Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will but how free really?
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 5399 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 61 of 182 (512138)
06-14-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Otto Tellick
06-14-2009 1:50 PM


I think what you missed is the fact that all I am saying is that it only makes the best sense to view the universe as a structured system with unchanging laws governing how everything within it works.
The only thing that allows us the ability to formulate understandings of the universe is because these laws dont change. Have the laws of physics ever changed? I'm not referring to the understandings that people have come up with to explain things - our understanding of the universe has evolved over time. We are revising our theories about how the universe works as we discover new things, but all the things that make the universe tick has always been the same.
When I was suggesting to repeat an experiment over and over again, I was reffering to any simple experiment where you can maintain all conditions identically in each iteration. The hydrogen-oxygen balloon would be my recommendation in that case. You'll always get the same result. My point with this is the fact that living organisms are made of matter - atoms - atoms which have specific characteristics about them which will never change. From a biochemical perspective, the human brain is made of matter. Each one of the atoms within the brain follow a fixed set of rules. You cannot make any of them yield in their behaviour. It just so happens that your brain is also the thing that makes your body do the things it does. To have free will would mean that you have control over how chemical reactions occur in your brain. I'm saying that it would be impossible for that to be the case - the state of chemistry in your brain in one moment is a result of what was happening just before that moment, and the next moment following is a result of the previous, etc etc.... all that chemistry is just following the laws of the universe. There is no difference between us and the fact that hydrogen ignited in the presence of oxygen is always going to do the same thing. We may have many more types of atoms in our bodies, but they all follow a fixed set of laws that we have no influence over. To say that we actually have free will is no different than saying you can keep the ballon from exploding just because you decide you want it not to.
An organism is a significantly complex thing. An organism changes over time and is never the same twice. You mention about the need for having a depth of knowledge that is essentially unattainable in order to know the predict the result of any test, which in that case you have exactly nailed the essence of what it is I am trying to illustrate.
The question is not whether we can obtain absolute knowledge or not - only a fool would think he could - the question is whether or not you think the laws governing everything occuring within the universe are constant or if those laws change. If those laws do not change, we possess no ability as humans or any organism living in this universe to actually have total free will. Everything is set into motion and will obey all the laws to the T. Everything that happens is determined by those laws and you nor I can change them.
Edited by AshsZ, : No reason given.
Edited by AshsZ, : No reason given.
Edited by AshsZ, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-14-2009 1:50 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 62 of 182 (512141)
06-14-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AshsZ
06-14-2009 2:19 PM


Hi, AshsZ.
AshsZ writes:
Not sure I understand what you mean there. Can you elaborate on where what I said is incorrect?
Sure.
This part:
AshsZ, post #57, writes:
Uncertainty just means you dont know for sure, exactly, at all times for all of time what it will do - it does not mean that the system being observed is chaotic - it means that the methods we use to understand and predict are incomplete.
The bolded portion is an assumption used in science.
The free will debate is all about whether or not that bolded portion is correct.
In reality, there is no way to distinguish between an unknown variable and a chaotic variable, so it can't actually be shown that the uncertainty is due to incomplete knowledge.
Science generally assumes that the uncertainty is due to insufficient knowledge on our part. But, we can't really present that as an argument, because experiments are not generally set up in such a way to evaluate the source or cause of the statistical noise.
-----
AshsZ, post #57, writes:
Find any experiment and do it over and over again - I assure you the same results will always occur.
As Otto said, this is actually wrong. If you repeat an experiment enough times, you are almost guaranteed to obtain at least one contradictory result.
-----
AshsZ writes:
The only thing that allows us the ability to formulate understandings of the universe is because these laws dont change. Have the laws of physics ever changed? I'm not referring to the understandings that people have come up with to explain things - our understanding of the universe has evolved over time. We are revising our theories about how the universe works as we discover new things, but all the things that make the universe tick has always been the same.
This is what Otto was trying to explain.
On what grounds can you state with such certainty that all the things that make the universe tick have always been the same?
It would be more appropriate to say that, As far as we know, all the things that make the universe tick have always been the same.
But, as our knowledge changes, our conclusions about the nature of the universe will also undoubtedly change.
The knowledge has to proceed the conclusion. Your statements assume that the conclusion is true, and that our knowledge will eventually conform to it. But, until our knowledge conforms to it, the conclusion is only tentative.
So, we tentatively assume that the uncertainty in a data set is due to our lack of knowledge about the complexities of the situation, rather than to the intrusion of a chaotic variable.
But, how could we ever tell the difference?
Edited by Bluejay, : Paragraph formatting

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 2:19 PM AshsZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 6:51 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 5399 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 63 of 182 (512152)
06-14-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Blue Jay
06-14-2009 4:23 PM


Hi Bluejay,
Excellent explanation there bud! I do see the fallacy in my statements there.
There is one more thing I would like to bring up which ties directly into this topic that I think will be of interest.
The way I see it is our bodies are composed of matter which follows a strict set of operational instructions, if you will. i.e. hydrogen is an element that has a couple different states it exists in - H2 as the diatomic element, H as a single atom within a molecule, and as H+ : the hydrogen ion. There are also isotopes of this element as well, but for the sake of chemical interaction, isotopes can be set to the side. Each of the variations of the hydrogen element have very specific chemical properties - just the same with all of the other elements that exist. Each element has its own unique properties and these characteristics do not deviate - H2 will always behave the same as all other H2 in the same conditions.
Being that our bodies are made of this very stuff that we know behaves according to a specific set of rules, the human body as a whole is a complex biochemical entity that interacts with its surroundings according to the same set of rules that the individual atoms themselves must adhere to. Granted, elements composing molecules within the body are incredibly complex, but this complexity does not allow it to deviate from set laws.
I presume the real question being asked here is actually asking about two things that are quite different. Pre-determinism is looking at the construct of the universe as a whole through the course of time whereas free will is looking at whether an individual has control over themselves. You could actually have both free will and predeterminism happening at the same time - they aren't paired as a dichotomy. Ex: The course of events through time in the universe is absolutely set and there is no uncertainty at all. But at the same time, we as individuals have the free will to choose what we think about the events that take place.
The only conundrum with this theory comes down to a really important question which really is at the root of this whole debate. Is your mind, your awareness, your consciousness a product of the complex biochemistry taking place within the brain or is your mind actually a seperate entity that is influencing the biochemistry within your brain? Predeterminism would lean towards your mind simply being a manifestation arising from the chemistry whereas free-will will state that it is your "mind" that is controlling the chemistry.
Free-will means control - in order to have control, you must be able to manipulate matter with your mind to make your body behave as you choose. As in, actually controlling the electrochemistry going on in your brain. But would this even be possible? The reactions of chemicals aren't dependent on what one thinks - you can't put that flame to the hydro-oxy balloon and think it not to explode.
In predeterminism where the mind is a manifestation arising from the chemistry, our experience would be no different than how we experience it now. The environment we live within, along with all the other living things here, have a sort of equilibrium - an equilibrium that allows life to continue - we are a part of that and our entire lives are a product of this huge system - we only experience our lives in predeterminism, but the variety in our species and the things the environment provides create an experience that fills the capacity of our brains, and in the case of this conversation, probably over-fills it ;-) - it offers all of the stimulus to create the biochemistry within our brains that give rise to our awareness of the world.
What side of the process do our minds actually exist within?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Blue Jay, posted 06-14-2009 4:23 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 11:59 AM AshsZ has not replied
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2009 12:17 PM AshsZ has not replied
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 06-15-2009 1:24 PM AshsZ has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 64 of 182 (512241)
06-15-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AshsZ
06-14-2009 6:51 PM


I'm very close to agreeing with you. I was a Determinist from the moment I understood what that means, but Quantum Mechanics has changed my belief slightly. I no longer believe that everything is determined in a 100% way. I do believe everything is "determined" in a probabilistic way. In other words, there is a 99.999% chance that action A will cause effect B, and so, we can assume that when we see action A, we will then observe effect B. But there is always the miniscule chance that due to quantum fluctuations, effect B' will actually result.
I guess what I'm saying is that:
Each element has its own unique properties and these characteristics do not deviate - H2 will always behave the same as all other H2 in the same conditions.
Is not completely true. The H2 could tunnel away and not react in the presence of something with which h2 wil "always" react.
This does not allow free will per se. It just gives human actions a probabilistic curve. A person, given a specific set of initial co nditions will react within the large part of the curve more often than not, and there may even be a reaction that is overwhelmingly expected, but some other reaction may still take place. The person reacting doesn't actually control those discrepancies any more than they control the probability curve, but it does allow the possibility of a person reacting contrary to "type."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 6:51 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 182 (512244)
06-15-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AshsZ
06-14-2009 6:51 PM


Each element has its own unique properties and these characteristics do not deviate - H2 will always behave the same as all other H2 in the same conditions.
This isn't true. When you boil water, the path that an individual molecule takes is random. If you were to follow one particular molecule's path, then "rewind time" and do it again, it would not follow the exact same path the second time.
Essentially, the molecule is taking a random walk. It is referred to as a stochastic process and can be modeled as Brownian motion.
Randomness does exist in the Universe and the Universe is not 100% deterministic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 6:51 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 182 (512249)
06-15-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AshsZ
06-14-2009 6:51 PM


Hi, AshsZ.
AshsZ writes:
Being that our bodies are made of this very stuff that we know behaves according to a specific set of rules, the human body as a whole is a complex biochemical entity that interacts with its surroundings according to the same set of rules that the individual atoms themselves must adhere to. Granted, elements composing molecules within the body are incredibly complex, but this complexity does not allow it to deviate from set laws.
I have no expertise in quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, so I can't claim qualification to comment on the mechanisms of this debate, but I can see that your arguments have a strong reductionist penchant.
If true, your argument would suggest that all actions can be explained by reducing the actor to atoms and analyzing the activity at that level. This effectivey denies the existence of a distinct entity on the level of the human organism.
I have no way to show whether or not your argument is accurate, but my personal feeling is that the "mind" is an emergent property of human physiology, rather than a simple extrapolation of atomic processes.
-----
AshsZ writes:
The reactions of chemicals aren't dependent on what one thinks - you can't put that flame to the hydro-oxy balloon and think it not to explode.
You're probably correct. But, I've been through enough chemistry classes to know that the size and intensity of the balloon's explosion is not guaranteed.
Most chemical reactions do not go to completion, even when perfect ratios of reactants and perfect conditions for the reaction to take place are provided.
We can't predict the behavior of each individual molecule or atom within the balloon. Although most of the molecules will react in dramatically exothermic fashion, a fair amount of them will not, and we currently do not have the technical understanding to explain why this is so.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AshsZ, posted 06-14-2009 6:51 PM AshsZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AshsZ, posted 06-15-2009 8:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 5399 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 67 of 182 (512273)
06-15-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Blue Jay
06-15-2009 1:24 PM


Hi Bluejay,
I enjoy being schooled - especially when the paths I take to try and make sense of something are critiqued by another who possesses greater knowledge of those "types of thought" - I feel like a little schoolboy. ;-)
Interestingly enough, the question of whether the mind is a cause or an effect is really the fundamental debate.
If the mind is a cause, then it must be a quantifyable element of force that acts upon the fabric of all components within the universe. We are all aware of many different forces - the forces that physicists have discovered and analyzed. If the mind is a free agent, or a force having the ability to create an effect, we should be able to observe where the mind has such influences.
In another recent reply to this thread by Perdition, he brings to light the concept of the uncertainty that occurs within all processes. It is a very interesting point made at seemingly the perfect time. Perhaps the mind's domain is bounded within that realm of quantum fluctuations occuring within the matter that composes our physical bodies. If this is really the case, then we open the door to connecting a cause (the mind's choice) to an effect (the way biochemical reactions take place).
Maybe we, as humans, possess the ability to manipulate the chemistry within our brains by way of influencing the probability of how or when a particular reaction occurs within the brain.
But the catch-22 to this is trying to connect the mind to the body. If the mind "exists" within that layer of probability, or quantum fluctuation, then there must exist a bi-directional flow of influence... i.e., your mind cannot know what the body is doing unless it is receiving information from the body about what the current state of the environment is. If matter itself influences the "fabric" of this quantum field then we have a means to support this concept.... i.e., the body influences the mind, which influences the body, which influences the mind, and so on and so forth.
Perhaps the real answer to the debate is that it is not a dichotomy of "one or the other". It begins to appear as though the real answer is that both of them are a component which has varying effect on the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 06-15-2009 1:24 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2009 9:07 AM AshsZ has not replied
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 06-16-2009 12:38 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 182 (512300)
06-16-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AshsZ
06-15-2009 8:23 PM


If the mind is a cause, then it must be a quantifyable element of force that acts upon the fabric of all components within the universe.
Sounds like gibberish to me....did you just make that up?
What is an "element of force"? What is the "fabric of all components" within the universe? How does an element of force "act upon" this fabric? And what is between your "if" and "then" that makes you think it is quantifiable?
We are all aware of many different forces - the forces that physicists have discovered and analyzed.
Actually, there's only four of them.
If the mind is a free agent, or a force having the ability to create an effect, we should be able to observe where the mind has such influences.
The mind doesn't need to use any other forces than the fundamental four.
Perhaps the mind's domain is bounded within that realm of quantum fluctuations occurring within the matter that composes our physical bodies. If this is really the case, then we open the door to connecting a cause (the mind's choice) to an effect (the way biochemical reactions take place).
Or it could just be right here. We don't need to open the door, there's plenty of room here for the causes and effects of the mind.
Maybe we, as humans, possess the ability to manipulate the chemistry within our brains by way of influencing the probability of how or when a particular reaction occurs within the brain.
Or it really is just neurons firing.
But the catch-22 to this is trying to connect the mind to the body.
Its called the brain... just kidding
Are you referring to the mind-body problem?
There's solutions to the problem on that page. You seem to be favoring the Dualist side...
That seems to be a little out of date though... Modern science, cognitive neuroscience, has pretty much figured it out, with the neuron doctrine, in that all these "problems" you're bringing up can be solved with just neurons firing.
If the mind "exists" within that layer of probability, or quantum fluctuation,
And if it doesn't, then its still all good.
then there must exist a bi-directional flow of influence... i.e., your mind cannot know what the body is doing unless it is receiving information from the body about what the current state of the environment is.
The mind and the body do pass info to and from one another.
If matter itself influences the "fabric" of this quantum field then we have a means to support this concept.... i.e., the body influences the mind, which influences the body, which influences the mind, and so on and so forth.
But if you realize that there are no non-fundamental forces at play in the mind, and that the Universe doesn't have to be deterministic, and that the functions of the mind are all just neurons firing, then your whole "problem" of finding a place for matter to influence itself vanishes.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AshsZ, posted 06-15-2009 8:23 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 182 (512323)
06-16-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by AshsZ
06-15-2009 8:23 PM


Maybe we, as humans, possess the ability to manipulate the chemistry within our brains by way of influencing the probability of how or when a particular reaction occurs within the brain.
For this to be the case, the "human" and the "brain" would need to be 2 seperate things. The brain is what makes a "particular reaction occur within" it.
There is no area of the brain that "stores" reactions where we can pick and choose from. Reactions are determined by sensory stimuli and repetition.
If the mind "exists" within that layer of probability, or quantum fluctuation, then there must exist a bi-directional flow of influence... i.e., your mind cannot know what the body is doing unless it is receiving information from the body about what the current state of the environment is.
You are ignoring the hundreds of functions that your brain activates that you are not conscious of. The environment is only a small portion of what helps the brain function during it's day to day activities. Eat a sandwich and your brain activates a bunch of bodily functions and you are never conscious of any of it.
I think a better way of saying it is that you, as in the "I" of the system, cannot be conscious of what the brain is doing other than what is being received and experience through it's sensory inputs.
the body influences the mind, which influences the body, which influences the mind, and so on and so forth.
The body has no means of influncing the very system that tells it what to do. The brain uses it's sensory system (ie. the body) to make decisions that will help the body survive - that's probabaly the most basic of functions. But the body and the mind are not 2 seperate things that function independently of one another.
-------------------------------
To me free will is simply making a decision based on your own knowledge of the outcome. In that sense I feel we have "free will".
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AshsZ, posted 06-15-2009 8:23 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 70 of 182 (811947)
06-13-2017 3:41 PM


From the graveyard
Bumpity Bump.

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 6:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 71 of 182 (811957)
06-13-2017 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Stile
06-13-2017 3:41 PM


Re: From the graveyard
Is there something about free will that you find compelling?
Stile,2009 version writes:
Our genes constrain our free will a lot more. We can't choose to fly. We can't choose to breathe underwater. We can't choose to instantly travel from one side of the Earth to the other. We can't even choose which planet to live on.
*Yet, we can choose if we want to wear shoes or sandals. We can choose to wear glasses (with no lenses if we don't require them). We can choose to set broken bones and heal them so our lives are not ended prematurely. We can choose who we make friends with and how much we learn from others. We can choose to hurt others or to help them. We can choose who we marry and spend our lives with. We can choose whether or not we should have children, or even when we would like to have children.
Do we actually make those decisions? Or are they pre-programmed into our brains/bodies?
How do you test something like this? What is the difference between "a pre-programmed decision that we think is a real decision but actually isn't" vs. "a real, free choice"?
I'm not sure. As far as we can tell (statistically speaking) our decisions are "real, free choices". But, well, if everything we do is actually pre-programmed, is it possible for us to learn the difference?
Of course, the question then becomes: "if there is no detectable difference... does it really matter"?
So, we have a task:
1. Devise a way to specifically test between "real, free choice" and "fake, but seems like free choice".
2a. If we succeed, then we just take the results of the test, then we'll know if our free choice is real or fake.
2b. If we fail, then we have a new question:
3. If we cannot differentiate between real or fake free choice, does it make a difference to us?
4a. My answer to the above question is "no".
4b. If "yes", why and how?
Edited by Phat, : helping Stile resurrect his old topic dem bones dem bones

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 3:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 9:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 72 of 182 (812014)
06-14-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
06-13-2017 6:29 PM


Free Will and an All-Good World
Phat writes:
Is there something about free will that you find compelling?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "compelling." More "interesting when I'm bored."
I was going to write this post yesterday, but lost track of time and simply bumped the thread until today.
I think the topic of Free Will itself is more theoretical instead of practical.
I try to make the idea as practical as possible, but that still doesn't go very far.
First, I'll start off with some definitions. Because if we're not talking about the same thing, it's easier to get confused.
I do not claim these to be the only definitions, but they are decent enough for me to get "some sort of point" across.
I have no issues (and, in fact encourage) if anyone wants to suggest some different definitions.
Free Will
Ability to identify different options and choose one for yourself. The 'choice' comes from the mind of the decision maker as opposed to some sort of coercion from an external source.
Good
An action from a person that is described as "good" or "helpful" by the person being affected by that same action.
Bad
An action from a person that is described as "bad" or "hurtful" by the person being affected by that same action.
For a simple example, we have the choice of your flavor of ice cream. You can choose chocolate or vanilla or strawberry or mint or whatever else is available. This would be an obvious, and simple, "Free Will" choice.
I think it's obvious that we could get rid of all evil, and still choose what flavor of ice cream we want.
Therefore, it is trivial to say that free will can certainly exist in a world that is all-good.
The interesting part is thinking about whether or not we would find such a world to be acceptable.
For myself, I would not find such a world acceptable.
There are certain levels of creativity that result in relatively light 'bad' results that I think are helpful to human advancement that would be much more difficult if we were unable to do bad things.
For example, lets take rock music. Many people (going from stereotypes of the past) think rock music is terrible and hurtful to their ears/brains/lives.
It is "bad" to play rock music for these people.
Although I would agree there is no need to force rock music into such people's homes and make them listen to it.
I would not agree to a world where rock music didn't exist because it 'hurts' these people.
Therefore, every now and then, such people would be subjected to listening to rock music. Be it by hearing it on the radio when they go into a waiting room or maybe a neighbor playing some music for a little while or something like that.
I think that if we removed such "evils" from the world, we would be causing more harm to the possible creativity of humans than is worth being in an "all-good" world.
An example in the other extreme would be, say, killing your neighbor.
Let's say you have a neighbor that doesn't want to die.
If you (or anyone else) is prevented from killing their neighbor... I don't have a problem with this.
In fact, since I don't have any pressing urge to kill my neighbor. I can claim that my own free will really isn't even affected in any significant way if such an option is completely removed.
So, although I can see how free will could co-exist in an all-good world, I don't think I would want such a thing due to the issues of labeling certain "minor inconveniences" as "bad."
I would, however, be quite happy with some world where a certain-amount of "very evil" actions were completely wiped out of existence.
Where, exactly, would I place such a line? I don't know. And because I don't know, I would err on the side of caution and reserve my restrictions to only a few incredibly terribly evil actions.
That's what I would do, if I was building a world, anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 6:29 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2017 1:36 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 182 (812047)
06-14-2017 1:28 PM


This is a reply to Message 342 that is off-topic in that thread.
Of course the answer is that he did but the Fall did for all that. To introduce the concept of evil, God had to also introduce the evil itself in the form of a talking snake representing a previously fallen angel.
It's a very, very strange and silly idea isn't it?
Yes, The Fall being a real historical event is a silly idea. But I don't subscribe to it so it's not a part of this reply.
Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't god have created a world without harm?
I think you're looking at it backwards, at least from my perspective. I'm a religious person, and I believe that we have free will. But that belief stems, not from a religious position, but from observations of the real world.
At face value, here in RL, I have the freedom to do whatever I'm willing and able to do. My will is free.
Where my religion comes into play, is trying to make sense of that fact with my relationship with God - how does what He's wants me to do square with my own desires and what I want to do?
What is backwards, to me, is going: "Religion says that we have free will, and that God is omnipotent, so why doesn't God make the world differently?"
We can speculate on why God does or does not do things all day long and not take a single step forward. It's pointless.
On the other hand, we could accept that we do seem to have free will in this world, and then we can discuss what that means if there is a God and it has certain characteristics.
So, given that we have free will, and that evil is allowed to exist, there must be something more important about enabling free will than there is about eliminating evil.
The question shouldn't be why isn't God different, it should be 'given what we know, what would this tell us about God?'
Obviously - well to me at least - this is a totally specious argument because we are simply another organism competing to survive - competing against each other as well as our environment so harm is inbuilt by biology. Evolution completely explains why we ae the way we are.
It doesn't answer the bigger question of: "Why is the way we are the way that things are?" Just sayin'
When we have these discussions it's almost a default position that having the ability to do harm (free will) is important, even necessary. Is it really?
Apparently it is. That's the way things seem to be. Whether or not there is another way is kinda beside anything we can actually determine.
We gotta play the hand we're dealt - I don't see the point in discussing whether or not we could have been dealt a different hand.
Is a world without evil so evil?
It's a necessity if you don't want to just be following protocols. Would you rather be a droid?

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 06-14-2017 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 182 (812049)
06-14-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
06-14-2017 9:10 AM


Re: Free Will and an All-Good World
I would, however, be quite happy with some world where a certain-amount of "very evil" actions were completely wiped out of existence.
Where, exactly, would I place such a line? I don't know. And because I don't know, I would err on the side of caution and reserve my restrictions to only a few incredibly terribly evil actions.
We already live in a world with countless incredibly terribly evil actions that we are not aware of.
You're proposing a negligible increase in restriction, so I'm going to turn a question you asked me back around to you: Does it matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 9:10 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 06-14-2017 1:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 75 of 182 (812050)
06-14-2017 1:44 PM


Freewill is a purely religious concept
Tangle writes:
Freewill is a purely religious concept
Message 342
It is?
I've never thought of it that way.
The entire idea itself? Only it's origins? Both?
Does anyone have any light to shed on this concept?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024