Soul, Determinism, Free Will...

[TZK]

Hey I.S.E.M and Rich,

 

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?

 

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

 

I agree with most of what you say, however there are two things I feel like mentioning in response to you. They have to do with the philosophical topics of skepticism and plurality of coherentism.

 

There could be something, that could be argued to be like a soul, undetectable by us. It could be realized by the tiniest particles in a way we don't understand. However, I agree that such a soul probably wouldn't retain our memories. It could be however that a kind of consciousness is a fundamental property of matter and the human brain just finds a way to enrich this consciousness with memories etc. A memoryless consciousness would basically just result in a skip until the next time some memory was attached to it. Or not.

 

It could be the brain is analogous to a transformer that allows some other kind of energy to be translated to this world, and the things learned here create imprints in the other world as well. And then when we die our consciousness simply retracts back into the other world with our learned patterns retained.

 

Or infinitely other explanations that need not contradict any scientific evidence we have about ourselves and would allow something similar to a soul to exist. Skepticism isn't just about thinking that the whole world could really be fake and we are dreaming/in the matrix/ a brain in a vat.

 

It is realizing that for any group of beliefs defined by a set of constraints, there are infinite variations that are not contradicted by the constraints of the set. On the other hand, we don't consider the vast majority of these possibilities. If we are to consider that many people believe in a something similar to a soul, we must evaluate it as you say by looking at if it is more likely to be caused by some reason (such as an emotional desire) other than its actual existence.

 

But I find myself wondering if there is not something else driving it. I feel I have set aside the fear of death that results from the evolutionary mechanism that causes us to not want to leave environments that do not kill us. And yet there still seems something wrong with the idea of permanent death. Not the loss of memories, or wrong in a scary way. Just wrong with the idea that I can feel now, but not feel anything after I die. I don't mean physically feel. I mean... raw feels is it called?

 

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

 

So are you simply trying to create a feasible free will explanation rather than rule out determinism? I believe in intergenerational memory, since some animals know how to operate their limbs and that running with their herd is a good thing to do from the moment they are born. So the creation you are talking about might be at the start of all life, and at that point I simply believe that yes the properties of the matter determine the course for the life.

 

As far as perceptions go, I know that experiences alter the way people perceive things. The right experiences at the right time can cause a person to see the world much differently than others, and this is deterministic. The default is for a person to trust others because we depend on others for survival. But people who experience adversity of different kinds learn to perceive things differently. For instance a person who experiences random adversity with friends because of the world may become rational minded but see rationality as a way to please and/or defend others. A person who experiences adversity caused by their primary caregiver may become rational minded and may seek to use it to control bad behavior and disregard human convention. A person who doesn't experience much random punishment earlier on may have a strong instinct to "go with the flow" and just do things that most other people do or expect them to do.

 

So what type of altered perception are you referring to that you say is caused by the soul?

[Rich]

TZK,

 

So are you simply trying to create a feasible free will explanation rather than rule out determinism?

Yes, I am trying present a feasible free will explanation, in response to responses to me saying earlier that in order for there to be free will in a physically determined reality (or probabilistic, for that matter) there must by an entity such as a soul that is intrinsically a free agent. This doesn’t mean that it needs to exist separately from physical reality, but it must be more than what we now conceive physical reality to be. This is the comment I made in the thread in the Philosophy of Science forum on Einstein’s remark, “God does not play dice with the Universe” which eventually led to the creation of this thread.

 

I am also explaining why I personally rule out predetermination in regards to human beings and God, this in response to Inter.’s explanation of his view.

 

So what type of altered perception are you referring to that you say is caused by the soul?

 

The soul wouldn’t produce any distortion if it chooses not to. If it chooses to distort reality it does so in it’ reaction to the experiences to which it is exposed in combination with the it’s intrinsic attributes, attributes that would be common to all souls. A sense of dignity, for example, born out of an intrinsic sense of awareness of oneself as a distinct being, can be one of these attributes. A soul with an intrinsic sense of dignity might or might not distort it’s perception of an event that either enhances or diminishes their sense of dignity. There is no doubt that what the soul has learned in past experiences influence it’s decision on how to perceive the event, but the impulse itself to judge the event is rooted in and existed in the soul before it had past experiences, and thus is an influences on it’s perceptions.

 

If you say that a soul would not make a decision in regards to such an event without proper externally sourced information, I’d point out that people are always making choices and forming opinions without proper information.

 

You might say this sensitivity is formed by evolution, but then you are saying that it’s formation is predetermined, and this supports my original point, which is, if there is to be free will for human beings in a determined physical reality, there must be a free willed soul-like entity in their make-up.

 

Rich

[REASON]

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

 

:confused:

 

Maybe I don't understand what you think free will is, but to me it's nothing more than the ability to make a decision to do something, and then do it. If you're looking for evidence of that, you shouldn't have to look for it beyond yourself. Who make's your decisions?

 

I exercised free will at the moment I decided to repond to your question. I could have just as easily decided to ignore it. Just because I decided to respond, doesn't mean that it was pre-determined that I would do so. Free will exists because we constantly have choices to make, and then we act on our decisions.

 

To deny that free will exists is to deny responsibility for your thoughts and actions.

[Kriminal99]

I am a determinist. Whether or not I agree with free will depends on how you define free will. To use the minimalist, context is definition version of free will, I would say that free will exists yet your actions are still deterministic.

 

You can choose to do what you want, but you cannot choose your wants. Your wants are determined for you by your subconscious, according to a deterministic system.

 

In other words, yes you can climb a tree right now in response to my statement, in order to prove you have free will. But then you did it because I accused your actions of being determined.

 

The very point of recognizing determinism is to relate it to morality and dispel the incorrect view that people are responsible for all their behavior in the way Reason implies.

 

It is fallacious for a person to claim that they are robbing someone because their daddy beat them randomly as a child. Punishment is a means to an end, society must punish selfish behavior because punishment must become part of the criminal's past that determines his future actions - hopefully his aversion towards committing future crimes.

 

This doesn't mean it is actually the criminal's fault. You just can't forgive him to his face.

[REASON]

I am a determinist. Whether or not I agree with free will depends on how you define free will. To use the minimalist, context is definition version of free will, I would say that free will exists yet your actions are still deterministic.

 

It seems contradictory to suggest that you can have free will and yet your actions are still deterministic.

 

You can choose to do what you want, but you cannot choose your wants. Your wants are determined for you by your subconscious, according to a deterministic system.

 

How does my subconscious determine my wants without my conscious input? Conscious experience is what lays the foundation for any supposed subconscious wants. Either way, it is still my subconscious, not someone or something elses? Having alternative courses of action and the ability to choose among them is how free will is exhibited, even as your knowledge and experience limits your understanding of your available options. You can always choose to educate yourself.

 

In other words, yes you can climb a tree right now in response to my statement, in order to prove you have free will. But then you did it because I accused your actions of being determined.

 

Maybe I'll choose not to climb the tree in spite of your accusation. Whether I climb a tree or not is ultimately my decision no matter what your involvement.

 

The very point of recognizing determinism is to relate it to morality and dispel the incorrect view that people are responsible for all their behavior in the way Reason implies.

 

If not me, than who or what is responsible for my actions. If I choose to do something that is wrong and receive some form of natural consequences or imposed punishment, it is because I am being held responsible for my actions and decisions, not someone or something elses.

 

It seems to me that to have a determinist view point, is to believe that you ultimately have no choices to make, or that as you perceive that you are making choices, you are actually following a pre-determined path; pre-determined by someone or something else that is external, who should then be held responsible instead.

 

This notion just doen't make sense to me as a voluntary individual.

[Rich]

TZK ... And yet there still seems something wrong with the idea of permanent death. Not the loss of memories, or wrong in a scary way. Just wrong with the idea that I can feel now, but not feel anything after I die. I don't mean physically feel. I mean... raw feels is it called?

 

 

TZK,

 

Consider this possibility. Quantum theory describes probabilities, but there are many paths that can lead to those probabilities. If there is a hidden variable, it must be describing paths that over time lead to essentially the same probabilities as quantum theory. Even if this is true, there would be problems detecting this hidden variable and it’s effects because of it’s necessarily subtle nature. What if the only instrument that is capable of detecting it is in fact the human brain, with the complex nature of the brain being the factor that enables it to sense and manipulate the hidden variable at the sub-quantum level. This would mean that the brain is subtlety manipulating it’s own matter and energy at the quantum level and, ultimately, the macro level. Thus, the interaction between the brain and the hidden variable would be a type of information-action feedback loop system. Practically speaking, it then becomes possible that our thoughts are subtly influencing the future condition of our brain and body, and this would have major implications in the medical and especially mental health fields.

 

The indicator that the brain might be the instrument of detection of and interaction with the hidden variable is that the existence of a hidden variable would make it possible to predict what will happen in the future to a greater degree than does quantum theory. The human brain has the greatest capacity of any physical entity or system to logically anticipate the future. It would make sense then that the brain is meant to be the instrument for sensing the hidden variable that determines future paths.

 

All of what I’ve described above is extremely deterministic. However, what if we now describe a soul-like entity that has a similar relationship to the physical brain and body as does the brain and body to the hidden variable, though with a different purpose and effect. Only a brain can interact and detect the soul, and the effect of the soul on the brain is to organize and coordinated brain activity in such a way as to give the person a perception of themselves as a unified whole, and thus as an individual, this then leading to the capacity to make choices as an independent agent. The characteristic of the soul that would enable it to contribute this to the physical brain is a holistic nature in time; meaning it can exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Thus, the “wholeness” that we sense for ourselves as human beings is related to our wholeness in time. Maybe this is why you have those underlying feelings you’ve described.

 

This is the possible type of unity I meant in my comments in the other thread.

 

Rich

[Kriminal99]

It seems contradictory to suggest that you can have free will and yet your actions are still deterministic.

 

 

 

How does my subconscious determine my wants without my conscious input? Conscious experience is what lays the foundation for any supposed subconscious wants. Either way, it is still my subconscious, not someone or something elses? Having alternative courses of action and the ability to choose among them is how free will is exhibited, even as your knowledge and might have tried to destroy the forum in retaliation for their experience limits your understanding of your available options. You can always choose to educate yourself.

 

 

 

Maybe I'll choose not to climb the tree in spite of your accusation. Whether I climb a tree or not is ultimately my decision no matter what your involvement.

 

 

 

If not me, than who or what is responsible for my actions. If I choose to do something that is wrong and receive some form of natural consequences or imposed punishment, it is because I am being held responsible for my actions and decisions, not someone or something elses.

 

It seems to me that to have a determinist view point, is to believe that you ultimately have no choices to make, or that as you perceive that you are making choices, you are actually following a pre-determined path; pre-determined by someone or something else that is external, who should then be held responsible instead.

 

This notion just doen't make sense to me as a voluntary individual.

 

What controls what you "feel" like doing?

 

IMO Your emotions, instincts etc are functions of your conscious experiences I agree. But you don't control your conscious experiences. So you might feel like doing X instead of Y, but you don't control what you feel - rather its a function of past experiences that were out of your control.

 

IMO You have a minimal amount of control over your subconsious, where you basically suggest to yourself that different categories of inductive experience you have apply or do not apply to a given situation based on other experiences you have had. For instance, if the sun comes up every day, but tonight I see it hit by a giant meteor and it explodes, then I might reason that it will not come up tomorrow in a manner that matches how I have seen destruction prevent what used to occur in other situations.

 

This is a fundamental property of induction aka statistical reasoning. You must sample from the population you wish to make predictions for in order for statistics to be valid, but you can never know if you are doing this or not. Past experiences may not apply to the given situation, or they may. You look for evidence that they do or do not.

 

This general process is thinking IMO. However your ability to do this is limited still by your experiences. If you never saw something else get destroyed and stop working the way it used to, you wouldn't be able to consider that the sun may not rise tomorrow. So this "willfull" categorization of past experiences is yet deterministic.

 

Does free will imply no reason for actions?

 

Maybe you wont climb the tree. The question is, is there a deterministic reason for your climbing the tree or not. If you did it would be to prove that you could. If you didn't it would be because you realize it wouldn't prove anything. In either case there is a reason you did it.

 

Punishment - a means to an end

 

Punishment is not justified in the manner you seem to imply. It is a necessary evil. A means to an end. Punishment tries to force someone to take ownership/responsibility of something they are not the cause of. In the same manner that capitalism awards ownership of land even though people didn't create the land, so that people will take care of it to increase its value.

 

For instance, if you parked your car in the front yard, and a meteorite took it out, it would be stupid for your wife to say "You IDIOT! What were you thinking parking the car there?!?! I am divorcing you because you are so incompetent."

 

If there was any chance of it happening again, you might take some kind of defensive measures to avoid it. But you damn well had no reason to do that prior to anything like that ever happening. This action motivates you to try and influence a causal chain to achieve a desired effect - namely your car not getting destroyed.

 

In truth, this is the same thing that happens when a thief is put in jail for stealing. Most people ignorantly use their own perspective to evaluate the thief's actions, not realizing that the thief simply lacks experiences that would have taught him not to steal. (It has been argued that many criminals cannot recognize the suffering of others) Because a determinism model requires punishing him to influence his future behavior, punishment is required for the good of society. You can not let him go because he "didn't know" because if you let him go he still won't know.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

There is no contradiction in this statement: Because we have free will, we are predetermined to make certain choices.

 

Can you think of any action in your entire life that was completely independent of all other variables? You can not. Even if you don't understand why you have done something, doesn't mean that there isn't a subconscious reason for what you have done. Psychology tells us that most of your thoughts are controlled subconsciously. There are many examples of thoughts that can not be controlled, compulsions that can't be cured. These are caused subconsciously. Your subconscious is dependent upon your experiences. Your conscious input is also dependent, making the decision completely dependent.

 

You can choose to educate yourself. If you do, its for a reason. If you don't, its for a reason. It is impossible to make any decision without your mind creating a formula with many variables, calculating what it thinks to be the best answer. This is done every nanosecond of our lives. From the moment we are born, our perception is dependent.

[Freddy]

:confused:

 

Maybe I don't understand what you think free will is, but to me it's nothing more than the ability to make a decision to do something, and then do it. If you're looking for evidence of that, you shouldn't have to look for it beyond yourself. Who make's your decisions?

 

I exercised free will at the moment I decided to repond to your question. I could have just as easily decided to ignore it. Just because I decided to respond, doesn't mean that it was pre-determined that I would do so. Free will exists because we constantly have choices to make, and then we act on our decisions.

 

To deny that free will exists is to deny responsibility for your thoughts and actions.

I asked for empirical evidence. You did not provide anything except your opinion about the existence of free will. Surely, there is some scientific evidence to back up your opinion?

[REASON]

I asked for empirical evidence. You did not provide anything except your opinion about the existence of free will. Surely, there is some scientific evidence to back up your opinion?

 

I understand what you're getting at. Your question appears to be: How can anyone prove that they are exercising free will with any given decision they make? What evidence is there to show to back it up?

 

Of course by the same token, evidence would therefore have to be presented to varify that there is some alternative means by which our lives unfold if not by free will; Evidence that would confirm pre-determination, and therefore pre-destination, by some unrecognized internal source, a presumed external power, or a combination of the two.

 

The definition of empirical is: 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

 

So as I shape my beliefs around this subject, my empirical evidence will have to be determined by my observations and experience. First, and foremost, my 41 years of life experience has taught me that I cannot predict the future. Sure, I can make some assumptions as to what will happen, or set some goals for myself, but my future is determined by the decisions I make now.

 

In making decisions to achieve a goal, my experience has been that it is not unusual for something to happen that offers a new possibility and I choose to alter my path. Sometimes I am forced to. The future has not occurred yet, so it is literally undefined. It is realized once I step into it, and with every step, I believe I have a variety of options to choose.

 

It was stated that you cannot choose your feelings. But your feelings eminate from your perspective, which has been developed by your experiences, which are gained by your circumstances and the choices you make.

 

I have observed my life and the lives of people I've known, unfold as a result of the decisions we have made. That has been my experience. It is the only empirical evidence I can provide. Feeling that my life has been determined has not been my experience and as a result, is harder to believe. I feel responsible for my decisions, and therefore, reason that I am primarily a product of my free will.

 

I would not be surprised if you see it differently. And I would suggest it would be because you are primarily a product of your own free will.

[REASON]

There is no contradiction in this statement: Because we have free will, we are predetermined to make certain choices.

 

To me, free will means having choices and making decisions. Predetermined means decided in advance, implying that there are no longer any decisions to make. Deciding in advance to make future decisions that are guided by some principle does not render one incapable of deciding to go against that principle at any point when making a decision. The contradiction is in your use of the term "predetermined" as compatible with free will. Compatibilists will contend that free will and determinism are compatible ideas. But predestination is absolutely incompatible with free will and suggest a Hard Determinist approach. I tend to believe more in the Liberalist approach since I believe that the future is not determined, although I'm open to Compatibilism.

 

Can you think of any action in your entire life that was completely independent of all other variables? You can not. Even if you don't understand why you have done something, doesn't mean that there isn't a subconscious reason for what you have done.

 

Who said free will requires that a decision be made "completely independent of all other variables?" I've never seen a definition with that qualification. To me, free will means choosing a path while in consideration of the known variables.

 

Psychology tells us that most of your thoughts are controlled subconsciously. There are many examples of thoughts that can not be controlled, compulsions that can't be cured. These are caused subconsciously. Your subconscious is dependent upon your experiences. Your conscious input is also dependent, making the decision completely dependent.

 

The issue here is not whether your decisions are dependent, it is whether they are predetermined. I can make decisions that are dependent on previous experience or some external stimuli, but that does not limit my ability to make alternate decisions. What is it that predetermines someone's decisions leaving them incapable of exhibiting free will?

 

You can choose to educate yourself. If you do, its for a reason. If you don't, its for a reason.

 

Again, having reasons why you make choices does not limit your ability to choose. Reasons explain why you decided to make certain choices.

 

It is impossible to make any decision without your mind creating a formula with many variables, calculating what it thinks to be the best answer. This is done every nanosecond of our lives. From the moment we are born, our perception is dependent.

 

So do you always make your decisions based on what your brain calculates to be the best answer among all the variables? Do you always make the same decisions under similar circumstances? Have you ever gone against your better judgement? Have you ever broken the rules? Broken the law? Have you ever decided to do something that you've never experienced before just to see what it's like? Been spontaneous? If so, would you say it was predetermined that you would do these things precisely at the time you did them? Have you ever said to yourself, "I'm going to do things differently next time"? What gives you the power to make that decision?

 

I contend it's your free will.

[wigglieverse]

Free will is one of those "gotcha" concepts that we have been talking about since the Greeks (and no doubt before them, too). Descartes and co. got a bit lost with this one, but Spinoza reckoned that it is "up to us" to "change", to attain to some notion of "eternal mind", which, at least metaphorically, is arguably what our knowledge is:

At the end of his treatise on the nature of Ethics, reason, and "raisins" (in our heads), Benedict de Spinoza, the great rationalist, concludes (my italics):

 

"Proposition 39. He who possesses a body fit for many things possesses a mind of which the greater part is eternal.

 

...we live in constant change, and that according as we change for the better or worse we are called happy or unhappy. ...[W]e consider ourselves happy if we can pass through life with a sound mind in a sound body. On the other hand, he who, like a child, [has] a body fit for very few things, has a mind which, considered in itself alone, is ...unconscious of itself, of God, and of objects. In this life, therefore, it is our chief endeavour to change the body of infancy, ...into another body which is fitted for many things, and which is related to a mind conscious ...of itself, of God, and of objects...

 

Proposition 40. The more perfection a thing possesses, the more it acts ..., and conversely the more it acts the more perfect it is.

 

...it is evident that our mind, in so far as it understands [itself or the world], is an eternal mode of thought, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum, so that all taken together form the eternal and infinite intellect of God.

 

...I have finished everything I wished to explain concerning the power of the mind over the affects and concerning its liberty.

From what has been said we see what is the strength of the wise man, and how much he surpasses the ignorant who is driven forward by lust alone. For the ignorant man is not only agitated by external causes ...but ...also ignorant, as it were, both of God and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer ceases also to be.

On the other hand, the wise man, in so far as he is considered as such, is scarcely ever moved in his mind, but, being conscious ...of himself, of God, and of things, never ceases to be...

If the way which, as I have shown, ...seems difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult [for] it is so seldom discovered; for if ... [it] could be discovered without great labour, how could [such a thing] ...be neglected ...? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare.” -Spinoza, “Ethics”

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

So you are saying that the ability to make a choice is free will? Even though the ability is completely dependent upon variables that were completely dependent upon other variables?

[wigglieverse]

Well, I haven't myself said anything about what it might be or why we believe we have it.

Spinoza is talking about "eternal mind" as a thing we are designed to attain to, or are compelled by our nature (which is to seek and explain, to exploit).

He talks about ignorance and wisdom as darkness and light, sort of thing.

Since the "light of knowledge" and the "eternal mind of God" (..read "human understanding" and/or "the universe"), dispel the darkness, the ignorance or the "ignorant man", dies (probably an intentional double-meaning).

The extract mentions that he has covered the topic of "liberty" of the mind (like, earlier on), and his conclusion is that the only outcome can be what he has outlined. We are compelled to explore, and to observe, because we are at liberty to learn...

 

You sure you want to get into what he has to say about this "liberty" thing in the rest of the book, then?

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Actually, I wasn't addressing you, sorry. I enjoyed your post, though. I have read pieces from Spinoza, and I don't find it to disagree with anything I believe.

 

I have said it before, Because we have freewill, we are destined to make the decisions we do.

[Kriminal99]

I understand what you're getting at. Your question appears to be: How can anyone prove that they are exercising free will with any given decision they make? What evidence is there to show to back it up?

 

Of course by the same token, evidence would therefore have to be presented to varify that there is some alternative means by which our lives unfold if not by free will; Evidence that would confirm pre-determination, and therefore pre-destination, by some unrecognized internal source, a presumed external power, or a combination of the two.

 

The definition of empirical is: 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

 

So as I shape my beliefs around this subject, my empirical evidence will have to be determined by my observations and experience. First, and foremost, my 41 years of life experience has taught me that I cannot predict the future. Sure, I can make some assumptions as to what will happen, or set some goals for myself, but my future is determined by the decisions I make now.

 

In making decisions to achieve a goal, my experience has been that it is not unusual for something to happen that offers a new possibility and I choose to alter my path. Sometimes I am forced to. The future has not occurred yet, so it is literally undefined. It is realized once I step into it, and with every step, I believe I have a variety of options to choose.

 

It was stated that you cannot choose your feelings. But your feelings eminate from your perspective, which has been developed by your experiences, which are gained by your circumstances and the choices you make.

 

I have observed my life and the lives of people I've known, unfold as a result of the decisions we have made. That has been my experience. It is the only empirical evidence I can provide. Feeling that my life has been determined has not been my experience and as a result, is harder to believe. I feel responsible for my decisions, and therefore, reason that I am primarily a product of my free will.

 

I would not be surprised if you see it differently. And I would suggest it would be because you are primarily a product of your own free will.

 

Determinism is the default since everything we understand works according to it. The burden of proof is on the person who believes in free will. Not only that, but to someone who understands determinism it doesn't even make sense to consider a concept of "Free Will" the way people who don't understand determinism voice it.

 

To a determinist, true free will would be like trying to swim to a foreign country and leaving your wife, kids and job behind for no reason whatsoever (including not to prove you have free will).

 

This is different from situations where conflicting motivations cause you to choose to do things that perhaps a wiser person would consider foolish. (Like breaking the law). In this "Free will", you have no motivation to do it and even if you did it would be the wrong way to attain that goal. And yet you did it anyways. THAT would be free will, and it doesn't happen. And even if it did, it would simply be due to a deterministic system we haven't understood yet. (A poor one that would cause anyone subject to it to die out quickly)

 

Or maybe you could not disprove limited free will in an ability to choose between different deterministic options SPECIFICALLY in cases where it was not decided that one choice was in any way better than another. And this still really doesn't make sense because I have never heard someone say "I did X instead of Y, but there was no reason why." Rather if you ask them why they chose one thing over another they always have a response.

 

Your feelings do come from your experiences, and circumstances which were affected by past choices you made. And those past choices were controlled by your feelings at that time. And the chain regresses until you were first born, where your instincts came into play, and then to the start of all life where your instincts were first developed randomly and reinforced by evolution. This is entirely deterministic.

[REASON]

I have to admit, Krim, you do a good job of explaining your position. You and I.s.e.m appear to be kindred spirits with this topic.

 

Ok, I want to try and see if I can reflect back to you guys what you are saying.

 

Here's an analogy:

 

Let's say I decided to go hiking because I wanted to get some fresh air. I go to a trail that I've never been on before because I heard it had lovely scenery. As I'm walking along, I come to a place where the trail splits and I stop. Now I am forced to make one of three choices (assuming I prefer to stay on a path): Go back the way I came, go left, or go right. I decide not to go back because I've already been there and I'm curious about what's up ahead. Both paths ahead of me appear to be virtually the same except that they go off in different directions. I have no idea where each of them lead, and there is no reason to believe that one is better than the other. So I choose to go left and head on my way.

 

Now, you're saying that there is something inside, a feeling, or a particular reason, whether conscious or subconscious, that drove me to choose to go left. And by the fact that I did, is a product of deterministic behavior. Granted, I did make a determination or a decision; I didn't just stand there perplexed. But it wasn't a product of my free will to choose that path. And by the fact that I did it the first time, if the situation were repeated over-and-over again without previous experience, I would choose left every time. Would you agree?

 

Essentially, you believe that since our decisions are governed by previous experiences, wisdom, knowledge and feelings, we are incapable of making choices that are unguided. And free will can only occur absent governed or guided decisions in a deterministic model, which goes back to I.s.e.m's assertion that no decision could be made "completely independent of all other variables."

 

How am I doin' so far? :thumbs_up

 

But what could have possibly been the motivator, conscious or subconscious, and based on previous experience, that would drive me toward a particular decision to choose one of two equal paths, where there is nothing hinging on it except to keep moving?