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.

[PinSeeker]

What makes the will, 'free'?

Simply the ability to think and make decisions/judgments and act (or not act) on them. We all have that, do we not?

Can you describe a will which is not free?

No, because it's an absurdity. The idea of an imprisoned will is absurd, really.

Grace and peace to you.

[William]

What makes the will, 'free'?

Simply the ability to think and make decisions/judgments and act (or not act) on them. We all have that, do we not?

Can you describe a will which is not free?

No, because it's an absurdity. The idea of an imprisoned will is absurd, really.

Grace and peace to you.

Then why call it 'free will' as if doing so somehow identifies it as something which is not bound?

Why not simply call it what it is. "Will".

[PinSeeker]

Then why call it 'free will' as if doing so somehow identifies it as something which is not bound? Why not simply call it what it is. "Will".

Yeah, so I'm right with ya, here, William. I only use the term 'free will' because others try to make some kind of distinction where there really isn't one; the distinction itself between a "free" will and a... well, "imprisoned" or "not free" will is absurd.

Grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I have to say no. Free will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, whereas ego is a person's sense of self-importance.

1: If I changed your statement to;
"I have to say no. Will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices,"

would that change anything of ones power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, with the word 'free' now being removed?

I've always considered Will to be the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, and Free Will to do so undirected by controlling influences.

2: If I changed your statement to;
"ego is a person's sense of self"

would it better fit the idea that the 'person' is the ego, or is it being said that the ego is something of a rebellious entity which has assumed the position of 'the person' but is really a fake representative of the person?

iow: "ego is a person's fake sense of self"

As I pointed out in my first post, "I found [Freudian psychology to be] insufferably abstruse and therefore boring. So, while I'm quite willing to talk about the claim for free will, the ego and its connection to free will, will have to wait until my next reincarnation. . . . . . . . . . . if that." Hence, I don't even want to think about it.

Sorry.


.

[1213]

...
Q: What creates "free will", if free will is something a person 'has'?

I believe God has created the ability. And I think the ability is that person can evaluate things and think what he likes the most.

[William]

...
Q: What creates "free will", if free will is something a person 'has'?

I believe God has created the ability. And I think the ability is that person can evaluate things and think what he likes the most.

What process do you believe was used to create this ability?

[William]

Then why call it 'free will' as if doing so somehow identifies it as something which is not bound? Why not simply call it what it is. "Will".

Yeah, so I'm right with ya, here, William. I only use the term 'free will' because others try to make some kind of distinction where there really isn't one; the distinction itself between a "free" will and a... well, "imprisoned" or "not free" will is absurd.

Grace and peace to you.

What makes you think that, PinSeeker? Why do you think the idea of an imprisoned will, is absurd?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I have to say no. Free will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, whereas ego is a person's sense of self-importance.

1: If I changed your statement to;
"I have to say no. Will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices,"

would that change anything of ones power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, with the word 'free' now being removed?

I've always considered Will to be the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, and Free Will to do so undirected by controlling influences.

So are you suggesting that one exercises Free Will in relation to that which can therefore act contrary to controlling influences?

2: If I changed your statement to;
"ego is a person's sense of self"

would it better fit the idea that the 'person' is the ego, or is it being said that the ego is something of a rebellious entity which has assumed the position of 'the person' but is really a fake representative of the person?

iow: "ego is a person's fake sense of self"

As I pointed out in my first post, "I found [Freudian psychology to be] insufferably abstruse and therefore boring. So, while I'm quite willing to talk about the claim for free will, the ego and its connection to free will, will have to wait until my next reincarnation. . . . . . . . . . . if that." Hence, I don't even want to think about it.

Sorry.

Is it an act of your will or of your free will, that you don't even want to think about it? Is the idea of [Freudian psychology] something which could be regarded as a 'controlling influence' if one were to think about it enough to understand that it might actually be a relevant assessment of the human condition of mind?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I have to say no. Free will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, whereas ego is a person's sense of self-importance.

1: If I changed your statement to;
"I have to say no. Will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices,"

would that change anything of ones power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, with the word 'free' now being removed?

I've always considered Will to be the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, and Free Will to do so undirected by controlling influences.

So are you suggesting that one exercises Free Will in relation to that which can therefore act contrary to controlling influences?

What I assert is that the will, the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, does not do so freely, undirected by controlling influences, but is the product of all the deterministic influences that lead up to the point of acting. So one's desires are determined by all the cause/effect events leading up to the point of desiring. Everything we desire has a cause, and that cause is the result of the confluence of all the factors that go into making it up. Desires don't simply pop up out of the air. If they did they'd have to be utterly random in nature, and I don't think anyone is willing to say that's how their life is governed; by utterly random events. No, people are better inclined to say "I have reasons for doing X rather than Z." Rather than "I don't have any reason whatsoever for doing X, or Y, or Z, or . . . ."

2: If I changed your statement to;
"ego is a person's sense of self"

would it better fit the idea that the 'person' is the ego, or is it being said that the ego is something of a rebellious entity which has assumed the position of 'the person' but is really a fake representative of the person?

iow: "ego is a person's fake sense of self"

As I pointed out in my first post, "I found [Freudian psychology to be] insufferably abstruse and therefore boring. So, while I'm quite willing to talk about the claim for free will, the ego and its connection to free will, will have to wait until my next reincarnation. . . . . . . . . . . if that." Hence, I don't even want to think about it.

Sorry.

Is it an act of your will or of your free will, that you don't even want to think about it?

It's the product of all the events that have gone into creating my dislike of the subject.

Is the idea of [Freudian psychology] something which could be regarded as a 'controlling influence' if one were to think about it enough to understand that it might actually be a relevant assessment of the human condition of mind?

IMO it's quite doubtful that an idea could do such a thing.


.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #20]

What I assert is that the will, the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, does not do so freely, undirected by controlling influences, but is the product of all the deterministic influences that lead up to the point of acting. So one's desires are determined by all the cause/effect events leading up to the point of desiring. Everything we desire has a cause, and that cause is the result of the confluence of all the factors that go into making it up. Desires don't simply pop up out of the air. If they did they'd have to be utterly random in nature, and I don't think anyone is willing to say that's how their life is governed; by utterly random events. No, people are better inclined to say "I have reasons for doing X rather than Z." Rather than "I don't have any reason whatsoever for doing X, or Y, or Z, or . . . ."

How am I to agree with you regarding your identification of "Free Will" when you blind yourself to the idea of Ego.

It's the product of all the events that have gone into creating my dislike of the subject.

Ego is fairly well established as a real thing.

What I do know is that there has been a great deal of study on the human mind and how it functions in relation to the human brain.

I - through my own subjective experience - have received data of said experience and from that data, development of the Self is enabled. Life as an individual is not simply being self aware while also being aware of the environment one finds ones self within.

Is the idea of [Freudian psychology] something which could be regarded as a 'controlling influence' if one were to think about it enough to understand that it might actually be a relevant assessment of the human condition of mind?

IMO it's quite doubtful that an idea could do such a thing.

Ego has had a rough ride, being as it has, on the prow of this vessel sailing through this experience. He is used for all the dirty work - like the devil.

Ego to Ego, I myself have done no formal study into [Freudian psychology] as I took a more 'feet on the ground' approach to the study of Self, but even so I came across it eventually and connected the dots that way. There is truth in some of Freud's opinions, because they are obviously studied opinions.

Likewise, I have journeyed the same re Jungian psychology, and am under the impression that the two men branched away from one another as Jung got closer to the fringe than Freud was comfortable with doing...

But whatever, my path is different to theirs but reached similar conclusions. In that, I verify that there is more to the individual than meets the individuals own eyes, and ignoring that [even as an idea] is the Egos way of saying that it wants to be Captain of the vessel.

But it cannot be Captain, as the Captain does not ride the prow.

The thing about The Captain, is that without the whole crew and the vessel, She might as well be a stay-at-home-mom.

The best place for the Ego to be positioned is in the Crows Nest, and let the wooden figurehead cut the path from the prow.

Makes perfect enough sense, would you agree?