There is no difference between freewill and determinism. What nature decides to do, is both what it wants to do and what it must do. It cannot will otherwise without being something it is not.
There is no external environment beyond nature to impose choices on nature. Nature does what it does because it is what it is.
In spite of our best efforts and “advancements” it masquerades itself as change by the inability of life cycles to explain its own existence.
Natures seems to have a will, or direction, but it cannot will differently or it would not be what it is. Nature couldn’t make different choices because it is what it is, not something else. It’s choices are a direct consequence of what it is.
Nature wills what it must will given what it is. But it does make choices. It couldn’t make different choices because it’s choices are a direct consequence of what it is. There is no distinction between freewill and determinism. We are always making choices but could not choose differently unless we were different. But nature is not different than it is because it is what it is—and we are what we are.
Here again we are given two choices that under further examination are either the same thing, or wrong. The abstraction of it all hints that we could have chose differently than we are, which we are not.
If you are somehow an agent outside of nature then congratulations —and explain to me how that is possible.
The point is not that you don’t choose. The point is that there is no “could have been”. This is a human extrapolation.
Could you have done anything differently than you did?
“Every now and then somebody’s eyes would roll back in their head, suddenly shake and fall to the ground, spasm and have a seizure. Believers had a scientific explanation for this—that the person had consorted with Satan and there was the medical intervention that you burn them at the stake”.
“It would have been inconceivable at the time for someone to accept that someday you would think completely different about that. It only took us about 300 years to figure out this was epilepsy”.
“It only took 50 years to figure out that lousy heartless cold mothers were not the cause of schizophrenia. And it only 30-40 years to figure out that laziness and lack of motivation is not the explanation for dislexia”.
“We’ve totally subtracted out the notion that Satan has anything to do with epileptic seizure and society hasn’t fallen apart”.
The more we learn about the biology of us the more clear it is that we have no freewill.
“Whatever our views are about blame and reward and all that stuff now, somebody in the future will be appalled at the confidence of the decisions we made in our ignorance”.
“400 years ago if you were the most thoughtful, reflective, educated, civic minded bleeding heart liberal you would explain the seizure as Satan. Then do your part with love and affection to rid Satan of his source puppet”.
Biology tell us that punishment for the way you were born makes no sense, but neither does praise and reward because it’s all dumb luck. The difference between you and a mass murderer luck. What else could you do if you were born or traumatized into that way of thinking?—
Below the bridge of faith is littered with the bones of those who thought they had it.
What is the difference between thinking you have faith and having it, for all you “never were a real Christian” people? There are no former believers—just atheists and agnostics who at one time thought they believed.
To investigate your faith means you’ve already lost it. To purposely eye the underpinnings is to admit you don’t actually trust it. Trust that!
Real faith is blind and those who actually think they see are most blinded by it. To profess your faith means you’ve already lost it and seek validation. Independence is a hard thing swallowed, but your faith was your own. It cannot be transmitted nor can it be hidden away in silence.
To dare into the infrastructure mean you have already outgrown it. The paradox lies in knowing, vs the insecurity of being quiet.
Real faith lies at the bottom, in the bones of those who dared to believe and actually tested the words. Had they only done some research before buying and had dared to use reason and respond to that with honesty.
“Suppression of beliefs is detrimental irrespective of their truth status. If the belief is true, suppressing it will hamper true descriptions of the world. If the belief is false, the assertion of false beliefs will lead to debate which in turn may lead to and deepen understanding of true beliefs. Finally, most of us can rarely see the whole truth, particularly when it comes to social, religious, and political discourse, so the only way of approaching it is through “reconciling and combining of opposites.” So whatever the epistemic status of a belief, suppressing it is harmful to the discovery of truth”—John Stuart Mill
If anyone truly had freewill it would be catastrophic.
Of course we have free will. We have no choice but to have it—Christopher Hitchens
If freewill exists then god doesn’t. If god exists verything ever done has been pre approved. Not one can escape the tools they have to work with.
One may think they can circumvent the rules but that is also part of the rules. opening a new door in the game is still in the game. To know it is such the thing.
“When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not measuring the world, we are creating it. Nothing exists until it is measured.”—Niels Bohr
We now live in a thoroughly measured and mapped environment and that is our reality. That things are long or short, thick or thin or have borders, isn’t truth without the yardstick. We keep pressing this attitude yet nothing can be accurately explained. Freewill is no exception and is probably the wrong question.
The fall of man and his separation from Eden is the naming and outlining of animals, places, and things like they are somehow separate—where sapiens slipped into a fixed and measured reality. It is not actuality why or what the world is.
Your freewill is to think it is such. Marking the territory with official titles and fences is exercising freewill while simultaneously destroying it. But I suspect evolution has something to say about this. Because if evolution is thoroughly true, we are in charge of nothing.
At this point of the game if anyone truly had freewill it would be catastrophic.
The ideas expressed in this post stem from years of accumulated stimuli
Are we making our own choices or just reactions to stimuli?
Imagine a moment you are a lonely nerve ending. All of the sudden something rubs against you—“are you there?” “Yes, I am here”. But it takes another to stimulate relational awareness. Without other there would be no way of identifying self existence. It is said by some that god (or the universe) would not know it is god because there is nothing outside of itself to bring it to awareness of itself.
On the other hand, identifying self by other is also as ambiguous an introspection, because what others think of you rarely adds up to what you think of you. All of us are simply reflections of our external world.
So what is the difference between commenting, hitting the like button, or just moving on? Do you have to agree to appreciate another point of view? I was accused at watchtower of trolling christian blogs. I responded that I only read two, usually hit the like button to appreciate their efforts, yet only comment occasionally if stimulated to do so. But for some the reward is bloviating what stimulation they incurred previously. That is trolling, fanaticism—a self aggrandized irritation.
You may comment or not, but that choice has already been made by the years of stimuli, or not. There may-be freewill, but it was captured in a bottle long ago the moment humans learned the art of civilization.
Can humans think instinctively? Freedom of choice is precisely the state of not choosing. What is freedom of choice, when choice is the analyzing act of hesitation while making a decision and ignoring the instinctive action that has the backing of evolution?
While being a decisive person is considered someone who doesn’t stop to decide, a paradox in the definition itself which pauses me to examine. Why do humans approach everything backwards, abandoning instinct when they seem to know better? Thinking and words may have us spellbound.
Your mind, brain, and consciousness (whatever you want to call it) arises or evolves of the very stuff your thoughts are trying to analyze. No wonder it is such an impossible puzzle. And to examine what we consider the world outside ourselves becomes equally as frustrating, because it isn’t outside yourself either, although you’re inside it. Until one can release the duplicity of examining the world as separate and hostile, it will be utterly and increasingly futile to segment the universe, matter, and consciousness into words and formulas. Is there a more wholistic approach?
Snoqualmie Tunnel Hike today–2.3 miles each way, of course
To treat our brain differently from any other organ that functions automatically without thinking, so too, the subconscious mind functions in an amazing way, unless you try to put effort to it—that thinking, the very specific and narrow channel of conscious attention with which we identify ourselves is the most unreliable means of examining anything, because what is, is being analyzed by the most unreliable portion of the human computer.
The scientific and religious approach, from the very beginning assumes we are separate from what we know to be true—that we are stardust, and to examine what you’re made of using what you’re made of, is a daunting task that should cause a laugh with absurdity, but instead causes contention because we fail to scratch beyond the conscious attention. It has to be examined by what we’re not made of—what is not obvious on the surface.
Thinking and what “should be” is a projection of the mind that creates an illusion of separation. Thought takes time; thought is psychological time that distorts the timeless.
“But were human”, you say, “we have to live in the world we have, with the tools we have”, you say, but the very art of approach from our infancy is at odds with logic and reason, combatting instinct and the underlying reality we have been trained to ignore in modern life. Laden with changing fact and pointless claims of progress, infighting, outfighting, constantly choosing from two wrong sides of beliefs that have us exactly and forever where we don’t want to be.
But human behavior without the thinking is most often heroic, while at the same time the hero says (s)he just did what anyone would do—yes, if they didn’t stop to think about it first.
And after analyzing all the data, the best inventions come by luck, not the scientific method at all. It is used much less frequently than it is lauded, and often used in backsplaining the discovery that was made by instinctive awareness–or luck.
It may feel good to think you have free will, but do you?
If we are born sinners by nature and regardless of our effort—subject to sin, we would have no freewill to be “sinless,” especially since we are intellectually damaged long before we understand concepts of evil in a religious sense.
Adam and Eve were created with the capacity for disobedience, but the real crime would be god creating men and women who are gullible, easily tricked by whimsical rules, clever speech, flattery (and shiny things) Whose fault is that?
”it is God that worketh in us to will and to do“—Phil. 2:13
Since god is using sin to accomplish his will, is it possible that sin is not evil at all, but merely a label of semantics—a certain set of arbitrary rules for the game? Only by the establishment of these random rules in which the human mind is ineptly programmed to adapt, sin would be the plan all along, manufactured by god.
As a non believer in any religions god, do I have the freewill to truly believe? Simply giving my mind to appease society or my own insecurities would ultimately be pretending to believe.
Then, if I do decide to believe—who cares? Hundreds of thousands of churches closed for the pandemic…I never noticed. Me thinks they have overrated their necessity.
Faith has no bearing on if we endure as a species, but it does have an impact on if we don’t. Belief is an arrogant default, distorted, misdirected void of reality, deceptive and skewed observations in favor of overreaching abundance and waste—this latest brand of hominids imagine great and unprovable things.
Somewhere in our past a neuron misaligned or is being used in an untoward affect—a synesthesia or other genetic misfortune hooked to ego and fear, then egotistic salvation and false-worth bred complacency—no one is coming to rescue us.
Unless a change is made the earth will one day be void of the chatter of men, void of human beauty and love—millennia’s of blank pages to be rediscovered in our fossil record by the next batch to rise aboriginal in the resilient and resurgent pools of DNA—life.
Consciousness transudes (1) from the living earth and directs DNA to build hospitable, organic environments driven by various levels of its potential—each one mapping out a resemblance to its capacity. Once an entity is no longer hospitable, the consciousness must leave the organism and death of that body occurs (this is easily observed). Equilibrium and the collage of consciousness recycles itself again and again, often shelved for myriads of time, dissipated into the atmosphere and elements—stored until conditions for organic life are met. Genetic epidemics like autism, cancer, and diabetes bear this out when skewed conscious determination maps a new life into forming with polluted potential.
Now the earth is overflowing with inhabitants struggling over a fixed amount of consciousness, with the dominant energies depleting the earth of its nature—not in its danger, but inflicting ourselves within this delicate, yet massive earth that will once again absorb its most acumen (2) nature shortly after our own bodies are no longer a suitable host to carry its potential—as we change our environment to become inhospitable to life, it will take millions of years to restore the balance for the rise of the next species.
While searching for the meaning of life outside of ourselves has been futile for thousands of years (and worth abandoning) through every rise and fall of hominids, one thing observable is true—the physical earth perpetuates and nurtures lifecycles—but only within a specific balance. We are sickly and getting worse. Is that any wonder?
Phylogeny tells us many lines have existed before. Human-like remains from the late Miocene period and the Pliocene era (7.5 and 5.3 million years ago) are not likely our ancestors, but different lines of hominid civilizations that appeared and disappeared, materializing at different places and times all over the globe—then gone. We too will be fossilized then followed by a resurgent, autonomic force that eminates from this unique speck in the galaxy. With some care we can make this ride last as long as we want—or not. Sapiens 2.0 may get the opportunity sooner than later.
(1) Transudes—to pass through a membrane or permeable substance
(2) Acumen—ability to reason, keenness, depth of perception, discernment, or discrimination especially in practical matters.
The image of god caste by the writers as a ‘perfect innocent’ of any wrong doing is in fact a type and shadow of the men of power. Who but the aspiring and entrenched ‘men of words’ can declare their innocence time and again from the same breath that inflicts? Who but god (the writers) can tip their hand in blood and horrors and and call it good? Even very good—Taking a stand against this entrenched deception is in fact the absolute morality the religious seek.
Bending your mind to appease a nefarious belief and honoring atrocious behavior through faith is an obvious sleight of hand played on the trusting minds of humanity.
How to dodge free will to filter good and bad ideas
Having thoughts come into your head by a long chain of incidental contact, can give one the strangest ideas, sometimes harmful, sometimes brilliant. It is then our responsibility to either foster the idea, or reject it. How do we do that if free will is at such a premium?
Is it a good idea to foster an idea that has no proof in reality, but is seen by many as an overall benefit to the species?
Religion is the idea that keeps giving (and taking) with unintended outcomes, that, not only don’t work for the skeptic, but they don’t work for the believer either.
There are no miracles
Prayer is never answered by a god
The idea of peace on earth has never materialized even with a majority citizenry and leadership.
Love is still at a premium
Where’s the bliss? Isn’t it time to show me the money, after taking so much of mine for so long?
Collaboration outside of your circle of belief is critical to sound reasoning. Occasionally I’ll throw out an idea to the group to get validation. Sometimes the post gets a lot of comment, but nothing directed at the idea itself (you’re all too kind sometimes) but when that happens I go back to the drawing board to adjust my thinking.
We may not have the free will to generate our own ideas, but do we (I hope) have the ability to foster them, or filter them? Do we have that choice? Is this filtering ability the difference between a skeptic and a true believer—or psychopath?
Recalling, computing, pondering, is overwhelmed by the datas you foster. Those conscious choices, what you read and watch, have a profound impact on our output. One can rarely consider something they’ve never heard of. Choose wisely my fiends.
Moralty comes from regions of the brain based on positive and negative input and our ability to process information. That being said, what is the governing force behind sexual morality?
An interesting study showed that societies where women were economically dependent in their relationships, frowned heavily upon promiscuity, while those that had less or no economic dependence on a male partner were less concerned with promiscuity. While religion tends to flourish in societies steeped in female economic dependence.
“Our results do imply a hypothesis for why religious and conservative ideologies themselves tend to be anti-promiscuity: because they emerged in environments characterized by high female economic dependence.
When abrahamic religion talks of the origins of morality, the rarely mentioned but main concern of morality is sexual purity in women. It’s origins are primal, and male dominant religious cultures genealogy is a keypoint. Same as the apes, it was all about maintaining control of food, territory, and sex. Keep the harem closely guarded.
By solely being born to a family of religious tendencies, I oft said things that made the greatest of past bigots roll over and groan. They weren’t my words but fathers. By sheer luck I was born to a fundamental Christian home that prospered according to strict obedience to biblical law as they had the most perfect sense about it. “Every jot and tittle” as they say, was of supreme importance and likely right as father whip would convince even the finest heathens of its truth.
Father partied and played the girls when he was young
Father came to Jesus and his freewill took our freewill away
Now we all obey god or else father whips us with a belt
I can quote scripture I learned as a young child that keeps me close to Jesus
When I am older my children will never see a bible because I don’t think people like being preached or slapped
Mother caught me playing with myself and I am going to hell with all the other filthy people
Jesus died because of me.
When I am older maybe my children will find god on their own. I hope not.
TheCommonAtheist 