Fate and Free Will - My thoughts (please critique)

@Alan McDougall,

Let me get this straight;believing in 'free will' either assumes
i) a chaotic(quantum nature of) world/universe/brain hence; technically our outcome of our action/decision cannot be predicted to 100% accuracy.
OR
ii) no human has an eye for a future; hence no one can have a 100% accurate knowledge of our future actions
OR(just maybe)
iii)the existence of a non omniscient god cum perhaps the existence of soul

and;

Thus; fatalism assumes otherwise for i & iii; and free will just exists in our mind and it ceases to exist in the bigger picture?

@c n conquer,

c_n_conquer wrote:

Let me get this straight;believing in 'free will' either assumes
i) a chaotic(quantum nature of) world/universe/brain hence; technically our outcome of our action/decision cannot be predicted to 100% accuracy.
OR
ii) no human has an eye for a future; hence no one can have a 100% accurate knowledge of our future actions
OR(just maybe)
iii)the existence of a non omniscient god cum perhaps the existence of soul

and;

Thus; fatalism assumes otherwise for i & iii; and free will just exists in our mind and it ceases to exist in the bigger picture?

It could be none of those supposes, we only ponder.I always joke when watching a movie the second time,"You think he would have learnt by now not to open that door to the murderer, he does it every time i watch it"..Knowing he will open the door would not take away from the point of why or the consequences.We are, we will and we have, in time its all the same,just a matter of perspective..

@click here,

It seems to me that determinism has replaced fate to deprive the human being, or rather the subject, of any free will, with the help of science. The only difference is that the causa sui in determinism is no intention, so there is no necessity of a creator (God). Although I feel more enclined to Heidegger's or Sartre's existencialism, mostly because it gives hope, I think causality and determinism just make existencialism a form of belief.

But then many questions came to me, as I realized that Kant might have been right when he said that sciences and moral could not be reconciliated, as one excludes free will and the other makes it necessary.
If we adhere to determinism, then the distinction between nature and nurture, or rather between what is innate and what is acquired, seems to have very little weight and to belong mostly to moral. Let me try to make this a little clearer: determinism and causality applied to man means that a human being (what I call a subjet, in the cartesian sense of the cogito) is not responsible for his actions. If there is no free will, it means one cannot choose and thus cannot be judged guilty or not. Just as we do not choose the color of our skin, our parents and the community we were born in, determinism teaches us that we do not choose anything at all. Spinoza was already saying this a few centuries ago.
But then here is my question: what is left to the　human being? If everything is accidental and not essential, then what is the essence of the subject? Sure I think so I am, but we're not quite sure about what "I" is after the XXth century... It is as if in the end the subject (or human being) decided to consider himself responsible of his actions because if he did not, he would be reduced to a determined though conscious body.
Determinism leads to an issue about identity, even more than an issue about moral. But I hope some people will have something to answer to this because somehow I wish that this would be only a point of view due to some kind of ignorance on my side.

@Altheia,

Aletheia,I feel science and religion have held the human race in bondage for too long, the twain shall never meet. I have studied the cause of creation, which is the unseen world, the creative half of the cycle, this is much simpler to come to grips with than dealing with effect world.

We live in a thought wave mirror imaged univese where we create within and express that creation onto the screen which we call the material world. Walter Russell is a modern day philosopher who has combined spiritually with science.

I have combined his philosophy with the teaching of Jesus, I have applied these teachings to my every day living. The results have been remarkable, I have eliminated all my body ailments where at the age eighty I enjoy excellent health having no need of a doctor or medicines. Richard

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

Aletheia,I feel science and religion have held the human race in bondage for too long, the twain shall never meet. I have studied the cause of creation, which is the unseen world, the creative half of the cycle, this is much simpler to come to grips with than dealing with effect world.

We live in a thought wave mirror imaged univese where we create within and express that creation onto the screen which we call the material world. Walter Russell is a modern day philosopher who has combined spiritually with science.

I have combined his philosophy with the teaching of Jesus, I have applied these teachings to my every day living. The results have been remarkable, I have eliminated all my body ailments where at the age eighty I enjoy excellent health having no need of a doctor or medicines. Richard

So whats going to kill you Richard?

@xris,

Thanks for the reply anyways Richard, but it seems to me you cannot build any philosophy on belief alone. The reason is that even though it is indeed much simpler to get a grip of things trough imagination, imagination does not link you to others, or rather to any alter ego.
But I might not have grasped entirely what you meant - so feel free to explain you thought more clearly. If, as it appears to be, your thought is a belief, I don't really think it can answer my question.

@xris,

xris;65213 wrote:

So whats going to kill you Richard?

There is no such thing as death or old age. We are born to die, and we die to live, one is the other. Richard

---------- Post added at 02:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 AM ----------

Aletheia, I am not sure what constitutes philosophy, but if its anything like the guide lines they have for scientists, I feel it may be very limited in what is acceptable. Walter Russell has done wonders in bringing science and spirituality together.

I have combined his teachings to the Sermon On The Mount, with wonderful results, I have a web page you may like to look at, >www.giveitnothought.com> also a utube site <richardgrant15> Richard

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant;65236 wrote:

There is no such thing as death or old age. We are born to die, and we die to live, one is the other. Richard

Whats with the poeticism? I'm sure it would make a great line in a Wachowski brothers movie. If your gonna say something like that at least substantiate it with an explanation.

How do you define: death, old age, living, and the purpose of birth.

@click here,

If you really want to understand how creation works, I suggest you do what I did and study the cause of creation, for cause is simple, effect is very complex. The closer I get to the truth the more free I am, for its the truth that will set me free.

If science could prove there is no such thing as spirituality, I am a willing listener. Richard

@Richardgrant,

Spirituality is a daisy you look at from afar. Science is kneeling against the earth to sense all there is to sense of the daisies.

It's all a matter of what one prefers Richard. Some prefer the actual process of finding truth. Some prefer the freedom of letting the process be irrelevant. Some people want a medium in which spirituality and science are important. There's no contradiction in pragmatism and idealism.

Me, if I were to call anything spiritual it would be that moment of discovery attained through science, and critical thought in general.

Also, determinism does not deny free will. I don't really see how this is possible simply because determinism involves logic, and free will involves feeling. The two are mutually exclusive. We care not if our conscious thought process is determined for us. If it feels like we are in control then that's all humanity ever cares about.

@click here,

Holiday20310401, I really wish I could understand what you're trying to say, instead of just believing it, which I certainly would like though. Determinism not only involves logic, actually logic might not even have much to have to do with it, it involves causality: evey ffect has a cause which is itself the effect of a previous cause and so on, to infinity. (Then there is the question of the vry first cause, the causa sui, that some consider as a creaor (God) meaning hat it had an intention). So if you feel something and that has a cause (and it always does), you were not free to feel it in the first place, you did not choose it. Just like you did not choose where or when you were born. Determined does not mean someone or something decided for us or knew what we were going to do beforehand (that is just a belief, whether you believe or not in God), it means that every choice but also every action you do is mrely the effect of causes that are exterior to you. The question of free will addresses the issue of a very serious identity problem, that is: am I (I being any subject, in the cartesian meaning) only a determined though conscious body?
But please explain what you meant. I'm really waiting for someone to prove me wrong, but it has to be convincing - I mean I myself am trying to sort this all out. I just haven't found any ways yet.

@Altheia,

Alètheia;65320 wrote:

Holiday20310401, I really wish I could understand what you're trying to say, instead of just believing it, which I certainly would like though. Determinism not only involves logic, actually logic might not even have much to have to do with it, it involves causality: evey ffect has a cause which is itself the effect of a previous cause and so on, to infinity. (Then there is the question of the vry first cause, the causa sui, that some consider as a creaor (God) meaning hat it had an intention). So if you feel something and that has a cause (and it always does), you were not free to feel it in the first place, you did not choose it. Just like you did not choose where or when you were born. Determined does not mean someone or something decided for us or knew what we were going to do beforehand (that is just a belief, whether you believe or not in God), it means that every choice but also every action you do is mrely the effect of causes that are exterior to you. The question of free will addresses the issue of a very serious identity problem, that is: am I (I being any subject, in the cartesian meaning) only a determined though conscious body?
But please explain what you meant. I'm really waiting for someone to prove me wrong, but it has to be convincing - I mean I myself am trying to sort this all out. I just haven't found any ways yet.

How can you say both that my choice had a cause, and that I did not make a choice? In fact, it was worse than that. You said that because my choice had a cause, I did not choose.

Of course, every effect has a cause. If it did not, how could it be an effect? An effect is, by definition, a caused event. So, to say that every effect has a cause is like saying that every husband is married. What else could a husband be but married? And what else could an effect have but a cause?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;65337 wrote:

How can you say both that my choice had a cause, and that I did not make a choice? In fact, it was worse than that. You said that because my choice had a cause, I did not choose.

Of course, every effect has a cause. If it did not, how could it be an effect? An effect is, by definition, a caused event. So, to say that every effect has a cause is like saying that every husband is married. What else could a husband be but married? And what else could an effect have but a cause?

I never said that because your choice had a cause you did not choose, I said that because it had a cause, you did not choose freely, meaning out of your own free will. Free will is not just will, as obvious that may seem, the importance lies in the adjective "free" : exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted (from the dictionary). Our will is not exempt from external authority, interference or restriction, and that is what I meant by our choice being an effect, it means it was not the result of our free will.
The point was not that every effect has a cause - which of course is a most ridiculous pleonasm. The point was that everything being an effect, so are our choices, and so they are not made out of free will. That is what the issue of determinism (or causality) vs free will is all about.

@Altheia,

We are subjects of life and its experiences and our choices are coloured by many things.The journey may not be our choosing but the choices we make are made by us.Its not the insignificant choice of clothes or food but the profound options we are given.Whatever information we have stored in our lifes journey help or hinder us but it is our decision ,thats free will.Fate is the consequence of our free will, just like my film , the script may be written but we wrote it, no one else.

@xris,

xris;65360 wrote:

We are subjects of life and its experiences and our choices are coloured by many things.The journey may not be our choosing but the choices we make are made by us.Its not the insignificant choice of clothes or food but the profound options we are given.Whatever information we have stored in our lifes journey help or hinder us but it is our decision ,thats free will.Fate is the consequence of our free will, just like my film , the script may be written but we wrote it, no one else.

My views of free will have changed a bit since the beginning of this thread. Nonetheless I'm not going to write in changes or anything like that.

Xris-

Does a volcano have free will? Does it control whom it kills/what it destroys? Surely not, there is no 'self' to a volcano. I would assume that you believe that humans are different in that they have 'free will'.

What is the scientific difference between humans and a volcano that proves that we have this ability to direct our own firing of neurons in a non causal way?

Even if you bring quantum mechanics and emergence into this (which one must if they wish to stay afloat) you can't expect to find a solution that is anything but material. You wouldn't believe that emergence is due to a spiritual essence only placed into existence by an all powerful being. So then you can only assume that you can only find physical scientific reasons for emergence. Knowing that you can still have no hope for 'free will' nor will you ever. If your views of a non spiritual world are true then you have no free will and consciousness defined as 'the ability to decide' is nothing but an illusion. There are many on this forum who have come to grips with that view and I think its time you realize that if you continue to hold to your moorings you have absolutely no choice. (pun intended)

@click here,

I never said anyone wrote it, and that is why I am not talking about Fate which implies an intention in causality, a will superior to ours. Surely I make my own choices, but I do not make them out of free will, that's what we're dicussing. And then, if I make my choices although I don't have any free will, the resulting question is what exactly am I, and that's why I was also saying that the issue of free will leads to a major issue about identity and the subject, revolutionizing the cartesian conception.

Edit to click here (we posted simultaneously): ok, so if now we agree that there is no free will as defined in my posts, now we can look at the consequences, and talk about morality and most of all identity and the subject (or consciousness, for the three latter are closely linked, if not the same).

@Altheia,

Free will is nothing more than feeling-oriented. In actuality there is no such thing.

Quantum mechanics would have a field day trying to prove free will exists for our perspectives.

@click here,

Ok I have a request because otherwise this is going to lead nowhere. We're here to discuss something, not to fight or just write what we think without explaining and demonstrating what we're saying, unless there is a consensus. We're doing philosophy, and so opinions should have no place here, for even if by any chance they were true they cannot be considered true if they are not the result of a demonstration, of an act of reasoning.
What's the point of your post, Holiday? Those who think like you will agree, those who don't think like you still won't agree because you are not even explaining, let alone proving with arguments or by reasoning, and finally those who do not have a definite thought yet won't be able to make anything out of your comment, and it is a pity, for it might be enlightning.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;65366 wrote:

Free will is nothing more than feeling-oriented. In actuality there is no such thing.

Quantum mechanics would have a field day trying to prove free will exists for our perspectives.

It seems to me as though many people whom hold atheist views but are into "quantum mechanics" use it as some sort of linch pin. As though, "hey maybe we do have free will, we don't know what causes the 'random' collapse of the wave function' so there is hope!" :perplexed:

@click here,

click here;65364 wrote:

My views of free will have changed a bit since the beginning of this thread. Nonetheless I'm not going to write in changes or anything like that.

Xris-

Does a volcano have free will? Does it control whom it kills/what it destroys? Surely not, there is no 'self' to a volcano. I would assume that you believe that humans are different in that they have 'free will'.

What is the scientific difference between humans and a volcano that proves that we have this ability to direct our own firing of neurons in a non causal way?

Even if you bring quantum mechanics and emergence into this (which one must if they wish to stay afloat) you can't expect to find a solution that is anything but material. You wouldn't believe that emergence is due to a spiritual essence only placed into existence by an all powerful being. So then you can only assume that you can only find physical scientific reasons for emergence. Knowing that you can still have no hope for 'free will' nor will you ever. If your views of a non spiritual world are true then you have no free will and consciousness defined as 'the ability to decide' is nothing but an illusion. There are many on this forum who have come to grips with that view and I think its time you realize that if you continue to hold to your moorings you have absolutely no choice. (pun intended)

If some physical need, like the volcano has needs, inhabits my body i am a slave to its necessities because i exist in this frail body.I am by a certain degree subject to demands, temptations, weaknesses.I cant imaging neurons firing away in my head and them controlling my actions.I control them, i direct them by my subtle human ability.A car will work without my interference but its direction is my decision, not its.If it requires a soul or a mind separate from brain to explain this free will then thats what it is.I'm not a hard drive, i have the will to determine my fate.Ive heard all the arguments and i defy their reasoning.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------

click here;65369 wrote:

It seems to me as though many people whom hold atheist views but are into "quantum mechanics" use it as some sort of linch pin. As though, "hey maybe we do have free will, we don't know what causes the 'random' collapse of the wave function' so there is hope!" :perplexed:

Why cant you believe in a soul without a belief in a god?

Philosophy Forum

Fate and Free Will - My thoughts (please critique)

Quick Links

My Account

able2know