Sorry. No free will for you.

[Drusus]

Free will Nazism!

I disagree with the OP there is a growing movement of people (on many forums I am a member of, although I will admit that mostly people tend to be free will compatible if you'll pardon the pun) who think free will is impossible, sure they haven't defined it properly, don't really have an science to back it up, or at least any science anyone would accept. But just like the Nazis in the soup shop they get to dictate to others.

Seriously though it's an unresolved question, I seldom meet anyone who can coherently argue anything on the subject that would denote otherwise. But then no soup for you, because you say so? What sort of system of logic is that? I'll go to another shop and have fucking oxtail, there's plenty of soup for everyone, even if I am not sure I freely chose it.

Our free will is very limited, we do thing based on our subconcious compulsive behaviour, because of instincts, because of group think and sheeple, all described in psychology.

Ask professional marketings campaigners and spin doctors, how they easily can influence our will.

Only very few people such as eccentrics, pioneers, pshychopaths and others who partially stands out of group think, has greater amount of free will, but still only partially.

[Bodhimalik]

Bodhi, did I understand you to say that "every thought you have you believe is true?" Thoughts can be very dangerous or they can be great revelations.

Yes, that's very true - both things. And we can't know which thought we have, the dangerous one, or the revelation one. They both look true. Other people can see which one we have, but we can't.

Discernment is obviously necessary to consider your thoughts and what to do with them.

That's true, but the only problem is, we don't know which ones require discernment. They all seem real, seem true.

This is why the cults are so powerful over some people - be careful. 1John 4:1 Do you believe me?

Oh, yeah. Only "cults" is a kind of a misnomer. The same religion that is a cult can be next year's approved religion if enought people believe its tenents. And vice versa.

You gotta watch anything that you can't "see" wth your own eyes and not rely on others to tell you what is what. Especially in religions because those things contain emotional involvement, which throws any reason out the window. Kinda like, "Men sometimes think with an organ other than their brain"

[Bodhimalik]

Bodhi, did I understand you to say that "every thought you have you believe is true?" Thoughts can be very dangerous or they can be great revelations. Discernment is obviously necessary to consider your thoughts and what to do with them. This is why the cults are so powerful over some people - be careful. 1John 4:1 Do you believe me?

Actually, this discussion belongs under the topic "Concerning the Mind."

Selah7+ addressed this to me, Bodhimalik. I don't know who this guy is that suddenly decides where this discussion should be placed. I have my suspicions, garnered from posting on another board a few years back. Another board where the host just placed replies where HE thought they belonged, not caring at all that WE thought they belonged just where they were, thank you.

It made it difficult to find out if we had any replies to what we had posted. I hope this is not one of those dastardly plots.

It seemed to me at the time that someone had more power than they could handle and decided anyway that they didn't have enough.

[Helandhighwater]

Free will Nazism!

I disagree with the OP there is a growing movement of people (on many forums I am a member of, although I will admit that mostly people tend to be free will compatible if you'll pardon the pun) who think free will is impossible, sure they haven't defined it properly, don't really have an science to back it up, or at least any science anyone would accept. But just like the Nazis in the soup shop they get to dictate to others.

Seriously though it's an unresolved question, I seldom meet anyone who can coherently argue anything on the subject that would denote otherwise. But then no soup for you, because you say so? What sort of system of logic is that? I'll go to another shop and have fucking oxtail, there's plenty of soup for everyone, even if I am not sure I freely chose it.

Our free will is very limited, we do thing based on our subconcious compulsive behaviour, because of instincts, because of group think and sheeple, all described in psychology.

Ask professional marketings campaigners and spin doctors, how they easily can influence our will.

Only very few people such as eccentrics, pioneers, pshychopaths and others who partially stands out of group think, has greater amount of free will, but still only partially.

All described in psychology are you joking? Psychology is a pretty weak science atm, it explains a lot, makes a lot of leaps of faith, and a shed load of mistakes, but who is surprised? It really has nothing secure as a foundation. I would not take psychology as proof of anything, except perhaps the ability of those who are new to science to be so wrong its not even funny. Lemark, Spencer et all for example in biology, tended to make the same overarching claims, with little or no real basis.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with new sciences like psychology but to suggest they have anything like a really good picture of mind to solve issues like free will is frankly preposterous, more so than biology claiming it, because biology does not, cannot and will not. There are areas of psychology that are solid, but there are so many that are weakly founded that it is often more art than science as it stands, just as biology was in the late 18th century. I think what I am trying to say, perhaps poorly is the soup is not cooked well, it hasn't got the right amount of spice nor has the cook shown enough adroitness to really win any accolade, and it wont satisfy the majority of people as it is in the free will vs oxtail soup debate.