Assignment: "Freewill" (Pro/Con)

[Gatekeeper]

@Gatekeeper
Is desire something that exists independently or is it dependent on other forces and factors?
If so, desire could also be affected by choices. And therefore, desire is not free and neither are choices. So, no free anything all round.

Sure, desire is dependent upon other factors, the choices we make. The experiences we experience because of those choices certainly play on our desires. Even our thoughts, new information, our knowledge, understanding, wisdom, etc. play a role when it comes to our desires.

As far as I can tell our only true freedom is our ability to make mistakes, being imperfect and able to fall short, but then that isn't so free either. I'm on board with you, OAT ... "No free anything all around".

If this is the case, then there must be certain methods, certain choices, certain knowledge, certain understandings that can ultimately help us reshape our desires and our retrain our thoughts, yes?

I suggest this because of our innate ability to learn, grow, and further develop as individuals and together as a collective body. Calculated choices determined by our experiences and our knowledge could possibly change our lives for the better.

If we truly desire something, then we will take the steps necessary to achieve that desire. Jesus (Sorry to bring religion into this) tells us that we individually are merely branches of a greater vine and that the Father (God) is the vine dresser and that we can do nothing apart from the Vine (Humanity).

When Jesus said ask, I think he was saying "desire" and your desires will be fulfilled. God (Life) is ultimately in control, but we being imperfect beings often have misguided desires. We will alway bring forth the "fruit" of our strongest desires, whether corrupt or good; our hearts desire ultimately determines the fruit we produce in life.

We are all the same, there are none inherently evil, so all are able to change their hearts desire if effectively nudged to do so. It's not necessarily life that will always determine our desire, but also what we know and understand about life, our fundamental equality, and those we share this world with.

In short, change your desires and your desires will change your life, or you can keep doing what you've always done and you'll keep getting what you always got. We can help one another desire "good" over "evil", or rather desire pro social behavior (Morality) over anti social behavior (Immorality).

I myself "Get by with a little help from my friends"


~GK~

 

[seattlegal]

While I agree that we are connected to others and our environment, and are thusly limited by it, there are still innumerable possible choices within those limitations we can make from moment to moment, each with their corresponding effect. We have the power to affect change within our environment and within our relationships, demonstrating our freedom to make choices to affect desired changes. {As well as undesired changes!} What term would you use to describe this freedom? I call it freewill. Perhaps a different term would be more accurate?

Our actions are not predetermined. Even physical matter has indeterminate properties, so it is quite a stretch away from established reality to declare that human beings do not also have indeterminate qualities. While we are free to chose among the myriad of possible actions available to us from moment to moment, we cannot have full control over the affects of our actions, due to the indeterminate qualities of all the different elements within our environment, or even within ourselves!

We are not autonomous in respect to not having total control over everything we might desire to. Some might use this as an argument that we do not have free-will. I find this argument absurd! Free-will does not imply this type of autonomy at all, especially if free-will is to be a quality available to all humans!

 

[Gatekeeper]

While I agree that we are connected to others and our environment, and are thusly limited by it, there are still innumerable possible choices within those limitations we can make from moment to moment, each with their corresponding effect. We have the power to affect change within our environment and within our relationships, demonstrating our freedom to make choices to affect desired changes. {As well as undesired changes!} What term would you use to describe this freedom? I call it freewill. Perhaps a different term would be more accurate?

Jesus said that the "truth" will make you free (Deliverance) suggesting as did Paul that we are in effect servants bound by our desires, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

(But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you).

I understand what you are saying and I would, for the most part, agree. Even so, freedom is such a misleading term (Imo). We are able, extremely so, to change our course in life, thus it is in our abilities that the slight of freedom is somewhat present. It certainly is not complete freedom, but it is just enough that we are able to change our life direction at any given moment.

Our actions are not predetermined. Even physical matter has indeterminate properties, so it is quite a stretch away from established reality to declare that human beings do not also have indeterminate qualities. While we are free to chose among the myriad of possible actions available to us from moment to moment, we cannot have full control over the affects of our actions, due to the indeterminate qualities of all the different elements within our environment, or even within ourselves!

Of course there are a myriad of choices to choose from, but we will always choose according to our hearts strongest desire. We are, however, able to learn from experience, reflecting upon them, and then examine the options in order to choose an appropriate course of action, all of which enables us to manipulate and change our desires.

We are not autonomous in respect to not having total control over everything we might desire to. Some might use this as an argument that we do not have free-will. I find this argument absurd! Free-will does not imply this type of autonomy at all, especially if free-will is to be a quality available to all humans!

Freedom (Freewill) is such a misleading term, (Imo). We are, however, able to change and manipulate our desires by self refection, by self examination, by learning from past mistakes, our knowledge, our understanding and through wisdom. Even so, and although we are not completely bound, we are not completely free either.

I never suggested that we cannot change the course of our lives, I merely suggested that a myriad of factors influence us, and therefore determine what we desire most in any given situation. Again, it all ultimately rests on our desires and the many variables that manipulate them.

~GK~

 

[bob x]

You suggest that we choose without determination or desire, which is odd to say the least.

I said nothing of the sort. I said we have all kinds of desires, which do not come with numerical rankings. You talk blithely about one desire being what we desire "most": what does that word "most" even MEAN? I desire that cheesecake in the window. I also desire to keep the money for this weekend. Do I desire the cheesecake 93.7 with desire points, and the money with 92.8 desire points, and that is why the cheesecake won out?

Also, You mention inanimate objects and suggest that even they have freewill choice. Where exactly does this view point come from?

Are you completely unaware of 20th century physics? I don't know how far back I have to start, in order to explain this to you. I thought everyone was aware that determinism died long ago.

You wrote, " BEFORE the choice is made, there is no numerical scale on which one could count which option had more "desire points" (the only objectively determinable numeric measures involved, the relative strengths of electric fields and currents in this or that section of the neural net, are known not to be outcome-determinative)."

What exactly does the above mean?

I thought I was being quite straightforward there. You talk about one desire being "stronger" than another: how do you measure "strengths"? It is a meaningless term.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I said nothing of the sort. I said we have all kinds of desires, which do not come with numerical rankings. You talk blithely about one desire being what we desire "most": what does that word "most" even MEAN? I desire that cheesecake in the window. I also desire to keep the money for this weekend. Do I desire the cheesecake 93.7 with desire points, and the money with 92.8 desire points, and that is why the cheesecake won out?

Are you completely unaware of 20th century physics? I don't know how far back I have to start, in order to explain this to you. I thought everyone was aware that determinism died long ago.

I thought I was being quite straightforward there. You talk about one desire being "stronger" than another: how do you measure "strengths"? It is a meaningless term.

There is no calculated measurement when it comes to desire. The thought is absurd. Even so, the stronger will always win out. Whether the stronger desire is to keep and maintain a home or to spend your money on pleasure, your strongest desire will always determine your conscious choice.

20th century physics? You act as if my views are meaningless in light of, so please give me an example of a case where we are consciously able to choose aside from what we desire most. Inanimate objects are free to choose? Please support your claim with some substance, bob.

Referring to 20th century physics does nothing to support you stance ... Not even a little bit. Are you suggesting that 20th century physics proves the existence of freewill? It sure sounds like this is what you are suggesting. If so, expound a bit on how 20th century physics proves freewill.


~GK~

 

[seattlegal]

There is no calculated measurement when it comes to desire. The thought is absurd. Even so, the stronger will always win out.

No, the strongest desire does not always win out. Desires compatable with indetrminate reality are the only ones that stand a chance, no matter how strong they may be.

Whether the stronger desire is to keep and maintain a home or to spend your money on pleasure, your strongest desire will always determine your conscious choice.

So reason has nothing to do with it? Remember, only the desires that are compatable with indeterminate reality actually stand a chance to manifest.

20th century physics? You act as if my views are meaningless in light of, so please give me an example of a case where we are consciously able to choose aside from what we desire most.

We may desire the cheesecake over the chocolate cake, but we perceive that the circumstances would be messy in order to procure the cheesecake over the chocolate cake.

Inanimate objects are free to choose? Please support your claim with some substance, bob.

Inanimate objects have indeterminate qualities, such as is described in the Uncertainty Principle.

Referring to 20th century physics does nothing to support you stance ... Not even a little bit. Are you suggesting that 20th century physics proves the existence of freewill? It sure sounds like this is what you are suggesting. If so, expound a bit on how 20th century physics proves freewill.

He's disproving determinism.

 

[Gatekeeper]

No, the strongest desire does not always win out. Desires compatable with indetrminate reality are the only ones that stand a chance, no matter how strong they may be.

So reason has nothing to do with it? Remember, only the desires that are compatable with indeterminate reality actually stand a chance to manifest.


We may desire the cheesecake over the chocolate cake, but we perceive that the circumstances would be messy in order to procure the cheesecake over the chocolate cake.

Inanimate objects have indeterminate qualities, such as is described in the Uncertainty Principle.


He's disproving determinism.

Then he needs to step up and disprove my views instead of posting matter of fact statements that he has yet to substantiate. Are you then suggesting that indeterminate qualities as described in the "uncertainty" principle disproves my Con stance when it comes to freewill choice?

I keep seeing "determinism" come up in this thread, so I'll need to see what all the fuss is about. I'll assume it is a Con stance against freewill choice. Btw, I will concede my points if they can be proven false. Even so, I have seen no evidence thus far to disprove them.

On a side note: Attempting to disprove my argument instead of making a case for your own is called a straw argument, and it does nothing to prove the Pro freewill stance. In all honestly, I'm not certain it can be proven Pro or Con, but it's still a hoot discussing the topic (At least for me).

 

[seattlegal]

On a side note: Attempting to disprove my argument instead of making a case for your own is called a straw argument, and it does nothing to prove the Pro freewill stance. In all honestly, I'm not certain it can be proven Pro or Con, but it's still a hoot discussing the topic (At least for me).

A strawman argument is making a misrepresentation of your argument and then refuting the misrepresentation.

 

[Saltmeister]

20th century physics? You act as if my views are meaningless in light of, so please give me an example of a case where we are consciously able to choose aside from what we desire most. Inanimate objects are free to choose? Please support your claim with some substance, bob.

Referring to 20th century physics does nothing to support you stance ... Not even a little bit. Are you suggesting that 20th century physics proves the existence of freewill? It sure sounds like this is what you are suggesting. If so, expound a bit on how 20th century physics proves freewill.

I think it has to do with the difference between classical and quantum physics. Classical physics is deterministic. There is only one fate/destiny. Quantum physics is probabilistic. There are an infinite number of possible outcomes, including extremely absurb, ridiculous and illogical ones (according to conventional wisdom). However, some of these outcomes are more likely than others.

According to classical physics, a photon always travels in the same direction when emitted. According to quantum physics, a photon can deviate from the "conventional" or most likely path.

Classical and quantum physics are most distinguishable for small entities. For larger entities, they're mostly the same.

The question is, how different is the human brain according to the classical model, as compared to the quantum one?

 

[seattlegal]

While this does not specifically address brain mechanics, you might find this useful, Salty.

Quantum cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gatekeeper]

A strawman argument is making a misrepresentation of your argument and then refuting the misrepresentation.

Right you are, seattlegal. Thus far bob has attacked my Con stance with reference to "desire points" whatever that means (It is a misrepresentation either way) then suggested that determinism "died" long ago, which would be more of an opinion than a matter of fact.

Besides, I don't hold a completely deterministic view. I fully believe that we can change our future, as I previously pointed out to you in an earlier post. Bob brings up 20th century physics, which I will assume is in reference to Quantum Physics.

Quantum Physics certainly does not disprove my Con stance, which I found to be not entirely deterministic, thus the arguments made against my arguments are misrepresentations of my particular stance.

See below:

GK Wrote: "I understand what you are saying and I would, for the most part, agree. Even so, freedom is such a misleading term (Imo). We are able, extremely so, to change our course in life, thus it is in our abilities that the slight of freedom is somewhat present. It certainly is not complete freedom, but it is just enough that we are able to change our life direction at any given moment."

"Of course there are a myriad of choices to choose from, but we will always choose according to our hearts strongest desire. We are, however, able to learn from experience, reflecting upon them, and then examine the options in order to choose an appropriate course of action, all of which enables us to manipulate and change our desires."

"We are, however, able to change and manipulate our desires by self refection, by self examination, by learning from past mistakes, our knowledge, our understanding and through wisdom. Even so, and although we are not completely bound, we are not completely free either.

I never suggested that we cannot change the course of our lives, I merely suggested that a myriad of factors influence us, and therefore determine what we desire most in any given situation. Again, it all ultimately rests on our desires and the many variables that manipulate them."

GK

 

[seattlegal]

Ok, how does this resonate with you?

“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”
Jawaharlal Nehru (Indian Prime Minister. 1889-1964)

 

[Gatekeeper]

I think it has to do with the difference between classical and quantum physics. Classical physics is deterministic. There is only one fate/destiny. Quantum physics is probabilistic. There are an infinite number of possible outcomes, including extremely absurb, ridiculous and illogical ones (according to conventional wisdom). However, some of these outcomes are more likely than others.

According to classical physics, a photon always travels in the same direction when emitted. According to quantum physics, a photon can deviate from the "conventional" or most likely path.

Classical and quantum physics are most distinguishable for small entities. For larger entities, they're mostly the same.

The question is, how different is the human brain according to the classical model, as compared to the quantum one?

Sorry, I just caught this post.... I'm certainly not in disagreement with Quantum Physics, as I do believe there are an infinite number of outcomes, only I believe that the outcome will ultimately be a product of desire, and that literally thousands upon thousands of variables play on our desires, thus determining our choices. Even a thought, a new idea, an emotion, or a smell, etc. play a role in our decision making. I do not believe that our entire lives are predetermined or set in stone in other words.

We make mistakes and we sometimes fall short, and it is because of these mistakes and shortcomings that we have an opportunity to change our future. It is in our mistakes and shortcomings that we have the greatest potential to change not only ourselves but our destination as well.

We are taught from early on to feel guilty, to feel ashamed of our shortcomings, being punished, and criticized, and ridiculed for when we fall short. If we had no choice but to choose what we chose, then why should we feel guilty for something we could not help at that particular moment?

"Accepting our mistakes and the mistakes of others for what they are would not only open the door for forgiveness, but it would also make it much easier to love the so called sinner, knowing that they, although misguided, are much like us and cannot truly be blamed for their shortcomings, mistakes, and/or misguided lives.

Should there be penalties for anti social behavior? Absolutely! Not vindictive punishment, but rehabilitation and certainly not prisons, or jails, or death penalties, or isolation from civil society but rather love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and true justice."


-- Two cents


~GK~

 

[Gatekeeper]

Ok, how does this resonate with you?

“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”
Jawaharlal Nehru (Indian Prime Minister. 1889-1964)

Nice, but I don't believe in freewill -- We play the cards the only way we know how and there are many variables that determine the way we play them. Again, I really do not think I hold a completely deterministic stance.

I may hold elements of determinism, but being that I am in agreement with Quantum Physics when it comes to there being an infinite number of possible outcomes, shows that determinism is only one aspect of my Con stance.

I simply believe that as humans there are many variables at play when it comes to our strongest desires and what we end up choosing. I don't see us making random decisions, but rather calculated decisions based on a plethora of predominating factors.

 

[seattlegal]

Nice, but I don't believe in freewill -- We play the cards the only way we know how and there are many variables that determine the way we play them. Again, I really do not think I hold a completely deterministic stance.

I may hold elements of determinism, but being that I am in agreement with Quantum Physics when it comes to there being an infinite number of possible outcomes, shows that determinism is only one aspect of my Con stance.

I simply believe that as humans there are many variables at play when it comes to our strongest desires and what we end up choosing. I don't see us making random decisions, but rather calculated decisions based on a plethora of predominating factors.

OK, this is where we need to make the distinction between desire and will.

I see desire as being more related to lust, whereas I associate will as being more related to volition.

What says you?

 

[seattlegal]

OK, this is where we need to make the distinction between desire and will.

I see desire as being more related to lust, whereas I associate will as being more related to volition.

What says you?

Compare this quote of yours:

I simply believe that as humans there are many variables at play when it comes to our strongest desires and what we end up choosing. I don't see us making random decisions, but rather calculated decisions based on a plethora of predominating factors.

You have employeed the term strongest desire in your arguments throughout this thread. Take a look at the highlighted definion for lust below:

lust
–noun 1. intense sexual desire or appetite.

2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for ): a lust for power.

4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

5. Obsolete . a. pleasure or delight.

b. desire; inclination; wish.




​

So, does the strongest or overmastering desire always win out when it comes to our choices, or not? Are we always doomed to follow our lusts?

 

[Gatekeeper]

OK, this is where we need to make the distinction between desire and will.

I see desire as more related to lust, whereas I associate will as being more related to volition.

What says you?

I think desire is more related to want than lust, although some desires might be said to be lustful. Will is defined as the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.

Semantics aside, the question isn't if we have will, the question is if our will is free? If we are motivated to act by our desires or by what we want most, then I'd say our will (Deliberate course of action) would ultimately be determined by our strongest want/desire.

I think there must first be a cause that determines one's desire. Then that desire determines one's will (Course of action) then comes the act itself

(Cause, Desire, Will, Action)

 

[Gatekeeper]

Compare this quote of yours:


You have employeed the term strongest desire in your arguments throughout this thread. Take a look at the highlighted definion for lust below:

lust
–noun 1. intense sexual desire or appetite.

2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually followed by for ): a lust for power.

4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

5. Obsolete . a. pleasure or delight.

b. desire; inclination; wish.




​

So, does the strongest or overmastering desire always win out when it comes to our choices, or not? Are we always doomed to follow our lusts?

To keep relevance to your thoughts, we will follow what is in our hearts to follow, whether it be a lust for power, greed, sex, or whether it be love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness. Our actions are largely dependent upon our values.

I myself have a passion for love and truth, thus I do my darndest to act accordingly, while others value intelligence, others wisdom, while others seem to have no values at all.

I don't know? Desire may not be a suitable term for you, but for me it just fits.

 

[seattlegal]

To keep relevance to your thoughts, we will follow what is in our hearts to follow, whether it be a lust for power, greed, sex, or whether it be love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness. Our actions are largely dependent upon our values.

I myself have a passion for love and truth, thus I do my darndest to act accordingly, while others value intelligence, others wisdom, while others seem to have no values at all.

I don't know? Desire may not be a suitable term for you, but for me it just fits.

The good, by affinity, seek the good; the vile, by affinity, the vile. Thus of their own volition, souls proceed into heaven, into hell.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[seattlegal]

"Good and evil are essential differences of the act of the will. For good and evil pertain essentially to the will; just as truth and falsehood pertain to the reason, the act of which is distinguished essentially by the difference of truth and falsehood (according as we say that an opinion is true or false.) Consequently, good and evil volition are acts differing in species."
~Thomas Aquinas

So, did we eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or not?