Let us say that our consciousness does have a percentage of free will, say 5%, and that the rest is determined by non-conscious factors. I would also ask if the consciousness can even make ‘evil’ decisions ~ its just that such thoughts don’t appear to derive from anything but the non-conscious sphere of things ~ as I perceive them.
Whatever the percentage is, it would perhaps have to be over 50% of ‘evil’ thoughts deriving in the consciousness, for us to be judged upon our actions. Otherwise said actions and thoughts are majoritively from the non-conscious sphere and we [consciousnesses] are not the authors of that!
We are born innocent; because the consciousness has only thence began. [and cannot therefore be blamed [at the point prior to consciousness becoming a human being, everything of the body is non-conscious derived]]
Obviously everything that I want to be praised for was my own free choice, and everything I should be ashamed of, I couldn’t help…
On a more serious note, even if a tiny percentage of what we do is free, a huge chunk of that stuff that we 'have no control over' is what it is because of something we freely chose before it. And of course, if we decide that we can declare our own actions beyond our control, that's going to have an impact on what we choose to do, and how those things that we can't choose to do happen. So I don't think an answer to this question empowers us relative to our being judged at all.
Like what if one guy had evil thoughts 95% of the time and another had some only 53% of the time, - but they were both deemed equally as Evil.
Nothing is free because we never first chose to be born or pop out of the vagina. Everything then spirals from the regress of causality.
Even if we somehow made a conscious decision to be incarnated before birth, we were definitely provided limited choices. It wasn’t like I decided to get a heart attack at age 45, or be a midget, or a retarded convicted sex offender before it all happened.
We can always do the right thing or the wrong thing, even among all the choices available to us, whether they be known or unknown. All choices boil down to two, the right and wrong, and the ultimate test is failing to do the right thing. This right thing, is revealed to us moment to moment, and it may be known in different senses of knowledge.
A convicted felon may be more free in this respect then the apparently unhindered person, even the limitations of his awareness will basically boil down to this process. Freedom is just another word"
Beyond the limit of this apprehension, is the word, and the word redeems this original bias.
Merely having evil thoughts does not make anyone evil. The real issue is how you handle, counter or react on those thoughts.
The reason is that, because, more often than not, thoughts are manifested by the circumstances and those are not in the control of an individual. Like, if you are born in a family of a priest in a church, odds are in the favor you have to encounter less evil thoughts than being born in a home of hardcore criminal. That is the impact of the surroundings and one cannot help it.
Now let us assume that there are two persons and as you said that one is having 95% evil thoughts while the other 53%. And, let us further extent this assumption that the first man commits 11 evils while the other only 10. So, who is more evil amongst those two?
The general answer would that the second one because he committed lesser evils. But, this answer is wrong. The second person is more evil than the first one.
The reason is that because the first man had to face 95 evil thoughts. He overcame 84 of those and failed in 11 only. But the second man had to face only 53 evil thoughts but he failed in 10. This simply means that the first man has more capacity to fight out evil thoughts than the second one. In other words, his intent is more noble or stronger than the second one.
That may sound bit illogical but it is not.
The fact of the matter is that besides ability, one’s success also depends on his circumstances. Sometimes success cannot alone represent true ability and effort. We should take account of that too.
I’d say there will be NO JUDGE!!! If anyone disagree, show me the proof that Hitler (Stalin or Mao) was punished. You can’t, correct??? They say “BE good or God will judge you” in an effort to control and pacify the mass. All fiction. End of Story. if you disagree, show me the evidence.
Right, and how they respond to these things is their choice, and thus how these things impact their lives will be a product of those choices. The term ‘huge chunk’ was delibrately vague.
I personalty think there is no Right or Wrong in an absolute sense, thus No morality which is nothing but the fiction (to pacify and tame the mass) created by smart Con-men. There are simply actions. If you disagree with me and can provide reasonable guideline of what’s good and bad, please mention. If you can’t, I don’t see the rational of you keep arguing over and over again using the word good and bad. Thanks, Will.
Yes but intent is based upon decision making process which is both conscious and unconscious.
I see them as the same thing but consciousness is mind where it is interacting with the brain. Words aside we experience ourselves as one being, so I see no need to separate too much.
Uccisore
Lol absolutely!
I think some decisions are instinctive or otherwise a-priory, and that surely means ‘originally inherited’ [genes] [environment/situational]. We got that to work with though [like the user and a computer], and so I see your point.
I am most tempted to draw the conclusion that both the deterministic and the considered [or conscious derived] situation, are working both at once. Its kinda like a duel cycle each feeding one another, an inner communication ~ but not a linear one [which is what makes it ultimately non-deterministic].
obe
The brain is an instrument though; imagine it to be a very sophisticated camcorder; if you change the dvd you get a different picture. The feed of information and imagery will then relate to that change, and that is all you would have to interact with the world through. There surely is a mechanistic side to this at least, you probably cannot program an unwilling human [though I don’t know that for sure], but humans tend to associate themselves with their thoughts, even though its just information delivered into the conscious sphere [as well as from it [see also above reply]].
For me it is that very association which ‘binds’ our actions to our thoughts. This ‘blindness’ – if you will, could very well be the primary basis of determinism based iniquity.
Knowledge brings light at least. But to the ignorant where can blame be attributed, they think/assume that the information in their brain is part of who they are, thus they are being determined to some degree by that blindness.
Yes, I think that that is the case. If we had total free will, the universe would be solipsistic. If we had zero free will, well, 'we' wouldn't be here at all. Free will is primarily an expression of response to a thing from without- where 'without' is a very broad, experiential thing. The free actions of our own past are 'without' in the present. I can't change my own past, so things I freely did yesterday become deterministic influences today.
Also, I think the determinism thing cuts both ways Re: judgment. Say for example, we are completely non-free. One could argue that we aren't responsible for our actions and so shouldn't be condemned. But one could also argue that 'responsibility' has no meaning in such a universe, and judgment is a question of whether or not we are defective, not whether or not we 'deserve' X. So condemnation is removed from the equation, but the hellbound go to hell anyway- not because they are wicked, but because they are garbage.
Maybe we should consider the notion that we are somewhat shaped by our deeds [kinda like karma].
if the afterlife went by e.g. a ‘like-attracts-like’ thing [as an example of a universal rule and a way to determine judgement without deities etc, to make decisions], then perhaps being the person that they are would eventually become its own hell. then we could say that an innocent wouldn’t deserve to share that same suffering and space. analogously then, if judgement was automatic [as if done by a machine] we would have differing mind-spaces.
We can say that only if the consciousness is not changing or adding information, but surely that’s what conscious thought ‘is’? Countless millions of neurons are firing where the consciousness is active, so that is surely making an effect and interaction. If it were a crude machine, the consciousness would be pressing buttons too. I don’t think we can rightly state that the consciousness isn’t doing anything, or isn’t doing the thinking that we sense it thinking?
What I have learned from those determinism experiments, is that we have to concede our perceived dictatorship of our mind, to a flow of change we are not in complete command of. The brain knows what we are most likely to do in a given situation, what buttons to push etc, and will do that for us so as to create a smooth ride – so to speak. Who would want to have to think about everything going on in here!
Right. Ultimately I think we do have free will, and that the analogy of the potter and the pots doesn’t work for that reason. My point was just that determinism vs. freedom doesn’t map directly onto judgable/not-judgable. We judge rotten fruit and all kinds of things that have no choice about their state.
