Thread: Free will is completely irrelevant

I don't know what my soul is.. Perhaps that's why I try to listen to it and let it express itself and show it that it shouldn't be shy and that I am listening because I know how important the soul's well-being is and I don't want to compromise it for anything. But I agree that I could have done better. I know that just because somebody doesn't know something doesn't mean they are stupid and you have to give me credit for the last 2 posts because I did try to point out where (I thought) they were wrong and what kind of knowledge made me think that they were wrong.

But you are right and I apologize. Dthoughts and FryingMan I apologize for calling you stupid and I apologize for my lack of intellect and patience to clarify your misunderstandings

Originally Posted by Ginsan

Dthoughts and FryingMan I apologize for calling you stupid and I apologize for my lack of intellect and patience to clarify your misunderstandings

You should already be aware that I really don't mind. In addition, this thread has provided nothing but quality posts. I think a little beating is worth the effort for that.

I laugh at the irony that the OP of a thread called "Free will is completely irrelevant" would be corrected on his behavior.

(I sometimes wonder if your avatar is not a man doing a failed RC because his hands are perfectly fine, but if he had looked in a mirror instead, he would have known he was dreaming).

Occi you remind me of something very interesting. I should be corrected on my behaviour because her comment causes physical changes in my brain and body that can improve my behaviour. This is a common misconception "if you don't have free will then you are not responsible for your actions and shouldn't be commented on or punished". You might say that if everything is predetermined you had no control over your actions, but if everything is predictable, a logical result of a comment on behaviour or punishment is that it gets corrected.

Please understand that I am not arguing against you or saying "you're wrong and here is why! ", I just used your post to try and make a point

I also think you are more than capable of going nuhuh and ignore corrections altogether. And choose to live with the consequences. I personally experience freedom in a give or take way.. Passivity being one outcome of freedom. Usually caused by fear. The fear is a physiological effect in my body-Chemistry. But to my mind, it can lead to passivity or it can lead to action. Action being a much more nurturing effect on my mind body and soul.

I agree with you, Ginsan. I also agree with the title of this thread, I think. Whether we have free will or not is irrelevant in how we should react to bad behavior.

(But people can and do use those different perspectives (no freewill, yes freewill) to explain and guide their behaviour,

ex: There is free will, I can and should be allowed to do what I want. There is free will, I have a responsibility to use it well. There is no free will, I have no responsibility. I have no free will but the mental discourse going on in my head is a mechanism of this deterministic world and if I "choose" to be good, then, I most likely will.

People can play around with ideas and make very different conclusions.

I absolutely agree that action is almost always better than passivity.

And it's fascinating and mind opening how people can start from the same idea/look at the same thing and play around with it and come up with completely different conclusions and explanations that you never thought of. So even if I made this thread just to express a frustration (that people discuss irrelevant things) and make a point, I learned a lot because of what you said, people play around with ideas and come to different conclusions

Playing with another idea, this quite peculiar idea that Sivason put forth.

What if some people have free will and some do not. Is this another irrelevant matter? What would the practical implications of this be, if any?

In this scenario, where some have "souls" and others do not, I think there would be no difference. Sivason's theory of the self is the body and souls, partners to each other. The earth, is physical, it can be seen as a body without a soul. But it is important. So selves consisting of body and souls need to respect selves without souls just as much, because in the physical realm, everything is just as important.

The body has a story. The soul only needs to grow in beauty. They are partners and must accomplish both goals: a growing soul, and a body who achieves its duty, or its destiny.

If a person plays a video game, it doesn't matter if the characters which are not you are not represented by another being, your character must still follow the story line. A Mario controlled by a "teen age boy" will need to save the princess even if she is not controlled by a "teen age girl", she's merely some pixels, but is as important as Mario.

And what of dreams, then? We are a DC with a soul, with an external control. What does this say of how we should treat DCs with no soul, with no external control?

(Sorry, Ginsan, for plunging right into some very mystical stuff, or maybe not that much. )

You really are getting into mystical stuff You should accept me not getting into it because I am just bad at talking mystical

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

Playing with another idea, this quite peculiar idea that Sivason put forth.

What if some people have free will and some do not. Is this another irrelevant matter? What would the practical implications of this be, if any?

In this scenario, where some have "souls" and others do not, I think there would be no difference. Sivason's theory of the self is the body and souls, partners to each other. The earth, is physical, it can be seen as a body without a soul. But it is important. So selves consisting of body and souls need to respect selves without souls just as much, because in the physical realm, everything is just as important.

The body has a story. The soul only needs to grow in beauty. They are partners and must accomplish both goals: a growing soul, and a body who achieves its duty, or its destiny.

If a person plays a video game, it doesn't matter if the characters which are not you are not represented by another being, your character must still follow the story line. A Mario controlled by a "teen age boy" will need to save the princess even if she is not controlled by a "teen age girl", she's merely some pixels, but is as important as Mario.

And what of dreams, then? We are a DC with a soul, with an external control. What does this say of how we should treat DCs with no soul, with no external control?

(Sorry, Ginsan, for plunging right into some very mystical stuff, or maybe not that much. )

Now who is getting profound and casting forth gems? I agree with everything you said. There must never be a feeling of division between you and a human animal. Human animals can raise families and excel at many things. You may meet people who show no glimmer of what you would expect in a human with a soul. You can choose not to befriend them, but still must treat them fairly and feel empathy.