CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego

by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JWoods

  I allow for the possibility of quantum indeterminancies as mentioned by JWood, but these don't somehow magically produce free-will, nor do they necessarily imply uncaused or truly random behavior at the quantum level, but merely behavior far beyond our current ability to predict.

  I was not saying that the quantum indeterminancies "prove" free will as a part of human existence. I was just saying that they do not deny the possibility of it.

  To some people, the fact that we are debating free will here would seem to imply it's existence.

  Terry's point that actually a lot of life activity that we might "call free will" may not really be is a good one. But for some things we really can make an intelligent choice that is not predetermined. For some other things, we may just be mentally "rolling the dice", but that again is not really a mechanistic pre-determinism.
• 

  bohm

  Terry: Regarding randomness in nature: im not sure i follow you. Do you mean that quantum mechanics may seem random, but really is not, it is just us that does not know if the particles are 'breaking in some new shoes'? ;-)
• 

  Terry

  Terry: Regarding randomness in nature: im not sure i follow you. Do you mean that quantum mechanics may seem random, but really is not, it is just us that does not know if the particles are 'breaking in some new shoes'? ;-)

  Exactly.

  We can't know what we don't know.....until we DO know.

  So....

  Between the time we identify something and temporarily call it "random" or "mysterious" or "inherently dual" etc. and the latter-day time when we

  discover the actual "cause" or mechanism that gives us awareness of what drives it thus----we are merely juggling jargon.
• 

  Terry

  Here is an experiment (to do in your head):

  The next decision you have to make, take out a coin, declare "Heads I WILL and Tails I WON'T".

  Then, after you toss the coin, catch it and identify the result---follow through on the action.

  Now...

  After that is done....

  Ask yourself the following questions:

  1.Did I make a choice (since the coin actually DETERMINED the course of action) in submitting to the seemingly chaotic outcome of the toss?

  2.If I did make a choice by agreeing to follow the cointoss----is CHOICE really irrelevant (considering the follow up action was chaotically DETERMINED)?

  THINK about how we dance around in our head what constitutes "choice" and what constitutes "determination" and how seemingly indifferent the mechanism is.

  Report back here your findings and conclusions!
• 

  notverylikely

  Humans are of nature as is a boulder, the tides or smoke.

  Then why can I decide to write this but a boulder has no choice but to obey the environment? Why can I choose to type with one hand or without?

  Yet, this is a distinction without a difference in my view.

  Really? That's odd. Let's use your example of gravity. A boulder has no choice but to fall towards an object pulling on it. A human can choose to grab onto a branch, or lean back or design a rocket and overcome gravity. When I am on a snowboard I can choose to angle my board left or right to turn using gravity or choose to stop.

  Those are all examples of differences with a distiction. The board just slides down the hill subject to whatever bumps and turns are there. When I am on it, I choose to turn it where I wish to go.

  Ahhhh, but, you've done a "freeze frame" and called it "choice". You've ignored the continuum. The context.

  Before the moment you did the freeze was preceded by yet another urge and another in finite regress back to the genes transmitted in the embryo.

  So you are concluding that there is a complete lack of randomness and every decision is based upon events beyond our control? My decision right now to get ready to leave work instead of 15 minutes was sealed by the fluction of billions of unknown factors going back to the big bang?

  I would suggest that you don't wander around in the metaphysical high country without a guide.
• 

  Terry

  I moved to Michigan, Los Angeles and returned to Texas.

  Was that by your own choice? or was it just an illusion?

  I was motivated by a desire to meet my father in 1972 and I was pretty sure he lived in Michigan.

  In 1974 (I couldn't support my family adequately in Fort Worth) I moved to California to get a job as an artist.

  In both cases there was strong motivation for moving.

  In the case of meeting my father....it is peculiar.

  I SUDDENLY (and I do mean that ) had an overwhelming desire to find and meet him.

  In the case of earning a living----I was sick and tired of nowhere JW style jobs (janitorial) and felt I should use my natural talent as an artist to earn a better living.
• 

  notverylikely

  The "taking steps to change that behavior" is not actually taking steps to change that behavior at all. It is taking steps to

  change ___another similiar__behavior in a subsequent setting.

  A behavior is a pattern of doing something. Smoking is a behavior, biting your nails, etc. Quitting either of those is making a choice to change a behavior.

  I think you have fallen into a mental trap similar to Zeno's paradox (google zeno and arrow). However, you are framing the question in a way that ignores a lot of factors or reduces them to simple terms that don't explain the universe around us (see "Changing a behavior")

  If you saw a candid video of a man ambling about a small town sqaure with __no apparent__intention in mind you might quickly conclude his actions were random. Yes?

  Once you interviewed the man you might discover he was breaking in a new pair of shoes.

  No. You're example of like a lot of what I see in the WTS (see "Boy on train tracks"). You set up an example, then suggest a conclusion that is erroneous, then give the answer. Maybe he is just stretching his legs, getting some air, is restless. Suggesting what MY answer would be and then proving the answer I didn't give wrong to prove your hypothesis right is a logical fallacy.
• 

  Terry

  Humans are of nature as is a boulder, the tides or smoke.

  Then why can I decide to write this but a boulder has no choice but to obey the environment? Why can I choose to type with one hand or without?

  Don't miss my point. Both the boulder and you are products of nature! By your specific nature you have a brain and hands (and a computer!) you can and do type. A boulder only does boulder-things.

  Really? That's odd. Let's use your example of gravity. A boulder has no choice but to fall towards an object pulling on it. A human can choose to grab onto a branch, or lean back or design a rocket and overcome gravity. When I am on a snowboard I can choose to angle my board left or right to turn using gravity or choose to stop.

  Those are all examples of differences with a distiction. The board just slides down the hill subject to whatever bumps and turns are there. When I am on it, I choose to turn it where I wish to go.

  A boulder has no self-preservation. Avoiding falling by grabbing a branch is self-preservation. What we call a no-brainer. Snowboarding skill is but an outgrowth of not-crashing-and-maybe-killing-myself.

  So you are concluding that there is a complete lack of randomness and every decision is based upon events beyond our control? My decision right now to get ready to leave work instead of 15 minutes was sealed by the fluction of billions of unknown factors going back to the big bang?

  I am saying that no randomness exists only seeming unpredictible chaos. As far as we are ignorant of things-----an advanced technology is indistinguishable from a miracle. A Roman soldier confronted with a modern Rocket Launcher would identify you as a god and the weapon as a miraculous thunderbolt.
• 

  Terry

  No. You're example of like a lot of what I see in the WTS (see "Boy on train tracks"). You set up an example, then suggest a conclusion that is erroneous, then give the answer. Maybe he is just stretching his legs, getting some air, is restless. Suggesting what MY answer would be and then proving the answer I didn't give wrong to prove your hypothesis right is a logical fallacy.

  Well, it sure is easy to just point and laugh without giving your own examples to prove your own point (so that I can point and laugh :)

  Besides nay-saying--what reasoned argument do you offer?
• 

  notverylikely

  1.Did I make a choice (since the coin actually DETERMINED the course of action) in submitting to the seemingly chaotic outcome of the toss?

  I chose to follow the coin....

  2.If I did make a choice by agreeing to follow the cointoss----is CHOICE really irrelevant (considering the follow up action was chaotically DETERMINED)?

  The result of the coin toss was chaotic. MY choice was to follow the result of the coin. Alternatively, I could choose to ignore the coin.

  THINK about how we dance around in our head what constitutes "choice" and what constitutes "determination" and how seemingly indifferent the mechanism is.

  OK, but the experiment you proposed just proved that we can choose to blindly do what the coin says or not. If the heads result was such that I would have to cut off a finger every time, I would choose to not follow the coin. Actually, I would make sure that following the coin toss was something where I wouldn't mind the results either way.