[W:280] Free Will (1 Viewer)

[calamity]

Why would I care what the bible says? The question of free will is unsolvable. It will forever remain one of those mysteries. Sam Harris is mst famous for saying there is none. I posted his debate with Dennett and that debate is very interesting. I disagree with Sam Harris, just FYI.....but not because of any bible. Noonereal here says I don't know what I'm talking about. He needs a mirror.

I would agree that you do seem to know something about this subject, whether we share the same opinions on it or or not.

 

[calamity]

Yes, God speaking through man via the holy spirit...

Nonsense. It's a philosophy of desert dwellers at the dawn of civilization. In that, the screed is not bad and somewhat informative. However, there is no such thing as "God speaking through man via the holy spirit." That's just mumbo jumbo garbage.

Would you say the Quran is "God speaking through man" (Mohamed)? Of course not. Well, the same applies to the Bible. It's just a book, one written by men, espousing their philosophy.

 

[Daisy]

Nonsense. It's a philosophy of desert dwellers at the dawn of civilization. In that, the screed is not bad and somewhat informative. However, there is no such thing as "God speaking through man via the holy spirit." That's just mumbo jumbo garbage.

Nonsense...see how that works?

 

[Paradoxical]

Why would I care what you say? A mortal man?

When you have one ounce of proof that any God inspired the bible, get back to me.

 

[Paradoxical]

I would agree that you do seem to know something about this subject, whether we share the same opinions on it or or not.

No matter what anyone says, it is a matter of opinion. Sam Harris is one of those guys who is truly an intellectual and very well studied. He does make some good arguments for there being no free will and the Daniel Dennett debate is not the only debate of his I have listened to. It is a great topic to discuss and I don't think one for debate. I was raised a Catholic and taught by nuns, so when Christians try to tell me I don't know their dogma, they are wrong. When I think of free will, I equate it to choice. Sam Harris picks the rare circumstances such as psychopaths and says that since they are warped in the head or chemically imbalanced, they don't have the free will by virtue of their condition. Granted, there are many situations where this may be the case, or people are driven to do things because of bad luck and they make decisions based on their perceptions of what is best under the circumstances and it appears Sam Harris considers those situations as negating free will because it is all chemicals and neurons firing and we have no control over them.

I don't think you can take the outliers or rare situations and say that those extremes prove there is no free will. My belief is that we make choices daily and even every minute as to how to react to or handle a certain situation. Are we governed by what happened last year, last week, or luck when we choose A over B? Is it just chemicals in our brain that tells us what to decide? Naturally, our genes, our upbringing and prior circumstances play a huge role in what one would decide but to say that they are the sole moving force to me seems wrong. No matter what our past was, or our current situation we still decide. For one to say otherwise diminishes humanity to no more than computer programs.

 

[noonereal]

I would agree that you do seem to know something about this subject

with all respect to you, calamity, and I mean that, you are wrong. He most certainly is very limited in his understanding of the subject.

 

[Paradoxical]

with all respect to you, calamity, and I mean that, you are wrong. He most certainly is very limited in his understanding of the subject.

Mirror time. You must have broken a hundred by now.

 

[Big Eye]

and this makes perfect sense to you!

God Bless.

Ok , you’re not as sharp as I thought you were...but to make it even simpler for you...

Even if a chemical reaction within a cause and effect world is responsible for a thought that is acted upon, if that thought does not relate to the world as it is then that act is free from material cause and effect.

It is also the case that we are able to control our thought processes through will power ( eg , meditation), we can control our wills with training ( for a materialist this implies that our will can have a chemical effect within the brain)...so for instance , a lazy good for nothing liberal retard could be trained to be an effective person. The common sense explanation of this is called self control...self control is what we mean by free will...you have a degree of autonomy from the world around you based on your will power. Everyone wants will power therefore increasing it is a natural desire...and one that all sane human beings can engage in.

The realm of thoughts really do have a degree of separation from any material reality that may exist, but thought can relate to real concepts that do not exist in the material world...for instance , geometric forms do not exist outside of our minds, but they are real nonetheless.


Obviously all this will go over your head but others may understand the implications lol.

 

[calamity]

with all respect to you, calamity, and I mean that, you are wrong. He most certainly is very limited in his understanding of the subject.

We all are, tbh. But his posts in this thread (at least the ones I’ve read) appear to be well reasoned and thought out. That’s all I usually ask.

 

[calamity]

No matter what anyone says, it is a matter of opinion. Sam Harris is one of those guys who is truly an intellectual and very well studied. He does make some good arguments for there being no free will and the Daniel Dennett debate is not the only debate of his I have listened to. It is a great topic to discuss and I don't think one for debate. I was raised a Catholic and taught by nuns, so when Christians try to tell me I don't know their dogma, they are wrong. When I think of free will, I equate it to choice. Sam Harris picks the rare circumstances such as psychopaths and says that since they are warped in the head or chemically imbalanced, they don't have the free will by virtue of their condition. Granted, there are many situations where this may be the case, or people are driven to do things because of bad luck and they make decisions based on their perceptions of what is best under the circumstances and it appears Sam Harris considers those situations as negating free will because it is all chemicals and neurons firing and we have no control over them.

I don't think you can take the outliers or rare situations and say that those extremes prove there is no free will. My belief is that we make choices daily and even every minute as to how to react to or handle a certain situation. Are we governed by what happened last year, last week, or luck when we choose A over B? Is it just chemicals in our brain that tells us what to decide? Naturally, our genes, our upbringing and prior circumstances play a huge role in what one would decide but to say that they are the sole moving force to me seems wrong. No matter what our past was, or our current situation we still decide. For one to say otherwise diminishes humanity to no more than computer programs.

At its simplest, I see free will in humans as being kind of the opposite of when a dog sees a squirrel and gives chase, perhaps running through traffic or even over a cliff. Humans have impulse control.

Some humans are short on impulse control; others have a lot. We often refer to sustained impulse control as will power. Again some people have a lot; others have little. I’m not sure that difference is acquired at birth, but I am reasonably sure the amount of it under our control is minimal. All it takes is a head injury to wipe out twenty years of well-honed discipline, instantly turning a deliberate person into one who is reckless.

 

[Paradoxical]

At its simplest, I see free will in humans as being kind of the opposite of when a dog sees a squirrel and gives chase, perhaps running through traffic or even over a cliff. Humans have impulse control.

Some humans are short on impulse control; others have a lot. We often refer to sustained impulse control as will power. Again some people have a lot; others have little. I’m not sure that difference is acquired at birth, but I am reasonably sure the amount of it under our control is minimal. All it takes is a head injury to wipe out twenty years of well-honed discipline, instantly turning a deliberate person into one who is reckless.

As Sam Harris (one who has written about, debated about and wrote a book about) says, someone in the condition you describe with a head injury could and should not be held personally responsible for reckless or criminal acts. The next subjects for consideration to exclude would be psychopaths of which, fortunately, there are only about 1% in the general population. Those people have no ability for compassion or love. Either their brains are wired differently or they have some chemical imbalance. Some like doing evil and criminal acts. It gives them a high. It is doubtful that society can do anything about psychos but if humanity survives long enough, science may unlock the key to reigning in their lack of feelings or remorse.

As I said, I was essentially raised by nuns, was an altar boy, my entire large family were devout Catholics, so in spite of Noonereal's insults, I do know something about this topic as "Free Will" is the main focal focal pointy of Christianity, but even they get it wrong because no sane individual would choose hell knowingly by doing bad things knowing some invisible sky daddy God was watching and keeping score. So, the only free will in Christianity is being bludgeoned into behaving in order to achieve heaven. That setup does NOT give one "Free Will". However, the dogma does lend credence to the premise that a Catholic or Christian doesn't have "Free Will" because their actions are forced and demanded by an invisible cop because the believer imagines that a sin will land him in hell. Therefore, in spite of their vehement arguments, Christianity negates free will because anyone believing in it is good not for the sake of humanity, but to save his own soul. In essence, Christianity is a ME religion, self centered and egotistical. I am sure this comment will make many practitioners ballistic but I have realized that no one can get angry at a false charge being levied against them. It would be like a slender person being told thy are fat and going nuts over the slur. It is only when they know deep down that they are living a lie that they will get really mad when called on it.

Perhaps what it boils down to is really indoctrination and beliefs and those in the camp of Sam Harris see this as evidence of no Free Will. For instance, does a crazed Muslim chop off the head of someone because he is convinced this is God's will? Would a Republican or Democrat who was indoctrinated into believing their philosophy was best for humanity is best for society be exercising free will if they fixed an election? We see right here on this board two sides going at each other every day with beliefs that are poles apart, each side being angry that the other does't adopt what are really beliefs and not facts. You could pick any subject whether it be Capitalism vs. Socialism, Global warming real or not, masks or not and those debating these points really believe what it is they are saying. Could either side believe differently? If one takes an action based on those beliefs, is that free will or a chemical reaction the brain?

No one here is going to solve these problems with posts in chat rooms. Your "truth" is not my truth. Noonereal's "truth is not my truth and millions of us walk around with falsities in our brains that we only imagine are true because of things that happened in our past and our conditioning. Could one of us believe differently than we do now? Certainly because I was once a believer of Catholicism and no longer am. Leo Terrel was once a hard core liberal who is now a hard core conservative and it goes on. am Harris and noonereal would say this is still not free will. It is brain chemicals and neurons firing.

 

[noonereal]

Ok , you’re not as sharp as I thought you were...but to make it even simpler for you...

Even if a chemical reaction within a cause and effect world is responsible for a thought that is acted upon, if that thought does not relate to the world as it is then that act is free from material cause and effect.

It is also the case that we are able to control our thought processes through will power ( eg , meditation), we can control our wills with training ( for a materialist this implies that our will can have a chemical effect within the brain)...so for instance , a lazy good for nothing liberal retard could be trained to be an effective person. The common sense explanation of this is called self control...self control is what we mean by free will...you have a degree of autonomy from the world around you based on your will power. Everyone wants will power therefore increasing it is a natural desire...and one that all sane human beings can engage in.

The realm of thoughts really do have a degree of separation from any material reality that may exist, but thought can relate to real concepts that do not exist in the material world...for instance , geometric forms do not exist outside of our minds, but they are real nonetheless.


Obviously all this will go over your head but others may understand the implications lol.

Not over, it flies beneath.

Honestly, there is no point, you do not not how much you do not know.

That said,

we are best served to enjoy our illusion, after all, it's all we have.

Peace

 

[noonereal]

We all are, tbh. But his posts in this thread (at least the ones I’ve read) appear to be well reasoned and thought out. That’s all I usually ask.

But they are mired in a finite abstract.

 

[Paradoxical]

But they are mired in a finite abstract.

Might I know your reasons for claiming expertise in this area and that everyone but you doesn't know what they are talking about?

 

[noonereal]

Might I know your reasons for claiming expertise in this area and that everyone but you doesn't know what they are talking about?

No.

 

[VanceMack]

No matter what anyone says, it is a matter of opinion. Sam Harris is one of those guys who is truly an intellectual and very well studied. He does make some good arguments for there being no free will and the Daniel Dennett debate is not the only debate of his I have listened to. It is a great topic to discuss and I don't think one for debate. I was raised a Catholic and taught by nuns, so when Christians try to tell me I don't know their dogma, they are wrong. When I think of free will, I equate it to choice. Sam Harris picks the rare circumstances such as psychopaths and says that since they are warped in the head or chemically imbalanced, they don't have the free will by virtue of their condition. Granted, there are many situations where this may be the case, or people are driven to do things because of bad luck and they make decisions based on their perceptions of what is best under the circumstances and it appears Sam Harris considers those situations as negating free will because it is all chemicals and neurons firing and we have no control over them.

I don't think you can take the outliers or rare situations and say that those extremes prove there is no free will. My belief is that we make choices daily and even every minute as to how to react to or handle a certain situation. Are we governed by what happened last year, last week, or luck when we choose A over B? Is it just chemicals in our brain that tells us what to decide? Naturally, our genes, our upbringing and prior circumstances play a huge role in what one would decide but to say that they are the sole moving force to me seems wrong. No matter what our past was, or our current situation we still decide. For one to say otherwise diminishes humanity to no more than computer programs.

So if I understand your position, you are equating yourself to psychopaths and other people that are mentally deficient and lack the capacity of reason and choice, because it may be possible that some people to lack the capacity of reason and choice?

Even people driven by bad luck and circumstance make choices. Environmental influences can certainly create moral dilemmas...but they dont negate capacity. The old moral discussion question "would you steal a loaf of bread to save your starving family" is a painful choice...but the mere fact that it is used as a discussion point proves that it IS a matter of choice.

 

[Paradoxical]

No.

I will take that as an admission you know no more than anyone else on the topic.

 

[Paradoxical]

So if I understand your position, you are equating yourself to psychopaths and other people that are mentally deficient and lack the capacity of reason and choice, because it may be possible that some people to lack the capacity of reason and choice?

Even people driven by bad luck and circumstance make choices. Environmental influences can certainly create moral dilemmas...but they dont negate capacity. The old moral discussion question "would you steal a loaf of bread to save your starving family" is a painful choice...but the mere fact that it is used as a discussion point proves that it IS a matter of choice.

How did you get that from my post? What made you think that?

 

[noonereal]

I will take that as an admission you know no more than anyone else on the topic.

Wisdom may only be imparted to a keen an open mind.

You may take anything anyway you like.

Peace

 

[watsup]

“Determinists” state that our “thoughts” are the total result of the electro-chemical exchanges of the neurons within the brain and that as a result no other thought is even possible than the one at any certain time, and thus they are “determined” and constrained by the physics, biology, and chemistry of the universe to be none other.
The problem is that even if this is true, it FEELS LIKE free will and thus becomes a distinction without areal difference.

 

[VanceMack]

How did you get that from my post? What made you think that?

The fact that you posted in a discussion about free will an argument based on comments made by an individual regarding an extreme. EVEN ASSUMING Mr Harris is correct about a very select population, that has nothing to do with norms or the concept of free will and choice.

Is rather telling that in hyour derpgatory remarks about God, you kick your own argument right in the balls. You claim Christianity does not enjoy free wil because they have threat of punishment...yet you yourself acknowledge you were RAISED in an environment that you chose to leave.

 

[watsup]

Here is the difference: religionists claim that free will was “given” to them by God whereas it is simply a matter of the outcome of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. I would surmise that many of not most animals also have free will, and that we are no different.

 

[Paradoxical]

Wisdom may only be imparted to a keen an open mind.

You may take anything anyway you like.

Peace

Yep. From your postings, I take that your expertise in this area is no better than anyone else.

 

[Paradoxical]

The fact that you posted in a discussion about free will an argument based on comments made by an individual regarding an extreme. EVEN ASSUMING Mr Harris is correct about a very select population, that has nothing to do with norms or the concept of free will and choice.

Is rather telling that in hyour derpgatory remarks about God, you kick your own argument right in the balls. You claim Christianity does not enjoy free wil because they have threat of punishment...yet you yourself acknowledge you were RAISED in an environment that you chose to leave.

I am, of course, against psychopaths and sociopaths. Noonereal here has cast aspersions on my qualifications in this area, which is why I mentioned having been literally raised by nuns because of my family situation which is not necessary to go into. They were and are some of the kindest people in the world. Though I was an altar boy, I was never touched by a priest. therefore,one cannot assert that I have personal reasons for leaving the cult. I see Catholicism/Christianity as identical to Scientology in their METHODS of indoctrination. They became large NOT because of the truth but because of intimidation, killings, coercion, shunning, admonitions and fear. Many of these tactics have been adopted by the new left to indoctrinate the masses. This is HOW indoctrination works. It can be said that every one of us is indoctrinated into something.

We WANT to believe a certain thing and are easily convinced. We want to be taken care of and loved and live forever. That is an easy sell, particularly when you have your parents, siblings and your towns people all telling you it's "true". Those who don't are shunned and ridiculed and pilloried, just like we see here daily by those debating. That is a form of control and very effective. No wants to be scorned. However, what you have is not the truth but a BELIEF. Extreme mental gymnastics are required to believe in a a sacrifice, a resurrection, God killing an entire human race, and so on. But, we believe because others tell it is true and this is part of the survival mechanism inherent in every human because of evolution. Those who don't believe as their "tribe" does find themselves in deep trouble emotionally and financially.Just look at how the left "cancels" the non believers of their dogma.

Yes, I left. An attorney named Leo Terrel left his tribe, a guy who I thought would be the last person to leave his tribe, he was so "certain" had the truth. YOUR beliefs are not facts. they are just beliefs. You hold them because they resonate with what you desire, which is to be loved, cared for and a get out of jail free card at the end of your days here. Who wouldn't want that? Selling that is as easy as selling ice cream cones for a penny, It's a no brainer. Who has the truth? You, me, noonereal, a Scientologist? A Mormon? A Muslim? A Baptist? Someone who believes in free will? Someone who doesn't? Which political system is best for society? Capitalism? Socialism, Progressivism? WE choose our beliefs. On occasion, there comes a time where information and knowledge is taken in that alters those beliefs and we can no longer hold onto what we believed in the past. Does that mean we are bad or wrong in our NEW beliefs or in our OLD beliefs? Is it really logical that the way someone BELIEVES gets him into this place called heaven? I personally think any God that requires that to be Himself evil.

 

[code1211]

If you believe in “god” , did “god” give us free will, so that we could be punished (eternally) for using that free will?

Is free will, not so free?

Knowing that something will happen and making it happen are different things.

The Jonathan Edwards notion of eternal damnation seems oddly out of step with the idea of a loving Father.

In my humble opinion, belief in eternal damnation over an eye-blink span of existence on this little spec of dust seems to be out of step with the God described by Christ.