jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (82 posts)

Did you "choose" to respond to this forum?

  1. profile image0
    Chasukposted 5 years ago

    Or are you locked in a causal chain, in which your response was inevitable?

    1. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      To whom are you refering?

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Now that you have responded, I was referring to you.

        Did you respond of your own free will, or did you respond because you are you locked in a causal chain, in which your response was inevitable?

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I dig the company of others and when I see the opening for debate, I jump on it. It's a Tibetan buddhist thing, it bolsters one's own understanding of things from extra personal perspectives.

    2. Ella Quirk profile image79
      Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm locked in a causal chain.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Me too

    3. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What difference does it make for a frog, that is caught by a snake, that it can choose to crock or not?

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Very little.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I read the title of the thread. I chose to enter it. After I entered it, I realized what you were up to.

    Lo and behold, we have yet another meaningless thread. Everything begins with choice.

    As for "free will"? The human will is a part of who we are and yes it's free. wink

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      For the record, the only thing that I was "doing" was raising a question about Free Will, without being explicit about it.

    2. Ella Quirk profile image79
      Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You just think it is.

      It's very unlikely that we 'consciously' choose to do or think anything. Much more likely is that all our choices are decided for us behind the scenes (via our brain structure and the feedback it receives) and then thoughts emerge into our conscious brain, so it feels like it's been a free choice.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        If it wasn't for consciousness of any level, we would be inanimate objects.

        The Human will in the construct of human consciousness is free. It comes with consciousness, just like the human conscience comes with consciousness as well.

        You have to make a choice. When you put actions behind that choice, it is willed. Humans use it all the time when acting in any manner. Some times instinctive/reactionary actions take place. Those are simply reflexes. No choice.

        1. Ella Quirk profile image79
          Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          There's never any choice...not in any circumstances. We can no more control our decisions than we can the workings of our blood cells.

          Just because we experience consciousness, it doesn't follow that we must have free will. We don't 'create' our conscious experience through will, it's created for us by biological mechanisms and we act in accordance with what that mechanism dictates.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry,  there are a lot of factors which go into making some decisions and being conscious of the repercussions is one of these.  This may come from previous experience or simply common sense. To say we cannot control our decisions because of biological mechanisms is a bit far fetched in my opinion.


                                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The sentence, "To say _we_ cannot control _our_ decisions because of biological mechanisms is a bit far fetched in my opinion,"implies that we are separate from our biological organisms.

              1. Ella Quirk profile image79
                Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes!

            2. Ella Quirk profile image79
              Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Randy, being 'conscious of the repercussions' is part and parcel of the mechanism. We know there will be repercussions for certain actions because our brains have that kind of feedback stored from previous experience, learnt knowledge etc.

              There are really only two factors involved in decision making- the genetic structure of our brain and the feedback it receives.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You've never witnessed anyone who acted without thinking about the repercussions their actions might entail?  In anger the pros and cons may not be considered at all.  This is true for those who may normally stop and think before acting. 

                In some cases there is no stored knowledge to help make the decision and in this scenario a snap judgement must be made.  It may be a bad choice but a decision has been made nonetheless.  We call this a guess.  smile


                                                           http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. Ella Quirk profile image79
                  Ella Quirkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That's all true but again, how people act depends on the two factors I mentioned. If we all had exactly the same brain structure and experienced exactly the same input, we would all make the same choices. There would be no separate entity called 'free will' to come in and alter our decisions.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    As far as I know there has never been such a case where everyone had the same brain structure or the same input on a large scale to test your theory.  But you are welcome to it just the same.  smile

                    Will is never free.  Not when consequences are involved in any decision making process.  Just my view, of course.

                                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      2. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I tend to agree with you, and so do most neuroanatomists.

      3. Disappearinghead profile image83
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm tending to agree with you too Ella. From what I've been reading this week on the construction of our brains, the latest scientific thinking is that we have no free will, it is merely an illusion. Our thoughts originate in the unconcious some 10ms - 10s before our unconscious decides to let our concious be aware of them.

        This of course has a potentially huge impact on religious thought.

  3. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    Sorry!  I do not converse with greeters!  tongue


                                             http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      But isn't that what you just did? tongue

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        How do you know who I was talking to Cags?  tongue  Did you notice a quote somewhere?smile  smile

                                                         http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hey Randy, sorry to tell you but Forum Decorum would say that you were talking to the OP and none of the participants of the thread.

          Posting directly to the thread without a quote automatically means you're talking to the poster(OP) of the thread. Since you didn't include a @ in your post, again it reverts back to you posting to the OP(the person who posted the thread).

          tongue

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Are you accusing me of ever having forum decorum, Cags?  That's a low blow!  lol

                                                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              lol

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Whats a greeter?

  4. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    I chose to be locked in a causal chain, so I'm not sure what to say. sad

  5. rdcast profile image79
    rdcastposted 5 years ago

    The choice exists only till you choose, then you must accept the involvement of its outcome.

    To ask ""Did you "choose" to respond to this forum?"" is a topic for Quantum Jumping, where one might choose a path not taken from any past choice(I don't prescribe to this).

    But then, I just might answer with, "I'm here aren't I?"

    1. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm glad you don't prescribe to Quantum Jumping, as it seems to me pseudoscience dressed in mystical clothing.

      1. rdcast profile image79
        rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Did you choose to be glad?

        1. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I have no idea. I don't "believe" in Free Will, but the question is still open.

          1. rdcast profile image79
            rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As a believer in Jesus Christ, a time may come, as prophesied for some, when Antichrist forces might, might or might not being free will components, come to make me choose between denying my belief in Jesus Christ, or to have my head cut off. How should I choose?

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Whatever floats your boat?

              1. rdcast profile image79
                rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Is that sentiment the alternative to free will?

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There is no free will.

                  1. rdcast profile image79
                    rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    So that is your answer, as a product of deliberation.

            2. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Speaking personally, as I don't believe in the supernatural or prophecy, neither possibility concerns me.

              Understand that, whether Free Will exists, or whether it doesn't, all of my responses will be the same, whether I am merely proceeding as if it exists, or whether it actually exists.

              Either way, I don't know the answer.

              1. rdcast profile image79
                rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Is this to say, by virtue of not having a second choice to revoke the first, that makes it fate?

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not certain that I understand your question, but I don't believe in fate, either.

              2. rdcast profile image79
                rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I should say, whether or not the possibilities you're not concerned with, may or may not have anything to do with supernatural influence
                , yet they could still exist, presenting a dilemma.

                1. profile image0
                  Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  They might be a concern me in the sense of ultimately affecting me, but they aren't a concern in the sense of causing me worry.

                  1. rdcast profile image79
                    rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Worry is a product of choice.

  6. rdcast profile image79
    rdcastposted 5 years ago

    "Book Description
    Publication Date: March 6, 2012
    A BELIEF IN FREE WILL touches nearly everything that human beings value. It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion.

    In this enlightening book, Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.
    "

    New publishing, very nice. But one-by-one: A good start until it resolves it's dissimulation with, "the facts tell us that free will is an illusion". He might have well stated, "the facts tell us that everything came from nothing". Dear Mr. Forum Creator, if intelligence is an illusion, what can we make of the empirical process? Further, when he states, "this truth about the human mind". Such statements reveal the usurping of unfounded truth, as unassailable. And here, "does not undermine morality". Either he is unwittingly revealing an obvious agenda, or he thinks ill of the spiritual minded masses' ability to discern. And here we have it, "can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life", http://youtu.be/4t6HZKrLdNI When dark things slither from beneath rocks, let the light suffer them.

    1. rdcast profile image79
      rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The term "argument" should be defined among gentlemen as presented in Dictionary.com:
      noun
      1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
      2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
      3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
      4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
      5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

      You see? Unless you invasion our discourse as defined by #1, then yes, you have been engaged in arguing your points.

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The term "argument" should be defined among gentlemen as presented in the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition: "To give evidence, furnish proof, that."

        I am arguing now, and I did subsequent to your "one doesn't win arguments by ignoring reason" post. Our dialogue prior to that barely qualified as Show N Tell.

        Further, it is ludicrous to claim that I was arguing anything when I made clear my own uncertainty:

        "I have no idea. I don't 'believe' in Free Will, but the question is still open."

        And:

        "Either way, I don't know the answer."

        I have NO IDEA whether we have Free Will, as should have been plain from one of my earliest posts:

        "For the record, the only thing that I was "doing" was raising a question about Free Will, without being explicit about it."

        Whether you understand this or not, and whether you believe it or not, I participate in forums to learn, not to argue. Often, argument is the medium, but that is not my purpose in frequenting HubPages.

    2. profile image0
      Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He might have told us that the facts tell us that everything came from nothing, if  the origin of the universe had been his topic. However, he didn't, so no thank you, I've had my fill of red herring.

      Harris is either presenting facts, or he isn't. He tells you what he has resolved as true, and then he explains why. He either persuades you, or he doesn't. Of course, he has underlying motives -- an agenda -- or he wouldn't have written the bloody book. Do you commonly write books without motive? Do you post to HubPages without motive?

      You certainly aren't tentative in your own assertions of truth, based on the evidence of your intemperate language, "I grow weary hammering you with the bleeding obvious." if it was bleeding obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion, unless you are so arrogant as to believe that there is no possibility of your own error (which unsurprisingly seems to be what you are accusing Harris of).

      1. rdcast profile image79
        rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, you work me so.

        The creation emittance was allegorical to his hope that the reader might have indifference toward his process of indoctrination and I eat herring, not shovel it.

        Concerning him presenting facts? He isn't, else his resolved truth would indeed be unassailable, which truth, in and of itself, will continue to defy him of this. Did I mention motive? I don't remember having done so, but if you're trying to point out that I sin, even within my aruments, you're right on the mark.

        Please forgive my intemperance. Vanity is relentless to rule. Fact is, I'm up for the fight and will not faint and the only thing bleeding is my dry wit. Arrogance? What else is new? Again, I tip my hat to able vanities. I hope we can avoid rehashing these matters, for the sake of progress. Otherwise, I might view it as an intentional distraction.

        Your use of the term "error" seems without context. If I must deal with it as is, then you-win-I-lose, cheater! Pearl Jam - Indifference

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Thing is, you're not witty or clever. Merely obnoxious.

          1. rdcast profile image79
            rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And you're short winded, kind of a hit-n-run mentality and how dare you devilishly confuse wit, being synonymous with humor, for twisting that intent of the word with "witty or clever". Those are entirely your word usage, introduced in accordance with your own inadequacy to communicate.

            My apologies if I do offend.

        2. profile image0
          Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          In my worldview, there are no unassailable truths, but I don't begrudge someone - in a formal argument -- pretending that there are.

          In a formal argument, one often begins with a statement like this one:

          "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its doohickey allotment to manufacturers of thingamajigs."

          Harris was writing a formal argument in a style appropriate for a general audience. I still don't begrudge him his pretense of unassailable truths.

          You mentioned motive when you mentioned agenda, which is the same thing. The word "agenda" means "underlying motive," which is the phrase that I used.

          I forgive you for your intemperance.

          As for my use of the term "error" being without context, how so? The sentence which contained it provided its context.

          1. rdcast profile image79
            rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Let's go last first here. When you referred to my own error, you failed pointing out the error. Reading minds isn't one of my talents and thanks for your Christ like quality of forgiveness.

            And so I did mention "agenda". My apologies again.

            As you point out,
            "Harris was writing a formal argument in a style appropriate for a general audience. I still don't begrudge him his pretense of unassailable truths."
            Mr. Harris should be called out on this maneuver.

            I'll cry uncle on the "argument" issue.

            And last but by no means least, In my, Heavenly Father's Kingdom view, all His truths are and forever shall be unassailable.

            1. profile image0
              Chasukposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I see now that my phrasing may have been confusing.

              My sincere apologies.

              I wrote, "If it was bleeding obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion, unless you are so arrogant as to believe that there is no possibility [of your own error.]"

              Replace the words in brackets with "that you were mistaken."

              1. rdcast profile image79
                rdcastposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Ahhh, I see it so clearly now. Thanks for idiot proofing it for me. Fact is, past and future errors are a given. I don't know of a single topic where I'm considered the best mind on. So yea, stay on your toes and you might find a few. Ever been on an Easter Egg hunt?

 
working