Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is Free Will an Illusion ?

It's an odd objective experiment, I think, designed to measure a complex, subjective problem. I do not think we have free-will as such. Every decision we make is bound by our circumstances. We remain in less than ideal situations and compromise our actions because of considerations over which we have no control. Sometimes a situation will allow a choice between 2 (or more) courses of action. One is deeply desired, the other requires the sacrifice of the situation presented as adopting it will cause harm to others. Of course it is free choice of a sort to make the altruistic choice, but societal and familial pressure, backed by the law, will demand a certain behaviour. In fact sometimes the exercise of free choice could lead to death. Perhaps a study would be more interesting if it sought to find the reason why some of us do appear to choose free will when it is not in our individual interest.

True free choice is probably impossible in a 'civilised' society. There really are laws against it!! The solution is to allow people to believe they make their own choices, after carefully priming them to do so. By propaganda!

Yes. I've always considererd "free will" only to have meaning in a legal or religious context, associated with the concept of "responsibility for one's actions." It may turn out that such "responsibility" is a myth!

And so far no one has mentioned predestination!

OK! I will mention it: predestination!
There, controlled by Ellis, I just did.

Ellis, allow me to shout it: PREDESTINATION!

As A Presbyterian Calvinist, in an argument with a Methodist Arminian said: I would rather be a Calvinist and know I am going to hell than be a Methodist and not know where the hell I was going.

BTW, the United Church of Canada is a church made up of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists who formed a united churuch in 1925. Some other churches came in later. Quite a feat! Of there own free will, not all agreed to the union. Most Presbyterians (about 75%) joined, and almost all the other two groups did.
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate

BTW, born in Newfoundland, I have a Methodist background. Not far from where my parents were born there is a beautiful town called Carbonear, Conception Bay. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Carbonear%2C+NL&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
There, there is a memorial stone to the Rev. Laurence Couglan, who was probably the first Methodist preacher in North America, in 1766. Though there were some Calvinist Methodists, most were Arminian.

Me? IMO, When it comes to free will, I have always been a relativist. As we evolve and mature we will become more and more at one with all that is, Nature. Thus we will become more and more free. They, also in my opinion, is attitude.

With this in mind, to Einstein's great formula, E=MC2, I like to add the letter A for attitude: E=MC2+A

Our attitude to all that is can be one of loving awe. That is, we see what is as awe-full; or one of dreadful, fear-filled, awe--awful, antagonistic, angry, apathetic!

Agape-filled is awe-filled, aspiring, awesome and of an inspired imagination--which Einstein said is more important than knowledge. I opt for Agape-filled awe. E=MC2=A The Universe on a T-Shirt.

WOW Rev! I always thought it was God who did the predestinating!

Or in your case--- E= MC2 = A (A for Assertive!)

Assuming that what we call "consciousness" is not "under our control" (for want of a better phrase) there are two established "spiritual" directions, I am aware of, which attempt to evade mechanistic reductionism.

The first is the Gudjieff adaption of esoteric views (probably Sufi) that "ordinary man is asleep" because impersonal cosmic forces "conspire" to keep him so. G claims that with prescribed "work" some may escape from "the laws of accident" and attain the (divine) higher consciousness of "Self" (capital S).

The second is the concept of "holistic consciousness" advocated by Spinoza-esque scientists such as David Bohm, who argues that "consciousness" is a field phenomenon whose effects are encapsulated in the existence of all entities, whether "living" or otherwise.

With the necessary embellishments, I would argue that these two views of "consciousness" form the basis of all "spiritual" movements concerned with the issue of "free will".

EXAMPLES OF EMBELLISHMENTS.
In the first case which advocates "active work", we might read "Satan" for "conspirational cosmic forces", and "discplined conduct" including "meditational practices",for "work". In the second case, which advocates "passive understanding", we might read "universal love" for "holistic consciousness" as glimpsed in a moment of empathetic epiphany.

The first 'state' described would still assume that the sleeping consciousness is kept that way by another entity or 'force'. Free will is only attained by "waking up"?

And the 'holistic consciousness' also requires a juggling of the existence of entities.

Can the concept of 'free will', or the concept of "predestination", only have application in the presence of belief in a god (of whatever manifestation)? Or, to put it another way, could an atheist ever believe in 'free will' or predestination? Both concepts require the belief that 'something' is weaving our fate!

For G, only "Selves" who have attained "higher consciousness" can "do". The rest of humanity is in a somnabulistic state wrongly believing they are making conscious decisions.

Predestination brings in a concept of "time" as fixed framework or pathway along which "events" unfold. Such a view of time was essentially overthrown by Einstein's rejection of Newtonian "absolute reference frames". Relativity is generally problematic for all "absolutists" especially theological ones (think about "moral relativism" foe example).

So the answer to your question looks like "yes". "Predestination" implies mystical teleology, and seems to be merely a by-product of human cognitive pre-occupation with prediction and control. Note also that "events" are themselves relative to observers who define the "event window".This point is of particular significance regarding those who would extend their windows "beyond death".

Or to quote one of my favourite limericks.

There was a young man who said 'Damn'!
I suddenly see what I am.
A creature that moves
In predestined grooves-
In fact not a bus but a tram.

(Can't remember the author.)

Ellis, thanks for what you have written lately.

BTW, under the general heading of pneumatolgy--a subject which I first began to lecture and write about in the early 1960's--I include many references to thinkers like Spinoza, Gurjeff, David Bohm and the like.

Interestingly, I heard David Bohm speak in Toronto, quite some time ago.

ABOUT THE UNIVERSE ON A T=SHIRT
===============================
Here is how the formula is shaping up, so far:

E=MC2+AAA... (agape, attitude, aptitude, alert, alive, aware, ability, or assertive, if you wish.

There seems to be so many strong and good words which begin with the letter A, eh?.

I do not believe in free will whatsoever. If you think about it causation almost proves itself. I was born in the United States. Therefore I went to the schools in the United States, I learned what was taught. Because of that knowledge I invented something.
OR
I was hungry. So I went to find something to eat. There were only bananas and apples. I like bananas because they're sweeter. So I ate that. I was satisfied.