Free Will (An Illusion?) Revisited

[jyanez]

Besides,

I will add a personal experience in my family,

I have an aunt who is mentally ill; once in the middle of a crisis she told the police my dad was injecting poison in her blood, when all he was doing was applying her medicines, my dad almost goes to jail being saved by the doctor attending my aunt and explaining the clinic issues in her.

Is this free will? I'd say mind is seen as the center of the individual, when it's really a function, something that allows us interact with elements around. In my aunt's case she's not guilty, because for her my dad was really using poison despite it was all a trick of her own mind.

After this came to happen, she saw my dad with forgiving eyes, and said "It's all Ok, you're my brother anyways and we must remain together", despite her mind was playing tricks an sparkle inside of her was forgiving a brother.

That sparkle is the most precious gift ever received and ever given, and from it the biggest of trees can grow and many can be the birds that find abide in it.

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you for your responses jyanez, and welcome to Interfaith!

Its amazing the power of forgiveness, isn't it?

Yet if determinism is the standard proceedure, there is nothing to forgive because there is no fault...ever. Who needs a G-d, a heaven to strive for, or guilt in such a universe?

The corollary is that the premeditated death of your child at the hands of a sociopath is perfectly acceptable behavior.

I have always found determinism to ring hollow upon analysis.

 

[Q2008]

No joke. I'm sorry you feel thoughtful and considered disagreement is a waste of time.

I feel like my time is wasted when My comments are responded to with "Yeps" and smileys. The discussion isn't a waste. MY effort is a waste, or seems to be, when I perceive I'm being patronized or not getting the same investment from you that I'm giving.

Think about that...long and hard...and come to the inevitable conclusions:

No "bad," unethical or immoral behavior, no justice or reparations for wrongs committed, no mercy or forgiveness to be granted...essentially love becomes meaningless.

In other words, it flies in the face of all evolutionary and natural examples to the contrary, exemplified by any group of herding or pack animals.

The negation of the concept of free will is just that. It does not carry the implication you think it does. Is unethical behavior to be ignored because there is no free will? Of course not. Free will IS an illusion; but an illusion that is easy to accept as fact. Humans will believe themselves to be making choices even if they are not, and society will progress exactly as if there were free will. That is why it doesn't really matter either way. We'll act our roles as we will, whether we choose it or it is chosen for us by the random reality of our world. There is no practical difference.

And as far as "natural examples to the contrary," I understand you're talking about natural examples of love? Whether we make choice or not, we perceive ourselves to. Whether we as passengers of our own ego driving down the road of fate know ourselves to be such is irrelevant; we can't process that reality one way or another. For all practical purposes, we are choosing beings. Therefore, love is still relevant (to us), we are still responsible for ourselves (from our perspective). Free will is an objective matter, and its human implications are not.

Now, is that choice more difficult when some outside influences are emotionally overwhelming? Yes, of course. But that does not negate the responsibility for the choice made. If anything, is serves as an object lesson in not making rash decisions.

If the difference between choice A and choice B is one factor outside of your control, how can you say one is responsible for either choice? What I mean by "the difference between A and B" is that in a theoretical situation you could be making one choice or the other for no reason other than that one event did or did not affect you. The content of your character would be the same in both scenarios, all your experiences up to the point were the same. The only difference between you making one choice or the other is that one factor, that one event, that missed step, that near miss, that pushes you to one course of action, or not. If I do not control THE only deciding factor in any given choice, how can I be responsible for that choice?

Also, whether you intend it or not, the smileys come across as disingenuous and patronizing. Please, for the sake of mutual respect, don't use them with me.

 

[Q2008]

I am still not convinced. Determinism is not proven by some vague "myriad" reasons internal and external outside of our control. We control our thoughts, and we do exercise a large degree of control over a lot of our external influences. So the premise does not stand, because we *do* control our behaviors and there is no evidence to support otherwise.

You exert conscious influence over your thoughts, but you do not control which thoughts you "decide" to foster, and which you deny. THAT is decided by your opinions, your tastes, your personality, your history - NONE of which you control. If every human is a white ping-pong ball rolled down a slope, some will get muddy, some will get scratched. Their movements will eventually be determined not by their starting point, but by their shape, their surface, what they are. A depression on one side of the ball will make it move one way over a given bump. A different ball with a different depression will roll a different way. THAT is determinism. Why does that apply to thinking, calculating humans who do exert conscious influence over their lives and thoughts? Because the depression on the side of the ping-pong ball, the patch of mud, the grain of dust that makes a minute change in its path - all these we find also in a man. His tastes may be determined by his culture, his values by his religion, his temperament by the womb or his childhood. If he decides to change how he's thinking, it is because of the dried mud in his mind, the (physical) depression that is there not because he wills it but because it came to be a part of him. THAT is why free will is an illusion. Because you are one factor in your decision making, and you do not control what kind of person you are, what you have experienced, what your frame of reference is. All of those are essential for any decision made.

 

[Q2008]

Chief among them is the presumption that behavior is genetic based. There is simply *nothing* to confirm that, beyond some sketchy research pointing to a novelty factor in some, a tendency towards thrillseeking, and possibly a tendency towards seeking G-d. We should know more in a few years, but as it stands now the premise is built on shifting sand.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that my argument is not for genetic determinism? That may have a personal vendetta against the position but that needn't incline you to seek it out in everything I say. It isn't there, It's not my position. Why wouldn't I confess it if that were what I wanted to prove?

Now, as to why a person may choose one influence over another is elemental psychology: nature/nurture, environment, parents, teachers, religious leaders, peers...pretty much in that chronological order. From these a person picks and chooses and cultures their own unique preferences as they mature.

So a person chooses the affects of nature/nurture, then chooses what aspects of their environment to take in, then to what extent their parents influence them, then their teachers' and peers influences? They consciously choose all of these things? Or are these influences shaping them unconsciously?

You want me to answer the million dollar question for you? Even if I did know, would you listen? Smart people do dumb things...it's all around, one need only open their eyes and observe. That is *not* evidence for determinism.

It isn't? If two people do different things you have to seek out an answer for the why. You can just leave it at "They choose," but to make that statement in confidence you have to deny any unconscious influence on the forming of a person. Are you prepared to argue that?

Sure I can admit people differ in taste, but what purpose does it serve? It furthers my view, not yours. And since we *do* control our taste, cultivating our preferences, and those preferences can and do morph over time, your premise is faulty.

We don't control out taste. Did you never find anything pleasing *just because*? From the very beginning, you've looked at every thing in the world and made an arbitrary decision as how to feel about this, and that, and that? I don't think so. We cultivate our preferences by exercising existing preferences, which we did not choose. No child walks into school, looks at a basketball game with absolutely no reaction and says, for no reason "Yep, I'm gonna like basketball." Our feelings, our preferences are outside our conscious control.

Sure it does. It teaches personal responsibility for actions and behavior, self-restraint and self-control. Where is a person at without these things? Is society better without these things? I have visions of anarchy in the worst possible sense of the term...

Rather than "free will" I should've said "the answer to the question of whether there is or is not free will." I'll be repeating myself here a bit, but there we go: Human society will always function as if there were free will. There is no way around that. I can't get my mind around the idea that I'm not choosing what I do. Nobody could. Whether there truly is or is not free will, for human application, the assumption, the belief will forever, in practice, be "there is free will."

NOW you admit to a genetic influence. Interesting, considering you chastised me earlier for suggesting that was your position.

A genetic influence yes. Genetic determinism no. I believe you and I both accept that nature/nurture both act on us. You accept SOME degree of genetic influence as well. I don't believe our choices are determined by our genetics. THAT was the belief I denied.

a person chooses to be happy, each and every day. They choose to be sad, miserable, and on. Even clinically depressed people can change the degree of their depression by self-direction: they can choose to wallow in their depression or try to rise above it.

Now I cannot agree. You do not choose your emotions. If you choose to change the direction, subject of your thoughts to cultivate certain feelings and inhibit others it is because of feelings or beliefs present within you that you did not choose. And a clinically depressed person cannot choose for his synapses to be flooded with more serotonin. I'm sorry, but you can't blame the sad for sadness, or credit the happy with their happiness.

And then there is love...is love *just* the reaction of chemicals in the brain?

That's a completely different discussion, isn't it?

And that's the point, isn't it? "Just because" is often so far outside of what is logically predictable in light of the influences, that it makes no sense...hence "just because." And yet I see people frequently exercise this "just because" factor simply for the novelty and change of pace, to add a fresh and exciting new dimension to a stale routine. And since there is some research that does point in this direction, genetically, again the determinism argument is undermined.

Doesn't affect the determinism argument at all, actually.

How exactly does this defend determinism?

What difference does it make how we feel about rape? What difference does

Because you presuppose an inborn inclination when none exists.

What part of NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, did you miss?

Surprise!, I agree selflessness is an extension of selfishness. Ever read any Ayn Rand? It still doesn't negate responsibility for behavior...in fact, Rand was *adamant* about self-responsibility and self-direction.

Good for her.

 

[Q2008]

I didn't say that...regardless, it is irrelevent to the conversation. Nice attempt to move the goalposts though.

It isn't irrelevant, it's essential. What is a choice? An interaction between the Ego and some situation brought it by the world. Yes? The Ego's choice is based upon the situation, but also upon the Ego's baggage. This will need less coverage if you read my ping-pong analogy, but basically any given person is a passenger in his or her own life. If you don't choose the content of your character from the get-go, you can't be responsible for the first choice, the second, or any of the myriad other choices in your life to come. It is certain that we exert conscious influence over who we are, but our choice do that and how is ultimately traceable to those most-wily aspects of ourselves that we do not control. That is the essential problem in saying "I can choose my thoughts, my values, my preferences, my sense of aesthetics, my everything." You simply can't. What you choose to change in your own thinking and your own perception is determined by aspects of yourself you couldn't change at the time.

 

[Q2008]

The corollary is that the premeditated death of your child at the hands of a sociopath is perfectly acceptable behavior.

A sociopath that chose to be such, naturally. You'd know why that conclusion is false if you'd bothered to read my statements as to why this issue is ultimately irrelevant. Free will is true in our subjective human world whether it is such objectively or not. Hence, though it isn't the sociopath's fault that he's a sociopath, and not the sociopath's fault that he was unable or unwilling to alter his path, and not the sociopath's fault that he murdered your child, all these things are indeed his fault from our perspective, and always will be so.

 

[juantoo3]

I feel like my time is wasted when My comments are responded to with "Yeps" and smileys. The discussion isn't a waste. MY effort is a waste, or seems to be, when I perceive I'm being patronized or not getting the same investment from you that I'm giving.

Very well, but I see this discussion becoming very redundant from here out. Also please understand that I do not have unlimited time to put into every post, and this discussion is becoming quite involved.

The negation of the concept of free will is just that. It does not carry the implication you think it does. Is unethical behavior to be ignored because there is no free will? Of course not. Free will IS an illusion; but an illusion that is easy to accept as fact. Humans will believe themselves to be making choices even if they are not, and society will progress exactly as if there were free will. That is why it doesn't really matter either way. We'll act our roles as we will, whether we choose it or it is chosen for us by the random reality of our world. There is no practical difference.

Let us go back to your rapist analogy. According to you, the rapist has *no* control over the nature/nurture cause(s) that drive his thoughts to rape. In effect, he is created to rape, he can’t help himself, it is what he is born to do.

Obviously people are far more complex, and even a rapist has many more influences pending upon him than just the one issue, but for the sake of discussion we must narrow this down.

So, this hypothetical rapist is born to rape, cannot resist or otherwise help himself from raping, and must by his very nature commit rape. Therefore when he commits rape he is not guilty because he was created that way.

I disagree because this flies in the face of millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of moral and ethical philosophy. In a typical herd or pack animal situation a male with intent to rape will have to confront the bull (or alpha if you prefer) male and establish dominance first, and if successful can claim the harem. Perhaps some clandestine affairs take place, but that would be with a willing female (therefore: not rape), or else the offender would be made known and still have to face the wrath of the bull male.

This gets even more complicated when G-d enters the picture. If G-d created some men to rape, why is rape universally frowned on in every culture I can think of? Why would a loving G-d create persons He purposely intends to destroy? Why would humans in the process of developing civilization devote so much time, energy and thought to moral and ethical concerns like rape if these concerns were purely, solely, totally and only natural and normal behaviors?

“Human society will always function as if there were free will. There is no way around that.” –Q2008

Trying to excuse the matter away as “(h)umans will believe themselves to be making choices even if they are not, and society will progress exactly as if there were free will” is ignoring the reasons things are the way they are. Is it not possible that thousands of years of ethical philosophy and millions of years of evolution are based on something a bit more concrete than imagination and illusion?

And as far as "natural examples to the contrary," I understand you're talking about natural examples of love?

No, see above. Then as now I am speaking of the natural world; herding and pack animals where elemental morality can be demonstrated.

Whether we as passengers of our own ego driving down the road of fate know ourselves to be such is irrelevant; we can't process that reality one way or another.

Yes we can, unless G-d created *all* of us to be destroyed, because none of us is capable of leading a perfect life from cradle to grave. Either that, or the whole heaven/hell dichotomy is irrelevent, saints and sinners are effectively the same. Mass murderers receive the *exact* same eternal reward as selfless philanthropists.

This isn’t even what concerns me most. What concerns me is the hopeless surrender to fate that paralyzes any drive to succeed or better oneself. If all I am ever to be is what I was created as to do, then what hope have I to better myself physically, morally, intellectually, and spiritually? I am all I will ever be with no chance whatsoever to guide my own destiny. I am doomed to whatever destiny awaits me, what choices I make are irrelevent, and there is nothing I can do to change anything, so mercy is irrelevent, forgiveness is irrelevent, tolerance is irrelevent, faith, hope, charity, love…all are irrelevent. Life itself becomes meaningless and irrelevent; not only my own personal life, but *any* other life.

If the difference between choice A and choice B is one factor outside of your control, how can you say one is responsible for either choice?

Can you not see the fallacy? If it is outside of one’s control; there is no choice to invoke, illusory or otherwise. Choice by definition implies control.

Without the control of self-direction, there is no sin. Without sin, there is no need for guilt. Without guilt, there is no need for justice, mercy, forgiveness, regret or penitence. Without justice, there is no need for heaven, hell or G-d (Monotheist terms, but they translate across cultural boundaries).

Without the control of self-direction, love is degraded to nothing more than an animal act. *All* emotions are irrelevent and meaningless; ambiguous evolutionary artifacts with no objective purpose or reason.

You exert conscious influence over your thoughts, but you do not control which thoughts you "decide" to foster, and which you deny. THAT is decided by your opinions, your tastes, your personality, your history - NONE of which you control.

There is a presumptive error in your thesis. I fail to see how one’s thoughts *specifically* are not one’s own, particularly which thoughts one “decide(s) to foster.” Gauging by your use of quotation marks I presume you realise that “decide” means “choose.”

Of those things you list: opinions, tastes, personality and history; a person *does* have some degree of influence over the cultivation of each. Opinions are informed by and cultivated from sources one prefers (chooses) and cultivates. Tastes are built in part by self-directed preference (choice). Personality can be modified in a self-directed manner (basic normal psych). Even history can be modifed going forward…self-directed choice of which way one desires to lead oneself.

If need be, I will break each of these down one by one and sort it out, but my hope is that these things are self-evident upon examination. Where you are attempting to imply there is *no* control over these things, I say there is *some* control, and within that *some* control is enough to allow for a self-directed change of course in midstream at the whim of every person…such that some persons change course at frequent whim, while others plot a deliberate course and appear to hold a steady tack, and yet others change course as they feel the need arise.

If every human is a white ping-pong ball rolled down a slope, some will get muddy, some will get scratched. Their movements will eventually be determined not by their starting point, but by their shape, their surface, what they are. A depression on one side of the ball will make it move one way over a given bump. A different ball with a different depression will roll a different way. THAT is determinism. Why does that apply to thinking, calculating humans who do exert conscious influence over their lives and thoughts? Because the depression on the side of the ping-pong ball, the patch of mud, the grain of dust that makes a minute change in its path - all these we find also in a man. His tastes may be determined by his culture, his values by his religion, his temperament by the womb or his childhood. If he decides to change how he's thinking, it is because of the dried mud in his mind, the (physical) depression that is there not because he wills it but because it came to be a part of him. THAT is why free will is an illusion. Because you are one factor in your decision making, and you do not control what kind of person you are, what you have experienced, what your frame of reference is. All of those are essential for any decision made.

I agree, but this is *not* the sum total.

Let us look for a moment at a person who is culturally predefined, who by chance influence of a stray thought begins to question any aspect of this predeterminism. BTW, this is the reason so many religions have such severe restrictions on competing religious doctrines (a quick look through Dawkins “memes” will elaborate). What might be viewed as a “doubt” may “fester” and begin to “compete” in the person’s mind, causing the person to <GASP> question the predefined cultural paradigm!

Actually, in some cultures this is not only permissable, it is encouraged. In these cultures the typical person has the option of weighing the influences and arguments of competing paradigms like religion and politics and has the ability to choose how much credence to give to any particular influence. A Buddhist is a Buddhist because s/he chooses to give greater credence to the Buddhist meme / philosophy. A conservative is a conservative because s/he chooses to give greater credence to conservative values and policies.

A Buddhist or a conservative is continually made, not a one-time creation nor a happy accident of fate. Likewise, a Buddhist or a conservative can be remade into something else. Hypothetically, a Buddhist might one day “see the light” of a Christian argument / doctrine and over time come to a Christian point of view…not likely, but it *can* happen, it is a possibility. Likewise, a conservative can one day realize the liberal POV holds merit and may over time develop liberal political tendencies…not likely, but it has been known to happen. The point is, if people were not capable of self-directed change, there would be *zero* conversions because conversions would not be possible.

Now, in cultures where self-direction and competing doctrines are frowned upon, it would seem to me a political necessity to encourage people to believe that A: they are in the best possible society / culture / religion anyway, and B: that competing paradigms / doctrines / thoughts would be severely restricted and harshly discouraged. The result being to force the individual to accept the will of the authority presiding over them without question and with the perhaps unintended consequence of curtailing intellectual exploration. That all is as it should be, and what d’ya know?, you’re one of the chosen few hand-picked by G-d to be righteous rulers…even when you screw up big-time!

 

[juantoo3]

part two:

Why is it so hard for you to accept that my argument is not for genetic determinism?

What part of NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, NOT GENETIC DETERMINISM, did you miss?

Perhaps because you continue to refer back to an organic pre-inclination. If you are going to continue to use genetic arguments, it hardly seems fitting, and does seem disingenuous, to scold me for pointing it out. Here are three examples:

“"Nature:" genetic (and prenatal, metabolic, organic, whatever you so choose) influences affecting a person.” –Q2008

“something as simple as an inclination (inborn or environmental, who knows)” –Q2008

“a person chooses the affects of nature/nurture…” –Q2008

All of which were being used to support your position, so these are *not* out of context.

I realize genetic predisposition is not the sum total of your argument, and neither is it the sum total of mine. I do *not* see genetic predisposition in everything you say, but where it is pertinent it is an inaccurate fallacious premise.

So a person chooses the affects of nature/nurture, then chooses what aspects of their environment to take in, then to what extent their parents influence them, then their teachers' and peers influences? They consciously choose all of these things?

Determinism requires an absolutist position, one I see you attempt to mask by calling it an illusion. If there is even an iota of self-direction, then choice circumvents the absolute of determinism.

Does a person have any control over their genetics? No, but then we have already shown genetics have little to no impact on behavior.

Does a person have any control over their environment? At first it would seem the answer should be no, but closer examination would show that *in some cases* a person can control some elements of their environment. A person *can choose* to come in out of the rain. A person *can choose* to light a fire and get warmer than the environment is. A person *can choose* to migrate to a different environment. So there is *a degree of* control a person can exert over the environment.

Does a person have control over the nurture influence of their parents? No. But then as we mature and develop other influences to compare with, we *can* choose to subordinate our parents’ influence in *preference* (choice) for another set of influences.

Similar arguments can be made regarding the influences of teachers and peers, in that we can choose to subordinate those influences to other preferential influences.

Do we consciously choose *all* of these things? No. The thing is we do not have to in order to exert self-directed autonomy. We do not have to reinvent the wheel at every turn to be self-autonomous.

If we only make one choice, we have broken the stranglehold of determinism. Which makes this part of the argument: “Or are these influences shaping them unconsciously?,” irrelevent.

If two people do different things you have to seek out an answer for the why. You can just leave it at "They choose," but to make that statement in confidence you have to deny any unconscious influence on the forming of a person. Are you prepared to argue that?

Why would I need to argue for *no* unconscious influence to make a statement in confidence about people choosing what will influence them? Frankly, that is absurd. Are you prepared to argue that no person can modify or change their way of thinking? Are you prepared to argue that no person can choose which influences will guide them? Are you prepared to argue that no person can change their mind? Are you prepared to argue that no person can regret past choices and choose instead to change their way of doing things to avoid making such choices again? Or are all of these illusions too?

We don't control out taste.

Our tastes modify and mature over time, and often this is self-directed.

Did you never find anything pleasing *just because*?

Certainly. Have you ever had something you found pleasing as a child grow into something displeasing as an adult? As a child I loved peas, I couldn’t get enough. Now I can hardly stand them.

No child walks into school, looks at a basketball game with absolutely no reaction and says, for no reason "Yep, I'm gonna like basketball." Our feelings, our preferences are outside our conscious control.

No child walks into school and says he is gonna like algebra either, but that doesn’t prove determinism. On the other hand, a child can walk into school with no opinion either way about basketball and watch a first game, maybe get caught up in the excitement or not, maybe his or her friends “turn him on” to the game or not, maybe he apprecitates the effort that a friend on one team is putting forth or not, maybe he walks out liking the game or not. It is all a series of choices, some can even be made after the fact. Hypothetically he may have chosen to love the game, yet if he comes under the influence of a religious teaching for example that frowns on competition he may change his mind and distance himself from basketball and even grow to hate it. Brainswashing is an accelerated form of what I am pointing to.

Human society will always function as if there were free will. There is no way around that. I can't get my mind around the idea that I'm not choosing what I do. Nobody could. Whether there truly is or is not free will, for human application, the assumption, the belief will forever, in practice, be "there is free will."

This is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

A genetic influence yes. Genetic determinism no. I believe you and I both accept that nature/nurture both act on us. You accept SOME degree of genetic influence as well. I don't believe our choices are determined by our genetics. THAT was the belief I denied.

I agree there is genetic influence in the sense of something like hair or eye color. In my discussion with Dr. Collins I was reminded of the likely genetic links for thrill seeking, philandering, and seeking “G-d,” and even these are tenuous at the moment. Aside from these I see no genetic links to behavior.

You do not choose your emotions. If you choose to change the direction, subject of your thoughts to cultivate certain feelings and inhibit others it is because of feelings or beliefs present within you that you did not choose. And a clinically depressed person cannot choose for his synapses to be flooded with more serotonin. I'm sorry, but you can't blame the sad for sadness, or credit the happy with their happiness.

As you wish, but that is simply not the case. I can choose to be happy, I can choose to be miserable, I can choose to be rude or pleasant. Do I choose to be sad when my dog dies?, probably not, but I can choose to get over it and get on with my life…that is no sign of determinism.

And then there is love...is love *just* the reaction of chemicals in the brain? –jt3

That's a completely different discussion, isn't it?

Love is at the fundamental root of this question of determinism. This speaks to the very nature of what emotional love is. How can we be said to love anything or anybody, let alone G-d, if that love is predetermined? Love must be freely given, and it must be allowed to be freely returned; otherwise it is not love.

If you don't choose the content of your character from the get-go, …

What a huge two-letter word, “If.” What if you *can* choose to modify the content of your character, and in fact do so on a daily basis? Then the whole ping-pong ball analogy breaks down, doesn’t it?

Your premise is built upon this “if.” Then again, so is mine. If we cannot change the content of our character, then it would seem determinism is the objective order of the universe. But if we can modify the content of our character in the least little bit, then all deterministic bets are off and self-directed will is the objective order of the universe. We can choose to wipe off the accumulated dirt, and massage out the dents, and if we get good enough at it can even plot our own course. What a liberating thought!

 

[Q2008]

Let us go back to your rapist analogy. According to you, the rapist has *no* control over the nature/nurture cause(s) that drive his thoughts to rape. In effect, he is created to rape, he can’t help himself, it is what he is born to do.

Obviously people are far more complex, and even a rapist has many more influences pending upon him than just the one issue, but for the sake of discussion we must narrow this down.

So, this hypothetical rapist is born to rape, cannot resist or otherwise help himself from raping, and must by his very nature commit rape. Therefore when he commits rape he is not guilty because he was created that way.

I disagree because this flies in the face of millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of moral and ethical philosophy. In a typical herd or pack animal situation a male with intent to rape will have to confront the bull (or alpha if you prefer) male and establish dominance first, and if successful can claim the harem. Perhaps some clandestine affairs take place, but that would be with a willing female (therefore: not rape), or else the offender would be made known and still have to face the wrath of the bull male.

<br /><br />If it held true that humans (and, I suppose by extension all animals) cannot perceive themselves as anything but choosing beings, natural examples of ethical behavior would be expected. If I disagreed that there were ethics and morals, I couldn't very well consider myself a thinking person. Think of it this way; if humans perceive themselves as beings with free will, they will develop ethical systems based on the assumption of free will. My argument is only about the [objective] reality of free will, not its human implications. Since we know we think we choose, we know we develop systems of ethics and morality based on that belief. Whether we have free will or not, we will always behave and think as though we do.

This gets even more complicated when G-d enters the picture. If G-d created some men to rape, why is rape universally frowned on in every culture I can think of? Why would a loving G-d create persons He purposely intends to destroy? Why would humans in the process of developing civilization devote so much time, energy and thought to moral and ethical concerns like rape if these concerns were purely, solely, totally and only natural and normal behaviors?

<br /><br />If God didn't create people to war, why is war (in one form or another) universally practiced by every culture I can think of? This is a whole 'nother can of worms. The nature of an Abrahamic god. God, being all-knowing, created mankind with perfect forknowledge of every choice that every man, woman, and child would ever make. Why would a loving God create a people of which the vast majority would be godless and ineligible for redemption (I'm afraid I'm assuming we're talking in terms of Orthodox Christian theology. Please tell me if your conception of 'G-d' differs.)? Of course he wouldn't.

Trying to excuse the matter away as “(h)umans will believe themselves to be making choices even if they are not, and society will progress exactly as if there were free will” is ignoring the reasons things are the way they are. Is it not possible that thousands of years of ethical philosophy and millions of years of evolution are based on something a bit more concrete than imagination and illusion?

<br /><br />Anything's possible, but I don't see that as an especially necessary or superior conclusion. If everyone on an isolated island believed something to be true, what would be the practical difference if the thing were true or not?<br /><br />Also, what is "the reason things are the way they are?"

No, see above. Then as now I am speaking of the natural world; herding and pack animals where elemental morality can be demonstrated.

<br /><br />The existence of morality tells us nothing except that the natural world operates on an assumption of choice. Again, if everyone in the world believed a thing absolutely, what difference would it make in their behavior if the thing were untrue?

Yes we can, unless G-d created *all* of us to be destroyed, because none of us is capable of leading a perfect life from cradle to grave. Either that, or the whole heaven/hell dichotomy is irrelevent, saints and sinners are effectively the same. Mass murderers receive the *exact* same eternal reward as selfless philanthropists.

<br /><br />I'm afraid I don't quite understand your response. What does that have to do with our ability to perceive ourselves as choosing beings? My assertion is that whether we choose or not, we are unable to think of ourselves as anything but choosing beings. While I feel that objectively there is no free will, I myself cannot accept as reality that every choice I make is determined. I can believe it intellectually, but I can't believe and know it personally.

This isn’t even what concerns me most. What concerns me is the hopeless surrender to fate that paralyzes any drive to succeed or better oneself. If all I am ever to be is what I was created as to do, then what hope have I to better myself physically, morally, intellectually, and spiritually? I am all I will ever be with no chance whatsoever to guide my own destiny. I am doomed to whatever destiny awaits me, what choices I make are irrelevent, and there is nothing I can do to change anything, so mercy is irrelevent, forgiveness is irrelevent, tolerance is irrelevent, faith, hope, charity, love…all are irrelevent. Life itself becomes meaningless and irrelevent; not only my own personal life, but *any* other life.

<br /><br />This comes back to the ability to believe in the lack of free will. Nobody is going to live their lives as though they were determined, because that is simply impossible. We can't bring ourselves to say "Ethics? Morality? Responsibility? Pshah!" We simply can't. You don't have to worry about a personal stagnation, because neither you as the doubter or me as the accepter will ever lead our lives as anything but free and chosen paths. That again is why I said this discussion has no practical implications. In the human world, you win. I'm not arguing for a human conclusion, I'm arguing over an objective answer.

Can you not see the fallacy? If it is outside of one’s control; there is no choice to invoke, illusory or otherwise. Choice by definition implies control.

<br /><br />Which is my point. There is no choice, because we don't ultimately control the deciding factors in any choice. A hypothetical man acts a given way because his wife was in a car accident, or he acts another way because his wife wasn't. If the only difference in his action is the status of his wife's life, we can show that the only reason he acted either way was because of one factor outside of his control. You would say he chose and was responsible for either action, yes? I would say he is no different from a bowl poised at the edge of a table, to be knocked over the edge by one factor or left atop the table by another. From his very earliest life every choice for him and for all of us is like that. We are bowls poised on the edges of tables, again, and again, and again. Whether we rest or fall is decided by the shape of our bowl, which we don't control absolutely, and our position on the table, which we may have influenced but don't control absolutely, and by that uncaring, unassailable push being there or not.

Without the control of self-direction, there is no sin. Without sin, there is no need for guilt. Without guilt, there is no need for justice, mercy, forgiveness, regret or penitence. Without justice, there is no need for heaven, hell or G-d (Monotheist terms, but they translate across cultural boundaries).

Without the control of self-direction, love is degraded to nothing more than an animal act. *All* emotions are irrelevent and meaningless; ambiguous evolutionary artifacts with no objective purpose or reason.

<br /><br />Objectively yes. Since when has objective reality made any difference to human affairs? Really the only position that could be harmed by this issue is that of Abrahamic religion (barring perhaps Islam). Why would God (G-d, if you prefer) set up a world without personal responsibility? He wouldn't of course. But you'll note, I haven't quoted scripture in my argument.

There is a presumptive error in your thesis. I fail to see how one’s thoughts *specifically* are not one’s own, particularly which thoughts one “decide(s) to foster.” Gauging by your use of quotation marks I presume you realise that “decide” means “choose.”

Of those things you list: opinions, tastes, personality and history; a person *does* have some degree of influence over the cultivation of each. Opinions are informed by and cultivated from sources one prefers (chooses) and cultivates. Tastes are built in part by self-directed preference (choice). Personality can be modified in a self-directed manner (basic normal psych). Even history can be modifed going forward…self-directed choice of which way one desires to lead oneself.

If need be, I will break each of these down one by one and sort it out, but my hope is that these things are self-evident upon examination. Where you are attempting to imply there is *no* control over these things, I say there is *some* control, and within that *some* control is enough to allow for a self-directed change of course in midstream at the whim of every person…such that some persons change course at frequent whim, while others plot a deliberate course and appear to hold a steady tack, and yet others change course as they feel the need arise.

<br /><br />Do you consciously choose every aspect of your thinking from the very beginning? Of course not. You can't choose the land on which you build your house but you're to blame when it collapses? That's the primary issue with assertion that we're responsible for our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc. (from here on out let those be 's') If there are initial inclinations which we do not consciously control, then influence exerted later has its origin in those inclinations we do not control. A pious man can control his thoughts; he can avoid thoughts that fall outside his accepted worldview - thoughts he deems sinful perhaps? But the pious man as a child did not choose "I will be pious; there will be nothing in the world as important to me as my God." Those initial feelings are of mysterious origin. We don't know why people vary in their observance of religion, do we? It was his piousness that decided how he would shape his thinking, and since he didn't choose to be pious he didn't choose which of 's' he would foster and which of 's' he would avoid.

The point is, if people were not capable of self-directed change, there would be *zero* conversions because conversions would not be possible.

<br /><br />Nonsense (don't be offended by the term, please). If we consciously chose what to "give credence" to, nobody would consciously choose to change. Why should they? Feeling is a reaction to stimulus, not an action done to the stimulus. Were we to say a Buddhist "sees the light," we would be speaking of something that occurred within him, not something he chose to do. If we exercised explicit control over what we allowed ourselves to feel about any given thing, every single change of opinion would be arbitrary and meaningless. "Today, I think I'll be convinced of the existence of God, but tomorrow, just for laughs, I think I'll be an avid Communist."<br /><br />Also, I'm not arguing we're incapable of self-directed change, just that the 'self' is as decided as anything. We do exert conscious control in our lives. But we don't choose who we are, what we will choose to exert control over, how, or why.

 

[Q2008]

Perhaps because you continue to refer back to an organic pre-inclination. If you are going to continue to use genetic arguments, it hardly seems fitting, and does seem disingenuous, to scold me for pointing it out. Here are three examples:
All of which were being used to support your position, so these are *not* out of context.

Do you think there are absolutely no genetic or prenatal influences affecting a person? If that is not what you think, then you and I agree completely. I have mentioned inclinations, and I have mentioned that they are affected by Nature AND Nurture.

but where it is pertinent it is an inaccurate fallacious premise.

My premise is only inaccurate and fallacious if our genetics do not influence us at all, because I have not once argued anything more than that Nature (big N) is ONE influence on us. That does not constitute a genetic argument.

Determinism requires an absolutist position, one I see you attempt to mask by calling it an illusion. If there is even an iota of self-direction, then choice circumvents the absolute of determinism.

No, it doesn't, because determinism affects more than simply what you do. The "self" in self direction is determined as is the direction of self-direction. Hence, no circumvention. It is an absolutist position. I have not attempted to mask any part of my argument, at any time. You seem unduly suspicious of me. What I called illusory was our perception of free will. We perceive ourselves as choosing whether we objectively do or do not. Does that not constitute an illusion?

Does a person have any control over their genetics? No, but then we have already shown genetics have little to no impact on behavior.

At the risk of helping to support your illusion that I'm arguing on a genetics basis, do you have scientific research to back the assertion that genetics has "little to no impact" on our behavior?

Does a person have any control over their environment? At first it would seem the answer should be no, but closer examination would show that *in some cases* a person can control some elements of their environment. A person *can choose* to come in out of the rain. A person *can choose* to light a fire and get warmer than the environment is. A person *can choose* to migrate to a different environment. So there is *a degree of* control a person can exert over the environment.

A person with little cold tolerance will choose to light a fire sooner than one with a high cold tolerance. Again, we don't choose who we are. I also think you're using a much narrower definition of environment, at least with these examples, than I intend. One's environment is every external influence acting on a person. It's much more than weather and climate.

Does a person have control over the nurture influence of their parents? No. But then as we mature and develop other influences to compare with, we *can* choose to subordinate our parents’ influence in *preference* (choice) for another set of influences.

You're dreaming. Parental influence is a formative influence. You can't choose how your parents affect you, at least not in the beginning. At later stages, if you make conscious effort to give preference to one influence over that of your parents, it is still not a free choice. How you feel about your parents, your culture, a myriad of things about you will ultimately decide for you whose influence you decide to embrace and whose you decide to reject.

Why would I need to argue for *no* unconscious influence to make a statement in confidence about people choosing what will influence them? Frankly, that is absurd. Are you prepared to argue that no person can modify or change their way of thinking? Are you prepared to argue that no person can choose which influences will guide them? Are you prepared to argue that no person can change their mind? Are you prepared to argue that no person can regret past choices and choose instead to change their way of doing things to avoid making such choices again? Or are all of these illusions too?

In short, yes. Your conscious mental efforts are decided. What you reject is decided. What you foster is decided. I've shown why. If you don't have implicit control over all influences, then every action you take and every change in thinking you undertake is traceable to the difference in a factor outside of your control. If you didn't get to choose the land on which the house is built, you can't be held responsible for the houses' sinking.

Furthermore, if we DID have implicit control over all influences, every choice would be completely arbitrary and with no real origin. Choices that were truly "just because." That doesn't make much sense, and it's a good thing that's a purely hypothetical reality.

Our tastes modify and mature over time, and often this is self-directed.

You don't choose to feel a certain way about a certain thing. That's what makes it a feeling.

Certainly. Have you ever had something you found pleasing as a child grow into something displeasing as an adult? As a child I loved peas, I couldn’t get enough. Now I can hardly stand them.

Perfect. Then naturally, sometime in adolescence you said to yourself "I'm going to hate peas when I grow up. Just because." And given that, this evening you could say to yourself "It's high time I liked peas again. Oh, look, I do!" Nonsense.

No child walks into school and says he is gonna like algebra either, but that doesn’t prove determinism. On the other hand, a child can walk into school with no opinion either way about basketball and watch a first game, maybe get caught up in the excitement or not, maybe his or her friends “turn him on” to the game or not, maybe he apprecitates the effort that a friend on one team is putting forth or not, maybe he walks out liking the game or not. It is all a series of choices, some can even be made after the fact.

He chooses to "get caught up?" That's a fallacy if ever there was one. Or, he chooses that his friends should "turn him onto the game?" No. He chooses to appreciate an effort he sees, or that perception is made unconsciously within him. You can't seriously believe the former. That isn't a series of choices. You've successfully argued my point, not yours.

Hypothetically he may have chosen to love the game,

If you think we choose to love something, you need to open a dictionary and read about what choice is. Are you saying these things just for the sake of argument, or is that truly your understanding of the term "choice?"

yet if he comes under the influence of a religious teaching for example that frowns on competition he may change his mind and distance himself from basketball and even grow to hate it.

And since he wouldn't have chosen to be exposed to the influence, he wouldn't be responsible for his successive actions. Again, a house built on land you didn't get to choose...

This is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

No, this is the difference between objective reality and subjective, human reality. Only one is of practical significance to us.

I agree there is genetic influence in the sense of something like hair or eye color. In my discussion with Dr. Collins I was reminded of the likely genetic links for thrill seeking, philandering, and seeking “G-d,” and even these are tenuous at the moment. Aside from these I see no genetic links to behavior.

There's a rather rude quote that comes to mind, but I'm inclined to leave it out. Are you a geneticist? I'm not. I think that whether you or I see genetic links to behavior is rather immaterial to this discussion, unless you or I have personal, professional experience in the subject.

As you wish, but that is simply not the case. I can choose to be happy, I can choose to be miserable, I can choose to be rude or pleasant. Do I choose to be sad when my dog dies?, probably not, but I can choose to get over it and get on with my life…that is no sign of determinism.

You believe you can choose to get over it, but is it not also possible that that isn't so much a voluntary choice on your part as it is a predictable development in the grieving process? You can't choose how to feel, nobody can. When you choose to distance yourself from saddening thoughts (when you choose to "move on") you are doing so not as a voluntary exercise of choice but because there is something in you that has brought you to that action.

Love is at the fundamental root of this question of determinism. This speaks to the very nature of what emotional love is. How can we be said to love anything or anybody, let alone G-d, if that love is predetermined? Love must be freely given, and it must be allowed to be freely returned; otherwise it is not love.

Love specifically is not at the fundamental root of this question, because love is a subjective reality, a human thing, and I am arguing about objective reality, a fundamentally extrahuman and practically insignificant thing.

If you would like to have a discussion on the nature of love that is fine, but do it with someone who wants that discussion and do it in a thread dedicated to that question.

What a huge two-letter word, “If.” What if you *can* choose to modify the content of your character, and in fact do so on a daily basis? Then the whole ping-pong ball analogy breaks down, doesn’t it?

No actually, the whole ping-pong ball analogy is pretty solid. What you perceive as a choice to change character is represented in the analogy by a bit of dried mud that causes the ball to roll one way or another. The ping-pong ball analogy represents the content of your character, as well as the physical path of life that you take. The blank slate of the ping pong ball affects changes in its path based on its experience further up the slope.

What a liberating thought!

Liberating and objectively false (according to my perspective, naturally. Far be it from me to dictate to you how to think).

 

[juantoo3]

At the risk of helping to support your illusion that I'm arguing on a genetics basis, do you have scientific research to back the assertion that genetics has "little to no impact" on our behavior?

Yes...already pointed to it for you...

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/mysteries-of-dna-9783-2.html

This will take you directly to the horse's mouth:

http://www.genome.gov/gwastudies/

 

[jyanez]

Please don't make posts so large! They're hard to read... I have a personal said : "If you can't explain something in less than 18 words then you don't know about it well enough"

 

[juantoo3]

Please don't make posts so large! They're hard to read... I have a personal said : "If you can't explain something in less than 18 words then you don't know about it well enough"

Hello, jyanez.

Thank you for your post.

While I do agree with you that being able to explain something in as few words as possible is a very encouraging sign, it is also a sign that is frequently ignored and abused.

The discussion between Q2008 and myself has gone beyond simplicity and now demands nuance...sorry if that discourages you. But that's the way some discussions go.

 

[greymare]

I think ill wait for the "Dummies guide to......"
Sorry, guys, go on..............

 

[juantoo3]

You're dreaming. Parental influence is a formative influence. You can't choose how your parents affect you, at least not in the beginning. At later stages, if you make conscious effort to give preference to one influence over that of your parents, it is still not a free choice. How you feel about your parents, your culture, a myriad of things about you will ultimately decide for you whose influence you decide to embrace and whose you decide to reject.

I love it when my own arguments are thrown back at me with epithets like "you're dreaming." Repeating what I said as an argument against me is just silly, and certainly not argument *for* determinism. Even your own words contradict: "conscious effort to give preference" is "not a free choice."

Your conscious mental efforts are decided. What you reject is decided. What you foster is decided. I've shown why.

Actually, that's the problem. You *haven't* shown anything. All you have done is put forth your pet hypothesis with no supporting scholarship.

Are you a geneticist? I'm not. I think that whether you or I see genetic links to behavior is rather immaterial to this discussion, unless you or I have personal, professional experience in the subject.

After two links to the supporting material, have you bothered to look? Or is all of my effort being wasted?

And while we are on the subject of discrediting...I doubt either of us has "personal, professional experience" in English grammar...should we conduct this discussion in American Sign Language? I doubt either of us has "personal, professional experience" in anthropology, history, humanities, philosophy, psychology or biological science either...shall we discredit all of those sources of support? If so, then we are left with your word and my word, and not much else.

Love specifically is not at the fundamental root of this question, because love is a subjective reality, a human thing, and I am arguing about objective reality, a fundamentally extrahuman and practically insignificant thing.

If you would like to have a discussion on the nature of love that is fine, but do it with someone who wants that discussion and do it in a thread dedicated to that question.

Still dictating terms? That you do not wish to pursue this tangent is fine, but to wage denial of the connection in order to do so is certainly not scholarly.

Far be it from me to dictate to you how to think.

Let's see...no smileys...your effort is a waste, but evidently my effort isn't worth reviewing the supporting scholarship...genetic scholarship is off-limits because we are not specialists in the field...I am nonsensical and dreaming, even though I have yet to see the first supporting reference from you...and love is off limits because you don't care for the implications. There is probably more, but this alone seems sufficient to me to think you are indeed attempting to dictate the terms of the discussion, if not how I think.

But far be it from me to think logically.

 

[Q2008]

I love it when my own arguments are thrown back at me with epithets like &quot;you're dreaming.&quot; Repeating what I said as an argument against me is just silly, and certainly not argument *for* determinism. Even your own words contradict: &quot;conscious effort to give preference&quot; is &quot;not a free choice.&quot;

Your understanding of a choice is mistaken then. A conscious effort is something that could be chosen (a choice to action) not a choice in itself. There is no contradiction. And, I apologize, but I can't of any clearer response to what you've said other than that you are on a serious flight of fancy. To think that we can consciously choose to "subordinate" the influence of our parents, our initial and primary caregivers, is absurd.

Actually, that's the problem. You *haven't* shown anything. All you have done is put forth your pet hypothesis with no supporting scholarship.

I've demonstrated, I've explained, rather than shown. Better choice of words? Would you please explain (or show, if you rather) to me why logical conjecture needs "supporting scholarship?" I'm not arguing for points established by research or scholarship, and I'm not appealing to the opinions or works of others. I'm pointing out obvious logical conclusions that follow from our understanding of the world. "We know x, y and z, and therefore a!" does not need appeal to scholarship. Working with the rock in this quarry for the moment.

After two links to the supporting material, have you bothered to look? Or is all of my effort being wasted?

Those pieces I did look at did not seem to address the issue specifically. As it stands of course, your posting links to defend your proposal that there are no (or at least few) genetic influences on behavior are all rather beside the point as, once more, my argument isn't genetics. Of course they're an influence; whether we can find this gene for that behavior or not, we know that the human animal is a product of a genetic code, as all animals are, and that certain base, animal realities drive or influence certain other aspects of our behavior. Regardless, that which produces Tim isn't the subject of the argument. It's the relationship between Tim and his choices that we're talking about.

And while we are on the subject of discrediting...I doubt either of us has &quot;personal, professional experience&quot; in English grammar...should we conduct this discussion in American Sign Language? I doubt either of us has &quot;personal, professional experience&quot; in anthropology, history, humanities, philosophy, psychology or biological science either...shall we discredit all of those sources of support? If so, then we are left with your word and my word, and not much else.

"I see no genetic links to behavior" is a statement that one would make out of personal expertise. If you aren't a geneticist, I don't see how that statement is important.

Still dictating terms? That you do not wish to pursue this tangent is fine, but to wage denial of the connection in order to do so is certainly not scholarly.

I wouldn't need to if you didn't seem to be having such trouble with them. In a discussion about the objective reality of free will, I don't see how love figures in.

Let's see...no smileys...your effort is a waste, but evidently my effort isn't worth reviewing the supporting scholarship

To what scholarship could one appeal to verify an argument based purely upon logical conjecture?

...genetic scholarship is off-limits because...

...they are not my argument, and also not yours if I'm correct in where you're coming from.

I am nonsensical and dreaming, even though I have yet to see the first supporting reference from you...

Sure, my parents were the most important thing to me in my formative years, but of course I can subvert all of their influences consciously! It makes perfect sense! Again, supporting references of what kind, for what purpose? I have said that there is no choice because we are the result of factors outside of our control and every situation in which we make choices is composed of more factors ultimately outside of our control, and there is therefore no free will. What reference could be given or would be needed for that assertion?

and love is off limits because you don't care for the implications.

Love is off limits because it has no bearing on the discussion. I'm trying to talk about the existence of motor oil, and you insist on complaining about it's impact on the environment. You don't see a problem there?

But far be it from me to think logically.

It is not logical to assert that we choose how to feel, it is not logical to suggest that we have conscious control over the composition of our character unless we choose to assert that there are certain people that are bad and certain people that are good (and that you WOULD need to support). Since you didn't feel like pursuing that line of thinking, you'd need to explain to me why, if everything is within our control and we get to choose what kind of people we are, anyone chooses to do wrong instead of right. You haven't done that either. Free will is an illusion because we can't control the factors present in any choice (those being 1. Who we are, and 2. What the situation is like). That doesn't have anything to do with love, or genetics, or any of the other tangents you seem so eager to pursue. THAT is my argument, feel free to address it at your leisure or not at all. Don't play victim to me simply because you didn't understand the argument that was at hand.

 

[juantoo3]

To think that we can consciously choose to "subordinate" the influence of our parents, our initial and primary caregivers, is absurd.

You are, of course, welcome to find the matter absurd, but people do subordinate the influence of their parents all the time. I think because you might be relating in absolutes...that in order to subvert some of our parental indoctrination we must of necessity subordinate *all* of our parental indoctrination...that I would agree is absurd. It is a matter of increments and degrees over time, and yes that is self-directed.

I've demonstrated, I've explained, rather than shown. Better choice of words?

Very well, but you are the one who raised the issue of being qualified and credentialed ("work in the field" I believe was your term) to speak to the matter. Which leads one to ask what your qualifications are to speak to this matter?

Would you please explain (or show, if you rather) to me why logical conjecture needs "supporting scholarship?" I'm not arguing for points established by research or scholarship, and I'm not appealing to the opinions or works of others. I'm pointing out obvious logical conclusions that follow from our understanding of the world. "We know x, y and z, and therefore a!" does not need appeal to scholarship. Working with the rock in this quarry for the moment.

Because typically in a debate style discussion supporting "evidences" play a role in establishing validation. No outside support = no internal validation. Therefore if all we have to work from is your so-called "logical conjecture," we have nothing validated or substantiated to raise or to raze. If effect, all you have is what is known as hearsay...inadmissable as evidence.

I wouldn't need to if you didn't seem to be having such trouble with them. In a discussion about the objective reality of free will, I don't see how love figures in.

Hearsay evidence is insufficient to put forward as objective reality. You haven't even put forth circumstantial evidence. Is "love" an objective portion of reality...or no? Better said...does love exist, yes or no?

To what scholarship could one appeal to verify an argument based purely upon logical conjecture?

I am not in the habit of defending your argument...it is after all *your* argument and one I personally find indefensible for the reasons I have put forward. But logical conjectures *are* defended with scholarship routinely...as I *am* doing with my own point of view in this discussion, and which is my typical method of presentation.

Sure, my parents were the most important thing to me in my formative years, but of course I can subvert all of their influences consciously! It makes perfect sense!

But your sarcasm masks the reality from view. I have argued repeatedly against an absolutist position, yet you repeatedly present in an absolutist manner. Your position requires an absolutist position...any minor deviance from that absolute refutes it. I have repeatedly shown minor deviance from the absolute, and any cursory look from any angle will show that minor deviance from the absolute is normative. You don't turn a supertanker on a dime in midstream...and a person doesn't "change" their POV, outlook or personality overnight. That does not mean it cannot happen, and anyway does not serve in any capacity to prove determinism.

Again, supporting references of what kind, for what purpose?

"Objective" implies hard and fast reality. While I can grant humans do not fully understand *all* hard and fast reality, there are some things we have a reasonably good handle on even if our language sometimes falls short. Point being, hard and fast reality (objective by definition) should leave some form of evidential trace of existence, an evidential trace we would likely have some intellectual grasp of. Therefore, the objective reality you argue for should have evidence for it all around...

I have said that there is no choice because we are the result of factors outside of our control and every situation in which we make choices is composed of more factors ultimately outside of our control, and there is therefore no free will.

And I have said that is not the whole picture, that is an absolutist position that ignores the impact of free will. Free will does not have to reinvent the entire wheel at every turn...all it has to do is steer the wheel a little bit and it negates determinism.

Love is off limits because it has no bearing on the discussion.

If love is real, then there is an objective component that must be accounted for. Because you do not wish to address that component does not negate its impact.

I'm trying to talk about the existence of motor oil, and you insist on complaining about it's impact on the environment.

I'm not certain your analogy applies, but let's try:

Evidence of impact on the environment demonstrates that motor oil exists. It may not be the primary purpose, but if I can not see into an engine, am not a mechanic, and have never seen an engine run, then all I have to work with is the impact on the environment.

The trouble with your argument is that you presume motor oil exists without even taking a glance at the impact on the environment, or anything to do with an engine either. You say it is, so it is. That is not logic, that is hearsay.

It is not logical to assert that we choose how to feel, it is not logical to suggest that we have conscious control over the composition of our character unless we choose to assert that there are certain people that are bad and certain people that are good (and that you WOULD need to support). Since you didn't feel like pursuing that line of thinking, you'd need to explain to me why, if everything is within our control and we get to choose what kind of people we are, anyone chooses to do wrong instead of right. You haven't done that either.

Sure I did, you didn't care for the answer. The only way determinism would work is if people were "created" good and bad...in fact, there could be no point of change of heart or mind because it is irrelevent...

We *do* have conscious control over our character...I have said before and you didn't care for. You may choose not to control yourself, I do. I may (or may not) choose how to feel emotionally, but I do choose how to respond to those emotions. Perhaps you lack that control yet, I don't know, but it isn't that difficult. A good example is a man under fire in a foxhole...he is scared sh!tless until he decides to do something about it. Suddenly, (or magically, in a different context) his fear transforms into bravery. Don't take my word on this, I ask you to interview any military veteran who has been under enemy fire, particularly any who have been awarded medals for bravery under fire.

I can give example after example...Jacquelyn Kennedy at her husband's funeral. She had the strength of character not to let the nation see her cry. No doubt she was swept with an incredible urge to weep and mourn, and I have no doubt she did so...privately, out of public view.

Colin Powell when he had to address the UN and tell them what he knew was a lie...you could see it in his eyes. But he did what he felt was right for the nation at that time (little knowing it would bite him later, another story for another day).

So not only is it logical to exercise self-control of our emotions...it is a mark of a person who is practiced in self-control to do so. If you cannot control your emotions, it is a sign you do not yet control yourself...not evidence of determinism.

Free will is an illusion because we can't control the factors present in any choice (those being 1. Who we are, and 2. What the situation is like). That doesn't have anything to do with love, or genetics, or any of the other tangents you seem so eager to pursue. THAT is my argument, feel free to address it at your leisure or not at all.

Again the absolutist position. I do not have to control *all* aspects, I only have to control one aspect...my mind. If that one aspect steers the wheel just a teensy little bit every day, then all absolutist deterministic bets are off. Because that teensy little bit over time *can eventually* turn that supertanker around in midstream.

Don't play victim to me simply because you didn't understand the argument that was at hand.

Friendly advice, you really don't want to go into victimization. It is not I who has been dictating terms and conditions in this discussion.

On the other hand, I am the one who has been pointing to objective realities (or at least our feeble understandings of such) to support my logical position...seems to me you would do well to do the same. Unless you are predetermined not to?...or perhaps do not understand the protocols of intellectual discussion and debate?

 

[Q2008]

You are, of course, welcome to find the matter absurd, but people do subordinate the influence of their parents all the time. I think because you might be relating in absolutes...that in order to subvert some of our parental indoctrination we must of necessity subordinate *all* of our parental indoctrination...that I would agree is absurd. It is a matter of increments and degrees over time, and yes that is self-directed.

Do you believe there is absolutely no affect of parental influence that cannot be reversed consciously?

Very well, but you are the one who raised the issue of being qualified and credentialed (&quot;work in the field&quot; I believe was your term) to speak to the matter. Which leads one to ask what your qualifications are to speak to this matter?

I speak English, and I've got an understanding of the logical basis for my argument.

Because typically in a debate style discussion supporting &quot;evidences&quot; play a role in establishing validation. No outside support = no internal validation. Therefore if all we have to work from is your so-called &quot;logical conjecture,&quot; we have nothing validated or substantiated to raise or to raze. If effect, all you have is what is known as hearsay...inadmissable as evidence.

This isn't a courtroom and we aren't trying to establish the existence of something tangible. There can be no evidence presented in support of a logic-based philosophical assertion.

does love exist, yes or no?

As a concept understood and expressed by humans, yes. As an objective reality? Not really. Not as itself. Does hate exist? Yes, hate is, say, a pattern of human thought/behavior, thoroughly real as far as human understanding, but hate as a concept is not something tangible and measurable. So too is love. An umbrella term for a number of subjective, human realities. Do you disagree?

I am not in the habit of defending your argument...it is after all *your* argument and one I personally find indefensible for the reasons I have put forward. But logical conjectures *are* defended with scholarship routinely...as I *am* doing with my own point of view in this discussion, and which is my typical method of presentation.

I haven't understood you to have put forward anything I'd think of as 'evidence' to the effect of "Free will exists because..." that is the discussion, isn't it? Does free will exist, or is it an illusion? I don't believe you [can] give evidence for such a thing, as morality among human or animal populations is evidence only of the illusion of choice, not of its objective reality. You can establish that free will exists, but you can't establish, with evidence, that it is more than an illusion exhibited by humans/animals.

Therefore, the objective reality you argue for should have evidence for it all around...

Just as the objective reality of your existence, yes? Because I am an ego with only true assurance that exist, if you as a thinking agent also exist there should be abundant evidence for that as well, yes? No. Any evidence that you exist as a thinking conscious in and of yourself can be presented only as evidence of a pattern of clues suggesting a conscious entity. Without experience of you, I can't know if you, or anyone beside myself really exist(s). Not everything that is objectively real (i.e. consciousnesses besides ones own) can be proved to be such with evidence.

And I have said that is not the whole picture, that is an absolutist position that ignores the impact of free will. Free will does not have to reinvent the entire wheel at every turn...all it has to do is steer the wheel a little bit and it negates determinism.

The ability to choose to "steer the wheel" would be another choice subject to this argument. If I don't have the freedom to decide whether or not I will do something, I don't have free will. You perceive yourself as exerting voluntary influence on your world (including your mind), but for it to be true voluntary you'd have to have the freedom, at every and any moment, to do something else. The falling marbles would have to be able to not do what the pattern said they would. A physical pattern in the universe interacts with a mental pattern within you to produce predictably* every choice you will ever make. One can "steer the wheel" as one can do anything else, but one cannot choose to not steer the wheel if the interaction between their mental pattern and the physical pattern of the world demands that they do.

If love is real, then there is an objective component that must be accounted for. Because you do not wish to address that component does not negate its impact.

What does it mean for love to be real, and what impact would love's reality have on the reality of free will? I'm afraid that while I dismissed it before, I still don't understand the connection you're making.

Evidence of impact on the environment demonstrates that motor oil exists. It may not be the primary purpose, but if I can not see into an engine, am not a mechanic, and have never seen an engine run, then all I have to work with is the impact on the environment.

Evidence of impact on the environment demonstrates only that from the perspective of the environment something with the effect of motor oil exists. If the environment was a thinking organism reacting in a specific way to what it perceived as motor oil, by observing the reaction of the environment we would know only that the environment perceived motor oil as existing. It would not prove to us that there actually was any motor oil present. <

The trouble with your argument is that you presume motor oil exists without even taking a glance at the impact on the environment, or anything to do with an engine either. You say it is, so it is. That is not logic, that is hearsay.

I'm arguing that motor oil does not exist, and further saying that the way the environment reacts to motor oil would not be evidence of the objective reality of motor oil (In this function, you're right, the analogy doesn't work. The environment isn't a thinking entity.).

Sure I did, you didn't care for the answer. The only way determinism would work is if people were &quot;created&quot; good and bad...in fact, there could be no point of change of heart or mind because it is irrelevent...

I have addressed the idea of a "change of heart," already. A change of heart is just a complex interaction that we cannot follow consciously. Most aspects of human cognition and reaction are that way, actually. That a man has a change of heart is nothing but that he has a change of heart. If it were his conscious choice to suddenly feel differently, why would anyone allow themselves to feel negatively? Why would there be cowards if it were within a cowards voluntary control to change his feelings? If we say that people choose how they are, we have to conclude that people are 'created' differently. Otherwise, why would anyone choose to be different? Eventually, you have to look for a cause, and when you get to the cause you must reconsider your position that we are responsible for who we are, and by extension what we do.

Perhaps you lack that control yet, I don't know, but it isn't that difficult.

Why are you making this so personal? I'm arguing that free will is illusory. That does not mean I am not subject to its effects. Like all healthy humans, I perceive myself as a being with conscious control too. Don't mistake that.

Friendly advice, you really don't want to go into victimization. It is not I who has been dictating terms and conditions in this discussion.

When the argument is the reality of free will, is it not the right of any discussing to point out when others appear to be discussing something fundamentally outside the range of the discussion? You call it dictating terms. I call it clarifying terms that are inherent to the question so as to keep the discussion on tract.

seems to me you would do well to do the same.

Objective reality: A choice is an interaction between a person and a situation. Objective reality: We can't control all of the situations that come upon us. Objective reality: We cannot fully control who we are at a given moment. Therefore: at a moment of choice, in a situation one does not control, with a personality, frame of reference, set of schemas, etc. etc. etc. one does not immediately control, one is making a choice over which ones does not exercise voluntary control.

 

[juantoo3]

Objective reality: A choice is an interaction between a person and a situation. Objective reality: We can't control all of the situations that come upon us. Objective reality: We cannot fully control who we are at a given moment. Therefore: at a moment of choice, in a situation one does not control, with a personality, frame of reference, set of schemas, etc. etc. etc. one does not immediately control, one is making a choice over which ones does not exercise voluntary control.

Perhaps within the objective reality you see you do not exercise voluntary control. Within the objective reality I see I do exercise voluntary control.

If voluntary control proves illusory, then all of life is illusion...pointless, without reason and ephemeral. Why bother? Just sit back, get high, and enjoy the pretty colors while they last...

It was a rather crude, but to my mind poignant example, that woke me out of the philosophical illusion game:...life seems like an illusion until it punches you in the nose and breaks it. Nothing like a shot of adrenaline to shake one out of an illusory dream. Nothing like the car crash and waking up in a hospital to realize the dream does end, and one must make a seriously conscious effort to overcome obstacles. Life isn't a fantasy to me. Life is a reality to be lived.

I am pressed for time, I will try to get back to the rest later.