Is 'choice' a choice?

[Narz]

That wasn't simply said. What are you talking about?

, you're right, remind me not to start with "simply said" anymore.

What I meant was - life happens, we have lessons to learn (destiny), but we control how and in what way we learn them (free will).

Better?

 

[Sidhe]

How would we know what we are going to do unless someone reveals it to us? It is only once we know of our future that we do not have a choice in it, but until then, we have free will unitl that day.

You just don't get the idea of free will.

even if we don't know what will happen in the future if it is already set then there is no free will, you just have to accept that is true, and that you are imprisoned by the unchanging fate God has determined for you, you may have an illusion of free will because you are unaware of the future but the illusion of free will is all it is, your plodding from x to y and you have no choice in the route you take, you may believe you do, but you don't that's just the way things are with the divine omniscient argument, people are still debating it now, but no one has yet worked out how you can jemmy free will into the deal. Good luck to you if you think you can, I personally can't see that omniscience and free will can exist simultaneously unless you change the terms of Gods omniscience, you know go back to the OT version of God or just limit his omniscience in some manner. Like the suggestion by arab philosophers that God only sees the ends not the means, ie he's hazy on the details, but knows what will happen ultimately. There's plenty of stuff on the internet about the debate, if you want to get involved in the philosophical issues. I remember reading an arab web site where this came up and in the end they resolved it didn't matter that they didn't have free will, because what they did have was better.

 

[ChrTh]

You just don't get the idea of free will.

even if we don't know what will happen in the future if it is already set then there is no free will, you just have to accept that is true, and that you are imprisoned by the unchanging fate God has determined for you, *snip*

That presumes that if there is a God, He has determined any sort of fate. Despite certain austere authorities in contradiction to the idea, maybe God does indeed roll dice. I mean, He's God, He can pretty much do what He wants, right?

EDIT: In all seriousness, guys, we're falling off-topic. What we're looking at here is whether individual choices can actually said to be choices, or whether there are countless influences that guarantee the same choice will be made every time. Whether there's a meta-factor is really outside the discussion--I'm more interested in the individual.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

You can't prove it though. (and don't drag God into it, whether or not God exists has nothing at all to do with it)

I believe in free will.

It's not a matter of believing or disbelieving, everything that cannot be proven must be assumed not to exist. Unless you want to be irrational - that's cool but then don't presume to make rational arguments.

People who believe in free will are generally more successful than people who don't.

People who believe in Heaven are happier, does this prove Heaven exists? Fallacious argument.

Regarding the all-knowing God issue, just maybe God has simply forgotten what will happen next?

For God there isn't a "next," he created the entire history of the universe at once, because he exists outside of time.

This is a pretty bold statement. I seem to be forgetting where the bible delved into the FOURTH DIMENSION. But anyway, that seems like a cool chapter, got a referance?

The Bible already says that God exists outside of space (many specific places, 1 Kings 8:27 is one such). As Einstein discovered, time and space are both dimensions of the universe. If the Bible says God cannot be contained by the inherent characteristics of the universe (meaning space), it's safe to say that time and any other dimensions we have yet to discover are also included.

I'm not a very Bible-centered person. A less Scriptural (and not surprisingly, more common-sense) answer to your objection is simply that since God created the universe, and time is a fundamental characteristic of the universe, God existed before time existed, and therefore created all of time when he created time. In other words, he exists outside of time, viewing all history at once.

The one thing about "God knowing everything" that I have a slight issue with is the semantics of "knowing". Does God actually know, or does he have the ability to know?

I would say that it is impossible for God not to know. God could have created any one of an infinity of different universes. He had to choose one specifically to create, with both time and space as inherent dimensions whose full extent were revealed to his omniscience. And thus God pre-approved the entire history of the universe before it happened.

 

[ew0054]

I think that we have free will, but are in some way conditioned by our environment.

Yet what if everything that comprises the environment around us, the chemicals, atoms, monerals, etc., are all working on conjunction with one another, such that every reaction that takes place is a direct result of another, down the the brain chemistry itself. Thus it would follow that "choice" and actions of human beings are nothing more than the innate result of atomic reactions, and therefor our entire psyche is merely on a taxi ride through a predetermined adventure of endless reactions, one which we are made to beleive that we are controlling its outcome when in fact it is determining us? Should it not be said that my very thought, and its manifestation in my mind, and ultimately presented to you, is nothing more than the result of an immensely complex string of chemical and atomic reactions thereby presenting the illusion of control and choice to our soles?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Should it not be said that my very thought, and its manifestation in my mind, and ultimately presented to you, is nothing more than the result of an immensely complex string of chemical and atomic reactions thereby presenting the illusion of control and choice to our soles?

Precisely... the illusion of free will.

The choice is up to us, not God. He does not tell us to this and that and when he does say that we should be doing things, most people will do the exact opposite. Because God knows, since he has seen all time before and thus he will know everything, but we are inside of time and thus things are happening to us right now that we do. We do not know exactly what will happen in the future thus the future is not set for us because we are continually living it.

Yes, from our perspective it appears as though we our exercising personal wills and making free choices. However if you accept the premise of an omnipotent omniscient God, this is quite logically a total illusion.

Let me give you an example - it appeared to Adam as though he was making the free choice to take and eat the apple in the garden of Eden. But this choice didn't actually exist since God had already created the universe, with all its history, including the event of Adam eating the apple, being punished, etc.

I'll go back to my illustration. Are you going to say that Hitler has no free will since we know exactly what he did?

You can't compare our perspective to the perspective of God. We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

God didn't create "Hitler." When you are talking about "Hitler" you mean Hitler in spatial terms, three dimensions only, with the implication that Hitler's life was under Hitler's control. God really created "Hitler's life," time and space, everything Hitler said, Hitler did, Hitler thought, and Hitler was.

So did Hitler have no free will? Absolutely. Did God intend for Hitler to do everything he did. Again, inescapably so... as long as you accept the premise of an omnipotent omniscient God.

Basically, IF you accept that premise, God IS Hitler, and God is also all the concentration camp victims and all the soldiers who fought in WWII. They were all manifestations of how GOD wanted the universe to be, exactly: direct expressions of God's will. Everything Hitler did was pre-signed and pre-approved by God. He didn't have any more free will than a puppet does. Similarly, when the Nuremburg trial hung most of the Nazi war criminals, neither the Americans nor the Nazis were exercising free will.

I should add that in the cosmic scale, if we are going to evaluate God this way, He has done a LOT worse than the Holocaust.

 

[ew0054]

Precisely... the illusion of free will.

Indeed. And not merely free will in the sense of society, but in the sense of everything that comprises the universe.

It in essence could be like an unimaginably complex computer simulation. Once the initial parameters are set, and every possible event-handling algorythm programmed, the simulation is "let loose" to run on forever.

And we are but mere bits in an endless string of data.

 

[Narz]

It's not a matter of believing or disbelieving, everything that cannot be proven must be assumed not to exist.

That sounds pretty irrational to me actually. I've never seen Mars, shall I assume they are making it up?

What does a person know besides his own experience? You can't tell me you take nothing on faith. Well, actually you can, but without proof I certainly won't believe you.

Unless you want to be irrational - that's cool but then don't presume to make rational arguments.

Rational, irrational, what are they but labels? We all do the best we can based on what we know. And really, what do we know? Most of our so called knowledge is heresay. Wikipedia or a rumour from a friend of a friend, neither is verified in our own experience. Conventially wisdom is generally flipped on it's head sooner or later. Wait for other people to gather your so called proof for you and you'll always be following behind.

There's nothing more irrational (albeit highly amusing) than a man who thinks he's entirely rational.

 

[Narz]

And we are but mere bits in an endless string of data.

Not me homes, I'm a exabyte.

 

[Narz]

One more thing, Pon Pil, I never claimed to presume to be making any kind of "rational argument" . I'm just having fun here. How 'bout you?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

That sounds pretty irrational to me actually. I've never seen Mars, shall I assume they are making it up?

What does a person know besides his own experience? You can't tell me you take nothing on faith. Well, actually you can, but without proof I certainly won't believe you.

So there is a conspiracy of astronomers who invented Mars? (Actually Mars is visible with the naked eye).

When I mention something "being proven" I don't care whether it is your own empirical proof or somebody else's. Any empirical proof conducted by anybody that could potentially be reproduced must be inherently trusted. Unless you want to be totally paranoid. You are presenting yet another fallacious argument...

Rational, irrational, what are they but labels?

Um... modes of thought?

Wait for other people to gather your so called proof for you and you'll always be following behind.

So can you trust nobody? Human knowledge must start over every generation? If you didn't see it with yer own eyes, it's someone defrauding you?

Or is it simply that you have a rather stupid paranoia in regards to "conventional knowledge"? Your last contribution to this forum was scare-posting the thread about the woman who got amputated in a hospital. OH TEH NOES ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE WILL KILL YOU!

Seriously, I hope that you never get cancer. You'd probably try to cure yourself with leeches, scented candles and magic crystals.

If you question the validity of the empirical method we have nothing more to discuss. Which is good because this thread is already drifting far afield.

 

[col]

I - and as far as I know other scientists - dont know where this thing called self-consciousness comes from or where it resides in the brain. Yet I 'know' I have it.

 

[Souron]

Just because choices are easy to make and pridictable by others does not make them any less of a choice.

 

[Ayatollah So]

How can I say? I just choose stuff, I don't know if its preordained that I choose it.

And you can relax, because you don't need to know if it's preordained. The important part is the part you do know - that you choose stuff. That is, you apply your intelligence to various courses of action and do the one that seems best to you. That deserves the label "choice" whether or not it has a fully deterministic causal history.

It's time to re-redefine "free will". We need to take back this term from the medieval theologians who inserted "indeterminism" into the definition in order to give their God an excuse for raising ill-behaved "children". Choice, in just the sense you used it, "I just choose stuff" - is all the choice we need.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally Posted by classical_hero
How would we know what we are going to do unless someone reveals it to us? It is only once we know of our future that we do not have a choice in it, but until then, we have free will unitl that day.

You just don't get the idea of free will.

even if we don't know what will happen in the future if it is already set then there is no free will

I think classical_hero gets the idea of free will half-right, and - here's the funny part - you're picking on the wrong half.

If a predictor doesn't reveal their prediction to you, it has no effect on you so it can't hurt your free will. If they do reveal it, you still need not take their word for it, no matter how accurate they have been so far, so, ordinarily, you would still have free will. I say "ordinarily" because obviously one way they could successfully predict your future is to throw you in a jail cell and say "I predict that tomorrow you will still be in this cell." I assume, however, that's not the kind of prediction y'all were talking about.

 

[warpus]

If there is no free will than someday perhaps human behavior will be able to be predicted based on genetics and the person's life experience.

I disagree - you might be able to estimate a person's behaviour, but you will never be able to say what he/she is going to do with 100% certainty.. this is due to the puzzling properties of quantum physics.

We do not know exactly what will happen in the future thus the future is not set for us because we are continually living it.

This is a poor example and does not help to reinforce your point.

1. We don't know what's going to happen in the future
2. The future has not been written

2. does not follow logically from 1.

The future could have already been pre-determined, but we simply might not know what that future is. Doesn't change the fact that it has been pre-determined.

Either way, aren't you arguing that it has been predetermined? How could God know the future if it hasn't been predetermined?

How would we know what we are going to do unless someone reveals it to us? It is only once we know of our future that we do not have a choice in it, but until then, we have free will unitl that day.

You aren't describing free will, but an illusion of free will.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Just because choices are easy to make and pridictable by others does not make them any less of a choice.

My most free choices have often been easy to make and predictable by anyone who knew me well. When all the reasons stack up on one side, my choice-making faculty works like a dream.

 

[LLXerxes]

Most choice is real, but the outcomes are already defined. Aside from that, there are some choices presented which are dictated by the questioner or by nature itself.
I hope what I said makes sense.

 

[Narz]

I disagree - you might be able to estimate a person's behaviour, but you will never be able to say what he/she is going to do with 100% certainty.. this is due to the puzzling properties of quantum physics.

I agree, there will be no way to predict human behavior 100%. Note I said "if there is no free will", since I don't believe that to the case we are not in disagreement.

 

[Mirc]

Somewhere between option 3 and 4.