Thread: Do we really have a free will?

Originally Posted by leerveneer

I think as long as we have a government controlling the vast majority of our lives, we will never truly have free will.
Maybe the undiscovered tribes in the Amazon have lots of free will.
I think the rules of society also are placed in front of our free will. I want to do this, but society says it's wrong... etc

I'm very glad you brought that up. But I think it's a very hairy issue. Very few uncontacted people remain, but imagining people living in such isolation makes me think that they have plenty of other ecological factors controlling their lives besides government. But yeah I think govt is the great oppressive force against freedom in the world, but that's not the point. Also, of course rules of society apply to people in isolation as well.

I've been meaning to tie in this article into this conversation:

http://nplusonemag.com/there-is-only-awe

I thought it was a very good read. Particularly relevant here is the bit where they talk about the rift between styles between the Iliad and the Odyssey. It said that during the Iliad, man's actions were considered to be in the hands of the gods. But something occurred between the compiling of the two works that caused the style to take on a more uneasy and burdensome take on man's own responsibility. The author being reviewed speculated that some climatic upheaval happened during this time that forced people to make their decisions more intentionally.

I don't know if this rises to the level of saying that free will was not a thing that people would consider when we were in a state of ecological balance, when our instincts were still tuned to the environment that shaped them, but it's good food for thought.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ "Free" does seem to be be the operative word here; or is it inoperative?



Maybe that is indeed what you guys are arguing. Is that a bad thing? Perhaps "free will" is just a corollary of soul?

That is why I made the comment about an atheist view on life. This discussion does intale ideas that may be offensive to atheists.

As for me,,, Yay soul! Your very cool, indeed!

Well I guess it is atheistic. I mean if you're gonna bring souls in to it, I can't argue that point.

Not that this has anything to do with the thread, but what the hey:

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

Exactly. It's the definitions that keep throwing up barriers here. When you have to put such complex ideas into words in order to express them, things get muddied up and no one really understands what others are trying to say. But hell, I'm an optimist. I'm sure one day in the future, we'll figure out a way to communicate thoughts and feelings directly without the need for definitions or descriptions. When that day comes, we'll all be able to truly understand each other on a level we've never experienced before and all petty human conflicts will be consigned to history.

....well, that's the hope anyway.

No, the definitions and semantics are not throwing up any barriers ... it is individuals' differing opinions of the nature and validity of those definitions that are forming the barriers. Things are not getting muddled because we're unable to transfer complex ideas through language (words) -- that part is easy. No, things get muddled when those complex ideas conflict with the ideas already in a person's head.

Unless the future holds a time when we all enjoy universal unfettered access to The Truth, this will happen no matter what communications method we use, even magical osmotic ones (which would be very cool, BTW). So don't go consigning disagreement to history just yet... it is sourced not in words, but our own personal refusals to hear someone else's version of a concept (be they accidental, based on ignorance, or intentional from stubbornness, they are still refusals). Disagreement is also a foundation for learning, so I think I might miss it if it were gone.

Definitions and descriptions are currently our best tool for communicating new ideas to each other, and, on an evolutionary scale, they are incredibly advanced tools. Like any tool, they can be wielded poorly, I guess, but that hasn't happened much on this thread. But even the greatest tools are easily blunted by refusal to listen, or adjust one's own opinion after getting new information.

tl;dr: it is not the definitions and descriptions fowling up communications, it is the attitudes of the communicators -- communication without words will likely not change those attitudes.

I don't know about that. True, our interpretations of these definitions may pose more of an obstacle than translating complex thoughts into words, but effectively communicating abstract ideas is most certainly not easy. So often, we have to resort to the use of metaphors and analogies, which may help convey the basic premise, but aren't as helpful with expressing thoughts in detail.

I wasn't trying to seriously suggest earlier that all disagreements will cease to exist in the future. But if we did somehow develop a way to communicate thoughts accurately from one person to another without the need for a middle man (language), you have to admit we'd all have a far easier time understanding each other. Although peoples' initial biases could still be a major road block, being able to directly experience another person's world view would undoubtedly lead to a lot less bickering and more in-depth expression.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well I guess it is atheistic. I mean if you're gonna bring souls in to it, I can't argue that point.

For what it's worth, souls don't need gods.

I will offer a mixed view. How abbout this? Many/most exibit little use of free will because they tend to function in a reactionary basic mode. I will then offer that through training and self understanding, they can develop the ability to make choice based on more than a instictual/natural animal framework. This gives a large body of people who wander the world in near oblivion, reacting as slaves to their impulses and nature. It also gives a smaller group self awareness skills sufficent to choose things based on things less simple, who can over ride animalistic impulses.

Where we will not make progress is if we are entrenched in a religious dispute about the core princples of atheism. No one wants to harsh on a persons chosen religion (sorry if any atheists feel religion is the wrong word). If a person feels the entire universe comes down to 'nothing more' than the interaction of molecules, in predictable manners,,, well in that world view, the everything is predetermined due to the current position and tragetory of phisically measurable factors, makes complete sense. I personally have spiritual leanings, so will always want to add factors beyond the measurable. It will not work for a debate. We have been through it so many times.

Let's enjoy an exchange of world views, and avoid debating someone's core belief system. Souls do not need Gods, but still will not fit in to that world view, any more than ESP with no measurable mechanism. Unfortunately, either side has interesting points, but are so contrary to each other, that winning over, the other side is not going to be possable.

Yeah, that's probably on the money. I am an atheist. I'm not the least bit religious or spiritual. I see no evidence for the existence of a soul nor any good logical reason for believing in such a thing. My guess is you wouldn't be able to provide me with either and simply ask me to take it on faith, which is something I can't do. So as you say, it would likely be a waste of time arguing over it.

And not that it really matters here, but yes, I would take issue with atheism being called a religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It's simply the counterpart to theism. It has no central tenets, institutions or hierarchy. The only thing that connects all atheists is our lack of belief in a deity. Other than that, we can have all sorts of opposing belief systems. An atheist can be a materialist, a dualist or any number of other things. An atheist can even be a spiritualist, and I cite as an example most of the world's Buddhists. So you see, it doesn't really make sense to define it as a religion.

Originally Posted by sivason

Let's enjoy an exchange of world views, and avoid debating someone's core belief system. Souls do not need Gods, but still will not fit in to that world view, any more than ESP with no measurable mechanism. Unfortunately, either side has interesting points, but are so contrary to each other, that winning over, the other side is not going to be possible.

Sorry, my bad.

I've been considering the "soul" for a very long time, and -- believe it or not -- I never made any religious associations in my processes. A soul for me is no more or less than the raw accumulation of a lifetime of conscious thoughts (and accompanying thought energy), a product of sentience and, wait for it, free will. Though it is not a "gift" from any god or some etherial possession for the devil to finagle from our grasp, the soul may possibly represent a very powerful source for exploration into our own unconscious existences.

From my point of view, the presence of a soul can be enjoyed, discussed, and denied by atheists and the deeply religious alike, without any damage to their personal worldviews. It might even help.

So, when saying that souls don't need gods I was being quite literal and not facetious. I was maybe hoping to stir up a metaphysical conversation about this stuff without a need to reference anyone's religious beliefs. Also, I certainly was not trying to do any winning over; just to hint at an interesting, relevant topic.

Again, my bad. I must start using some new word instead of soul, I guess!

Oh ok Sivason, now I see what you've been getting at. I honestly didn't understand what it had to do with religion or atheism until you explained it just now, but I think Materialism might better explain what you're calling Atheism. Just quite simply the belief that everything can be explained by material means.

I don't really believe in souls or spirits, except in the sense of a 'spirit of friendship' or 'in high spirits'. but while that type of 'spirit' isn't religious per se it still describes something that pure materialists might not believe in or might say is only an illusion - a complex set of feelings and thoughts that create something that isn't purely material and can't really be broken down into purely material terms. Though I think the only difference between my view on this and a pure materialist's is that they would say 'it's all really just nerve impulses and chemicals, the feelings etc are all just illusion' - whereas I don't consider memories, thoughts and feelings to be illusions but states of mind or something similar. Illusion implies that they don't actually exist, and in a physical sense of course they don't, but they're what's known as Qualia - the quality of an experience rather than any measurable physical attributes of it. They're totally subjective of course and can't be transferred from one mind to another, but they color our experience intensely.

Also, I have a better metaphor now for something I tried to explain earlier that might make more sense. And I realized when I thought of this one - this is something a lot of people haven't ever thought about before, unless they're artists of some kind or hang around with artists and hear them talking. But as an artist, what you do is absorb influences from other artists. In some cases you're successful in absorbing those influences and they become a part of your gestalt and grow and change, and soon you can use them in a way that's definitely your own, no longer just copying what somebody else has done. But sometimes you're unable to do that. The way I like to put it is that in some cases an artist exerts too powerful of a gravitational pull, like a black hole, and I can't escape it once I've moved into a close orbit. In those cases any time I try to work in a similar fashion to one of those artists it's obvious - I seem to be just copying their work without understanding it. But with other artists - the ones I've been able to absorb and add to my own gestalt - I've absorbed the lessons from them and grown further, and I'm no longer just copying them. I've understood what they do (at least the part of it I was interested in) and made it my own - it's now a living growing part of me. No longer just a discreet and separate influence.

This gestalt, that absorbs influences and assimilates them until they become an integral part of you, is part of the self. It's not a physical or material thing, but it is something real.

I suppose everyone does have some experience with this, though maybe most people never think about it explicitly. But we absorb influences from our parents and people we learn from when we're young, and many of those influences become a living growing part of who you are. I think artists of all types think about it and talk about it whereas most people never really think about it much.

Yeah, we probably differ there as well, Darkmatters. I think it's fair to say I take an entirely materialistic view. Although all the things you mentioned may not be material, I would say they're ultimately grounded in the material world. For instance, software depends on its hardware. If you were to smash up a computer, that would invariably have an effect on the software. I think it's the same for the mind and the brain, and any other case where some entity or network seems to transcend the material. Though I wouldn't call these things illusions. It appears quite self-evident they're just as real as anything else, I just wouldn't say they exist above and beyond our physical universe. Such a claim, in my view, poses more questions than it answers.

So yeah, that's my take on it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Sorry, my bad.

I've been considering the "soul" for a very long time, and -- believe it or not -- I never made any religious associations in my processes. A soul for me is no more or less than the raw accumulation of a lifetime of conscious thoughts (and accompanying thought energy), a product of sentience and, wait for it, free will. Though it not a "gift" from any god or some etherial possession for the devil to finagle from our grasp, ithe soul may possibly represent a very powerful source for exploration into our own unconscious existences.

From my point of view, the presence of a soul can be enjoyed, discussed, and denied by atheists and the deeply religious alike, without any damage to their personal worldviews. It might even help.

So, when saying that souls don't need gods I was being quite literal and not facetious. I was maybe hoping to stir up a metaphysical conversation about this stuff without a need to reference anyone's religious beliefs. Also, I certainly was not trying to do any winning over; just to hint at an interesting, relevant topic.

Again, my bad. I must start using some new word instead of soul, I guess!

No, not your bad. This forum allows an open exchange of ideas, and I think you we 100% on the money, when you commented on "maybe what we are discussing is a concept like a soul." I think you nailed it, and I was just pointing out that the truth in your observation is what makes the topic so clearly two sided with little ground for 'honest debate.' I was not implying anyone wanted to 'win over' anyone else.

I find the concept you aproached to be very valid, and many of us may enjoy exploring in that direction. I love metaphysical topics. I just observe that if the two members with atheisitic world views are going to comment, I will try to understand, that they are motivated by core values and assumptions that are set and will not waver, because no evidence can ever be offered to convince them.


On the subject of free will = soul, I like the idea. What we have is a physical reality that fits a materialist point of view, AND an extra mysterious factor that influences the outcome of personal choices. I had a rat that was a vegitarian. That is unheard of! I have had 10 rats that love meat, and one that acted offended and hurt if he was 'tricked' into eating meat. We may argue that he may have had a mutation in some gene, but i think it had some thing to do with souls. He seemed to be exurting free will to overcome instinct, and I assume it had to do with something like past lives or something esoteric.



Side note: I do not think most Buddhists consider their beliefs to be atheistic as much as agnostic. Buddhism tends to leave the contemplation of God to the individual and does not tie their core teachings into concepts about God. They do not discourage a personal quest for God, simply put, God is just not the topic they choose to comment on, in general.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I just wouldn't say they exist above and beyond our physical universe.

Well we're actually in agreement then. I don't think a mind exists without a living body and brain, just like the illumination from a light bulb requires the physical bulb to be fully intact and functioning and the electrical impulse to be present. In fact - uh-oh! Now you've done it. Now I'm going to present another of my weird ideas...

The light from different light bulbs exhibits different qualities - some are brighter, more bluish, maybe they flicker a bit, etc. This is a sort of super-simplified metaphor for how different human minds are. But a simple light bulb doesn't come anywhere near the multilayered complexity of a mind, so let's use a more complex metaphor instead - a television screen. Each pixel is sort of like an individual light bulb, but capable of changing colors and brightness, and a vast network of them work together to create images in motion. I guess this is analogous to neurons firing in a brain.

Now you could say, sticking with this metaphor, that 'it's nothing but a bunch of little spots changing colors'. But that would completely miss the fact that they change colors in a very complex fashion that creates not only coherent images in motion, but stories. Now those simple flashing pixels have created something of incredible complexity that goes way beyond 'just some flashing spots on a screen'. The story itself has complexities that no longer have anything to do with flashing spots of light, but rather with ideas - stories deal with things like loyalty and betrayal, love, hate, war, etc. Incredible that just some flashing spots on a screen can create something like that!

This is why I think it's pointless to discuss the mind in purely materialistic terms. Yes, in one sense it's nothing but electrical impulses across neurons and chemical reactions, but it creates something so far beyond that. Just discussing chemical reactions and electrical impulses doesn't even begin to come close to describing anything about the mind.

And when we talk about mental abilities, like the ability to make decisions, it involves the entirety of the mind. Decisions happen at the 'story' level (to go back to the TV analogy), not at any chemical or electrical level. So the self is a vastly complex entity consisting of layer upon layer of immaterial 'story stuff' (thoughts, ideas, memories, etc).

This 'story level stuff' is also where many of our influences exist. Some exist on more physical levels of course, like DNA.

One more metaphor if I may (and then I'll quit, promise! For this post anyway). To compare the mind and the body for purposes of clarification - the mind ingests and then digests influences at the mental level. Ideas and ideologies etc. These are some of the "influences" we've been discussing. For example, whether you're liberal or conservative, atheist or religious. This stuff all happens strictly on those deeply complex mental levels. So it's part of the gestalt - part of YOU. At least those influences that you've digested are part of you now. This goes back to my artist metaphor. We encounter influences - some of them we digest and like food they get broken down into constituent parts and used to build your growing gestalt. These influences now lose their discreet character - literally cease to exist as what they used to be and instead emerge as a part of you, modified beyond all recognition now. It's no longer 'the liberal influence you picked up from aunt Sally' - it's now 'the ever-growing and changing liberal attitude that you originally picked up from aunt Sally'.

Now, just like in your physical body - if you eat something and digest it your body breaks it down into nutrients and then uses them to supply growing cells - fully absorbed and digested and now something totally different from what it originally was.

So what I'm really saying is that - at some point your decisions are no longer affected simply by a bundle of discreet factors that aren't a part of you - but instead by influences that have been absorbed and ARE you now. So it really is YOU making the decisions.

Of course not all of your influencing factors are absorbed this way.

Ok, sorry for massive post.

I just noticed (yet another) post that got by me yesterday:

Originally Posted by sivason

Beyond that, Free Will is about as esoteric a concept as there can be, almost literally illusory. We generally wander through our lives barely aware we exist, rarely if ever conscious of the potentials of our wills, and of our ability and tendency to touch/hurt/consume other people ... to imagine we would even know we're exercising free will, even when we are, much less take time to consider the "freedom" of our actions or their contingency on all other actions happening around us, seems almost absurd; and a bit sophomoric.

Sageous, I am not sure how much of this is satirical or humor? I thought both of us were attempting to teach other members to live different than this. I though that was what your RRC lesson focused on. With all my decades of awareness training, I do not feel like your description above fits my life much.

That mildly sardonic description was in no way at all meant to fit your life, Sivason, just as in no way (I would guess, of course) does your life fit into the patterns of an average person's waking life. Snarky and tired as it sounds, it does however lie at the core of why I make so much fuss about self-awareness, RRC's, consciousness, souls, etc, on these forums:

The natural tendency of human behavior, I believe, is to ignore as much of our reality as we can possibly get away with without starving to death (or getting beaten to death by our loved ones). It's just nicer that way; with such a lazy outlook making life in general seem much easier. Learning to lucid dream, or to recognize your exercise of free will, takes a real step into your self, and a giant leap from the standard human condition of letting the world wander by without much notice; so yeah, when I'm teaching WILD, for instance, my class is pretty much nothing but taking time to develop self-awareness, or at least welcome the condition on moments it might occur... and to do this in spite of all the "techniques" out there that guarantee a shortcut to lucidity just by following a few simple steps.

I hope this helps what I said to make more sense. After all, recognizing free will, or freedom at all, is sort of an act of sentient self-awareness, isn't it? And, if most people (who are not Sivason) have zero interest in making the extra effort to practice a few seconds of self-awareness, would they really know they are even exercising free will, much less contemplate the consequences of their actions? I don't think so.

I hope that made better sense.

As another example, I just noticed Darkmatters' artist/gestalt example above. I was a practicing artist for several years recently, and couldn't help but notice how often artists tend to imitate the work of other artists, or, worse, conform their work to the dictates of the "Art World," often quite unconsciously, I would imagine. Are they deciding to copy other people's work at the expense of their own creativity, or are they simply doing so without thinking about it because that's a much easier path to follow? Perhaps the great artists (do they still make those?) were simply those who stuck to their own devices, their senses of self, and decided on their own what to create, herding instinct be damned?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ Good point Sivason! It really does seem odd that so many people on a lucid dreaming forum would essentially say they believe people are nothing but automatons with no awareness or decision-making capabilities. That's pretty much the opposite of lucidity and dream control, isn't it? Isn't the idea basically that if you become lucid in waking life then you can be lucid and exercise control in dreams?

The automatons are not generally on these forums, Darkmatters; you probably already know that. And aren't they here because they seek to do something that helps them escape the drudgery of waking life?

Also, I never said I "believe people are nothing but automatons with no awareness or decision-making capabilities," Darkmatters. I believe people are potentially much more than that, but generally choose to ignore their potentials. Please stop abrasively misinterpreting me, Darkmatters, it's getting tiresome and doesn't help much. And spare me the excuses; you know you're doing it.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well we're actually in agreement then. I don't think a mind exists without a living body and brain, just like the illumination from a light bulb requires the physical bulb to be fully intact and functioning and the electrical impulse to be present. In fact - uh-oh! Now you've done it. Now I'm going to present another of my weird ideas...

The light from different light bulbs exhibits different qualities - some are brighter, more bluish, maybe they flicker a bit, etc. This is a sort of super-simplified metaphor for how different human minds are. But a simple light bulb doesn't come anywhere near the multilayered complexity of a mind, so let's use a more complex metaphor instead - a television screen. Each pixel is sort of like an individual light bulb, but capable of changing colors and brightness, and a vast network of them work together to create images in motion. I guess this is analogous to neurons firing in a brain.

Now you could say, sticking with this metaphor, that 'it's nothing but a bunch of little spots changing colors'. But that would completely miss the fact that they change colors in a very complex fashion that creates not only coherent images in motion, but stories. Now those simple flashing pixels have created something of incredible complexity that goes way beyond 'just some flashing spots on a screen'. The story itself has complexities that no longer have anything to do with flashing spots of light, but rather with ideas - stories deal with things like loyalty and betrayal, love, hate, war, etc. Incredible that just some flashing spots on a screen can create something like that!

This is why I think it's pointless to discuss the mind in purely materialistic terms. Yes, in one sense it's nothing but electrical impulses across neurons and chemical reactions, but it creates something so far beyond that. Just discussing chemical reactions and electrical impulses doesn't even begin to come close to describing anything about the mind.

And when we talk about mental abilities, like the ability to make decisions, it involves the entirety of the mind. Decisions happen at the 'story' level (to go back to the TV analogy), not at any chemical or electrical level. So the self is a vastly complex entity consisting of layer upon layer of immaterial 'story stuff' (thoughts, ideas, memories, etc).

This 'story level stuff' is also where many of our influences exist. Some exist on more physical levels of course, like DNA.

One more metaphor if I may (and then I'll quit, promise! For this post anyway). To compare the mind and the body for purposes of clarification - the mind ingests and then digests influences at the mental level. Ideas and ideologies etc. These are some of the "influences" we've been discussing. For example, whether you're liberal or conservative, atheist or religious. This stuff all happens strictly on those deeply complex mental levels. So it's part of the gestalt - part of YOU. At least those influences that you've digested are part of you now. This goes back to my artist metaphor. We encounter influences - some of them we digest and like food they get broken down into constituent parts and used to build your growing gestalt. These influences now lose their discreet character - literally cease to exist as what they used to be and instead emerge as a part of you, modified beyond all recognition now. It's no longer 'the liberal influence you picked up from aunt Sally' - it's now 'the ever-growing and changing liberal attitude that you originally picked up from aunt Sally'.

Now, just like in your physical body - if you eat something and digest it your body breaks it down into nutrients and then uses them to supply growing cells - fully absorbed and digested and now something totally different from what it originally was.

So what I'm really saying is that - at some point your decisions are no longer affected simply by a bundle of discreet factors that aren't a part of you - but instead by influences that have been absorbed and ARE you now. So it really is YOU making the decisions.

Of course not all of your influencing factors are absorbed this way.

Ok, sorry for massive post.

Brilliant post! I followed all of that and found it well worth my time. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Sageous

The automatons are not generally on these forums, Darkmatters; you probably already know that. And aren't they here because they seek to do something that helps them escape the drudgery of waking life?

Also, I never said I "believe people are nothing but automatons with no awareness or decision-making capabilities," Darkmatters. I believe people are potentially much more than that, but generally choose to ignore their potentials. Please stop abrasively misinterpreting me, Darkmatters, it's getting tiresome and doesn't help much. And spare me the excuses; you know you're doing it.

I really wasn't misinterpreting you - I was misunderstanding you. I'm beginning to realize that you have a tendency to say things maybe sarcastically or severely understating things and you assume people will 'get' what you mean. You should understand by now sarcasm doesn't come across well in print - if you say something like "people go through their lives with no glimmer of self awareness" most readers will think you mean exactly what you said - when apparently what you really meant was more like "MOST people have no self awareness MOST of the time".

I was honestly confused, because it literally sounded like you were saying you don't believe people have free will or self awareness. I think I have a tendency to overexplain my thoughts for fear people won't understand them, while you have a tendency to underexplain in the belief that everybody already knows what you mean.

But here's the thing - when it comes to a question like this (do we have free will?) it isn't really asking does everyone exercise it all the time - it's more a matter of does the human species have the capacity for it. And while I totally agree that most people don't exercise it very often (nor is there really a reason to most of the time) the capacity is definitely there. I think you believe that too, but from your minimalist and apparently sarcastic posts it didn't sound like that's what you were saying.

It's just cognitive bias, and it's something we all do tend to embrace from time to time, so Darkmatters does have some truth in what you were doing/implying Sageous (but that doesn't mean any disrespect to your opinions though)

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

What exactly would constitute free will in your opinion?

Most of the posts seemed to cover people just doing what's considered barbaric actions that people wouldn't even contemplate. Another example would be Genital mutilation of children, I personally feel that without religion in mind, or entrusting faith into an entity/diety that people wouldn't try to find joy or excitement in doing something like that. And I guess it's a bit too late for me to give my own opinions seeing how people will naturally label it as contributing to an echo chamber.

But I'll use an example, a simple one, Lucid Dreaming. To try and fit your question, Darkmatters, I'm sure you'll already know what I'm going to talk about. I'm sure before anyone starts becoming interested in dreaming, they'll have a linear mindset sustained on what they experienced and their type of upbringing. And they have those small slips of contemplation on whether or not the reality or the perception of reality is really as consistent as they think it'll be. Then if they were to find out about being able to be aware of lucid dreaming, and all of those probabilities that seems to be a nice small market for used car salesman to make a quick buck out of, they start stepping into a door they should've left closed. They start seeing all of this creation of scenarios where they have different behaviors in the dreams, and they wonder if they can use that subjectivity to make some changes in their life (whether finding success in their business, or just self-esteem upgrading).

Then if we talk about self-fulfilling prophecies that Lucid Dreaming in my personal opinion, is revolved around (but not the sole factor), they might start thinking that when things go their way, it's as if it's free-will. However, even when things seemingly are going in your favor, it can't really constitute as free-will, because again, there's mental blocks our minds will have to stays true to our moral code. And even if we could mine our ways through finding that, and find content for ourselves, it's simply a matter of adding more awareness of how your mind works, but it doesn't imply free will.


There's an analogy I've been using a bit more often to try and explain people's delusion of free-will vs. just having choices. For me, and I know it's just one perspective, but I feel that one would eventually feel their life is a blank canvas. They distract themselves from the mental baggage of life in their lucid and non-lucid dreams, and they feel a sense of emptiness when they're stripped from the burden. That state of being might feel one is able to cop-out from what they're "supposed" to live by, but at the same time, it's a time for them to use dreaming and thought-energy to become more aware of other choices. It's merely adding more awareness of self, and being able to go into a constant back-and-forth motion of updating and progressively improving yourself mentally and emotionally (and other aspects that I feel are just on a personal belief). But even if a person is able to mold a probable scenario that they can accommodate themselves into making a reality, it's easy to feel that it's free-will because they can control their dreams better as a basis to make things real to them in waking life, but again, it's merely just more choices.

The same moral code is probably what really makes Free-will impractical, because actually putting Free-will and its theories into practice, we could grab something simple like Ego Inflation or anything that involves one surrendering some kind of authority of their sense of self. I doubt a person can really have "free-will" to cop out and see things in an absolute objective view to just go through ego inflation like that without the restrictions set up by the moral code of that person. Just like you stated people just killing others or injuring others would be randomness, but not free-will. And just dreaming alone, the more one becomes proficient in recalling them, all of these trivial scenarios that somehow we accept as normal, we start comparing that to waking life, and most likely wonder if what they're accepting right now is just them living in some simulation.

So if one really wanted to fit into the presumptive roles of free-will, I guess them thinking that they're experiencing waking life and dreaming life as some way to make frequent simulations to make a database of the totality of probable life scenarios that makes them feel at ease, but again, it's impractical once more. And then when we have our own personal experiences with having realizations, or just reaching pinnacles of content after dealing with pain and suffering and overcoming them, and with what other people think as well, it's really hard to feel that we can be devoid of necessity and reliance of other aspects of our mind.

Free-will implies that you can somehow eliminate necessity of following through with what you want to happen, and it just happening like that with little to no effort. But we know if that implication was put into practice in this reality, it was just be considered being a visionary. It's just not going to happen when one already has so many mental blocks built for stability or just a mindset or identity that doesn't cause too much distortions. So to me, I agree with Original Poster that there's merely choice, and us being able to fulfill those choices is our faith in them eventually being accomplished. We still have to do the basic procedures (evaluating our relapses and motivating ourselves to do things, etc.), but it doesn't even come close to free-will because we have to rely on sense of self and aspects of our minds. The same goes for us learning from others and relying on them in some way to gather bits of information to see things in a different light. The same necessity is just one of many ways that free-will seems to be a concept that gives people who want closure and/or rely on a singular or multiple entities/deities for said closure, and even if it's true to that individual, it doesn't mean it's true for everyone else.

Free-will only seems to have a modicum of probability if one could somehow have Omnipotence, but of course, fathoming Omnipotence itself is really absurd with how limited our mind can focus on one or few things. And that can go into all sorts of aspects of Psychology and even Sociology of how Society works with cultural norms and groups.

*shrugs*

Lol wow dude - ok, I maybe understood about 1/247th of that! Maybe...

Your posts are really hard to understand because of the very - unconventional way you string words together. At one point it sounded like you weren't talking about free will though so much as Law of Attraction ("wish really really hard and it will come true"). That has nothing to do with free will.

But from other parts of your post that started to rise up into near comprehensibility it sound like you're using the hardcore definition of free will; "The ability to make choices totally uninfluenced by internal or external factors".

What I've been so carefully explaining for so many posts now is that I believe factors that have become internalized are now a part of 'you'. So to be 'influenced' by them is not a lack of freedom at all. So I'm saying it's only the truly external factors that we'd need to be free of in order to say we have free will. And one definition I've found of free will is "The ability to make choices free of external influences".

That is the type of free will that I'm saying we have. I've been concentrating on the definition of the word Self and what it encompasses, and my conclusion is that what many people consider "internal influencing factors" are actually a part of the self.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I really wasn't misinterpreting you - I was misunderstanding you. I'm beginning to realize that you have a tendency to say things maybe sarcastically or severely understating things and you assume people will 'get' what you mean. You should understand by now sarcasm doesn't come across well in print - if you say something like "people go through their lives with no glimmer of self awareness" most readers will think you mean exactly what you said - when apparently what you really meant was more like "MOST people have no self awareness MOST of the time".

I was honestly confused, because it literally sounded like you were saying you don't believe people have free will or self awareness. I think I have a tendency to overexplain my thoughts for fear people won't understand them, while you have a tendency to underexplain in the belief that everybody already knows what you mean.

Want a little irony? I was never being sarcastic in those posts. I had no idea I was being minimalist, as I can't imagine a person who uses as many words as I ever able to make that claim, but I guess I can accept that.

Next time I'm on a thread with you, Darkmatters, I'll try to remember to include lots of extra words, lots of ven diagrams, avoid all humor, and never dare presuppose that the guy reading my post has read probably a thousand other posts of mine, and is well aware of my take on things. Okay, now I used sarcasm.

Aside from that, I do fully agree with what you've been saying here, and was simply trying to add a few thoughts to the conversation. You make that very difficult sometimes, as I find myself defending the simplest of statements instead of forwarding a conversation. That sort of sucks.

But here's the thing - when it comes to a question like this (do we have free will?) it isn't really asking does everyone exercise it all the time - it's more a matter of does the human species have the capacity for it. And while I totally agree that most people don't exercise it very often (nor is there really a reason to most of the time) the capacity is definitely there. I think you believe that too, but from your minimalist and apparently sarcastic posts it didn't sound like that's what you were saying.

Yes, that is the thing, I couldn't agree more, and apparently am incapable (at least today) of saying it better myself.

Apparently Linkzelda has decided I'm doing/implying things that I had no idea I was doing, so I guess I will leave it at that.

So, after heaving a sarcastic sigh, I'm done.

Hahahah ok, sorry about that!! Maybe sarcasm was the wrong word. But I think Sivason had the same misunderstanding I did, at least at first. And I'm guessing most readers did as well. When you literally say "people have no self awareness and no free will" most people will assume that's what you mean and that that's your answer to the thread's question. This is why I use all the extra words (though I do avoid Venn diagrams when possible lol!) to try to make my meaning crystal clear even to the slow students - that way I figure everybody else will get it too. Saying the opposite of what you mean is rarely a good way to get your point across (you did literally say "people have no self awareness" when what you really meant was "People do have the capacity for self-awareness, but most of the time most of them fail to exercise it").

I think when people are discussing a complex topic like this it's really extra important to at some point boil down your conclusion to one very clear and direct statement that's carefully worded so nobody can misunderstand it. (see what I did there? )

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Lol wow dude - ok, I maybe understood about 1/247th of that! Maybe...

Your posts are really hard to understand because of the very - unconventional way you string words together. At one point it sounded like you weren't talking about free will though so much as Law of Attraction ("wish really really hard and it will come true"). That has nothing to do with free will.

But from other parts of your post that started to rise up into near comprehensibility it sound like you're using the hardcore definition of free will; "The ability to make choices totally uninfluenced by internal or external factors".

What I've been so carefully explaining for so many posts now is that I believe factors that have become internalized are now a part of 'you'. So to be 'influenced' by them is not a lack of freedom at all. So I'm saying it's only the truly external factors that we'd need to be free of in order to say we have free will. And one definition I've found of free will is "The ability to make choices free of external influences".

That is the type of free will that I'm saying we have. I've been concentrating on the definition of the word Self and what it encompasses, and my conclusion is that what many people consider "internal influencing factors" are actually a part of the self.

Yeah, I truly apologize for that, it's hard stringing them together, and my attempt was just also considering OP's question that mostly revolved on Law of Attraction rather than free-will (dang it, I knew you would catch on to that; and lately my abstract stringing is getting worse honestly) . I guess I just used bad examples, I usually start with that, and try to make some kind of explanation that just ends up being horrible. I hope I'll keep aiming to make something cohesive in the future, and yes, I was using the absolute definition of free-will. I just felt it was practical to use it's general definition, and not my own variation of what it is. But even when you can somehow distract yourself, or be free from the external factors, I don't feel it means you have free-will.

Even if you just have to worry about sense of self and all there is to your existence and how you interpret reality, it's merely just becoming more aware of choices you can take. And if anyone wants to talk about free-will, it seems reasonable to start with the hardcore definition, but I guess it's not useful since we'll inevitably just cherry pick our own meanings of it. I understand that when external factors aren't as a detriment in implying there's now free-will (or it's easily applicable), seeing us being able to go into Introspection and going through probable scenarios that makes us feel we have freedom to do anything....it just feels awkward that it's merely your own definition. Not saying it's bad you're doing it, it's just that after presumably being free of external factors, there's still mental blocks that prevent us from being aware of other options within.

But if one were able to create their own schemata/schema of resolving those mental blocks, then they could experience the presumptive conditions of free-will, but I'm not so sure knowing the unconscious and just how anything works in our mind could be solved in a short lifetime like this. That's why I felt the idea of applying it to this reality felt impracticable. I do apologize for the abstract stringing from before.

Edit:

Sageous, I'm sorry. I'm just going to go with what Darkmatters said. It seems clear that you weren't aiming for sarcasm or sardonic quips, and that presumption itself was completely my fault. I truly apologize for that.

Hey awesome!! I actually understood about 7/10ths of that post!! Much better job of making yourself clear! And I'm really glad you didn't take offense - I almost edited my post to take out all the stuff about finding it hard to understand you. I didn't want it to be offensive but I was afraid it might come across that way. One thing I'm curious about, since you are aware of the communication difficulty - do you have the same issues when you're talking to people, or is it more of just a written word thing?

Ok, enough off-topic.

To me, and I think we're all in agreement on this one - if you go by the hardcore definition then of course there's no such thing as free will. Though a big part of what I've been doing with my explorations into the meaning of the word Self is to try to get a better understanding of my own ideas about the self and how it operates. Honestly I had never taken my thinking this far along before - this conversation has spurred me to go deeper into my ideas on the subject and to understand them more than I ever have before. But ow I realize that my understanding of the Self is as a living growing mental organism, and that what people are calling "influencing factors" are actually a part of it. So how does it make sense to say the self can't make decisions without being influenced by internal factors - when those internal factors are actually a PART of the self?" And I think some of what are refferred to as external influences are also a part of who you are - DNA for instance. Yes, it originates from outside of your body, but once you've been conceived it's now a part of that bundle of growing cells called You. It's YOUR DNA, right? To illustrate the point - let's say there are a pair of parents who keep cranking out kids. The kids obviously all have the same combination of DNA, right? From exactly the same 2 parents. But all of the kids are not identical. Only in the case of identical twins would the seem to get the same DNA. I'll admit I'm not a biologist and I don't understand exactly why this is - maybe it's just randomness (but then Tommo has gone on record as saying randomness would prove free will I believe?) But to me it suggests that the exact same combination of DNA will coalesce differently in different embryos and produce different people each with their own unique traits. This seems to support my theory that an individual absorbs his influences and they lose their distinct qualities as influences - instead become a part of that individual.

But I'll also admit that by this point in the conversation something inside me is starting to say "just give it up". Maybe I'm just terrified to admit that we're not really autonomous living beings with minds of our own who have any freedom of choice. But wait - we actually ARE. I really don't think it's just fear that makes me say we have free will. It's probably more that I don't really understand what other people mean by the terms they're using. I mean, if all people mean by that is that "all of our choices are influenced strongly by things we've learned and by DNA etc" well then I agree completely! Maybe what I mean when I say free will is just something different from what everyone else means. In fact that's probably all it is. I do acknowledge that we exist in an inescapable web of influences and can never be free of them, so if that's all it means then yeah, there's no free will.

But I do believe we're all unique individuals who make choices differently and that we can choose, while still being influenced by those factors, to sometimes go against what they dictate.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Saying the opposite of what you mean is rarely a good way to get your point across (you did literally say "people have no self awareness" when what you really meant was "People do have the capacity for self-awareness, but most of the time most of them fail to exercise it").

How's this for clarity and concision: People, naturally, have no self-awareness. All of them.

The thing that creates the potential for self-awareness and the exercising of free will is sentience, which in my opinion is by no means a natural event. So yes, people, all of them, are inclined by the programming of their DNA to to sidestep self-awareness as much as possible. They are not inclined or interested in self-awareness. [And yes, those who are interested in self-awareness tend to post in forums like this one, so forget the nonsense about how I could say such a thing.]

Where does the potential come from then? From sentience, from a decidedly unnatural state of consciousness that I truly believe was never intended my nature to exist, but, thanks to the amazing complexity of the human mind, it does.

Still, self-awareness happens, and, thanks to sentience, we are all able to exercise it, and, by extension free will. Sentience may also be the source of "soul," as well (was this the thread I mentioned that on?), which is also not a natural phenomenon, though all people certainly might be able to create one.

Bottom line: People are inclined naturally to avoid self-awareness and free will, and pursuing either would likely take an unnatural effort. Not most people, all people. Myself included.

This I believe dovetails nicely with what you've been saying all along.... Oh wait, are dovetails allowed here, or are they a no-no as well?


Was that clear enough? Am I allowed, BTW, to express my opinion, or will that to be subject to a Darkmatters helpful correction?

I think when people are discussing a complex topic like this it's really extra important to at some point boil down your conclusion to one very clear and direct statement that's carefully worded so nobody can misunderstand it. (see what I did there? )

Gosh thanks, professor; I never would have known that. Will there be more horrifically condescending teaching moments to follow, Darkmatters, or will you perhaps just quietly assure yourself of your vastly superior writing and comprehension skills and hold back on these most helpful remedial writing tips? (see what I did there? )

P.S. Is there an emoticon for dripping sarcasm? If yes, it goes here.