Remember, for this whole theory I am ONLY talking about natural man's free will, man with no spirit.
VPW didn't spend a lot of time talking about the natural man's mind, other than what it is NOT good at: knowing God. VPW spent more time talking about the mind of a Christian with spirit.
But VPW did make it a point to say that natural man had free will.
My narrative on the natural man mind and it's free will does not contain the slightest hint of that mind ever getting spirit or born again. I am not writing a book that leads to that. I have different aims, so I am writing about an area that SOUNDS antithetical to PFAL, because PFAL does not want to focus on that natural man mind as much as I do.
Maybe that is why it sounds so strange to you.
It's definitely NOT for the average grad's consumption for spiritual growth and enlightenment. It is to move laboratory scientists to look for mechanisms like the ones I am predicting.
Eventually, I would like to pull out some practical tips on free will for non-scientists. Meanwhile, the rule of thumb I get from all this for free will is don't give up, keep trying, and keep trying different methods.
But seriously getting back to this post:
To me you’re talking in circles. You say you’re only talking about the natural man’s mind/free will - and not using PFAL criteria. So what reference points are YOU using to determine your postulates?
also, you seem to be drawing a hard line of distinction regarding free will in the natural man and free will in a Christian - why? What difference does it make regarding free will in either person?
What are the physical / detectable / measurable evidence or signs that you think should motivate “laboratory scientists “ to investigate further?
If your goal is to offer PRACTICAL tips on free will for “non-scientists” - then can you describe what your target looks like?
What would be the benefit to the natural man’s mind?
What information do you have that will inform / enhance the natural man’s mind / free will in a hands-on situation?
If your aim is to provide a viable solution to a problem- then what specific successes have you achieved so far in your experiments?
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The kind of determinism I am using is more definition definition #2, which is not very full in this dictionary.
Determinism was defined in Physics one way, and in Philosophy the same term is used, but applied it differently. The Philosophy definition of determinism involved HUMANS, while the Physics definition involves inanimate objects.
The Physics determinism is the only one I write about.
The Physics determinism is also used by Chemists and Biologists and Neuroscience of the brain.
It was the Physics determinism that was in the first definition you gave yesterday, but it was an extreme and dubious application of it
The Chapter 5 I posted yesterday is all on Physics determinism.
I will have to add more text that differentiates between philosophical determinism and physics determinism.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Meanwhile here is a quick course in Physics determinism. The long course is in Chapter 5.
You've heard of the Laws of Physics. Determinism can be thought of as the agency that ENFORCES the Laws of Physics.
What we see in science are the patterns or the Laws that govern the universe, and we use the word determinism to superficially express how the Laws work. Scientists say that the outcome of an experiment was determined by the Laws of Physics, and they also say Determinism made sure the Laws of Physics were obeyed.
Physics Determinism is intimately bound up in the idea that the Universe of inanimate objects follows patterns or Laws. When it gets applied (by old fashioned Philosophy) to the human mind then it becomes tainted by the non-scientific methods of Philosophy and determinism gets spun into the definition that Merriam-Webster supplied above.
Notice that in the definition 1a there is a mixture of physics and philosophy determinisms. I'll bold font the physics one:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
I think the reason they slightly mixed that up is because that's how it goes down in society, which is what dictionaries track.
Physics determinism is far less known by the types of people who make dictionaries, compared to philosophic determinism. People of all walks of life will sit down and philosophize for a short time on free will and about human wills being "determined, but they may have zero understanding of Physics determinism."
Figuring out the tug of war between free will and determinism involves Physics determinism only.
There is another mistake in that Merriam-Webster definition 1a:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
That last line should read "... are causally determined by preceding events AND natural laws" so this definition is pretty bad. It is always BOTH the preceding events and the laws that determine an event.
Another mistake is there are no natural laws involved in "social or psychological phenomena" that we know of. We know of laws in Physics and Chemistry but not in other areas. This definition was written by a non-scientist, that is for sure.
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The kind of determinism I am using is more definition definition #2, which is not very full in this dictionary.
Determinism was defined in Physics one way, and in Philosophy the same term is used, but applied it differently. The Philosophy definition of determinism involved HUMANS, while the Physics definition involves inanimate objects.
The Physics determinism is the only one I write about.
The Physics determinism is also used by Chemists and Biologists and Neuroscience of the brain.
It was the Physics determinism that was in the first definition you gave yesterday, but it was an extreme and dubious application of it
The Chapter 5 I posted yesterday is all on Physics determinism.
I will have to add more text that differentiates between philosophical determinism and physics determinism.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Meanwhile here is a quick course in Physics determinism. The long course is in Chapter 5.
You've heard of the Laws of Physics. Determinism can be thought of as the agency that ENFORCES the Laws of Physics.
What we see in science are the patterns or the Laws that govern the universe, and we use the word determinism to superficially express how the Laws work. Scientists say that the outcome of an experiment was determined by the Laws of Physics, and they also say Determinism made sure the Laws of Physics were obeyed.
Physics Determinism is intimately bound up in the idea that the Universe of inanimate objects follows patterns or Laws. When it gets applied (by old fashioned Philosophy) to the human mind then it becomes tainted by the non-scientific methods of Philosophy and determinism gets spun into the definition that Merriam-Webster supplied above.
Notice that in the definition 1a there is a mixture of physics and philosophy determinisms. I'll bold font the physics one:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
I think the reason they slightly mixed that up is because that's how it goes down in society, which is what dictionaries track.
Physics determinism is far less known by the types of people who make dictionaries, compared to philosophic determinism. People of all walks of life will sit down and philosophize for a short time on free will and about human wills being "determined, but they may have zero understanding of Physics determinism."
Figuring out the tug of war between free will and determinism involves Physics determinism only.
There is another mistake in that Merriam-Webster definition 1a:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
That last line should read "... are causally determined by preceding events AND natural laws" so this definition is pretty bad. It is always BOTH the preceding events and the laws that determine an event.
Another mistake is there are no natural laws involved in "social or psychological phenomena" that we know of. We know of laws in Physics and Chemistry but not in other areas. This definition was written by a non-scientist, that is for sure.
So, where does conscience, you know, that little voice that makes you feel bad when you know you've done something wrong, enter into all this?
So, where does conscious, you know, that little voice that makes you feel bad when you know you've done something wrong, enter into all this?
I think you meant conscience.
I never mention that particular word, but the IDEA of it constantly comes up in the mental exercises I outline. I talk often about COMPARING a performance to a pre-installed standard or creed. When the comparison is bad then there is a feeling of angst or pain and a desire to correct it.
We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taughtwas right and I followed that notion throughout.
Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word.
I never mention that particular word, but the IDEA of it constantly comes up in the mental exercises I outline. I talk often about COMPARING a performance to a pre-installed standard or creed. When the comparison is bad then there is a feeling of angst or pain and a desire to correct it.
We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taught was right and I followed that notion throughout.
Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word.
I'm thinking I should use it. Thanks for the tip
Conscience implies you have a choice to whether you obey it or not. That, in return, implies free will.
Conscience implies you have a choice to whether you obey it or not. That, in return, implies free will.
I think that even with obeying conscience, it is a forced thing.
The phrase comes to mind "My conscience would not let me do it."
In my theory I give up on finding the freedom at this stage. It's all chemistry and deterministic, until someone tries to fight it, which comes a little later.
I think that even with obeying conscience, it is a forced thing.
The phrase comes to mind "My conscience would not let me do it."
In my theory I give up on finding the freedom at this stage. It's all chemistry and deterministic, until someone tries to fight it, which comes a little later.
The freedom part is subtle.
In order for your conscience to bother you, you first have to be given the option of following it or not. Some will follow it, others will ignore it. Free Will in action.
Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind.
But you know what you had in mind.
I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
In order for your conscience to bother you, you first have to be given the option of following it or not. Some will follow it, others will ignore it.
Conscience is a word that comes out of the situation described and the mechanics of whatever is going on in the brain for handling that situation.
But that word does not give us insight into those mechanics.
The internal workings of the brain (when we discover them) will tell us more about those mechanics, whether they are free or determined.
I am betting that they are NOT free and totally determined. The freedom I see comes in if the NEXT attempt to perform according to conscience is successful. It is freedom to act according to pre-trained conscience, and NOT acting on a bad habit that it contrary. It is freedom from the bad habit.
Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind.
But you know what you had in mind.
I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
It's not a complicated statement. Humans are born with a natural sense of morality. This is 101 level knowledge. Feel free to explore a bit on your own.
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The kind of determinism I am using is more definition definition #2, which is not very full in this dictionary.
Determinism was defined in Physics one way, and in Philosophy the same term is used, but applied it differently. The Philosophy definition of determinism involved HUMANS, while the Physics definition involves inanimate objects.
The Physics determinism is the only one I write about.
The Physics determinism is also used by Chemists and Biologists and Neuroscience of the brain.
It was the Physics determinism that was in the first definition you gave yesterday, but it was an extreme and dubious application of it
The Chapter 5 I posted yesterday is all on Physics determinism.
I will have to add more text that differentiates between philosophical determinism and physics determinism.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Meanwhile here is a quick course in Physics determinism. The long course is in Chapter 5.
You've heard of the Laws of Physics. Determinism can be thought of as the agency that ENFORCES the Laws of Physics.
What we see in science are the patterns or the Laws that govern the universe, and we use the word determinism to superficially express how the Laws work. Scientists say that the outcome of an experiment was determined by the Laws of Physics, and they also say Determinism made sure the Laws of Physics were obeyed.
Physics Determinism is intimately bound up in the idea that the Universe of inanimate objects follows patterns or Laws. When it gets applied (by old fashioned Philosophy) to the human mind then it becomes tainted by the non-scientific methods of Philosophy and determinism gets spun into the definition that Merriam-Webster supplied above.
Notice that in the definition 1a there is a mixture of physics and philosophy determinisms. I'll bold font the physics one:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
I think the reason they slightly mixed that up is because that's how it goes down in society, which is what dictionaries track.
Physics determinism is far less known by the types of people who make dictionaries, compared to philosophic determinism. People of all walks of life will sit down and philosophize for a short time on free will and about human wills being "determined, but they may have zero understanding of Physics determinism."
Figuring out the tug of war between free will and determinism involves Physics determinism only.
There is another mistake in that Merriam-Webster definition 1a:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
That last line should read "... are causally determined by preceding events AND natural laws" so this definition is pretty bad. It is always BOTH the preceding events and the laws that determine an event.
Another mistake is there are no natural laws involved in "social or psychological phenomena" that we know of. We know of laws in Physics and Chemistry but not in other areas. This definition was written by a non-scientist, that is for sure.
You’ve lost me in your vagaries and sloppy attempts at redefining terms.
Maybe back up and punt using some sort of standards – I’m familiar with your “standards” in “other matters” and I don’t think you qualified to reinvent the wheel - here or on the aforementioned “other matters”. Sorry for being blunt - but I don't want to waste time in sorting out gobbledygook.
It sounds like what you’re talking about is cause and effect; please review articles in links below – I got to link # 1 by going to link # 2…link # 3 I threw in for some heady philosophy - and in light of what I said about some of your thesis being antithetical to PFAL and Christian theology - think over the issues discussed in link 3 and take note of the conclusion and you'll see what I mean...anyway here's the links
Philosophy Now org: Determinism versus Determinism
~ ~ ~ ~
Is it possible you’re a frustrated teacher?
What I’m getting at is that it’s occurred to me more than once that part of what drives you to push the “come back to PFAL” thing is that you might like the attention (which is okay) and also maybe you had some responsibility (Whether in TWI - Twig, Branch coordinator – whatever – and/or you taught in some capacity in the secular world) and you liked people coming to you for answers (which is also okay – and hopefully it’s more for the good feeling you get from providing someone with something that’s actually useful…and not so much for inflating your ego or validating the idea that you think you’re always right)
Conscience is a word that comes out of the situation described and the mechanics of whatever is going on in the brain for handling that situation.
But that word does not give us insight into those mechanics.
The internal workings of the brain (when we discover them) will tell us more about those mechanics, whether they are free or determined.
I am betting that they are NOT free and totally determined. The freedom I see comes in if the NEXT attempt to perform according to conscience is successful. It is freedom to act according to pre-trained conscience, and NOT acting on a bad habit that it contrary. It is freedom from the bad habit.
So, as a natural man, you confessed Jesus is lord and believed God raised him from the dead and you feel that act was totally determined and following a previous synapse setting?
It's not a complicated statement. Humans are born with a natural sense of morality. This is 101 level knowledge. Feel free to explore a bit on your own.
I think that new born infants do not have that sense.
It is gradually taught to them. They may have a rudimentary sense of it in early ages, but most people feel that it takes 5, 6, or 7 years of teaching to be formed.
There are TWO possible ways decisions can be made:
1 - freely, with no cause whatsoever, by free will.
2- forced, according to the synapse set just prior to the decision.
So when you see a decision is made from outer behavior, you have no idea if that was a forced, robotic decision or a free will decision.
That seems like a false dilemma – there’s many factors that might be in play – at the subconscious level, mental and emotional baggage, mental illness, psychology / physical trauma, PTSD to name just a few
The question of Determinism vs. Free Will is a philosophical one. It can only ever be a philosophical question. The consideration of and accounting for the physical, chemical and biological principles of cause and effect are not precluded. Neuroscience is part of the discussion. The laws of nature and how they relate cannot be separated from the issue, even if it’s a wholly philosophical one.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
T-Bone
But seriously getting back to this post:
To me you’re talking in circles. You say you’re only talking about the natural man’s mind/free will - and not using PFAL criteria. So what reference points are YOU using to determine your postulates?
also, you seem to be drawing a hard line of distinction regarding free will in the natural man and free will in a Christian - why? What difference does it make regarding free will in either person?
What are the physical / detectable / measurable evidence or signs that you think should motivate “laboratory scientists “ to investigate further?
If your goal is to offer PRACTICAL tips on free will for “non-scientists” - then can you describe what your target looks like?
What would be the benefit to the natural man’s mind?
What information do you have that will inform / enhance the natural man’s mind / free will in a hands-on situation?
If your aim is to provide a viable solution to a problem- then what specific successes have you achieved so far in your experiments?
Edited by T-BoneRevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hi. Been a busy weekend. Funeral on Saturday and gsc free Sunday. Seems I missed a lot. I'll chime in a lil later. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The definition you gave was for PHILOSOPHY.
There was an unfortunate jam up of terminologies here.
determinism
noun
de·ter·min·ism | \ di-ˈtər-mə-ˌni-zəm , dē- \
Definition of determinism
1 philosophy
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The kind of determinism I am using is more definition definition #2, which is not very full in this dictionary.
Determinism was defined in Physics one way, and in Philosophy the same term is used, but applied it differently. The Philosophy definition of determinism involved HUMANS, while the Physics definition involves inanimate objects.
The Physics determinism is the only one I write about.
The Physics determinism is also used by Chemists and Biologists and Neuroscience of the brain.
It was the Physics determinism that was in the first definition you gave yesterday, but it was an extreme and dubious application of it
The Chapter 5 I posted yesterday is all on Physics determinism.
I will have to add more text that differentiates between philosophical determinism and physics determinism.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Meanwhile here is a quick course in Physics determinism. The long course is in Chapter 5.
You've heard of the Laws of Physics. Determinism can be thought of as the agency that ENFORCES the Laws of Physics.
What we see in science are the patterns or the Laws that govern the universe, and we use the word determinism to superficially express how the Laws work. Scientists say that the outcome of an experiment was determined by the Laws of Physics, and they also say Determinism made sure the Laws of Physics were obeyed.
Physics Determinism is intimately bound up in the idea that the Universe of inanimate objects follows patterns or Laws. When it gets applied (by old fashioned Philosophy) to the human mind then it becomes tainted by the non-scientific methods of Philosophy and determinism gets spun into the definition that Merriam-Webster supplied above.
Notice that in the definition 1a there is a mixture of physics and philosophy determinisms. I'll bold font the physics one:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
I think the reason they slightly mixed that up is because that's how it goes down in society, which is what dictionaries track.
Physics determinism is far less known by the types of people who make dictionaries, compared to philosophic determinism. People of all walks of life will sit down and philosophize for a short time on free will and about human wills being "determined, but they may have zero understanding of Physics determinism."
Figuring out the tug of war between free will and determinism involves Physics determinism only.
There is another mistake in that Merriam-Webster definition 1a:
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see will entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
That last line should read "... are causally determined by preceding events AND natural laws" so this definition is pretty bad. It is always BOTH the preceding events and the laws that determine an event.
Another mistake is there are no natural laws involved in "social or psychological phenomena" that we know of. We know of laws in Physics and Chemistry but not in other areas. This definition was written by a non-scientist, that is for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, where does conscience, you know, that little voice that makes you feel bad when you know you've done something wrong, enter into all this?
Edited by So_cratesCorrected conscience
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you meant conscience.
I never mention that particular word, but the IDEA of it constantly comes up in the mental exercises I outline. I talk often about COMPARING a performance to a pre-installed standard or creed. When the comparison is bad then there is a feeling of angst or pain and a desire to correct it.
We were taught that conscience was merely the sum total of what we were taught was right and I followed that notion throughout.
Conscience is in the described processes in my book, but I did not ever use that word.
I'm thinking I should use it. Thanks for the tip.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Conscience implies you have a choice to whether you obey it or not. That, in return, implies free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is incorrect. Countless studies have shown that humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The very fact that we can go against conscience proves free will, as by going against conscience would mean we went beyond what we were taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think that even with obeying conscience, it is a forced thing.
The phrase comes to mind "My conscience would not let me do it."
In my theory I give up on finding the freedom at this stage. It's all chemistry and deterministic, until someone tries to fight it, which comes a little later.
The freedom part is subtle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That sounds interesting.
Can you link me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Is your Google button broken?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think what it proves is that we can make decisions.
Whether those decisions are free or determined by previous synapse settings is what the free will debate is all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In order for your conscience to bother you, you first have to be given the option of following it or not. Some will follow it, others will ignore it. Free Will in action.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sort of. It doesn't know for sure what you had in mind.
But you know what you had in mind.
I thought if I asked you I'd get the BEST source, while if I do it alone I may miss that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And the ability to decide is what free will is all about.
You decide whether you believe Jesus is lord and God raised him from the dead. Did you do that by a previous synapse setting?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Conscience is a word that comes out of the situation described and the mechanics of whatever is going on in the brain for handling that situation.
But that word does not give us insight into those mechanics.
The internal workings of the brain (when we discover them) will tell us more about those mechanics, whether they are free or determined.
I am betting that they are NOT free and totally determined. The freedom I see comes in if the NEXT attempt to perform according to conscience is successful. It is freedom to act according to pre-trained conscience, and NOT acting on a bad habit that it contrary. It is freedom from the bad habit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's not a complicated statement. Humans are born with a natural sense of morality. This is 101 level knowledge. Feel free to explore a bit on your own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’ve lost me in your vagaries and sloppy attempts at redefining terms.
Maybe back up and punt using some sort of standards – I’m familiar with your “standards” in “other matters” and I don’t think you qualified to reinvent the wheel - here or on the aforementioned “other matters”. Sorry for being blunt - but I don't want to waste time in sorting out gobbledygook.
It sounds like what you’re talking about is cause and effect; please review articles in links below – I got to link # 1 by going to link # 2…link # 3 I threw in for some heady philosophy - and in light of what I said about some of your thesis being antithetical to PFAL and Christian theology - think over the issues discussed in link 3 and take note of the conclusion and you'll see what I mean...anyway here's the links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Wikipedia: cause and effect
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Wikipedia: determinism
3. https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Determinism_versus_Determinism
Philosophy Now org: Determinism versus Determinism
~ ~ ~ ~
Is it possible you’re a frustrated teacher?
What I’m getting at is that it’s occurred to me more than once that part of what drives you to push the “come back to PFAL” thing is that you might like the attention (which is okay) and also maybe you had some responsibility (Whether in TWI - Twig, Branch coordinator – whatever – and/or you taught in some capacity in the secular world) and you liked people coming to you for answers (which is also okay – and hopefully it’s more for the good feeling you get from providing someone with something that’s actually useful…and not so much for inflating your ego or validating the idea that you think you’re always right)
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, as a natural man, you confessed Jesus is lord and believed God raised him from the dead and you feel that act was totally determined and following a previous synapse setting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There are TWO possible ways decisions can be made:
1 - freely, with no cause whatsoever, by free will.
2- forced, according to the synapse set just prior to the decision.
So when you see a decision is made from outer behavior, you have no idea if that was a forced, robotic decision or a free will decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think that new born infants do not have that sense.
It is gradually taught to them. They may have a rudimentary sense of it in early ages, but most people feel that it takes 5, 6, or 7 years of teaching to be formed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That seems like a false dilemma – there’s many factors that might be in play – at the subconscious level, mental and emotional baggage, mental illness, psychology / physical trauma, PTSD to name just a few
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Really?!
God doesn't use force, therefore getting born again was a decision made freely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The question of Determinism vs. Free Will is a philosophical one. It can only ever be a philosophical question. The consideration of and accounting for the physical, chemical and biological principles of cause and effect are not precluded. Neuroscience is part of the discussion. The laws of nature and how they relate cannot be separated from the issue, even if it’s a wholly philosophical one.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.