Do we have freewill ? is it biblical ?

Do you believe you have freewill

  • yes

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • no

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • Total voters
    11
Are there any experiments that could determine whether or not any particular individual possessed a quality that might be described as " having free will" or "not having free will"?
I see the concept of "choice" based on the brain's "best guess" as sufficient free will. Fight or flight is a choice, no?
 
EDIT: Religion and Science don't mix well, a science book explains our reality. Religion explains things beyond our reality, all up to the individual to accept or not. Write4U, you aren't looking in the right place, maybe you can't, if God exists, it made you who you are. Blame God, if you wish you could believe in it
I understand the concept of a deeper "plenum" that what we can experience in our gross reality.
But then we enter the domain of Planck quantum and that still does not identify a motivated agency.

It is the assumption of an Agency with human attributes such as love, anger, or justice, that are completely unnecessary at that level. That's where we encounter "super-position" . It may be possible that this environment is capable of producing what might be called "conscious moments", but those would be at quantum level and almost certainly do not (cannot) posses Free Will.

DNA made me what I am. Would you claim that DNA is God's reproductive code or is DNA a result of biochemical evolution?

Does God have memory? Where is it stored?
 
Last edited:
I see the concept of "choice" based on the brain's "best guess" as sufficient free will. Fight or flight is a choice, no?
How would you test for it?It is just a matter of opinion ,isn't it?

Arguments on either side but just arguments.

No actual repeatable tests as far as I know...but is that relevant in a thread on the philosophy forum?

Not that philosophical discussions don't have physical consequences but they don't seem cut and dried.
 
If what you do is predestined, you cannot do anything you want - unless what you want is also predestined. In which case, you have no free will.

None believer in god here

The Universe operates under rigid Laws of Physics

It appears to me that thoughts, ideas, and the workings of the mind have no physicality hence not subject to Laws of Physics

While thoughts, ideas, and the workings of the mind have no physicality I contend THEY are your freewill

Thoughts, ideas, and the workings of the mind however can and do produce thoughts, ideas, and workings in the mind which require the subject of those ponderings to have a physicality

At this moment you loose your freewill

:)
 
This shows the greatest minds of this forum had a jab of " What is freewill" everyone has it's definition and still cannot hold or enter in it's secrets of freewill. God has freewill for he has taught it to his creation. The devil had freewill been an angel and had freewill in heaven. When God said man ate the fruit he is now like us the angels like Gods. But when he said it doesn't mean we have athourity like him or the angels giving rank but we can do things like them. We must be careful to not go that way or elevate are egos like that for we can understand God completely and evil and good too to it's end in God ways and views.

Still can a machine do the same and be a Gods too. Something I fear possible but still hope no one does it. We can undersatnd what is good and evil but still people don't understand that perfect will of freewill is what Jesus does and he had perfect will of freewill. Humans fail, machines fail, angels fail but God does not if humans do what Jesus does they will suceed.

It is clear freewill is a huge, huge, and huge political, religious, and philosphical area that you dig in deep you will find the real of yourself and find the human purpose God gave in Eden that secret and will see the meaning God intended all creation being machie,man, or angel in his way.
 
Freewill can giva a computer God status but godhood isn't something simple the coding most be powerful. And perhaps worst China and Russia or USA have made an A.I. that intelligent.
 
No actual repeatable tests as far as I know...but is that relevant in a thread on the philosophy forum?
I believe it has been tested with plants, such as the mimosa.

But the test proved that even a brainless organism can be "conditioned" to choose between defensive action or conservation of energy. You irritate the mimosa sufficient times without harming it, eventually it will cease to respond to a simple touch, just as it does not close when a rain drop falls on it. It is "conditioned not to respond to benign irritants.
Or a neuronless slime mold that can learn to anticipate" a timed event and then "unlearn it ". One of the great examples of programmable "cellular memory".
 
Last edited:
I believe it has been tested with plants, such as the mimosa.
...
But the test proved that even a brainless organism can be "conditioned" to choose between defensive action or conservation of energy. You irritate the mimosa sufficient times without harming it, eventually it will cease to respond to a simple touch, just as it does not close when a rain drop falls on it. It is "conditioned not to respond to benign irritants.
Or a neuronless slime mold that can learn to anticipate" a timed event and then "unlearn it ". One of the great examples of programmable "cellular memory".
How is any of that a matter of "choice" by the plant, or slime mold? Altering a behaviour through such conditioning does not seem much of a choice, does it? It seems just a tweaking of some inputs that the plant/animal then reacts to in the only way it can ... a (gradual or otherwise) shift from one behaviour to another. Where in all of that is "choice"?
 
This shows the greatest minds of this forum had a jab of " What is freewill" everyone has it's definition and still cannot hold or enter in it's secrets of freewill. God has freewill for he has taught it to his creation. The devil had freewill been an angel and had freewill in heaven. When God said man ate the fruit he is now like us the angels like Gods. But when he said it doesn't mean we have athourity like him or the angels giving rank but we can do things like them. We must be careful to not go that way or elevate are egos like that for we can understand God completely and evil and good too to it's end in God ways and views.
But you are missing the point that you are assuming the authority to present all you posit as elevated truth, but without a shred of evidence that can serve to confirm your lofty thoughts.
Still can a machine do the same and be a Gods too. Something I fear possible but still hope no one does it.
Are you suggesting that man can create a real God? Now that is an interesting variation on a theme.
We can undersatnd what is good and evil but still people don't understand that perfect will of freewill is what Jesus does and he had perfect will of freewill. Humans fail, machines fail, angels fail but God does not if humans do what Jesus does they will suceed.
I believe the bible recorded God's failure in creating flawed humans and his unwarranted response to kill all living things on earth except for Moses livestock. Apparently he failed in that effort also as we merely can record that as one of several "extinction events".

We are currently in a 6th extinction event, also known as the anthropocene epoch.

Holocene extinction

The dodo became extinct during the mid-to-late 17th century due to habitat destruction, overhunting, and predation by introduced mammals.[1] It is an often-cited example of a modern extinction.[2]
The Holocene extinction, or Anthropocene extinction,[3][4] is the ongoing extinction event during the Holocene epoch. The extinctions span numerous families of plants[5][6][7] and animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and affecting not just terrestrial species but also large sectors of marine life.[8]
With widespread degradation of biodiversity hotspots, such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, which goes unrecorded. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates,[9][10][11][12][13] and is increasing.[14]
During the past 100–200 years, biodiversity loss and species extinction have accelerated,[10] to the point that most conservation biologists now believe that human activity has either produced a period of mass extinction,[15][16] or is on the cusp of doing so.[17][18] As such, the event has also been referred to as the sixth mass extinction or sixth extinction;[19][20][21] given the recent recognition of the Capitanian mass extinction, the term seventh mass extinction has also been proposed for the Holocene extinction event.[22]
more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
It is clear freewill is a huge, huge, and huge political, religious, and philosphical area that you dig in deep you will find the real of yourself and find the human purpose God gave in Eden that secret and will see the meaning God intended all creation being machine,man, or angel in his way.
Seems that after some 3000 years, we still haven't learned much. Could it be that God created flawed organisms? Would that be from Free Will????
 
How is any of that a matter of "choice" by the plant, or slime mold? Altering a behaviour through such conditioning does not seem much of a choice, does it? It seems just a tweaking of some inputs that the plant/animal then reacts to in the only way it can ... a (gradual or otherwise) shift from one behaviour to another. Where in all of that is "choice"?
Isn't all choice a form of altering conditioned behavior, the tweaking of inputs as compared to stored prior memory ? The brain can make wrong guesses based on conditioned behaviors.

Is threshold behavior ( mechanics) a form of choice or must choice always be a conscious act?
How about homeostasis, where the subconscious part of the brain maintains biochemical balance in concert with the bacterial symbionts of the organism?
It is a matter of interpretation, no?

What are other definitions for choice?
choice, option, alternative, preference, selection, election mean the act or opportunity of choosing or the thing chosen. Choice suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely. Feb 3, 2023
Merriam-Webster
 
Last edited:
Isn't all choice a form of altering conditioned behavior, the tweaking of inputs as compared to stored prior memory ?
All dogs have four legs, but not everything with four legs is a dog. And what do you mean by "tweaking of inputs" with regard behaviour? The behaviour is the output, not the input.
The brain can make wrong guesses based on conditioned behaviors.
Where is the "guess" in the examples you gave? Is your assertion that plants "guess"?
Is threshold behavior ( mechanics) a form of choice or must choice always be a conscious act?
No, choice need not always be conscious, and whether threshold behaviour is a "form of choice" depends on how one defines "choice".
How about homeostasis, where the subconscious part of the brain maintains biochemical balance in concert with the bacterial symbionts of the organism?
What about it? Is my thermostat turning on and off an example of "choice" given that it maintains a thermoequlibrium within my house?
It is a matter of interpretation, no?
Not really. More a matter of definition: what does one mean by "choice", by "freewill" etc. I would suggest that once one has arrived at a definition they try to see what they are allowing to have "choice", "freewill", and whether something as simple as a thermostat could be said to possess such. If so, is it really the definition you want to go with? If it does allow that, is it particularly useful?
What are other definitions for choice?
Merriam-Webster
Ah, yes, the self-referencing definition of "choice". All that definition does by using the words "choosing" and "chosen" is show how the noun relates to the verb (present participle) and adjective formed from its root. It is nothing but a matter of liguistic form rather than meaning. At no point does it actually explain what "choice" means without effectively referring to itself. So not a very helpful definition, I hope you can see? "X means the act of opportunity of Xing or the thing Xed."
So, since it begs the question: without simply using the same root, how are you defining choice? Or to choose?
 
What about it? Is my thermostat turning on and off an example of "choice" given that it maintains a thermoequlibrium within my house?
When it reaches a temperature where On and Off are superposed, it sometimes appears that it cannot make up it's mind.
 
If so, is it really the definition you want to go with? If it does allow that, is it particularly useful?
Ah, yes practicality. I am merely posing questions. Any statements I make are more probative than definitive.
So, since it begs the question: without simply using the same root, how are you defining choice? Or to choose?
see post #193. I believe it draws a very narrow distinction between choice and choose.

Perhaps it depends on the causal information itself?
 
It appears to me that thoughts, ideas, and the workings of the mind have no physicality hence not subject to Laws of Physics
Sure they do. The physical processes that support your thoughts are 100% constrained by the laws of physics. Without physics you could not think.
While thoughts, ideas, and the workings of the mind have no physicality I contend THEY are your freewill
They do indeed have physicality - even if it is not immediately obvious what physical changes happen when a person has thought X.
 
Exactly... but God might not exist therefore you do have freewill, don't you?
I don't think you need to believe in God to believe in predestination (or vice versa.) You could just believe, for example, that since physics can predict events from a given starting point, that there's no way to change what you think or do - without thinking that God did it.
 
I don't think you need to believe in God to believe in predestination (or vice versa.) You could just believe, for example, that since physics can predict events from a given starting point, that there's no way to change what you think or do - without thinking that God did it.
Can physics do that? Does the physical universe not just play dice with itself?
 
I am asserting that the brain makes "best" guesses, based on available information in memory.
So how does that relate to the experiment and the examples you put forward?
This from Anil Seth.
So what?
When it reaches a temperature where On and Off are superposed, it sometimes appears that it cannot make up it's mind.
I can write a program that will fluctuate between 0 and 1 on screen, and have the appearance of not making up its mind. But so what? Are you saying that "choice" is just a matter of appearance? If not, are you not anthropomorphising the issue without actually addressing what it is that you mean?
see post #193. I believe it draws a very narrow distinction between choice and choose.
Well, there's a difference between a noun and a verb, but when the noun is simply along the lines of "the result that comes from performing the verb", it's a rather uninformative definition, with a useless distinction as far as understanding what the words mean beyond their immediate relationship.
Perhaps it depends on the causal information itself?
You think outputs of a system might be dependent upon the inputs? Wow. There's a novelty! ;)
 
Back
Top