Is free-will an illusion?

@igm,

igm wrote:

It could be said that we are 'not' the thinker of our thoughts if we were then we'd be able to stop them...

It could also be said that we ARE the thinker of our thoughts whether we can stop them or not...and quite honestly, that sound more reasonable to me.

It is a very mysterious thing...this existence. Nothing wrong with making guesses about it...lots of fun doing so, in fact. But if you start kidding yourself and thinking that your guesses are something more...you might run into trouble.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

It could also be said that we ARE the thinker of our thoughts whether we can stop them or not...

Sounds like a contradiction to me... but it is an uncomfortable thought Wink

I let it go... this time.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It could also be said that we ARE the thinker of our thoughts whether we can stop them or not...

Sounds like a contradiction to me... but it is an uncomfortable thought I let it go... this time.

Well allow me to try again, because I am interested in your reasoning.

First, the serious discussion:

Why do you suppose that IF we are the thinker of our thoughts...we should be able to stop them?

Why can it not be that we are the thinker of our thoughts...but we are not able to stop them...or stopping them involves methodology that is beyond us at the moment...or that we ARE able to stop them, but are not aware that we are?

Now, the not so serious:

If you truly think you cannot "turn your thoughts off"...I suggest an experiment. Put a loaded handgun barrel first into your mouth aimed at the top of your head. Pull the trigger.

I suggest you will turn off your thoughts.

If I am wrong...tell me so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
It's obvious that we are not swimming in the same lake.

What is obvious is that you are terrified of the god...and I do not blame you for one second. If I thought that god existed, I'd be more than terrified of it, myself. If the god was willing to punish Adam and Eve for doing what they did not even know was wrong…imagine what the god would do you if you doubted its existence for a second…or suggested in any way that the god was not entirely fair to Adam and Eve.

Stick with the loving nonsense, Neo. Feel safe. You are a fellow human being…and I love you.

I have nothing to be terrified of, Frank. If I fail to live up to God's standards, the worst thing that can happen is the consequence common to all men: death - the end of thought. No baking or boiling, no frying or broiling.
(Romans 6:23) . . . For the wages sin pays is death . . ."

Some folks fear the fricassee, Frank, but not me.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
It's obvious that we are not swimming in the same lake.

What is obvious is that you are terrified of the god...and I do not blame you for one second. If I thought that god existed, I'd be more than terrified of it, myself. If the god was willing to punish Adam and Eve for doing what they did not even know was wrong…imagine what the god would do you if you doubted its existence for a second…or suggested in any way that the god was not entirely fair to Adam and Eve.

Stick with the loving nonsense, Neo. Feel safe. You are a fellow human being…and I love you.
I have nothing to be terrified of, Frank. If I fail to live up to God's standards, the worst thing that can happen is the consequence common to all men: death - the end of thought. No baking or boiling, no frying or broiling.
(Romans 6:23) . . . For the wages sin pays is death . . ."

Some folks fear the fricassee, Frank, but not me.

Ahhh...Neo...I did not say you fear the fricassee, did I.

I said it is obvious you are terrified of your god.

Is there a Heaven in this belief system of yours?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Or "after life" of any sort?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It could also be said that we ARE the thinker of our thoughts whether we can stop them or not...

Sounds like a contradiction to me... but it is an uncomfortable thought I let it go... this time.

Why do you suppose that IF we are the thinker of our thoughts...we should be able to stop them?

Why can it not be that we are the thinker of our thoughts...but we are not able to stop them...or stopping them involves methodology that is beyond us at the moment...or that we ARE able to stop them, but are not aware that we are?

In the context of this thread which is about free-will, if we can't stop our thoughts i.e. if they just arise without our initiating them, then that seems to show a lack of free-will over them.

I suggest it may be more likely that they appear as part of a process which is later believed to be a thinker thinking. This is not just conjecture (or it doesn't seem to be) we can experiment e.g. stare at something, say to yourself I will not think until I stand up... wait... and a thought will arise whether you want it to appear or not. I'd suggest waiting for five minutes but it could be seconds before the first uninvited thought arises.

Normally we don't examine thoughts in this way we just... go with the flow... but retrospectively believe thinking is commanded by oneself... we only have to try the above experiment to see that it is (or could well be) a fiction.

If to you this is free-will, then to you it is free-will. If it is still inconclusive then it is to you inconclusive. But some would say if I'm not in charge of thoughts and they just arise when they want to, that would seem to point to a lack of free-will.

Maybe that's why some people meditate so as not to be caught up in random thoughts that retrospectively are seen (perhaps erroneously) as one's own thoughts?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Or "after life" of any sort?

The only promise that would mean anything is the one you eschew. Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to live forever. Had they not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. God did not change his purpose because of their transgression. The possibility of life still exists for those willing to search for it.

I'm willing

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It could also be said that we ARE the thinker of our thoughts whether we can stop them or not...

Sounds like a contradiction to me... but it is an uncomfortable thought I let it go... this time.

Why do you suppose that IF we are the thinker of our thoughts...we should be able to stop them?

Why can it not be that we are the thinker of our thoughts...but we are not able to stop them...or stopping them involves methodology that is beyond us at the moment...or that we ARE able to stop them, but are not aware that we are?

In the context of this thread which is about free-will, if we can't stop our thoughts i.e. if they just arise without our initiating them, then that seems to show a lack of free-will over them.

I suggest it may be more likely that they appear as part of a process which is later believed to be a thinker thinking. This is not just conjecture (or it doesn't seem to be) we can experiment e.g. stare at something, say to yourself I will not think until I stand up... wait... and a thought will arise whether you want it to appear or not. I'd suggest waiting for five minutes but it could be seconds before the first uninvited thought arises.

Normally we don't examine thoughts in this way we just... go with the flow... but retrospectively believe thinking is commanded by oneself... we only have to try the above experiment to see that it is (or could well be) a fiction.

If to you this is free-will, then to you it is free-will. If it is still inconclusive then it is to you inconclusive. But some would say if I'm not in charge of thoughts and they just arise when they want to, that would seem to point to a lack of free-will.

Maybe that's why some people meditate so as not to be caught up in random thoughts that retrospectively are seen (perhaps erroneously) as one's own thoughts?

Let me be sure I understand what you are saying, igm, because I do not see a relationship, let alone a correlation between the two.

One can easily have free will...and not be able to exercise it. I would love to be able to bench press 300 pounds...but that ain't gonna happen.

I would love not to worry during times of worry...or be apprehensive during times of apprehension...or to stop the constant monologue I have with myself during the day. But those things are like the 300 pound bench press.

Why do you think that free will requires that one be able to do what you suggest with thought.

(I am not here taking a stand on whether or not we have free will. Just discussing you criteria.)

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Or "after life" of any sort?
The only promise that would mean anything is the one you eschew. Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to live forever. Had they not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. God did not change his purpose because of their transgression. The possibility of life still exists for those willing to search for it.

I'm willing

Really! Kinda stepping lightly here, aren't you, Neo?

Earlier, you wrote:

Quote:

If I fail to live up to God's standards, the worst thing that can happen is the consequence common to all men: death - the end of thought. No baking or boiling, no frying or broiling.

Frankly, that sounds hollow now that I see that "the worst" could be much more than that. The "worst" could be described as missing something you are "searching" for.

Neo, if you are not able to see the STORY for what it is...a sting, a set-up...then either you are stupid, crazy, or terrified of questioning the god in any way.

I refuse to consider you stupid or crazy. You are neither.

You are, as nearly as I can determine, solidified in your advocacy on this issue by fear of even questioning the god in the tiniest way.

And as I said earlier...I do not blame you.

The god set up Adam and Eve...denied them the ability to make a reasonable, rational decision...denied them the ability to distinguish right from wrong; good from evil...and when they did something the god considered "wrong"...the god punished them and all the rest of humankind with incredible severity.

Not the kind of god to spare the rod.

Stick with your fear, Neo.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

One can easily have free will...and not be able to exercise it. I would love to be able to bench press 300 pounds...but that ain't gonna happen.

I would love not to worry during times of worry...or be apprehensive during times of apprehension...or to stop the constant monologue I have with myself during the day. But those things are like the 300 pound bench press.

Why do you think that free will requires that one be able to do what you suggest with thought.

(I am not here taking a stand on whether or not we have free will. Just discussing you criteria.)

To digress: enjoying the 'new' quote button now you've got to grips with those default options Frank? I'm sure you are.

Some of those examples you give (apart from the one/ones not in the same class) could just be 'more' evidence of your lack of free-will, reinforcing my conjectural case. Some believe that one of the characteristics a 'self' needs is some autonomy but it's examples like thoughts arising uninvited that seem to undermine this belief.

If you read what I've said it is 'littered' with words which ensure I have uttered only conjecture. It would be 'impossible' to get someone to see what I'm saying without wishing to see it... probably.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

One can easily have free will...and not be able to exercise it. I would love to be able to bench press 300 pounds...but that ain't gonna happen.

I would love not to worry during times of worry...or be apprehensive during times of apprehension...or to stop the constant monologue I have with myself during the day. But those things are like the 300 pound bench press.

Why do you think that free will requires that one be able to do what you suggest with thought.

(I am not here taking a stand on whether or not we have free will. Just discussing you criteria.)

To digress: enjoying the 'new' quote button now you've got to grips with those default options Frank? I'm sure you are.

Greatest thing that has ever happened to me on A2K. And to think...I once knew about this...and it disappeared from my memory.

Quote:

Some of those examples you give (apart from the one/ones not in the same class) could just be 'more' evidence or your lack of free-will, reinforcing my conjectural case. Some believe that one of the characteristics a 'self' needs is some autonomy but it's examples like thoughts arising uninvited that seem to undermine this belief.

If you read what I've said it is 'littered' with words which ensure I have uttered only conjecture. It would be 'impossible' to get someone to see what I'm saying without wishing to see it... probably.

Sorry if it sounded as though I thought you were asserting a certainty.

I do not think that.

Just discussing the reasons for your conjecture.

Nancy just got home...gotta go do dinner. Maybe more later.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

We all die for whatever reason. The Bible assure us that when you're dead, you're dead, (In spite of nominal christians' caterwauling to the contrary). Most people say that's all they expect or hope for.

The concept of hope for more doesn't seem so bad to me. It's not like I would have to crawl on broken glass to get there, you know. God's laws are not burdensome.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Wonder Neo whether somebody might summarize the thread so far
If were feasible

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Wonder Neo whether somebody might summarize the thread so far
If were feasible

I dunno. I'm a lot more familiar with this thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/65395-1

Apparently, the concept of a God who allows his intelligent creations free will is difficult to grasp.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Wonder Neo whether somebody might summarize the thread so far
If were feasible

We are discussing the concept of "free will."

Some of us are guessing there is "free will"...some of us are guessing that "free will" is a fiction...and some of us are not guessing either way.

I, and I think some others, have acknowledged that it is possible to define "free will" in such a way that it simply cannot be.

That is pretty much it so far....except for the usual insults.

1 Reply

Whatever quality is attributed to God, then if his qualities are perfect... he is limited and has no free-will to act imperfectly... so it seems.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Whatever quality is attributed to God, then if his qualities are perfect... he is limited and has no free-will to act imperfectly... so it seems.

It seems like this is consistent with Paul's statement:
(Hebrews 6:18) . . .in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us.

0 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

Certain neuroscientists believe they have proof that it is an illusion. Perhaps the most famous is Sam Harris the outspoken atheist who believes the self and free will are both illusions.
The danger of the belief is it means no one is responsible for their actions.
Steven Pinker wrote the clean slate and he believes we carry a huge evolutionary baggage which affects our behaviour considerably so if we are free it is a greatly resticted freedom.
As a layman I can only compare the experts and there is much argument on all sides.

0 Replies

The best argument against free will is the argument of having or not having sufficient reason. Not the argument that choosing freely must require more then the will of the subject centred on an "I" even when I don't have an option (compatiblism)...while not necessarily just about having a real option, having a choice, truly requires full knowledge disclosure of what is the best course of action to take, that is to mean, having certain knowledge of what ideally ought to be done morally speaking, while simultaneously considering if "I" the subject have the means to carry it out both internally and externally. Human beings its it well documented will always prefer to act morally if and when they can clearly foresee the option is advantageous to them in the long term. What in most cases happens when moral action is forsaken is lack of sufficient insight on very complex matters on which a given choice might be far from evident. Either that or incapacity to control an urge. Faulting people with no real option for sheer incapacity for discerning the best course of action is not the kind of free will we as a civilization want to indulge upon.

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know