We are all affected by our enviroment. We wouldn't be or think the way we do without the particular system of experience we've had.
It's also known that our memories can be messed with physically. By poking and prodding in our brains, or through some stroke-like experiences, we can vastly alter our personalities and consciousness.

There's this idea of free will floating around, maybe you have heard of it, or experienced it. My question is how can we really have free will, if we are infinitely affected by our enviroment, by the physical world.

Christians say that everyone has a chance to accept Christ as their savior, all they have to do is CHOOSE to believe. Well, if this choice is affected by our enviroment, then it's not a free choice is it? You just have to be born lucky, in an enviroment conducive to the Christian thought-style.

So, if this free will is really FREE and equal, there has to exist some part of us that is not affected by the physical word that makes the decision. We have to have a 'soul'. In the past, when the soul is defined, people tend to think of ideas like 'character' and 'morals', that these are your soul's influence. But, if a person's character can be changed by science and medicine, it can't really be the soul can it?

So, either we must re-evaluate our idea of free will, or we must concede that there IS something extra-physical about us that affects us physically.

If the above is true, and our 'soul' can't be affected by our enviroment, then what is the point of evangelism?

Are there any flaws in my logic?

well, if your soul could not be affected by the environment, then nobody would sin? and everyone would go to heaven? it would seem the sould would be a useless thing. not affected by anything, not responsible for anything, so, hence, not useful and probably nonexistent

If there is no soul, then we can only think of 'free will' as an idea, as an aspiration. We are forever affected by our conditioning and are biased in every choice we make. What's to say that choice isn't just the product of billions of tiny causes that make up our human body and mind.

What's to say that choice isn't just the product of billions of tiny causes that make up our human body and mind.

That is exactly what choice is. There's no denying that IMO.

My question is how can we really have free will, if we are infinitely affected by our enviroment, by the physical world.

(I felt, for the first time more obviously, that I am becoming an old member of this forum ...)


This thing with "free will" has everything to do with

1. the institute of personal responsibility,
2. our understanding of our own individuality

and really NOTHING to do with that physiological mumbo jumbo some use to "prove" how we either have or don't have "free will".


At 1: The institute of personal responsibility

In order to apply the rules and to sanction their tresspassing, we say that each individual acts on his own (sometimes forced, influenced etc, but that's beside the point here). Free will is there to make personal responsibility a valid and executable institute. This is necessary, as murderers must be punished and heroes hailed, otherwise a society crumbles as it has demonstrated that it has no values and no rules.


At 2: Our understanding of our own individuality

NOBODY FELL FROM THE MOON. Since we are all born of people and grew up in some sort of society, we see that we indeed aren't oh so extraspecial as we might be if we fell from the Moon. But this not being oh so extraspecial DOES NOT mean that we have no free will, or that we lack individuality.

Thinking, "Oh, I was born in this and this society, went to these schools, read these books etc. etc -- I am so not special, I so do not have free will" is pathetic jabbering of those KNOWING that they COULD stand up for themselves, yet are TOO AFRAID to do it.


Everyone has free will; the difference is whether one admits it to oneself, and whether one acts in the name of his own free will -- or not.

Note that saying things like, "But if I truly had free will, then I could move mountains" is self-possessed blather of an egomaniac with too much time on his hands.

Next time someone complains about "free will" I'll go to him and kick him black and blue, bloody making him see what free will is.

Ciao.

......sometimes forced, influenced etc, but that's beside the point here.....

No, that is exactly the point, because all your actions are influenced all the time. And it's only the vast, vast, vast complexity of causality that makes the illusion of something "free" about our will.

....pathetic jabbering of those KNOWING that they COULD stand up for themselves, yet are TOO AFRAID to do it.

Exactly, too afraid because of the influence.

As for the punished murderer and the hailed hero, that's just consequences that should be void of judgement, were one to perceive and comprehend the concept of causality.

Let me pose this question: What is exactly the "free" in free will? If our actions can be made outside of influence then what makes us take certain decisions? Pure randomness? Chaos? What?

The whole argument is a bit like deciding how much pressure water exerts.

It depends how deep you wish to go, and at a certain depth you leave Marianna Trough and the discussion becomes purely hypothetical and nonsensical. We can't see the equation and we never will, because we can't be objective - we're part of it. As Rosa said: free will only has any relevance with *you*, *now*. Take responsibility for who you are, instead of being a leaf on the philsophical evolutionary wind. Being afraid of too much influence is an influence itself.

Before looking for an answer outside yourself, answer this for yourself: which nature do you nurture?

If our actions can be made outside of influence then what makes us take certain decisions? Pure randomness? Chaos? What?
My guess the answer will be similar to the answer to this: how much freedom does your body have from your mind?

"......sometimes forced, influenced etc, but that's beside the point here..... "

No, that is exactly the point, because all your actions are influenced all the time. And it's only the vast, vast, vast complexity of causality that makes the illusion of something "free" about our will.

1. Being influenced is the default state for everybody. If we are to live in a society, or live anywhere for that matter, we will be influenced. It is therefore pointless to aspire a state where we would not be influenced.

2. The self is a construct, and so is free will. It all depends on how much value you put in yourself and your understanding of free will.

3. Whether free will is an illusion or not, is beside the point. We act on it, and we have personal responsibility. As such, free will is real in effect, and it doesn't matter if sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis we don't have free will: we do not experience ourselves sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, but sub specie specialis.

4. Do note that if there would be no influence from the outside, we'd quite literally fall apart.


“ ....pathetic jabbering of those KNOWING that they COULD stand up for themselves, yet are TOO AFRAID to do it. ”

Exactly, too afraid because of the influence.

What influence? People are simply afraid to admit that they do have power; people are afraid to hope and to act on this hope.

If one acts, one's actions have consequences. One cannot act without consequences. Yet it seems that you are pursuing the idea of acting without consequences.


Let me pose this question: What is exactly the "free" in free will?

Having faith in one's own thinking and acting.


If our actions can be made outside of influence then what makes us take certain decisions? Pure randomness? Chaos? What?

Having free will does not mean that one makes one's actions "outside of influence of others", that would be impossible anyway.
I prefer to see free will simply as a statement of taking responsibility for your choices -- as opposed to trying to make others, or society be responsible for your doings.

In your head: Who else is there but you? Who else is there behind your eyes, reading this -- but you? When you are eating your breakfast: Who else is eating it but you?

All you do, *you* do. This is your free will.

My guess the answer will be similar to the answer to this: how much freedom does your body have from your mind?

I figured this "body" vs. "mind" distinction is artificial, and gave it up. Seeing oneself as a whole is much more practical.

3. Whether free will is an illusion or not, is beside the point. We act on it, and we have personal responsibility. As such, free will is real in effect, and it doesn't matter if sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis we don't have free will: we do not experience ourselves sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, but sub specie specialis.

Hear, hear!

1. Being influenced is the default state for everybody. If we are to live in a society, or live anywhere for that matter, we will be influenced. It is therefore pointless to aspire a state where we would not be influenced.

Correct; you cannot not be influenced. Passive influence is nonetheless influence.

2. The self is a construct, and so is free will. It all depends on how much value you put in yourself and your understanding of free will.

In other words free will is subjective to perception.

3. Whether free will is an illusion or not, is beside the point. We act on it, and we have personal responsibility. As such, free will is real in effect, and it doesn't matter if sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis we don't have free will: we do not experience ourselves sub specie aeternitatis/totalitatis, but sub specie specialis.

Again the same.

4. Do note that if there would be no influence from the outside, we'd quite literally fall apart.

Not necessarily, depends on the mind, but not really the issue here.

What influence? People are simply afraid to admit that they do have power; people are afraid to hope and to act on this hope.

The influence that gave them that fear.

If one acts, one's actions have consequences. One cannot act without consequences. Yet it seems that you are pursuing the idea of acting without consequences.

You got that wrong; consequence is inevitable. It's the realization of consequence void of judgement when understanding that there is no free will.

Having faith in one's own thinking and acting.

That only implies individual will, not free will.

Having free will does not mean that one makes one's actions "outside of influence of others", that would be impossible anyway.

Quite right, and without asking "so what then?" we move on:

I prefer to see free will simply as a statement of taking responsibility for your choices -- as opposed to trying to make others, or society be responsible for your doings.

Without free will there is no choice hence no responsibility, your own or otherwise. There is only consequence.

All you do, *you* do. This is your free will.

No, that is me inside holistic causality.

Jubatus,

Where exactly is the problem?

Jubatus,

Where exactly is the problem?

It's in the simplicity of perceiving it once you acquire it, but it's evidently frustratingly hard making other people see it. Their conditioning into this dogmatic conviction of a free will is hard to crack; I suppose it is deeply rooted in their world view. I can picture it in religious upbringing:

"Now my son, since God gave us free will, you are responsible for your actions and you will answer for them to our Lord, so you'd better behave and bla bla bla yada yada!"

And 8-year old little Peter has never had a chance to acquire the rational, critical sense to question this "free will" his daddy babbles on about, so after having heard it for the 1,001st time it's simply just anchored to his point of view as a static, natural piece of unquestioned acceptance.

Now, mind you, it need not be a religious upbringing; there's plenty of societal dogma too.

Now, little Peter must of course face the consequences of his actions but with the understanding that he is not at fault for a wrongful one, because it was the only action (or inaction) he could possibly take - it was inevitable. It irritates me every time those are pro-"free will" takes for granted that I by non-existence of guilt mean that no one should be punished for crime.

Now, little Peter must of course face the consequences of his actions but with the understanding that he is not at fault for a wrongful one, because it was the only action (or inaction) he could possibly take - it was inevitable. It irritates me every time those are pro-"free will" takes for granted that I by non-existence of guilt mean that no one should be punished for crime.

I'm not sure I understand, so let me rephrase and add some examples:
Your concern is with those actions that are perceived as "inevitable" -- and some claim that in those cases, there is no personal responsibility (and thus also no free will).
I don't believe that there really are many "inevitable" actions, I cannot think of many situations where there wouldn't be at least one other option. Central here is, that some options are not acceptable or are not feasible, but they are not impossible -- thus, a certain action is not inevitable. When choosing in such situations, it all comes to feasibility calculations, and sometimes something called "instinct". (But since there is no clear definition where instinctive action ends and conscious begins, I see no point in distinguishing them -- a person did something, and that's it.)

Yes, it is said sometimes: "He was drunk and driving, he couldn't control the car, so he hit a pedestrian and killed him. It isn't really the driver's fault." -- which is just gross, but frequent.

This is more interesting: "The brakes didn't work, the driver couldn't control the car, so he hit a pedestrian and killed him. It really isn't the driver's fault, he couldn't act on his free will."
Or, this happened to my father: A woman threw herself in front of his car, and died instantly. Was it my father's fault? Did he want to kill her? Should he go to prison?

This is the kind of situations where free will becomes a rather perplexing issue.
We have free will in what we do, but so do others; and some things we simply have no control over, it's "higher power" (you're on your way to an exam, and the bus breaks down, and you're too late). We have free will over what we do, but we have little influence on what others do as a result of their free will, or on uncontrollable events.

But this is actually similar to us having no control over the fact that we are made of carbon, oxygen, water etc. etc. -- it is beyond our choice, we don't have the "free will" to choose that our body should not contain any water, for example. But it does, and we cannot do as if it doesn't -- we must drink, or we'd die.
We have responsibilities that are beyond our choice.


I think this could get really interesting, I'm looking forward.

Your concern is with those actions that are perceived as "inevitable" -- and some claim that in those cases, there is no personal responsibility (and thus also no free will).

Not "those actions..." - All actions are inevitable.

I don't believe that there really are many "inevitable" actions, I cannot think of many situations where there wouldn't be at least one other option. Central here is, that some options are not acceptable or are not feasible, but they are not impossible -- thus, a certain action is not inevitable. When choosing in such situations, it all comes to feasibility calculations, and sometimes something called "instinct". (But since there is no clear definition where instinctive action ends and conscious begins, I see no point in distinguishing them -- a person did something, and that's it.)

That's the illusion I'm talking about, the believe that met with options you could go either way. But the way you do go was the inevitable one all along. There are myriads of influence factors behind each such decision, from words of advice you remember, to awareness of social norms and down to subconscious workings of the mind stemming from past experiences, experiences of which some were only absorbed subconsciously themselves. Then you have timing, what mood you are in, whether or not you're under pressure, being observed, and the prospect of others never knowing what you do at that moment. And all that is just scratching the surface of the matter, but all these factors join together into influencing you to one unavoidable decision.

Yes, it is said sometimes: "He was drunk and driving, he couldn't control the car, so he hit a pedestrian and killed him. It isn't really the driver's fault." -- which is just gross, but frequent.

This doesn't describe a conscious decision of hitting a pedestrian.

This is more interesting: "The brakes didn't work, the driver couldn't control the car, so he hit a pedestrian and killed him. It really isn't the driver's fault, he couldn't act on his free will."

He couldn't avoid hitting him - period.

Or, this happened to my father: A woman threw herself in front of his car, and died instantly. Was it my father's fault? Did he want to kill her? Should he go to prison?

Again, not his conscious decision of hitting her.

This is the kind of situations where free will becomes a rather perplexing issue.
We have free will in what we do, but so do others; and some things we simply have no control over, it's "higher power" (you're on your way to an exam, and the bus breaks down, and you're too late). We have free will over what we do, but we have little influence on what others do as a result of their free will, or on uncontrollable events.

This has been addressed in my 2nd paragraph.

But this is actually similar to us having no control over the fact that we are made of carbon, oxygen, water etc. etc. -- it is beyond our choice, we don't have the "free will" to choose that our body should not contain any water, for example. But it does, and we cannot do as if it doesn't -- we must drink, or we'd die.
We have responsibilities that are beyond our choice.

You're simply describing what does not come to us as options.

-----

You're of the common, widespread oppinion that options = choices. But then please explain what about choice is free. For example, if you were presented 10 balls lying before you and asked to "choose" one, and given that you are equally impartial to all balls when it comes to position, you would suggest that resetting the event of your choosing a 1,000 times in time would result in you "choosing" either ball approximately 100 times each, yes, as opposed to the same ball every time? (And in this little experiment we disregard the option of "choosing" no ball.)

If you agree, then what we have is randomness.

If you disagree, then what we have is inevitability.

I see no romantic gray area in-between where lies "free will".

I figured this "body" vs. "mind" distinction is artificial, and gave it up. Seeing oneself as a whole is much more practical.
I think it might relate to the parametric/strategic distinction, but I agree. That, to me, is the answer to free will: we can't remove ourselves from an environment in which "will" operates long enough to examine its nature in isolation - the limitations and unlimitations of it.

We can't remove our "bodies" from our "minds" because the one is the other, for all practical purposes. But we can imagine them separate, because we can imagine other bodies and other minds - and we know that a lot of what our bodies do is involuntary. We don't will our hearts to beat or stop beating. Are our hearts not free?

What we have is (1) Will, and (2) The freedom to exercise (1). But as CS Lewis said, it's an asymmetrical relationship: "Nature is not related to reason as reason is to nature." Freedom is not related to will as will is to freedom. Will and reason can interfere with nature, but nature and freedom can't interfere with will and reason. It's what gives us a self. When freedom interferes with the self... forgetting just one heartbeat will be enough to rob you of the only freedom you really have: to be a living human being.

That's the illusion I'm talking about, the believe that met with options you could go either way. But the way you do go was the inevitable one all along. There are myriads of influence factors behind each such decision, from words of advice you remember, to awareness of social norms and down to subconscious workings of the mind stemming from past experiences, experiences of which some were only absorbed subconsciously themselves. Then you have timing, what mood you are in, whether or not you're under pressure, being observed, and the prospect of others never knowing what you do at that moment. And all that is just scratching the surface of the matter, but all these factors join together into influencing you to one unavoidable decision.
You're free to the extent that you're free. "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains", but "ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". Everything influences you, but it's up to you how you let it influence your decisions. Determinism itself is powerless to change who you are, or have come to be, because you exert your own influence on your circumstances as well. If you give up making decisions, you break the equilibrium, likewise if you resist all influence.

You are a boat on the water, but just because the ocean looks the same everywhere that doesn't mean you should throw your oars overboard thinking all directions are the same. They aren't.

Everything influences you, but it's up to you how you let it influence your decisions.

And this "it's up to me", what is that? Is it some inner core that is beyond influence? Nothing is beyond influence. And I ask again: If our decisions are not inevitable through countless sources of both conscious and subconscious influence, and if they're not the products of pure randomness, then what? What is that that lies between holistic causality and chaos that you call free will?

Determinism itself is powerless to change who you are, or have come to be, because you exert your own influence on your circumstances as well.

We agree in as much as determinism, when viewed correctly, should have absolutely no bearing on your actions. Determinism like solipsism are merely observations you come to comprehend then move on.

If you give up making decisions, you break the equilibrium, likewise if you resist all influence.

You cannot not make decisions; passiveness is a decision too. And resisting influence is an influenced decision too.

You are a boat on the water, but just because the ocean looks the same everywhere that doesn't mean you should throw your oars overboard thinking all directions are the same. They aren't.

This has already been addressed, but the contemplation of determinism could result in the throwing away of one's oars - to each his own.

You're of the common, widespread oppinion that options = choices. But then please explain what about choice is free. For example, if you were presented 10 balls lying before you and asked to "choose" one, and given that you are equally impartial to all balls when it comes to position, you would suggest that resetting the event of your choosing a 1,000 times in time would result in you "choosing" either ball approximately 100 times each, yes, as opposed to the same ball every time? (And in this little experiment we disregard the option of "choosing" no ball.)

If you agree, then what we have is randomness.

If you disagree, then what we have is inevitability.

I see no romantic gray area in-between where lies "free will".

Okay, don't have a hissy fit. ;)

I see your point. I'm glad you brought this up, I was thinking of starting a thread on choice anyway.

Yes, eventually, it looks as if there is no free will, no real options.
Let's say I have 10 summer dresses, and I have to choose one to wear to the party. It has to be casual and easily washable -- this eliminates 5 dresses, for five are very fancy. The dress for that party also has to be green -- this eliminates 8, as I have only two green dresses. Only one of the green dresses is also casual -- so that's the one I'll wear.

Did choosing actually take place or not?

You could say that it didn't -- as only one dress met the requirements, and that was clear in advance. -- But was it really clear in advance?

The objective reality of me having 10 dresses and the party requirements (green + casual) was there before I started thinking about which dress to wear. Does this annihilate the act of choosing? I don't think so. For it has taken me a while, if oly a few seconds, to recognize this objective reality and the options in it. I didn't instantly and without any thought decide which dress to take.

I could also take some other dress, which would not meet the requirements -- in that case, I would not recognize the objective reality, and make an ill choice.


Your example with the balls is somewhat foreign to practical everyday life -- let's take a very common phenomenon of "choice" -- "my favourite colour". I say that my favourite colour is pink. Have I consciously chosen it? Not really. Pink just so happens to correspond to a long line of reasons, influences etc. etc. -- in short: pink is my preference.

Now, to go into what's behind preferences is to address a level of our personalities on which we usually do not experience ourselves. Technically, my "choice" of pink could be random or inevitable -- but this is beside the point, as I usually do not experience myself on the level of justifying my preferences. We say that preferences just are.


But then please explain what about choice is free.

What is free about choice is that we usually do not experience ourselves on the level of justifying our preferences. We do not experience objective reality in its fullness -- this would be absurd and overwhelming. Instead, we live in a mental construct that gives us the impression of having free will; and this very construct also enables us to act in a certain way.

Knowing that we'll die anyway and that there's eventually no rationally justifiable meaning or purpose to life -- all our actions are futile and in vain, aren't they?
But we still act! We must be awfully irrational then ...

I don't see free will as lying in-between a "romantic gray area" -- that is awfully mechanicistic.
I find it feasible to understand free will as a matter of acknowledging that aforementioned mental construct as individualistic, worthy and capable of actions.

Trying to logically justify free will is much the same as analyzing the molecular structure of a spoon, and then based on this analysis trying to define what the spoon is for.

***

We don't will our hearts to beat or stop beating. Are our hearts not free?

In order for an entity to perceive itself either as free or as not free, this entity must first exist -- and this entity cannot choose to make itself existent. There are things that are beyond anything that we could consider our conscious choice, and this indeed seems to say that we do not have free will. But I think that such a mechanicistic view simply is not appropriate, neither is it feasible.

It's also known that our memories can be messed with physically. By poking and prodding in our brains, or through some stroke-like experiences, we can vastly alter our personalities and consciousness.

The brain contains raw infomation, reflexes, and some type of rational processing. But the brain is not responsible for the free willed decisions that the soul makes.


There's this idea of free will floating around, maybe you have heard of it, or experienced it. My question is how can we really have free will, if we are infinitely affected by our enviroment, by the physical world.

The soul is able to process infomation from the physical world, but I don't think we are infinitely affected by our environment.


Christians say that everyone has a chance to accept Christ as their savior, all they have to do is CHOOSE to believe. Well, if this choice is affected by our enviroment, then it's not a free choice is it? You just have to be born lucky, in an enviroment conducive to the Christian thought-style.

That's not entirely so. Ignoring sthe choice not to see God, the choice of loving God can be only made when one is able to see God.


So, if this free will is really FREE and equal, there has to exist some part of us that is not affected by the physical word that makes the decision.

Correct. But the soul is sometimes is affected by the physical world by the soul allowing itself to be affected; this is usually a gradual process. Thus I can't really say whether medicine could change someone soul. If someone's soul is depressed because they have allowed their biochemicals to make their soul depressed, then changing the chemical makeup in brain might change their perspective.

Okay, don't have a hissy fit. ;)

Where the hell did that come from? Every time someone asks me to not get pissed off when I'm not pissed off, I get pissed off. Grrr.

... I was thinking of starting a thread on choice anyway.


Why a seperate thread? Free will and choice are interrelated in a big way.

Yes, eventually, it looks as if there is no free will, no real options.
Let's say I have 10 summer dresses, ...

Did choosing actually take place or not?

You could say that it didn't -- as only one dress met the requirements, and that was clear in advance. -- But was it really clear in advance?

The objective reality of me having 10 dresses and the party requirements (green + casual) was there before I started thinking about which dress to wear. Does this annihilate the act of choosing? I don't think so. For it has taken me a while, if oly a few seconds, to recognize this objective reality and the options in it. I didn't instantly and without any thought decide which dress to take.

I could also take some other dress, which would not meet the requirements -- in that case, I would not recognize the objective reality, and make an ill choice.

You're not thinking deep enough. You're only looking at the superficial reasons why you'd decide on whichever dress; objective reality is far from enough to determine all the factors, apparent and subtle, conscious and subconscious, that conjoin to the one and only decision possible for the dress you end up wearing.

Your example with the balls is somewhat foreign to practical everyday life

I kept it simple for easier understanding.

let's take a very common phenomenon of "choice" -- "my favourite colour". I say that my favourite colour is pink. Have I consciously chosen it? Not really. Pink just so happens to correspond to a long line of reasons, influences etc. etc. -- in short: pink is my preference.

Now, to go into what's behind preferences is to address a level of our personalities on which we usually do not experience ourselves. Technically, my "choice" of pink could be random or inevitable -- but this is beside the point, as I usually do not experience myself on the level of justifying my preferences. We say that preferences just are.

Ok, now you're deliberately trying to frustrate the hell out of my brains. With this you admit there are subtle, subconscious reasons for why your favourite colour is pink, which clearly states that you are aware that pink being your favourite colour is a preference influenced by a long line of reasons, most of which are "hidden" from your consciousness. But then you say that because of this inability to declare exactly why pink is your favourite colour then whether it's a random or inevitable preference is besides the point?! :bugeye:

Am I to take it that you do realize that every decision and preference is influenced through myriads of influence factors, but since you cannot declare for them all then we have free will? That's just laziness.

What is free about choice is that we usually do not experience ourselves on the level of justifying our preferences. We do not experience objective reality in its fullness -- this would be absurd and overwhelming. Instead, we live in a mental construct that gives us the impression of having free will; and this very construct also enables us to act in a certain way.

Justifying preferences? Oh well, we'll skip that one right now. As for experiencing objective reality in its fulness, that is irrelevant for the concept of holistic causality, and as I've said a few times now, the only thing allowing for the illusion of free will is the vast complexity of causality. And I've asked what the "free" is in free will, and you've answered that very same inability to comprehend this complexity, ergo you equal free to ignorance - a "what we don't know, won't affect us"-kinda philosophy, no?

Knowing that we'll die anyway and that there's eventually no rationally justifiable meaning or purpose to life -- all our actions are futile and in vain, aren't they?
But we still act! We must be awfully irrational then ...

So very true, life is irrational.

I don't see free will as lying in-between a "romantic gray area" -- that is awfully mechanicistic.

The workings of all existence is mechanicistic - emotions no exception.

I find it feasible to understand free will as a matter of acknowledging that aforementioned mental construct as individualistic, worthy and capable of actions.

Individualistic, worthy (?) and capable of action does not equal free.

Trying to logically justify free will is much the same as analyzing the molecular structure of a spoon, and then based on this analysis trying to define what the spoon is for.

Then by all means continue trying illogically. If you ever convince me I promise you I will work as hard as I need to for as long as I need to to give you $1,000,000.

-----

okinrus

Please do not step in here with your dogmatic notion of the existence of a soul. Prove soul (not the music!), then come back.

Jubatus, prove the soul does not exist? Is not this as dogmatic as claiming the soul exists?

Second, the original post proceeded to derive something from assuming the soul exist. I was only providing an appropriate explanation of how the soul could fit into our physical world.

Lastly, the issue of proof of the soul is fallacious, for any proof provided to the one who does not believe in the existence of the soul would have to be the physical word, immediately disproving the existence of the soul as physical element. But there is circumstantial evidence of the existence of the soul. That is to say, that what we feel when we do by instinct is different from what we out choice, that what we do by enslavement, we so also feel. But even if free will did not exist, then we would be a being unable to understand the concept of free will. For even our very dreams and thoughts would be predetermined. Admittedly, although we do not understand everything there is about free will, we are able to speak of it.

Jubatus, prove the soul does not exist? Is not this as dogmatic as claiming the soul exists?

Asking me to disprove something not proven is equivalent to me saying that since science cannot prove with a 100% certainty that there are no giant blue penguins in Sahara then there must be some!

Second, the original post proceeded to derive something from assuming the soul exist. I was only providing an appropriate explanation of how the soul could fit into our physical world.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Lastly, the issue of proof of the soul is fallacious, for any proof provided to the one who does not believe in the existence of the soul would have to be the physical word, immediately disproving the existence of the soul as physical element. But there is circumstantial evidence of the existence of the soul. That is to say, that what we feel when we do by instinct is different from what we out choice, that what we do by enslavement, we so also feel. But even if free will did not exist, then we would be a being unable to understand the concept of free will. For even our very dreams and thoughts would be predetermined. Admittedly, although we do not understand everything there is about free will, we are able to speak of it.

That to me was merely a load of baloney; the concept of free will exists to a great extent despite it being merely an illusion.

I don't have much time right now, but I'll come back later; so for now:

Try to think of free will as a certain DESCRIPTION of a certain phenomenon, and don't think of it as that phenomenon itself.

Asking me to disprove something not proven is equivalent to me saying that since science cannot prove with a 100% certainty that there are no giant blue penguins in Sahara then there must be some!

No, this would be absurd.
But we can also not base our argument on something we are not sure of -- yet do as if we were completely sure of. It's bad logic.

Try to think of free will as a certain DESCRIPTION of a certain phenomenon, and don't think of it as that phenomenon itself.

But that description is very misleading when containing the word "free". It's some quasi-romantic philosophical notion that buried its dogmatic roots in the mind of man a long time ago and he regards it as some declaration of independence from an irrational concern, namely that he might be bound by inevitabiliy - how can you be, when you cannot know the future with 100% certainty? Inevitability through holistic causality is an observation, nothing more, it has no practical value, neither logical nor emotional, if you understand it correctly.

But we can also not base our argument on something we are not sure of -- yet do as if we were completely sure of. It's bad logic.

If you are accusing me of something speak it out straight to me personally, please.

If free will is nonexistent, we would then be incapable of understanding free will at the fundamental level. That is, we would not have the facilities to know what is meant by free will, but for having no reference to explain it. We know that unicorns don't exist, but we must rely on the fairy tale pictures of unicorns to make this determination, to know what is meant by the term unicorn. But with free will, if we do not have free will, we have it not in physical world. Nor would we have free will in our thoughts and dreams. We simply would not know what free will was.

Where the hell did that come from? Every time someone asks me to not get pissed off when I'm not pissed off, I get pissed off. Grrr.

Meow.


Why a seperate thread? Free will and choice are interrelated in a big way.

Huh, I was thinking about choice before I saw SkippingStones' thread.


Ok, now you're deliberately trying to frustrate the hell out of my brains.

Toughie, huh?


With this you admit there are subtle, subconscious reasons for why your favourite colour is pink, which clearly states that you are aware that pink being your favourite colour is a preference influenced by a long line of reasons, most of which are "hidden" from your consciousness. But then you say that because of this inability to declare exactly why pink is your favourite colour then whether it's a random or inevitable preference is besides the point?! :bugeye:

Yes. The point is that people have preferences and values, and that they act on them.


Am I to take it that you do realize that every decision and preference is influenced through myriads of influence factors, but since you cannot declare for them all then we have free will? That's just laziness.

Nope, you've made a strawman out of my argument.


Justifying preferences? Oh well, we'll skip that one right now.

No, no skipping! Preferences and values are crucial in our understanding of free will.


As for experiencing objective reality in its fulness, that is irrelevant for the concept of holistic causality, and as I've said a few times now, the only thing allowing for the illusion of free will is the vast complexity of causality. And I've asked what the "free" is in free will, and you've answered that very same inability to comprehend this complexity, ergo you equal free to ignorance - a "what we don't know, won't affect us"-kinda philosophy, no?

That's a strawman.


The workings of all existence is mechanicistic - emotions no exception.

But we do *not* experience ourselves as mechanictistic, do we?! You yourself said


So very true, life is irrational.

If we would indeed experience ourselves as mechanicistic, then we wouldn't thik that life is irrational, would we?


Individualistic, worthy (?) and capable of action does not equal free.

I say that if one experiences onself as individualistic, worthy and capable of action, then one most likely considers oneself free.

We depend on our experiences, mind you.

But that description is very misleading when containing the word "free". It's some quasi-romantic philosophical notion that buried its dogmatic roots in the mind of man a long time ago and he regards it as some declaration of independence from an irrational concern, namely that he might be bound by inevitabiliy - how can you be, when you cannot know the future with 100% certainty? Inevitability through holistic causality is an observation, nothing more, it has no practical value, neither logical nor emotional, if you understand it correctly.

I reiterate: people *have* preferences and values, and they act on them.

If you wish to have it your mechanicistic way, then you ultimately have to prove that there is no individuality, and that it is false to think one has one.


If you are accusing me of something speak it out straight to me personally, please.

I'm not accusing you of anything.

If free will is nonexistent, we would then be incapable of understanding free will at the fundamental level. That is, we would not have the facilities to know what is meant by free will, but for having no reference to explain it. We know that unicorns don't exist, but we must rely on the fairy tale pictures of unicorns to make this determination, to know what is meant by the term unicorn. But with free will, if we do not have free will, we have it not in physical world. Nor would we have free will in our thoughts and dreams. We simply would not know what free will was.

Then, pray tell, what is free will?

Toughie, huh?

Please, do not resort to crowdpleasing; it disrupts the flow of the debate and removes focus from what is important of the things put forth. You see politicians resort to it all too often, and how I loathe them for it.

Yes. The point is that people have preferences and values, and that they act on them.

Indeed they do, and how are those preferences and values determined?

Nope, you've made a strawman out of my argument.

That was not my intention and I do not see it as such, but then please clarify what you meant about the "level of our personalities on which we do not usually experience ourselves" where we find the sources for our preferences.

No, no skipping! Preferences and values are crucial in our understanding of free will.

Fair enough, no skipping. I did not question the validity of preferences and values in this debate for their are indeed crucial. With "justifying preferences?" I was questioning why you used the term "justifying"...justifying to whom or what?

That's a strawman.

Again, not intended as such, so please clarify for me; if the "free" in free will is not the simple disregard of the complexity of influence factors behind our preferences and values (that in turn influence our actions), then what are you saying with us not experiencing ourselves on the level of justification for our preferences? And the mental construct that gives us the impression of free will?

But we do *not* experience ourselves as mechanictistic, do we?! You yourself said

Where did I say that? Regarding ourselves as anything but mechanisms is the realm of romancing life.

If we would indeed experience ourselves as mechanicistic, then we wouldn't thik that life is irrational, would we?

I meant the existence of life, not life itself. We are as a whole rational beings, since there is rationality to emotions, too. But that we exist is not rational, at least not to our current knowledge, for the cycle of life is just that, circular. We can adhere to subjective rationales about our existence, but not really any objective ones.

I say that if one experiences onself as individualistic, worthy and capable of action, then one most likely considers oneself free.

We are as free as we subjectively consider ourselves to be, sure, but that does not refute holistic causality.

We depend on our experiences, mind you.

Absolutely agreed. We cannot be we without them, without them we would become different wes pending different experiences.

Then, pray tell, what is free will?

I believe the best definition of free will is our abililty to make our own choices. This definition is somewhat circular, though. To know what it means to choose would require similar stipulations as that of free will. Free will also has a lot to do with identity. If I did not have free will, I would not view myself as a distinct entity.

I believe the best definition of free will is our abililty to make our own choices.

Is anything about these "choices" beyond influence?

If I did not have free will, I would not view myself as a distinct entity

Elaborate, please.

If you really weren't free, your thoughts wouldn't have been either. You wouldn't be free to ask the question. An automaton.

Are you an automaton, Jubatus?

If you really weren't free, your thoughts wouldn't have been either. You wouldn't be free to ask the question. An automaton.

So you would claim you control what thought is next in your mind? On what is that control based then?

Are you an automaton, Jubatus?

Aye, a very complex one.

So you would claim you control what thought is next in your mind? On what is that control based then?
Infinity controls me. Fortunately, I'm not infinite, so my decisions and thoughts are finite. It's the difference between the two that I call freedom.
Aye, a very complex one.
Fair enough. Then freedom doesn't exist to you. It's an illusion of which you are part. The question must now be: do you actually live that way? As if everything is nothing and nothing is everything, and good and bad are just different ways of looking at the same thing? Think, Jubatus, think...but look around while you're doing it, lest you become irrelevant as well.

Please, do not resort to crowdpleasing; it disrupts the flow of the debate and removes focus from what is important of the things put forth. You see politicians resort to it all too often, and how I loathe them for it.

I wasn't trying to "please the crowd", I was merely being facetious. I will resort to stricter methods of communication policy now.


Indeed they do, and how are those preferences and values determined?

By that long line of reasons we have stated above. But this is actually beside the point when it comes to preferences and values.


That was not my intention and I do not see it as such, but then please clarify what you meant about the "level of our personalities on which we do not usually experience ourselves" where we find the sources for our preferences.

When you think of yourself, do you think of yourself as

A:
"I am Jubatus",
"my favourite colour is orange",
"I love apples"
...

Or do you think of yourself as

B:
"the constellation of my neurons, the metabolical processes in them, etc. etc. are making up a construct that can be termed as the system of self, and in my case, this system is ascribed the appellation Jubatus",
"the long and vast holistic causality of which the aforementioned system is part has produced, in a certain intersection, the consequence that there is an affinity between this system and the light frequency of xy [sorry, don't know the frequency of orange light], and also between the aforementioned system and the chemicals that are found in species Malus."

We usually experience our conscious selves as in A, don't you think?
B is not wrong -- but it is extremely uneconomical.


Fair enough, no skipping. I did not question the validity of preferences and values in this debate for their are indeed crucial. With "justifying preferences?" I was questioning why you used the term "justifying"...justifying to whom or what?

If we are to consider ourselves rational, our properties must have explanations and justifications.


Again, not intended as such, so please clarify for me; if the "free" in free will is not the simple disregard of the complexity of influence factors behind our preferences and values (that in turn influence our actions), then what are you saying with us not experiencing ourselves on the level of justification for our preferences?

No, not disregard. But regard in a feasible, economical manner.
Compare A and B above.


And the mental construct that gives us the impression of free will?

Something that is sometimes called "the soul". More often it is called "the self".


"But we do *not* experience ourselves as mechanictistic, do we?! You yourself said "

Where did I say that?

You said "So very true, life is irrational." If it is irrational, then it is not mechanicistic, eh?


Regarding ourselves as anything but mechanisms is the realm of romancing life.

Oh. And we should deem ourselves robots, or what?


I meant the existence of life, not life itself. We are as a whole rational beings, since there is rationality to emotions, too.

That's iffy, very iffy.
In fact, this whole thing called "We are as a whole rational beings" seems very very illusionary to me.
If we play, bluff, trick, act on assumptions, ask questions etc. -- and we do it all the time! -- then this can be hardly called "rational behaviour".

You might find this thread of interest: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40774


But that we exist is not rational, at least not to our current knowledge, for the cycle of life is just that, circular. We can adhere to subjective rationales about our existence, but not really any objective ones.

Yes. Does this mean that we are to give up on ourselves?


We are as free as we subjectively consider ourselves to be, sure, but that does not refute holistic causality.

Of course it doesn't refute it. But that holistic causality, even though we are in it 24/7, isn't really perceived as holistic by us, is it? It would be overwhelming to know *all* the reasons and connections that lead to something.

When you start counting your reasons for posting here, for example, you eventually *stop* counting. Why?


"I believe the best definition of free will is our abililty to make our own choices."

Is anything about these "choices" beyond influence?

Do you think that ONLY if something would be BEYOND those influences, only then we could justly call it free?

I would like you to answer this, I think it is *the* crucial point in this debate.


Fair enough. Then freedom doesn't exist to you. It's an illusion of which you are part. The question must now be: do you actually live that way?

As if everything is nothing and nothing is everything, and good and bad are just different ways of looking at the same thing?


Yes, Jubatus, answer these questions!

I wasn't trying to "please the crowd", I was merely being facetious. I will resort to stricter methods of communication policy now.

That you're were being facetious I do not doubt since it was that very witty tone that could easily be interpreted as crowdpleasing. But you were not, so accusation hereby withdrawn.

By that long line of reasons we have stated above. But this is actually beside the point when it comes to preferences and values.


But hardly besides the point when the topic is the "free" in free will.

When you think of yourself, do you think of yourself as

A:
"I am Jubatus",
"my favourite colour is orange",
"I love apples"
...

Or do you think of yourself as

B:
"the constellation of my neurons, the metabolical processes in them, etc. etc. are making up a construct that can be termed as the system of self, and in my case, this system is ascribed the appellation Jubatus",
"the long and vast holistic causality of which the aforementioned system is part has produced, in a certain intersection, the consequence that there is an affinity between this system and the light frequency of xy [sorry, don't know the frequency of orange light], and also between the aforementioned system and the chemicals that are found in species Malus."

We usually experience our conscious selves as in A, don't you think?
B is not wrong -- but it is extremely uneconomical.

But B is all I wanted from you; uneconomical as it is, it has been my point all long. We could stop right here, but you have so much more so let's forge ahead.

If we are to consider ourselves rational, our properties must have explanations and justifications.

Fair enough, I shall challenge you on this no further.

No, not disregard. But regard in a feasible, economical manner.

And how does this simplification give it trancendence to free will?

Something that is sometimes called "the soul". More often it is called "the self".

I had put "impression" in italic in the sentence you refer to, because that is what I was questioning; whether if impression was justification enough for you to assume free will.

You said "So very true, life is irrational." If it is irrational, then it is not mechanicistic, eh?

Again, I meant the existence of life, not life itself. We went over this in a former post.

Oh. And we should deem ourselves robots, or what?

Very complex, biological ones, yes.

That's iffy, very iffy.
In fact, this whole thing called "We are as a whole rational beings" seems very very illusionary to me.
If we play, bluff, trick, act on assumptions, ask questions etc. -- and we do it all the time! -- then this can be hardly called "rational behaviour".


Playing, bluffing, tricking, acting and questioning are part of our complexity that lets us learn and evolve, which is rational given our genes.

Yes. Does this mean that we are to give up on ourselves?

Why not?

Of course it doesn't refute it. But that holistic causality, even though we are in it 24/7, isn't really perceived as holistic by us, is it? It would be overwhelming to know *all* the reasons and connections that lead to something.

When you start counting your reasons for posting here, for example, you eventually *stop* counting. Why?

Erm, I've been saying this all along, that holistic causality is so vastly complex that we cannot comprehend it, only the concept. I've been using that to explain in how it can give rise to the illusion of free will.

Do you think that ONLY if something would be BEYOND those influences, only then we could justly call it free?

Nope, I don't think we ever can call something free about will, as I don't see how there can be any middleground between holistic causality and chaos.

The question must now be: do you actually live that way? As if everything is nothing and nothing is everything, and good and bad are just different ways of looking at the same thing? Think, Jubatus, think...but look around while you're doing it, lest you become irrelevant as well.

In the understanding that all existence is balanced, and that balance is opposites meeting to become nothing, then everything is in essence nothing and nothing everything, which then justifies nothing as equal to everyhing.

Good and bad are indeed subjective concepts, yes.

Is anything about these "choices" beyond influence?

Yes, but we make most choices based upon influence and knowledge of the circumstances.


Elaborate, please.

Because the being making the choice is not single in nature, but may be decomposed into billions of cells which make the choice, there is no single being making a decision.

In the understanding that all existence is balanced, and that balance is opposites meeting to become nothing, then everything is in essence nothing and nothing everything, which then justifies nothing as equal to everyhing.

Good and bad are indeed subjective concepts, yes.
That's only half the answer. Let me put it this way: will you trust your daughter to a babysitter you know thinks this way? Not only thinks, but lives that way?

Another point I wish to come to is imagination. It takes some imagination to be free, not because it's imaginary, but because it takes imagination to understand. You might be a reasonable collection of neurons and chemicals, but can you imagine not being? Can you construct a world in your mind where you're not set in stone, a world that follows everything that's good and beneficial, and where choices really matter, in spite of knowing that you have no reason to believe in such a world, and in spite of that world being set in stone as well? If you can do that, that will be what you see when you open your eyes - and you will see that you're not the only one who was able to imagine or have faith in such a world.

Yes, but we make most choices based upon influence and knowledge of the circumstances.

Most? What choices aren't based on influence?

Because the being making the choice is not single in nature, but may be decomposed into billions of cells which make the choice, there is no single being making a decision.

So in other words, it's a vast complexity making the "choices"?


That's only half the answer. Let me put it this way: will you trust your daughter to a babysitter you know thinks this way? Not only thinks, but lives that way?

I'd never willingly have a child, but to answer the essence of your question I'd probably have a delightful discussion with such a enlightened person.

Another point I wish to come to is imagination. It takes some imagination to be free, not because it's imaginary, but because it takes imagination to understand. You might be a reasonable collection of neurons and chemicals, but can you imagine not being? Can you construct a world in your mind where you're not set in stone, a world that follows everything that's good and beneficial, and where choices really matter, in spite of knowing that you have no reason to believe in such a world, and in spite of that world being set in stone as well? If you can do that, that will be what you see when you open your eyes - and you will see that you're not the only one who was able to imagine or have faith in such a world.

Talk about a twisted attempt at justifying your delusion. Whatever floats your boat, mate.

I'd never willingly have a child, but to answer the essence of your question I'd probably have a delightful discussion with such a enlightened person.
Talk about a twisted attempt at justifying your delusion. Whatever floats your boat, mate.
As your first answer proves: morality isn't just my illusion.

As your first answer proves: morality isn't just my illusion.

So an illusion shared is an illusion validated according to you?

"No, not disregard. But regard in a feasible, economical manner."
And how does this simplification give it trancendence to free will?

Feasibility and simplification are *not* the same thing.


I had put "impression" in italic in the sentence you refer to, because that is what I was questioning; whether if impression was justification enough for you to assume free will.

See my last comment in this post.


"Yes. Does this mean that we are to give up on ourselves?"

Why not?

Huh. Have you given up on yourself?
If you haven't, chances are that you are being gravely inconsistent.


Nope, I don't think we ever can call something free about will, as I don't see how there can be any middleground between holistic causality and chaos.

Yup, there is. This "middle ground" can be called feasibility. It is what makes life live.


I'd never willingly have a child, but to answer the essence of your question I'd probably have a delightful discussion with such a enlightened person.

So if you have a cavity, go to the dentist and the dentist tells you "that balance is opposites meeting to become nothing, then everything is in essence nothing and nothing everything, which then justifies nothing as equal to everyhing" and refuses to fix your tooth -- what will you do?

Or, if you find yourself drowning, would you call for help (given that there would be people around you, potential helpers)?
What if there would be someone, a big, strong, well-capable swimmer, you'd call to him for help, and he'd say, "Well, everything is in essence nothing, so why should I help you? Drown, Jubatus, I don't care." -- what would you think? Would you simply let go of your life?


So an illusion shared is an illusion validated according to you?

Ahem. Yes. In societies, these "illusions" are called values and preferences. People go at great lengths to have them fulfilled.

Feasibility and simplification are *not* the same thing.

Then I'll rephrase: This feasible, economical manner gives trancendence to free will?

Huh. Have you given up on yourself?
If you haven't, chances are that you are being gravely inconsistent.

Not quite I havn't, but I see no harm in mankind walking quietly into the night.

Yup, there is. This "middle ground" can be called feasibility. It is what makes life live.

Feasibility speaks nothing of the "free" in free will, it merely states options.

So if you have a cavity, go to the dentist and the dentist tells you "that balance is opposites meeting to become nothing, then everything is in essence nothing and nothing everything, which then justifies nothing as equal to everyhing" and refuses to fix your tooth -- what will you do?

I'd ask to why he refuses.

Or, if you find yourself drowning, would you call for help (given that there would be people around you, potential helpers)?
What if there would be someone, a big, strong, well-capable swimmer, you'd call to him for help, and he'd say, "Well, everything is in essence nothing, so why should I help you? Drown, Jubatus, I don't care." -- what would you think? Would you simply let go of your life?

Natural instincts would probably kick in and make me panic, and then I'd die.

Ahem. Yes. In societies, these "illusions" are called values and preferences. People go at great lengths to have them fulfilled.

Indeed they do.

Then I'll rephrase: This feasible, economical manner gives trancendence to free will?

We can say so.


Not quite I havn't, but I see no harm in mankind walking quietly into the night.

So why haven't you given up on yourself? What driving force is there in you that makes you go on, inspite believing that there is no harm in mankind "walking quietly into the night"?


Feasibility speaks nothing of the "free" in free will, it merely states options.

So you do agree that at a certain level of experience, there actually *are* options?


Natural instincts would probably kick in and make me panic, and then I'd die.

Would you not be at least a bit angry or disappointed that that man refused to help you, and as a reason for his refusal named "everything is in essence nothing, so there's no point in helping a drowning person"?

We can say so.

No, you say so, I do not...It's why we're discussing in the first place.


So why haven't you given up on yourself? What driving force is there in you that makes you go on, inspite believing that there is no harm in mankind "walking quietly into the night"?

To sum them up: Habits, shortsighted compassion for friends and familiy and irrational fear of there being something after death.

So you do agree that at a certain level of experience, there actually *are* options?

Actually, having looked the word up, I see that only your definition really applies, so I was wrong in assuming my definition could apply to the term, hence no, I do not agree there are options.

Would you not be at least a bit angry or disappointed that that man refused to help you, and as a reason for his refusal named "everything is in essence nothing, so there's no point in helping a drowning person"?

As my panic kicks in and most likely overrules rational thinking, I'm quite sure I'd be frustrated about him not helping me and that same irrationality would loathe his rational reason. That being said, the rationale that everything is in essence nothing equalizes him not helping me from drowning to him helping me, according to that rationale.

To sum them up: Habits, shortsighted compassion for friends and familiy and irrational fear of there being something after death.
/.../
As my panic kicks in and most likely overrules rational thinking, I'm quite sure I'd be frustrated about him not helping me and that same irrationality would loathe his rational reason. That being said, the rationale that everything is in essence nothing equalizes him not helping me from drowning to him helping me, according to that rationale.

Are you just being grotesquely sarcastic -- or do you really mean what you've said?!


If you would be assaulted -- would you defend yourself?
And if you would defend yourself, would you consider this as an irrational act?

Are you just being grotesquely sarcastic -- or do you really mean what you've said?!

If I use sarcasm, you'll know it.

If you would be assaulted -- would you defend yourself?

That depends on what you mean by assaulted - a severe beating or a sawn-off shotgun to my face?

If the shotgun I hope he'll blow my head off, and if he fails to do it right away, I hope I can manipulate/convince him to do so. But I'd have to overcome my instinctive primal fear, naturally.

And if you would defend yourself, would you consider this as an irrational act?

In the case of the shotgun, it'd be a rational act according to the instinctual "command" given me by my genetic heritage, but to my intellectual rationale it would be irrational, yes.

So an illusion shared is an illusion validated according to you?
Not by definition, but let me ask you this: what do you consider "real"? Because:
To sum them up: Habits, shortsighted compassion for friends and familiy and irrational fear of there being something after death.
Other people's "illusions" are what keeps you going? You had a running start and now you're just winding down on momentum?

I think you have discovered something of the limitations of a "purely" rational life. Do you suggest an alternative, or are you just complaining?

I'm through discussing; it's futile and I've only been feeding my ego - I've got to rise above it.

You ego is just a notch above your id.

Jubatus,


Hold on, don't go yet, I haven't made my reply yet.

I am not asking all those questions out of curiosity about your personality (so that answering them would be feeding your ego).

We all stand here as cognitive systems with certain cognitive relations, and what I'm interested in in this thread are those cognitive relations. To come to them, however, I cannot but address the "owner" of these cognitive relations. Okay?


That depends on what you mean by assaulted - a severe beating or a sawn-off shotgun to my face?

If the shotgun I hope he'll blow my head off, and if he fails to do it right away, I hope I can manipulate/convince him to do so. But I'd have to overcome my instinctive primal fear, naturally.

Let me rephrase: Would you wish to stay alive and with as little harm as possible?


In the case of the shotgun, it'd be a rational act according to the instinctual "command" given me by my genetic heritage, but to my intellectual rationale it would be irrational, yes.

Do you think that life should not have happened in the first place?
Is life a mistake?


(I'll come back to free will, I just didn't want to give away the connection I'm having in my mind right now. :) )