Lack of free will as an objective disproof of Mormonism

[MG 2.0]

Every decision made, including a decision to do nothing, limits subsequent choices.

Is this not the very point of thinking that we are making a decision: to set off down a particular path, out of all of the possible paths, in the hopes that it will eventually take us to where we want to go, or at least to an advantageous place?
---
Edited for clarity - I seem to be doing a lot of this lately: senior issues? I hope not!

I think the “particular path” you’re heading down in this post makes sense.

Again, it’s not rocket science.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ok, this is a start. I propose we use "examine" in place of "look" as looking implies the use of a specific physical sense.
This change seems more inline with what you meant, too. "...making a decision" didn't progress the discussion as it just repeated the vague claim about a choice being made. But we can work with it overall.

To stay in bed or to not stay in bed...what was examined in the decision there? What was considered?

Hi honor, I’ll let others respond to your further inquiries on free will. I really don’t have an interest in getting into the nuts and bolts. I simply accept the reality that there are choices and opportunities and free will is involved in heading down various paths.

My previous post says about all I have to say for now.

Regards,
MG

MG > IT JUST IS, OK!?!?!

-_-

[honorentheos]

Hi honor, I’ll let others respond to your further inquiries on free will. I really don’t have an interest in getting into the nuts and bolts. I simply accept the reality that there are choices and opportunities and free will is involved in heading down various paths.

My previous post says about all I have to say for now.

Regards,
MG

Free will is an illusion, MG. Refusing to examine it is the obvious way to protect the illusion. But then, you had no choice to do otherwise. Your priors know what's what.

[honorentheos]

Ok, this is a start. I propose we use "examine" in place of "look" as looking implies the use of a specific physical sense.
This change seems more inline with what you meant, too. "...making a decision" didn't progress the discussion as it just repeated the vague claim about a choice being made. But we can work with it overall.

To stay in bed or to not stay in bed...what was examined in the decision there? What was considered?

Worth noting, perhaps, is that, in the same way that staying in bed would have limited his options, getting out of bed also limited MG's options. Every decision made, including a decision to do nothing, limits subsequent choices.

Is this not the very point of thinking that we are making a decision: to set off down a particular path, out of all of the possible paths, in the hopes that it will eventually take us to where we want to go, or at least to an advantageous place?
---
Edited for clarity - I seem to be doing a lot of this lately: senior issues? I hope not!

As I suggested to MG, following the supposed decision tree is valuable in determining where it is in the process something purely and wholely originating from the agent is inserted into the process. At what point is a decision made that is the result of agency rather than being a marble falling down an incline?

MG just asserts agency is involved so no need to actually pinpoint when or where even if we accept there is a winnowing of available directions the marble can fall. But where is it we pick up the marble and move it?

[MG 2.0]

But then, you had no choice to do otherwise.

Of course I did. Just as you have the free will to either respond or not to my posts.

Again, it’s not rocket science. Free will just is. With all of its complications and convoluted branches and paths.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG > IT JUST IS, OK!?!?!

Free will? Yes. It is alive and well in the way you choose to respond to my posts.

Have a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

But then, you had no choice to do otherwise.

Of course I did. Just as you have the free will to either respond or not to my posts.

Again, it’s not rocket science. Free will just is. With all of its complications and convoluted branches and paths.

Regards,
MG

Assertions are fun. But really, what did making this choice entail? What did the process involve that includes your examining options and then actively injecting "will" into the process that wouldn't have occurred without this agency being involved? I mean, this vague idea of "choosing" being self-evident and therefore assumed is obscuring examination. And that makes your actions even less free than your own assertions allow.

[malkie]

Worth noting, perhaps, is that, in the same way that staying in bed would have limited his options, getting out of bed also limited MG's options. Every decision made, including a decision to do nothing, limits subsequent choices.

Is this not the very point of thinking that we are making a decision: to set off down a particular path, out of all of the possible paths, in the hopes that it will eventually take us to where we want to go, or at least to an advantageous place?
---
Edited for clarity - I seem to be doing a lot of this lately: senior issues? I hope not!

As I suggested to MG, following the supposed decision tree is valuable in determining where it is in the process something purely and wholely originating from the agent is inserted into the process. At what point is a decision made that is the result of agency rather than being a marble falling down an incline?

MG just asserts agency is involved so no need to actually pinpoint when or where even if we accept there is a winnowing of available directions the marble can fall. But where is it we pick up the marble and move it?

And I'm completely fine with the idea that some degree of "agency", from 0% to 100%, is involved every time we do something, whether we think of the motivation as a conscious and analyzable "decision" or not.

The wired article I mentioned a couple of pages back points out that fMRI shows that the physiological beginnings of certain actions can be detected before we are able to verbalize our intention to act. It's as if we have made a "decision" at some level in the brain without our being aware that we have done so. What on earth does that mean? Can we really say that we "decided"?

However, except when we would like to avoid blame for the consequences of our actions, I suspect that most of us go about our lives thinking that we are making decisions, and being happy or not according to how well things work out. We also allow that other folks are in the same boat.

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.

[honorentheos]

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.

[bbbbbbb]

I clearly remember the day that the two Mormon missionaries came to my house and engaged me in a discussion of the (Mormon) Gospel. I was quite unfamiliar with LDS theology. When they came to the aspect of "free agency" I was quite perplexed. I asked them if they believed that God is a very old man with a very long, white beard who sits in heaven and wrings his hands, hoping that someone on earth might believe in Him, but is otherwise completely helpless to do anything about it. They looked at each other in shock and then one said to the other, "Well, he doesn't believe in free agency." That totally killed their argument and they had no rebuttal. I told them that the Bible clearly presents an omnipotent God who sits in the heavens and laughs at puny humans.