The Indeterminacy of Free Will

free will
Well, nobody, sensei.

Me too, wilso. Not my disussion by any means, but saw the last poster on the index and had to drop in.

Hi,twyvel. Long time - no see. Sure hope you enjoy the site.

akaRoger

The Devil Made Me Do It
If we are to believe that our "Free Will" exists, then we hold on to the concept that "We" are responsible for our own thoughts and actions.

The discussion on "Free Will" is one of the first elements in the Hebrew bible:

"God Yahweh said, Now that the man has become like one of us in discerning good from bad, what if he should put out his hand and taste also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever!"

"Free Will," by the very nature of it, is our individual "Self" knowing the difference between right and wrong, and willfully making a decision, and then accepting the responsibility for our actions.

Anything less, on our part, is only denial.

Of course in this argument, we have cast off the boundaries of any physical nature and are only dealing in the realm of metaphysics. Also too, we are accepting the Western thought of the defined "Self" as opposed the "Selfless" journey of the ascetics.

free will
It does seem, Ferrous, that free will and its corresponding Self (together with its eternalization in the gaseous self called "soul") is a particularly Judaic, and then Christian (not to mention Muslim) set of notions. The Eastern mystical orientation which emphasizes the unity of all things, would (in its religious context, as opposed to everyday thought) hold that since the individual being is not separate from the World, there is nothing external to his true Self. In that sense, I suppose, he (the internal being) is not "caused" by "external" things. The so-called "external world" (the determining environment) is part of his true nature such that, in this sense, he cannot cause himself. If THIS does not bore Roger and Wilso away, I don't know what will.

Hi roger, thannnx...just roaming around...nice colours. Hope you are well.

Yes, but there is "somebody" here.

free will
Tweyvel, nice answer. But I am assuming that you put "somebody" in quotes to suggest that the experiencing self is no more than a necessary fiction.

Well, I think what we are referring to with the word "self" is under question>

The experiencing self is itself an experience to the awareness of it; the self that I take myself to be and who has all the experiences in this existence is an experience to another self, or "real" self.

That is, I don't think a fiction or illusion can stand on its own, and if not then its existence implies the existence of something "real"

Of course we have to consider what we mean by "real"...But for this post it is something that is not fiction.

If you want an example of the "real" that "isn't", just look at the medium you are using to share these ideas; what is the "Internet" but a fictional reality in cyberspace.

So Then BoGoWo,...
Do "You" yourself, believe that this fictional reality in cyberspace "God" is real?

If you going to use concepts of what is real, and what isn't, shouldn't we have a clear definition?

free will
I'm back from my trip. I don't know what to say, except that when I look at this PC screen (as I am doing now) there is an experience of the screen and everything else within my vision. I am NOW (because it is the topic of discussion) having a perception--actually a set of sensations that I interpret as a Self or perceiver. But I see this set of sensations as having no epistemological primacy over those of the PC screen. The problem becomes, as you all seem to suggest, what is the nature or the reality--ontological--status of this felt Self who perceives and, even more importantly, of THAT which is perceiving the Self. Surely, to posit another self behind pushes us down a slide of infinite regressions. I find it acceptable simply to assume that the final perceiver is something OTHER than my "ego" but one with my "true nature." That is to say, nature, Reality, Cosmos, whatever, is creating the PC sensation, the Self or perceiver sensation, and all the thoughts occuring about them here. My true self, in other words, is what the mystics try to talk about but can't.

Sort of frightening, this thought of "true nature", lurking in the shadows. What if this "true nature" in not benign? Rather than Cosmic, we find it Chaotic?

Is there no order, that we can strive for? Is there no directions of accepted social behavior, that we as responsible adults, must adhere to?

" That is to say, nature, Reality, Cosmos, whatever, is creating the PC sensation, the Self or perceiver sensation, and all the thoughts occuring about them here.

Sort of like Quantum Mechanics, with just a bunch of Atoms (Quarks if you prefer) just bouncing in to one another.

"Is this, all that there is"... Vger (Star Trek)

true nature
Ferrous, whatever our "true nature" may be (if the term has any relevance at all to our lives), it is undoubtedly less scary than our "false nature." If we are inherently chaotic, so what? If that's our nature, I'd hate to be surrounded by order, just as I would hate to be surrounded by chaos if I were inherently orderly.

Sails Up, and Course Laid Out...
But the question of "free will" remains.

If our true nature is predetermined, it is only when our "choices" goes against this true nature, that we find ourselves in turmoil. But conditions change, and I would suspect that we could go from orderly to chaotic and back again, many times over the course of our lives. Then, I would hope that our own cognizance would be able to shed light, on where the heck we are. This, I can imagine is our true nature. This would be the true self, knowing what decisions need to be made to maintain the harmony.

free will
Ferrous, I appreciate your insights here, but I think that much of our thinking is missing the other's point(s); we may be speaking past each other, holding different conversations. And this can be expected with the topic of discussion. Our true nature, as far as I can sense, is not predetermined or determined: it just as IS--like gravity. And in this discussion, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, free will and determinism is irrelevant. All my choices reflect my (true) nature, and in that sense are not "free" in the sense of an independent "ego" picking and choosing. On the other hand, my "choices" and "decisions" are not predetermined in so far as they reflect MY nature and not that of some separate causal force imposing itself upon me.

Well as I sit here and type I am aware of the screen and a self observing it, so I have created a duality. But both the screen (and all other perceptions) and this "self" are being perceived. The fifteenth century Zen master Huang Po, said, "And remember the perceived cannot themselves perceive." If that is the case, I as "perceiver" never perceive this I.

Or to put it another way, If [all] experiences (including internal ) come about through a subject--object relation we never encounter the subject. So there is no infinite regression of "self's"

As I observe this screen there isn't one screen in my brain/mind and another screen "out there". The actual "perceived" monitor is an idea[s] in my mind. Yet it is experienced as "out there". Although there is probably no "out there" or "in here".

free will
Twyvel, thanks for a wonderful response. I agree that there cannot be an infinte regression at the level of experience/perception, only at the level of thought ABOUT the nature of experience. I agree that the PC is not "out there"--at least not in the sense of the image you have of it--it , the image, must be "in here," in terms of your conditioned consciousness. If there is an "out there" it is, like Kant's Numena (sp?), not directly knowable. We like to think of it (the objective PC "out there") in terms of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc.. But they are also "in here" in the form of ideas. On Huang Po's point, that the perceived cannot be perceived by itself. I'm not sure I read it correctly, but, as I suggested, above, "I" am not the perceiver of "my" experience of "me" since, when I talk of an "I" it is of an experience which I FEEL is a reflexive one, like looking into a mirror. The question is WHO or WHAT has this experience. One cannot know: it's a profound--indeed the most profound--mystery (even the mystic who penetrates this mystery merely appreciates it as such, and let's go of all efforts to "objectify" if). Nevertheless, it is, I feel, my "true" nature. And we would waste our time trying to find, in the sense of perceiving, that nature. We are better off simply enjoying the experiences of life, and letting the Cosmos worry about its (or my) true nature--if it is so inclined, which I doubt. I apologize for my obscure writing. It would take too long to render a clearer version.

A few thoughts relative to "chaos".

The universe is a demonstration of the "picture" of chaos - what it looks like occurring without constraint.

"Life" is a nodal ordering of chaos; at a point in time and space.

Living beings exist in a bipolar environment; a planet orderred by evolutionary forces into a relatively functional co-operative biomass; juxtaposed with a reality at the micro, and macro levels - quark/galaxy - which is based entirely upon chance.

We engage in a constant battle with entropy; trying desperatly to maintain an island of stability, in an "ocean" of tempestuous randomness.

Our only weapon with which to attempt the maintenance of order, with which to retain our sanity, is

"Free Will"!

JLNobody interesting reply, our views appear similar.

If we don't know who has the experience we don't know who knows. I think I know things, i.e. That I am sitting here typing or what my name is, but those statements represent thoughts and thoughts don't know anything.

Kind of odd when one thinks about it, that a thought doesn't know anything.

free will
Yes Twyvel, odd indeed. If a thought does not know, and if we can't find the thinker (with apologies to Descartes)--except as only another thought, what's going on? I don't know; it's all as unsubstantial, but (thank G*d) as beautiful as music.