This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is "free will" an illusion?
Can someone explain to me how to understand "free will" from a purely materialistic point of view?
Let's assume that my mind is a product of my physical brain. This means that everything that's going on in my mind is a product of neural activity. Say, I'm looking at a can of vanilla and a can of strawberry ice cream and try to make my choice. WHO makes the choice?
Again, if my mind is nothing more than neural activity, then, perhaps, visual stimulus activates some associations and connections from my past experiences, and I pick vanilla, because it is associated with some childhood memory. This means that our response to every situation is predetermined by the neural connections that make my memories. Right?
Doesn't this mean that "free will" is an illusion? Can we really make decisions or do decisions "just happen"? If not, then WHO makes the decisions?
Mitch SMith 50+
There is no "who" separate from you.
From a materialistic perspective, the words "freedom" and "free will" are not defined well enough to sustain discussion.
Lately, I try to avoid using those words. instead, I find the terms "agency" and "potential agency" carry a lot more meaning.
Consciousness requires a "self" around which to organise self-persistence(survival).
We observe, evaluate and act on behalf of self-persistence in a continual loop.
Evaluation of our observations can result in a surplus of potential agency (options).
Any option that will reduce our persistence will be rejected - narrowing potential agency to potential advantage.
Evaluation of potential advantage will take into account internal and external factors to arrive at an optimal choice before it is comitted to agency.
In most cases, the optimal will be clearly identified(rightly or wrongly).
But in some cases, there will be no basis for the discrimination.
For example, if you decide to buy something - but there is a choice of colour, and if the colour has no affect on the use, then you will have to resort to some heuristic such as eeny-meeny-miney-mo.
Freeedom and free will are illusory.
What is not illusory is potential agency. What people argue as "freedoms" and "rights" are really about factors that reduce potential agency.
A reduced field of potential agency injures one's range of options in dynamic circumstance. Such injury might even go as far as leaving no options of potential advantage.
I would rejoice to see "potential agency" replace the word "freedom", because it would clarify the arguement. It would also expose the field of potential advantage for scrutiny in a social environment where the agency (and sufficient advantage) of others is cogent to the welfare of teh society.
Vincenzo Sergi
natasha nikulina 50+
Entropy Driven
Then:
Doesn't this mean that "free will" is an illusion?
-Not necessarily.
Can we really make decisions or do decisions "just happen"?
-Does not look like they "just happen." They seem to depend on a series of factors. I think that this is a false dichotomy.
If not, then WHO makes the decisions?
-Since you said before that the options were either we decide or decisions just happen, how would it follow that there's a "WHO" making such decisions? Why not leave it at "just happen," or leave deciding to a "what" rather than to a "who"?
Sorry, but the whole thing seems like rather malformed ideas/arguments.
veronika petrics
In reverse....first you always have an idea in the mind then you create the material to make it...the materials do not make things..
but whatever I am done
Qab Dqab
Well the kids will be happy that there is no point in going to school but there may be a few buddhist monks who feel a little disappointed that those years spent meditating have been rather wasted.
veronika petrics
agree with realistic resignation..or acceptance one can work with
Qab Dqab
Qab Dqab
With regards to your initial question, you have answered it in your introduction (para starting "Again, if my..."). Whether that gives you a yes or know depends upon how you define free will. For example if free will is a decision made without present explicit coercion by that which is legally considered to be you then free will exists, those neural connections that make your memories are a part of you.
It is worth noting that you have massively simplified the process though. I appreciate that this was necessary but it does make the process sound a little bit unsatisfactory. If you un-simplify it all, not only does it appear a lot more wonderfully amazing, but it may also affect the answer to your question.
Regarding the second question have a look at: http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_baggini_is_there_a_real_you.html
It is a TEDyouth talk so it is a bit slow but it makes some relevant points (including touching on the fact that the "you" within the brain is scattered all about).
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
It doesn't feel very "liberating" to me. If we do not believe we have free will, then we "don't have to worry too much about our choices"? That means that we don't have to be concerned with accountability? Responsibility? Cause and affect? Ramifications and consequences of our actions?
That means that I would be giving up many aspects of who and what I am, and how I live the life experience? Doesn't feel liberating....feels oppressing to me...not my preference:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The link (and Theodore's article that you did not read) is about perception of ourselves. We don't "have" the experience, we "are" the experience. We don't "have" free will, we "are" free will. Those things are parts of ourselves. I won't insist on this perception, because it's just a perception - we "are" the perception of ourselves. It also seems to agree with your view that if you "perceive" or "believe" that you have free will, then you do. So, it seems like we contradict ourselves by letting go of the idea of self, but, in a sense, we "find" ourselves that way.
natasha nikulina 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
I thought we were in agreement too, which is why your statement surprised me...perhaps I misinterpreted it.
I agree...we "are" the experience...we ARE the perception of ourselves...the experience is part of ourselves, just as every experience becomes part of our "self"....well said:>)
I suggest that as a process, perhaps it is neither holding onto or letting go, but rather a flowing process:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Dan F 50+
Your comment in response to mine below is a well expressed extension of what I would like to believe best explains the concept and nature of free will. I certainly sense your free will. Take away the liberating part of free will and we would all have the blank look of a grizzly bear.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
In my perception, the idea of God is an abstraction of our human self. I can't imagine people thinking of God without thinking of themselves. I'm quite convinced that "relationship with God" is the same as "relationship with ourselves".
Dan F 50+
It follows cultural evolution was a spin off of biological evolution. A result of the biological development of the human brain. If that is true then memes came into play. That means there is added interaction between our purely physical being on an individual basis as well as at a social level all reflected in our cultural development. Interestingly, cultural evolution took on an independent cumulative life and path of its own. It allowed us to excel as a species by enabling individuals to become better communicators and more educated via language, elders, libraries, etc., which extended each person's ability to be more and more abstract within their own faculties as well as with others.
From a biological angle the idea of free will makes sense because it has allowed us to think and ponder life apart from all the automatic, reactive, spontaneous, etc., responses that described nearly all of our routine behavior. Now we can actually try to understand and direct our instinctive nature outside the normal tug of war that describes our struggle for survival. We can seek more thoughtful goals, which almost by definition involve the concept of free will. These efforts in turn could be helpful in self preservation.
I think the value of abstract thought is under valued by the convention wisdom of religion and those less tuned into biological and the concurrent cultural evolution it brought about. It has enable deeper and more abstract ventures within our selves and made possible the concept and reality of free will - it seems to me.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The term "memes" invented by Mr. Dawkins is an interesting one. This is an example of how our brain works. At the very basic level, brain does not do much except creating connections between neurons. The idea of memes is an example how a biologist, thinking of ideas, would find an analogy with genetics. One might agree that there are no "memes" in nature - it's just our way to describe certain perceived phenomena. At the same time, Mr. Dawkins vehemently opposes other ideas created by humans such as God, Spirit, etc. How are "memes" more real than "spirits"?
Re: "From a biological angle the idea of free will makes sense because it has allowed us to think and ponder life apart from all the automatic, reactive, spontaneous, etc., responses that described nearly all of our routine behavior."
It seems to me, though, that abstract thinking is just a higher and more complex level of the same "automatic, reactive, spontaneous, etc. responses". E.g., we do not know how and why one thought or image brings up an association from our memory. This process seems to be fundamentally similar to the one that made Pavlov's dogs associate bell ringing with food.
Re: "I think the value of abstract thought is under valued by the convention wisdom of religion and those less tuned into biological and the concurrent cultural evolution it brought about."
I think, the level of abstract thinking in religion is underestimated by materialists. God, as I see it, is the highest abstraction of our human self.
Qab Dqab
Dawkins doesn't consider that they are. I think he would argue that neither physically exist other than in the firing of our synapses.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Anyway, just a side note. I don't mean to start a discussion on this topic here or offend anyone. This discussion can get heated very fast. It's just one of my ideas that I consider "worth spreading".
Dan F 50+
"Then, I'm puzzled why Dawkins opposes the idea of God... "
This is interesting. I want to pursue this a bit,
Its because Dawkins is a biologist with a diametrically conflicting world view based on the role biological evolution plays in our emergence as a species. Religion was and is presented with considerable factual details and appealing supplications that are in direct conflict and contrary to the biologist understanding of natural history.
I do think this diversion does tie to your question and position.
Is not the attraction of religion all about the appeal to one's free will? If you are willing to commit, ask for forgiveness and a few other things that free will to do so will be rewarded - and those who do not will be condemned forever.
Perhaps free will is best described and tested by this power and control struggle, although I like my explanation above best.
Thanks Qab I snuck in under your reply button and I liked your comments - thanks!
Dan F 50+
Although in accord with the likes of Dawkins , Harris, Pinker, et al (biologists with horsepower) I only speak for myself. I sure they would concur!
The point of the construct I made was to explain how free will came to be through evolution. It's a consequence of our realization (a developmental discovery) that we are mortal in a precious temporary circumstance, which reorients everything. Now we begin to see truths and acknowledge perspective, etc., that entails reflective thought. That developmental (evolutionary) progression in my mind introduces the concept and existence of free will by its liberating realizations of mysteries that abound and the perplexing thoughts and choices the unknowns foster on the individual emerging thought process.
Word definitions can have a life of their own. I don't deny free will is a neural activity. What I dismiss is that it can't be initiated by a creative spark enabled by a suspension of all the standard background thought triggering activity of personal conciseness or outside noise, fear, etc.
Admittedly, I like the idea of free will because if gives me hope for our earthly destiny.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I understand that each of us is confident that we have free will. Where does this confidence come from? I am getting convinced that it's just an impression similar to emotional feeling.
So, when you say that you believe that humans have free will, you seem to believe something without evidence, based on your emotional feeling. If you claim yourself to be an atheist, then it puzzles me why it's appropriate to believe without evidence in some things and not in the others.
This is something you may want to think about. I have been through this kind of debates a few times and they lead nowhere. There is no logic in circularity. Note, I don't argue that God or spirits exist. I'm well aware there is no evidence, burden of proof, etc.
I understand why Dawkins, as a biologist, is upset with creationism. However, spreading his frustration to religion in general seems like an unjustified generalization.
Colleen Steen 500+
You refer to free will as an emerging thought process and neural activity, which I agree with.
Arkady,
You write... "If we make our choices based on past experiences, these choices are not free. If we make choices randomly, we cannot really call them "will"."
If we perceive free will to be a thought process, based on neural activity, we understand that as a "process", it embraces ALL neural activity. I believe that is what the brain is for...store and sift through information, organize thoughts and processes so we can make better choices regarding the life experience.
As a "process" of neural activity, we can be MORE or LESS aware of how it functions. If I have serious choices to make, the decisions are based on ALL available information, so the "process" may be more in depth, and may very well include information from previous experiences. If the choice or decision is simple, like your example of vanilla or strawberry ice cream, the choice/decision may be very random.....and there are various ways to use the concept and process of free will, depending on the challenge or question we face.....make any sense?
You ask Arkady...where does our "confidence" in free will come from? It comes from application. If we are aware of a process in ourselves and use it, we recognize the existance of that process....just like we recognize the thinking process.....or not! For me, the fact that I DO think, and I DO make free will choices all the time, is evidence to me. If a person is not aware of the processes of the body/mind, they may have difficulty recognizing how they work. The idea that a person who does not believe in a god (me for example) can understand and embrace the process of free will, does not seem relevant to this conversation. In my perception, I DO INDEED have evidence of the process of free will in every moment of my life adventure, while I do not have evidence of a god.
Entropy Driven
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Don't take me wrong. I'm well aware that spirits are ideas (immaterial). And I appreciate that you admit that you (and I) might be completely wrong. :) My point was that if spirits are memes, then believing in memes is not much different than believing in spirits provided that we can tell an idea from its representation in reality.
Entropy Driven
Then I got your point well. So, my point still is that believing that there's memes is very different to believing that there's spirits, since memes are too evidently true. We can witness the ideas spread. Spirits, we can witness the idea of spirits spread, but spirits themselves? So, quite the difference. (I might still be missing something, but does not seem like that.)
(I do not think that ideas are "immaterial," but I rather not discuss that. Perhaps I should say instead that rather than dividing things into material and immaterial, to avoid fallacies of equivocation, we could describe things by what they are, rather than by what they are not. Example, ideas can be conceptual, or abstract. Not the same "immaterialness" that one could easily equivocate for "supernatural.")
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The dictionary has 25 definitions of the word "spirit". Some of them are, perhaps, archaic, but some are, certainly valid and make sense:
- an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
- spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits.
- excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit!
- temper or disposition: meek in spirit.
- an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.
- the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age.
- vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit.
- the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter): the spirit of the law.
I skip references to alcohol. These definitions, definitely, make sense to me. The first of these definitions is not much different from the "meme" concept.
Re: "we could describe things by what they are, rather than by what they are not." Describing what things are IS describing what they are not. You cannot do one without doing the other. http://logictutorial.com/ That's how our language works.
Mitch SMith 50+
The boundary is actually arbitrary, but helps ground-out a lot of the vagueness in discussion. There actually is no "metaspace" as it can all be pointed to, and observed, as physical phenomena.
So the arbitrary divide goes like this (it is an infinite loop):
Space: Senses.
Metaspace: Perception--> evaluation (there are lots of meta-fields within this)-->Agency
Space:Action
(repeat)
Perception and agency are the boundaries of metaspace. They define the entire realm in which memes, spirits and other meta phenomena are observed to operate.
The boundary formed by perception and agency define the domain of "self".
In neural-based organisms such as humans, the perception and agency systems are physically topological as defined by dynamic synaptic potentials. These systems are inherently adaptive - that is, basically, all they do - adapt. They are not particularly concerned with "truth" or "reality" beyond being close enough to persist into the next moment.
Neural systems have some known bugs. It is within these bugs that a lot of spurious perception arises. These shortcomings also provide an environmental niche for other patterns to take root. For instance: facebook. Facebook is a parasitic meta-creature that feeds on human agency - it extracts actual energy from each user sitting at a computer to keep itself alive into the next instant - it does this by exploiting the human gregarious function.
Facebook, in turn gives rise to other "selves" that feed on the wasted network potential that facebook excretes. Creatures such as market-targeting and secret-service intelligence bots - which have real perception/agency nodes that facebook does not posess.
When you look long and hard at things like memes, you see that there are a few phenotypes that depend on the magnitude of teh perception/agency function.
For instance, a computational series might give rise to a standing-wave persistence e.g. nyan cat.
Entropy Driven
But I think that once we reach the point of using dictionaries and arguing about semantics while losing from view the original problem we are not communicating any more. Have a nice conversation.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I agree that term "immaterial" opens the door for all kinds of nonsense. However, terms "conceptual", "abstract", and "ideas" are slightly different from what I understand as "spirit" as "spirit" is an idea loaded with intent, motivation, attitude, will. ("an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action") Ideas, in general, do not have this quality. Anyway, I agree that this discussion is not particularly useful, but I'm glad we could get down to the source of the disagreement and find common ground. :-)
Elizabeth Gu 30+
Again, Kant can give you an answer in some part.
Every choice we make reflects our inner desires or unpredicted coincidences including your childhood memory part.
And sometimes what we claim to be our free will can be subordinate to our emotions and desires.
If all our reasons are based on our own intuitions--we talked about it last time, remember? :) , then, I suppose free will is in itself “not independent”.
And I think there’s no free will unless all people think and act like Kant(He’s kind of uncanny, btw).
The word “free will” could be disguised by its sound.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
Arkady,
I really don't understand why the words "free" or "freedom" are confusing or a strange concept.
If we look at some of the elements of the definition...
"enjoying personal freedom: not subject to the control or domination of another; not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being; choosing or capable of choosing for itself; determined by the choice of the actor or by his wishes; given voluntarily or spontaneously: not bound, confined, or detrained by force..."
We use all of these concepts in our everyday life....or not....as we choose. We have that freedom....do we not?
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Forrest Gump: [voice over] That day, for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run. So I ran to the end of the road, and when I got there, I thought maybe I'd run to the end of town. And when I got there, I thought maybe I'd just run across Greenbow County. Now, thinking since I'd run this far, maybe I'd just run across the great state of Alabama. And that's what I did. I ran clear across Alabama. No particular reason. I just kept on going. I ran clear to the ocean. And when I got there, I figured since I'd gone this far, might as well turn around, just keep on going. And when I got to another ocean, I figured since I'd gone this far, I might as well just turn back and keep right on going. When I got tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate. When I had to go...you know... I went.
...
[reporters ask Forrest his reasons for running all this time]
Forrest Gump: [voice over] They just couldn't believe that somebody would do all that running for no reason.
Reporter: Why are you doing this?
Forrest Gump: I just felt like running.
...
[young man starts running and following Forrest]
Young Man: I mean, it was like an alarm went off in my head, you know. I said, here's a guy that's got his act together. Here's somebody who's got it, all figured out. Here's somebody who has the answer. I'll follow you anywhere, Mr. Gump.
...
[Forrest stops running and the group running behind him stops waiting expectantly]
Young Man: Quiet. Quiet. He's going to say something.
[Forrest pauses for a moment before speaking]
Forrest Gump: I'm pretty tired. I think I'll go home now.
[Forrest turns and the group parts for Forrest as he walks down the middle of the road]
Young Man: Now what are we supposed to do?
Forrest Gump: [voice over] And just like that, my runnin' days was over. So I went home to Alabama.
veronika petrics
2.There are no accidents even when there are 2 possible outcome is presented, nor are coincidences only co-incidences.
Free will on one hand does not seem free from "today"s point of view, but it is the result of a free will decision we made in the past. Therefore it seems not really free.
Also it is relative, because we are controlled by our 3D physical bodies, the untrained , separate function of the 2 hemisphere of the brain , environment etc.
3. Our free will is as free as the scope of our overall depth and awareness of our consciousness
Eric Luther
Hemispherectomy information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy
Lateralization of Brain function information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function
Point 2 is also False. An accident is when an intention is undermined by circumstances. Accidents account for a lot of the day to day work for an emergency room doctor. It keeps the insurance business alive. That everything "happens for a reason" is called the principle of sufficient reason. There is no requirement that the reason has to be immediately knowable to humans close to the situation or humans proper, however, and given our limited sensory and critical faculties we have reason to suspect that there are a lot of accidents in our lives we either don't register or we rationalize through a worldview. There should be no comfort in the fact that everything happens for SOME reason, but instead realistic resignation seems more appropriate.
Point 3: Replace "free will" with choice, and we are probably in agreement.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
"A. Smith 1987, demonstrated that one patient with this procedure had completed college, attended graduate school and scored above average on intelligence tests. Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality, or humor after the procedure,[2] and minimal changes in cognitive function overall."
Brain damage in adults has more permanent consequences, because adult brain cannot reconfigure itself and restore all the damaged connections.
This, of course, does not prove that mind is independent of the brain. Apparently, if the whole brain is removed, the person would die.
I don't think it's worth to argue whether mind is a product of the brain or brain is a conduit for a mind. Both of these phrases seem like a figure of speech to me.
Point #2 is, essentially, a "determinism" vs. "free will" argument which is circular at the core. A brief look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) shows that this question is fundamentally messed up. I agree with your comment that "free will" is a nonsense term. Essentially, it is a feeling, and we "have" it as much as we have "compassion", for example. This is, essentially, what I tried to understand and confirm, because I hear from materialists all the time that "we can make moral choices without religion" and that puzzled me a lot. Now I, sort of, understand what is meant by that phrase :)
Eric Luther
Believing that having free will matters ratchets up the emotions associated with our choices. It enhances the pleasure of success, the righteous anger at someone who chooses in a way differently from how we would , and the guilt of doing X,Y, or Z. Emotions are not reliable indicators of anything except internal states, they do not reflect the world around us. The weather does not change when we are sad, but the weather can lead us to feel sad. The notion of free will is just another example of man misunderstanding his place in the physical universe.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It seems to be similar to a multiple choice test. If we studied for the test, the choice is determined by our knowledge. If not, it's random. "Free" seems to be a misnomer. "Freedom", in general, is an elusive concept.
Comment deleted
Ken brown 30+
I call it this as i dated a twin that was completely opposite to her sister. One was reactive and the other was rational yet they could feel when one was in strife. Twins are certainly interesting.
Ken brown 30+
Daniel Stones
Our consciousness is created from the network neurons in our brains but that doesn't eliminate free will. For your above example, what if somebody had never tried one of those flavors and decided to do so? If all we did was act on previous encounters surely we would just pick the same one every time that we already knew we liked?
Comment deleted
Daniel Stones
I had another thought after my post above to further illustrate the idea that we aren't simply acting solely on past experience and conditioning. In this society we always teach children to be good and act in a way that is beneficial to everyone else yes? Why then do we still get some people who behave in an undesirable way? Some children still bully others, people who have perfectly normal functioning brains and who were brought up in a normal family will still sometimes grow up to commit crimes. Surely this shows that at some point they made a choice to go completely against their conditioning in early life?
chen xin
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
In your example with a worker vs. machine, the reason a worker may come up with a better algorithm is that experience may create an association in his brain that would suggest a better solution.
This does not mean we don't have "free will". We still have capability to change our environment. However, "free" is, perhaps, a poor name for it.
Daniel Stones
I also agree that "free" is not a good way of expressing what we mean my the term "free will". This suggests that we have some conscious part of ourselves completely separate from everything else, something not linked to our physical being which I very much doubt is the case.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
From what I read in Julian Jaynes's book "The Origin of Consciousness", the process of associating ideas is subconscious. Even when we aware of the association, we often do not consciously create it or recall it. There is also an Internet article by an animal scientist regarding animal thinking (http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html) which implies the same:
"A horse trainer once said to me, "Animals don't think, they just make associations." I responded to that by saying, "If making associations is not thinking, then I would have to conclude that I do not think." People with autism and animals both think by making visual associations. These associations are like snapshots of events and tend to be very specific. For example, a horse might fear bearded men when it sees one in the barn, but bearded men might be tolerated in the riding arena. In this situation the horse may only fear bearded men in the barn because he may have had a bad past experience in the barn with a bearded man."
My point is that when an idea appears to be new, it's probably, based on some implicit memory we are not aware of.
It may be an easy and useful way to think of our mind as separate from our body. It allows us to make a distinction between our ideas and the real things they symbolize. I don't think, there is anything wrong in describing reality that way. Our ideas are always just a reflection of reality, never 100% accurate. So, I don't object to using such concepts as "free will", "mind", "God", or "spirits". None of those concepts reflect reality accurately, anyway. I'm a utilitarianist in this respect.
Daniel Stones
In my opinion even if all these ideas and decisions are created by the subconscious mind through association the fact that we the consciously recognise the fact that we have an idea or that we have multiple decisions to choose from shows free will exists. I think that if instead we only ever saw one decision for any scenario that this would be a lack of free will, the fact that sometimes we find a decision very hard to make sometimes further reinforces it for me since we, the conscious mind, have to think to make a decision.
I accept however that others see that since all our thoughts and ideas may in fact be the product of subconscious information associations that this removes the "free will" aspect as we don't control the creation of these ideas.
Roy Bourque 20+
You use an example that has no real consequences. There isn't much thought that goes into which flavor to choose.
Free will comes into play when we make choices that have real consequences. Now we have to think about it. We have to weigh the pros with the cons; what will we gain, what might we lose? The choice we make may decide our fate. There is a lot of neural activity going on during these decisions. Saying that we don't have free will is like saying that the weather is entirely predictable if we make the model accurate enough. I don't think that such a model is possible. There are too many variables that could go either way.
That being said, I have made many choices that I now realize were preconditioned responses. I played the cards I was dealt in life, but I was not the dealer. What my parents taught me and what school taught me prepared my knowledge base. I had little choice until I graduated school. Once I was on my own, now I could choose where I would go. Most of my choices stemmed from childhood dreams and desires. I was fulfilling ambitions that I was exposed to during my early years. Environmental conditioning played a great part in setting the stage. By the time I had full control over what choices I made, I was already pre-programmed.
I had a choice in what TED talks I could respond to. I chose your topic because it appealed to my curiosity. Why I am on TED at all is because I stumbled upon it while doing an internet search for an author to a book that I had read. I read the book in response to a childhood experience. The title of the book was "A History of God".
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It seems that free will is a feeling that comes from the memories of past experiences that we did not choose to have.
Roy Bourque 20+
We make decisions based on peer pressure and past memories. How much was choice and how much was going with the flow we may never know. I like to believe that as our understanding of things gets deeper, our choices become more refined. In that respect, we begin to shape future events and not just allow them to happen.
Free will may be an acquired ability and not just something that we have or don't have.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Mats, Coleen, and I have addressed this somewhere below. It's controversial as well.
Colleen Steen 500+
We have indeed addressed this a little bit, and Roy brings new information to the discussion.
First of all, he points out that "You are finding connectedness in things, which is very insightful".
In the beginning of this discussion, Arkady, you were saying it is nonsense, confusing, etc. You are not saying that any more.
Roy also points out that "as our understanding of things gets deeper, our choices become more refined. In that respect, we begin to shape future events and not just allow them to happen.
We begin to REALIZE more about the concept of free will?
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Still, there is a question whether we can learn how to feel. Most likely, the answer is "if we feel that we can learn, then we can."
Adriaan Braam 20+
The title is "Free-will, Repentance, Reformation and Regeneration"
I can send it to anyone that would like to have a look.
It was written in 1880 but matter and spirit (and life) have not changed.
Just send me an email
Have a great weekend
Colleen Steen 500+
This is in response to your statement.....
"Still, there is a question whether we can learn how to feel. Most likely, the answer is "if we feel that we can learn, then we can."
I agree..."if we feel that we can learn, then we can":>)
I had the opportunity, while co-facilitating "cognitive self change" sessions with offenders who were incarcerated, to observe that we (humans) can indeed learn different ways to "feel".
One of the first questions I asked at the beginning of the sessions was..."what were you thinking or feeling when you committed the crime?" The answer was often..."nothing....wasn't thinking or feeling anything".
One of our main goals, was to get the offenders to be aware of their thoughts and feelings and how it impacted their actions, and what the ramifications and consequences were to themselves.
They often said things like....it is the system that is screwed up...that's why I'm here....it was his/her fault for making me angry.....that's why I beat him/her up....etc. etc...
They gave up their ability to make good decisions for themselves, and gave responsibility for the actions to someone or something outside themselves. Our mission was to get them to realize that the choices they made for themselves directly impacted their lives. Sometimes, we were successful, and they experimented with some of the concepts and ideas while still incarcerated.
Sometimes, they actually thought about, and felt the consequenses of fighting with other inmates or with correctional officers for example. Once they thought about and felt the ramifications to themselves, they often changed their choice of behavior.
So I believe very strongly that we CAN think and feel differently when we give it our attention. Even while incarcerated (not free in some respects), they had the ability (free will) to change their thoughts and feelings, which impacted their life experiences:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Feelings create desires, desires create will to do something. If we feel that outside things and circumstances affect us, we get a desire to change these things - people or circumstances. So, when I think "you make me angry", my focus is on changing "you". But, since, I do not exercise any self-control, I'm powerless to change anything. I become a slave to my anger. Usually, this leads to making the situation worse.
But when I think "I'm getting angry", my focus is on changing my own reaction. And, once I exercise self-control, I get more power to change the situation. In a sense, I give up the idea that I can change other people or external circumstances (my free will) and realize that I do not control them ("let go"). Often, as we simply control ourselves, most "situations" and "issues" in our life simply disappear, just by the power of "letting go".
It's easier to say than to practice, though :)
Colleen Steen 500+
Well said. With your insightful description above, are you exercising "self-control"? Or are you exercising acceptance? Think about your statements in another comment regarding "what ought" and "what is".
If we embrace the concept that "what is" (the idea/reality that an external force does not cause our anger for example) are we practicing self-control? Or acceptance? In my perception, it is acceptance. So, we let go of our perception of "what ought" to be (our expectations), and accept "what is"? I think/feel we have the free will to do that! :>)
The more we practice, the easier and more enjoyable it becomes....I can vouch for that my friend!!!
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
This is one of my favorite videos: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html. Dan Dennett talks about consciousness, perception of reality, expectations, and disappointment. The funniest part is the comments. People expected him to explain how consciousness works and he only explained that what we perceive is our expectations, not reality And, boy, are they disappointed!
As I expressed earlier, the key to internal peace is to bring "what ought" together with "what is". By letting go of some subjective "what oughts" we start perceiving reality more accurately and we begin to sort out real issues (pain and suffering) from imaginary ones.
My son once took a martial arts class. They had a simple game called "jump and duck" where the students stood in a circle, and the teacher was slowly swinging a long pole around him below, by the feet, or above, by the heads. He could raise or lower the pole unexpectedly. He stated the rules very clearly: "if it goes by your feet, jump; if it goes by your head, duck". The students were only confused and lost when they acted on their expectations instead of perceiving what's going on and reacting to real events. Another examples of how our reactions become more effective if we "let go" of our expectations.
Colleen Steen 500+
How it relates to the "free will' topic.....
We can struggle, be confused, resist and fight against something, OR we can make the choice to recognize our strength (being aware, mindful and fully present in the moment - act/react to real events as you say) and "yield" (accept) those things we cannot change. Like you said previously....we cannot change someone else, so what's the point in "spending" our energy trying to do so?
A mantra that I use a LOT is called the "serenity prayer", and when I say it, I am not praying to anyone...I'm simply reminding myself...
"Grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference".
We all have the ability to explore our "self", and have this information. If we do not believe in it, then it does not exist in our reality. If we DO believe in it, it is a HUGE benefit when navigating the life adventure...in my humble opinion:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Re: "If we do not believe in it, then it does not exist in our reality." Yes. You just emphasized the importance of faith, much questioned these days.
Colleen Steen 500+
Good point...it is a statement of a goal or intention:>) If one believes in a god, and addresses it to that god, it may add an element of acceptance of "god's will".....I do not believe that, and it's fine with me if others make the free will choice to believe in a god.....AS LONG AS THAT BELIEF, AND ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THAT BELIEF, DO NOT ADVERSLY IMPACT OTHER PEOPLE.
I don't take your words as critisism...I think I understand you too, and respect your choice of beliefs FOR YOU:>)
elizabeth muncey 10+
Yuri Gomez
We see that thought is neural activity in the brain, it then seems to be assumed that all the neural activity in the brain is thought. Therefore thought is all activity in the brain and objectively telling us how things are. But "Introspection illusion" tells us that is not accurate. Thought doesn't know what's going on when introspection is tried.
The associations and connections by stimulus which I call "conditioning" seems to be in agreement with scientific findings. Then I can say that thought works as a system, it just happen.
But, If being aware of the conditioning at the moment it unfolds is possible, then conditioning is there, but also that is not all.
Then thought is not all, is not as objective as it seems to be. Thought is not what we think it is.
If thought is just starting to be grasped, answering a question that involves thought, doesn't seem accurate.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Yuri Gomez
What I'm just saying is that if thought is conditioned, then there would be implicit thoughts. Thus thought is affecting what we see; or the way we think about things affects how we see them.
natasha nikulina 50+
I don't know either , maybe thoughts are quantum ripples and quantum ripples are thoughts. Thoughts can only take on 'shape' when you concentrate on them, iow, a thought only becomes ' real' when you ' see' it in your mind. If you focus on a thought, other thoughts blur, so you always have a fraction of the whole picture ; the very act of fixing/shaping it via language separates it from the flow and makes it less true. And " the way we think about things affects how we see them " so, it's a kind of a vicious circle. That's why in the very act of thinking about free will , we lose its meaning and replace it with freedom of choice.
And free will is in a good company here :) Can we define/understand/explain Truth Love God ...Free Will , Infinity ?
But we tend to come up with explanations for things we don't really have an explanation for.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
And it is also true for some things that the harder we try to explain them, the more we lose the meaning and find ourselves saying nonsense.
Colleen Steen 500+
"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes..."
(Marcel Proust)
Perhaps our discussions, like this one, open the door to let more light in that "dark room":>)
Maybe the reason it may feel difficult to "explain" some of these things, is because we may be trying to make logical sense of something that may not work in a human logical way....or does it?
When we expand our thinking/feeling processes, and cease trying to seperate the different parts of the processes and systems, we may "see" and experience more. We (humans) sometimes get in our own way by staying in that "dark room" (as far as perceptions go), rather than simply opening the door to allow light. If we want the computer (our brain) to work, we need to know how to turn it on, and choose which programs we want to use at any given time...sounds like free will doesn't it? :>)
Yuri Gomez
Perhaps that's why this notion of free will is confusing. There's something that seems to be missing I would say, it is in the nature of thought.
Yuri Gomez
Yes, we tend to come up with explanations for things we don't really have an explanation for. or thought tends to come up with explanations because it got used to. :-)
Regards...
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel you are demonstrating why this topic may seem confusing. While you are bringing everything together, recognizing that it is a "system", you are also seperating parts of the system.
Your statements:
"Thought doesn't know what's going on when introspection is tried".
"Then I can say that thought works as a system"
"But, If being aware of the conditioning at the moment it unfolds is possible, then conditioning is there, but also that is not all."
" the way we think about things affects how we see them".
"it does not seem that we control which association would come to our mind for any particular thought".
I suggest that when we "know" ourselves well, thought, introspection, being aware of the conditioning at the moment it unfolds are one and the same...it works as a system, as you insightfully say:>)
That being said, I agree...
"the way we think about things affects how we see them" AND we CAN "control which association we USE, as ALL information "would come to our mind for any particular thought".
I perceive the mind/brain to be similar to a computer, which has energy running through it with information all the time, and can also store information. As multi-sensory, multi dimensional humans, we have the ability to choose what we think about, and how we use the information at any given time. So if we are aware of our abilities and use them effectively, we see that we have choices regarding how we use the system, and we recognize the interconnectedness:>)
Yuri Gomez
I feel the same too. Seems to be difficult trying to put into words some perceptions. :D
"when we "know" ourselves well, thought, introspection, being aware of the conditioning at the moment it unfolds are one and the same". In a way, I could say it is.
When I said thought is conditioned reflex I mean there is a misperception on thought, then thought became the most important, and it is said: "I think, without any influence", "I objectively think". is that a fact? or is an idea, a belief?.
So, if thought works as conditioned reflex, then it just happens. But it does not mean we're doomed. Thought as part of a system is not all, there is more. But this more is not thought, it is not conditioned.
Colleen Steen 500+
Our thought process CAN work as a conditioned reflex, or, we can be more mindful and aware of how our thought process works (this may be the "more" you are refering to?)....it's a choice, in my humble perception:>)
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
This leaves me puzzled again. So, according to Jacque Fresco, there is no free will. We are conditioned by society, nature, etc. to behave certain way in certain situations which appears to us as our choice, but, in fact, we act on past memories. As he puts it, it is a proud opinion of humans that they have free will.
This brings me back to the garden of Eden and the original sin. The story, kind of, tells us that it was proud of humans not to trust God that they would die if they eat from the tree of knowledge. At the same time, "free will" is praised to give humans a "choice" to choose good. So, having free will is proud (according to Jaque's materialist view as well), but without free will, we would not be able to choose any good.
It does seem to me that without this "feeling of having a free will", we would not have "feelings of good and bad" either.
There is another paradox in the video. If there is no free will, criminals cannot be held responsible for criminal behavior. Yet, they are punished so that next time they make the right choice. Then, what is the purpose of capital punishment? There is no "next time" after death... To teach others? But how can others be taught without being punished themselves? Following this logic, public brutal executions served more the purpose of teaching others than "humane lethal injection" behind closed doors. Is it just me or is it really that messed up?
This is hopeless... :-)
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Yes, but these keep changing as people are subject to many different environments.
"It does seem to me that without this "feeling of having a free will", we would not have "feelings of good and bad" either."
You're absolutely right. The brain can't differentiate or decipher between good and bad. The notion of good and bad usually stem from religion thus from the environment.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I agree. This is what I get from Hume's empiricism as well. There is another controversy here, whether morality can follow from science or reason, but that's a different story.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Yes, it is messed up. The current dominant punishment system is based on the belief that "free will" exist. "Criminals" can't be held responsible for their actions, because all values thus behaviors and actions stem from the environment and are not fixed. Also, punishment never works. Dr. James Gilligan, best known for his series of books entitled Violence, where he draws on 25 years of work in the American prison system to describe the motivation and causes behind violent behavior realized that it actually had the opposite effect. That punishment "is the most powerful stimulant of violence that we have discovered yet." Here's a little clip where he talks about just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMSsi4Krd5Q If this is an interesting topic to you, I encourage you to explore more of Dr. Gilligan's work on violence, he is truly amazing.
Colleen Steen 500+
Colleen Steen 500+
I only watched about half of the video in which Jacque Fresco compared free will to the way mechanical things, like tires, lawn mowers, wind turbines, etc. operate, and how they fail when something is wrong. He says that choices are made because of cause, and I agree that "cause" affects choices. He also says that all things in nature are subject to natural force, which I also agree with.
Although some mechanical operations can in some way be compared to how the body/mind works, I do not perceive a connection to free will in humans. Humans are multi-sensory, multi-dimensional beings, with the ability to think, feel, reason, take in information and act/react according their desires, which mechanical "things" cannot do.
So, I agree with a comparison of human being to mechanical "things" in that we are all subject to natural forces, and the internal components need to work together to function, and for me, the comparison ends there. Mechanical things do not have the ability to think, feel, take in information, have ideas or opinions, etc. In my perception, mechanical "things" do not have choices.
I agree Ardady, that free will is a feeling, which I said in my first comment. If I "FEEL" that I have free will, then I have it...if I do not feel that I have it, I don't have it. While everything, including human beings, are subject to natural forces, as multi-sensory, multi- dimensional beings, we have choices, which we can make based on information, whereas mechanical "things" do not have that choice.....as far as I know:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
This is the issue I discuss in another question here "Is artificial intelligence possible without pain and pleasure?" (i.e. feelings and emotions) http://www.ted.com/conversations/14279/is_artificial_intelligence_pos.html
I have not seen a convincing argument yet. People suggest that it may be possible to create a machine capable to survive and reproduce (even an amoeba can do that), but my question is why would a machine have motivation to send a probe to Mars or write a piece of music (something that is way beyond basic survival needs). Whence would a machine get motivation to do anything unless it is turned on and programmed to perform a task? Machines can make "choices" based on information, but how would they choose a purpose for their activity?
Dave Keats
I'll go slightly off topic here, and say that criminals are obviously not punished solely for the (perceived) “therapeutic” benefits of that punishment. They are also punished to protect others. They are punished because they pose a real threat (of some kind) to society.
So, regardless of whether the criminals freely chose to behave as they did, they still exhibited that behaviour. And, our legal system needs to maintain order, and help protect citizens from those that would do them harm.
I understand that I have not addressed the idea of capital punishment versus lifetime imprisonment. I'm not sure if I can tackle that one. I have the same question that you have.
Anyway, I just wanted to “come from a different direction” and interject a comment about the punishment of criminals. That's all.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
I am just dismayed when I read statements that over simplify complex systems.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
You might see the implication for our entitlement for happiness. We can feel free to feel good. Don't you think?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Colleen Steen 500+
Yes, we have a choice as to whether or not we will hold onto emotions, or exercise free will in using emotions productively. Yes, I agree that "some people are grouches regardless of their physical condition"....it is a choice:>) Those who choose to hang onto the "grouchy" emotions are making a choice to do so.....free will.
Yes, we can acquire skills or tools to change our demeanor. It does not necessarily require somebody to teach us the skills, it requires free will to choose to learn the skills, and in my humble perception, the "right" environment is whatever environment we are in at any given time:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
We cannot do more than we can until we do it... Do we choose how to feel or do we feel what to choose? Perhaps, feeling IS choosing.
Frans Kellner 100+
A bird that sees an opportunity on a spot what is known to provide a good pick reacts to the urge to go hither while a man can think and tell himself it is too far and maybe a different direction could provide unknown riches. This may be or may not be the case but let him explore to find among failures also some new opportunities.
So the "knowledge of good and evil" is to disobey the natural impulse said to be the voice of God.
Colleen Steen 500+
I believe it is the thoughts and deliberations with ourselves that often feel confusing and circular. The more we "Know Thyself", the better chance we have of recognizing this process:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
You say..."we are getting into a circularity again". I do not feel like I am in a "circularity".
I agree with you and Mats, that exposure to examples of anything, generally provides more information, and a person can choose to learn, or not. Each person may choose, based on individual underlying beliefs, intent, goals, etc. How is that circularity?
You write..."We might say that grouches "choose" to be unhappy, but do they, really? Depressed people don't really choose to be depressed and it does not seem that all can master emotional self-control to avoid depression. I.e., we do not choose whether we learn self-control and free will or not... or do we? If free will is a feeling, can we learn how to feel?"
You seem to be intertwining "grouches" with depressed people, and I prefer not to do that. I've met quite a few depressed people who are generally not grouchy.
There are many levels of depression, and each situation is different in some respects, so I prefer not to generalize regarding depression. In the instance of clinical depression for example, there is often an imbalance in the chemicals of the body, and in that case a person MAY NOT be able to make choices for him/herself.
As normal (whatever that is!) functioning adults, I believe we have many choices regarding free will, and how we choose to feel at any given time. The more we learn about our "self" the better chance of understanding where certain thoughts, feelings, beliefs, ideas, opinions and actions/reactions come from. It could be "programmed" information from parents, society, religion, etc. Information we get from past experiences, information from our logical thought process, and/or intuition/instinct.
You write..."We cannot do more than we can until we do it... Do we choose how to feel or do we feel what to choose? I'm lost again... "
In my perception, choosing and feeling work interconnectedly. We are multi-sensory, mult- dimensional humans. You are an explorer....not lost:>)
chen xin
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I have hard time understanding myself. I feel, I could write campaign speeches for presidential candidates: "feel free to feel as we please" and "free will is a choice" would make a good political speech :-).
Colleen Steen 500+
Our decisions are definitely "influenced" by others and our surroundings, AND I suggest that within those boundaries, we have LOTS of free will to make many different choices.
I agree Arkady, that how we feel affects our behavior, and we have a choice regarding how we feel....yes?
Comment deleted
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Re: "We used to think that the hard part of the question “How can I be happy?” had to do with nailing down the definition of happy. But it may have more to do with the definition of I." Hmm... surprise, surprise. The answer seems to be so trivial that it sounds like a revelation: "I am who I am". :-)
Re: "it provides a useful framework for thinking about the increasingly popular position that people would be better off if governments and businesses helped them inhibit certain gut feelings and emotional reactions." -- isn't this what religion was always doing - letting go of worry, anger, bitterness? If gone wrong, religion can also suppress good emotional impulses as mentioned at the end of the article on example of terrorism.
Re. imaginary friends: "First, contrary to some stereotypes, children who have imaginary friends are not losers, loners, or borderline psychotics. If anything, they are slightly more socially adept than other children. Second, the children are in no way deluded: Taylor has rarely met a child who wasn’t fully aware that the character lived only in his or her own imagination. And third, the imaginary friends are genuinely different selves."
Reminds, again, of Jesus. A lot of people call believers delusional for "talking to God", but it's just not true. I think, it's a perfectly normal and acceptable method of self-regulation.
Thank you very much for sharing the article :-)
Marshal Tucker
Colleen Steen 500+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/first-person-plural/307055/
The notion of multiple personalities inside our head brings up a question: is it reasonable to say that a nation or a community (e.g. a church) has "free will"?
It hardly can be said that a neuron has a personality or a will - it's just a cell. But if trillions of neurons or millions of people collectively can be said to "have free will", can the same be said of the universe? Then, don't we come to Pat's idea of a universal "free will" (except that it cannot exist without matter)? Isn't this idea, then, similar to what Coleen calls "energy" or Christians call "the Holy Spirit"?
Frans Kellner 100+
For me the universe is the actual expression of Being - within which life consciously participates.
Human consciousness only is a top layer of life's consciousness which became possible after the enclosure of a self sustaining process within a cellular membrane. This process involves a chemical communication through that membrane to take in and release molecules as needed to sustain life. Knowledge of the availability and necessity of particular molecules is primeval. Multi cellular organisms just are strategies to be more efficient for this perpetuation of the one cell.
That’s why I can’t go in on your other question about robotics which to me can never go beyond simulation. Behind life there’s a motivating force perpetuating awareness and expanding consciousness unto where it encompasses the universe. No manmade object ever will have any properties that equals consciousness because they are units while life and the universe is a unity.
Perception is an act that involves the perceived and the perceiver by which any organism only functions as a modulator for how it is perceived.
Colleen Steen 500+
Regarding multiple personalities...
I suggest that we all have many different personas and characteristics, and each individual will often focus on one, two or several, as his/her identity. The many different "parts" of our "self" are what give us the ability to reach out to others with compassion and empathy. What causes genuine compassion/empathy? We need to "feel" what another person is feeling? Imagine ourselves in another person's situation? Even though we may not completely "know" what another person is feeling, we can imagine, or speculate because of the different personas or characteristics that we may not get in touch with on a daily basis as part of who we are....make any sense? I ask this...."make any sense", because if something does NOT make sense on a logical basis, we will not accept or understand it.
The article you mention, starts out by saying..."we each have multiple selves- all with different desires and all fighting for control".
I didn't even read any further, because I do not agree with the very first statement, and I think it sends a counterproductive message.
As I said in the beginning of this comment, I believe we have many different personas, and if we understand this, they can work together, rather than having "different desires and all fighting for control".
We CAN have the will, and we DO have the freedom, to decide if we allow different "parts" of our "self" to work together (mindfully aware), or if we are going to allow those personas to constantly fight against each other.
I say we CAN bring ourselves together as a nation or community to work toward similar goals. This would involve the free will choices on the part of members of a group. Yes, I agree that there is a "universal free will", and I also agree that it is the same as what I call energy, and what some people may call spirit, soul, etc. I believe that the terms spirit, soul, god, etc., were created by humans to try to explain the energy that flows through us
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Theodore, there are things which come into existence solely because we believe they exist. E.g. values, rights, love, or happiness. Free will seems to belong in that category as well. We are happy when we believe we are happy. When Coleen says, "I believe, I have free will", she does, which she was able to demonstrate by choosing not to read the article :-).
Colleen Steen 500+
I have the free will and the right to CHOOSE what I want to read....preferably without harrassment from you. I do not respond favorably to people who tell me what I "should" do.....I have free will.
I see no purpose whatsoever in continuing a conversation with me, and I would appreciate it if you did not continue to try. As you may, or may not have noticed, I have not been responding to your comments, because you seem to want to be controversial, and that does not interest me.
I actually HAVE NOT been dismissive of anyone's point of view. I simply used my free will to NOT read a document you provided. Thank you for the opportunity to test my patience:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
I am NOT dismissive of anything, or anyone. I chose not to read an article that you submitted as "proof" of something....get over it!
You wrote..."What is the purpose at this point of continuing in a conversation with you when your only interest is to spout your point of view and are dismissive of my point of view or those of others?"
I responded..."I see no purpose whatsoever in continuing a conversation with me..."
Theodore, YOU have suggested TWICE that there is no point in continuing conversation with me, and yet you keep coming back to me, apparently for the purpose of berating me?
I KNOW what the conversation is about Theodore, and I am participating with comments that are on topic. Declaring that I have free will DOES INDEED make it SO...FOR ME. If you choose NOT to believe that you have free will, I respect YOUR choice for YOU. That is PRECISELY why I speak about me, and me alone. Each and every individual makes a choice for him/her "self", and I do not presume to speak as a representative of "WE". If you want to try to speak for EVERYONE, go ahead.....how's that working for you so far?
Theodore, the information I share is from 60+ years of the exploration of life, reading hundreds of books written by sages, teachers, gurus, philosophers, psychologists, etc. etc, attending and facilitating hundreds of workshops, discussion groups and support groups, guest lecturing at univ., and various other institutions of learning, interacting with people who are incarcerated, in shelters, in terminal care facilities, etc. etc. etc. I have faced life AND death with gusto. The MOST IMPORTANT for me, is that I have applied the information that has come to me with various life experiences, and that is something each and every one of us can do.....if we choose.
If you want to have a respectful, interactive conversation, I am happy to participate with you. Otherwise, stop harrassing me NOW.
natasha nikulina 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Associations with the Bible come up: "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." and the original sin story.
"Spiritual blindness" in NT seems to refer to not knowing our own good - being unaware of the constrains. Once we are aware of the constrains, ignoring them causes moral issues: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins." This seems like a simple recommendation to exercise more self-control over our subconscious and associates with the concepts of "unreliability of introspection" and "choice blindness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion.
Again, I need to make a disclaimer that I do not argue for the existence of God, but simply point out that Bible seems to have deep insights into our mind which are now being researched by neuroscience. The question, of course, remains whether the texts had this meaning originally or we give them the new meaning as we go...
Colleen Steen 500+
There is a theory that the human life experience is an illusion...(a misleading image presented to the vision; perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretations of its actual nature; a pattern capable of reversible perspective).
I do not agree that there are ALWAYS constrains to our choices. We are sometimes limited because of the physical reality of a situation, however, we still have choices regarding HOW we interpret and feel about any situation. I believe an underlying factor regarding our perception of constraints, is, as you insightfully say..."knowingly or "unknowingly".
Regarding your statement that the..."...Bible seems to have deep insights into our mind which are now being researched by neuroscience."
I suggest that the bible, like many other books, reflect many human behaviors that have been apparent since the beginning of humankind. Science has evolved, and we now have the capabilities through technology, to explain some human behaviors. I do not agree that the bible, or any other book has "deep insights into our mind..."
I make my own decisions and choices based on information I have in any given moment, so I feel very strongly that I do have free will. If one is allowing someone else to make choices/decisions for him/her, it seems like s/he is giving up an opportunity to experience free will. If we don't make our own choices, someone else will!
pat gilbert 50+
Regarding Kathryn Schultz's talk (which is one of the best on TED) she made the decision to assume that the picnic table symbol was a Chinese symbol.
Regarding free will I think the correct question is What is organic to man? I don't think memes, culture, training, mental pictures, or genetics are organic to man. So much of this talk is based on a false premise and assumption.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
To this I agree. There is no difference between having an emotion and feeling it. This seems to resolve the contradiction - we have free will, because we feel so.
I would say "free will is a choice" (a circularity again). We have it when we believe we have it. Same goes for faith and happiness :-).
Colleen Steen 500+
I HAVE what I FEEL I HAVE. Of course our decisions are influenced by information we have, or do not have. I said that in my comment! I repeat..."I make my own decisions and choices based on information I have in any given moment..."
No, my friends DO NOT make me fat because I CHOOSE to be healthy, rather than fat.
I DO NOT blame others for my feelings. If you do, that is YOUR issue!!!
I understand MYSELF Theodore, and there is nothing I "need to clarify".
If YOUR "freedom of choice is limited to the wrong choices", that also is YOUR issue!
If you believe that "free will is a component of philosophical thinking that might not be valid any longer", that is something that you might want to clarify and understand in yourself.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
"I have"..."I feel"...."I choose"...."I do not"...."myself".........
These are all words which are human constructs, created to express ourselves as humans.
When I speak of "I", it is the physical body of the human named Colleen, and yes...a bunch of neurons making connections. I believe we are a material body, fueled by energy. It is the interconnected energy flowing through me that causes it (me) to be interconnected with all that is, and open to many possibilities....including the choice of free will...in my humble perception:>)
Often, I feel that people try to make this WAY too complicated! You ask..." Is consciousness or will even necessary for us to operate?" Depends on how one wants to operate:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
natasha nikulina 50+
I like your interpretation of the myth of the fall. "eating from the tree of knowledge" made a 'being ' aware of being aware, it pushed us into Time, it gave rise to ego intellect and made us ' subjectively ' mortal. It gave us the power to create our own world ( illusion, maya , where we grow old and die ) and with power came the possibility to abuse power. And here we are ! But I don't think we are tainted by sin, it's just the way , one probability among infinite potentially existing probabilities.
We are chosen inside out iow we are the choice and the chooser. We were 'out' quite a while and now we feel the necessity to go 'in'. Inside we may find free will " God is within " ; if we stay 'out', we'll multiply choices, but i don't think we have millennia gently unfolding in front of us, iow . we can't afford it any longer .
I see it like this, it doesn't mean that i think it is true :)
Re : to exercise more self-control over our subconscious
I don't think we should seek control over our subconsciousness . Can you control your dreams ?
Maybe we should do the reverse , i mean , we'd better to learn to 'unfocus' our mind and let the right hemisphere, intuition connect the dots.
It may help to dissolve ego and make us wise.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Go figure... It's both ways again :-) Most likely, we should exercise more control over ourselves by "letting it go" (subjecting ourselves to the will of God, speaking metaphorically). Power through submission, so to speak... If that makes any sense, which I doubt. :)
natasha nikulina 50+
OK, you are right, " should " was definitely a wrong choice there :)
It may happen when it may happen.
" Let the chips fall where they may "
Colleen Steen 500+
In my belief and perception, you have hit on an important element regarding this question..."exercise more control" and "letting it go". I suggest that we can experience "more control" when we are mindfully aware and "know" ourselves. I also agree that to recognize our capabilities regarding free will, it is sometimes helpful to let go of the need to control, and surrender to reality, as we know it, or believe it to be. In other words, we have the ability and free will to make certain choices and decisions, and it helps to know exactly what we have control of, and what we do not have control of.....make any sense?
Regarding your statement:
"Coleen, to know how one wants to operate, one needs some sort of will :) It's hopeless, there is no way out of this nonsense... "
Perhaps the "way out", is actually the way IN. When we explore deeply in our "self" there is a much better chance of understanding ourselves, other people, and the world we live in, all of which gives us information to make better choices and decisions.....free will:>)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Makes perfect sense to me, Coleen (whatever it means to "make sense" - another 'feeling' without meaning. People who make sense often don't have it :). In other words, forget "what ought" and experience "what is". This attitude might solve a lot of social problems.
Re: "Perhaps the "way out", is actually the way IN." Yes. "The road up and the road down is the same road." I "feel", our opinions are converging! :)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
― Hermann Hesse
Comment deleted
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
However, it's hard to deny that we are capable of long-term planning. E.g. I can say what I plan to do in 1 hour from now and, if circumstances do not change, I can do it. How does that process work? How do people do strategic planning of complex projects? I doubt, there are any neurological studies on that. The technology is too young, and it may be difficult to find out which exact process in my brain corresponds to long-term planning of a specific project.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"The Bible was compiled so that there was only one way to interpret it. That is the whole point."
Sorry, but what do you base that on??
What if someone, starting in 1749, could write 5,807 pages explaining, consistently and making total sense, three levels of meaning that are contained in the text of Genesis and Exodus?
What I mean with "consistently" is that it is applicable to our stages of mental development, free choice and even near death experiences.
For those interested, this is about why we do have a Bible in the first place and why it was written the way it was.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Doc_SacredScripture.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1