Predestination vs. Free Will

[Nirvana-Eld]

My understanding is this.

(I'm going to say God "is" for this topic to end confusion.
God is omnicient. He knows how everything is going to turn out. So wether we like it or not, God predestened everything. So in what way do we have a free will and does it even count in the face of obvious predestination? That's it in a nutshell.

[harvey1]

What is Self? Your whole discussion seems to hinge on there being in existence a decision making entity called Self, which exists independent from the physical universe.

No, I don't think the Self exists independent from the physical universe. It is very much part of the physical universe. It took 4 billion years for the human Self to evolve.

So why do you rule out the idea that every human decision has a physical cause? Does every decision made by an amoeba have a physical cause? Plant, spider, fish, bird, chimp?

It really depends on the status or state of the "Self" for each of those creatures. I imagine that they all have a shell that is an irreducible Self having an indeterministic cause.

Then maybe the separation does not exist. A good number of theists hold to this idea, don't they?

Sure. One can believe in free will but reject any kind of separation between God and nature. This would either be pantheism, or related to pantheism in some loose fashion. I myself am a panentheist, so God having separation from nature is an inherent part of my theological beliefs.

[Curious]

The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings. How you interact with your surroundings is guided by the self even though the self is itself subject to its own physical/chemical/biological restrictions. Free will does not require that you necessarily ignore the bodies urges or that you overcome the limitations of your body or it's surroundings. It is not a restriction of free will that you are unable to manifest wings and fly because this is not a choice that is available. It is not a restriction of free will that you would immediately drop a hot coal placed in your hand. It is true that the body is a machine and the brain acts according to particular situations. The same situation does not always result in the same decision though as at different times the self's priorities change. After a romantic night out a woman is likely to sleep with her partner while immediately after giving birth she is unlikely to be quite so forthcoming. The brain makes a judgement in both cases and a choice is made. These are extreme examples but it does illustrate the point that although heavily dependent upon physiological and environmental factors, the woman's choice to have intercourse is still her own because it is made with the guidance of what is perceived to be separate from her surroundings. The decision is internally arrived at rather than being entirely externally forced upon her. In the same way, it would be an act of free will to leap from a burning building although the major influence is the fire. It is the will that is acting and it is free to act according to it's own desire. Whether or not there is only one reasonable course of action does not change the fact that the will is acting in it's preferred direction.
I think therefore, whether human reaction is completely deterministic or not, free will is evident, as the will ,(being a function of the brain), is free to express itself as it sees fit.

[McCulloch]

The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings.

I find it hard to atribute all of what you attribute to self to something that is simply a perception.

[McCulloch]

What is Self? Your whole discussion seems to hinge on there being in existence a decision making entity called Self, which exists independent from the physical universe.

No, I don't think the Self exists independent from the physical universe. It is very much part of the physical universe. It took 4 billion years for the human Self to evolve.

If the Self exists as part of the physical universe, then its actions are according to the laws of the physical universe. Those laws are either completely deterministic (classical) or randomly probabilistic (quantum). In order to have a self which exhibits non-deterministic will that is neither completely determined nor random, this entity called self must exist outside of the known laws of the universe, doesn't it?

[harvey1]

If the Self exists as part of the physical universe, then its actions are according to the laws of the physical universe. Those laws are either completely deterministic (classical) or randomly probabilistic (quantum). In order to have a self which exhibits non-deterministic will that is neither completely determined nor random, this entity called self must exist outside of the known laws of the universe, doesn't it?

Yes and no. Take for example Newtonian mechanics. Did the world have to be Newtonian? Well, from a quantum-mechanical perspective, the answer is yes. But, if the laws of the universe were different (assuming they could be different), is it possible that we could have lived in a universe that was different? Well, I think the answer is yes. However, there's simplicity and beauty to Newton's physics, and if another universe is possible, my view is that the classical laws of that other universe would have also been simple and beauty. The reason is that I think that there are basins that represent each real possible universe, and when the early physical events are such as they are, universes enter those basins where they have their own particular laws. This determines how the universe evolves, and hence what kind of universe it is going to be.

In the case of the Self, I think the same situation applies. The Self starts off as some kind of symmetry breaking event where we find ourselves chosing our basin. As we continue to choose, we fall more deeply into a particular basin which is "us" (just like the Quantum-Newtonian world is our universe). We acquire the properties of our basin's properties, and that includes having a particular kind of will which is dictated by non-physical factors (e.g., purely mathematical factors: just like Newtonian physics).

Hence, the Self is completely physical in that everything about the Self happens in the brain, but not all organizational Self structures are stable, and only those Self structures that are stable (i.e., as represented as being in an attractor basin), are possible. Therefore, we're completely physical stuff, but the physical is reacting and being caused by a higher level structure that exists in some abstract kind of way.

As free will entities separate from God at our symmetry breaking birth, we have to choose our basin. Choose what kind of person we are going to be.

[Curious]

The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings.

I find it hard to atribute all of what you attribute to self to something that is simply a perception.

Which part exactly do you have difficulty with? My own self is that which I recognise as being me, it is the idea of my own individuality or identity. I think it is important when talking about self to give a definition of what we mean as it is a term used very loosely which is why there seems to be so much confusion. If you give me a definition of what you yourself mean by self I would be grateful as I may know it by another name.

[McCulloch]

The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings.

I find it hard to atribute all of what you attribute to self to something that is simply a perception.

Which part exactly do you have difficulty with? My own self is that which I recognise as being me, it is the idea of my own individuality or identity. I think it is important when talking about self to give a definition of what we mean as it is a term used very loosely which is why there seems to be so much confusion. If you give me a definition of what you yourself mean by self I would be grateful as I may know it by another name.

The definition you have provided, "The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings", seems to define your self-awareness. If self is simply a perception then it does not exist apart from awareness. It cannot exist prior to birth and ceases to exist upon death. A perception does not have will. I am not sure what self is, so why don't you propose a working definition?

[McCulloch]

f the laws of the universe were different (assuming they could be different), is it possible that we could have lived in a universe that was different? Well, I think the answer is yes. However, there's simplicity and beauty to Newton's physics, and if another universe is possible, my view is that the classical laws of that other universe would have also been simple and beauty. The reason is that I think that there are basins that represent each real possible universe, and when the early physical events are such as they are, universes enter those basins where they have their own particular laws. This determines how the universe evolves, and hence what kind of universe it is going to be.

You are getting metaphysical on me. The reality is that we only know that one universe exists. We honestly do not know that there are any other possible universes, how many there might be, what their particular laws might be, whether they are evenly distributed or exist in basins you describe.

In the case of the Self, I think the same situation applies. The Self starts off as some kind of symmetry breaking event where we find ourselves chosing our basin.

Here the Self, as you describe it, exists outside of the laws of our universe. It chooses a basin, the basins represent the different possible universes. It is all highly speculative.

As we continue to choose, we fall more deeply into a particular basin which is "us" (just like the Quantum-Newtonian world is our universe). We acquire the properties of our basin's properties, and that includes having a particular kind of will which is dictated by non-physical factors (e.g., purely mathematical factors: just like Newtonian physics).

Wouldn't it be more parsimonious to say that the Self does not have any existence outside of our universe's Time|Space and that it is subject to all of the laws of our universe. That way you would not have to bring in any kind of conjecture of other universes with other physical laws.

Hence, the Self is completely physical in that everything about the Self happens in the brain, but not all organizational Self structures are stable, and only those Self structures that are stable (i.e., as represented as being in an attractor basin), are possible. Therefore, we're completely physical stuff, but the physical is reacting and being caused by a higher level structure that exists in some abstract kind of way.

You say that the Self exists as a higher level structure that exists in some vague abstract kind of way. I say that the the Self must exist must exist outside of the known laws of the universe. From where I sit, these statements are equivalent.

As free will entities separate from God at our symmetry breaking birth, we have to choose our basin. Choose what kind of person we are going to be.

You have provided a speculative framework that can be used to explain the existence of free will but no evidence to its validity.

[harvey1]

Here the Self, as you describe it, exists outside of the laws of our universe. It chooses a basin, the basins represent the different possible universes. It is all highly speculative.

I don't think some non-biological Self chooses a basin, the biological roots of Self slide into a basin. If the Self is a dynamical system, and I see good reason to say that it is, then there's nothing mysterious about attractor basins for dynamical systems. It is well-known that dynamical systems enter attractor basins.

Wouldn't it be more parsimonious to say that the Self does not have any existence outside of our universe's Time|Space and that it is subject to all of the laws of our universe. That way you would not have to bring in any kind of conjecture of other universes with other physical laws.

The reference to other possible worlds is just to illustrate the basic idea: the basins represent possibilities even on a universal scale such as the laws of our universe. I could have completely eliminated such a reference, and talked purely in terms of dynamical systems (e.g., attractor basins, symmetry breaking events, phase transitions, etc.), but I thought it would be helpful to show that attractor basins can actually determine the laws of our universe and therefore the basins are "outside" of our spacetime. This shows why a Self is both caused by the physical and why the physical is caused by the basin's properties.

You say that the Self exists as a higher level structure that exists in some vague abstract kind of way. I say that the the Self must exist must exist outside of the known laws of the universe. From where I sit, these statements are equivalent.

The difference is that I'm not denying that the Self is 100% physical stuff. What I deny is that being 100% physical stuff means that the cause of Self is 100% physical. That's true for the universe also. I don't deny that the universe is made of 100% of physical stuff, I only deny that it is 100% caused by physical stuff.

You have provided a speculative framework that can be used to explain the existence of free will but no evidence to its validity.

Well, attractor basins do fall within the realm of science, and there is a great deal of evidence (both empirical and mathematical) that there are attractor basins that dynamical systems tend to occupy. Science, though, treats attractor basins using mathematical models. It doesn't ask why does nature follow mathematical models. So, I think this account of Self meets scientific, philosophical, and religious criteria.

[Curious]

The definition you have provided, "The self is the perception that you are separate from your surroundings", seems to define your self-awareness. If self is simply a perception then it does not exist apart from awareness. It cannot exist prior to birth and ceases to exist upon death. A perception does not have will. I am not sure what self is, so why don't you propose a working definition?

I personally do not believe that the self can exist after death or prior to the necessary machinary of the brain. I believe the self is the perception of our individuality and nothing more and that after death it is lost. You say that a perception does not have will but why must it? The brain is quite capable of making decisions and we perceive these decisions as our own. If the brain decides upon a course of action, it wills the body to carry out the action. We interpret the intricate workings of our brain as mind and thought and as long as we are free to carry out it's preferences then the will is free. Obviously the body and environment limits the will but, within the boundary of its programming, the brain is free to act as it will.
Some schools call this self the pseudo-self as distinct from the spiritual self. In terms of self-awareness it is this "pseudo-self" that we are aware of. Regardless of whether you believe in a spiritual counterpart or not, it remains that the decision making is driven by the biological nuts and bolts.