Assignment: "Freewill" (Pro/Con)

radarmark said:
yes, it is the case that our mental states influence our choices which rdetermine our actions
Click to expand...

Agreed, but (and now I'm trying to follow the reasoning of luecy7 and selfishness) if we want to do something that would be considered selfish in being intro/extro but choosing (because there is more going on then into/extro tendencies) to be or not to be selfish determines if we are, indeed, selfish. Yes?

I think we came full circle to, freewill: Can we choose to be more then our tendencies or are we the sum of them?

(This was fun!)
 
Snoopy said:
According to the Abrahamic religions, is there free will? I think I have read that in Christianity, God gave Man free will but I also seem to have read that God knows what we are going to do and so there is no free will, in reality...

s.
Click to expand...


The fact that God knows all about us, even what we are about to do, does not affect at all our ability to exercise our freewill. I, absolutely, believe that God does not interfere on how we use our freewill to make our own choices. (Gen. 4:6,7 and Deut. 30:15-19)
Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
The fact that God knows all about us, even what we are about to do, does not affect at all our ability to exercise our freewill. I, absolutely, believe that God does not interfere on how we use our freewill to make our own choices. (Gen. 4:6,7 and Deut. 30:15-19)
Ben
Click to expand...
Being that the existence of god is not a fact, your whole philosophy falls flat on its face.
 
ACOT, you got it (at least what I said from where I sit). I personally cannot believe in an omniscient G!d because (to the extent we can know) the universe at a small scale if literally indeterminate ('tis a quantun thing). And if G!d created us in H!r image then we have free will, which means that G!d does nto know beforehand what our choices are.

The alternative is determinisism where G!d creates the Kosmos (including us) as a game to watch... metaphorically this seems like a waste of time on G!d's part. So Sh! wants us to live within H!s rules (which are wonderful and beautiful) but yet choose to return to H!m.

I know this is rambling and mystical, but that is how I am.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Radar, I wasn't sure I was convinced I believed free will = god can't see our choices, but then I took a moment and thought up this thought experiment.

If I created a program for a robot to react to it's surrounding in a certain way I can see to possibilities. Either the program will be so complicated (> then my ability to predict) that I won't be able to anticipate the robots moves. Or, it will be a simple (< then my ability to predict) program that I will most likely know beforehand how the robot will react.

It's probably up to each and everyone to decide for themselves, but I can't consider the latter free will. Perhaps not the first either, but it serves the point for me.
 
As I read it you grok. If one logically demands free will, then the robot must be greater than the ability to prdict. Or the laws created lead to emergent mentally based life-forms that are indeterminate. Works either way and, yes, it is up to the individual to choose.
 
radarmark said:
Of course, but our actions and mantal states (decisions) are cyclic, they re-enforce. That but should answer the question (yes, it is the case that our mental states influence our choices which rdetermine our actions).
Click to expand...
Compare to Buddha's view:

Dhammapada 1:1-5

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.​
It seems you and Buddha agree!


"I would also like to add the role of empathy/sympathetic joy to the mix, as well as "contagious" (generated and empowered by a group) feelings." SG

I was merely providing an "internal only view". empathy/sympathetic joy and contagious feelings are part of what I called "mental state".
Click to expand...
Would free will would have to originate from the "internal view only?"

For me (unless I am working on project alone), those dominate my feeling space (but my bride would argue that "protection" or "guardianship" rule). I try not to seek projects alone, but sometimes (doing a lot of probability and other math work) I cannot help it (cannot find a job that lets me write philosophy or run projects).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
Click to expand...
Here's where we get down to the nitty gritty: What constitutes "pure mind," and what constitutes "impure mind?" How does each individual perceive it, and what strategies do they employ in this regard? (Keeping in mind that these strategies can easily become habits, which will further contribute to this mind-driven feedback loop.)
 
"Would free will would have to originate from the "internal view only?"" --SG

No. Like quantum indeterminism it is an objective fact. However out understanding of it (limited by our puny mids) becomes what (philosophically) is know as intersubjective objectivity. That is so many of us (all, if we took the time to really talk this out, but we do not) experience "free will", its objective status is inductively (actually abductively or inferrentially) proven .

"What constitutes "pure mind," and what constitutes "impure mind?" How does each individual perceive it, and what strategies do they employ in this regard? (Keeping in mind that these strategies can easily become habits, which will further contribute to this mind-driven feedback loop.)"

Pure mind is the selfless seed, the empty husk. Impure mind would be that filled with self. Does that make sense at all? Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
radarmark said:
"Would free will would have to originate from the "internal view only?"" --SG

No. Like quantum indeterminism it is an objective fact. However out understanding of it (limited by our puny mids) becomes what (philosophically) is know as intersubjective objectivity. That is so many of us (all, if we took the time to really talk this out, but we do not) experience "free will", its objective status is inductively (actually abductively or inferrentially) proven .
Click to expand...
Alrighty.

"What constitutes "pure mind," and what constitutes "impure mind?" How does each individual perceive it, and what strategies do they employ in this regard? (Keeping in mind that these strategies can easily become habits, which will further contribute to this mind-driven feedback loop.)"

Pure mind is the selfless seed, the empty husk. Impure mind would be that filled with self. Does that make sense at all? Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
Click to expand...
Yep. Goes back to my answer to the thread Is human nature inherently good or evil? My answer was inherently empty, thus full of possibilities/potential.
 
seattlegal said:
Yep. Goes back to my answer to the thread Is human nature inherently good or evil? My answer was inherently empty, thus full of possibilities/potential.
Click to expand...
Every day is full of possibilities / potential, but the days are numbered and the days do pass whether a person lives them or not. So to seek to be full of possibilities/potential, by keeping things empty, is to inherently be empty of life. To seek to be empty of the possibilities/potential, is to live being full of life. The days here do pass either way.
 
Etu Malku said:
Being that the existence of god is not a fact, your whole philosophy falls flat on its face.
Click to expand...


No, it does not. I have been always too careful to make it clear that of the two modalities of beliefs, by faith and on the basis of probability, mine as being the latter. I believe in God as the Creator of the universe on the basis of the concept of probability. Why? Because I am not a fool to affirm something that I am not sure, or discard something for that matter. When King David said in Psalm 14:1 that fools are those who declare that God does not exist, I take for granted that equally fools are those who affirm that he does.

Tell me, BTW, the existence of what is a fact, the myth of the big bang? The existence of the universe out of nothing or that it has aways been there? In that case, all the scientific theories are fallen on the face of Astrophysicists. What do atheists have to say about this now, to stick their heads in holes on the floor?
Ben
 
I believe in both free will and determinism.
We are born into certain conditions... yet, we cannot help but believe that we have free will in acting as free agent, even if it is largely based on set conditions. Still, the belief in free will is freedom in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top