Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Gadianton]

I'm not going to fault MG too much for this one because I've never seen a coherent definition of "libertarian" free will even from sophisticated thinkers. Most people aren't even sure what they want to say when they say they have "free will". I can fault MG for contradicting himself right out of the gate on the problem of solipsism, but that can be discussed intelligibly by others, whereas I'm not sure libertarian free will can be discussed by anyone. Bar is much higher, at least.

Non-religionists, particularly those who identify as materialists or physicalists, often lean towards determinism or the belief that there is no free will because their worldview is grounded in the idea that everything in the universe, including human thought and behavior, can be explained by physical laws and processes.

Religionists, particularly those who believe in God with a capital "G", believe in determinism, and therefore no "free will" in the libertarian sense. The first account of compatibilism that I'm aware of, the idea that we are free in a practical sense -- if I want an ice cream, and nobody is binding my hind to grab one, then I'm free -- which virtually all new atheists believe because Daniel Dennett went all the way on this one, was first invented by Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist theologian. If you can be a Dennett/Hume compatibilist, it's much harder to fault God for predestining people to hell because hey, they have free will in the sense anybody else can; Edwards beat everyone to it.

While determinism is true and science shows the obvious that when a muscle contracts, there's a causal chain of impulses going back a long way and it's not a mystery popping out of nowhere that suddenly an arm was raised, I also don't believe there are any good explanations beyond the bare minimum compatibilist account of what it means to be free -- but really, the problem is we just don't understand consciousness. If we understood consciousness, then whatever 'it' is, will likely put us beyond worrying about "choosing" and "self-determination", ideas we have a vague notion about and seem important but can't rigorously define in a way that makes any sense.

[malkie]

Do calvinists believe in free will?

Just because something appears to possess free will doesn't necessarily mean it actually does. Do you agree?

We are free to to do we want but are not free to choose what we want.

As an alternative:

Freedom means you're free to do
Whatsoever pleases you.

Only if, that is to say,
What you please is what you may.

[Imwashingmypirate]

One more thing to consider though is that times, cultures and civilisations change. Our limitations may be very very different to those in biblical times. Perhaps a long time ago, before laws, before police enforcement, judges, kings, expectations, 9-5 jobs... Before all of the excuses we feel and make for our choices. Perhaps there was a time when people had a more rooted sense of what free will looks like.

[Morley]

You aren't the only person that shares responses from A.I. to assist in conversation. But this is the first time I've personally seen someone get upset about it.

Meh. No one is upset. When others have used A.I. here, it's been to laugh at and call attention to the goofiness of the whole thing. But that's not MG's approach.

MG doesn't want to take responsibility for expressing his own opinion, so he typically links to books he hasn't read or websites that contain phrases he used in a google search. A.I. is his latest formulation. When you ask him what he thinks, he poses the question to A.I. and posts the answer. It's not his answer or his opinion; it's something he doesn't have to really own. And if you challenge it, he'll disclaim it as not his words.

Notice that, earlier in this thread and before his A.I. kick, when MG posted about Viktor Frankl and nobody replied, he complained about it. So, I responded to it by talking about Frankl. He dropped it like a hot potato and moved on to something else. He doesn't really want to discuss. Now he's posting lists generated by A.I. and asking for responses.

When I asked what percentage of free will he thinks we all possess, he posted this:

As a lead in I will post this comment from Pi A.I.:

Within the realm of quantum mechanics, indeterminism provides a possible avenue for free will because it suggests that not all events in the universe are determined by prior events or conditions. Instead, some events appear to be truly random, or at least unpredictable.

If our brain processes, particularly those involved in decision making, are influenced by quantum processes, then it's possible that there is a level of uncertainty or randomness that could allow for genuine free will.

In essence, the inherent unpredictability of quantum mechanics could provide a source of "noise" that allows us to make decisions that are not fully determined by prior events or conditions, thus enabling free will.

We can see that free will is regulated by conditions set upon it. But there is room for real choices. All have free will, per se, to a greater or lesser degree. I referred to Victor Frankl earlier. No one here responded in regards to his expertise in psychiatry and his horrific experiences in the concentration camps. His writings seem to demonstrate that even under extreme conditions free will is operative and different people will respond to input/stimuli in different ways.

What accounts for that?

The free will that is available to anyone person is I’m sure based upon a multiplicity of factors. Nonetheless, free will is there. It is intact. You and I…well, I can’t speak for you, I suppose…have the blessing/inherent ability of being able to exercise greater choice and have the faculties that let us have a wider range of emotions, abilities to process information, and societal conditions (among other factors) that allow us a significantly increased ability to exercise free will than those that are limited and/or constricted to a lesser degree of free will, whether in thought or action.

Honestly, I find it somewhat sad that there are those that are blessed to a greater degree in regards to free will and will then use their agency to cast off or negate that very gift they’ve been given. But that’s the very nature of free will. It reminds me of the old aphorism of where much is given, much is expected. I think that applies to those of us (again, I can’t speak for you) that have been given much in the way of opportunities to exercise a great degree of agency and choice.

And then come out and say that they really don’t. They are hostage to their neurons.

...which is an A.I. response to different question that MG had asked his A.I. buddy about 'free will' and 'quantum mechanics.' He followed this with some gibberish expounding on A.I.'s answer to that different question. None of it had anything to do with the question I asked.

A.I. is, in some ways, a perfect medium for MG. It usually doesn't give quite the same answer twice, it's bland and often mealy-mouthed, it's frequently inaccurate, and it doesn't deal well with complex questions.

[Dr Exiled]

You aren't the only person that shares responses from A.I. to assist in conversation. But this is the first time I've personally seen someone get upset about it.

Meh. No one is upset. When others have used A.I. here, it's been to laugh at and call attention to the goofiness of the whole thing. But that's not MG's approach.

MG doesn't want to take responsibility for expressing his own opinion, so he typically links to books he hasn't read or websites that contain phrases he used in a google search. A.I. is his latest formulation. When you ask him what he thinks, he poses the question to A.I. and posts the answer. It's not his answer or his opinion; it's something he doesn't have to really own. And if you challenge it, he'll disclaim it as not his words.

Notice that, earlier in this thread and before his A.I. kick, when MG posted about Viktor Frankl and nobody replied, he complained about it. So, I responded to it by talking about Frankl. He dropped it like a hot potato and moved on to something else. He doesn't really want to discuss. Now he's posting lists generated by A.I. and asking for responses.

When I asked what percentage of free will he thinks we all possess, he posted this:

As a lead in I will post this comment from Pi A.I.:


We can see that free will is regulated by conditions set upon it. But there is room for real choices. All have free will, per se, to a greater or lesser degree. I referred to Victor Frankl earlier. No one here responded in regards to his expertise in psychiatry and his horrific experiences in the concentration camps. His writings seem to demonstrate that even under extreme conditions free will is operative and different people will respond to input/stimuli in different ways.

What accounts for that?

The free will that is available to anyone person is I’m sure based upon a multiplicity of factors. Nonetheless, free will is there. It is intact. You and I…well, I can’t speak for you, I suppose…have the blessing/inherent ability of being able to exercise greater choice and have the faculties that let us have a wider range of emotions, abilities to process information, and societal conditions (among other factors) that allow us a significantly increased ability to exercise free will than those that are limited and/or constricted to a lesser degree of free will, whether in thought or action.

Honestly, I find it somewhat sad that there are those that are blessed to a greater degree in regards to free will and will then use their agency to cast off or negate that very gift they’ve been given. But that’s the very nature of free will. It reminds me of the old aphorism of where much is given, much is expected. I think that applies to those of us (again, I can’t speak for you) that have been given much in the way of opportunities to exercise a great degree of agency and choice.

And then come out and say that they really don’t. They are hostage to their neurons.

...which is an A.I. response to different question that MG had asked his A.I. buddy about 'free will' and 'quantum mechanics.' He followed this with some gibberish expounding on A.I.'s answer to that different question. None of it had anything to do with the question I asked.

A.I. is, in some ways, a perfect medium for MG. It usually doesn't give quite the same answer twice, it's bland and often mealy-mouthed, it's frequently inaccurate, and it doesn't deal well with complex questions.

MG is here as a missionary - prepare, invite and follow up - anything out of his "mission" is off limits. He is so dedicated. He is definitely AP material.

Go forth in Christ, MG.

[MG 2.0]

None of it had anything to do with the question I asked.

Morley, as much as I hate to burst your bubble, you’re not the center of my attention in my responses. I often don’t give as much consideration to focusing wholly on your questions as I do in expressing my own opinions and insights in regards to the topic and where that might take me. Yes, I might meander a bit and you might find that troublesome/aggravating to the point that you make me the center of discussion along with my methods and modes of expression.

I don’t find that track…your track…interesting enough to continue with, especially when you start getting nit picky about what you believe to be my failings in staying on task or not fully expressing myself or keeping a strictly coherent line of thought, etc.

You, sir, are not necessarily the one person I’m focused on and trying to please or placate. In fact, it doesn’t matter that much to me what you think (that may sound harsh, sorry). Typically I know you will be more focused on finding a fault of some kind rather than having serious discussion with a sense of grace and forbearance.

Although, now and then I might find something that you say interesting and I may respond in a manner in which I hope to connect with your thoughts and come to mutual understanding . So don’t go away! You add a certain amount of ‘spice’ to any discussion.

With a touch of lemon thrown in.

It would be nice if instead of attacking the messenger you responded to content…at length…rather than skirting it and giving some trite response. It wouldn’t hurt you to also recognize A.I. for what it is. A worthy contributor a to discussion.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG is here as a missionary - prepare, invite and follow up - anything out of his "mission" is off limits. He is so dedicated. He is definitely AP material.

Go forth in Christ, MG.

This comment demonstrates how folks can completely misrepresent someone’s intentions. Honestly? It is what happens during these discussions (focus on me rather than serious discussion) that I find uninteresting and then leave for a period of time. Then I have high hopes that things might change and we can show each other grace and forbearance…and I find myself disappointed again.

That is why you get very few regular type Mormon folks around here. You nit pick, find fault, and go all holier than thou. That doesn’t lead to productive exchange of ideas. Go back and read my posts starting at the beginning and determine where things went south. It was when ‘grace’ was taken away from the discussion and fault finding and innuendo took its place.

We could do better.

drumdude gave it shot. Res Ipsa also did until he became offended over one small and mild facetious comment I made…and then Morley came in and made a mountain out of a mole hill. Things went downhill after that.

Sensitive souls. Or is it for show?

Again, we could do better. But we all have to be on the same page and show forbearance with one another.

Imwashingmypirate, I have enjoyed your comments and insights. I was hoping/thinking you might get some more response but I think others were focused on me. Anyway, I think you have an interesting approach to free will and it’s limitations.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

One more thing to consider though is that times, cultures and civilisations change. Our limitations may be very very different to those in biblical times. Perhaps a long time ago, before laws, before police enforcement, judges, kings, expectations, 9-5 jobs... Before all of the excuses we feel and make for our choices. Perhaps there was a time when people had a more rooted sense of what free will looks like.

Hmm…interesting thought.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Perhaps there was a time when people had a more rooted sense of what free will looks like.

A choice between lamb or mutton!!! As the French would say, "Bone apple tea".

[Marcus]

You aren't the only person that shares responses from A.I. to assist in conversation. But this is the first time I've personally seen someone get upset about it.

Meh. No one is upset. When others have used A.I. here, it's been to laugh at and call attention to the goofiness of the whole thing. But that's not MG's approach.

MG doesn't want to take responsibility for expressing his own opinion, so he typically links to books he hasn't read or websites that contain phrases he used in a google search. A.I. is his latest formulation. When you ask him what he thinks, he poses the question to A.I. and posts the answer. It's not his answer or his opinion; it's something he doesn't have to really own. And if you challenge it, he'll disclaim it as not his words.

Notice that, earlier in this thread and before his A.I. kick, when MG posted about Viktor Frankl and nobody replied, he complained about it. So, I responded to it by talking about Frankl. He dropped it like a hot potato and moved on to something else. He doesn't really want to discuss. Now he's posting lists generated by A.I. and asking for responses.

When I asked what percentage of free will he thinks we all possess, he posted this:

As a lead in I will post this comment from Pi A.I.:


We can see that free will is regulated by conditions set upon it. But there is room for real choices. All have free will, per se, to a greater or lesser degree. I referred to Victor Frankl earlier. No one here responded in regards to his expertise in psychiatry and his horrific experiences in the concentration camps. His writings seem to demonstrate that even under extreme conditions free will is operative and different people will respond to input/stimuli in different ways.

What accounts for that?

The free will that is available to anyone person is I’m sure based upon a multiplicity of factors. Nonetheless, free will is there. It is intact. You and I…well, I can’t speak for you, I suppose…have the blessing/inherent ability of being able to exercise greater choice and have the faculties that let us have a wider range of emotions, abilities to process information, and societal conditions (among other factors) that allow us a significantly increased ability to exercise free will than those that are limited and/or constricted to a lesser degree of free will, whether in thought or action.

Honestly, I find it somewhat sad that there are those that are blessed to a greater degree in regards to free will and will then use their agency to cast off or negate that very gift they’ve been given. But that’s the very nature of free will. It reminds me of the old aphorism of where much is given, much is expected. I think that applies to those of us (again, I can’t speak for you) that have been given much in the way of opportunities to exercise a great degree of agency and choice.

And then come out and say that they really don’t. They are hostage to their neurons.

...which is an A.I. response to different question that MG had asked his A.I. buddy about 'free will' and 'quantum mechanics.' He followed this with some gibberish expounding on A.I.'s answer to that different question. None of it had anything to do with the question I asked.

A.I. is, in some ways, a perfect medium for MG. It usually doesn't give quite the same answer twice, it's bland and often mealy-mouthed, it's frequently inaccurate, and it doesn't deal well with complex questions.

Excellent assessment of the A.I. use.