Free Will?

My head aches from this proposition, although I firmly believe in its' tenets.

I think that fate controls all of us. I'm a Christian and can work these beliefs into my faith. My life has been choreographed by Someone Above.

Too much of what has happened is too coincidental to attribute to happenstance. Many long articles (not posts) would be required to defend my position, but alas. I have to go to bed so I can go do the work I've been relegated to do.

I'm also on board the Fate Bandwagon, although I do believe we make choices that lead us to our fates.

I would also be truly erudite and would share more in my comment, but I am too pained with a hangover to make much sense or think clearly. Consider this my PantsCrumb™ so that I may find this easily again, tomorrow, when I will less of a dullard.

Good Lord willin' and all.

There are many things over which we have no control. That's a given. There are also many things over which we do have control, and we control them through the use of a free will. I exercise my will to freely choose what I do and do not do on a moment by moment basis. There are always going to be other outside influences and factors that will also affect the outcome.

Certainly, there are things that are preordained. Over such, we have no control, but to say that the idea of free will doesn't exist is to say that there's no sense in taking control over our lives. We may as well just do as we please all the time because it will ultimately make no difference. You are saying that the end is predestined, so our choices which are the exercise of free will are futilily determined by us, since whatever was going to happen would have happened whether we made one choice over another.

It certainly cannot be proven one way or another, since there are so many factors that influence our plans, but if you can convince me that exercising my free will not to go into work for the rest of the year will make no difference as to whether I make the same income I made last year, I'm all for it.

Good points, Steph. However, I'm not talking about responsibility here, but rather about the engine that drives us. Taking credit (or blame) for one's actions is different from reacting to the events that led to making a "choice". In other words, what you choose to do is the only thing you can do, since that action is the end result of everything that led up to the decision, all of which is in the past, impacted by the universe, and out of your control.

Playing devil's advocate here, Dame Ruth, one could argue that your last comment only proved what Stephanie said about not taking responsibility for one's actions. If the choice you made was the only one you could make, since that action is the end result of everything that led up to the decision, all of which is in the past, impacted by the universe, and out of your control, how do you take responsibility for that choice?

Penny, if everything leading to the moment of choice includes the inculcation of responsibility, then you must choose to be responsible for your actions. Your response is predetermined, as are the results of that response.

I don't believe in predestination which seems to me what you are saying in the whole.

However when I break my life down to compenents, I see where energy that was exerted or been of influence, would set a certain momentum going.

There are things that you can change, there are things that you can't and you need to know the difference and make the changes that you can enact.

There is the influence of outside forces such as the universe, society, culture etc. that impacts who you are and the thought processes that you bring to bear when you make decisions, but you also need to analyze possible outcomes and influences that you cannot control.

In other words you give it your best shot, but you never abdicate responsibilty, you acknowledge your part in the energy chain.

Again, you ladies are confusing "responsibility" with "choice". As I said above, if the forces that formed you caused you to be a responsible human being, then you will make responsible decisions. But you didn't choose that personality trait...it is the result of influences beyond your control (parents, teachers, society, tribe). In other words, you don't choose to act with responsibility; you do because of who and what you are at the moment of decision. Different causes would have produced different effects.
Sharon says "There are things that you can change, there are things that you can't and you need to know the difference and make the changes that you can enact."
(Isn't that part of the AA serenity prayer?)...Of course, but only to the extent that circumstances have placed you in a position to do so.

Absolutely Dame and it took me forever to get it through my thick head.

Welcome to our little coterie, Red. You are definitely my kind of broad.
Hey, everybody! Say hello to Red Emma, our latest friend!

Red Emma baby - long time no see.

I don't think that we're confusing "responsibility" with "choice". Perhaps we should instead use the word "accountability".

I agree that there are many "uncontrollable events" that can change your path and the course of your future about which you have absolutely no choice or influence (having my entire life wiped away by a hurricane, oh, how I know this!). But, if, as you say, there is no free will and the culmination of all events that have occurred prior to a give moment will determine your actions, how can anyone be held accountable for an action that has adverse effects on others?

If we agree that:
everything that happens everywhere in the universe today will affect what you do tomorrow. Or in the next moment. And you will have absolutely no control over it!

doesn't that make none of us accountable for our actions?

Hello, Red Emma.

And here's the n I left off above.

To add to what Stephanie said above, our environments do help shape us. But as more and more research on the question of nature vs. nurture is showing, we also help shape our environments. The personality traits that a child is born with, and how those traits are manifested in behavior, will certainly affect how the parent(s) interacts with and reacts to that child.

I know I'm extrapolating here beyond the original premise, and I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I agree with you to an extent. Our circumstances, experiences, and all that came before us have helped to shape us, and do have a tremendous impact on who we are and what we do. And I believe that as a result, we all certainly have predispositions and inherent tendencies to behave in certain ways and make certain choices. But, I think that there are also specific moments in which we consciously make one choice or another, that is entirely free will.

We may not have nearly as much free will as we’d like to think we have, but I wouldn’t agree that we have none at all.

I am with Stephanie and Penny because I choose to be.
When travelling down the path of life, we arrive at intersections at which we choose to continue along one path or another. The particular path we choose leads to other intersections, other choices. At each intersection, the paths stretch behind us and ahead of us. We arrive at a particular intersection because of past choices, but at each one we had the free will to choose the path ahead. At each future intersection, we will again choose by exercising our free will. Every choice we make, large or small, sets us off down a different path, but we CHOOSE that path, which inevitably leads to a different set of future choices at which we again exercise free will.
Very interesting discussion, Dame. Thank you for proposing it.

Of course other people, from parents to grandparents, etc, set off down the paths that led to our own creation and we ahd nothing to do with those choices. But at the time those choices were made, we didn't exist, so of course we had no free will, or choice. Each of us represents all the intersection that preceded our existance, so to that extent, our lives are preordained by all of history. But at the intersection where we came into existance, we came to another set of intersections.
It's just intersections, on and on.

Of course I mean "existence". Sorry.

And of course the paths available at those future intersections led there from intersections others encountered. We had/will have no control over those.

Apparently, there is a name and an entire body of work about a philosophy which I thought I had "found". The fact is, although I came to the "no free will" conclusion independently, a lot of great minds before me also came to it and called it "determinism". (Not 'predestination', Sharon). Following is a distillation of some of the opinions concerning the ethical objections some of you have:
Some hold that, were determinism true, it would negate human morals and ethics. Counter to this argument, some would say that determinism is simply the sum of empirical scientific findings, making it devoid of subjectivism. Morals and Ethics do not hold the universal permanence that physical rules do (like magnetism polarity), but their very existence can also mean they were an inevitable product themselves. That, possibly through an extended period of social development, a confluence of events formed to generate the very idea of morals and ethics in our minds. In other words, all events that actually occur are unavoidable, proven by the fact that these events do, in fact, occur.
So waddaya think of them apples?

I agree with Dame Ruth. What I would add is that I think she's using a different level a magnification to look at this. Ultimately, at an absolute level, everything is determined by causal factors. Yes, our personalities too. That we can make a decision to overcome some of our traits? Sure, but that ability is determined by previous events and set factors too. People react differently? Sure, but why? Where does that difference come from? From themselves? So where does that ability to determine themselves come from? Why does one person have it and another not? It just depends on how far we go back and how much we're willing to see. The same thing applies to interconnectedness, and our own tremendous insignificance in the giant whole. Yes, we're connected to everything, but we're very, very, very small, and ultimately, it's all meaningless except for the meaning we give to it. That's where responsibility comes in--at our level, where we operate every day, it exists, in the same way that a value to our lives exists. But an alligator doesn't share our values, nor does the Milky Way care. We have to know what level we're talking about, or else we'll be talking past each other.

I disagree that acknowledging these ultimates has anything to do with crime. I doubt such philosophical arguments are common fare among most criminals.

Ethics do not hold the universal permanence that physical rules do (like magnetism polarity), but their very existence can also mean they were an inevitable product themselves. That, possibly through an extended period of social development, a confluence of events formed to generate the very idea of morals and ethics in our minds.

Exactly. Ethics are an evolved product of the human mind--meaning both biological and cultural evolution. Of course, if other intelligent beings live elsewhere in the universe, they would have their ethical system too, and as they would be biological beings, such systems would likely be similar to ours.

In other words, all events that actually occur are unavoidable, proven by the fact that these events do, in fact, occur.

Again, I think that's true, but at a level of magnification that's not very useful to us in our lives.

No, Stephanie, I don't think that if you changed your mind and agreed with me, it would push you back in the depths of despair. What you would think is that while you were depressed and feeling helpless, you had the ability to pull yourself out of that depression, while some people obviously don't, and that this is lucky for you and unlucky for them, but ultimately neither your merit nor their fault. It's just how it is. This ability is a different factor from the depression itself, but it's no different in terms of being "given" to you than your intelligence, your appearance, your musical ability, or your propensity for depression itself.

Also, turn your murderer argument around. Let's say you have an aunt who named you as the main beneficiary of her will and she's dirty rich. Do you, being the person you are, really make a choice not to murder her and make it look like the butler did it? Was that truly an option for you at any point?

And how do we explain geniuses, even if what I'm saying is not true? Where does their genius come from, if not from an awfully complex interplay of genetics, environment, and the cultural past and present of the communities they happen to be born into? The idea that it's just "something more" is simply not to ask the question what that "something more" might be and where it might come from. The moment we do, we realize that whatever it is, it also had to have been determined by events leading up to it, even if we can have no idea what they are. The sum appears to be more than the constituent parts only because we don't understand all the parts that go into it, but whatever those parts are, they don't exist in isolation from the rest of the universe, from the causal links that have led to their existence.

The "learning" and the "striving" are part of the whole thing, Stephanie, not something outside of it. The facts that we're able to learn and that we strive (or don't) don't come out of nothing--they have their causes too.

The proof, as I've often seen described, is that it must have been preordained that we make that choice since that's the one we made. Phrased that way, it is circular. But that isn't how I understand the argument. The argument is the other way around. Since we know that there's an intertwined jumble of causal links leading up to every event (don't we?), the event must have been determined by those causes, and thus it was inevitable. In the sense that this denies personal choice, it sounds counterintuitive, because our minds have evolved to see themselves as having free will and making choices independently from everything else. That's how we feel, but in reality, that independence is impossible. I agree that we cannot function without thinking that way. But that doesn't mean that at the same time, we can't understand and admit that ultimately, at another level, everything is determined. Our minds also evolved to perceive their physical environment in particular ways, and the scientific description of what that environment is really like is equally counterintuitive, yet we're able to accept the science and function in our environment using our old, instinctive, scientifically incorrect but practically useful constructs. I think this is quite similar.

I hope, fervently, that your philosophy is wrong.

That's another thing: what is it exactly that you hope? The world is the way it is. If what I'm saying is true, it won't become a worse place, and if it's not true, it won't become a better one. It's all there already.

Why would my way of thinking lack altruism? Is altruism outside of the interconnected chain of things? (The evolution of altruism is actually very easy to explain, together with its unfortunate biases and limitations....)

And you're using "philosophy", and "my way of thinking" in ways that are completely outside of what I'm talking about here. I don't want things this way, nor do I think about everyday situations in any way differently from how you do. At the same time, I can't deny that one's personality is ultimately determined by things outside of itself--it is not something that springs into existence in and of itself, out of nothing, determined by nothing, a universe of its own. I don't "think like that" when I go about my normal business, but if the question is asked, I can't stop myself from following one thought with another. I can't draw a line and say I won't consider this any further because I don't like what it's starting to look like.

How I make my choices is influenced by how I was raised, my personality, my level of education, be religious beliefs, my socio-economic level, as well as my age. I do believe I have the freedom to make choices, but I also believe as I noted above there are many different factors which influence my choices. Does this mean I do not have free will? I am not sure, it depends on how you define free will. Each of us is afforded many choices in our lives. Each choice leads us on a different path. Each path brings about new choices.

The difference between the two arguments is in what the premises are. If the only premise is that "some events do occur", then the conclusion, "ergo, they are inevitable" is circular, or in any case, insufficient--a non sequitur. But I had two premises, one stating that there's a chain of causes leading up to every event, and another that states that certain events occur. I think it does follow from those that those events that do occur are determined by causes that also exist, and that given those causes, they are inevitable.

As with any argument, the premises could be wrong, making the argument unsound, or the inference itself could be invalid, or both. Are they wrong?

And of course people can make a difference. Again, people (my mind, "me") are not something outside the system. They, and their decisions (which have their own causes), are among the causes of things.

I'm totally loving this verbal volley! This is what I want from a "social site"...too bad so few people here have the mental acuity or depth of vision to join us.
Aniko, you've perfectly expressed what I've been fumbling with, and you, Steph, are presenting the opposing view with perfect point-for-point cons. At this point, I have little to add, since you two seem to have covered almost all the ground I've been over mentally. Right now, I'm trying to wrap my head around how determinism relates to quantum physics...I'm reading about it, but it's a little difficult to process. This seems to be down your street, Steph...a little help?

I'm currently making the apparent free-will decision to go to sleep. It's of course determined by the fact that it's 3:43am where I am, I'm getting sleepy (biochemistry and all) and my stubbornness and argumentativeness (and if you think those are not determined, you should meet my dad) does have some limits. :-)

Dame: Thank you for publishing this article. While I am fumbling to understand and make sense of what was written by others, I enjoy the challenge of my beliefs.

GREMS, what you say is true, of course. However, if you step back a bit and take a longer view, you can see that all those factors (education, socio-economics, religion, etc.) are also the effects of causes over which you had no control, and therefore the end result (you and the decisions you make) has already been determined.

stubbornness et al do have some limits.... It was only one of them first, but then I added the other, and apparently only managed to adjust the sentence up to a point.

Good night, *n*k*, wherever you are.

In theory I agree with you Dame. I agree the choices I have made that frame who I am today are a result of events in my life to some extent. The choices are both proactive and reactive. I think the proactive decisions tend to be more of what I would call free will choices. Reactive decisions I think are more likely to be based on personal history.

But Schrödinger didn't mean by that example that the cat would indeed be both alive and dead until the box is opened. On the contrary, his point was to illustrate how bizarre the results are when Copenhagen interpretation is applied to the macroscopic world. It's a satirical thought experiment.

The entire concept of "free will" has always been a fly in my ointment and I find the discussion on this thread very interesting. My question is this: If there is no free will, then does that not prove the existence of God? If your every move is pre-ordained, then something, somewhere, is doing the pre-ordaining (yeah, I know it's not a word but I am not looking for something clearer), correct? But then, if there is no free will, then it certainly changes how one would view God and religion because if God knows already who is going to come to him and who is not, then there are people born to an eternal death. If there is no free will, there is no purpose. Now, let's say that there is complete free will - if so, does that invalidate God or does it too prove the existence of God? We are created in his image, so says the Book, and we are given free reign over our lives with the choice between living good or evil lives, right? Now if that's true, what about Judas? Judas betrayed Christ. Now, it was being predicted that someone would betray Christ waaay back in the Old Testament so it was "pre-ordained" to happen. If so, then Judas had no choice. He was born to commit that act. So we're back to point A. What about Hitler? What about Manson? What about Stalin? What about GWB? Were they given the choice to be who they became or was it some sort of cosmic destiny?

If we have no free-will, again, why bother trying to better yourself? Why bother trying to live a decent and healthy life? Why bother deliberating over any choice you make? Just pick one and it will be the right one.

Damn, now I have a headache and need to lie down.

Quantum physics is based on probability, not predictability like Newtonian physics. Subatomic particles behave with a random element, so atoms will behave with a random element, so molecules will behave with a random element. While I can see your point making sense to a degree, I think that the unpredictability of physics, along with the unpredictability of emotion, make it apparent (to me anyway), that we are not all predetermined.

Addendum: It has always been my belief that we are nothing more than the sum total of all of our experiences. Good and bad, right and wrong, it all comes together into the person you are today. The person you are today is going to be different than the person you were yesterday and the peson you're going to be tomorrow.

Okay Nick, so now we have added God to the mix. Is there a difference between free will and freedom to choose?
My choices as I noted above are based on who I am, my experiences and my beliefs. I believe we always have a choice. i can choose to do a or b. the choices I make will set in motion differing events.
If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, I believe someone else would have. He was too powerful to not have had that happen from a historical point of view. (also in terms of a good story if one takes it as a literature piece.)

Grems: I have heard that theory before too - that if hadn't been Judas, it would have been someone else. But still Judas was there. His experiences, his life choices, led him to make the decision he did. I don't know if he ever had a "choice" not to follow through. If that's the case, then it was not free-will. He was chosen from before his birth to be the one who would betray Christ. Since he did and then committed suicide out of contrition, would he have been forgiven?

I simply don't know and if you ask five theologians, you'll get five different answers.

Ruth you make a very valid point.

I may try and exercise my free will by kicking my neighbor in the butt but if my neighbor chooses that particular time to move to another spot I could end up on my butt.

I dont see this as predestined.

More of all things influencing everything else.

While you may try and exercise your free will doesnt mean the universe is going to let you accomplish what you set out to do.

I don't know that I agree completely Nick. I never thought about Judas being chosen from birth to betray Jesus. If he never had a choice then this clearly indicates at the very least God picks and chooses who is allowed to have free will. Then God and I have some issues!

I think Judas could be forgiven, but again this is between God and Judas. Judas would need to ask for forgiveness from God. I am not sure I see Judas's suicide as an act of contrition. I have always thought of it as Judas being in so much pain over what he did that he could not take the pain anymore and he committed suicide.

Grems: I know what you mean. I agree with you. If Judas had no choice then do we? I think we do. So he must have as well, right? I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept of "destiny".

I believe we have choices. The choices we make have natural and logical consequences. Attempt to jump off the roof; at the very least feel sore for a few days. If God is playing the great puppeteer, then I am angry with God because of the issues I have dealt with in my life. If I am pre-destined to do some things, then I am not free to choose. Why bother to try and do things differently.
Okay, now my brain is way to full of questions and I need to get some work done. Later 'gator

As a devout atheist, I obviously don't see the Jesus/Judas conflict (or any other religion-based story) as having any real impact on the subject of determinism. The only way the "God" idea comes up in the determinist philosophy is as the (possible) original cause of all the ensuing effects. Of course, then the question 'what caused god?' arises, and we're back to the snake-swallowing-its-own-tail concept. None of which changes my mind, either about free will or a deity, but it's certainly enough food for a lifetime of thought.

I don't see how the lack of free will would prove the existence of God--there is nothing that requires a set of causes to be supernatural (and the Dame has already addressed the First Cause argument). On the other hand, if God exists, it doesn't change any part of the rest of the argument except in assigning responsibility to him (while natural forces would not have any responsibility). If he determines everything directly, then he's responsible for everything, if he leaves some things up to nature, which he created, he's still responsible indirectly.

The point remains that something is either determined by (an)other thing(s), or, as in the quantum world, it's random--I don't see any other possibility. So is that randomness what we'd like to have? I doubt it. Randomness is not what we see as choice or free will. A conscious decision made by a sentient being is not random. But if it isn't, it must have causes.... and we're back to where we started.

An elegant summation, *n*k* (are you expecting your vowels back anytime soon?). I have nothing to add at this time, but my investigation continues. Hopefully, so will this discussion. I can't thank you enough for your brilliant contribution...it's been a distinct and unique pleasure to read your beautifully expressed thoughts.

I don't see how the lack of free will would prove the existence of God--there is nothing that requires a set of causes to be supernatural (and the Dame has already addressed the First Cause argument). On the other hand, if God exists, it doesn't change any part of the rest of the argument except in assigning responsibility to him (while natural forces would not have any responsibility). If he determines everything directly, then he's responsible for everything, if he leaves some things up to nature, which he created, he's still responsible indirectly.

*n*k*, Jul 28, 2008, 4:25pm EDT

Okay, clearly I am in the deep end of the pool here and waaay over my head. But this has sparked an interest to read more about this. Thanks!

Good for you, Nickey! It does my diseased old heart good to know I've caused someone to start a new line of inquiry into the Big Questions. BTW, since you were the one to introduce the notion of a deity into this discussion, I must assume you do believe in some form of god. If my assumption is correct, would you mind telling me why? I mean, what causes your belief in whatever you conceive this deity to be? (Still inquiring into causality, you see).

I suppose like most people who profess a faith, I was raised in and around the church. My family has always been and still are regular church-goers and are very active in religious based community activities. So the idea of God has been a part of my life pretty much since the day I was born.

Now when I grew up, I came to think a little bit more about it and not blindly accept it. I read many books about various religions and talked to a number of people of other faiths and I have found that I am very comfortable with my thoughts about my faith.

But then again, my views on God and Christianity may not jive with any churchs official party line. I do not see God as being judgmental or a harsh critic of our overall lives. He gave us the Big Ten to observe and Jesus laid out his philosophy for living and that seems to work for me. I've always tried to bridge the gap between science and religion by believing that science answers the how but God answers the why. And believe me, that generates a lot of heat from the Fundamentalists. But hey, each persons relationship with the universe/God is deeply personal and we're all right and we're all wrong, at least until we get there and find out for sure.

But I do have my doubts at time, which is natural I suppose. But that's why they call it faith. Some times you just have to close your eyes and jump.

I read all of the comments yesterday, and my head is still spinning. I think this is why I never took a philosophy course. Philosophers argue forever, but where are their testable hypotheses? (Oh, that's science. Sorry.).

This discussion seems to center on the distinction between pre-ordination (Newton's Clockwork Universe) and free will.

Following *n*k*o's lead, here's a biological perspective:

Our fates are pre-destined in that our brains are more hard-wired than we think. That is, the structure and functioning of our nervous systems are genetically determined. I am amazed at how much we humans still operate on instinct.

Our innate tribal behavior, which leads to endless warring, is one example.

Another is the neurochemical-induced brain fog known as "falling in love." When we are newly in love, it seems that nothing matters except the object of our desire. Evolutionary speaking, this encourages the production of offspring, often unintentionally.

Free will comes into the picture when we realize we are acting instinctively and irrationally, and will ourselves to do otherwise.

That distinction works for humans, at least. Altruistic behavior in animals is usually considered to be based on genetics rather than love, but I have my doubts about that.

I haven't read all of the conversation that followed. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time at the moment.

I can visualize what you're trying to say. I can see that the shirt that I am wearing at this moment has impacted many, many people....

But your post led me to a thought I've had before:

If there is no free will, if my life is just simply a result of cause and effect, then my life should not be what it is today. Theoretically, due to the circumstances of my birth and certain things that happened during my childhood, and the environment I was brought up in, I should be more or less a clone of my mother.

The fact that I choose not to drink, chose to be monogamous, productive, somewhat educated, and other things that have led me to be who I am, those were not my choices?

Then who is pulling the strings who deciced that my mother would be the abused, unproductive alcoholic while another sister became rich? Who decided that my sister would have so many children while I was only physically able to have one?

If I allow myself to believe there is no free will, then I'm pretty much going to turn into one really pissed off person and my life would ulitimately change for the worse.

This is what I DO believe.

I believe in God the father. I believe in Jesus the Savior and I believe in the Holy Spirit.
I believe that it is as it is written, and that he knows every hair on our heads.
I believe that he knows the choice we are going to make in every situation before we ever make it, but I don't believe he forces or guides us to make one decision over another - even as born again Christians.

If that were the case, then those who are "born again" and attending church on a regular basis, reading their Bibles and following him as he desires wouldn't stray - there would be no theft in the church, no Jimmy Swaggarts hiring prostitutes, etc.

I believe that no matter what, we have the ultimate choice of right or wrong, good and bad.

But I also believe that whatever choice we make in any situation will affect many, many people. Not just ourselves.

But I also believe that whatever choice we make in any situation will affect many, many people.
Why stop at "people", Tina? Everything that exists affects every other thing that exists, which you will recognize if you follow the cause and effect continuum to its logical conclusion. By the same token, you are part of the "everything" and are therefore impacted by the universe as well as the reverse. And, since the actions of the universe are entirely out of your control, so are its reactions, including individual choice.
As far as "good" and "evil" are concerned, these concepts are so subjective, they can't really be discussed in a broad sense. Quick example: suppose a beekeeper lets one bee get away and it fatally stings a man. Does that make the beekeeper a murderer? Or is the bee evil? Taking this one step further, suppose that man was an uncaught rapist? Wouldn't that change one's view of both the bee and the beekeeper? You can see where this goes...one mans' evil is another man's blessing and there are no absolutes in this area.
As for the first part of your comment, please see Aniko's summation of the god issue, above.

Dame Ruth, you are a closeted Buddhist.

I can see why you might make that inference, Ann...some of the conclusions I have reached do jibe with the Buddhist philosophy, insofar as I understand it. However, I'm loathe to accept any label as it refers to religion, especially one that involves supreme beings, creation myths and dogma, even those as loosely organized as the Buddhist theology.

The Buddha said: "Question all beliefs, even those of Buddhism."

And the Dalai Lama says: "If science disproves any of the tenets of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change."

Whaddaya know, a "religion" (it's really not one, because God is never mentioned) that doesn't conflict with our modern-day knowlege. How refreshing. And how little there is to argue (and war) over.

Right on, Tricia! But then, I think exactly the same thing about Jesus Christ. I see him primarily as an example to follow.

Danggit... wish I had gotten in one this conversation earlier.

Although a fascinating thought experiment, I propose this argument is Mu, as it can neither be proved nor disproved, and doing either has no meaning but that which we misattribute to it.

Granted, if one likens life to a movie-- where we are popcorn-eating but impartial observers-- it is quite unlikely that the plot changes, even after the millionth viewing. The angel always gets its wings; ET comes back to life; Darth Vader is still Luke's father. (Apologies for the spoilers).

We'd drop a brick in our collective pants if that Harry Potter dropped dead of food poisoning.

And if each detail in the universe was "recorded" and re-played, I imagine it would unwind like the film in a loop: same thing, each time.

Somehow, watching "The Matrix" puts all of this into place...

Let's focus on the beliefs that allow us to be positive members of the earth.

I'm more inclined to follow the reasoning of researchers and seekers of factual truth. As an example, Gordon M. Orloff of the Society of Natural Science who said (among many other things), "our behavior is always determined by prior events and the resultant beliefs we hold, and our genes. The reasons we act a certain way are beyond our control. As Schopenhauer put it, "a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
I know who wrote Schopenhauer's words...the stuff in the bible, not so much.

The above was in response to Ann's comment...looks like Michael and I were posting simultaneously. (We appear to be a good match, Mr.Kitteh... wanna meet me behind the gazebo?)

Man, this is absolutely the juiciest and sanest conversation I have ever read at Gather, and it's teaching me something about *my* own participation in the inertia of a no longer-existing past when I write in reaction.

I can't get enough of everyone's really sane and respectful discussion to understand a fundamental principle, Dame Ruth.

Thank you for guiding me here somehow. I was about to give up on Gather.

I really have nothing to add here; I'm almost struck dumb!

See, this is why I feel we'd really benefit from having a ceremony to bury an old patriarchy in society. And that is not a condemnation on "manhood." Just the nonsense of many men who have tried desperately to keep reality at bay by wars that allow history to get written very wrong. Like the question in another article to Is so and so still gay? And you responded, paraphrasing, Not an issue anymore. He's dead.

Now I can hear echoing sweetly in my head, the evocative Carly Simon song, "Let the River Run."

Anyways, I bet the cafés of Vienna, 100 years ago from the time of Freud (well, I sometimes really get the creeps from Freud), Jung, Schroedinger, Einstein, and that Dane, Bohr, who didn't like doing Dutch (: and a bunch of others who never made a name for themselves, echoed a lot like this conversation.

As to God, I liked best what a physicist once wrote, and I can't at the moment - since I am so damn tired - remember his name, but I do remember what Tricky (so influenced by his grandmother) wrote in tribute to the singer, Kate Bush, which echoes exactly with it: I don't believe in God, but if I did, her music would be my bible

Something like, I don't believe in God, but if there is one I'd like to thank her.

I'm sure I've got the quote wrong.

Nice to see you, Bent. As I said above, publishing this here was in the nature of an experiment, to see if there were any "thinkers" left on this site, or if they had all been chased away by the new direction gather has taken. It is heartening to see there are still a few, although not nearly the number there were when I first became a member, two years ago. Back then, this thread would have run to 100+ comments, although many of them would doubtless have been diatribes against my 'godlessness'. In any case, I hope I've helped open a mind or two to at least the possibility that there's a different way to look at the universe than the limited view most "believers" hold.

85 years in your body on this planet. I had no idea. You sound so vibrantly full of energy in the voice of your writing. Youth and antiquity seem merged, and age in human years a warm flutter in the universe's ancient heartbeat.

I honestly bow to your memory and wisdom.

Thanks, Bent. I take no credit for my lucidity...I am just the end result of everything that brought me to this point, per my understanding of determinism. BTW, I'm not quite 85 yet...just a kid of 83-and-a-half and still trying to figure things out. At the moment, I'm revisiting the origin of thought in my introspective moments. I'm trying to integrate my understanding of the cause and effect continuum (determinism) with my idea that the mind is not in the brain, but instead is really a cosmic consciousness that informs us, making us simple conduits of a universal mind. What do you think?

Bent - This is productive chillin.

Dame you are wise, wonderful and confuse and fascinate the heck out of me. I do understand what you are saying, but wouldn't the decision to learn a certain subject or pursue a particular line of thought allow you to deviate from any previously determined path.

Yes, I could make those decisions because of the influences that have formed me but I could also refuse the make a decision.

Well this is circular isn't it?

One more thing, Stephanie I truly admire you but as soon as you mention quantum phsyics and get all Steven Hawkings on something like this, I grab a parachute and jump.

Dame started it. She brought it up, not me! I was just answering her question.

Here's a question: if everything's a product of our past so that we can't truly choose, what is it when you deal with something completely new, when you break new ground? How is that predetermined?

This article and this thread has been fascinating. It's questionable to me that I'll decide on an answer to this, but all the questions this has unleashed for me have been wonderful, and I've enjoyed thinking. As a teenager, discussions such as this were very common; now not so. Glad to have read this.

Sorry about that Stephanie - I see that phrase I think of you. But when I think about it, I actually know quite a few people who know about quantum physics.

That's actually pretty cool especially since I'm still struggling to use a calculator.

wow, mason and i were just having this exact conversation 2 nights ago. the problem with going with the no free will concept is then that people will get lazy since their actions are predetermined anyway, why should they try harder to get the promotion since if they were already predestined to have it, the amount of hard work they put in will have no direct bearing on the outcome.

but if everyone then fell into the trap of not caring, then production of the very products needed to go forward would then slow down causing a disruption in the forward progress of life. but if there was no free will and all is predetermined, then perhaps it is already predetermined that there is that slow down.

wouldn't parallel universes/time lines present a much better and clearer outcome based on free will? at the very second you make the decision to do one thing, time and existance split ad infinitum so that every action and possible outcome of every choice is taking place simulatiously.

time has no beginning or end, therefore existance has no beginning or end and infinite possiblity is proven infinite.

D'fish is a big quantum physics buff.

Two answers, Steph: 1) You reached the point of finding something new as a culmination of everything that brought you there. Cause and effect, remember?
2) If by "breaking new ground" you mean discovering something you never knew before, it could be due to tapping into the cosmic consciousness, which may be the origin of all thought. It's still a matter of determinism, however, since everything you do and think is the result of all the influences that came to bear upon you up to the moment the idea hit you. Got it?

I could make those decisions because of the influences that have formed me but I could also refuse the make a decision. says Sharon.
Exactly! Whichever way you go is the way you have to go, according to all the forces that brought you to that point, over which you had no control. Thus, determinism.

I don't have a problem with the concept of a cosmic consciousness (in fact that makes fine sense as a possibility to me), but I don't see why I should assume (a) everything new comes from there and (b) that one can't use what makes humans unique to go where no one else's thoughts have gone before - i.e. TRUE originality. I don't buy that. And, although this has been an interesting subject, and although I can provide no hard data to support my own belief, neither has data been provided that demonstrates otherwise (as Ann pointed out).

Well, this is absolutely beautiful. Now I understand even better what it is you are describing beneath the surface of your wonderful article. Of course you are beyond absolutely correct in your proposition that the organic brain and the *mind* are two separate things altogether. It likely is the ultimate nemesis for any being to discern.

And the distinction you make here and there about a philosophy and religion is also brilliant.

Some have attempted capturing that distinction with various modalities, like Carl Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, and the ayurvedic notion of non-duality. But most cloak it with self-created isms to better feel in control, I feel. So even my words here might partially be an effort on *my* part to control *destiny.*

Even in non-human influenced nature I've seen this at times.

Last year, as I was cycling home in rural Copenhagen from shopping, I came across a sparrow lying dead on my street. In the trees and bushes and a single local power line, sat dozens of other sparrows. But what was chilling was how utterly silent and still they were under the hot sun, except for some squawking and fierce animal movement on the other side of the little street. I very gently parked the bike, put down the little bag, and went over to the dead bird, then moved a bit over a bit to better understand the movement in the bushes on the other side. Though the 30-40 sparrows *holding vigil* (my interpretation) over the dead sparrow in the street were *unnaturally* still, a couple sparrows in this bush were making a lot of intense motion against a magpie, who in Denmark are starkly black and white birds but behave in the same, often aggressive way they do in America.

My interpretation again (but based on having studied with a brilliant ornithologist long ago, and my own life of observing nature, including myself), was that the magpie was trying to eat the dead sparrow, and the sparrows were dealing with the issue of *soul* in the now empty corpse of the dead sparrow, or however we wish to frame the deeper consciousness beneath observable phenomenon.

I looked back to the dead sparrow, then to the dozens staying *unnaturally* quiet in the trees on the other side, and then I *really felt it.*

It was like I was playing a *predetermined* role suddenly. I had choice of course in my brain, it seems, but not really, due to the natures of everything at this moment having come together like this, including my own awareness being *really awake* in this given moment.

So I did what my brain definately would not have been programmed to do in our society. I accepted what I felt, went over to the dead sparrow, looked up to the quiet sparrows, picked up the still warm little body, went over to the undergrowth under the trees, put down the sparrow, used my fingers to dig as deep as possible into the soft earth, and buried her.

As I got back on my bicycle, every single sparrow in those trees and bushes began singing, the magpie flew off, and those two sparrows there, joined with their friends, and now it was again like a normal Danish summer afternoon in the slightly wooded outskirts of Copenhagen.

This may not correlate with the point of your article, Dame Ruth, but this incident, and a 55 year progression of such fortunate experiences and observations in my life - some among the most remarkable of people (for whom I am so deeply grateful), some in *unadulterated* nature - tells me that the organic brain with its complex neuronal architecture is like an interphase, or shimmering interpretive boundary, between the observable phenomenon that can empirically be analyzed and the accumulated consciousness of all time, which my brain, due to having studied a lot of disciplines, would suggest as being unbounded by time, space or any other fundamental architecture that frames form and motion in our observable universe.

I've over the years had this growing and uncanny sense that the human brain might possibly be capable of actually *understanding* the principle you are teaching us of in this article, and expressed variously by different philosophies from oh so many cultural backgrounds, but that may be wishful thinking. Some philosophers have simply said, after posing the question *who am I?* that the human body and its brain can be like a jail for the true seed of consciousness, which is being subjugated by the feedback-looping drives with which evolution has hardwired the brain.

I wrote a four or five paragraph fairy tale about this ages ago, it seems, of a butterfly that *accidentally* falls into this paradox upon seeing a rainbow, and a progression of predator-prey activities that then issue for the butterfly. In the end, the *universal consciousness* - which for the butterfly becomes a vast butterfly of unimaginable proportion... and for the sparrow hawk involved in the story's plot, looks like a threatening hawk out to get him - integrates with the butterfly's tiny brain, and the final statement goes something like, *...and this is something which each creature must find on its own.*

In my own life, when I can be quiet enough no matter how busy, I actually no longer worry about this. And for this again, I am so grateful to the significant influences in my life. It feels like an endless river with endless tributaries of endless dramas and cause-and effect scenarios, much like the stuff of non-linear mathematics, but each drop in that river has its mechanical history from way back when the sun evaporated the drop from out of the endless, calm sea, to condense over a mountain, and thus begins the thrill of life, way up there, bouncing over a pristine nature of rocks and small waterfalls with the force gravity being like the unbridled and fearless zest of youth, joining with countless other drops in community, sharing their experiences into the collective and growing pools of other drops, on and on, creating ever huger and seemingly complicated-to-the-mind whirlpools of *societies* with often conflicting religions and philosophies and so much stuff of local, albeit ultimately irrelevant hierarchies. Eventually, we get to the river at the bottom of these hills, and the thrill of youth becomes tempered by the ever slowing flow of life being pulled by gravity back to their origins. But of course, all that drama in *history* shapes the river and its local behaviors, which is not an easy thing to analyze when one is a drop in all that interactive activity. And sometimes the drops now get caught up in being aged, and being slowed or even dammed up by obstructions.

But for some seemingly randomly lucky few drops, in the dead of night, these few may just be lucky enough to *feel* the quiet whisper from that ancient, creative sea, in the form of the night fog that, once in a blue moon, has crept up the river from that sea, whispering, "You are all coming home no matter how trapped you think you are..." (too many words in that statement by the night mist.)

Only a few, seemingly random drops can even hear that whisper, and fewer still stop *reality* to better hear, and utterly very few allow that *voice* to consciously be their guide.

My god, Dame Ruth, thank you for making me *think* like this some more!

Sharon, that's so cool what you say, about sensing an understanding some physicists might have in quantum theory, and still struggling with a calculator. Isn't it beautiful, my beloved sister?

I don't know if it is for you, but there is a physicist at the University of Virginia that has created a whole course on a website that you might be interested in... or not. Let me go see if I can find it on Google. Hang on a second. (what the hell am I saying, *hang on a second...* this is the friggin internet I'm on) God, I'm nuts.

Got it:
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/home.html

Bent I love you, but right now the room is spinning and the boat is about to capsize (actually I bookmarked it).

Yes you are a little nuts but that's a good thing.

I believe I have the answer here.

See ya behind the Gazebo, Dame. We're destined for it.

\sets up video camera

"In other words, what you choose to do is the only thing you can do, since that action is the end result of everything that led up to the decision, all of which is in the past, impacted by the universe, and out of your control. "

I will have to come back to read all the responses, but I must say that this was the topic of discussion for half a day with my two children last week as we walked around Boston. My son has recently been converted to Determinism, although he argued against it with a friend for over a year (his friend does some sort of medical/biological/statistical model development used in medical research). My daughter, an engineer, and myself are a bit skeptical, agreeing with a deterministic structure on the atomic level, but arguing that the theory breaks down at the macro.

It is difficult to argue with a premise, though, which states that even if you can somehow prove the importance of "free will" that it is a moot point....."free will", according to the precepts of determinism, is simply a self-aggrandizing belief that keeps us focused on our daily world and able to function with what we call responsibility.

But free will still exists, imho. Given everything that has been said here, there are two choices.

1. Do nothing. Nothing at all.
2. Do something. Anything.

YET....

Either choice still has the same effect - influence over everything and everyone within the universe in one way or another.

I will have to spend time this weekend reading all of these responses.

Sheryl: It is difficult to comprehend determinism on the macro level because of the enormous number of factors that impact every moment of every entity's existence. And, of course, we have the human ego to consider, which posits that "I" am my mind and body and in control of "my" life. These people are called "me-ists" by some determinists, and somehow are not able to see their place as a minuscule part of the whole, acted upon and reacting to every other part. They see themselves as separate and distinct from everything and everyone else, and although they may be different from each other, they are still inescapably part of the one interconnected body of matter and energy that comprises the universe.

Michael: Is midnight good for you?

Bent: Your "drops of water" analogy is lovely...poetic but understandable. Thank you for putting it here. Since it's now part of "my" consciousness, I will very likely use it, or a least a variation of it, in other writing. I may or may not note an attribution, however, since we both know it came from the Universal Mind, which we all share, and therefore belongs to all of us. *insert wicked grin here*

Interesting! I love your "talk amongst yourselves " attitude. I really need to digest this a bit before making any meaningful comments. But, I certainly enjoyed it!

Dame Ruth, except for what I would publish in a book or paid article, because then it is an issue with a publisher somewhere, I have never ever felt I should ever "own" anything that percolates into my little brain - that stuff is briefly entrusted to me while I'm still breathing, so I try - not always successfully - to behave good in that trust. Not even my own body ultimately belongs to this "I," and I love what you just wrote about the ego. We're all here for something a bit under a 100 years (I had just punched in an extra "0" here; I guess it's wishful thinking, eh?)

I love to give things away a whole lot more than hanging on to stuff.

You said it! Perhaps slightly like Chief Seattle's words long ago to some local governor.

I came across that idea when sitting with some friends and drinking iced tea in a tropical place about 33 years ago, and chewing the fat about what the hell the soul could possibly be, and why we're driven to go there. When I use the word "soul," I honestly mean exactly what an honest atheist like yourself has so well expressed in this article and your followup comments.

You've actually taught me something brilliant about engaging a good dialog, so I am grateful to you on many levels.

Thanks for dropping by, Cheri. I've always wanted to have a kind of Victorian "salon" where intelligent discourse on a particular subject could be visited in a civilized and respectful manner. I'm delighted to find there are still a few people here who are both interested in and capable of a philosophical conversation without temper tantrums and name-calling, which seem to be the norm on many of the threads I see here. (Just picture me on a "fainting couch" and carry on, friends).

Melinda, you make a whole lot of sense, and it is what neuroscience is learning. I read recently a research paper from Harvard, about the latest in the top-down / bottom-up mechanisms of brain awareness theory. It was very interesting, since the neoroscientist intelligently speculated about theories relating to the top-down model (which would embrace a type of universal consciousness operating somewhere) after he presented the empirical data relating to what generally is accepted theory, of awareness being a product of the bottom-up theories, tied to evolutionary science. You know, in the sense of where the biochemical cocktails of emotional responses and such, selecting into the the slow and progressive construct of our brain since the first sensory circuits of some primitive one- or collectively synergistic microorganisms in geological history evolved some 3+ billion years ago. Like seeking light for the process of photosynthesis, or avoiding toxic compounds, and such, to where now we have quite a complex central nervous system that includes that last structure that may have evolved in the temporal lobe for the cognitive stuff.

That's why I often write about the importance of creating of more and more pools of stability in our world, so our children will have that nurture that's necessary for more and more of certain synaptic feedback loopings being softwired by exercising *thinking*, so they can better problem solve their own futures. See, every time you push the boundary of thinking, you reinforce certain synaptic connections. When you stop thinking creatively, or are always engaged in emotional reactivity due to intense stressors in your environment (which then only activates more primitive regions of the brain), and this is exactly parallel to the old soft-science theories of child developmental psychology. There's a good reason for why a human child needs a couple of decades of supportive nurture.

I'm going for a walk into the rural Copenhagen dusk. later tonight, I will see if I can find that PDF file.

"Thanks for dropping by, Cheri. I've always wanted to have a kind of Victorian "salon" where intelligent discourse on a particular subject could be visited in a civilized and respectful manner."

Dame Ruth...I b