free will question

@lord shorty,

lord shorty wrote:

why do people use free will differently?

people are not the same when forced into this world.

so is their spark of individuality preset to react to reality in a specific way as it unfolds?

Hmmm well since this is in the "Religion" section, I will portray such from a "Religious" point of view.

There will allways be people that think that there is no freewill.
There will allways be people that think that there is freewill.

Both think such for diffrent reasons.

This is a small parable that shows the need a "god" would have to create "Freewill" and why it would be important for such a "god".

--The Key--

The Board= The rule's of the existence.
The Peices= The people that exist, bound by the board.

Imagen, you are "God" playing a game of chest. You are alone, with only your thought's. So you create a board, and place peices apon that board. Now you start to play the game, yet after awhile you notice that you have to move each peice apon the board, and therefore you would just be playing with your self. So you make each peice move them self, and therefore you allow them to make there own choice's on the board, and then you would no longer need to manualy move each peice.

For each peice would be a "god" having there own choice on how to move apon the board.

This is mainly what had led to the thought's of the person called "jesus" when he told everyone that they are "God and Gods"

Yet in time the true perception of such has been lost.

For you are god, due to the fact that your flesh and all things and thought are apart of such a god.

For you are gods, due to the fact that you move your self apon the board, and therefore have the power of the "God".

For yet you are not the god that had created all and is all.

So, you are god and god's but not god

All for diffrent reasons.

So this is what had defined "Freewill" as within the christian and early concpets of religion.

Basicaly it was defined as being able to have a "Choice".

Yet the concept of "Freewill" came to be diffrently depending on the rligion and people.

And now in the in this time, such infomation on how it came to be is lost and distorted by time.

0 Replies

@lord shorty,

lord shorty wrote:

why do people use free will differently?

people are not the same when forced into this world.

so is their spark of individuality preset to react to reality in a specific way as it unfolds?

1. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1545-free-will-illusion.html#post16562

2. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1545-free-will-illusion-2.html#post18628

3. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1545-free-will-illusion-3.html#post20363

Here are three links to related topics of free will.

0 Replies

@nameless,

I cant delete this post so Im posting this.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I do not have 'free-will', nor do i 'use it'.

"Forced"? Agenda? Every Perspective (us) is unique.

We are part and parcel of that 'unfolding' reality, moment by moment. The water is not programmed to take the shape of the galass that it finds itself in in a particular moment. Neither are we. We are part of the unique manifesting universes at the moment.

"Will" = used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions.

1.Willing to do somthing.
2.Not willing to do somthing.

So what person has denied you the freedom to express your desire's and carry out such choices of desires willingly?

So if you do not use your freedom of choice, for what are you?

Are you just a puppet, is not your destiny and fate yours to make and shape?

For if you do not have the freedom to carry out your will in life, for then you can not shape or make you destiny or fate.

For if you have the freedom to carry out your will, for then you can make and shape your destiny and fate to your up most desires...

So, what are you? A puppet? A slave? A robot? A dummy?

Or are you just a pile of chemical's bound by the laws of action and reaction to other chemicals?

It's sad to see such word's from you...

For what you say is what you make... Have you made your self less than what you really are, by the means of how you have conscoiuly defined how you do what you do...?

Dont throw or give away your freedom to choose a choice in life, allready the choices we all have are very limited... Its best not to choose the choice that give's away that freedom...

1 Reply

@No0ne,

No0ne;26867 wrote:

nameless wrote:

I do not have 'free-will', nor do i 'use it'.

Every Perspective (us) is unique.

We are part and parcel of that 'unfolding' reality, moment by moment. The water is not programmed to take the shape of the galass that it finds itself in in a particular moment. Neither are we. We are part of the unique manifesting universes at the moment.

"Will" = used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions.

Odd, one can substitute the word "words" and the 'definition' remains valid. Not a very good definition, if it can be used interchangeably with the many various 'concepts' which it defines; "sign language", "art", "music" (yes, I know that music is/can be art), "poetry", etc...

Quote:

1.Willing to do somthing.
2.Not willing to do somthing.

Ever notice that the "somethings" seem to happen anyway, that you find yourself doing, whether you are 'willing' or not?

Quote:

So what person has denied you the freedom to express your desire's and carry out such choices of desires willingly?

No one. Not applicable. Your question is tantamount to someone asking me "what person has denied me the freedom to" fly through the sky. No one need "deny me the freedom" to do something that is not possible, Here/Now. It is simply not 'done' because it is not possible to do, Here/Now.

Quote:

So if you do not use your freedom of choice, for what are you?

Your presumption that I, through some faculty of 'choice', decide not to use something (that does not exist), is erroneous. I do not 'decide' to not use something that isn't.
Are you asking my perceived purpose for being?

Quote:

Are you just a puppet, is not your destiny and fate yours to make and shape?

I am Conscious Perspective. As are you.
There can be no concept of 'destiny' when all moments of existence are synchronous. There is no 'linearity' but by local Perspective. It is all Now! Birth Now! Death Now! Live Now! All synchronous moments, Now!
It is but ego that imagines ourselves so godlike, so powerful, that we fancy that we "make and shape" our 'future' (that doesnt exist but as an imaginary notion) and thusly the entire universes, according to our "Will".

Quote:

For if you do not have the freedom to carry out your will in life, for then you can not shape or make you destiny or fate...

..cannot maintain that illusion (as ego balm), anyway.
And, again, you assume (falsely) the 'universality' of your notion of "will" by assuming that it exists in the first place, for me, Now. I do not share that Perspective. I understand the notion of 'will'. I am at times egoPerspective, also. It is recognized, though, for the ephemeral 'image', trick of perception, that it really is. Like a mirage in the 'desert'... It does bring 'pleasure and satisfaction' superficially, 'hope' of sorts, but the closer that you get, the more it decoheres, until you are left with your 'original face'!

Quote:

So, what are you? A puppet? A slave? A robot? A dummy?

I responded to your request for a 'self' definition, earlier.
Beyond that, I guess the answer is that it depends on the moment of observation. I appear as many 'things', one end of the spectrum to the other. Right now, I am someone sitting Here/Now typing these words on this keyboard, full of Chinese food, tired from the day... The list is long, regarding who I appear to be, at any moment.

Quote:

Or are you just a pile of chemical's bound by the laws of action and reaction to other chemicals?

Depends on Perspective. I have heard that argued, but I already answered this question.

Quote:

It's sad to see such word's from you...

Ahhh, the sweet stench of egoic judgement!
As I do not take egoic images and their constructs too seriously, due to lack of 'reality' (does seem 'real' though), you'll understand why I just leave that statement as is.

Quote:

For what you say is what you make... Have you made your self less than what you really are,

You give me way too much credit for power that is not mine. I can only be what I 'really' am, Now! and Now! and Now!

Quote:

by the means of how you have conscoiuly defined how you do what you do...?

I do not/have not 'defined' how I do what I do, I am that I am. There is no 'how'. There is timeless is, Now! and Now! and Now!!

Quote:

Dont throw or give away your freedom to choose a choice in life, allready the choices we all have are very limited...

Do you know why those 'choices' are so limited? You have the opportunity to make a multitude of 'choices'. One or another happens to show up and you are happy to take all the credit! Happy ego. The other sixty million 'choices' that didn't so work out, we have excuses for; oh, that was out of my control, that would have violated a natural law, oh, there is a deterministic component stopping our 'will' in this case, but not in that one; our 'freewill choices' only seem to work on things that actually 'show up' anyway, that we can egoically take credit for... It is a little game, but a very necessary one for so many. There is a wide spectrum of Perspective. Much local Perspective agrees with youPerspective.
The First Law of Soul Dynamics states; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" This Perspective is on the other end of that spectrum. That which 'exists' from youPerspective, does not from this one. Balance.

Quote:

Its best not to choose the choice that give's away that freedom...

Hahaha! One cannot 'choose' to make a nonexistent choice.
I see only bondage in what you consider to be 'freedom'.

Nabbed from somewhere on the net; not my words, but i like the sentiment;

Quote:

"In the depths of the ego-death experience, an uncaring block universe appears to have complete control of the person. This is an unstable and untenable state, when one is dancing on the strings of a blind and dispassionate and non-personal mechanism, the block universe. The person in this state is not only abandoned into full existential isolation, but is forcefully being moved here and there by a machine, and the accustomed personal restrictions and ruts of thinking are gone.

The mind becomes released into a completely unrestrained freedom, while all conventional power of self-control, restraint, and stability is suspended. It's freedom in the radical sense of arbitrary chaos, lacking any guidance, lacking any system of values or regulations to steer by -- with moment-to-moment cybernetic arbitrariness. This is the very definition of mental and cybernetic instability, which is not the best state of mind for stable, mundane, viable existence."

1 Reply

@nameless,

Well the choice you made did not exist till I made that choice able to be choosen.

And you have choosen to respond due to your reason why you wanted to respond.

And therefore you have used "Freewill"

Since the accepted defined action of the word "Freewill" is the freedom of choice.

If you say that "Freewill" is somthing els, then just make up a new word, since you changed that action that it defineds.

Regaurdless no matter what you say to this or not say, Is effected by my "Freewill".

It's simply how this existence work's...

Call it what ever you want, but the action is still the same.

A word defines an action. Change the action you change the word.

For you have changed the action, so change the word...

1 Reply

@No0ne,

No0ne;26951 wrote:

Well the choice you made... ...

As you obviously 'believe' in 'freewill', this can do nothing but go in circles, and downhill from here.
You offered youPerspective, I offered this one, as good and rational food for thought. Or not. I'm not selling anything, and it does not require 'belief' or 'acceptance' to make an effort to understand another Perspective. Reality ('the' universe) is the sum total of all Perspectives at the moment.
'Attaching' to one Perspective or another keeps one distant from that larger 'reality', and cobbles one's own 'reality' from faulty and accidental parts...
I guess that wisdom would dictate that we just agree to 'disagree';
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" -First Law of Soul Dynamics
Peace

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Scientific theory that says we cannot predict outcomes by no means proves that we determine outcomes, Binyamin, so it has nothing to do with free will. Consider the story you posted about Adam and Hhavah. (Thanks, by the way, for sharing with us this other name for Eve. Is that how her name is spelled in Hebrew?) I posted this in another thread, but since it applies to free will, I will repost it here. Adam could not choose to obey God, because obeying God is good, the only real good if you consider things from a scriptural perspective, but Adam had no clue what good was. Because he only understood good once he ate the fruit that contained the knowledge of good. Before he ate the fruit he couldn't understand that disobeying God was evil. It amazes me that anyone (and by anyone I mean just about everyone) claims that this story illustrates that we have free will, when in fact it shows the exact opposite.

So technically free will and/or good and evil made their first technical stage appearance either when God put the tree in the garden in the first place, or when he/she /it told Adam "don't" or a combination of telling and Adam being able to defy it.

0 Replies

@lord shorty,

For those of us who are not characters in the story, free will comes into the picture when God assigns blame to Adam and Eve. It's his assignment of blame that allows one to infer that he was not the agent behind their decision. It could all be a trick, though -- it's not as if Genesis actually says that God imbued Adam and Eve with free will, per se.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

For those of us who are not characters in the story, free will comes into the picture when God assigns blame to Adam and Eve. It's his assignment of blame that allows one to infer that he was not the agent behind their decision. It could all be a trick, though -- it's not as if Genesis actually says that God imbued Adam and Eve with free will, per se.

So you're saying the fact that Adam could choose between eating or not eating is not in and of itself free will?

1 Reply

@Sympathypains,

Sympathypains wrote:

So you're saying the fact that Adam could choose between eating or not eating is not in and of itself free will?

I'm not saying that. Genesis does not say that Adam could choose between eating and not eating. But the fact that God blames him implies that it was Adam and Eve's own fault and not God's fault that they ate (though this assumes that God is correct in blaming them).

2 Replies

@Aedes,

A simple way to look at the issue of determinism and the lack of free will:

We know (with evidence) that this universe began in a big bang. All the matter and energy that existed within the singularity were ejected in existence and they began to interact, collide, etc. To make this easier to imagine let us say all matter can be described in particles. These particles follow the rules or bounds of this universe. Since the moment of the big bang, and since one things affects another, there have been interactions of these particles for billions of years. If we could understand and withhold all the interactions and processes that went on, we could see the chain of events that lead to complexity (formation of atoms, gases, galaxies, and eventually complexity we call life and intelligent life). Now it is getting extremely complex, we can now see that all our human behaviors are influenced by our dna, personalities and other pre-dispositions, the physical world and other living organisms. It is just the interactions that begin at the moment you become what we call living (this is only to make it easier to understand, it is infact since the first particles after the big bang). It is one super complex system, we can not even comprehend it yet. This lack of understanding of the complexity makes us believe we have free will, our ego's are blind to all the interactions that happen and we believe that we are in control when in fact your decisions, thoughts, etc, are all actually written in a sort of, for a lack of a better word, "destiny" that was set at the moment of the big bang because one things leads to another, we do live in a cause and effect universe.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I'm not saying that. Genesis does not say that Adam could choose between eating and not eating. But the fact that God blames him implies that it was Adam and Eve's own fault and not God's fault that they ate (though this assumes that God is correct in blaming them).

It would be absurd to tell someone not to do something if they had no choice in doing or not doing it, so I would say it's implied.

To talk about blame is a bit off topic from free will, but if you like, yes, I agree, it's also absurd to blame someone ultimately for eating something that was put in reach of them by the one doing the blaming.

But it is a very simple story designed to explain something beyond the grasp of understanding to very simple people.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Nameless,

I'd like to ask some questions on your stance here. I hope you'll help me understand more fully where you're coming from. It appears you believe quite strongly in your assertion, and I'm not sure I've seen this particular approach. My sense is that your support relies on the "loaded" aspect of a semantic difference, not logic. I'm very likely wrong and hope you'll do me the service of dispensing some insight.

Good point. If we were to tally and define the entire universe before one moment, into all its constituent parts then redo the exercise after any moment in time, they would - if even a tiny bit - be different. To then say, "The Universe is Now Different" would be a correct statement but only insomuch as one, tiny (perhaps infinitesimal) difference. To then stand and profess, "You've changed the universe, my god!" - although a true statement - is grossly misleading. How absurd that particular prophecy strikes people can't be used as support against anything since its inflammatory.

One is a component of the other. That is not to say "literally" they are one. A seed is part of the apple and when analyzed whole, that seed is contained within the whole package, but it is misleading/incorrect to say they an apple seed and an apple are one. One is part of the other - distinctly different.

This is a really, really big jump. I may have made a change in one small aspect of that universe, but that's distinctly different than changing the, "... entire universe". Once again, if taken and analized to its smallest particles, a change has been made and therefore it is a different universe. But again, that's distinctly different from changing the "whole" - which implies "all".

If there is no free will, and I am but a programmed partner carrying out my predictable place in the large chain, even *that* (by your definition of changing part = changing the whole) would constitute "changing the universe". If we again follow that logic; that too would be egoic and therefore is absurd to consider.

I'll concur readily that ego plays a large part in what we struggle to justify. It happens behind the scenes and lubricates notions that should be hard to swallow.

In any case, I'm hoping you'll help clarify this. Thanks for your indulgence.

He advocates solipsism.of course every being is an individual with respect to what it is not.So why argue? If the self is an escapable self then why even bother to ask "why''?

0 Replies

free will question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know