Assignment: "Freewill" (Pro/Con)

[Gatekeeper]

"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?

Hehe, I'm liking your quotes, seattlegal.

I think there was a cause (The tree) then the desire (Temptation) then there was an act of her will, determined by her desire (To be wise) and the fruit was eaten.

It all played out the only way it could, giving us (The rest of humanity) the chance to learn from our mistakes, so we might one day realize paradise again as a collective body.

But, as you suggested, "The good, by affinity, seek the good; the vile, by affinity, the vile", which is why Jesus told us to love our neighbors and even our enemies as ourselves. Our love and compassion can/will cover a multitude of sin and even change one's vile affinity into something good.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

 

[seattlegal]

Hehe, I'm liking your quotes, seattlegal.

I think there was a cause (The tree) then the desire (Temptation) then there was an act of her will, determined by her desire (To be wise) and the fruit was eaten.

It all played out the only way it could, giving us (The rest of humanity) the chance to learn from our mistakes, so we might one day realize paradise again as a collective body.

But, as you suggested, "The good, by affinity, seek the good; the vile, by affinity, the vile", which is why Jesus told us to love our neighbors and even our enemies as ourselves. Our love and compassion can/will cover a multitude of sin and even change one's vile affinity into something good.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Yes. We participate in changes. From the Taoist perspective: in this quote from the "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate,"
Zhou Dunyi is referencing one of the "Ten Wings," or commentary from the I Ching, the Book of Changes:

"Therefore it is said, 'In representing the Dao of Heaven, one uses the terms Yin and Yang, and in representing the Dao of Earth, one uses the terms Soft and Hard, while in representing the Dao of Man, one uses the terms Love and Righteousness.'"
--Zhou Dunyi​

We are part of the universe, and we also can participate in the change or transformation of it. It starts with cultivating Love and Righteousness within ourselves, and interacting with the universe through these means.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yes. We participate in changes. From the Taoist perspective: in this quote from the "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate,"
Zhou Dunyi is referencing one of the "Ten Wings," or commentary from the I Ching, the Book of Changes:

"Therefore it is said, 'In representing the Dao of Heaven, one uses the terms Yin and Yang, and in representing the Dao of Earth, one uses the terms Soft and Hard, while in representing the Dao of Man, one uses the terms Love and Righteousness.'"
--Zhou Dunyi​

We are part of the universe, and we also can participate in the change or transformation of it. It starts with cultivating Love and Righteousness within ourselves, and interacting with the universe through these means.

I agree with your sentiments, seattlegal. I would, however, like to make mention that all the universe is more than likely working for us, and even though things look dire for mankind on earth, it isn't nearly as bad as it may seem.

"I often wonder and think about how everything in existence connects, and how if one thing in the past wasn't like it was, then another thing in the present would not be like it is. I then take that thought and apply it on a worldwide scale from past, present, to future, and I think about how even the slightest action I take can affect our world (Good or bad) on a global scale, reaching far into the future.

Then I think about the concept of freewill, and how we are quite possibly bound by and driven by our desires and how our desires are ultimately driven by life circumstance, and I wonder if there is any truth to us simply being mechanisms connected to the whole and simply working according to our intended purpose.

Even so, just knowing that my actions affect the lives of others, even those who will live long after I am gone somehow drives me to desire to be a better person. It makes me desire to change my self, as it seems quite possible to me that the wheels of our lives never quit spinning, the turbulence from the spin cycle reaching to the four corners of the earth and beyond x infinity)."

GK

 

[bob x]

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

Excuse me while I bang my head...
The word "stronger" does not MEAN anything in this context. You yourself agree that the concept of measuring "strengths" of the various desires is absurd.

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.

Until the choice is made, no relative "strength" of the desires existed. Only after the fact can one assert, as a tautology, that whatever was chosen was the one that was chosen. BEFORE the choice was made, there was no measurement that could be made, nothing that "determines" anything.

Inanimate objects are free to choose?

The distribution of material particles does not determine what happens next; it only prescribes a range of outcomes, of differing probabilities. The "strongest" influence does not always win: outcome A might have a 90% probability and B only a 10% probability (and all other outcomes negligibly tiny probabilities) but B still sometimes happens (or something even more unlikely). The decision of which outcome becomes actual is called "random", a term I do not much care for (it implies the "Casino Royale" model of archangels throwing trillions of dice to generate the random numbers, the model that Einstein hated); a more technical term is "independent" (it is not correlated to any feature of the spatio-temporal distribution of the particles), but the word I like best (following Schroedinger) is that the decision of which outcome actually occurs is a "free" one.

In most contexts, these small-scale free events have no large-scale consequences: in the aggregate they all cancel out in the wash, more or less. Digital computers and brains are exactly opposite in their design, in this respect. Computers deliberately wipe out the small differences (some level of current in a particular wire is called a "1" rather than a "0"; actually it will be at .9998 or 1.032 rather than 1.000 but that doesn't matter if it gets nowhere near the 0.5 boundary; "gates" set other wires at "1" or "0" without any regard to a slight discrepancy of the prior state from the ideal level) to simulate a perfectly deterministic system. The brain, by contrast, has systems to MAGNIFY small differences, so that a neuron may fire, or not fire, depending on whether one particular electron did, or did not, jump orbitals in a quantum "free" decision; and whether this neuron did or did not fire can then lead to a cascade of effects, ultimately to whether you do, or do not, raise your arm.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Excuse me while I bang my head...
The word "stronger" does not MEAN anything in this context. You yourself agree that the concept of measuring "strengths" of the various desires is absurd.

Until the choice is made, no relative "strength" of the desires existed. Only after the fact can one assert, as a tautology, that whatever was chosen was the one that was chosen. BEFORE the choice was made, there was no measurement that could be made, nothing that "determines" anything.

The distribution of material particles does not determine what happens next; it only prescribes a range of outcomes, of differing probabilities. The "strongest" influence does not always win: outcome A might have a 90% probability and B only a 10% probability (and all other outcomes negligibly tiny probabilities) but B still sometimes happens (or something even more unlikely). The decision of which outcome becomes actual is called "random", a term I do not much care for (it implies the "Casino Royale" model of archangels throwing trillions of dice to generate the random numbers, the model that Einstein hated); a more technical term is "independent" (it is not correlated to any feature of the spatio-temporal distribution of the particles), but the word I like best (following Schroedinger) is that the decision of which outcome actually occurs is a "free" one.

In most contexts, these small-scale free events have no large-scale consequences: in the aggregate they all cancel out in the wash, more or less. Digital computers and brains are exactly opposite in their design, in this respect. Computers deliberately wipe out the small differences (some level of current in a particular wire is called a "1" rather than a "0"; actually it will be at .9998 or 1.032 rather than 1.000 but that doesn't matter if it gets nowhere near the 0.5 boundary; "gates" set other wires at "1" or "0" without any regard to a slight discrepancy of the prior state from the ideal level) to simulate a perfectly deterministic system. The brain, by contrast, has systems to MAGNIFY small differences, so that a neuron may fire, or not fire, depending on whether one particular electron did, or did not, jump orbitals in a quantum "free" decision; and whether this neuron did or did not fire can then lead to a cascade of effects, ultimately to whether you do, or do not, raise your arm.

This still does not disprove Con freewill. It only shows that there are internal neural processes that play on what we end up choosing. Would you disagree that (Except in a mistake) once our conscious catches up, these internal factors ultimately turn into a conscious desire?

Although our desires cannot be calculated, much like predicting particles cannot be calculated, we still can have many desires at any given moment, which begs the question, "Is our chosen action based on the most dominant desire?"

I don't mean to offend if I have offended you, but your initial approach to this assignment was to say the least, "condescending" at best. The truth is that Quantum Physics leaves a great deal of related questions unanswered, which is why it cannot yet prove freewill, just as it cannot yet disprove Con freewill.

GK

 

[seattlegal]

I agree with your sentiments, seattlegal. I would, however, like to make mention that all the universe is more than likely working for us, and even though things look dire for mankind on earth, it isn't nearly as bad as it may seem.

"I often wonder and think about how everything in existence connects, and how if one thing in the past wasn't like it was, then another thing in the present would not be like it is. I then take that thought and apply it on a worldwide scale from past, present, to future, and I think about how even the slightest action I take can affect our world (Good or bad) on a global scale, reaching far into the future.

Then I think about the concept of freewill, and how we are quite possibly bound by and driven by our desires and how our desires are ultimately driven by life circumstance, and I wonder if there is any truth to us simply being mechanisms connected to the whole and simply working according to our intended purpose.

Even so, just knowing that my actions affect the lives of others, even those who will live long after I am gone somehow drives me to desire to be a better person. It makes me desire to change my self, as it seems quite possible to me that the wheels of our lives never quit spinning, the turbulence from the spin cycle reaching to the four corners of the earth and beyond x infinity)."

GK

You yourself said you have a passion for truth and love. Did you choose to make that your passion? You said you consider the possible future implications of your actions, and give reasons why you judge that passion to be a worthwhile one. Sounds that you have cultivated and encourage that passion deliberately, of your own volition. Eastern religions also encourage making the dharma your passion as a start.

 

[Paladin]

You yourself said you have a passion for truth and love. Did you choose to make that your passion? You said you consider the possible future implications of your actions, and give reasons why you judge that passion to be a worthwhile one. Sounds that you have cultivated and encourage that passion deliberately, of your own volition. Eastern religions also encourage making the dharma your passion as a start.

Wow, eight pages and no resolution! I wonder why?
Knowing what we know about the way the brain works, what cognitive biases are, do we really choose anything or are we operating out of a program that we had no choice over?

Our likes and dislikes are pretty much set by age three, after that no real changes in ideology unless a significant emotional even takes place. In eastern religion the unreality of self pops up quite often as does teaching
about the conditioned mind vs unconditioned existence.

One of the strongest desires we experience is the desire for this self to continue. To further that desire we will weave intricate bulletproof logic to defend that which cannot ultimately be defended.

I think that a careful pondering on these things brings out an even more critical question. Is there anyone there to even have free will?

 

[seattlegal]

Wow, eight pages and no resolution! I wonder why?
Knowing what we know about the way the brain works, what cognitive biases are, do we really choose anything or are we operating out of a program that we had no choice over?

Our likes and dislikes are pretty much set by age three, after that no real changes in ideology unless a significant emotional even takes place.

Someone obviously didn't send me the rule book, except for the part that a lady reserves the right to change her mind! {Well, maybe not about beets and liver.}

In eastern religion the unreality of self pops up quite often as does teaching
about the conditioned mind vs unconditioned existence.

Indeed it does.

One of the strongest desires we experience is the desire for this self to continue. To further that desire we will weave intricate bulletproof logic to defend that which cannot ultimately be defended.

I think that a careful pondering on these things brings out an even more critical question. Is there anyone there to even have free will?

As long as we choose to hold onto our hangups, I think there is.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Wow, eight pages and no resolution! I wonder why?
Knowing what we know about the way the brain works, what cognitive biases are, do we really choose anything or are we operating out of a program that we had no choice over?

Our likes and dislikes are pretty much set by age three, after that no real changes in ideology unless a significant emotional even takes place. In eastern religion the unreality of self pops up quite often as does teaching
about the conditioned mind vs unconditioned existence.

One of the strongest desires we experience is the desire for this self to continue. To further that desire we will weave intricate bulletproof logic to defend that which cannot ultimately be defended.

I think that a careful pondering on these things brings out an even more critical question. Is there anyone there to even have free will?

Probably because there is little way to prove one stance over the other. I will disagree with your sentiments that our desires are pretty much set by age three. I've had many paradigm shifts since that age, which ultimately changed the way I thought, and effectively changed my desires also.

Such as me believing in freewill at one time. As I gained new information, and honestly considered the Con stance, I desired to further investigate, and as a result had a major paradigm shift in the way I looked at life and our role as humans.

It would seem that we hold on far too tightly to our views at times, fighting against the opposition with all that is in us, and as far as your "Is there anyone there to even have freewill" question. I exist and unless I completely close my eyes to this reality, I can not in my right mind think otherwise.

GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

You yourself said you have a passion for truth and love. Did you choose to make that your passion? You said you consider the possible future implications of your actions, and give reasons why you judge that passion to be a worthwhile one. Sounds that you have cultivated and encourage that passion deliberately, of your own volition. Eastern religions also encourage making the dharma your passion as a start.

I still stand on the idea that many variables play on my desires. Knowledge, understanding, new information, new thoughts, etc. all play a role in what my dominant desires are in life. I've been on your side of the fence, and it was nice to think I actually had control over something, but I found even more solice in the idea that God is in control and me being but a tiny mechanism in the machine that is existence (God).

GK

 

[Paladin]

Probably because there is little way to prove one stance over the other. I will disagree with your sentiments that our desires are pretty much set by age three. I've had many paradigm shifts since that age, which ultimately changed the way I thought, and effectively changed my desires also.

Such as me believing in freewill at one time. As I gained new information, and honestly considered the Con stance, I desired to further investigate, and as a result had a major paradigm shift in the way I looked at life and our role as humans.

It would seem that we hold on far too tightly to our views at times, fighting against the opposition with all that is in us, and as far as your "Is there anyone there to even have freewill" question. I exist and unless I completely close my eyes to this reality, I can not in my right mind think otherwise.

GK

Ok, this is because you have super powers, sheesh how many times do I hafta tell you?

Seriously though not many people change their outlook much over the years; you're a rare bird my friend.
Also as humans we are pretty special overall no matter how you look at it we can deceive ourselves on many levels at once. Most religions speak of us being asleep.
Concepts like freewill are contextual at best therefore to dispute them puts you into the same framework.
And that's okay as far as it goes as long as there is the awareness that the entire argument takes place in a rather small place, kind of like playing a really cool FPS video game.

 

[OAT]

The distribution of material particles does not determine what happens next; it only prescribes a range of outcomes, of differing probabilities. The "strongest" influence does not always win: outcome A might have a 90% probability and B only a 10% probability (and all other outcomes negligibly tiny probabilities) but B still sometimes happens (or something even more unlikely). The decision of which outcome becomes actual is called "random", a term I do not much care for (it implies the "Casino Royale" model of archangels throwing trillions of dice to generate the random numbers, the model that Einstein hated); a more technical term is "independent" (it is not correlated to any feature of the spatio-temporal distribution of the particles), but the word I like best (following Schroedinger) is that the decision of which outcome actually occurs is a "free" one.

In most contexts, these small-scale free events have no large-scale consequences: in the aggregate they all cancel out in the wash, more or less. Digital computers and brains are exactly opposite in their design, in this respect. Computers deliberately wipe out the small differences (some level of current in a particular wire is called a "1" rather than a "0"; actually it will be at .9998 or 1.032 rather than 1.000 but that doesn't matter if it gets nowhere near the 0.5 boundary; "gates" set other wires at "1" or "0" without any regard to a slight discrepancy of the prior state from the ideal level) to simulate a perfectly deterministic system. The brain, by contrast, has systems to MAGNIFY small differences, so that a neuron may fire, or not fire, depending on whether one particular electron did, or did not, jump orbitals in a quantum "free" decision; and whether this neuron did or did not fire can then lead to a cascade of effects, ultimately to whether you do, or do not, raise your arm.

Thanks for this. So are you saying that the brain may have an interface that allows free events in the quantum world to generate an impact at the larger scale deterministic world? If so, could you direct me to articles/links on quantum effects and the brain processes? I would like to find out more as this is an area that I've been thinking about for some time.

 

[OAT]

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?

No, I view the world as deterministic, ie., all non-quantum level processes are deterministic. Therefore whatever methods, choices, knowledge, understandings etc, that you have in mind will be subjected to the same deterministic laws that operates at that level.

Quantum level processes on the other hand are random or, as BobX prefer, free. So, in my view of things, to break out of the deterministic confines of the larger scale world, random events from the quantum world are needed to trigger the changes in the larger scale world.

So in my scheme of things, I don't need to invoke God.

 

[Saltmeister]

I still stand on the idea that many variables play on my desires. Knowledge, understanding, new information, new thoughts, etc. all play a role in what my dominant desires are in life. I've been on your side of the fence, and it was nice to think I actually had control over something, but I found even more solice in the idea that God is in control and me being but a tiny mechanism in the machine that is existence (God).

GK

I haven't really been following the discussions much, but I think free will, like intelligence, is a relative rather than black-and-white concept. I think people need to get away from the idea that you either have it or you don't. Free will increases with the accumulation of knowledge and experience. The more you know and the more you have seen, the more options you can think of and that is what free will is; it is the ability first to discover one's options and then to act on them.

Greater knowledge enables greater freedom of will.

 

[Saltmeister]

No, I view the world as deterministic, ie., all non-quantum level processes are deterministic. Therefore whatever methods, choices, knowledge, understandings etc, that you have in mind will be subjected to the same deterministic laws that operates at that level.

Quantum level processes on the other hand are random or, as BobX prefer, free. So, in my view of things, to break out of the deterministic confines of the larger scale world, random events from the quantum world are needed to trigger the changes in the larger scale world.

I don't think free will has to do with determinism or randomness. I don't think it matters whether a universe is random or deterministic, whether this is at the lower or higher levels. What matters is the so-called "emergent phenomenon."

A deterministic universe can still generate seemingly random events. For example, a computer can be programmed to generate pseudo-random numbers. If life is driven more by deterministic than random processes, then the question of whether we have free will has nothing to do with whether the processes of life are deterministic.

The question of free will should not be linked to the question of determinism or randomness, but the emergent phenomenon of intelligence.

Some scientists suggest that intelligent thought processes follow an evolutionary process that they term as "neural darwinism." They believe that the connections in our brain follow an evolutionary process and that intelligence "emerges" from this evolutionary process. It emerges from this process in a similar way that natural evolution "emerged" without mechanisms in place to "force" evolution to take place.

Prior to the existence of natural evolution, there was no evolution. Evolution is not an inherent part of the universe. There is gravity, energy, entropy, electromagnetism and matter, but no evolution.

"Evolution" emerges from the biology of living things. It arises from the chemical processes of living things, not from the fundamental framework of the universe. The fundamental framework of the universe simply provides for the possibility of evolution.

The biology that led to evolution did not previously exist and somehow came into existence. A bunch of amino acids, DNA and proteins came together to create the biological framework that would lead to evolution. This biology "evolved" to reproduce itself, as well as the mechanisms that would make evolution possible. Evolution was not inherent in this biology either. It was the interaction between living things that allowed evolution to "emerge."

If the intelligence in the human brain is to be seen as a kind of "neural evolution" or "neural darwinism," then like evolution, it is not inherent in the structure of the universe. It is not inherent in the biology either, but "emerges" from the interaction between living things.

If free will is not to be linked to the fundamental structure of the universe, but to intelligence, then it has nothing to do with whether the universe is random or deterministic, but has to do with whether the universe provides for the possibility of intelligence and therefore free will.

 

[OAT]

I don't think free will has to do with determinism or randomness. I don't think it matters whether a universe is random or deterministic, whether this is at the lower or higher levels. What matters is the so-called "emergent phenomenon."

I feel that physical processes can give rise only to physical "emergent" phenomenon, and not mentalistic "emergent" phenomenon.
see http://www.interfaith.org/forum/consciousness-and-string-theory-13590.html

A deterministic universe can still generate seemingly random events. For example, a computer can be programmed to generate pseudo-random numbers. If life is driven more by deterministic than random processes, then the question of whether we have free will has nothing to do with whether the processes of life are deterministic.

Pseudo-random numbers are not random/independent/free. So I don't see the relevancy of this point.

The question of free will should not be linked to the question of determinism or randomness, but the emergent phenomenon of intelligence.

See my first response above.
Since for me, everything in our world (non planck-scale or quantum processes) is deterministic, the only process that is free would be random processes.

 

[Paladin]

Someone obviously didn't send me the rule book, except for the part that a lady reserves the right to change her mind! {Well, maybe not about beets and liver.}
Indeed it does.

As long as we choose to hold onto our hangups, I think there is.

Yes, well, it's taken me quite a few years to perfect these neuroses of mine. Even longer to to become aware of them.

(sigh)

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

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)

Ah, I understand where you're coming from now. My point of view is that underneath it all, and before cause and desire, is personal, differentiated will. The fact that it's mine makes it free, whether I ever figure out how to use it consciously or autonomously. And, even if I'm driven by desire, that desire is also specifically mine. As tainted by cultural programming and memes as it may be, it's still mine; not yours, not the Pope's, not the cat's- mine. When I became it became. When I go it will go. It is specifically mine, and in that sense it is free from any ultimate attachment other than to me.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Since for me, everything in our world (non planck-scale or quantum processes) is deterministic, the only process that is free would be random processes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Nothing can determine which direction I will turn at the next intersection, and when I turn it will change the entire universe. The fact that my choices are limited in terms of probability, and the change is negligible to the overall systemic stability in no way makes my actions directly predictable.

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Thanks for this. So are you saying that the brain may have an interface that allows free events in the quantum world to generate an impact at the larger scale deterministic world? If so, could you direct me to articles/links on quantum effects and the brain processes? I would like to find out more as this is an area that I've been thinking about for some time.

Well consciousness can affect quantum events, as in the role of the observer in the Young's Double-slit experiment.