Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

What's up, NS? Don't you like the truth?

  What truth, Leonard? 

[wigginhall]

Anybody who believes something that is demonstrably wrong is deluded.

But where is the 'demonstrably'  bit, Len?   You know that demonstration is not the same as assertion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len,

The fact remains that we CAN choose one way or the other. That is free will.

I think the two sides are talking past each other here. The problem isn't the "will" bit, it's the "free" bit. Free from what?

You mean it I think in the sense of, "I am free to choose either tea or coffee and no-one else can force the decision on me, therefore my will is free from control by others". And it that sense, you're right about that.

"Free" will though as it's thought of by the likes of AB is different - it requires a separate "me", a little man at the controls (though one who doesn't apparently require another little man at his controls for some reason) that he calls a "soul" to tell the remaining "me" what to do.

It's all bonkers, but you can at least see that the idea of a distinct "me" somewhere in my head is superficially persuasive so long as you don't think too hard about what it would entail, so it's a convenient peg on which to hang the notion of a "soul". 

[Dicky Underpants]

Also as previously noted frequently, free will isn't really an issue on a day to day basis. It's not even from my viewpoint particularly interesting. We have to act as if it were true, and if it isn't then it won't make any difference.

I agree with this in principle, NS. "We have to act as if it were true". But we may be filled with horror that it is not true, since this seems to negate our sense of selfhood (something the Buddhists can perhaps teach us to deal with). There is of course in us all something that seems to find such things emotionally repellent. Certainly, I would like to think I had a choice whether to one or other of two pointless and significant acts (like choosing whether to raise my index or little finger - but of course raising my index finger to some people I wouldn't consider pointless

[ekim]

It actually does - if those inclinations are the inevitable consequence of your inherited nature and your life experience, and your decision-making process is the inevitable consequence of your inherited nature and your life experience, then any decision you make - whether to follow your inclinations or act against them - is an inevitable consequence of prior conditions.

O.

I may be wrong, but I think what Leonard is saying is what he has said about breaking free from a religious upbringing.  By using reason and intelligence it is possible to free oneself from the constraints of past conditioning and choose between continuing to follow a religion or not.  One no longer has to be bound by the past.  Whether one has the will power or energy to complete the change is another matter.  Those with low reasoning abilities and low intelligence may struggle to see beyond their conditioning and take the 'will-less' path of what can I do, everything is predetermined anyway.
The Christian question is a little different as the free choice is either to follow self-will or God's Will, swim upstream against the current or flow downstream to the ocean remaining alert and avoiding obstacles.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with this in principle, NS. "We have to act as if it were true". But we may be filled with horror that it is not true, since this seems to negate our sense of selfhood (something the Buddhists can perhaps teach us to deal with). There is of course in us all something that seems to find such things emotionally repellent. Certainly, I would like to think I had a choice whether to one or other of two pointless and significant acts (like choosing whether to raise my index or little finger - but of course raising my index finger to some people I wouldn't consider pointless

Oh I get that it might feel repugnant but if we have no free will then that feeling is just predetermined. If we do have it, then it's wrong and even if we suspect we have no free will we will still act as if we do, because we would have it.

[wigginhall]

Good point about selfhood, Dicky.  It seems to be a bit like death, to contemplate not having a self.   However, you can argue that psychologically there is a self-like construct, that is, who I think I am.   

A  lot of Buddhists argue against a separate self, but some have a kind of universal self, sort of smeared out over all experience, a bit like Berkeley I suppose.  Too complicated really.

[Nearly Sane]

Good point about selfhood, Dicky.  It seems to be a bit like death, to contemplate not having a self.   However, you can argue that psychologically there is a self-like construct, that is, who I think I am.   

A  lot of Buddhists argue against a separate self, but some have a kind of universal self, sort of smeared out over all experience, a bit like Berkeley I suppose.  Too complicated really.

Surely any notion of selfhood is essentially dualistic as it posits something separate? Just as you cannot swim in the same river twice, nor can the you be the same you twice, or possibly not even once.

[Maeght]

I may be wrong, but I think what Leonard is saying is what he has said about breaking free from a religious upbringing.  By using reason and intelligence it is possible to free oneself from the constraints of past conditioning and choose between continuing to follow a religion or not.  One no longer has to be bound by the past.  Whether one has the will power or energy to complete the change is another matter.  Those with low reasoning abilities and low intelligence may struggle to see beyond their conditioning and take the 'will-less' path of what can I do, everything is predetermined anyway.
The Christian question is a little different as the free choice is either to follow self-will or God's Will, swim upstream against the current or flow downstream to the ocean remaining alert and avoiding obstacles.

I think this demonstrates that our way of thinking can change as we have new experiences and learn new things - but this is to do with changes in the brain, according to the science. The brain is not fixed as different synapses strengthen or weaken and 'die' throughout our lives. So if Leonard was meaning this then I would agree but would not consider it free will.

[wigginhall]

Surely any notion of selfhood is essentially dualistic as it posits something separate? Just as you cannot swim in the same river twice, nor can the you be the same you twice, or possibly not even once.

Yes, I think this has been the driving force for many Eastern religions, and you often see the term 'non-dualism' used.  The Zen teachers still say to people, 'where is this you, that you talk about? Show it to me.'  This doesn't really help much!

You can also find this in Christianity, but it got drowned in the evangelical focus on sin, salvation and wrath.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I think this has been the driving force for many Eastern religions, and you often see the term 'non-dualism' used.  The Zen teachers still say to people, 'where is this you, that you talk about? Show it to me.' 

I feel Doctor Johnson would have an answer for the zen teachers.......involving using the toe of his boot to demonstrate the reality of the self.

[Leonard James]

But where is the 'demonstrably'  bit, Len?   You know that demonstration is not the same as assertion?

It is demonstrable that everybody (unless drugged or hypnotised) can choose either to act as they feel inclined to, or not to do so.

[Leonard James]

Hi Len,

I think the two sides are talking past each other here. The problem isn't the "will" bit, it's the "free" bit. Free from what?

Free from any obligation to act in a certain way, either by nature or nurture.

You mean it I think in the sense of, "I am free to choose either tea or coffee and no-one else can force the decision on me, therefore my will is free from control by others". And it that sense, you're right about that.

Yes, but it goes further than that as I explain above.

"Free" will though as it's thought of by the likes of AB is different - it requires a separate "me", a little man at the controls (though one who doesn't apparently require another little man at his controls for some reason) that he calls a "soul" to tell the remaining "me" what to do.

I see no reason to assume any such thing. "Me" is the sum total of my nature/nurture and present conditions registering on my neural network. My brain is "me".

It's all bonkers, but you can at least see that the idea of a distinct "me" somewhere in my head is superficially persuasive so long as you don't think too hard about what it would entail, so it's a convenient peg on which to hang the notion of a "soul".

Yes, I can see that religious conditioning can produce such an effect on susceptible brains, but as far as I am concerned it is still a delusion.

[Leonard James]

I may be wrong, but I think what Leonard is saying is what he has said about breaking free from a religious upbringing.  By using reason and intelligence it is possible to free oneself from the constraints of past conditioning and choose between continuing to follow a religion or not. 

Except that it is not a choice. Now that I see things more clearly, I can no more choose to continue to believe than I can believe in any other fairy story.

[Enki]

From Wiggs, post 7787:

It's interesting that neurologists talk of executive functioning in the brain, that it, that there are hierarchical systems, for example, we are able to focus attention on one thing or another.  It used to be said (I think) that these executive functions were based in certain areas of the brain, but my memory is that now it is said to be more of a holistic system.  I suppose AB will now say that the executive function is the soul.

A team of Belgian researchers*, in 2012, using EEG readouts, measured  the EM activity in the brains of healthy, brain damaged and vegetative patients by giving each group a mild electrical jolt. The healthy patients showed a flurry of complex brain activity over a wide area of the brain, the minimally conscious patients produced less complex responses over a smaller brain area, while the vegetative patients exhibited much smaller local brain activation similar to that shown by sleeping subjects and those under anaesthesia. This seems to suggest that the more complex and widespread the EM activity, the more conscious is the subject. The problem, of course, remains. Does this brain activity signify in some way the process of consciousness, or is it a by product of consciousness, much as the steam from a steam engine is a by product of an engine process?

* Maybe they got their inspiration from Quetzalcoatl after eating some Belgian chocolate truffles!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From Wiggs, post 7787:


A team of Belgian researchers*, in 2012, using EEG readouts, measured  the EM activity in the brains of healthy, brain damaged and vegetative patients by giving each group a mild electrical jolt. The healthy patients showed a flurry of complex brain activity over a wide area of the brain, the minimally conscious patients produced less complex responses over a smaller brain area, while the vegetative patients exhibited much smaller local brain activation similar to that shown by sleeping subjects and those under anaesthesia. This seems to suggest that the more complex and widespread the EM activity, the more conscious is the subject. The problem, of course, remains. Does this brain activity signify in some way the process of consciousness, or is it a by product of consciousness, much as the steam from a steam engine is a by product of an engine process?

* Maybe they got their inspiration from Quetzalcoatl after eating some Belgian chocolate truffles!

What you mean consciousness is like the froth on a pint of beer?

I rather like the sound of that......a pint of beer ,mmmmmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

It is demonstrable that everybody (unless drugged or hypnotised) can choose either to act as they feel inclined to, or not to do so.

Go on then, demonstrate it, rather than continually asserting it.

[Alan Burns]

Go on then, demonstrate it, rather than continually asserting it.

I would think that the content of the last few pages of this thread aptly demonstrates the ability of the members of this forum to excercise their ability of free thinking.  We think of a response, perhaps having several possible responses in our head, then we use our will power to type out the response we have chosen to make.  Just what more is needed to demonstrate our freedom to choose?

[Nearly Sane]

I would think that the content of the last few pages of this thread aptly demonstrates the ability of the members of this forum to excercise their ability of free thinking.  We think of a response, perhaps having several possible responses in our head, then we use our will power to type out the response we have chosen to make.  Just what more is needed to demonstrate our freedom to choose?

That it could have been any other way.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

determinism, deterministically,

Also called necessitarianism. the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory Compare free will

Probably just the way my brain works but the above makes me think of sayings such as, preordained, written in the stars, kismet, fate, Gods holy plan

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

I would think that the content of the last few pages of this thread aptly demonstrates the ability of the members of this forum to excercise their ability of free thinking.  We think of a response, perhaps having several possible responses in our head, then we use our will power to type out the response we have chosen to make.  Just what more is needed to demonstrate our freedom to choose?

If you think you have freedom to choose, then set aside 30 minutes this afternoon to believe that Mohammed is God's messenger. Shouldn't be a problem for someone unconstrained.  If you find you can't manage it, ponder on why that is.

[Alan Burns]

If you think you have freedom to choose, then set aside 30 minutes this afternoon to believe that Mohammed is God's messenger. Shouldn't be a problem for someone unconstrained.  If you find you can't manage it, ponder on why that is.

But I am in control - I do not want to believe that Mohammed is God's messenger because I know it is not true.  It is my conscious self, my soul, which is ultimately responsible for my actions.  I can choose to hop up and down on one leg if I wish.  Knowledge of the truth is not free to choose.

[wigginhall]

I feel Doctor Johnson would have an answer for the zen teachers.......involving using the toe of his boot to demonstrate the reality of the self.

Well, Dr Johnson certainly demonstrated that he didn't have a clue what Berkeley was talking about, and if his kicking a stone was used to demonstrate the reality of the self, it would also fail.    I suppose the argument would be that it would hurt, and hurt means that there is a self.  Not really.  You might as well say that breathing demonstrates the self or ideas.

[wigginhall]

If you think you have freedom to choose, then set aside 30 minutes this afternoon to believe that Mohammed is God's messenger. Shouldn't be a problem for someone unconstrained.  If you find you can't manage it, ponder on why that is.

It's strange how some Christians have insisted on this, I can remember it being discussed on the BBC forum - that we choose what to believe.   Obviously incorrect, I think the old example was believing that Paris is the capital of the UK.   

It's a kind of denial of the unconscious, I suppose.   My ideas and wishes are not created by me. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Yes you are in control not some deity!

Not if you think we have no freewill.

Gonnagle.