Freewill vs. Determinism

if one acts in complete silence, is this based on anything prior?

 

How 'bout this:


Everything that has come prior does not determine what you do, but what you are. What you are, in turn, determines what you do, but only through you. So if my experiences with dogs, say, are bad ones, then I become a person who doesn't like dogs. My dislike for dogs means that I will choose not to buy a pet dog.

Does that change anything?

 

a passionately created cause may by artful design have an indeterminate effect . some people get angry at such a causation and complain of its powerful nonsense . it's how art can cause a riot , tho that was not at all intentional .

 

If someone acts in complete silence, there is a reason they do so. They have found the virtue in it. If a person chooses to remain silent for no reason, it is for that lack of reason they choose to do so.


Our arguements can be distinguished as such: you are defining the decision making process as freewill. So that when a person has to make a choice between X and Y, when all the factors have been considered, they still have the choice to choose either. But as a machine that has deduced its way to the top of the food chain, we do not stop reasoning until we come to a decision that we are comfortable. The process doesn't stop until there is an answer to the problem.

If R + T + L + J = X, and R + T + L + K = Y, then we must necessarily weigh the value of J and K. But J and K are not independent either. They both have their own equations. The more someone logically sifts through the variables, the closer they come to a decision. A decision that is dependent on all others.

Another example, if the first occurance in existance was A, and B was the second, then B is completely dependent upon A because there were no other variables to effect it. So that C is completely dependent upon A and B. And so forth and so on. To think that we humans are somehow seperate from this line of dependence is prideful.

 

i agree that to relax into silence begins with a decision based in the brain, which is subject to all these forces we are discussing, but are there any that follow?

 

Silence has many repercussions. The choice to be silent then determines the next occurance in accordance with what ever else exists. And your choice for silence will then effect your next decision, along with the rest of reality that is within your scope.

It is interesting, though, to imagine a person in an enclosed system without any other variables choosing to remain effortless. This action would definitly have a reaction, and all I could imagine is that that person would make exponential leaps into enlightenment. But this can only be imagined. Besides, if that person were on an enclosed system with no other variables, death would be the only outcome, and would necessarily be accepted, thus the person would remain effortless.

 

Enk - Of course. I am not saying that I am definitely correct, but I obviously think that I am. That does not make it so.

OWB - I don't think that knowledge of the way things will happen matters. If things must happen a certain way, they will, regardless of whether anybody knows it. Also, I read one of the Foundation books in high school, and just started reading the trilogy. So good.

Predetermination does not require a predeterminer. Circumstances beyond control are quite natural. If a tree is sawn through, it will fall. It will not rise up. If a rock is rolled down a hill, it will stop. If a cow is slaughtered, it will bleed. If a person is kicked, they will feel pain. If a person meets someone they despise, a certain brain pattern will show up at that point. Certain neurons fire certain ways. You can't control that.

Hippiechick - I think Maitreya and I are trying to say the same thing. Sure, people may or may not make choices. If they do, these choices are predetermined. They cannot control the things in their mind that influence their choices. If they don't make a choice, that may itself be a choice. Again, you can't control the impulses your brain. You are the impulses in your brain. Whether someone makes a choice or not is predetermined itself. Whether people use whatever will they have, or how they use it, is predetermined. As Maitreya said, every action has a reaction. Maybe if a grain of sand had not been washed from a mountain a million years ago, we would be taking different sides in this conversation.

A paralyzed man may not move, but he has thoughts. Why do you ever think the things that you do? They come into your head based on what came before. Previous thoughts, actions, and circumstances make present thoughts.

The instance of the woman with the head injury was less to illustrate my free will argument and more to illustrate my choice/personality argument. The article said that she did indeed feel terrible about her problem, but she couldn't do anything about it. Maybe if she injured her brain again, she wouldn't feel terrible. But the choices we make, the thoughts we think, everything we do, are very much controlled by our brain. A little thing like a chemical imbalance can change your whole outlook on life. A couple thousand molecules of certain hormones can change your personality.

Gib - The will of a man shackled to a wall is very different from the will of a man in whom the position of every atom at a particular time has been predetermined. I would call both will, but one is (in your theory) making a choice to think a certain way, whereas the other (in mine) only has the illusion of that choice, when really his choice was going to be such since the beginning of the universe.

Your last post is simply different language for the same thing. Using the chain rule, everything that comes prior determines what you do.

yyyesiam - Once one decides to remain silent, one must keep deciding to continue that. What was the question you wanted my response to? I'm going to assume it's post 42. In response to that:

I don't think an origin is required. Just that everything was at a certain place at a certain time. I'm not sure many people do indeed understand gravity, but it is nonetheless a good explanation. Consider this example: There is a square. At each corner is a point, of equal mass. There are points A, B, C, and D arranged like this:

AB
CD

All points repel at a certain acceleration, depending on mass. Like antigravity. So A and D will go directly opposite from each other, as will C and B. The four points will always form a square, and if you know the acceleration, you can predict where each point will be for a given time after time 0.

Now, add another point. Right between A and B. Point E, same mass. Now it looks like this (proportionately).

A E B

C D

Now the calculation is more complex. I don't know exactly how it would work, but it would probably look like non-equilateral pentagon after a while. If you really wanted to do all the trigonometry, you could figure it out.

The forces of the natural world are too complex, especially in a system with so many points, so many variables, and so much time, for anyone to do such a calculation for the real world. But that doesn't mean such a calculation doesn't exist or doesn't mean anything.

 

Whew!

I forgot to add this:

 

You don't think that there are "supernatural" forces at work, but how can you define "supernatural." If something IS than it is natural, and certainly there are things that we cannot yet even come close to explaining through modern science. It doesn't mean they are "supernatural" it just means that our science is only as good as our tools and methods allow it to be.

 

Well, we may not be talking about entirely different things here. Let me see if I understand you.

I just think of "will" as what a cause becomes when you are that cause. I also leave the freedom of the will out of the picture at this point (i.e. if freedom is to be inserted, it requires an additional argument). So it's possible for a will to be a genuine will without being free.

Something you said though makes me wonder if we are talking about the same thing:

It sounds like you're thinking of the causes of the choices one makes from the outside - that is, as if you've stepped outside your brain and are observing the neurons and chemicals at work, causing your actions. That's typically how we objectify things, and we do this in order to arrive at an objective understanding of how certain phenomena (in this case, our will/brain) work. This is OK but it does change things slightly, but crucially, from the 1st person perspective. From a 1st person perspective - that is, by thinking of it in terms of what the subjective experience of choosing is like - we find that we cannot be separated from the illusion and the "true" cause of our choices. They really are one and the same.

As I said though, the issue, once this subjective perspective is taken, is whether the will really is "free" in the sense that there are no prior causes determining it. We don't experience the causes from the subjective point of view, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Interestingly, though, if we are to speculate on the existence of such causes, we find that we are forced to go back into that 3rd person perspective, stepping outside ourselves so to speak, in order to observe them (in a hypothetical thought experiment, of course).

The question of freedom is not something I'll argue for or against at this point, but I just wanted to point out that a "will", at least as how I've defined it, is not necessarily an illusion. It might be said, on this basis, that our "choices" aren't either.

 

if we can agree that decisions and thought go together, how can there be decisions in silence?

to freaker: my point was that will and gravity are the same force and we actually don't know what either are. we just see their effects and give them names. another name, i suppose, would be movement, or action. something without definition logically ought not be used to define something else, right? when one does this, they aren't really saying or explaining anything, are they?

also, to say things were just in a certain place in a certain time still leaves the question of origin, logically: where did these certain things come from? where did that come from? where did that come from? etc.....

 

Thought and decisions do not necessarily go together. We do not think about the subconscious factors that come into play when a decision is made. When a person decides to be silent, the choice to remain silent is a continuous decision.


Just because our decisions are predetermined doesn't mean that our choices are only an illusion. There is a theory about that though, but I won't go into that. Our choices have real consequences. Far from the characteristics of something that doesn't exist.

Freaker, it seems that you are trying to pull predetermination away origin, perhaps to rule out a higher power. I won't debate a higher power since this isn't the topic of this thread, but one can not seperate predetermination from origin, since each occurance is the effect of that which came before. The origin I speak of isn't defined at all. It has no characteristics other than an abstract definition of the first occurance. One may give it what ever weight they wish, but it still exists as vital to the process. If you begin to work backwards, the occurances must naturally become less and less, until there is but one.

And just as there is a first occurance, lets call it "A", then there necessarily is a final occurance, lets call it "Z". So that every occurance between the two must be for Z to occur. Each choice we make it vital the chain, which makes them far from pointless. Again, Z is undefined, and it isn't important to do so. But one of the laws of energy is that everything that is, will one day cease to be.

 

Bradley - In this case, I would define "supernatural" as something that is not affected by the same effective relationships as the things that otherwise govern our destiny. So if there is a god and god is outside this whole system we are discussing, but can insert influence into the system, that is supernatural. That intrusion would throw off predestination for a period where the start is before this event and the end is after.

Gib - I think I can agree with that. I don't have a problem with saying that people have will, but I think that a person's will is predetermined. Since this is the case, I wouldn't call it free will. A person cannot make a certain choice or have a certain will without their brain chemistry/morphology being a certain way.

yyyesiam - What kind of silence? A person can be audibly silent, but will have a hard time being mentally silent. A mentally silent person is like a simple robot. They will have reflexive reactions, maintain bodily functions, but will be a vegetable. I think that, like dying, that is something a person cannot arrive at by sheer will.

What are you saying is undefined?

I don't think origin is important. If you could understand all the reactions and interacting forces, you could go back to see if there is one and what it is like, but I don't think it is necessary for determinism.

Maitreya - I see what you mean. Origin meaning an action to set all of history in motion. An action without a cause. To expand on my thought above...

I don't shy from an origin because of a higher power thing. But it would make as much sense to have a non-divine origin as a divine one. Maybe more, since instead of supreme intelligence springing from nothing, it would be a bit simpler, but still. You need an effect without a cause, which I think is a bit nonsensical. Even if there was a time when the universe did not exist, shouldn't there be a cause to bring it into existence?

Why would you come up with one occurrence if you work backward? That assumes that reactions reduce in number as you go back, and increase as you go forward, doesn't it? Why would that be the case?

What is this law of energy of which you speak?

 

I think that certainly our brain chemistry or biology has a lot to do with the decisions we make on a daily basis. BUT that being said, some recent studies point to the idea that we can effectively change our behaviors, and after some time our newly formed habits will CHANGE our brain chemistry..

 

by silence, i mean lack of internal dialogue and thought forms. i have experienced this and it was the least robotic experience i have been through. our internal chatter is what is robotic and "predetermined". i am saying that gravity is undefined. without origin, all of the forces that you say determine our actions are also undefined and just as much a philosophy as anything else. we only see it's effects. look into it a bit. we call it an attraction between two forces, among other things. i don't feel that explains anything. i see we can agree that predeterminism requires an origin. we don't have to use the word divine, but this origin would have to non-logical. logic requires that everything have an origin. something without origin is non-logical and could not be subject to time. in fact, being the origin of all of these forces, it could not be subject to them, either. the reason things would naturally go back to one, is that there can be only one true origin-as far as i can see. i'm really enjoying this. i await your response.

post add-on: if we cannot agree that determinism requires an origin, i would really like to hear a logical explanation for that. it has probably been said, but to rely on previous forces to explain the present directly implies either origin or a completely non-logical existance existing outside of time, which determinism is based on.

 

I hear you YYY... and by the way that is a great Einstein quote you got there.
I think he also said something to the point of,' if you can't express your ideas in simple ways, then you really don't understand them.' I think some of us here might be getting a little over our heads in theories that we may not have a complete grasp of.

 

eh.....some people see debating as a battle to be won, while others (myself and seemingly freaker included) see it as an (hopefully mutual) exchange and assimilation of information. it is my hope that we all get something out of this. personally, i am a bit more open, now, to the idea of a greater will than my own acting through me, though i feel that this greater will seems to have compartmentalized itself into individual freewill. this would mean that though this being's will is greater than my own, even "it" cannot predict what i will choose to do, just as i cannot predict what the cells of my body will always do. i can make an effort to be loving to my body, but only through direct experience on a cellular level (through meditation), could i even hope to understand the experience and will of these individuals (my cells). this being, to me, would not be an ultimate origin, of course. it seems like that could only be what has been labeled void ( a concept representing lack of concepts, lack of forces, lack of origin-which, i know, is very puzzling. this is why i stress the point that our logic is limited). i feel this may leave things open enough to accept there being a "will of god" that acts through me, combined with my own individual will. any thoughts? (i would still appreciate your response to my previous post, freaker.)

 

one more thing-bradley, i have no problem with you whatsoever, but i do feel the need to ask you to confront whoever you are talking about directly or not bring up such comments. if you feel someone isn't grasping something (me, freaker, or anyone else) it's probably much better to bring it to their attention, after making sure you grasp it yourself. if you feel you have some information one of us doesn't, please show some compassion and share. that probably came off pretty critical and i didn't intend any negativity. (insert polite concerned tone of voice)

 

Hi FreakerSoup,

Thanx for giving my comment a thought, I appreciate that.

It very well might be true that as you say: Predetermination does not require a predeterminer. But that seems to me to at the same time that eliminates all freewill.

But I was trying to show that both freewill and predetermination can coexist. So in making my comments I made a couple of assumptions, which may or may not be true.

The first assumption I made was that the argument of freewill versus predetermination needs an Omniscient God because without one really what difference does it make whether a person has freewill or not.

The second assumption I made was to then go ahead and assume an Omniscient God. An Omniscient God is by definition is one that has the ability to know all things past, present and future. The past is not really a problem but this God knowing the present and future is a problem to freewill. Because if this God knows what will happen in the future it has to happen, if it does not happen, then by definition this God would not be an Omniscient God. This is why I believe, that in the case of an Omniscient God, knowledge of the way things will happen matters.

Thus in any area that this Omniscient God decides to know what will happen, it must happen and is thus predetermined, and any area that this Omniscient God decides not to know what will happen, any thing could happen and leaves room for freewill. Showing that freewill and predetermination can coexist.



PS I liked The Foundation Series because of the many ideas and concepts it had and I like any book like that, that makes you think.

 

Hi yyyesiam2,

“some people see debating as a battle to be won”
I think that the winner in a debate is the one that comes out of the discussion with a better understanding of both sides.