Sorry. No free will for you.

[Bodhimalik]

Practically everyone believes they have Free Will. They believe they can choose this or they can choose that. It is up to them. No question of it.

But Free Will itself is not a matter of something we have chosen. Free will has either been given to us or it has not been given to us. We have no choice in the matter.

We have no ability to make conscious decisions any more than does a computer. Even our responsibilities are not a matter of what “is” - of fact. It is a matter of opinion - of thought - of belief. And we cannot choose our opinions or our thoughts or our beliefs. These things come to US. We don’t go to them.

My decisions are made for me by my remembrances, my instincts, my desires, my thoughts, my emotions, my ambitions, and so forth - none of these of which I get to choose. They choose me. I can’t even “not do something.” That is chosen for me also.

If one were to look back with regret on some horrible thing one did, if one were to have the exact same memory, same instincts, same emotions, thoughts, circumstances, etc, as one did back then, then one would do exactly the same horrible thing again. One would not have the Free Will to change one’s behavior.

We are all exactly where we are today because of our past and our future - over both of which we have no control. No es verdad?

I have had people argue that this philosophy gives a person the right to rob and murder. They always go on to say, “I would not do this, but HE might.”

My argument with this argument is based upon fact. I have this philosophy and I don’t rob and murder.

Look closely at what you can “do.” Grow another arm? Be interested in something that doesn’t interest you - in other words, pick your interests? Choose what thoughts to have - how to make a time machine, for instance? Grow a different color bunch of hair? Digest rocks? Not digest bread?

Do we consciously raise our arms - pick which muscles to do what, or do we just will it to rise and it rises in a way totally unknown by us?

Do we pick when to have our heart beat or lungs breathe? Do we pick when to get sexually aroused or when to get sleepy or hungry?

Do we pick what to dream? Or when? Do we pick what our eyes are to see? Do we choose what sound is sensed by our brain? Do we choose what level of pain we wish?

What is it that WE can “do”?

A plant can grow, and thus DO something, but can it “do” anything? Is the plant then a machine like us, or “free willed” like us?

[anon]

In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

source

Of course you could make the argument that undertaking the experiments themselves was also predetermined, and the changes in the attitudes of the participants at that very time were predetermined, and everything everywhere no matter what happens was predetermined… but that’s a bit like claiming that everything is blue and when I point out the color red you say well that’s just a shade of blue. Everything is blue.

[Uccisore]

I see a lot of assertions here, but not much argument. I know that I have free will because I am aware of myself choosing things all the time. In other words, it is as likely that I have free will as it is that I am typing a sentence right now, or sitting in a chair.

That’s good enough for me. It’s good enough that if science can’t find evidence of free will, I feel comfortable scolding science rather than changing my mind. Just like if science discovered that I wasn’t wearing a hat right now, I’d be more skeptical of the experiment than of my own body awareness.

[Bodhimalik]

@Uccisore

I see a lot of assertions here, but not much argument. I know that I have free will because I am aware of myself choosing things all the time. In other words, it is as likely that I have free will as it is that I am typing a sentence right now, or sitting in a chair.

That’s good enough for me. It’s good enough that if science can’t find evidence of free will, I feel comfortable scolding science rather than changing my mind. Just like if science discovered that I wasn’t wearing a hat right now, I’d be more skeptical of the experiment than of my own body awareness.

My post was not meant to be argumentative. The way I look at it, I make a statement, the reader either accepts it or refuses it.

I’m not much into arguments. I have discovered that no matter whose opinion or how many people have a certain opinion, what “is” stays exactly the same. People’s opinion have no effect upon what “is” whatsoever.

I like facts. I adore facts. That’s why my writings always say, “look at this. And look at this.” I try to give examples of my “facts”, examples that everyone has every day. Some of them resonate, some are not understood, some of them are ignored, some of them are misunderstood, some of them are so far out of the range of what many people believe that they never find their way in. As an example of this statement, look towards an atheist trying to convince a fundamentalist that the Bible is in error

But thanks for your post. I like to know how people think. I guess, in a way, what I am trying to do with my posts is to give people another glimpse into Existence that they do not now have. Having someone like you posting what you did gives me a glimpse into how my words are taken.

For your edification, not many ever agree what I say. That also gives me information. So again, thank you.

And keep answering, please.

[James_S_Saint]

As Always…

The term “Free-will” only makes any sense when referring to “the freedom to exercise one’s will”, not when you try to use it as “a will that is free from causation”.

And the “non-responsibility” argument is non-sense in both cases.

Responsibility means “response-ability”. It refers to one’s ability to respond and is used to indicate a direction to place blame so as to prevent malice. The infinite regress of causation that led to an act of malice is not “response-able” and is not the direction for blame simply because the point in blaming is to prevent further instances. But any one particular item of causation within that infinite regress might have been in a position to be response-able, but didn’t respond. The fact that it was caused to not respond is the whole point for singling it out so that it can be replaced by something that will not be caused to not respond and thus will respond as needed.

To not accept response-ability is to yield to the notion of being merely a component in someone else’s machine and thus bringing about the truth of it.

Free-will is one of those things that you lose by not believing that you have it. And it is only popular to argue against it during a time of upcoming oppression and tyranny.

[Uccisore]

What a waste of my time then.

[Bodhimalik]

Made an error, sorry. I try to answer each stateent before I go on to the next, but evidently I don’t have that
[/quote]
thing going properly

[Bodhimalik]

@James S Saint

As Always…

The term “Free-will” only makes any sense when referring to “the freedom to exercise one’s will”, not when you try to use it as “a will that is free from causation”.

And the “non-responsibility” argument is non-sense in both cases.

Responsibility means “response-ability”. It refers to one’s ability to respond and is used to indicate a direction to place blame so as to prevent malice. The infinite regress of causation that led to an act of malice is not “response-able” and is not the direction for blame simply because the point in blaming is to prevent further instances. But any one particular item of causation within that infinite regress might have been in a position to be response-able, but didn’t respond. The fact that it was caused to not respond is the whole point for singling it out so that it can be replaced by something that will not be caused to not respond and thus will respond as needed.

To not accept response-ability is to yield to the notion of being merely a component in someone else’s machine and thus bringing about the truth of it.

Free-will is one of those things that you lose by not believing that you have it. And it is only popular to argue against it during a time of upcoming oppression and tyranny.

It took me a long time to decide as to whether I have the energy to respond to your post. In fact, I had decided not to respond at all, but that left me feeling as if I was dissing you.

The problem I had was that I never think in your terms. I imagine you never think in my terms. So it is an effort for me to be here - like speaking a foreign language knowing I am going to interpret a word wrong now and then.

I used the term, “responsibility” as just an example of things that are not chosen by us, but chosen for us. By our parents and upbringing, even. I had absolutely no intention into getting into an argument about its definition. Still don’t.

When you say, “…the notion of being merely a component in someone else’s machine,” we come close to seeing the same view, with the exception that instead of “someone else’s machine,” I would use,“God’s machine.” My philosophy is that I am here so that God can look out through my eyes. But as for being merely a component, yes indeedy.

Whew! That was hard.

[Stoic_Guardian]

I’d describe free will as this, yes there are things we don’t choose to desire, say for instance a girl with a real nice ass bent over in front of you ,seeing that you’re aroused (something thats innate that you didn’t choose). Where as deciding whether or not to try and touch it would be an expression of free will.

[Bodhimalik]

@Stoic Guardian

I’d describe free will as this, yes there are things we don’t choose to desire, say for instance a girl with a real nice ass bent over in front of you ,seeing that you’re aroused (something thats innate that you didn’t choose). Where as deciding whether or not to try and touch it would be an expression of free will.

Well, whether you touch it or not would depend upon your thoughts, your desires, your upbringing, having to mention it in confession, not knowing how the girl would take it, would you get a felony for unwarrented sexual activity, your worries or lack thereof, your desires or lack thereof - none of these chosen by you.

You ARE a machine. No doubt about it

[Stoic_Guardian]

Plenty of doubt about it, I’ve heard this argument a hundred times whats your definitive proof of this?

If you want to discuss or debate thats fine, but this arrogant conjecture is nothing new.

[James_S_Saint]

@Bodhimalik

The problem I had was that I never think in your terms.

Yep that could be quite a problem.

@Bodhimalik

Whew! That was hard.

@Bodhimalik

You ARE a machine. No doubt about it

That somewhat depends on what you are willing to call a “machine”. Anything can be called a machine.
At what point is it no longer a “machine”, but rather an independent life form?

[Bodhimalik]

@James S Saint

@Bodhimalik

@Bodhimalik

You ARE a machine. No doubt about it

That somewhat depends on what you are willing to call a “machine”. Anything can be called a machine.
At what point is it no longer a “machine”, but rather an independent life form?

When it is “God.” Consciousness.

You buy that animals depend upon instincts. Machines? You know that plants grow wthout self effort. Machines? You can look at what, exactly, YOU can do. Machine? Are microbes machines? Viruses?

I call an object a machine if it does work because that’s the way it was made - like a growing spear of asparagus.

I got a little anecdote about this.

I took est training and before we started on this portion about us all being machines, the trainer told us that when we “got it,” some of us would cry, some of us would be joyful, some of us would be scared, some of us would be angry. There were 300 people at that particular training and sho 'nuff, you could see scowls and hear,“bull crap!”, you could see people crying, you could see smiling faces. Actual joyful faces. We reacted exactly like the trainer said we would.

My own son told me that the idea that we were machines with no free will was very scary for him. My other son does not believe he doesn’t have free will. He can see that he has.

I can imagine that coming at you like this, if anyone kinda believes what I am saying, if anyone would have some negative emotion about it, I can imagine that that alone would prevent them from believing what I say. Most of us operate with emotional reasoning anyhow.

And after all, to you I am not an authority. You don’t know me. I have no credentials. I am just a guy posting nonsense along with others also posting nonsense. What do I know?

[Bodhimalik]

@Stoic Guardian

Plenty of doubt about it, I’ve heard this argument a hundred times whats your definitive proof of this?

If you want to discuss or debate thats fine, but this arrogant conjecture is nothing new.

Discuss it? Yes. Debate it? No.

I cannot show you any proof. We are talking about what “is.” Real Realty as opposed to Apparent Reality, which is illusionary and therefore not real.

In Apparent reality, one may show another his or her proof. In Real Reality, the only proof is found by each individual by “seeing”

I can point you to where proof lies, but if you don’t look, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s like I tell you there is a bird on the wire over there, but if you don’t look, I can never prove to you that there is. Your proof will be accomplished by seeing the bird

[Stoic_Guardian]

@Bodhimalik

I cannot show you any proof. We are talking about what “is.” Real Realty as opposed to Apparent Reality, which is illusionary and therefore not real.

What?

@Bodhimalik

In Apparent reality, one may show another his or her proof. In Real Reality, the only proof is found by each individual by “seeing”

Right…

@Bodhimalik

I can point you to where proof lies, but if you don’t look, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s like I tell you there is a bird on the wire over there, but if you don’t look, I can never prove to you that there is. Your proof will be accomplished by seeing the bird

Well thats an interesting view, “I wont tell you because you’ll just ignore it.”

[James_S_Saint]

Of course some people don’t know God from the Devil’s Mask.

[Bodhimalik]

@Stoic Guardian

@Bodhimalik

I cannot show you any proof. We are talking about what “is.” Real Realty as opposed to Apparent Reality, which is illusionary and therefore not real.

What?

@Bodhimalik

In Apparent reality, one may show another his or her proof. In Real Reality, the only proof is found by each individual by “seeing”

Right…

@Bodhimalik

I can point you to where proof lies, but if you don’t look, there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s like I tell you there is a bird on the wire over there, but if you don’t look, I can never prove to you that there is. Your proof will be accomplished by seeing the bird

Well thats an interesting view, “I wont tell you because you’ll just ignore it.”

I wish I could do that thing with the “quotes” like you do, but I can’t, so I’ll do it this way.

My response to your “what?” is, see my post titled, “It’s All Done With MIrrors.” To your “right,” I’ll give you the fact that everybody’s reality is created by their beliefs and this is the apparent reality that is the illusion. Real Reality is the one that allows this to happen. One may use words to explain apparent reality “things”, but for Real Reality, words can not be used. Explanations become contradictory.

The only advice one can give to another when using words to explain Real Reality is to tell them, “don’t look at the finger, look to where the finger is pointing.”

To your, "“I wont tell you because you’ll just ignore it.”, I am relying on the many years of explaining the magic of existence to people by trying to get them to “look.” Very, very few ever do.

As an example of this, when I say, "every thought you have is true, is real, I get opposition. But when I declare that all one has to do to disprove this, is to just give me ONE thought that they have that is not true. THAT will disprove it. Right? Just one?

I have found that nobody will do this, nobody can do this. In geometry we called this proof “indirect proof.” And indirect proof is accepted as just as good as direct proof.

So if people will not even “look” at this very easy proof - no work at all, a walk in the park, what chance is there that anyone will look at their own thoughts until they see the relationship between their beliefs and their reality? Or proof of more subtle facts such as “nobody has free will?”

So you see why I might think that you will not look for the bird?

It’s an uphill battle.

But I love it

[Flannel_Jesus]

@anon

In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

source

Of course you could make the argument that undertaking the experiments themselves was also predetermined, and the changes in the attitudes of the participants at that very time were predetermined, and everything everywhere no matter what happens was predetermined… but that’s a bit like claiming that everything is blue and when I point out the color red you say well that’s just a shade of blue. Everything is blue.

did you think this study is evidence that free will exists? if not, i don’t understand why you posted it. if you do…you’re incorrect. it’s only evidence that believing in free will makes people not cheat on tests. i don’t see how that’s related to the truth of the question.

[anon]

@Flannel Jesus

@anon

In one experiment, some people read a passage from Francis Crick, the molecular biologist, asserting that free will is a quaint old notion no longer taken seriously by intellectuals, especially not psychologists and neuroscientists. Afterward, when compared with a control group that read a different passage from Crick (who died in 2004) these people expressed more skepticism about free will — and promptly cut themselves some moral slack while taking a math test.

Asked to solve a series of arithmetic problems in a computerized quiz, they cheated by getting the answers through a glitch in the computer that they’d been asked not to exploit. The supposed glitch, of course, had been put there as a temptation by the researchers, Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

source

Of course you could make the argument that undertaking the experiments themselves was also predetermined, and the changes in the attitudes of the participants at that very time were predetermined, and everything everywhere no matter what happens was predetermined… but that’s a bit like claiming that everything is blue and when I point out the color red you say well that’s just a shade of blue. Everything is blue.

did you think this study is evidence that free will exists? if not, i don’t understand why you posted it. if you do…you’re incorrect. it’s only evidence that believing in free will makes people not cheat on tests. i don’t see how that’s related to the truth of the question.

I posted it in response to the fatalism expressed in the OP.

[Uccisore]

Bodhimalik has the true reality, guys. If you don’t get it, that’s your fault. If you disagree with it, he’s not interested in your arguments or explaining himself. He’s just here to deliver THE NEWS to those of us competent enough to receive it.

We get one every year or so.