False.

I actually convinced myself into joining the Catholic church, and when I let myself open to it, I actually believed it.

Which, btw, was stupid. I'm not sure why I did it. Curiosity? A thought experiment? Who knows? It's largely a load of lies, as with any sect of Christianity. Who really needs it?

I have been able to change my views, beliefs, and tastes, and not simply because something else changed, but because I decided I would change my perception of it.

Free will exists, and to say it doesn't is a silly thing to say.

Tangent: "Morality" is a pathetic excuse for your own reasons of what you should and should not do as well as a way to feel superior to others.

Am I immoral? By some standards, I'm sure I am. It's amazing how little I care.

Do I kill people? No. Because it's moral? No, because it isn't a smart thing to do. It is not advantageous enough to me at this time, nor am I in a position where I could get around the consequences that would result from me killing that person, whoever he or she is.

If you work only on what you believe to be morally correct, you limit yourself.

So, why has "morality" survived if morals don't matter? Because it can be advantageous to appear moral as though it mattered, because then those who don't realize that it doesn't matter will believe you to be morally superior. This can cut into the sides of those who don't realize what's wrong with it.

Am I saying that if there were not laws for killing people, that it would be advantageous to kill people and therefore everyone should kill people? No, however much I may like to at some times. Just because there might not be a societal law for it, there will be people who are close to the person who would then show you repercussions, such as killing you (an eye for an eye, etc). What if the person had no one who would do such a thing? Well, then there's that out of the way, but is there really advantage to killing them that would make it worth your time? I wouldn't go around slaughtering every unloved Christian fundamentalist just because I could, because for one, there are far too many of them, and also, they're really not worth my effort most of the time.

If you'd like me to talk about further moral topics, I'm always glad to share!
I'd agree on the free will part once I see some reason not to believe in it that outweighs my reasons to believe.

Isn't it more "comforting" to know that no matter what, you were destinied to do it? I'm sure the Calvinists were comforted by the idea that they didn't have to worry about doing anything that would sway them from the path of good (as they invariably percieved themselves) or evil.

Hi! And it's Bob, if you're interested.

I said (effectively) the chemical and physical processes within are brain are deterministic. Within our consciousness, that is not the case. What the relationship (or mapping) between brain and consciousness is has yet to be determined.

It seems that at the end of the paragraph above you come to this realization.

The "Laws of Nature" apply at all times. We just may not understand them all yet.

Rejecting dualism,mappinng brain...it seems that you solve mind-body problem.Can you share it with others?

Now there's a wonderful expression . . . How do we convinve ourselves? Whose doing the convincing? Whose being convinced? Sounds a bit like the ole bootstrap problem . . .

We are either convinced or not, we needn't create a convincer . . . or a reason to be convinced . . .


Ha ha, here's the crux - you will never find a rational argument for countering something you believe in. Your belief is expressed in the present moment, and it can not be undone 'here', there is no time 'here', so if you experience changes and you express those changes in a different way, who's to say what caused that - causation needs time, and there's no time like (in) the present

We generally bring thought to bear on our beliefs, giving them a patina of rational justification, the very bright come up with good justifications, the less bright poorer justifications, but we all come up against a wall sooner or later where our response is 'I just believe this but I don't know why' - even the very rational - Einstein 'knew' General Relativity was correct before he justified his knowledge with equations (or got his wife to do the equations for him!). Unless you've thought through all your beliefs of course . . .

perhaps we can just use the 'no freewill' thought experiment as a describing tool, describing the experience of the present moment. It need not say anything about whether or not the present moment was/is written in stone.

It's only a problem when you think about - if we just BE then the whole issue doesn't even arise. The thought 'Whats all this about dualism?' may arise but we don't have to identify with it *because it is just a thought*, it doesn't have a specific relationship with reality, it just IS, in the present moment, the perfect expression of the universe. We don't have to jump from 'here's a thought' to 'here's a thought which needs acting upon', or at least experiencing one over the other is no choice of ours . . .

(ASIDE: these are just interesting things to think about, sometimes they can cause a shift in perception which can be very helpful/liberating, they are descriptions of experience which isn't the same as experience itself)

Freewill doesn't describe the way things are, but can be a useful tool, no-freewill is the same, it does not fully encompass the actuality of experience but can be a useful antidote to the habitual tendancy to think of human beings as 'Agents', there's no such thing as 'self', so who acts?

I was not aware that it was a "problem". It isn't for me, anyway.

Rather, I would contend that the distinction proposed is unproven. Prove that, and we may have a "problem" to deal with.

I have already posted that I have severe doubts about the validity of the concept of our possesion of a free will and, really, nothing I have seen in the thread so far has convinced me that I need to seriously rethink my position.
However, if we accept that free will truly is an illusion then where does that leave us with regard to our system of justice?
Can we justifiably condemn somebody to a lengthy prison term, or even death, if the blame for the crime is actually entirely attributable to a combination of the condemned person's genes, upbringing, social environment etc. over none of which this person has any control?
Intriguing, isn't it?

Sure you can. In fact, you have no other choice but to condemn that person. If you reject free will, then no matter what you do, you were "supposed" to do it.

I cannot disagree with this but what I asked was whether you could JUSTIFIABLY do this?
Our justice system makes the implicit assumption that we alone are responsible for our actions which is tantamount to saying we have a free will.
But, if we haven't (which is what this thread is discussing)?
Certainly, it might make those of us who were affected by the crime under consideration to feel a satisfying sense of revenge to have the perpetrator condemned.
But is that justice if the person cannot truly be held responsible? In other words, any other (hypothetical) person with the same genes, upbringing and social conditions would have done exactly the same thing in the same circumstances?

If you don't have free will, sure. Your justification is that you are supposed to do it. You're an actor playing his part.
Is it justice? No. Is it justifiable? Yes.

If the court has free will and the defendant does not, things get more interesting in that vein.

Essentially, then, we're really talking revenge. Or perhaps, more correctly, our Justice System (revenge system) needs to show these zombies/robots who are devoid of a free will that the rules of revenge will be assiduously and rigourously applied if there is any deviation from the rules.
Can't disagree but it just doesn't sound as florid and harmonious as it used to with the alternative definition.

The point of course is that we can be as florid and harmonious or as brutal and divisive as we like with regard 'describing' the system that dispences justice to the criminally inclined. IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! The system is as it is, the only possible expression of the present moment, it can't be any other way and as such is perfect. So we can describe it this way, describe it that way, be oxymoronic, tautologous or just plain wrong, we are simply delineating a perfectly appropriate response to the present moment. So some will say it is just, some will say it is unjust and BOTH ARE RIGHT, because their rightness isn't measured by some (unknowable?) universal yardstick it is simply a product of the fact that it can not be other than the way it is . . .

Of course these are just words

@siloko:


For the same reasons that I reject a belief in a god, I will continue to choose to reject a belief of the nonexistence of free will until I am forced to believe in it (har har), on the simple idea that there is no reason for me to believe that I do not possess a free will that outweighs any reasons I have to believe that I do. This isn't saying "I just believe this but I don't know why." I believe it because the opposing argument has not made a case that is more convincing.

Of course,if you don´t think you don´t have problems.

It is calassic philosophical problem.˝I was not aware˝˝maybe sugest that you have answer.I would like to hear it.

This assumes that you will only be convinced by a rational. cogent and scientifically-provable argument.
I believe that we humans tend to be convinced rather easily by totally irrational arguments that are more convenient to our personal well-being and pride.
Why did we take it 500 years ago as an incontrovertible truth that the earth was the centre of the universe? Because it made us feel good about ourselves.
Don't you think that perhaps the good feeling we get from our free wills making us better than the merely instinct-driven animal world has a part to play in convincing us of its veracity?

You fail to see the fact that I'm not going to be convinced by some random, irrational thought on this.

The lack of a :teach: emoticon is annoying.

Congratulations. You are obviously an exceptional member of our race.
However, my comment was meant to apply to the majority and as has certainly been the case historically.

My position on free will:

If you plant a tree... In some arbitrary location, it's roots will always have a different soil composition to grow in. Little rocks and soft patches cause it to grow in the way that it does. The roots, the amount of sunlight, and the nutrients affect it's branches and leaves.

Why am I going on about trees? Because our brains function on a similar system of branches (of neurons). In the same way that each tree develops differently as a result of genetics and upbringing (it's environment) so do we (physically, which also means mentally).

So, does a tree have tree will? Does it CHOOSE to grow around those rocks? I doubt it. Does it choose to turn it's leaves toward the sun? Unlikely.

My point, ultimately, is that we are systems. We are machines. I suppose the concept of free will is an evolutionary trait to make us happier... To make life seem more meaningful and ensure that we survive and breed.

That tree thing is a really nice analogy. I both like it and agree with the conclusions you draw from it.
Of course. that doesn't mean it's right, unfortunately.

Benjamin Libet conducted some interesting research along these lines. His subjects were each sat in a chair and asked to raise their hand whenever they felt like it. A modified clock was placed in front of them, with a single hand set up to perform one revolution every 3 seconds. They were told to note the position of the hand at the time they felt the impulse to lift their hand. At the same time, EEG was used to measure brain activity during the exercise.

The findings were very interesting, although not without controversy. Basically, the EEG showed the brain preparing itself for bodily movement preceded the subject's awareness of the impulse (as determined by the clock hand) by about 0.5 seconds. So basically, the brain prepared to move the hand about 1/2 second before the subject became conscious of their decision to lift their hand.

If anyone wants a bit more depth, there's a page about this research here. Also, Google will turn up lots of interesting analysis.