The Question of Free Will and Christianity (ritual, tradition, soul)

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by logician

"but they can't explain the "why." "

Neither can religion.

Religion is the why.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I totally agree! Neuroscientists look for but cannot find the experiencer, but personally experience an undeniable experience thereof. (Think too hard on that and you might get dizzy.) They can describe what happens in the brain in great detail, but they can't explain the "why." They bump into the chicken-or-egg problem all the time, and the experiencing of the experiencer is completely out of the reach of their science. They have only interpretative concepts.

In short, until they know what they're talking about, it will continue to be nothing more than "cool stuff."

Neuroscience has always been cool. For centuries people believed that they were who they were, the controller of their body and the master of their actions because they had an immortal soul in them. And that soul could control their body etc etc.

We know now that this is not true. We also know how to make two of you up in that head of yours. Simply sever the connection from the left to right brain and presto magic. You are now two. (More or less... your brain essentially becomes two brains with remarkable ability and few cons.)

One exciting new aspect of neuroscience is the focus on consciousness. Once considered fringe and primarily only explored in dorm rooms or by the oddball scientist is now becoming center stage.

Here is a quote from Time:

Originally Posted by Time

ANOTHER STARTLING CONCLUSION FROM the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along.

And one more (This is more of a new theory):

Originally Posted by Time

SECOND REASON THAT INFORMATION MAY BE SEALED OFF FROM consciousness is strategic. Evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers has noted that people have a motive to sell themselves as beneficent, rational, competent agents. The best propagandist is the one who believes his own lies, ensuring that he can't leak his deceit through nervous twitches or self-contradictions. So the brain might have been shaped to keep compromising data away from the conscious processes that govern our interaction with other people. At the same time, it keeps the data around in unconscious processes to prevent the person from getting too far out of touch with reality.

My friend says our imagination has a fascination with fabrication and that his is excuse for mankinds willingness to believe in the most obvious of frauds. There is a sucker born every day is the olde saying.

I for one have never understood scientolgists... The guy who came up with the religion just invented it out of thin air. (Very similar to a certain Joseph Smith character) Yet scientology is every where.

Yes it begins with actually some good ideas. In fact the first year of scientology might be good for everyone if you could strip the brain washing indoctrination away.

Blah

Off topic as usual. lol.

Back to the first quote. So yeah you think your there and your in control and no matter what you do you do it because your in control. Your brain will rationalize that forever. (So will mine... Its a good thing too) Bottom line its not so. You have competeting stimuli going on all the time. If suddenly the air in the room your sitting in right now vanished guess what your going to do? Or if the window nearest you shatterred and a grenade landed on the floor leaking some type of greenish smoke whats gonna happen? What would you do?

This is where rationality come into play. The military knows all about free will. They train their soldiers right out of that crap and into the instinctual realm. We cant rely that you will do the right thing, we will show you the right thing, make you do it til you get it right and hope you'll get it right should something similair ever happen.

And when something does happen and your training takes over and you do exactly what you should and recall the story later you will do so from the standpoint that you chose to do it. (Mostly... some people say... my training took over and I did what I was trained to do, nothing more)

Off topic... hehe I was at the circus tonight... Awesome show but its got me distracted and rambling. I keep seeing those 6 motorcycles circling in a ridiculous pattern inside a metal sphere that was like 12 feet high. I can't believe they do that 3 times a day. The sheer discipline of it. Its not like they were doing follow the leader either... 4 were but the other two were going on a constant collision course. Crazy. Anyways back to free will...

I said I personally debate it. Internally. I don't have the background and the research done is persuasive but not evidence enough to accept. I could say I dont believe in free will but I wouldnt go much further then that at this point. Trying not to accept free will is like trying to observe an optical illusion and seeing not the illusion but what is actually there. Its a pain really.

I am still of the belief it does not exist. I could sway one way or the other though. Depends on the argument etc. One of the few topics I really enjoy to research.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I am still of the belief it does not exist.

Cool by me. But I really don't think you're really aware of all the implications. It means that everything you said (and this post) is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of mathematical probabilities and whatnot. It means that one reasoned conclusion is no more true than any another, any more than a "bird" phenomenon is more true than a "fish" phenomenon. It means that everything you believe and every opinion you have and everything you "decide" is a conditioned reflex.

Granted, "free will" is not nearly so free as most people like to think. I daresay that it scarcely exists at our level of existence, but it either exists or it doesn't. It's like being a "little pregnant." The woman either is or isn't, but if she is, its only a question of how far along she is. The problem is, free will is impossible to measure.

People will rationalize anything, which is why I distrust rationalism. Is this a reaction to, say, Hitler rationalizing the murder of millions? Yes. Do I rationalize belief in God? Yes. Is that belief largely the result of culture, inheritance and experience? Yes. Why do I let all these things dictate my life? Because my bonds are many and intricate. The most difficult of all is egoism, the delusion that I have an individual existence sufficient in itself and separate from the Unconditioned, who is beyond time, space and causality, the One who is Causation itself.

Christ taught that the truth will make us free. His life was the manifestation of positive goodness; he showed us that freedom is the ability to let go of circumstance and act in accordance with our highest light.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Cool by me. But I really don't think you're really aware of all the implications. It means that everything you said (and this post) is nothing more than the inevitable outcome of mathematical probabilities and whatnot. It means that one reasoned conclusion is no more true than any another, any more than a "bird" phenomenon is more true than a "fish" phenomenon. It means that everything you believe and every opinion you have and everything you "decide" is a conditioned reflex.

Hmm. The implications contradict Christian notions of God-given free will and metaphysical thought that involves supernatural forces but other than that they aren't so bad. If you try to examine everything you're doing in the light of the idea there is no real choice in anything you do there is likely to be much trippiness to begin with but when the (apparent) paradox that even doing what you're doing does not involve some sort of truly independent choice really sinks in the whole pack of cards collapses. In that instance the notion of free will as well as determinism become ridiculous because you catch up with there being no independent observer to judge the subject. When that's understood the dualistic-split involved in the Christian notion of free will and God falls away and a much less confused cognitive awareness can arise.

Dependent arising and suchness, dude.

Anyway, I thought of a way to try to convey my understanding of choice: -

Grass is green. It can be other colours depending on circumstances but it still makes sense to talk of grass being green in everyday terms. The greenness of grass can also be explained in terms of atoms, photons and light sensitive organs. Atoms and photons are not green nor are photons and what we perceive to be green when we look at grass can be explained as a result of highly complex processes going on in our eyes. Still, it makes sense to talk of grass being green and that isn't really an issue because our understanding of what is happening at a more fundamental & complex level doesn't suggest our own sense of the greenness of grass has no meaning. It would become an issue, however, if the greenness of grass was considered by many to have an unusual attribute for which there is no evidence, can contradict what our in-depth knowledge of the processes involved in giving rise to our sense of green suggest and is yet nevertheless taken to be true. For example, if people believe that the greenness of grass is somehow independent of atoms, photons and the workings of the eye - that there is greenness that is 'free' from all that.

The greenness of grass isn't an illusion just because it can be explained in naturalistic terms.

We have a sense of choice. Our degree of choice in things depends on circumstances but it still makes sense to talk of having a capacity to choose one thing from another in everyday terms. The choices we make can also be explained in terms of psychology, social-conditoning and the brain. Human psychology and our social-conditioning are not things we have chosen for ourselves and what we perceive to be choice can be explained as a result of highly complex processes going in our brain. Still, it makes sense to talk of choice and that isn't really an issue because our understanding of what is happening at a more fundamental & complex level doesn't suggest our own sense of choice has no meaning. It would become an issue, however, if choice was considered by many to have an unusual attribute for which there is no evidence, can contradict what our in-depth knowledge of the processes involved in giving rise to our sense of choice suggests and is yet nevertheless taken to be true. For example, if people believe that the choices they make are somehow independent of their psychology, conditioning and the workings of the brain - that there is choice that is 'free' from all that.

Sense of choice isn't an illusion just because it can be explained in naturalistic terms.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Hmm. The implications contradict Christian notions of God-given free will and metaphysical thought that involves supernatural forces but other than that they aren't so bad. If you try to examine everything you're doing in the light of the idea there is no real choice in anything you do there is likely to be much trippiness to begin with but when the (apparent) paradox that even doing what you're doing does not involve some sort of truly independent choice really sinks in the whole pack of cards collapses. In that instance the notion of free will as well as determinism become ridiculous because you catch up with there being no independent observer to judge the subject. When that's understood the dualistic-split involved in the Christian notion of free will and God falls away and a much less confused cognitive awareness can arise.

Dependent arising and suchness, dude.

That free and metaphysical thought will involves "supernatural forces" is an alien concept to me. It's kinda like calling gravity supernatural because we see the effects and give it a name without really knowing what it is. As far as the Christian notion of free will, there's nothing in scripture that addresses it in the manner of this discussion so there's probably about as many interpretations as there are Christians.

I am familiar with "dependent arising" and "suchness." Both are, in fact, central to my understanding of ultimate origins and not at all inconsistent with Christian thought. The problem is that the moment we turn our gaze away from the oneness of things, we must postulate MIND as the technique of unifying the ever-widening divergencies.

Anyway, I thought of a way to try to convey my understanding of choice: -

Grass is green. It can be other colours depending on circumstances but it still makes sense to talk of grass being green in everyday terms. The greenness of grass can also be explained in terms of atoms, photons and light sensitive organs. Atoms and photons are not green nor are photons and what we perceive to be green when we look at grass can be explained as a result of highly complex processes going on in our eyes. Still, it makes sense to talk of grass being green and that isn't really an issue because our understanding of what is happening at a more fundamental & complex level doesn't suggest our own sense of the greenness of grass has no meaning. It would become an issue, however,if the greenness of grass was considered by many to have an unusual attribute for which there is no evidence, can contradict what our in-depth knowledge of the processes involved in giving rise to our sense of green suggest and is yet nevertheless taken to be true. For example, if people believe that the greenness of grass is somehow independent of atoms, photons and the workings of the eye - that there is greenness that is 'free' from all that.

The greenness of grass isn't an illusion just because it can be explained in naturalistic terms.

Evidentialism was pretty much dismantled by William James and is now seldom used (except in RF). For a long time, the idea of anti-gravity contradicted "in-depth" knowledge of processes, but guess what? It exists (or seems to).

Turn the scenario around. Explain the experiencing of color to a skeptical colorblind man. He can know all the workings of the eye and all about light, but if the tools (eyes or interpreting brain) are inadequate to the task, apart from consensus, there is no rational reason for him to believe such experience is real.

We have a sense of choice. Our degree of choice in things depends on circumstances but it still makes sense to talk of having a capacity to choose one thing from another in everyday terms. The choices we make can also be explained in terms of psychology, social-conditoning and the brain. Human psychology and our social-conditioning are not things we have chosen for ourselves and what we perceive to be choice can be explained as a result of highly complex processes going in our brain. Still, it makes sense to talk of choice and that isn't really an issue because our understanding of what is happening at a more fundamental & complex level doesn't suggest our own sense of choice has no meaning. It would become an issue, however, if choice was considered by many to have an unusual attribute for which there is no evidence, can contradict what our in-depth knowledge of the processes involved in giving rise to our sense of choice suggests and is yet nevertheless taken to be true. For example, if people believe that the choices they make are somehow independent of their psychology, conditioning and the workings of the brain - that there is choice that is 'free' from all that.

Sense of choice isn't an illusion just because it can be explained in naturalistic terms.

Color is a secondary quality. Seeing color is a personal experience, a subjective experience, and pretty much makes the colorblind man's evidentialist demands and his "in-depth knowledge" irrelevant to the experiencer.

Choices explained in terms of psychology, social-conditioning and whatnot go to the "bonds" I was talking about. They are reactive and have nothing at all to do with the spontaneity of free will except to condition it. And let's face it. We're heavily conditioned creatures. But not entirely so. According to some, all life is self-transcending, more than the sum of its component parts. Only humans have the capacity to be aware of it and have the potential to consciously use that knowledge.

[Rolling_Stone]

Conditioning and free will are inseparable, but the one is not the other. And this goes to the heart of my panentheistic perspective.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

That free and metaphysical thought will involves "supernatural forces" is an alien concept to me. It's kinda like calling gravity supernatural because we see the effects and give it a name without really knowing what it is.

Ok, but I'd argue that free will isn't something we see but something we assume. Gravity is easily observable. The freeness of will is not observable, no obvious or in-depth evidence, and the more we learn about our own nature the more observable and predictable the patterns behind our decisions are becoming because the systems that produce those patterns are becoming better known to us. Are we becoming less and less free or simply more and more knowledgeable about our own nature?[/quote]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Color is a secondary quality. Seeing color is a personal experience, a subjective experience, and pretty much makes the colorblind man's evidentialist demands and his "in-depth knowledge" irrelevant to the experiencer.

* nods* But we can see colour. Where can we see free will? I can't, so am I lacking some equivalent of a sensory capacity for it as a blind man lacks for seeing green? From what you've said that would seem to be the implication and I'm ok with that in theory. However, there should still be presentable evidence even to me that people who are aware of free will should somehow be distinguishable from people who are not, like myself.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Ok, but I'd argue that free will isn't something we see but something we assume. Gravity is easily observable. The freeness of will is not observable, no obvious or in-depth evidence, and the more we learn about our own nature the more observable and predictable the patterns behind our decisions are becoming because the systems that produce those patterns are becoming better known to us. Are we becoming less and less free or simply more and more knowledgeable about our own nature?

We don't "see" gravity. We see the effects. But never mind that. I think I've been going about this wrong. "Free will" is something of a misnomer. The notion of "freedom" can arise only in the context of limitations. Neuroscience studies the thing that conditions the unconditioned; i.e., mind, consciousness and will. The object of its study is the very thing that limits mind, consciousness and will; it assumes that that what conditions is the cause when in fact it's really nothing more than a radio receiver. Here's a link to "A Course in Consciousness." It's been updated since I last read it. Krishnamurti also has some interesting things to say.

* nods* But we can see colour. Where can we see free will? I can't, so am I lacking some equivalent of a sensory capacity for it as a blind man lacks for seeing green? From what you've said that would seem to be the implication and I'm ok with that in theory. However, there should still be presentable evidence even to me that people who are aware of free will should somehow be distinguishable from people who are not, like myself.

"Freedom," like color, is something that can be known only by experience. There in nothing in the of evidence that can prove to a skeptical colorblind man that such experience actually exists.