Lack of free will as an objective disproof of Mormonism

[malkie]

In the end, I don't think it matters much, because other people, and the "law", generally hold us accountable for our actions, and only in extreme cases try to determine our degree of culpability based on our apparent state of mind when we "decided" to do something.

First, I generally agree that there is a certain essential utility to treating agency as being free because the alternative is untenable for a functional society or individual mental health. But there are benefits for understanding the limitations of our proactive involvement in "choosing".

I think this quote from the article your link gets at an important point:

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet's theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes' study has.

What we mean by agency affects how easily one might accept the idea it could be on a spectrum between 0% and 100% or any "decision", and to me that requires differentiating between agency and conscious, aware examination of an issue. As the article points out those aren't the same things. And just because a person engages in conscious examination of an issue attempting to weigh the coats and benefits, doesn't mean the outcome of the process demonstrates agency or will. One would have to identity what it is that is being added by the conscious examination that wasn't already a prior? I'm in agreement there are times we react without consideration, and times we consider and examine carefully. In that I'd accept there is a spectrum of sorts. But when it comes to interjecting something we have to recognize as will that isn't just another word for a prior already in the equation? No. That's an illusion that confuses conscious involvement with adding an otherwise unavailable outcome. The act of engaging consciously isn't an injection of will. Our conscious processes can be lawyers for our subconscious and merely justifying the already determined conclusion. They may inject information that our reactive subconscious did not include and now has to include, potentially overcoming a compulsion in one direction over the initial impulsive one. And I think this is what most people consider free will. But then, that just means what people consider free will is conscientiousness at most, and usually more likely confabulation of justifications for the pending action.

I cannot argue against that point of view - really, at all.

In particular the concept of "confabulation" in your description resonates strongly with me - not just for pending actions, but perhaps even more so for memories. I'm aware of "remembering" things that I have reason to believe I was not present for, of was not mature enough to understand what was happening around me. Some memories of my childhood are almost certainly my mental reconstructions based on stories that were repeated at family gatherings.

Here, for your entertainment, is onesuch story:

One day when I was about three I was showing my aunt the encyclopedia on the bookshelf. She asked me: "malkie, what does 'encyclopedia' mean?", and I replied: "I don't know, Aunt Isa, but if you need to know something, you can look it up in that book."

We like to think that, as the pinnacle of creation (even if we don't believe in creationism ), our ability to think and to decide sets us apart from the rest of the animal world - even the other chimpanzees.

Man's a kind of missing link,
Fondly thinking he can think.

Yes, we do "reason" about things, and weigh things in the balance, and then make a "decision". But if we look at the reasoning, weighing, and deciding in terms of a physical/electrochemical process in our brains, with cascades of neurons exercising excitatory and inhibitory effects on those further down the chain, it may be easy also to see two other possibilities beyond free will in action:

1. we cannot control the details of the configuration of the net of neurons, nor the degree to which any one adds to or deducts from the final set of neurons that project the results and make the "decision" known to our consciousness, and
2. even if we could control these things, we cannot nullify or rule out the effects of possible quantum-level happenings, nor of the gross physical environment, in which, potentially a "butterfly effect" could come into play

So, in the end, I find myself driven to the conclusion that I do not and cannot have free will. There is no "will" in there directing the neurotransmitter traffic.

But, on the other hand, I must continue to live in the real world in which I'm every bit as much driven to accept that, free will or not, I have to take responsibility for my thoughts and actions. And the practical rule of thumb is that my thoughts and actions arise from my will, the essence of me.

As part of my philosophy of life, for what it's worth, I have tried to live without regrets. This in the sense that, whenever I have to make a decision, I believe that I'm doing the best I can with whatever limited information I have available to me at the time, so there is no point in later crying about the results: if I had known more, I might have made a different "decision", but the chain of events that brought me to the point of the decision were what they were. The die was cast, but not entirely by me.

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.

honor, I hope I haven't rambled too much. I do appreciate that you have made me think, and my old brain needed the exercise

[Gadianton]

That’s comforting. Thanks!

That’s one thing I really like about LDS doctrine after having muddled through Book of Mormon teachings/references to hell. Not a whole lot of folks are going to qualify. Most folks have a kingdom of glory to look forward to.

And our choices/free will matter a lot.

I don't quite agree with Huck's answer that you find comfort in.

1. Those who are termed ‘Jahil-e-Muqassir’ (lit. ‘culpable ignorant’) and who are obstinate non-believers. That is, Islam has reached them and they have understood its truthfulness; however, they are not prepared to accept the truth due to their obstinacy and stubbornness. This group of non-believers deserves to be punished in Hell because despite having known the truth, they have chosen with their own free will to reject Islam. These non-believers, even though they may be of good conduct, could have attained salvation but instead have closed the path to salvation themselves as they have covered the truth and are rebellious and obstinate in relation to it. As a result, they have chosen their own predicament.

https://www.al-islam.org/faith-and-reas ... s-and-hell

Sound familiar?

On the one hand, "people of the Book" but from there, there's lots of things wrong with Christianity. The only tolerance extended from your fellow creator God believers is under the articles of ignorance. You are free from hell under some interpretations of other faiths, so long as you haven't heard enough about Islam, or you haven't heard enough about Christ from the correct sources. But should you educate yourself, then it's fair game. You will burn forever in hell.

Now where I think you were going with it before Huck responded, is "look in contrast! Look at how Mormonism is so tolerant!"

Not really. The furniture is re-arranged a little. But it's the same basic idea. If you don't accept Mormonism you will be damned, under the slightly different interpretation that damning means "to stop".

But the fundamental problem is that barring grace extended from ignorance of specifics, your beliefs should they have the opportunity for correction, put you squarely in hell from the vast majority of other creator God believers.

And even if Mormonism had a uniquely palpable tolerance under, let's face it, the principles of humanism and secularism, the problem is still that, generally speaking, the belief in a creator God generally leads to beliefs that most other people will burn in hell forever, and the narrow specifics are an integral part of the package. In other words, even if one creator-God sect marches out of step with the others in terms of allowing diversity of thought, it doesn't change the fact that generally speaking, creator-God belief is a nasty enterprise.