MoFo's Religion

That should not be taken as a suggestion that this is the only problem, mind you, but I'll restrict myself to pointing out the contradiction in what you actually wrote this time, rather than all the other times.

That makes no sense, because we come up with the idea of free will from introspection and that's precisely what mechanical brain science accounts can't get at.

I don't look at someone else and go "oh wow, he definitely has free will." I think I have free will, because I seem to be able to decide my own actions. I can decide to type a random word CHICKEN in my sentence. That's why I think I have free will. I contrast that ability to determine my body's own actions with, say, when I'm sleepy and can't open my eyes, or when I'm in a bad mood and can't cheer up.

We have every reason to say and think we have free will even if we can't link that up with science. But science is always finding out new stuff, so why should we fear?

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Finally, just to make sure you know that this actually does relate to my last pm: the difficulty you sense in the emergence of a free, autonomous will from the mechanical process of neurons is precisely the same difficulty as the emergence of a unified, self-sufficient One from the banal difference of the Multiple.

The will is fundamentally incomplete, in need of supplement, just like the One is fundamentally incomplete in need of supplement. Again, this supplement is the room for freedom.

This is roughly how the argument will go anyways.

I never said we actually have free will. I said I believe in free will.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I may have related this in an argument for a "theoretical" free will 5 days ago. The basics of it was that a friend argued against free will because our choices seem predictable even when randomized (purposefully, like CHICKEN) and my response was along the lines of free will in the timespan/periphery of all eventual acts leading to an outcome; it's fair to say that all people technically make unique choices that only they could make because the reason for the choice is part of who they are, thus the idea of free will comes from the literally individual choices that extend towards some goal. Free will is in the act itself, the goal obviously influencing the act, but in between the preliminary act and the goal there are even more choices to be made to reach this goal, and whether or not the goal is reached doesn't seem to be relevant to the act, yet this:

I also view as choice. The goal isn't really to open your eyes, but if you wanted to you could. No promises on how long they stay open though.

I'm not sure I get you completely, but something I hope to eventually argue for here that you brought up was the role of the goal in constituting a will. I honestly think that's a brilliant way of putting this whole thing in a clearer light. Setting a goal is precisely what we mean when we talk about self-determination. If I set down an iron law for myself and refuse to depart from it, that goal locks me into a relation with something that is independent of my causal chain, because from that point on I'm committed to that goal, and commitment to that goal is what determines me, nothing else.

If I set it as my goal to do everything I can to do hitler and commit to that, then anything that happens, any brain chemistry, and doubts, fears, any SS, anything, is subordinated to my previous commitment -- passes through the iron gates of my inner commitment.

The trick is to lock on to precisely that thing which eludes any of your previous motivations. If Yoda is reading this, I have been calling this extra thing 'the supplement to being.' Very roughly speaking -- to be precise would take pages -- that would be my conception of a free act.

This is my basic notion though, so you get it more than you think, unless in speaking about it you came to get it.

Seriously, I was on the brink of going for it when I wanted to talk more about the in between stage, but pages indeed. I'm not sure if that would even been the supplement but I think talking about how many minute choices in light of the goal that are decided upon seems, to me at least, to also address roles, in that if what I'm talking about is actually free will then the roles an individual assumes would also be taken into consideration with the goals assumed...right?

I think free will is simply an idea that exists thanks to religion, which has spent forever telling us that what choices we make in our lives will be recorded by God and examined later, but I think it's also used by most people just to feel like their lives have meaning and that everything they do is done with some kind of purpose, some kind of choice.

Unless there is some kind of supernatural aspect to life that we're unaware of until after we die, I think that, even if we're very intelligent and very aware of what we're doing, all of our behavior is an accident -- though, everything we do does have some kind of purpose to it (because we do it all with energy - energy that is used by thinking and such.) Free will is an illusion. Our actions are based on how our own individual bodies are wired up, what's inside of our mind (what we know, what we desire, who we've been), and our actions are based on the world around us, our surroundings, our environment, the people and things we encounter. We are affected by all of that. We don't always make the right decision and one of these factors is responsible. We are not responsible for what happens to us, ultimately. We can only feel responsible, if we are prone to choose (most people choose to.) Certainly society and other people are going to look at us all in the face and say, "You're responsible for what you did", unless we've been deemed insane, but I think that the real truth to life is that basically everything is an accident. We are accidents. We happened because of all kinds of factors we're not in control of. Who we are as individuals is accidental. What we do everyday depends on what we've done before or what we'd like to do, which is based on stuff we've learned before. There's nothing really "free" about it -- all of life is basically a boiling pot of water. We're all affected by the burner below us.

Free will is just an idea -- a useful one for most people, and it definitely appears to be true, but it's not. I can believe that everything I do was caused by my own actions. I can take responsibility. But I don't think that I'm fully responsible on a deeper level. To me, that deeper level matters. It's a deeper level - let's say it all lives in our own minds - where our actions and behaviors are born no differently than lung cancer if we smoke all the time. Things that happen to us gives rise to things that we do and how we become -- and there's no stopping it. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it's random. I think the only way I could be proven wrong about this is if I die and meet God and he goes over my life and is all like, "I see you did this, and this, and this, and this...."

Religion is a beautiful and hopeful thing, very magical and majestic, and I'd love to live forever and be with my family and friends in Heaven for all of Eternity (I think...) --- but I think the possibility of life working out that way is low. I think life is random. Although I am open to the possibility that the universe has some kind of supernatural side to it, possibly as a master plan that's being fulfilled somehow for some strange reason, something that I guess we are a part of. But that also might delve into religious/spiritual issues. And in that case (or at least in some possible case), if there is free will, count me in as one of the first people (at least, probably the first person from Movie Forums) to vocalize to God or whatever about how absurd I found life and the conditions for living "freely" -- as if we always have it in us to do something that we just can't do. We don't always, and we shouldn't be punished for it. Not by a deity in a supernatural realm, at least.

All I know is there are a lot of drunks turn their life around.

But they have to stay away from booze completely or they will be drunks again.

So I guess they have free will with conditions.

On the other hand, all those gay guys that turn to religion and marry women seem to have a hard time staying straight since they are always getting caught in gay bars or getting arrested in public johns.

Sexual orientation seems immune to free will.

Next time I get pulled over by the cops I'm going to say I don't have any free will, hopefully they'll let me go!!!!

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Ahem:

"How can there not be free will? "

"my fate isn't predetermined at the time I am born. "

"we are not ruled entirely by instinct and that gives us free will."

Not that there's any actual distinction between "I believe we have free will" and "we have free will," anyway.

Even putting your shifting position aside, it still leaves this question, which I'll bold and make purple this time so you definitely see it:

"Just saying it's 'sophisticated' doesn't change the underlying physics. The complicated examples of cause and effect are only made up of smaller simpler ones. At some point, a molecule has to get bumped or pushed or influenced by another...and not move the way it normally would. Correct?"

Please confirm that this is what you believe.

Not all drunks turn their lives around and those that do are lucky.

Meaning you can't change it?

That is something else to be debated.

They won't because you are supposed to learn and always demonstrate the right thing to do. If you fail at this, for whatever reason, then you have failed and they want to punish you. The randomness of everything does not care -- but the randomness that created those cops and the law does care.

...but.....I don't have free will.....I can't control the things that happen.....

Nor can you control the people who don't care about your reason.

If you are born with brown eyes, but wear coloured contacts so it looks like you have blue eyes, you haven't changed the colour of your eyes, but rather the appearance. Which isn't the same thing, n'est pas?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Personally, I'm not convinced that you're born gay. These guys who marry and have sex with women while also having sex with men are interesting and don't automatically need to be labeled "gay" and "closeted." Lots of people are into both sexes.

Women, or some of them, seem to be more sexually flexible than men. With guys, there are some that can have relations with women, but they are primarily gay. Gore Vidal and Farley Granger claimed to be bisexual, but as they got older had long time live-in relationships with men. Someone once said you never hear of a man in a relationship with another man leaving him for a woman, it is always the other way around. All of the publicized cases of gay men become Christian and denouncing a gay lifestyle and marrying women have all been caught backsliding. Are there some male gays who actually convert to being a heterosexual? Well, there might be, but it appears to be extremely rare and there are always exceptions to everything. There are primarily heterosexual men who have experimented in gay sex or the examples of men in prison, but true free choice involving sexual orientation among men looks more like a Christian urban legend.

With men it seems like they have reason to believe it's wrong to like the same sex because of things implemented into them by their families, especially father figures. To a lot of people my brother seems like he's gay, yet he has never forwardly said he was. I personally think he's metro and just very high maintenance. But the problem underlying it is that my family made it very clear when he was very young that he isn't gay and that there is no way he could be and that it's wrong and that he will go to hell.

He's pretty religious and I think that if he is gay, it might be holding him back on his true feelings.

The point I have is that for men I think more than women, it isn't ok for them to accept that they may not like women because their family expects them to.

You can't explain everthing by molecules. Science doesn't have all the answers, just some of them. The universe is messy and doesn't always follow a logical path. The alternative to science doesn't have an answer for that yet isn't automatically devine intervention.