Hi. So I was thinking....

Ok, so there are a few things that control our brain.

DNA. - Instinct
Phisical. - Like a scientist litterally removing parts.
Chemical. - Drugs, hormones, all that
Experience. - How your raised, environment, all that.

These all affect how you think, talk, move, everything.

My father and I have this discussion on freewill. He asks me if we have any....

I think we do. I think somewhere inside us, we have freewill somehow. I'm trying to study myself to see what it is, that my free will controls. That, no matter what you do to my brain, it stays the same.




I'v been thinking about it alot, and the only idea I can come up with is this:

Our Interests.

My explanation is not very good. But as far as I can tell, our soul could maby be the thing that controls our interests. A strong sould could have more interests then others. I think we call this motivation or heart.

Some little examples that could relate to this is:

Some old people will work there entire lives. Then they retire, and a week later they die.

Some lovers will live together years, and sometimes when one dies due to disease or something, the other dies son after.

Mothers may have the ability to live through there children more. In a sense, they stay more interested... Maby why they live longer.

Alot of people who live in old peeps homes, if there family visits them regularly, they live longer then the ones un-loved.


Could the soul have lost interest. Could it have given up, and without our sole, we can die?



Sometimes, if you have alot of interests, like your job, children, research... you may feel more alive... This may be why some depressed people feel they have "no life".

This is what I think our soul has to be.

My soul is a black pit of unending despair and woe.

I long to sleep forever to end the dark perception of my deep insignificance.



Have a nice night. :D

If that were true, you wouldn't be here. =P

sleep well

People get their interests from somewhere, don't they?
Parents put in Disney movies, later the kid likes Disney movies, but it could just as easily been the case that the parents made the kid watch Sesame Street, and the kid later likes Sesame Street. Are our interests really of our own choosing, or a matter of what we get exposed to?

I wasn't really introduced to the stars when I was like 6. For some reason I took an interest in them more then others.

We all look up at the same stars. We all ask the same impossible questions about life. Some of us just take more of an interest.

I'm adopted, and I'v never met my biological parents or even brothers or sisters. I know I could. But for some reason the only reason I can think of calling them is to ask about my genitics...

Alot of people would have an interest in that.


We have alot of unexplainable interests. I dont think you can change these unless you kill the soul.

One could argue that an "interest" is merely a chemical/neurological reaction within the brain: certain thoughts and stimuli create a chemical/neurological change that another part of the brain registers as "pleasing" etc. So we try to develop it.

I have an interest in X because thinking about, reacting with X, stimulates parts of my brain that other parts of my brain enjoy.
I don't have an interest in Y because my brain doesn't react the same way.

The continued interest in X is developed through a feed-back loop that seeks additional pleasure, but is obviously only one of many feedback loops, with another part of the brain weighing up all the inputs to create an overall output.

All (it could be argued) is merely robotic - i.e. one magnificently complex chain of cause and effect.

One could argue that an "interest" is merely a chemical/neurological reaction within the brain: certain thoughts and stimuli create a chemical/neurological change that another part of the brain registers as "pleasing" etc. So we try to develop it.

I have an interest in X because thinking about, reacting with X, stimulates parts of my brain that other parts of my brain enjoy.
I don't have an interest in Y because my brain doesn't react the same way.

The continued interest in X is developed through a feed-back loop that seeks additional pleasure, but is obviously only one of many feedback loops, with another part of the brain weighing up all the inputs to create an overall output.

All (it could be argued) is merely robotic - i.e. one magnificently complex chain of cause and effect.

and in this scenario it would be artificial to isolate the robot from 'its enrvironment' since this robot would always be disintegrating into the environment, being impinged on and affected causally by this environment, and being 'rebuilt' from this environment. Those 'outer' causes have profound effects on the internal workings of that robot and the robot's behavior or really the whole [robot + milieu] is a single process. As a techinique of analysis it could be useful to isolate this [robot] alone in brackets and treat is as something separate, but this, if done too much, leads to all kinds of errors like identity through time and tendencies to try to come with theories of free will.

there are 3 concepts of self
freewill
ego
spirit

freewill is what we believe we have/are.
ego is what we feel we are.
spirit is what we know we are.

i think you are on the right track with interests/drives.
curiousity
empathy
sympathy
sex drive

but there are subtleties involved.

Could the soul have lost interest. Could it have given up, and without our sole, we can die?
This is what I think our soul has to be.

Can you prove the exsistance of a soul? No. So what makes you think there is such a thing? Religions tell you that don't they but have you ever seen a soul or been involved in studying a soul? Myths are everywhere in all religions to keep you interested in them so that you become a "follower" of their kind. It is the person that gives up, the person who decides on their own free will as to what to believe and what not to. No supernatural power has control over you and nothing awaits you when you die. We live and try our best to do what we can in order to survive and get along with each other while we are here. I like reading the following because it really says it all....

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.


With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

many people are still controlled by nature to some degree because they are not aware of their own nature. awareness determines how much we are controlled. animals are less aware than humans so they are less in control. plants are even less aware and matter is even less aware. scientists think that matter is not aware at all, so they think can predict everything matter does. they call the behaviour of matter "natural laws".

All (it could be argued) is merely robotic - i.e. one magnificently complex chain of cause and effect.

there can't be a chain of cause and effect because the present is all there is. all the so called causes that scientists talk about, like chemical/neurological reactions, are not causes at all, because everything that can be observed has another cause, ad infinitum.

i am (JHWH) the only thing that is not observable, so i (life, free will) am the only cause.

Can you prove the exsistance of a soul? No. So what makes you think there is such a thing?

because religions say so. the ancient people knew what they were talking about. they had studied the world much longer than modern scientists.

strawman argument.

the ancient people knew what they were talking about. they had studied the world much longer than modern scientists.

The Chinese don't have a religion and they are about the only ancient society that still exists today with direct ties to their past. Native Americans had no religions either. Buddhists only believe in themselves but learn from a man named Buddha.

The Chinese don't have a religion and they are about the only ancient society that still exists today with direct ties to their past.
Religion in China has been characterized by pluralism since the beginning of Chinese history. Temples of many different religions dot China's landscape, particularly those of Taoism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion. Mahayana Buddhism remains the largest organized religion in China since its introduction in the 1st century.

The majority of Chinese people follow Buddhism (between 660 million, 50%, and over 1 billion, 80%[1][2]) and/or Taoism (400 million, 30%[3][4]).

Number of adherents to these religions can be overlaid in percentage due to the fact that some Chinese consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist.[5][6][7] Buddhists are mostly nominal adherents because only a small proportion of the population (over 8% or over 100 million [8][9]) may have taken the formal step of going for refuge.[10][11][12][13]

Minority religions are Christianity (between 40 million, 3%[14], and 54 million, 4%[15]), Islam (20 million, 1.5%), Hinduism, Dongbaism, Bon, and a number of new religions and sects (particularly Xiantianism and Falun Gong).

According to the surveys of Phil Zuckerman on Adherents.com; in 1993, 59% (over 700 million)[16] of the Chinese population was irreligious but in the newest survey (same author) in 2005, it was only 14% (over 180 million).[17][18]

To say 'the chinese' is like saying 'the Euramericans' (including South and North America) and then making a generalization. Possible, but unlikely.

Native Americans had no religions either. Buddhists only believe in themselves but learn from a man named Buddha.
I think you can make a case that native americans did not have religions in the sense of the monotheisms. But they certainly tended to believe things that make atheists and other rationalists get all squirmy.

For some reason I took an interest in them more then others.
The idea is, this "reason" that you took interest is beyond your control. Your interest was caused by something, and inasmuch as this is true your interest is out of your control.

You might say, "I'm the reason I took an interest in them." But that which is "you" is a composite of external things, your upbringing, your genes, the ideas you were/are exposed to, how nourished you are/were, etc. The causes for your interest all run in chains away from "you".

Of course, later in life you may be able to direct the inclusion of certain things in your make-up, i.e. you "choose" to be exposed to more Christian ideas, and in turn become a more Christian person (one whose actions are guided by Christian ideas). But the choice you make in exposing yourself to Christian ideas is based on earlier idea-exposures, for instance, the idea that religions are acceptable, or the idea that exploring foreign ideas is acceptable/recommendable.

There is no free will because there is no person there, it's an illusion. Every thought and action is the result of a cascade of cause and effect. Neither is everything predictable.

and in this scenario it would be artificial to isolate the robot from 'its enrvironment' since this robot would always be disintegrating into the environment, being impinged on and affected causally by this environment, and being 'rebuilt' from this environment. Those 'outer' causes have profound effects on the internal workings of that robot and the robot's behavior or really the whole [robot + milieu] is a single process. As a techinique of analysis it could be useful to isolate this [robot] alone in brackets and treat is as something separate, but this, if done too much, leads to all kinds of errors like identity through time and tendencies to try to come with theories of free will.Sure - isolating the robot from external stimuli ('its environment') would be like a baby that can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell etc. (I'm assuming this is what you meant?)

By all accounts prolonged sensory deprivation would cause madness? - but if the subject has NEVER had sensory input, how can it verbalise that madness except through a scream it can't hear.
It's only "causes" would be internal - with no external reference points, no way to express it's thoughts - could it even have any?

Creepy idea.

Slightly off topic, but that could be a problematic issue with trying to create an AI - in not giving it sufficient simultaneous input to create the necessary connections and references etc.

Anyhoo - enough for today.

There is no free will because there is no person there, it's an illusion. Every thought and action is the result of a cascade of cause and effect. Neither is everything predictable.

:D I tend to follow this line of thinking.

Sure - isolating the robot from external stimuli ('its environment') would be like a baby that can not see, hear, touch, taste, smell etc. (I'm assuming this is what you meant?)
. Not what I meant. I meant conceptually. Regarding these 'robots' as separate individuals. But in a full on causation determinism they are not separate from flows of causation - and exchanges of matter for that matter - with what is around them. There is simply an ongoing inevitable cascade of cause and effect, the latter being new causes. No individuals. The idea may be a useful, temporary heuristic device, but a misleading one.

BarbieGirl14,
If you want to understand free will as best as possible you will need to study up on Chaos Science, as Chaos is what happens when there is Freeness of Energy...and when that happens there is US...and as it turns out we are an extension of this fundamental Truth.

mods you can lock this thread if you want....

I honestly have no comment for you guys. You completely... I cant even say what I want because I might upset you....

mods you can lock this thread if you want....

I honestly have no comment for you guys. You completely... I cant even say what I want because I might upset you....

what? Thats the beauty of this forum, you literally can say what you want, unles it racist or insights hate. :D

Yes, but being impolite is basicly reverting back to instincts, and anchient ways, which I hope were more civilized then that..

Besides I really dislike drama, confrontation, and mad people. =P

BarbieGirl14, if you disagree with what is being discussed then do feel free to share your thoughts.
If you think the only way you'd be able to do that is by being impolite then I guess you'd have to ask yourself why: are we upsetting your sensibilities? Do you find what is already written to be offensive in any way? Do you have no other way to state your arguments other than through being impolite?
Just curious.