romansh

It's more of a question does the concept of free will even make sense? Rivers choose their course, computers make choices based on their input. The list goes on. When philosophers discuss free will it is very different to having the ability to choose. The question is are our choices independent of cause and effect? If you think only certain combinations of molecules have free will, fine. Do Kant and James carry more weight, they believed in free will? They could see the inherent contradiction in the compatibilist position. The influences we are talking about, are they some way independent of chemistry and physics? I think not, what do you think Dutch.

Yes we can define free will however we want. The problem of cause and effect does not go away though does it? If people want to see choice as free will, then I think they are missing out on an exploration of our reality.

No, or at least not for me. Firstly my personal experience, when I think of something new, I find it is a mixture of other ideas, sometimes I can point to the origins of the ideas sometimes I can't. Just because I can't point to the origin does not mean there isn't one and we are still silent on the chemistry and physics that went into forming the idea.

Kant thought of this as a wretched subterfuge and James described it as a quagmire of evasion. We can define free will however we want .... Eg the ability to choose not to eat ice-cream . This has nothing to do with the underlying question of what the discussion around free will (for philosophers) is all about. ... What are the underlying causes for our ability to make choices and can we ever be free of them?

God (with an upper case G) Simply a pale reflection of our human desires, fears and foibles. An explanation of where we might be going. Whereas god is the universe and all who are unfolding.

I must admit the way Dutch has used free will, for me does not address the nature of free. If our will is a result of a mesh of a myriad of causes, then this becomes an interesting concept of free.

If we don't have free will ... We will essentially come to one of two conclusions 1) we could come to the conclusion there is no intrinsic self, and accept our roles in the unfolding universe 2) we could still believe we have free will, but at this point we believe we hake on some god like properties ... Eg the ability to act independently of the unfolding universe. In some way we think we are separate from the universe. I suppose we could remain uncertain regarding the two options. But if this is the case, I would explore both options very carefully. I agree with Dutch's there is no meant. But I disagree with his evolution giving us free will. evolution is not separate from the universe unfolding, and I don't think bacteria, mammals or large primates in general are either.

It is your knowledge of what god has or does not have that belies your belief in a transcendent god.

Paul No one is advocating that you should or should not be an activist. No one is saying you should or should not become angry disappointed ... Insert emotion [here]. What I am saying is I try not to have these negative emotions ... Not because it is bad in some way, but that it is just pointless to have them. When I I think something is bad, for me it means simply that I don't like it. It is ok not to like something, but I do understand than that is just a reflection of me, which in turn is a reflection of the universe. Saying things happen as they are meant happen is simply a reflection of our need to have some sort of meaning. Things happen. Full stop. No one is saying you should not try and change the world. There is a subtle difference between acceptance and apathy which I don't seem to have made clear.

In an absolute sense neither. In a societal sense it's a complete no no. It is like asking is evolution good or bad ..... The same mechanism that gives us a wondrous variety of life also gives us cancer and a whole range of illnesses. A man started molesting his step daughter. In prison he was discovered to have tumour in a part of his brain where sexuality is processed. The tumour was removed and his desire was removed. Slowly his desires returned as did his tunour. Again his desires disappeared when the tumour was removed. Is this man good or bad? Is the sun's radiation good or bad? It gives us life and death.

Just possibly they are not good or bad, full stop. When a hyena kills a lion cub is that good or bad?

Then Larry it appears to me you don't believe in a transcendent god.

For the most part what I think of as good and bad coincide with what I like and dislike.

Soma When a pendulum swings and reaches a peak on either side, it has stored it's energy as potential energy despite it's velocity being zero. A weight on a table presses down on that table. What you call inaction is an arbitrary frame of reference.

Exactly ... Inaction is an action too.

I suspect we are talking about two very different things when we say free will.

Does God have free will?

That seems an accurate description of my experience of this particular aspect of the universe. But if we are simply manifestations of the universe unfoldinf, is it worth working out for your 'non self' what it all means? Is this not ultimately the Hindu concept of Dharma ... a duty to live one's life? Campbell discussing dharma ... You perform your duty to support the universe. The universe is alive. The Sun performs its duty, the Moon performs its duty, the mice perform their duty and cats perform theirs, the brahmins perform theirs, the sudras theirs, and by this - everyone performing his duty - the universe is held in form. By following your dharma you hold the universe in form.

I would echo Joseph's comments on the use of everything is as it should be. Ultimately I don't think we choose our wills, desires,wants, beliefs etc consciously. We somehow take them onboard. For example I chose to come to Canada and thought about it way back when. My passport and career made it relatively easy. Where did my desire to come to Canada come from? And yet I feel I made the choice consciously and planned for it. Where did my desire come from? Meant to act ... again where does meaning come from? I think it is trite to say we give our lives meaning, whatever it is that is a simplification. Does the an unfolding universe have meaning, other than the meaning the unfolding universe has given me to give it? Yes the 'bad' things are universe unfolding. I would build a levee on a flooding river the same way I would lock up a pedophile. Getting involved or for that matter not getting both are actions and both will have reactions. We all take on a model of the universe (or perhaps a worldview). We will live that worldview, one way or another. In the meantime ... if free will is false and the universe is monistic in nature, then I think we cam deduce that the self, consciousness, the division between life and nonlife, meaning/purpose and morality are illusory at least to some degree. As the unverse unfolds we will walk our paths. We might think we have chosen that path, but that choice is not what it seems. I think one of our problems is that language by its very nature is a dualistic but useful concept. And here I am trying to explain a monistic concept using dualism

What exactly is will for you Paul? And what does free will mean for you? If free will is simply an ability to make choices then yes we have free will; but by that defintion so does my computer. Questions we can ask ourselves include at what point in life does a spermatozoa and egg gain free will, why is that certain arrangements of star dust, as a limited set of biology, have free will?

I think I understand your question and I think it is a valid one. For me to have free will, I must become in some way independent of creation. I certainly don't think I am and quite frankly neither do I want to be.

It depends what you call 'evidence' Rom. Evidence - perhaps data that supports a particular hypothesis. Yes we are influenced, but this alone proves nothing of the inability to have free will. Here we go again ... I am not in the proof business. but that doesn't stop them from choosing to do things like walk through a gate, or not. This is a common misconception about free will, It is clear we make decisions about walking through gates or not. The discussion is about how we make decisions, not whether we make them or not. Do we make them independently of physics, chemistry, genetics, experience, threats, beliefs, the situation etc. Let me iterate ... free will is NOT about whether we make choices or not. But as science reveals, we only seem to utilise a very small portion of our brain, at least from what we can currently tell. This is an old wives tale ... we night not know exactly how we use our brains, use them we do ... but their use is not independent of a 'mechanism'. The word mechanism does imply a machine like status.. Now if there is no 'mechanism' to your decisions, what does that imply? You mention consciousness - do you think that is independent of the physics and chemistry ... alcohol and hallucinogens in general would argue differently? This I thought was interesting ... a zebra fish's larval brain firing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9S2r64QuQ

Paul Point 1) ... No one is claiming conclusive evidence. But are you denying there is evidence? Also no one is claiming it is just biochemistry (or just any one thing). We respond to our environment and our responds to us. The phrase you are behind your biochemistry wil require some evidence, for as far as I can tell none exists at the moment. I think I feel the same emotions as most people ,,, guilt, love etc. So when you ask do feel responsible there are two sort of meanings. The most common is associated with things like guilt and pride. The second is more factual ... eg the sun is responsible for most of the life on this planet. I am certainly responsible in the second sense, and I feel responsible in the former sense. There is no intrinsic me, literally everything that I am has come from outside of me. My genetics, my body, my experiences: they are not an intrinsic me. Pragmatically this allows me (the non intrinsic me) to cut people some slack, it allows me to cut myself some slack. This does not mean if I do some criminal act, I should be let off the hook. But it does imply any retributive punishment is not warranted. My punishment should be based on things like, my likelihood of re-offending, the severity of the crime, safety of the public, the need for a societal deterrent,

I have too to work now .... might get back to you tonight ... otherwise Sunday rom

I am not sure I understand the question completely, but I will have a go anyway. Our perceptions are just that perceptions. They are a reflection of our universe. Your perceptions might be different from mine simply because the universe is unfolding unevenly. We make choices all the time; so does the computer you type on. It is just that the choices that we are making are not free. Are you denying that the underlying biochemistry in the brain (and elsewhere) is responsible for the choices we make? This of course is a gross simplification, but in essence it does not make the choice you make anymore free, just more complex. This applies to your feelings, will, perceptions and thought in general. All this leads to something similar the Buddhist concept of not-self.