this, because going further means, as I see it, to step on slippery ground.

Do we form such choices outside any brain context? Well, take away the brain, and what you are left with is a bunch of meat.

If there is the freedom to make a choice in the above meaning, then the question is: what is it that has this freedom?

If on the other hand the brain forms - by a pattern of complex predetermination, if you want - the decision on what the organism does, chooses, prefers next, and then afterwards the organism starts to interpret this as its "free decision" that was made without and outside of that pattern of complex predetermination: then this obviously has consequences for the way we understand ourselves, think of ourselves, and define ourselves.

Really that difficult...?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Or possibly stems from it.

On the other hand it can be argued that not questioning your existence, you motives or your sanity leads to hubris. Or stems from it.

It's not about whether I exist or not. I think on this issue, therefore I am. Obviously, something does exist there for sure, and obviously it is in any kind of relation to what we consider to be ourselves.

The issue is: what is it that thinks it is free to decide? It is "us". But is our understanding of ourselves rally in congruence with the reality of our nature and essence, or do we think about ourselves in illusive concepts that hold no truth,. no substance? In the end: what is the nature of ourself - or better: of our self? Is it really that independent as we usually think it is? Or are we more predetermined by factors that we usually comfortably tend to not wanting to become too aware of? Free will yes or no - obviously it touches on some of the most profound issues onthology fights with with since the first people started to think.

I began with that essay by Harris. I just made some steps beyond what he reflected about, which was primarily the question on ethical behaviour.

[geetrue]

"Free will"

what triggers the voluntary responce?

soul

[August]

Originally Posted by geetrue

"Free will"

what triggers the voluntary responce?

soul

This is just Skybirds way of saying that when he advocates mass murder it's not his fault.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Anything can be argued, that doesn't make it true or likely.

I try to be polite in my phrasing. It's much nicer than just saying "Damn, you're arrogant!"

You don't like actually discussing things much, do you?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by geetrue

It's your thread man ...

you want to leave the bible out?

This was meant to be a discussion about free will. You would rather use your time to proselyze and judge based on the Bible. That's fine, but do you have any opinion about free will? That is the topic, after all.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

At least I have Bach to keep me company.

I spit on you modernists and you're newfangled polyphonic music. I'm listening to Hildegard von Bingen today.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I spit on you modernists and you're newfangled polyphonic music. I'm listening to Hildegard von Bingen today.

You should follow your own advice to Geetrue in the previous post.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

You should follow your own advice to Geetrue in the previous post.

I said my piece on free will, and more besides. Besides that, I blame Tak. he started it!

Here's a free will question for you: In the old days of arranged marriages the choice of whom we would marry was made for us. It was made for political, social or personal reasons, but it was a conscious choice no matter who made it. Today we mostly marry for love. You chose who you would marry. Why did you choose her? Was it because you decided she would make a good mother for your children? Was it because she was of the same social rank as you? Was it because you were interested in the same things?

More likely you fell in love. Barring the alternate discussion of whether love or even physical attraction is spiritual, emotional, or chemical, why did you fall in love? Did you have any control over it? Could you have fallen in love with someone else? Probably, but you didn't. Was that a conscious choice? So you asked her to marry you because you were in love and couldn't imagine spending your life with anyone else. So where was the free will in that?

Same with divorce. People manage to fall out of love. They can choose to remain married in spite of that, but the choice is now to remain miserable or to admit that you aren't who you were. Yes, you get to make a choice, but only between two evils. Is that really a choice at all. You have to make a decision, but free will has less to do with it than acceptance of not-so-nice fate.

It's the same thing with my car. I can't afford any car I want. If fate drops a car in my lap that I both want and can pay for then I'll try to grab it. Two perfect motorcycles have come along in the last week, but somebody grabbed them both before I could. I'll probably end up accepting a compromise, buying a cheap car I don't want. That is indeed my choice, but based on what? I really have no choice in the matter at all.

So where is the free will?

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I said my piece on free will, and more besides. Besides that, I blame Tak. he started it!

Here's a free will question for you: In the old days of arranged marriages the choice of whom we would marry was made for us. It was made for political, social or personal reasons, but it was a conscious choice no matter who made it. Today we mostly marry for love. You chose who you would marry. Why did you choose her? Was it because you decided she would make a good mother for your children? Was it because she was of the same social rank as you? Was it because you were interested in the same things?

It could be all or none of those things.

More likely you fell in love. Barring the alternate discussion of whether love or even physical attraction is spiritual, emotional, or chemical, why did you fall in love? Did you have any control over it? Could you have fallen in love with someone else? Probably, but you didn't.

Yes I did.

Was that a conscious choice? So you asked her to marry you because you were in love and couldn't imagine spending your life with anyone else. So where was the free will in that?

You're making a lot of assumptions here Steve. I married my wife at age 49. She isn't my first love and yeah I can well imagine spending my life with someone else.

Same with divorce. People manage to fall out of love. They can choose to remain married in spite of that, but the choice is now to remain miserable or to admit that you aren't who you were. Yes, you get to make a choice, but only between two evils. Is that really a choice at all. You have to make a decision, but free will has less to do with it than acceptance of not-so-nice fate.

So you admit that free will exists even in a Hobsons choice.

It's the same thing with my car. I can't afford any car I want. If fate drops a car in my lap that I both want and can pay for then I'll try to grab it. Two perfect motorcycles have come along in the last week, but somebody grabbed them both before I could. I'll probably end up accepting a compromise, buying a cheap car I don't want. That is indeed my choice, but based on what? I really have no choice in the matter at all.

So where is the free will?

It's mentioned repeatedly throughout your post. Just because you're limited by reality to choices you find objectionable doesn't mean you don't have a choice at all.