Soul, Determinism, Free Will...

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Mod note: spin-off from thread in Philosophy of Science...

 

But the non-physical aspect of the soul is bound to physical body. It can't make choices in the physical world without the physical world. Every decision the soul makes is through the processing of information that occured before the choice. It is completely determined.

 

Just because we can't understand why someone does something doesn't remove the fact that they have nothing but pre-experience, conscious or subconscious, to use as variables in that decision.

[Rich]

Yes, your version of the soul would make the it totally controlled by the physical world, thus unable to overcome it‘s pre-determined path. However, your assuming that the soul doesn’t have any inherent attributes within itself, such as self-awareness, self-will, and conscience. If these pre-exist as inherent attributes of the soul, then even though it depends upon the physical world for information about the physical world and expresses it's self-will through the physical world, these attributes would be a factor in the choices made by a person, and thus the person becomes capable of altering the predetermined path of a physical entity. Actually, I'd say that it is requisite for there to be a being with a soul or some form of extra-physical essence with inherent properties such as these in order for determined physical reality to be altered.

 

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

If these pre-exist as inherent attributes of the soul, then even though it depends upon the physical world for information about the physical world and expresses it's self-will through the physical world, these attributes would be a factor in the choices made by a person, and thus the person becomes capable of altering the predetermined path of a physical entity.

 

First, the existance of a predetermined path would not be alterable, its defined as such. So you are claiming there is no predetermined path.

 

Second, you stated clearly that the attributes of the soul would be factors that contribute to your actions. This doesn't weaken my arguement. Just because we can't predict how these attibutes will effect our choices doesn't mean that they don't have definite effects. Because you are self-aware and have freewill, you will make a particular choice. If you decide to make a particular choice it is because of X variables. But if you make a different decision, it can not be independent from particular variables. If you do something because you want to, there is a reason you want to, and that is freewill, but it is still determined.

 

For example, if someone throws something at you, logically you should move. And you will, unless some variable along the way changes that outcome. If it is internal, such as the knowledge that you are expected to move, then that variable still exists and can be calculated. If it is external, then you had no control to begin with.

 

Also, if the beginning can be described as *A*, and the end is described as *Z*, whatever these might be, there is only one path to *Z*. If any variable is changed then it would no longer be *Z*, it would be *Z1*.

 

In fact, the area of science is used to find out the properties of this existance through studying the patterns. If the pattern changes for any reason, it doesn't disprove the pattern. It only proves another pattern and another outcome. We have discovered how a significant portion of our reality functions through cause and effect.

 

As part of the same reality, we are no different.

[Rich]

I’d say that some of our differences in view are in semantics, though I also see subtle but important differences. One point I am trying to make is that in the absence of a soul such as that one I’m proposing, physical reality is completely predetermined and unalterable. With the introduction of a soul with the attributes I propose into reality, physical reality can be altered by the action of the soul upon it, thus physical reality is no longer predetermined, though it is still determined, because of cause and effect, with the actions of the soul as part of the cause. What you describe is predeterminism, while I’m describing determinism in relation to the actions of the soul.

 

In regards to the soul, your implying that the soul can only react to the information it receives from physical reality, thus it’s actions are simply the result of transforming one form of action to another. For me this properly describes an animal with a life force but not a soul. I’m saying that the soul is more than simply a transfer case, and it possesses attributes that are not created nor controlled by physical reality, and though informed in many ways by physical reality, also provides itself with information which is not rooted in or available from physical reality. I’m also saying that two of these attributes, self-awareness (conscious or semiconscious) and self-will, asserted or not, can exist without the existence of physical reality, thus are completely independent variables, though they become influenced by physical reality when united with physical reality. Before this kind of soul interacts with physical reality it’s reaction to and actions upon physical reality can not be predicted, not because they are random or probabilistic, but because they controlled by the free will of the soul. As the soul gathers information from physical reality it develops it’s intellect, and, guided by intellect, expresses it’s will in physical reality, revealing itself in patterns of action, which can be very predictable, though they contain the influences of the initially unpredictable elements of the soul.

 

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I agree with your assessment of the differences in our views. While you believe in the soul as something distinctly human, I see the soul as part of the energy that is contained in all things. You also see the soul as completely seperate from the physical world, as I believe the physical world to be part of the spiritual world. The physical world can not be seperate from the spiritual world, although I agree that the spiritual world exists without the physical. My opinions, though, do come from the idea that the soul has freewill. But within the ideology that all things are one, there would only be one will, and all of us will act in a manner that is condusive to that will. Moreover, if all things that come to be must one day cease to be, the logic implies that all things that cease to be must one day come to be. The cyclical reason of the Big Bang, its contraction, and this infinite process leads to the reasoning of: =>A=>B=>C=>.......Y=>Z=>A=>B=>.....so that it never ends. But there is only one path. Just because the soul has a will seperate from the physical world, doesn't mean that the soul is without reasoning from the spiritual world, which is predetermined.

 

That said, I appreciate your understanding, and I understand your reasoning as well.

[Rich]

Inter.

 

I also appreciate your understanding of my point of view.

 

Our views may be more similar than you think. I stated that the soul can be separated from physical reality, though I don’t think that it ever actually is, though it begins in a state where interaction is minimal, and thus how it will interact when it becomes more “entangled” with physical reality is still unpredictable. I presented the soul as completely separated from physical reality as I did in the previous post to emphasize the soul’s capacity for an element of independence, which makes it a true independent variable. This view is rooted in my belief that as individuals we must take at least some responsibility for our actions, no matter what are or have been our influences.

 

My view of separation can be understood in terms of points in time. While initially the soul has little interaction with physical reality, the soul is destined in time to be fully entwined with physical reality, and thus when considered in the fullness of time the soul can be considered to be unified with physical reality.

 

I also believe in a universal will, though I would describe this as the will of God. In my view this is expressed in all things, including animals, though this expression is not necessarily understood. Proper understanding by a soul will lead to unity with this universal will, but proper understanding is not a “fait accompli” for all souls, because of the element of free will that all souls posses.

 

As far as the cyclical nature of reality, I don’t believe this is true as I believe reality was created by God and is permanent, though I do believe that it is possible that the experiencing by a soul of reality can be cyclical. This means that we might always be repeating our experience of a constant reality, but our perceptions of the reality will always be different because our perceptions are altered by our experience. I hope that this cyclical nature of experience does not result in reincarnation in this world because as far as I’m concerned one life in this world is enough. My hope is for a better experience of a better world in my next cycle of experience.

 

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

About your idea of same experiences but different perception, I can see your point. But I disagree. If a reality is cyclical in nature, then you will be experiencing reality in the same pattern, and therefore you would process that information in the exact same manner. I agree, though, that I wish for my next cycle to be a more enlightened one. As for taking responsibility for your actions, I completely agree that we should. Only through understanding your mistakes can you understand who you are. I believe that the soul is predetermined for a particular path. That path will eventually lead to back to the source (heaven). But how we act will determine how long we are away from the source (hell). I believe there is a purpose for our indiscretions as evidence of the truths that can be found in all things. When one realizes that the "idea" of a different outcome was "possible", it adds another variable of experience to that person. It was going to occur, and it is for the best. If a person can't imagine a better existance, there would be no reason to advance.

[Rich]

I don't believe reality is cyclicle, but permanent, though we can re-experience that permanent reality from a different perspective. An example of what I mean by this recycling is if I were to be born again into this reality at the exact same moment in time as I was the first time, but this time as a dog, it would different; I think.

 

 

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Now, if the cycle begins again, there is nothing that says that it will be different or that it will the same. But logic would permit the later. If all existance occured from the source, and that source being the first variable, there are no other variables to determine any other outcome. So the first occurance would be completely dependant upon the first variable. That occurance must necessarily be the same no matter what, because there is no other "what" to spoken of.

 

As for the probability of events, it seems so relative. I agree not all things can be determined, but that doesn't mean they aren't determined. And your comment about the effect of knowledge on reality, I think, strengthens my opinion. That knowledge is an effect of an effect of an effect. It was determined the moment we began to think abstractly. An that knowledge will necessarily determine the future. Every event alters the present, but the future isn't written until the present occurs. But the present is dependent upon all other occurances.

 

I have attempted to study the idea of a hidden variable in Einstein's theory, to no avail. I find it fascinating, so I appreciate the information.

[Rich]

Inter.,

You seem to be under the impression that genuine free will is not possible because all things must be predetermined at the source. I don’t think that this is the case. Certain things can be predetermined by at the source, while others things are not. For example, it can be predetermined that at the end of time this reality will divide into two separate realities, heaven and hell, but who will end up where is not predetermined, but instead determined in time according each person’s choices. Another issue is that you seem to think that all choices are informed by truthful information at all times. However, some people refuse to believe true information, and some persistently choose to live in a state of self delusion. Some might say that yes this is true but this is because they are predestined to be this way in the beginning so this is the inevitable outcome, while others, and this seems to be your view, believe that it is predetermined that all peoples’ self delusions will inevitably be cleared up and they will inevitably become enlightened. While one of these scenarios might be true, neither is necessarily true, as there is a third way, which is, that at the source a person is given the capacity to create, with their own will, their own version of reality in their mind, a version that can be a mixture of accurate perceptions of an objective physical reality and altered and false perceptions, with some of these altered perceptions being of a nature that it makes it more difficult to perceive objective physical reality. Let’s now assume that a person’s self induced delusion inevitably causes that person to follow a path in reality that moves them away from the heaven part of the end path described above and closer to the hell part, and that there is a fixed point in time when reality separates into heaven and hell, and this then meaning that there is also a point in time where if a person becomes positioned so far from the heaven point at that time because of their self delusion they don’t have enough time to ever get back to a position where they can end up at the heaven endpoint, thus they end up at the hell endpoint. With this view there are many possible paths, some better than others, that can lead to the end point of heaven, and many leading to hell, with the determining factor being a person’s willingness to discard their self delusions in a timely fashion. This is how I believe reality is structured.

 

While I acknowledge that it is possible that reality could be structured as you claim, with all beings inevitably being enlightened because this is predetermined at the source, I don’t believe that this is the case for the following reasons. I believe in the existence of God, and that the source of all is God. I’ve never believed in the concept of predetermination because this inevitably means that all the pain and misery that has occurred and is occurring in this world was predetermined by God to be experienced by people, and to my mind, for no worthwhile end. In my view, if God has allowed mankind to suffer as He has, and He obviously has, the only justification for this is to teach mankind the awesome responsibility that comes with of the gift of freewill, and this can only be done by allowing mankind to experience the consequences of their own wrongdoing. Now, you may say that this is true, but in the end all will inevitably learn this lesson and end up enlightened in heaven. My response to this is that the degree of pain that mankind has experienced proves to me that what is at stake is more than simply enlightenment, but instead a free willed enlightenment that requires us to know the severity of the consequences of our bad choices, consequences so severe that they might constitute a life in a self constructed reality of persistent agony, this being hell. This doesn’t mean that any need end here, but they could. On the other hand, the reward for successfully negotiating the path to free willed enlightenment is eternal happiness in a world where genuine free will is still exercised, but where all are enlightened enough to exercise it properly. For me, only if these are the stakes for mankind can I believe that God is justified in allowing mankind to suffer to the degree that He has.

 

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

And you assume that the pain and suffering is a bad thing. There is no good or bad, only what is. Good and bad are human concepts. They didn't exist before humans. Everything occurs exactly how it is going to. The cause is the effect. If you choose to seperate yourself from God, you alienate yourself from it. Also, If God isn't in charge of all things, it isn't omnipotent. Also, hell is simply being away from the source, and only time seperates you from the source. If you believe in an eternal damnation then that means an all knowing God created human beings with the knowledge that most of them would be eternally tormented. Would you rather accept a lifetime of torment that conveys the truths in reality through cause and effect, or an unlimited amount of pain and sorrow that conveys the truth through punishment and apathy? Which seems more logical? Which path is more likely to lead people to God? I don't believe it desires anything. It doesn't have to. It knows. How can you believe that we were given freewill so that God could affirm who is good and who is bad? It doesn't have to affirm anything. It understands all things. Fear creates conflict. Fear is not a tool of God's.

[Rich]

Inter...

 

You contradict yourself when you say that all is from God, but that good and bad are human concepts. According to your view, God predetermined man to create the concept of good and bad, thus it comes from God, but for what purpose, in order to teach man that it is meaningless? Such a painful life for this lesson?

 

I don’t assume that pain is a bad thing, and in fact think that it can be useful. It is the degree of pain that is experienced in this world that I have issue with, and believe it is caused by beings‘, whether human or not, creating delusions through their abusive exercise of free will. Your view of pain makes me believe that you don’t know how bad pain, especially spiritual pain, can be.

 

I never said most people will go to eternal hell, and believe that most won‘t, because the great gifts that God offers to people will eventually convince most to freely choose God‘s way.

 

The threat of possible eternal pain is required to assure conscientious exercise of the free willed use of the power that God makes, and more importantly will make, available to man. Nuclear weapons are but one example. Simply advocating a point of view is also an exercise in power, thus one should be very conscientious in what one advocates. It is not that being in error simply condemns one to eternal hell, but it does promote delusions that can lead to severe agony for others, and this can lead to condemnation. After all, Hitler started out just advocating ideas.

 

The fact is, most people don’t believe in an eternal hell and even for some who do this doesn’t prevent them from exercising their free will improperly. This might be acceptable for the present condition of man, but won’t be when man realizes the full potential of his, or her, power. This issue of man’s potential, for both good and bad, is one thing I feel you are not really considering.

 

Controlling all things does not equal omnipotence. An omnipotent God gets exactly what he wants, and does not need to control all things to achieve this. If He wants only people that properly exercise free will, that is what he will get, and he can set up a reality that assures this. Actually, the threat of eternal hell is a way by which God can get only what he wants in the future.

 

Time and action separates you from the source. Without proper action you can be eternally separated from the source. After all, if this is what an omnipotent God wants, this is what will be.

 

When one says that God is all knowing, couldn’t this simply mean that he knows all that is, and not necessarily all that will be? If God is omnipotent and he does not want to know the outcome of a process until after the process is completed, then this is what will be. If you insist that God must know all that will be, aren’t you simply defining God according to your own human criteria?

 

God knows what people are; he seeks to know what they will be.

 

You dismiss my use of the concept of good and bad as meaningless because you say it is of human creation, and then define conflict and fear as bad. This is not consistent.

While you assume that conflict is bad, I say it can be necessary and useful. After all, we are in conflict now, and I think it’s been useful.

 

Rich

[Rich]

To further explain my view. It is based upon the belief that God makes value judgments and has designed man in such a way that he can relate to these judgments, and is teaching his value judgments to people for their sake, to the purpose of making good free will choices. Thus, God is revealing Himself in His teachings, and we reveal ourselves in our free willed response to these teachings. Your view implies that man’s only purpose in this life is to learn how meaningless their value judgments are, even though they are pre-programmed by God to embrace these value judgments. Thus, your God’s only purpose is to demonstrate his superiority and absolute dominance, and nothing more. If this demonstration is his only purpose, it can surely be achieved without any pain, since all that need be done is to exert absolute control over man’s actions at all times, which you seem to imply that he does. However, you may be saying that for a short period of time, this lifetime, God doesn’t exert absolute control, allowing man to assert his free will, and this is why there is pain here, so that man can learn why he should not have free will. However, why then is this lifetime of pseudo free-will necessary if man’s fate is simply to return to a condition of absolute control by God. If there is a necessity at all for man to learn the negative consequences of free will with the reality you describe, why not give man just a day of painful consequences instead of a lifetime. After all, in this context, it is only the knowledge of pain that man must gain, and not the use of the knowledge to control one’s free will, since ultimately man returns to a state where there is no free will anyway, as all actions become again directly controlled by God. This view makes God cruel in his exposing man to a lifetime of pain, because there is no good purpose for it. If the purpose for life in this world though is for us to learn how to properly exercise our free will through learning both the good and bad consequences of exercising free will, then exposing us to life in this world is not only not a cruel act, but a wonderful gift.

 

Rich

[TZK]

Soul or no, any choice can be understood in the context of the choosers past experiences, and so can the reason for that choice over another.

[REASON]

Hey I.S.E.M and Rich,

 

Are you guys just theorizing about this topic for the fun of it, or do you really believe this stuff that you're talking about?

 

Here's a dose of reality.

 

1. Free will exists because you are an individual with a highly evolved, contemplative brain that provides you with the ability to make a decision. That's it. The rest of us around you would prefer that you make wise and informed decisions. But one of the benefits of free will is that you can decide to delude yourself all you want.

 

2. A soul is nothing more than a concept. There is no way to adequately describe or evaluate a soul because it does not actually exist in reality. The ultimate purpose of the soul concept is to provide a means by which our lives can be extended beyond death. We don't like the thought of dying, and we want to go to another place and continue living. Since we can't take our dead bodies, we invented the idea that there is another part of ourselves that could exist apart from our bodies but retain all of the same abilities, and go on living in the other place after we die. If a soul had form or energy, it would be detectable, but since it does not, it is impossible to say that it exists.....here or there, wherever there is. If it were possible to retain consciousness without our complex physical structures, what's the point of having them in the first place?

 

3. There is no inherent good or evil in the universe. All that is good and evil resides in the hearts and minds of human kind. To say that anything is good or evil requires judgement, which requires comparitive analysis integrated with feelings, which requires the ability to contemplate, which requires a highly evolved human brain. Without that, who is doing the judging about what is good and what is evil? God? (see item 2 - substitute God for soul).

 

Sorry. I hope I haven't broken your spirits. :shrug:

[Freddy]

Hey I.S.E.M and Rich,

 

Are you guys just theorizing about this topic for the fun of it, or do you really believe this stuff that you're talking about?

 

Here's a dose of reality.

 

1. Free will exists because you are an individual with a highly evolved, contemplative brain that provides you with the ability to make a decision. That's it. The rest of us around you would prefer that you make wise and informed decisions. But one of the greatest benefits of free will is that you can decide to delude yourself all you want.

Do you have empirical evidence to back up your belief in free will? I would love to see it!

[Rich]

TZK

 

Your assuming that the person has a past to read. If you’re a pure deterministic mechanist you’ll say that even if the person as a whole does not have a past at the point they are created, the components (mass, energy, apes) that comprise him do and from the history and nature of the components it can be determined exactly how the person will act at the moment it is fully comprised. This then means that the whole (the person) is not greater than the sum of the parts. This is why I stipulated earlier that for a person to have true free will there must be a component (soul, or soul like entity) in the person’s make up that makes the person more than just the conglomeration of mass and energy.

 

Inter Accepts that there is something more (soul) but believes it is also a completely determined entity, which for me undermines the need for it. My version of the soul includes a component that enables it to perceive and interpret an objective reality as it chooses, meaning that what is actually experienced by the soul is subjective, though influenced by objective reality. Although influenced by objective reality, perceptions are then always also influenced by what one willfully chooses to believe. This component of a person would have existed initially in completely uninfluenced form, and though now influenced by experiences, would still maintain a degree of independence. With this component, it can initially be impossible to exactly determine how a person will choose to perceive and interpret information when they are eventually subjected to objective reality. In time patterns will emerge and choices will become more predictable, although there is always the influence of this component, thus an element of free will in their choices.

 

Rich