• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

Curious George

Veteran Member
I have two definitions for this term, but to avoid further confusion I will stick to one for now: The ability to consciously make choices in an unconstrained manner.
By unconstrained I mean not being forced to behave in any given manner by anyone or anything, not even your desires.
Just to put this in perspective: In Christianity, it is common to think that humans have a sinful nature and that it is possible, through free will, to act in a manner that is contradictory to it.



That you can't change the fact that you like chocolate is no problem at all. That merely means your free will is influenced by your tastes, which is not enough to say you don't have free will.
But can you choose to eat something that you don't like even if you don't want to ?
I would say that's not possible. To do something like that you would need to have a higher 'want' that supersedes your unwillingness to eat it. And even though one might say they can choose to have this higher 'want', we eventually get back to the problem of needing an even higher 'want' to do it. Do you see where I am getting at ? This leads to infinite regress, so the only solution to this is that we have to accept there is at least one 'want' that we haven't chosen and that every other 'want' derived from it.
You have defined freewill as impossible and then have asserted that freewill is impossible.

When faced with two conflicting wants one can employ cognition in order to choose between the two.

The determinist will say that employment has no control over the outcome the indeterminist will say that cognition does indeed have control. They are both arguing over whether it could have possibly gone differently. If I dont want to eat something but i want to survive i can make the decision to eat something that i don't want to eat. I needn't have chosen this "higher" want. I just need a conflict for which a choice arises.

You are asserting that the want that prevails is "higher." This entails a value judgment which entails cognition. When we make decisions this is because our cognitive faculties have exerted some degree of control over an event. Not because they have exerted complete control.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
You have defined freewill as impossible and then have asserted that freewill is impossible.

That's because libertarian free will is impossible. I am glad you agree.
Although that specific wording is mine, I kept the concept intact.
If you have a distinct definition feel free to tell me.

When faced with two conflicting wants one can employ cognition in order to choose between the two.

What do you understand by 'cognition' ?
Assume you have the following two conflicting 'wants' right now:

1) You want to eat chocolate.
2) You want to take a shower.

How do you use cognition to determine what you are going to do right now ?
Explain the process.

The determinist will say that employment has no control over the outcome the indeterminist will say that cognition does indeed have control. They are both arguing over whether it could have possibly gone differently. If I dont want to eat something but i want to survive i can make the decision to eat something that i don't want to eat. I needn't have chosen this "higher" want. I just need a conflict for which a choice arises.

You are asserting that the want that prevails is "higher." This entails a value judgment which entails cognition. When we make decisions this is because our cognitive faculties have exerted some degree of control over an event. Not because they have exerted complete control.

What do you mean by 'exert some degree of control' ?
I would agree if by that you mean that our cognitive faculties influence the outcome, although maybe not in the sense you mean it.
Having a distinct comprehesion of the consequence of your actions will lead to a distinct outcome.
However, our cognitive faculties are either out of our control ( perhaps you have remembered something really important that will completely change what you are going to do right now, for example ) or we need to consciously want to use them ( when we want to deeply think about something and figure out a solution to a problem, for example ). And consciously wanting to use them involves a choice, which involves a want, and therefore our 'wants' control our cognitive faculties.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
I differ in my views on the former somewhat, but over all I am beginning to wonder if the latter is not the case. That free will rides on top of determinism and whether you view that as an illusion or sometime more substantial, that is the condition of things. The script sets the stage, but the actors bring the characters to life. So to speak.
Nature just goes man, if you know what I mean. Nature and nurture work together. But the nurture aspect in your life comes from another person's nature. If that makes sense.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
That's because libertarian free will is impossible. I am glad you agree.
Although that specific wording is mine, I kept the concept intact.
If you have a distinct definition feel free to tell me.



What do you understand by 'cognition' ?
Assume you have the following two conflicting 'wants' right now:

1) You want to eat chocolate.
2) You want to take a shower.

How do you use cognition to determine what you are going to do right now ?
Explain the process.



What do you mean by 'exert some degree of control' ?
I would agree if by that you mean that our cognitive faculties influence the outcome, although maybe not in the sense you mean it.
Having a distinct comprehesion of the consequence of your actions will lead to a distinct outcome.
However, our cognitive faculties are either out of our control ( perhaps you have remembered something really important that will completely change what you are going to do right now, for example ) or we need to consciously want to use them ( when we want to deeply think about something and figure out a solution to a problem, for example ). And consciously wanting to use them involves a choice, which involves a want, and therefore our 'wants' control our cognitive faculties.
You can eat chocolate in the shower.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Isn't the conscious mind something living that can decide? That seems to be the nexus of the question. Does the conscious mind exercise free will? It is of material origin, though seemingly immaterial.
I have heard materialist/physicalist scientists admit there is a teleological mind, yet they assume the mind is merely the pattern of electron flow in the brain. This makes no sense to me. Seems to me the mind (and consciousness) exists in its own right in the spiritual realm. The essential characteristics of the spiritual realm are such things as life and spirit.

But then the question is: how can spirit affect the body? The only way I know of is by monkeying with the randomness of quantum mechanics, for example, by causing an electron to appear on this side of the atom instead of the other side during wavefunction collapse.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
there is no absolute knowledge of anything.
I suppose this depends on how you define knowledge and truth. Is there partial knowledge? If there is no knowledge possible, what good is it to try to learn things?

I certainly agree that our conscious knowing of things is filtered by our brain's processing. And I agree that we can't actually see a quark (for example). But within the limits of our perception and cognition, seems we should admit of knowledge and truth.

I also believe that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of knowledge and truth.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
While I do not believe the Bible is false in the sense of providing allegories about the authors feelings on the subjects contained within and certain aspects of behavior, its claims are based on belief that cannot be tested by science.
All I'm saying is that the historical claims are mostly false. For example, there was no conquest by Joshua occurring in one generation, and there was no Exodus from Egypt of 3 million people with their animals and weapons.

Certainly any work of fiction is intended to affect profound reflections and feelings within the reader. This is the approach of non-fundamentalist Christians. They know it's not historically true, but they enjoy participating in the traditions.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nature just goes man, if you know what I mean. Nature and nurture work together. But the nurture aspect in your life comes from another person's nature. If that makes sense.
I think I do. The nature aspect of my parents was the result of their own nature and the nurturing they each received prior to my being.

The way I view the nature part using a human model is that we have a genome--our map or stage--that is the determined and this interacts with rearing, culture and the environment that is expressed as us. We have traits that are pretty much set in stone and others that can be manifested, strengthened, weakened or ignored depending on that rearing and environment. The question still remains, is this us fully determined or do we have some will in it.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
I think I do. The nature aspect of my parents was the result of their own nature and the nurturing they each received prior to my being.

The way I view the nature part using a human model is that we have a genome--our map or stage--that is the determined and this interacts with rearing, culture and the environment that is expressed as us. We have traits that are pretty much set in stone and others that can be manifested, strengthened, weakened or ignored depending on that rearing and environment. The question still remains, is this us fully determined or do we have some will in it.
Yes, that is a good question.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have heard materialist/physicalist scientists admit there is a teleological mind, yet they assume the mind is merely the pattern of electron flow in the brain. This makes no sense to me. Seems to me the mind (and consciousness) exists in its own right in the spiritual realm. The essential characteristics of the spiritual realm are such things as life and spirit.

But then the question is: how can spirit affect the body? The only way I know of is by monkeying with the randomness of quantum mechanics, for example, by causing an electron to appear on this side of the atom instead of the other side during wavefunction collapse.
At this point, no one knows what the conscious mind is, so speculation can abound.

The physics is beyond me. At least for now.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I suppose this depends on how you define knowledge and truth. Is there partial knowledge? If there is no knowledge possible, what good is it to try to learn things?

I certainly agree that our conscious knowing of things is filtered by our brain's processing. And I agree that we can't actually see a quark (for example). But within the limits of our perception and cognition, seems we should admit of knowledge and truth.

I also believe that revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of knowledge and truth.
I am aiming at the question of whether we can know something with absolute certainty or not. From a scientific perspective, what we know is based on evidence and logic and always contingent. We do not consider anything arising from science to be an absolute answer.

This is a separate question from free will and determinism, since either could be true and objective knowing would still not be absolute.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
All I'm saying is that the historical claims are mostly false. For example, there was no conquest by Joshua occurring in one generation, and there was no Exodus from Egypt of 3 million people with their animals and weapons.

Certainly any work of fiction is intended to affect profound reflections and feelings within the reader. This is the approach of non-fundamentalist Christians. They know it's not historically true, but they enjoy participating in the traditions.
Oh sure, there are many claims in the Bible that have no evidence, or just could not have happened the way they are described. Genesis, must clearly be read as allegory, since there is no evidence supporting the stories in that book.

It is the message of the Bible that is the important part, especially as regards the teachings of Christ. At least, that is the part that should be important to Christians.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
It is the message of the Bible that is the important part, especially as regards the teachings of Christ.
It's possible there never was a person named Jesus. And if there was, he was nothing like the accounts in the gospels. So, the teachings are not from a God-man but, rather, from people -- probably originating from Zoroastrianism and the mystery religions of the day.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
That's because libertarian free will is impossible. I am glad you agree.
Although that specific wording is mine, I kept the concept intact.
If you have a distinct definition feel free to tell me.



What do you understand by 'cognition' ?
Assume you have the following two conflicting 'wants' right now:

1) You want to eat chocolate.
2) You want to take a shower.

How do you use cognition to determine what you are going to do right now ?
Explain the process.



What do you mean by 'exert some degree of control' ?
I would agree if by that you mean that our cognitive faculties influence the outcome, although maybe not in the sense you mean it.
Having a distinct comprehesion of the consequence of your actions will lead to a distinct outcome.
However, our cognitive faculties are either out of our control ( perhaps you have remembered something really important that will completely change what you are going to do right now, for example ) or we need to consciously want to use them ( when we want to deeply think about something and figure out a solution to a problem, for example ). And consciously wanting to use them involves a choice, which involves a want, and therefore our 'wants' control our cognitive faculties.
You are going in circles. As i already explained: it does not matter that a want or a belief for that matter originates outside of our control. What does matter is that our employment of reasoning affects outcomes. We choose to do something by the employment of our reasoning. This is not strictly causal nor is random. We very clearly see the difference between reflex and choice. One involves conscious processes one does not.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
You are going in circles. As i already explained: it does not matter that a want or a belief for that matter originates outside of our control. What does matter is that our employment of reasoning affects outcomes. We choose to do something by the employment of our reasoning. This is not strictly causal nor is random. We very clearly see the difference between reflex and choice. One involves conscious processes one does not.

How is it not strictly causal ?
The fact there is reasoning involved doesn't make anything less causal.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
That it is not predictable makes it not strictly causal.

Not predictable in what sense of the word ? In practice or in principle ?

Whether something is unpredictable in practice has no bearing whether there is a strict causal relationship.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
What makes you say it is unpredictable in principle ? How have you reached this conclusion ?
Because there is no impediment to such behavior. Because people do act in practice unpredictably. Because there is no evidence that suggests peoples behavior must adhere to strict determinism.

In short, it is more reasonable to assume the obvious that to, based on faith and an appeal to ignorance, assume that some unseen forces are accounting for each and every action of ours.
 
Top