Philosoft

So it's possible for me to successfully sin even when I have chosen not to? That seems like a clear violation of free will.

But I still don't know what this means. We can say "bad people" choose to sin. But what makes them "bad people"? Is it because they choose to sin or are they innately "bad"?

What is it about me that causes me not to accept Jesus? Am I innately a non-Jesus-acceptor? I'm not understanding where the actual personal choice enters.

kkholiday

Philosoft,

What about the idea of "free will" as a thing that allows people to make decisions not solely based on their instincts?

In my opinion the idea of free will is one of the main things that separates humans from animals. I don't think an animal consciously decides what he's going to do and weighs other factors besides his instincts. This is not to say that every "decision" a human makes is consciously calculated and willed. Lots of other things like past expeiences, culture, environment, habits and even our own instincts will play a part in our future decisions. I think that its possible to pretty much live off instinct alone most of the time as a human, even as an ultra-aware free thinker such as yourself.

But you can deny your instincts (for many different reasons) whereas I don't believe animals can. That would be what free will is.

Philosoft

Perhaps, but this only tells me what free will isn't.

I agree. So much, in fact, that I can't think of anything else that is strictly necessary. Let me try a thought experiment:

Suppose I am a university undergrad and I'm deciding between two majors: psychology and basket weaving. My parents are both psychologists, their parents were psychologists, all our family friends are psychologists; I've been surrounded by psychology my whole pre-adult life. If I were to select psychology, it seems very easy to suppose a set of experiences that led me to select psychology.

But, if I instead chose basket weaving, the impetus for that choice is much less clear. At this point, as with any event, we can say it was either caused or uncaused. An uncaused choice is often philosophically unsatisfying - it implies a degree of randomness or arbitrariness that we are very reluctant to accept. Thus, we are left trying to determine a causal mechanism.

I can conceive of a state-of-affairs in which decisions are always made based on some quantifiable measure of experiences. But this relies on the ways in which I react to various experiences. As near as I can tell, there is a continuum of the possible sources of my reactions, with pure experiential determinism at one end, and pure innateness at the other. It is probably the case that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Either way, it seems I cannot be responsible for the portion of my decision-making self that is innate, nor can I be responsible for those experiences that are not direct results of my choices. And, even if I am responsible for some states-of-affairs that I experience as a direct result of choice, the question begs: Why did I make those choices?

Heh. Flattery will get you everywhere.

Amos

Interesting. Humans can deny their instincts and follow reason alone. To deny instincts already means that humans are not free to choose or they would not have an instinct (properly called intuition) to deny. Since both our intuition and our faculty of reason are ours we are always free as an agent in charge of our own will and therefore must be held accountable for our actions.

Before we can sin we must subscribe to the Law that convicts us of sin. The concept sin is not part of civil law and sin is not a civil offence or Pilate would have taken charge while he made it very clear that he had nothing to do with it. Instead, Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews and they subjected him to the conviction by Jewish authority.

Outside of the Abrahamic religions the concept sin does not exist so it is wrong to conclude that we are all sinners. It is interesting to note here that in some cultures our sins are their virtues. Two examples come to mind here: lying is a virtue in Samoa and stealing your veggies is the best way to get them in New Guinea's highlands.

Amos

Whoever said this was speaking to the Romans who were part of the early church and subject to the conviction of sin.

Shadowy Man

You've never lived with cats, have you?

kkholiday

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philosoft

I can conceive of a state-of-affairs in which decisions are always made based on some quantifiable measure of experiences. But this relies on the ways in which I react to various experiences. As near as I can tell, there is a continuum of the possible sources of my reactions. . .



This makes a lot of sense especially for imporant decisions like your college major example. Obviously a lot of factors go into that and I could not imagine that any choice (even the basket weaving) would be completely random given all the info that went into the decision making (maybe this person was feeling rebellious and hated his parents).

Anyway, if you are looking for some kind a formula that will determine exactly which factors influence certain decisions at certain times, it would seem impossible.

What about the little decisions that may seem inconsequential, but over a time will develop a pattern that will be a strong influence in bigger decisions. Maybe with the first few little decisions it really doesn't matter what you choose, not that it would be arbitrary, but that either choice could be easily chosen. It seems that that is where free will has the most impact. Once a habit is started, then it will take over as being a huge factor in determining decisions from there on out.

That got kinda muddled, but it makes sense at one in the morning.


And yes, ShadowyMan, I have two cats.

However, if I locked them in a closet for three days with no food then let them out to a can of Fancy Feast, their response would probably be pretty predictable. I think a human, in the same situation, could calculate a number of different responses other than hunkering down on some cat food.

Eric H

hello Philosoft

quote Philosoft
What I'm looking for is a piece of the decision-making equation that is arguably within the full control of the individual. It would need to withstand my charges that some degree of determination is present at all points during the process.

Probably the way to search for this kind of determination is to start looking at extremes.

Where did Adolph Hitler get the idea that he could rule a nation, purify a nation, maybe even go for world domination, and in the process opt for genocide. These are only a few of the things he opted for.

I don’t know too much about Adolph, but surely it would need many stages of determination for him to go from the rank of corporal in the first war up to fanatical dictator in the second.

Peace

Eric

Philosoft

Good afternoon, Eric.

Exactly. Did Hitler choose to do those things because of the circumstances of his life or was he a "being who chooses to pursue imperialism and commit genocide"? Can we look at major decisions in Hitlers life and say, "He could have chosen do otherwise right here"? How would we know?
Yup. Just another layer of confusion on this already thoroughly confusing mess of thoughts.

Sr. Zonules

This is a note for philosoft especially:

Part of the reason why we have the ability to choose is because the universe is non-deterministic. That is, there are always random events that make our future unpredictable. If the universe was deterministic, then I (or someone else) could predict the future with uncanny accuracy (and I'm not talking of prophetic writings or the babblings of Nostadamus, which are at best vague, shallow and random).

None of the above arguements either for or against do not, however, mean that the value of an action can soley (or even partially) be based upon the amount of free will (i.e. "randomness") that was put into it.

In your example of a university student choosing between basket-weaving and psychology, from your information given, it is neither logical nor reasonable to say that s/he could go into EITHER one. perhaps s/he is very unlike his family (many of us are), maybe s/he is put off by the overload of psychology and the expectations of his family, or maybe s/he is terrible at social sciences and is really an artist. For these reasons, s/he might very reasonably and logically choose to be a basket-weaving artist, rather than a psychologist.

I enjoy the ability to have free-will, and value this ability greatly. I do not think that I nor anyone else could ever ALWAYS ENTIRELY use free-will; free-will is enhanced by our background knowledge and experience (what some like to call instinct), and these "instincts" are NOT free-will.

On the comment that someone could live (almost) entirely out of instinct is an interesting concept, and I think it merits more conversation (or perhaps a new thread).

PS:
Shadowy Man: I live with cats, I know EXACTLY what you mean.