Identifying Free Will

[William]

Fundamental to the Christian Belief Systems shared by a majority of those calling themselves "Christians"

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

Re: Wikipedia
Free Will:

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.

Re: Wikipedia
The Ego:

The ego (Latin for "I",[19] German: Ich)[20] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief.[21] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own preconscious rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[22] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #30]

Correct, but I don't consider that will to be free. We don't really have any choices about what we desire, and we simply act on those desires.

Those are two things.
1:The acting of the desires is indicative of the existence of will.
2: Having no choice about what we desire is not.

It is the same as the analogy Kylie gave of the person in the process of falling to their oncoming death...'no choice in what we desire' = the falling in that analogy. Acting on our desire = different ways [choices] in which we react to that circumstance.

JW was talking about the ability to want superpowers even if we can't have them. I find that to be a compelling argument, but we're nonetheless constrained by our wants. We may be paralyzed and still have the directive, "Go toward X" and we just can't. However, the experience of being unable to act on a directive would be, in my opinion, analogous to what the development of true free will would actually feel like.

Yes - I suppose one could think while the ground was fast approaching that one wished to have the power to be able to fly...however, "true free will" is an informal fallacy. The idea of this thread was for the purpose of identifying what free will is IF it existed. The purpose is to show if it can be identified as actually existing, or if it is just a made up thing in order for Christianity [and other religions with similar belief] to be viable belief systems.

Yes I do. But they'd have to accept your reasoning that whatever little bit of brain meat you think is the decisionator really is only a product of whatever made it, meaning that it can't go beyond that, which I'm not sure they'd agree with.

I am not saying that the will is a product of the brain. My position is Agnostic Theist, not Emergent Theorist.

From what I understand, "The Individuate Will" is like unto "The Eternal Spirit".

As such, one might assume that an Eternal Spirit would be free. In the grand scheme of things, yes - one is free to be Eternal - to have existed always - to never not have existed...so therein, one can identify where such an entity would not be 'free' - in that it would not be free to cease existing.

But it would be free to create landscapes which allow for it to experiencing not existing, or to experiencing dying or to experience being less powerful than it truly is, and allow for the unreal [Ego-personality/actor/] to "boss it around" - while at the same time include the proviso that any time the Ego-personality chooses to stop pretending that it is the Captain of the vessel and let the Eternal Spirit have the Wheel, said personality in turn becomes that little bit more real than it was...[see post#20 for more re that]

[Kylie]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

[William]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

Do we agree that free will is not an actual thing?

[Kylie]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

Do we agree that free will is not an actual thing?

I agree that free will can not exist IF the future is set in stone (by whatever mechanism).

However, I also believe that the future is NOT set in stone, so that means, by my position, that free will is at least possible. As in, we can choose from multiple options (and are actually capable of making choices). I personally believe that free will does exist.

[William]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

Do we agree that free will is not an actual thing?

I agree that free will can not exist IF the future is set in stone (by whatever mechanism).

However, I also believe that the future is NOT set in stone, so that means, by my position, that free will is at least possible. As in, we can choose from multiple options (and are actually capable of making choices). I personally believe that free will does exist.

Can you provide any support for that belief?

[Kylie]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

Do we agree that free will is not an actual thing?

I agree that free will can not exist IF the future is set in stone (by whatever mechanism).

However, I also believe that the future is NOT set in stone, so that means, by my position, that free will is at least possible. As in, we can choose from multiple options (and are actually capable of making choices). I personally believe that free will does exist.

Can you provide any support for that belief?

Well, I was pretty clear that it was just my opinion.

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

[William]

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18

So we are agreed that anything which sets the future in stone (be it a deity that can know the future with unerring accuracy or any other method) renders free will impossible.

Do we agree that free will is not an actual thing?

I agree that free will can not exist IF the future is set in stone (by whatever mechanism).

However, I also believe that the future is NOT set in stone, so that means, by my position, that free will is at least possible. As in, we can choose from multiple options (and are actually capable of making choices). I personally believe that free will does exist.

Can you provide any support for that belief?

Well, I was pretty clear that it was just my opinion.

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

Okay - thanks for that.

Since the landscape [Universe] is everchanging it is unlikely its future can be 'set in stone' because that would be contrary to its nature.
That is why we only have theories as to how it might end, if it ever will.

Out of curiosity, why do you think free will is NOT real?

I have not found nor been shown any evidence of it existing as an actual property of the Universe. As far as I can tell, it is a fictional invention.

[Miles]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

[William]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Not so fast. The science isn't necessary showing that at all.

The science is saying that something might start the process of the mind becoming a mind.

The science is not saying that the event started "some level after quantum level"

We do not know so should not claim.

At quantum levels we know something is going on, and if something is going on there, no matter how hard it for us to currently detect with certainty, what that something IS, we cannot claim that this has no part in the cause of mind becoming mind.

From what we DO know, it is safe to assume that it is most likely that at quantum level, is where the mind of the individual originated because everything else seems to be traced back to that source.

Something created that ripple.

Where does science point to as the starting point of the mind? Perhaps in mommies egg and/or daddies sperm?

No. Science points to a time way back before that.

"Control of brain function" is way after the fact of the mind. The mind takes care of its own business, and leaves control of the functioning of the brain, to the brain.

There are levels which exist in one's overall mind, which one consciously has little to no access to. But there they are anyway. To be discovered by those who want to go and take a look.
Explaining what is discovered, is a whole other story.

[Miles]

But since you asked, quantum mechanics shows that the world is fundamentally unpredictable at the subatomic level. And since the subatomic can affect the macroscopic world (think Schrodinger's cat, for example), that means that there are aspects of the world we experience that are unpredictable and therefore are not set in stone.

In regard to the issue of quantum effects having any bearing on the operation of the mind, incorrect.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function."
source: Wikipedia

.

Not so fast. The science isn't necessary showing that at all.

The science is saying that something might start the process of the mind becoming a mind.

The science is not saying that the event started "some level after quantum level"

We do not know so should not claim.

At quantum levels we know something is going on, and if something is going on there, no matter how hard it for us to currently detect with certainty, what that something IS, we cannot claim that this has no part in the cause of mind becoming mind.

From what we DO know, it is safe to assume that it is most likely that at quantum level, is where the mind of the individual originated because everything else seems to be traced back to that source.

Something created that ripple.

Where does science point to as the starting point of the mind? Perhaps in mommies egg and/or daddies sperm?

No. Science points to a time way back before that.

"Control of brain function" is way after the fact of the mind. The mind takes care of its own business, and leaves control of the functioning of the brain, to the brain.

There are levels which exist in one's overall mind, which one consciously has little to no access to. But there they are anyway. To be discovered by those who want to go and take a look.
Explaining what is discovered, is a whole other story.

Woah! I do believe you're addressing me by mistake because your post here makes absolutely no sense to what I've said.



..