Free Will

[_BuRjaCi_]

What are the current RCC teachings?
And what about protestant teachings, didn't the Calvinians or some orther 1600's protestant group belive in predetermination; that succes was a hint from God, this person then must be moral or good or wathever ( it was, if I remember my history correctly popular in the upper middle class in Switzerland or France).

[Terra Nullius]

What are the current RCC teachings?

Roughly what I stated above.

ie. Man has the ability to choose whether to do right or wrong. Further, the RCC teaches that nothing can interfere with one's exercise of free will - that God will never test us beyond our means.

Which is a bit scary, in a way. It suggests that we are all able to correctly discriminate between right and wrong. So, for example, if Dubya genuinely believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, then it really was the right thing (at least for him) to do.

Buddhists do not suppose that it is always possible to know what is the right action in a given situation, so it is the original intent which may be used as a guide.
Of course, one's intent, in this case must be clarified through meditation and practice.

In the buddhist case, the 'right' action would be that which tends to relieve suffering, 'wrong' action would be that which tends to cause suffering. RCC definitions of good and bad are quite different.

didn't the Calvinians or some orther 1600's protestant group belive in predetermination; that succes was a hint from God, this person then must be moral or good or wathever

It don't matter none, darlin' - they were all condemned to suffer eternal damnation long ago.

And the filthy proddo bastrds who still preach this line on TV are headed for exactly the same place.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius

Yes. Free will is about making moral choices.

Decisions about purely physical issues are not subject to free will. If all the rest of the universe was purely deterministic, that would still be totally irrelevant to the topic.

If some remote galaxy "decides" to spontaneously combust, it does not do so on the basis of free will. How and why physical events take place is a matter for science, not ethics.

no not physics... but you have amoral choices by "lower level" beings such as animals or plants. For me animal choices should incorporate "free will" while "plant" choices are almost "physical" in nature, as in only cause-effect. So in that aspect for me there is free-will without morality aspect. Morality is perhaps an extension, or perhaps exists even on it's own but combined with a "free-will" capable being who understands that concept gives some results.

In any case "physical" phenomena is clearly deterministic, ie there are physical laws and nature follows. The concept of free-will is not tied into that, thus we are able to do what we want independantly of any laws, bound only by our physical abilities on one side, and morality on the other. In the case of a dog, instinct could used to replace "morality", and the proof that he has free will is that he can act against it if he "desires".

In that case the dog could abandon an owner if he perceives that someone else treats him better, and he changes the place of "residence" for example. That to me would indicate free will. He has a choice and he goes with the one that is "counter" the usual dog behaviour.

As for similarities between humans/animal behaviours. Well we all live under similar conditions/environment thus many choices are emphasised with the culture/environment that we live in -thus similarities. However you have the ability to beat them all at a whim if you want to do it, and that concept to me is the indication that free will exists, in addtion there has to be a term that describes this "aspect of existance". Determinism has nothing to do with it, it is simple/obvious indication that we do not understand this part of the "laws" or lack of laws in that respect within our universe thus far, but any sensible philosophical argument dealing with this should take free will on board.

Humans make choices every day that have nothing to do with determinism (we are the prime cause), it has to do with our ability to perceive the "cause-effect" and than chose according to our own "reason" the action we want to take. The part where we make the choice is "obvious", no bias or else needed. It can only be "reasoned away" through some convulted logical process which in itself is a consequence of your ability to freely invent a theory which will "explain it away" in your own mind. But no matter how thourought you manage to accept this misconception, you can throw it away in an instant if you desire to do so. We do that with things what are obviously "true" let alone with some concepts. --- thus free will is obvious.

Dogs likewise, but for them I would say that what they are dealing with is "instinct" but our own reason deals with another higher concepts called morality. Humans deal with instinct as well of course, on day to day basis, like for example "Would I hit it, or not" .


as for this

So throwing dice is free will...... I guess I can agree with it somewhat. If we use that definition of free will, than all the fanfare surrounding it is unjustified.

throwing dice comes up with an "unpredictable" result... while "free will" has nothing to do with unpredictable.

The choices are determined by us =/ choices determined by the "universe" - laws governing it - or some other force =/ pure chance.

The question is... what is the difference between being affected by something and perceiving something? It is thought that humans perceive things, and that we react according to our perceptions, and that this is somehow different from just being affected by things.

But is there any concrete difference, or is this merely our own bias?

And if there is a difference between being affected by something and perceiving something, is this the seat of self and will?

The difference is that a rock is affected by me when I throw it off the cliff, but has no response other than those governed by physical laws. You would as well be affected if I threw you off the cliff by physical laws, but before you die, and become like that rock, you most certainly would have a "response" to your condition while you are flying, and still in the present "live, and having free will" state.

Just tell me how can this be "bias"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MORON

Kidicious

I question this.

Okay, I merely stated that 'some' parts of our brains are determistic and predictable, and it is sufficent to define the vast majority of behaviours of the mind. (the fact that I don't punch my hand though the my computer screen, for example)

So after those parts of the mind have defined "valid choices" than we are to decide on the "final choice."

If the decision is not determistic, than it can be modelled probablistically. From an observer's point of view that is the only way to model it, and the consciousness as we 'know' it is an observation.

So throwing dice is free will...... I guess I can agree with it somewhat. If we use that definition of free will, than all the fanfare surrounding it is unjustified.

I was actually questioning whether we can choose to believe a lie and then actually believe it. I'm thinking of stockholm syndrom. We seem to have control over our own beliefs, but that could just be a perception I suppose. Are we actually free to choose to believe the lie? That is, can we freely choose not to believe the lie, when we do?

[Lorizael]

Why won't my thread die.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Why won't my thread die.

people love it

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Why won't my thread die.

We need a better thread.

[Flip McWho]

If free wills about moral choices then it all boils down to whats moral choices? If morality is a social invention then free will is nothing more than a social invention as well.

We make our decisions based on what we are like (formed from our past) and the information we have in the present.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
A consciousness conscious of itself needs no further justification of its own existence . Similarly , it needs no justification for having free will , as the fact that the consciousness has free will can be perceived by itself , about itself .

That is... circular.

"A consciousness knows it is conscious and thus has freewill. That's because freewill is something a consciousness will have."

[Flip McWho]

And we all know circular argumentation sucks ass

[Urban Ranger]

Circular reasoning in 10 or 12 steps are difficult to spot. 2 (or 3) step ones are easy. For example:

"God exists because the Bible says so."
"Why?"
"Because the Bible is sacred and inerrant."
"Why?"
"God said so!"

[Flip McWho]

Yeah thats my fav really.

God exists because the bible says so
The bible is right cause Gods the author
and Gods right because the bible says so.

It's beautiful really, and it's also why its becoming increasingly irrelevant

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Why won't my thread die.

Sorry.

You have no free will in the matter.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That is... circular.

Welcome to hinduism.

[Terra Nullius]

@ OFitG
mmkay. I saw a wildlife doco a little while ago about marine life on the coast of Africa. Nassty mean killer whales were going after teh schweet innocent baby seals. They'd catch them near the shore, lead them out into deeper waters with promises of drugs, sponsorships and wanton profligacy. Once the whales had them in deep waters, the seals got beat up like a bunch of canadian hockey players.

Late in the afternoon, the whales must have had enough to eat, and the doco shows a killer whale carefully escorting a baby seal back to safety.

OK, so it was all sweet and teary, to see the bub brought back to safety as the sun sinks slowly in the west and Orca waves goodbye to Vegas once more. But that is NOT an exercise in free will.

At least not according to RCC teaching. I don't see "free will" being compatible with taoism. I think it's probably not possible to translate "free will" directly into buddhist terms, and we're all still waiting on a hindu interpretation.

If you have you're own unique philosophical system by which to interpret phenomena, I'm all ears.