romansh

Show your working Burl. What is your evidence that it is not chemistry and physics?

So what ... no one is denying there are a lot of causes and we can't really identify the proximate causes. And ... Not knowing how to test a hypothesis does mean the hypothesis is not valid. Think Avogadro when he hypothesized. Also science does not prove stuff. I wonder why we keep getting this wrong. Perhaps - but just claiming that we can make choices of independent of cause without evidence is what exactly? I asked you this question: Would you care to have a go at it - thanks

You well may like the idea thormas. God like - We can make choices - independent of our biases, education, experiences, environment, evolution and the universe in general.

Joseph ... I do understand the power of words. I also realize we are all ignorant in some respect. In a free will sense, I am totally ignorant (or perhaps unaware) of the chemistry that is me on a moment basis. While I have been made aware that it [chemistry] is there and it is what underpins the lively discussions that go in what passes as my mind. I don't get a sense that anyone is uneducated here. So they are not ignorant in that sense. I think most are quite thoughtful in the academic sense, so they are not ignorant in that sense. Do we know all? Definitely not, So we are ignorant in that sense. Ignorance is not a sin,

Asserting it as un-nuanced does not make it so Burl. You claim mankind is not completely dependent chemistry and physics of making decisions. Fine, Can you give example of how a decision might be made independent of physics and chemistry? I am awaiting you nuanced and non procrustean thinking Burl.

We are mini first cause generators (in a God like fashion) if we have free will. As to the big bang etc. Irrelevant to the whether I have free will as I type up this reply. The causal mesh just has to extend to before my conception for us to worry about not having free will.

Read what I wrote thormas. Your opinion is not a considered ignorance. But the way we come to the opinion that our choices are free. Free from genetics, prior experience, the food we eat, the chemistry of our decision making. How deliberately are you avoiding this part of the topic? I was going to say we reify our consciousness and ignore the strings that form our choices opinions whatever. But reify is not strong enough. We deify our experience. We literally become Gods ... little first cause generators. This is a position I find difficult to believe.

So what you are saying is you don't know how Frankl dealt with the simple conundrum of cause and effect in free will. Frankl apparently observed different people dealt with the horrendous situation they found themselves in. Yes people make choices even in a concentration camp. But to claim (and I am sure Frankl would not) that these choices are somehow independent of the underlying chemistry (and physics) is nonsense. People deal differently with hunger, deprivation and shock. What evidence do we have that the attitudes people chose were not a result of prior cause?

Well with respect to Paul ... some opinions are based on a fair amount of thought, evidence, research, logic. Others (in the cased of free will) are derived from a considered ignorance and just an appeal to our perceptions. Some opinions are just assertions.

So how did Frankl deal with the issue that everything is a result of cause and effect?

You addressed cause and effect? Really? You used the word cause once in respect to the first cause - which is largely irrelevant to our immediate free will. While interesting that you recognize this "free choice" that is somehow independent of prior cause, one is left wondering how this might come about. This is fine, sounds good proper. I too accept that I am a proximate cause of the many effects I have. And I too accept responsibility in that sense. I don't particularly buy Joseph's position ... just pointing out the coincidence. Certainly there is not. So the question becomes why would one side with the believe in free will/choice side. Why not be agnostic about it? Ask what are the influences, biases, and mistakes in your belief. This is nuts. I too am ignorant of all the chemistry, biases, etc that go into any particular so-called "free" choice I make. But simply being aware that they exist I have to become circumspect with respect to the philosophical concept of free. Get your ad hominin correct thormas. Why would anyone be interested in the subject of free will? Well for me it is how the universe ticks (or does not) and how that ticking applies to the human condition that is interesting.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Here are your relevant posts to this topic - in which one do you address which bit of us is free of cause and effect? Interestingly Joseph denies cause and effect and sees the universe as unfolding (more or less) without any mechanism ... so we cannot responsible for any hurt we might think we cause (or joy for that matter). In a more causal model of the universe we can consider ourselves as a proximate (proximal) cause for hurt and joy. In the post of yours below, it highlights your unwillingness to enter into a dialogue that explores the reality of free will. I may very well be wrong, but my wrongness would be formed by my misconceptions, biases, desires etc. These are underlain by the chemistry that goes to form my thoughts. And the chemistry is a function of the underlying physics. Unless one takes Joseph's position, then it is just a happy coincidence that our mathematical models describe the chemistry and physics so nicely. Your posts listed above touch onto Being, Love etc without addressing does cause and effect exist and if so is there any part of you that is formed by cause and effect? We don't need to derail the thread by going back to the point of creation of the universe here ... just the moment before our conceptions will do.

Nope.

OK you don't have faith? You don't revere Love? Fair enough.

But not really addressed.

And yet you continually avoid the central point.

synonyms for religious [the Gospel according to Google] devout, pious, reverent, godly, God-fearing, churchgoing, faithful, devoted, committed

Ahh name calling ... I am ignorant about many things thormas. Say compared to other people's [here] familiarity with the Bible I am ignorant. Being ignorant of something is not a problem, not recognizing that one is has it downsides. Being ignorant is not a crime thormas or anything that unusual. If you mean by freely: completely unaware of what are the underlying mechanisms for your disagreement, then we are in agreement.

Thormas Well some of us had all sorts beliefs. Having a belief in free choice or free will is quite easy ... all it takes is a lack of awareness of the strings (causes) that underlie our choices or wills. When asked why did we did some unexplainable stupid thing and if we come up with the answer I don't know ... is this what we mean by free will? Sometimes we deliberate and think we can explain our choice or will. But here we are pointing to the strings that caused our choice. A belief in free will (for some of us) boils down to a considered ignorance of the underlying causes of our will.

Is that what it is about internal, satisfaction; really? I have a sense of awe ... not all the time. Materialism in the philosophical sense (rather than the social sense) does work for me. My intellect works for me.

A place for words Sanctify - ? When used in the sense of internal sanctification I have no idea.

People will believe what they believe ... they have no [free] choice in their beliefs. Is discussing people's beliefs and asking questions about what might seem as incoherence unreasonable? Or are they simply looking for reinforcement for their beliefs? Peace, joy and contentment? If that is what one is after, then fine. Why not chase after understanding? Why chase after anything?

I misread your post a little bit, sorry. So what did you feel as being judgemental, as a matter of interest?

Funny that ... my wife and I were talking about being judgemental this very morning. And for a change the comment was not directed at me. It is OK to be judgemental ... but can I suggest don't be hard on yourself. ps ... saying it is OK to be judgemental is itself not a judgement, but a recognition you could not have felt otherwise given the situation.

You did not answer my question. Are these people not religious? Are you speaking for them? Sauce for the goose - so to speak. Are you suggesting you can't be religious without the dogma associated with traditional positions?