Free Will

[nPeace]

Nope, those are also just another aspect of the butterfly effect.

In what way is the choice 'free' if it is determined by the past?

How is your choice determined by your past?
If a person is raped as a youth. Grows up, and becomes a minister, not because she was raped, but because she found something meaningful and fulfilling, how was that choice determined by her past?

 

[nPeace]

No. That is NOT what happens. They have informed themselves and are either convinced or not. It is not a choice to accept it or not. It is simply whether they are convinced or not.

I don't make a choice in my determination of whether I am convinced or not. i either am convinced or I am not.

No. They simply don't believe. No choice required.

You have not made a choice not to be gullible and swallow the "nonsense"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Whilst I may not have answered your original questions, I think you'll find I did respond.

I saw your response. That's why I said that it didn't try to address the points made or answer the questions asked. If what you mean is that you answered them elsewhere than in a response to me, I haven't seen it.

And it looks like you just ignored two more questions. You're not alone, but I really don't understand why that happens. Maybe you can help me understand by sharing your own perspective on why that happened. What are the logical possibilities? The words were never seen or read. The words were seen and read but not recognized as a question calling for an answer. The words were read and understood but the responder has so short a memory that he forgot about them when responding. The responder is embarrassed to answer for whatever reason. Trolling. The responder hopes that if he ignores the questions, they'll go away. I wouldn't think that any of these apply to you, but if there is another possibility, I can't think of it. If there is another reason, maybe it's yours and you can say what it is. Or confirm that it's one of the ones named.

That you seem to consider consciousness, awareness, and observation to be entirely reducible to electrical activity in the neurological circuitry, means that the gulf in understanding between us in this instance is so wide as to appear unbridgeable. We speak different languages

Really? You consider our thinking too different to be able to express ourselves and communicate our ideas to one another? I think I understand you just fine.

I would argue, have some leeway in regards to how we respond and how we act.

Isn't that the central question of this thread - whether we are bound to obey imperatives generated by the unconscious or can deviate from them? And you aren't arguing. You are claiming without argument. This is a belief you hold by faith, not evidence.

In other words, there's more going on in the mind of man, than two or more sets of contradictory neurological impulses coming from different parts of the brain.

Yes, but do any of those things deserve to be called free will or any kind of will? Do any contribute to the choice made?

Wrong interpretation.

Disagree. Did you want to make an argument or just the claim?

 

[nPeace]

By completely free I mean you choosing to do one thing over another is completely up to you. I don't refer to stuff like you choosing to like the colour red more than blue.

You do not choose everything in life... which is obvious. so we are not saying that everything is by choice. i think you know that.

No, they don't. I think you are overly simplifying things. There are many instances of people going places together where no one would ever find the body of someone getting murdered. Let's say two friends going on a hike in the middle of nowhere or simply two random people meeting each other in the wilderness. If you look at past human history where the chance of solving a murder was close to none, clearly, people didn't just randomly kill each other for no reason either.

Randomly is your focus?
Then I must have missed your point. How does randomness fit this topic?

Yet, even when there is a huge chance of getting caught today, people still commit murders and rapes etc. So clearly the consequence doesn't prevent it, it obviously reduces it, however, some people still seem to prefer doing it regardless. Look at the vast amount of police violent cases in the US, where the police beat some guy to death despite getting filmed clearly they must be well aware of the consequences by doing such thing.

I think I am confused now. What was your point?
My point is that people have reasons for doing things, and the reason more people do not do some of those same things, is because they don't want to face the consequences.
I think I am getting lost as to where you are going exactly.

Yes, but my point is, that some people, might be hardwired to not end up killing or even consider doing it. While others will react in such a way that they are no longer thinking clearly and therefore will do it.

Might be? Okay, so you have a hypothesis.
All you need to do now is test it. Then we can talk about the results.

Think of it like someone being violent, some people are more violent than others and it takes very little for them to explode into a rage if they feel even slightly provoked, which could potentially lead to the death of someone. Clearly, such a person is differently wired than someone that couldn't dream of hitting another person or think about a person hitting their children or wife, but besides that function normally every day. And in many cases, I think the people are well aware that they are doing something wrong and will apologize afterwards, yet do it again the next time.

Why do you think it has anything to do with being "wired"?
What if it is? Would it be okay if someone said they are under the influence of a supernatural power... influenced by sinful tendencies...
Would you accept that? Or, maybe you dismiss those and say. "No. ...but I don't know."?

How though does that negate free will?
What if we do have sinful tendencies... can we not choose to go against those tendencies, and are not millions of people doing so?
What aids such? Is it not being taught to do so, and then choosing to make an effort to succeed?

Here is another thing to consider.
What if, though wired to have certain negative tendencies, we can connect to another wire, that disconnects us from the negative wire?
You know. Well, maybe you don't know, but this is exactly what is described in the Bible. Galatians 5:16-26 ; Colossians 3:5-10
Only, it does not cancel out free will.

Our free willed choices are what determines where we want to be wired.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'm talking about how people are emotionally or biologically wired differently. Whether it is epigenetic or genetic I don't know, simply that I don't think it is just a matter of making a choice and that is more than simply nurture, even though I do think that it plays a huge role as well, probably 50%/50% or close to it between nature and nurture. But that we can't really change nature, but we might in some cases be able to somewhat suppress some of these emotions if they are not too strong, if that makes sense?

I understand what you are saying too.
Only, you say you don't know, but obviously you are looking for an explanation that scientists can come up with, rather than accept the one the Bible gives.
Moreover, you do not accept the fact that millions of people demonstrate that it is a matter of making a choice. They have done it.
Why then do you think otherwise, when it can be seen clear as day.

Just to give an example... Let's suppose that our nature is to be proud, arrogant, jealous, selfish, spiteful... etc. etc.
If people, work toward overcoming, and conquering those traits, and replacing them with positive traits - opposite, or contrary, would you not agree that the persons doing so, have made a choice to put in the effort needed to do so?
Have they not made a free willed decision, or do you think they are now driven by some force, against their will?

I think we have to be careful not to mix things together.

To not have sex with someone they are not married to is not something that is hardwired into us. What I mean is that you have to track it back to an emotional trait. In this case, you might be convinced that God is real, and therefore it is about deceiving someone you care about. You could equally compare it to cheating on one's spouse, meaning the emotional implications of deceiving someone you care about. Where drugs might be related to an emotion could be to not feeling isolated or as part of the group or it might simply be to have fun. I mean, I have never heard of anyone that just decided to do drugs or start smoking on their own, but usually, these are done in social contexts, like a group of friends etc. And why some people say no while others say yes can vary greatly. I have a lot of friends that used to smoke a lot of hash and were addicted to it etc. yet I have tried it a few times, but never felt it was anything special so I stopped doing it. On the other hand, I do smoke cigarettes, whereas some of them don't and that started in a social context as well with friends, the exact reason for why we did it, I think was because we thought it was fun and we got a bit high from it.

How did the first person start smoking?
Who or what influence them?

What I mean is, that some people are wired, in this case, to do extreme sports and love the feeling of living on the edge and the adrenaline pumping through them when doing these things, while I don't. But I didn't choose to not like it. Just as they didn't either. So the "choice" of me not reaching the conclusion that I want to do it, you might as well say is biological. Thereby the illusion of choice, I choose not to do it because I don't like it, but I didn't choose to not like it.

Nimos, when you demonstrate your hypothesis that people are wired to do extreme sports, and you have the results, rather than the idea, let me know.
As far as I know, extreme sport is new. We did not even have cars in ancient times.
Were there chariot races? Of course? Were there horse races? Likely. Were there human foot races? Yes.
Were they extreme? Not necessarily.
They were sports. Fun and games. Recreation. A time to relax and enjoy something entertaining.

In everything, some people go to extremes.
Even in sex. Some are not satisfied with normal sex. So we have fetishes.
Hmmm... Could there be some force driving people in that direction.

As the above example, the choice you think you make is based on something that you didn't choose. You choose to not eat chocolate ice cream because you don't like it, but you didn't choose to not like it. In some cases, you might be able to force yourself to do something, which doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't normally do it, and that you do it because you feel motivated to go against it for whatever reason. For instance, you might choose to eat chocolate ice cream to prove that you have free will. Yet that doesn't change the fact that you don't like it, and that you are simply willing to do it, because "proving" that you have free will is more motivating for you than the awful taste. Obviously, this also depends on what it is, you might not like to jump from a plane to prove the point because you simply can't convince yourself of it.

I believe that's inherited. It's in the genes, as I said before.
Your body may reject something for reasons you may not understand, but you can adapt.
For example, growing up, my body rejected slime. I could not swallow yam, and okra.
Later, I set my mind to eating these things, and I found creative ways of eating them, and my body adjusted to them.
They say one acquires a taste for "Mauby". It's bitter.
Persons found ways to make it appetizing... Load it with sugar.

No, it's more in regard to the debate about nature vs nurture, where I think it is a mixture of both as explained about. Also the study of epigenetics might be relevant, if you are not sure what that is here is a quick explanation:

Epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior are related because epigenetic changes can be inherited and can affect an individual's behavior. Epigenetic modifications can alter the expression of genes that play a role in regulating behavior, such as those involved in mood, anxiety, and addiction. These changes can be passed down from one generation to the next, potentially influencing the behavior of offspring.

Environmental factors, such as stress or maternal care, can also lead to epigenetic modifications that affect behavior. For example, studies have shown that exposure to stress early in life can lead to changes in gene expression that increase an individual's susceptibility to anxiety-related behavior later in life.

Overall, the relationship between epigenetics, inheritance, and behavior is complex and still being studied. However, it is clear that epigenetic changes can have important implications for an individual's behavior and the behavior of future generations.

And if you want a quick overview of the debate (Don't get fooled by the cartoon drawings, there are a lot of weird words being used ):

Well, I did not use the science term, but I think that is what I described.
It doesn't negate free will though, which is the point I am making.

 

[nPeace]

No. Missed the point entirely. Look it up: butterfly effect. The point is that some tiny difference, that might seem totally irrelevant and unimportant at the time may have a huge influence later on.

Please explain, how is that different to what I described?

 

[nPeace]

Way too vague to define how you think we make choices.

I thought I did.

I'm not seeing why you don't understand. Your mind has got to be the way it is because of some combination of nature, nurture, and subsequent experiences. That's why you're different to other people and that's why you make the choices you do. Hence your choices are due to the past.

I think that's what some people want to believe.

 

[nPeace]

I think the answer to this is precisely the point I've been trying to make. In the above, when you speak of "me" and "I," you appear to be making the assumption that these have only to do with the conscious part of your-self. My view is that "me" and "I" refer to the whole, which is both conscious and unconscious. Thus, the decision is yours, just not solely that of the conscious you. It is "free" only in the sense that the "whole you" made it, not just (or not even) the conscious you.

Winner!

 

[nPeace]

And my point is that even the choice of the 'whole me' might be pre-determined.

It seems to me that for the decision to be 'free', there has to be more than one possible future and that something *I* do affects which future actually occurs. If, instead, there is only one possible future (because the laws of physics determine precisely what will happen) or if the specific future that occurs is determined even before I start to process the data, or if the specific future that occurs is totally random and 'I' have no causal bearing on the outcome, then I don't see how the choice is 'free'.

The video @vulcanlogician gave made the relevant points very well, I thought. Post #173

Might be, huh. Metaphysical argument.

 

[nPeace]

Here's a young man who actually makes the points rather well...

The thing I found wrong with his argument is this.
He first creates a strawman, defining free will as simply, the ability to have acted differently, and then goes for the jugular - attacking that strawman.

No. Free will is not simply the ability to have acted differently to how one acted.
Free will involves making decisions freely, that is, based on your own choice... Regardless of the multiplicity of choices out there, which I may, or may not possess. You have options.

For example, I am an ignorant youth who is naive, and does not know that some men... the world, can be very deceitful, in plotting to get what they want. So, in my ignorance, my lack of knowledge, I make a foolish decision, which causes me heartache.

Did I exercise free will? Yes, but it was with limited knowledge. Free will is not negated, because I did not act differently. I acted based on the knowledge, I had, or did not have.
Either way, I acted freely, in making a choice.

So, the guy started wrong. Perhaps not deliberately, but he needs to get the definition right, in the first place.

 

[nPeace]

Since my hands are part of my body, this is an example of my body doing something to itself.

No. It is an example of you doing something to your body.
Does your body eat, or you?
Do you go to the bathroom, or your body?

My brain.

Your brain drives your hand to do something?
No. Your thoughts drives the brain by the signals or messages sent to it.
In turn those messages are relayed from the brain, to the nerves responsible for actions you want to carry out.

In case you are thinking, you know all a bout this.
If you ask Christof Koch, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and President of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, how close we are to understanding our own brains, he scoffs.
“We don’t even understand the brain of a worm,” Koch said.

Thoughts come from nowhere and from everywhere! I think both contain an element of truth. Subjectively, our thoughts come from nowhere: they just pop into our heads, or emerge in the form of words leaving our mouths. Objectively, we can say that thoughts emerge from neural processes, and that neural processes come from everywhere. What I mean by this is that the forms and dynamics of thought are influenced by everything that has a causal connection with you, your society, and your species.

History and the laws of physics and chemistry?

In that case, we should all have stabbed ourselves to death, because we all all subject to history, which is filled with violence, and physics and chemistry.

While multiple factors can lead to violent actions, a growing body of literature shows a strong association between the perpetration of violence and exposure to violence in media, digital media, and entertainment. This is a serious public health issue that should concern all family physicians, particularly as it affects young patients and their parents or guardians. Children, adolescents, and young adults consume digital media from a variety of sources, many of which are mobile, are accessible 24 hours a day, and offer both passive and active engagement. Many of these media platforms feature entertainment that contains significant doses of violence and portrays sexual and interpersonal aggression.

Multiple studies have shown either a strong association or a suspicion or suggestion of causality between exposure to violence in media and aggressive or violent thoughts, emotions, and behavior in those exposed. It is incumbent on family physicians to recognize the intersectionality of risk factors for exposure to violence in media, digital media, and entertainment, particularly for vulnerable populations. For example, some studies have shown that independent risk factors for exposure to extremely violent movies include male gender, racial or ethnic minority status, low socioeconomic status, and poor school performance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, as far as I can see, I *am* all those entities of which I am composed. I am not a singleton, but a plurality. Each of my conflicting desires is *me*. Each of my hopes, fears, goals, etc are *me*. But I am not any single one of those things.

So, yes, if someone wants to know the 'real me', they have to become familiar with all those components and how they interact.

Just as there is something to being a cat or a crow or a dog. Each is biologically distinct and thereby interacts with the world in different ways.

I confess, I don't have sufficient knowledge to contribute meaninfully to this conversation at this time. I've just bought Michael Gazzaniga's book, Who's in Charge: Free Will and the Science of the Brain," and when I've plowed through that, I'll see if my understanding has improved marginally and whether I might contribute further. As it is right now, I fear I may say something really stupid.

I've also been going through the topics listed below on Determinism and Randomness. I'm just listing the high-level topic, not the arguments.

Part One - The Determinism Objection

Determinism is true. All events are caused. All our actions are therefore pre-determined. There is no free will or moral responsibility.

Errors and evidence...

• Determinism is not "true." If anything physical is "true," it is indeterminism.
• Physical determinism is not "true" because physics is empirical, not logical. The evidence has never justified the assumption of strict determinism.
• Quantum mechanical indeterminism is extremely well established. While also not logically "true," the evidence for quantum mechanics is better established than classical physical determinism.
• Just because some events are adequately determined does not justify the widespread belief in an absolute universal determinism.
• Some events are unpredictable from prior events. They are causa sui, starting new causal chains.
• The "chain" of events behind a particular cause may go back to inherited characteristics before we were born, others may go back to environmental and educational factors, but some may go back to uncaused creative events in our minds during deliberations.
• Decisions have many contributing causes.
• We say correctly that our actions are "determined" by our (adequately determined) will. This determination does not imply universal strict determinism (as R. E. Hobart and Philippa Foot showed.
• Our will chooses from free alternative possibilities, at least some of which are creative and unpredictable.
• The will itself is indeed not "free" (in the sense of uncaused), but we are free.

Part Two - The Randomness Objection

Chance exists. If our actions are caused by chance, we lack control. We can not call that free will because we could not be held morally responsible for random actions.

Errors and evidence...

• Randomness in some microscopic quantum events is indeed chance.
• But microscopic chance does little to affect adequate macroscopic determinism.
• Just because some events are uncaused and involve chance does not justify the widespread fear that all events might be undetermined and random.
• Chance only generates alternative possibilities for thought and action.
• It is not the direct cause of actions.
• We are free, in control, and morally responsible for our choices and actions, because they are adequately determined.

I'll be back, if I've learned anything (I hope)...

 

[nPeace]

No. Consciousness is part of my brain activities, so it is as determined as by brain functioning is.

No. That is obviously what you think. It is not understood to be that way.

 

[nPeace]

If I did the act, yes.

I can agree with you here.
We are responsible for our actions, even if an unseen force drives us to that action.
So, even if we are diagnosed as being mentally insane, we have committed the act.
Why have we acted the way we did? Was it a free willed decision, or were we mentally unable to make a free willed decision?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Disagree. Did you want to make an argument or just the claim?

Disagree with what?
..as you do not believe in G-d, then why should I think your interpretation be the correct one?

 

[Nimos]

Randomly is your focus?
Then I must have missed your point. How does randomness fit this topic?

My point, which you also later write, is that people do not randomly choose to kill each other even if there are no consequences for doing it. This was the point you made, that the reason people don't kill each other is that there is a consequence to it, like being thrown in jail etc. But we don't see people killing each other "randomly" when there is no consequences, that is my point.

My point is that people have reasons for doing things, and the reason more people do not do some of those same things, is because they don't want to face the consequences.
I think I am getting lost as to where you are going exactly.

I don't think we are way off each other, you might call it consequences whereas I call it motivation because I think the word consequences is to narrow.

Might be? Okay, so you have a hypothesis.
All you need to do now is test it. Then we can talk about the results.

I think it is well documented a lot of people do not commit child abuse or rape others or act in violence, whereas others do. If it was simply a matter of making a choice, it shouldn't be difficult for people to figure out that killing someone is a bad idea, yet it still happens, how would you explain that, if it is not because people are emotionally wired differently and react differently to given situations and urges as a result of these impulses or what you want to call it?

Why do you think it has anything to do with being "wired"?
What if it is? Would it be okay if someone said they are under the influence of a supernatural power... influenced by sinful tendencies...
Would you accept that? Or, maybe you dismiss those and say. "No. ...but I don't know."?

How though does that negate free will?
What if we do have sinful tendencies... can we not choose to go against those tendencies, and are not millions of people doing so?
What aids such? Is it not being taught to do so, and then choosing to make an effort to succeed?

Here is another thing to consider.
What if, though wired to have certain negative tendencies, we can connect to another wire, that disconnects us from the negative wire?
You know. Well, maybe you don't know, but this is exactly what is described in the Bible. Galatians 5:16-26 ; Colossians 3:5-10
Only, it does not cancel out free will.

Our free willed choices are what determines where we want to be wired.

I have no issues with the supernatural, but one would have to demonstrate it as being a valid explanation. We know the natural world exists and that humans have different personalities, how exactly we get these are not 100% understood, but so far no one has offered any evidence that it is supernatural. So I wouldn't consider it a valid explanation.

You can call them sinful tendencies, again I think it is a matter of words, I refer simply refer to them as emotional urges or whatever you call them. Because "sinful" means that there is a set of rules that decide whether something is sinful or not in the first place and again no such rules or agent capable of doing that has been demonstrated.

In certain cases, we might be able to change behaviour through nurture, how much is the question.

I understand what you are saying too.
Only, you say you don't know, but obviously you are looking for an explanation that scientists can come up with, rather than accept the one the Bible gives.
Moreover, you do not accept the fact that millions of people demonstrate that it is a matter of making a choice. They have done it.
Why then do you think otherwise, when it can be seen clear as day.

If I knew, I would probably get the noble prize for having mapped human behaviour

I don't just accept what scientists say, in fact, I don't know everything they are saying, and as I wrote above, from what you are writing, you are talking about the same ideas it seems, but simply using supernatural words like "sins" etc. I think those in biblical times was well aware that humans are different and would be wondering about why some people murder while other don't, just as we do today, but they didn't have the means like we have today to explain these things, and therefore people were sinners, witches or corrupted by demons etc.

How did the first person start smoking?
Who or what influence them?

I have no clue, but my guess is that it probably started with some spiritual thing that maybe they smoked something that would give them visions or something and over time they might have tried smoking different things. Maybe they chewed them and then tried drying them and threw them on fire, I have absolutely no clue.

Nimos, when you demonstrate your hypothesis that people are wired to do extreme sports, and you have the results, rather than the idea, let me know.
As far as I know, extreme sport is new. We did not even have cars in ancient times.
Were there chariot races? Of course? Were there horse races? Likely. Were there human foot races? Yes.
Were they extreme? Not necessarily.
They were sports. Fun and games. Recreation. A time to relax and enjoy something entertaining.

I don't get why you look at stuff with such a narrow mindset? Like if, I made an example that some people like to play computer games and might be addicted to it for some reason etc. Then you would say that they didn't have computers in ancient times and therefore it can't be true. I know that is not exactly what you mean.

Obviously, humans don't have "extreme sport", "bowling", "boxing" etc. written on their brain.

Ecstasy-users and bungee-jumpers were compared in a 2004 study that aimed to view similarities in the way these two groups rationalize their risky behaviors. The study found that members of both circles justify participation by minimizing risk through practice and preparation and ignoring possible consequences such as brain damage, severe injury or death.

The connection between high sensation-seeking athletes and high sensation-seeking drug users comes down to brain chemistry, according to Michael Bardo, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky who studies the neurochemistry of sensation-seeking. Dopamine, a chemical associated with the brain’s pleasure reward system, seems to be the major player.

High sensation-seekers may be hyper-stimulated by novel experiences because their brains release more dopamine during these events than those of low sensation-seekers. “Everyone is wired to pay attention to things that are new in their environment,” says Bardo, “but it’s a matter of degree. People that are sensation-seekers tend to be more stimulated [by novelty].” The result of this dopamine flood is an intensely pleasurable experience that has the sensation-seeker coming back for more.

So in this case, people that like extreme sports, is due to the dopamine flood that gives them a lot of pleasure. How exactly ancient people would get that I don't know, maybe from jumping off cliffs into water, like waterfalls or whatever. Whether they called it extreme sports is completely irrelevant. The fact is that not all people react the same to these things, so why couldn't that apply to jealousy or other emotional states, if this brain chemistry affects our behaviour, such as people enjoying extreme sports?

Well, I did not use the science term, but I think that is what I described.
It doesn't negate free will though, which is the point I am making.

It might not, I have no clue and apparently no one else does either because it is still widely debated. But as with the extreme sports example above, if these people react to these things as they seem to do, how much in control are they really? Is it the urges (pleasure) driving them or is it their free will.

 

[nPeace]

I think it is well documented a lot of people do not commit child abuse or rape others or act in violence, whereas others do. If it was simply a matter of making a choice, it shouldn't be difficult for people to figure out that killing someone is a bad idea, yet it still happens, how would you explain that, if it is not because people are emotionally wired differently and react differently to given situations and urges as a result of these impulses or what you want to call it?

It's acting on your desires, which are based on what you spend your time feeding yourself on through the eyes, ears, and then spend time thinking about... like the pervert that looks at child porn all day long, and convinces himself that it's fine, and then goes and rapes his two year old sister... It's like the fat man that feeds his mind with the idea that junk food is the best food, and stuffs his face, knowing that he is getting broader and broader.
This is not so complicated, Nimos.

I have no issues with the supernatural, but one would have to demonstrate it as being a valid explanation. We know the natural world exists and that humans have different personalities, how exactly we get these are not 100% understood, but so far no one has offered any evidence that it is supernatural. So I wouldn't consider it a valid explanation.

I think it is more accurate to say that whether demonstrated or not, people will only believe things when forced to acknowledge.
That was the case in Noah's day; In Jesus' day, and it will be the same, in the day of our lord.
So, I would not agree that "how exactly we get these are not 100% understood"
I think it is denied.
What's more, I think people prefer to have people they think have the ability to "know everything", and they believe that source, only.

You can call them sinful tendencies, again I think it is a matter of words, I refer simply refer to them as emotional urges or whatever you call them. Because "sinful" means that there is a set of rules that decide whether something is sinful or not in the first place and again no such rules or agent capable of doing that has been demonstrated.

You described them that way, even if you don't like the term.
If getting angry and doing something we regret, was not governed by law, we would not regret it.
The fact that we regret, shows that it is a failing.
Sin literally means 'to miss'.

I don't just accept what scientists say, in fact, I don't know everything they are saying, and as I wrote above, from what you are writing, you are talking about the same ideas it seems, but simply using supernatural words like "sins" etc.

There is nothing supernatural about the word 'sin' Nimos.

I think those in biblical times was well aware that humans are different and would be wondering about why some people murder while other don't, just as we do today, but they didn't have the means like we have today to explain these things, and therefore people were sinners, witches or corrupted by demons etc.

That is of course, a belief you hold, which is not true really.
Those persons did have the means of knowing even more that we do today... depending of course, on what you refer to.
If you mean they could not know about cell phones, cars, and Covid19, and such things, that is true.

I have no clue, but my guess is that it probably started with some spiritual thing that maybe they smoked something that would give them visions or something and over time they might have tried smoking different things. Maybe they chewed them and then tried drying them and threw them on fire, I have absolutely no clue.

I don't get why you look at stuff with such a narrow mindset?

Me?

Like if, I made an example that some people like to play computer games and might be addicted to it for some reason etc. Then you would say that they didn't have computers in ancient times and therefore it can't be true. I know that is not exactly what you mean.

Oh. So then, why say it.

Obviously, humans don't have "extreme sport", "bowling", "boxing" etc. written on their brain.

Ecstasy-users and bungee-jumpers were compared in a 2004 study that aimed to view similarities in the way these two groups rationalize their risky behaviors. The study found that members of both circles justify participation by minimizing risk through practice and preparation and ignoring possible consequences such as brain damage, severe injury or death.

The connection between high sensation-seeking athletes and high sensation-seeking drug users comes down to brain chemistry, according to Michael Bardo, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky who studies the neurochemistry of sensation-seeking. Dopamine, a chemical associated with the brain’s pleasure reward system, seems to be the major player.

High sensation-seekers may be hyper-stimulated by novel experiences because their brains release more dopamine during these events than those of low sensation-seekers. “Everyone is wired to pay attention to things that are new in their environment,” says Bardo, “but it’s a matter of degree. People that are sensation-seekers tend to be more stimulated [by novelty].” The result of this dopamine flood is an intensely pleasurable experience that has the sensation-seeker coming back for more.

So in this case, people that like extreme sports, is due to the dopamine flood that gives them a lot of pleasure. How exactly ancient people would get that I don't know, maybe from jumping off cliffs into water, like waterfalls or whatever. Whether they called it extreme sports is completely irrelevant. The fact is that not all people react the same to these things, so why couldn't that apply to jealousy or other emotional states, if this brain chemistry affects our behaviour, such as people enjoying extreme sports?

That's what they tell you Nimos. See? Told yah. You believe it, because they do.
They are called "thrill seekers" for a reason. Many people can be described as atheist describe living in Paradise - "bored to death".
They think that they have "been there, done that", when it comes to "normal" activities - which are not exciting enough for them. Seeking Excitement

It might not, I have no clue and apparently no one else does either because it is still widely debated. But as with the extreme sports example above, if these people react to these things as they seem to do, how much in control are they really? Is it the urges (pleasure) driving them or is it their free will.

Wait. How is pleasure seeking not free will?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my reading, I came across this, from "Mind Matters"

In a previous post, I argued that if determinism is true, we cannot have free will. That is, if everything we do is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no room for genuine freedom. In that respect, I am an “incompatibilist”—I don’t believe that free will is compatible with determinism.​

​

What do I mean by determinism? Determinism, in the scientific sense intended here, is the view that for every moment in time, the state of the universe is completely determined by the state that immediately precedes it. If you knew all of the details of the universe — the location and state of every particle — at any given moment, you could know with certainty what comes next. Determinism is more or less the view that nature is a machine. If we know the position of the gears, we can know the future with certainty.​

​

The question that naturally follows is this: Is determinism true? If so, free will is impossible in principle. If not, free will is possible.​

​

It’s an interesting philosophical question, and most scientists (and ordinary folks) who have considered it seem to have decided that determinism is likely true. But they’re wrong.​

​

In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell (1928–1990) published a paper titled “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”. In it, he observed that there is a way to test determinism at the quantum level by measuring the ratio of quantum states of particles emitted by radioactive decay. (1) Bell’s experiment has now been done many times, and the answer is unequivocal: determinism at the quantum level is not true. Nature is not deterministic.​

​

The experiments showed that every quantum process entails some degree of “indeterminism”; that is, there are predictable probabilities but there is never certainty. If we knew the exact state of the universe at any given moment, we could still never know with certainty what would happen next. Technically, this means that there are no local “hidden variables” which really govern how things happen, as many determinists (including Albert Einstein) had hoped.​

​

Determinism in nature has been shown, scientifically, to be false. There is no real debate about this among physicists. So the question as to whether determinism, if it really existed, would be compatible with free will is merely an academic question, an interesting bit of metaphysical speculation.​

​

Remarkably, modern theoretical and experimental physics, by decisively debunking determinism, is quite consistent with the view that libertarian free will is possible. It is not in any way ruled out by science.​

​

The question that looms before us is no longer whether free will is compatible with determinism (compatibilism vs. incompatibilism) Rather, given the fact that nature is indeterminate, is it possible that human will is not free? If human actions are not determined by physics or chemistry, what besides free will could determine them? That’s the Next Big Question.​

​

1 Physicist Brian Greene has a superb description of Bell’s theory and the experiments that followed on it in Chapter Four of The Fabric of the Cosmos.​

​

​

Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon, professor of Neurological Surgery and Pediatrics and Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Neurological Surgery, Stonybrook School of Medicine​

​

Also by Michael Egnor: Can mere products of nature have free will?​

​

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will?​

 

[Nimos]

It's acting on your desires, which are based on what you spend your time feeding yourself on through the eyes, ears, and then spend time thinking about... like the pervert that looks at child porn all day long, and convinces himself that it's fine, and then goes and rapes his two year old sister... It's like the fat man that feeds his mind with the idea that junk food is the best food, and stuffs his face, knowing that he is getting broader and broader.
This is not so complicated, Nimos.

So where did these urges arise? Why does Person A think and act on junk food being the best ever, while Person B doesn't? While person B think it is perfectly "fine" looking at child porn, while A find it disgusting?

It seems to me that your assumption is that, the reason person B likes it, is because they saw a child and therefore somehow reached the conclusion that child porn is fine. But that doesn't explain why person A dislike it then?

I think it is more accurate to say that whether demonstrated or not, people will only believe things when forced to acknowledge.
That was the case in Noah's day; In Jesus' day, and it will be the same, in the day of our lord.
So, I would not agree that "how exactly we get these are not 100% understood"
I think it is denied.
What's more, I think people prefer to have people they think have the ability to "know everything", and they believe that source, only.

The reason I wouldn't accept it is if we imagine someone having committed a murder and as an excuse, they say that Satan forced them, they had no control over it because he used some of his magical powers. If we accepted that explanation, then clearly the murderer is innocent and ought to be set free and we should arrest Satan. This would be a fair explanation if Satan was demonstrated to be true, until then it is not a valid explanation.

You described them that way, even if you don't like the term.
If getting angry and doing something we regret, was not governed by law, we would not regret it.
The fact that we regret, shows that it is a failing.
Sin literally means 'to miss'.

Sin in its meaning is something which is considered wrong in regard to divine law. For an atheist this has no meaning, even for people that do not accept person A's religion as being true, that is also meaningless. Therefore using the term "sin" is meaningless, whereas emotions are widely agreed on.

There is nothing supernatural about the word 'sin' Nimos.

Yes, there is in its normal understanding, the definition of the word:

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Who is this divine agent?

That is of course, a belief you hold, which is not true really.
Those persons did have the means of knowing even more that we do today... depending of course, on what you refer to.
If you mean they could not know about cell phones, cars, and Covid19, and such things, that is true.

What I mean is that a lot of the knowledge about human behaviour is a result of cognitive science, psychiatry etc. things they simply had no clue about back then how to explain or even examine.

Take something like hysteria:
Hysteria was in fact a major form of neurotic illness in Western societies during the 19th Century and remained so up to World War II. Since then there appears to have been a rapid decline in its frequency and it has been replaced by the now common conditions of depressive and anxiety neuroses.

How many children today are not diagnosed with some mental issue, that was simply referred to as them being "complicated" or bad kids etc. back in the day, not even that many years ago, because it was not well understood.

So how do you explain it? just throwing a emote doesn't exactly back up what you are saying, at least I'm honest about saying that I have no clue, but have no problem at least offering a suggestion. But I can't travel back in time and I doubt anyone in history have any clue about how the first person started smoking.

Oh. So then, why say it.

Because you keep hanging in specifics, which requires me to keep backtracking and clarify something that ought to be somewhat obvious.

That's what they tell you Nimos. See? Told yah. You believe it, because they do.

This is not something grabbed out of thin air.

Do you think the people conducting these experiments just assume that this is how it works, or do you think they measure the effect or amount of dopamine in these people when they do these things compared to some that don't enjoy it? That is a huge difference, you can measure the effect, rather than reading a verse and then drawing a conclusion based on absolutely nothing. What does the bible say about these things?

Wait. How is pleasure seeking not free will?

If it is their urges for pleasure that drive them to do it, compared to one that doesn't have these urges. Then the urges govern what they might choose to do rather than them making a choice based on a clean slate. Are you in control or are whatever urges in your body that you are born with causing your actions?

 

[Polymath257]

No. That is obviously what you think. It is not understood to be that way.

It is by those who study this stuff.

 

[Polymath257]

No. It is an example of you doing something to your body.
Does your body eat, or you?
Do you go to the bathroom, or your body?

Yes. The two are identical. When I eat, my body eats. When I go to the bathroom, my body goes to the bathroom.

Your brain drives your hand to do something?
No. Your thoughts drives the brain by the signals or messages sent to it.
In turn those messages are relayed from the brain, to the nerves responsible for actions you want to carry out.

The thoughts are produced by brain activity.