• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

My Theory of Free Will

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,936
---
OK I will try to explain my view on why philosophy breaks down with matter.

Fundamentally matter is something we can perceive.

So in physics everything having matter has to by default interact with other matter.
Since the idea of soul has not qualifiers, ergo there are no actual parameters for soul or metaphysics the issue of material and non material are kind of hard.

For instance if we see a ghost. This means ghosts emit photons, and those photons activate eye sensitive cells in our eyes. Hence light is matter in form of photons.
We can argue that photon is just a super tiny wave, but we can measure it.

Thus anything in physics that can be measured is considered matter.

The true definition of matter inherently thus comes from the idea that all things are somehow connected. If this is so, it means if something is outside of interaction then it no longer is part of this universe as no matter what it does it will never influence anything material.
Hence the question is how does soul that is immaterial interact with body.
The answer is simply that it cannot.
In simple logic it means some part of soul if not all of it, has to be material.
But the word MATERIAL has different meaning in lets say 100 years ago and now days.
Now days we have awareness of quantum physics.
So the word material is used as "things" "immaterial" as ideas.

So actually we aren't dealing with a problem of understanding, but semantic problem of "what do we mean by matter"?

So I think a lot of modern cross-talk is created by people having different definition of phenomena.

To put simply people might even agree on stuff, but they tend to disagree what a word in category means.

Matter = energy in science. Energy = change in science.
So soul of human being with accordance with modern science is material.
Material (scientifically)=/= does not equal material ( spiritually vs physically).

I am not really a substance dualist myself, but I have a simple question to ask you about the matter of the soul: Where is the soul for the person?
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
Where is the soul for the person?
We have to find it.
But I believe its there.
We should not act like we know everything.
Here is interesting movie about this.
Just for fun, nothing serious.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
The easiest way I would define a soul from personal spiritual belief or rather what its not is "soul" is independent entity of our body, including emotions, mind, flesh, thoughts etc. The human body merely houses the soul.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
does not mean we understand why a brain has emotions

we understand why animals feel emotion

these impulses are evolutionary adaptations

that select for social fitness

and basic survival

it's not even slightly mysterious
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
The easiest way I would define a soul from personal spiritual belief or rather what its not is "soul" is independent entity of our body, including emotions, mind, flesh, thoughts etc. The human body merely houses the soul.

everything you experience


is software


or hardware


 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
Matter = energy in science. Energy = change in science.
So soul of human being with accordance with modern science is material.
Material (scientifically)=/= does not equal material ( spiritually vs physically).

ok,


do "spirit" and "physics" interact ?


if "yes" then


does "spirit" act purposefully or randomly ?


if "purposefully" then


it doesn't fucking matter if you want to call them "two substances"


they are functionally indistinguishable from "one substance"
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
does not mean we understand why a brain has emotions

we understand why animals feel emotion

these impulses are evolutionary adaptations

that select for social fitness

and basic survival

it's not even slightly mysterious

That was not the point.

What makes matter able to feel things within its own proximity.

Why can't God have emotions? God has the total of all things in his proximital awareness.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
ok,


do "spirit" and "physics" interact ?


if "yes" then


does "spirit" act purposefully or randomly ?


if "purposefully" then


it doesn't fucking matter if you want to call them "two substances"


they are functionally indistinguishable from "one substance"
Spirit and physics do interact in my understanding.
I think spirit does act purposefully. I don't actually think random constitutes real world
phenomena. Its merely a math concept.
I am not calling two substances. I would though say there is separate part of soul from the human body. Which is more belief, cannot actually justify that.
they are functionally indistinguishable from "one substance"
That was not the point I was making. But I wonder what you mean by "one substance?"
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
Why can't God have emotions? God has the total of all things in his proximal awareness.

god does not and has never needed to "adapt to its environment"

we have emotions to help us survive and propagate the species

we have emotions to guide us in situations where we can't predict the future

we cry because we didn't anticipate a tragic event

god knows everything ten million years before it happens


omniscient omnipotent god created all things

0un6fzcp7uy71.jpg
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
That was not the point I was making. But I wonder what you mean by "one substance?"

natural and supernatural are not in any meaningful way "separate"

Three-dimensional creatures do not necessarily interact with two-dimensional creatures but they can observe them and intervene in some aspects of their reality.

ExDyZ5d.jpg
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
natural and supernatural are not in any meaningful way "separate"
To make it clear we agree on semantics. I never used word supernatural.
I consider soul a phenomena of universe. A natural thing.
I do not claim to know whether this soul thing exists, as science.
Its a belief only.

So I was not actually saying I agree with dualism.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
Three-dimensional creatures do not necessarily interact with two-dimensional creatures but they can observe them and intervene in some aspects of their reality.

good example

the question is

are these interactions comprehensible

or

incomprehensible
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
Three-dimensional creatures do not necessarily interact with two-dimensional creatures but they can observe them and intervene in some aspects of their reality.

good example

the question is

are these interactions comprehensible

or

incomprehensible

I wonder how causality is even possible.

I do not understand it at the most fundamental level.

Might have to do with the collapse of attractor states? Gravity?
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
if you think the soul is natural phenomena

then you are a monist
Maybe. I never really read on monism.
My personal take on soul does come merely from experience, but the general gist of it is there more than meets the eye.
Read "more than meets the eye" as I am not sure.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
Free will doesn't work outside the framework of Christianity.

If you are a naturalist, there is no empirical way to define will, which is a word from a religious context. If you mean will by authority, then it simply means power, and in naturalist terms this means darwinian survival. If you displace Christianity from the scientific history, you are essentially going to starve yourself into Schopenhauer, who believed that the World was Will, which, given further philosophical development, will give you Mainlander, who promptly reasoned that humans have no rationale for life and then committed suicide. Or, you can go the Nietzschean way of breaking away with Schopenhauer, someone who eventually contributed nothing to the edifice of human civilization, going all the way back to step one, then going mad. Nietzche's corruption of German Christianity led to weakening its conservative bent, allowing the bloosming of Christian liberalism, which came about with Friedrich Schleiermacher, and evidently to Bismark, who united the German principalities, got himself exiled by the young prince, to which after WW1 happened.

Many non-Christians tend to speak of will as if it was some kind of shared word, as in with the secular, but we always have to be careful of words themselves. Buddhists call their temples 'churches' these days, and 'theology' now means 'the study of deities' rather than 'the study of God'.

If you take a look at this history of the doctrine of 'free will', to me, honestly, is nothing more than a jargon framework in order to make peasents believe that God had given them something extra, something more upon their sanctification. What I mean by this is that free will is a type of 'common grace' framework that leads laymen into understanding God's grace.

After Augustine, John Calvin kind of ran with it in a more analytical way, thus we get predestination and TULIP and the like. These are just expressions of serving God with all one's mind, which is a certain dimension of human extention.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
there is no empirical way to define will

well, "empirically" there are no definitions


but will would seem to be pretty well encapsulated by

"goal seeking in service of desire"


which means

that will can never be "free" from influence (causality)

since desire is always prerequisite and not considered "a choice"


this makes "free-will" a contradiction in terms
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
there is no empirical way to define will

well, "empirically" there are no definitions


but will would seem to be pretty well encapsulated by

"goal seeking in service of desire"


which means

that will can never be "free" from influence (causality)

since desire is always prerequisite and not considered "a choice"


this makes "free-will" a contradiction in terms

That's a decontructionist method which doesn't further our understanding. This means this definition is not knowledge.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
That's a decontructionist method which doesn't further our understanding. This means this definition is not knowledge.


saying "will cannot be defined" does even less to "further our understanding"

it is impossible to have a logical discussion

if you refuse to define terms
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
God's grace.

expressions of serving God with all one's mind

Grace can only happen when no obstacles are in the way of the control of one's body.

That means the ease at which one performs a task has no forceful opposition to it.

In essence, it is the flow state but in relation to the deity.

That is why Christian and other religious art have the halo.

But as one would know to get to that state one has to be free of mental illnesses.

And what causes one to be free of mental illness?

Well if one has ever felt the deity's presence or not has everything to do with how the brain structures itself. Many things can impede the function of the brain in relation to spiritual experience.

Spirituality is not something that can be induced by non-conscious rituals. A person has to have in some sense experienced what other entities are.

So if a person has never experienced love in the right way they have a deficiency in what they can experience. And if they cannot form a model of other beings in themselves via elation then that means they don't have the ability to coxs a belief in themselves that would be called a transformative event so there is no reason for their brain to start generating spiritual realties inside themselves.

Invocation is the prote-German word that originated the English word "God/Gud".

In being inside oneself and vocation being the job of the person they call forth.

The indwelling of the holy ghost is the same conceptual framework.

Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

So the relationship is when viewing God as a person the ability for the brain to resonate with the belief before any connection happens.

C.S. Lewis described his conversion to Christianity while riding in the sidecar of his brother's motorcycle on September 22, 1931. He wrote, “When we set out I did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God and when we reached the zoo I did”.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
is not knowledge

please present your personally preferred definition of "knowledge"
Begging the definition is usually what decontructionists do to sealion their way out of debating. This is why Derrida fell out of fashion the moment he passed away.

Knowledge begins a pool of shared knowledge. If infants were decontructionists, we'd probably solved metaphysics because they would know everything a priori (a high level joke, haha). But reality shows us that learning comes from an innate understanding and building of that knowledge, not through decontructing that knowledge. Studies in early childhood education have demonstrated this.

The one thing I can think of that's a good use of deconstruction is to optimally reconstruct, like Occam's razor. But we all know that's not what you're here for. As Derrida said: "There is nothing outside the text."
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
God's grace.

expressions of serving God with all one's mind

Grace can only happen when no obstacles are in the way of the control of one's body.

That means the ease at which one performs a task has no forceful opposition to it.

In essence, it is the flow state but in relation to the deity.

That is why Christian and other religious art have the halo.

But as one would know to get to that state one has to be free of mental illnesses.

And what causes one to be free of mental illness?

Well if one has ever felt the deity's presence or not has everything to do with how the brain structures itself. Many things can impede the function of the brain in relation to spiritual experience.

Spirituality is not something that can be induced by non-conscious rituals. A person has to have in some sense experienced what other entities are.

So if a person has never experienced love in the right way they have a deficiency in what they can experience. And if they cannot form a model of other beings in themselves via elation then that means they don't have the ability to coxs a belief in themselves that would be called a transformative event so there is no reason for their brain to start generating spiritual realties inside themselves.

Invocation is the prote-German word that originated the English word "God/Gud".

In being inside oneself and vocation being the job of the person they call forth.

The indwelling of the holy ghost is the same conceptual framework.

Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

So the relationship is when viewing God as a person the ability for the brain to resonate with the belief before any connection happens.

C.S. Lewis described his conversion to Christianity while riding in the sidecar of his brother's motorcycle on September 22, 1931. He wrote, “When we set out I did not believe that Jesus is the Son of God and when we reached the zoo I did”.
Hmm I would say this is a Buddhist conception. You can simply frame no obstacles as no obstacles to your own will. So as you well know, it's something that borders on soliplism.

But the case with you AK is that you don't exercise and engage with nature. Too much computer "zenning" is going to numb your brain into habitually dig into this habit.

Until you've come to realize that, the more endless you'll find in doing all this zen. I wonder if you've seen Rick and Morty, you'd probably like that show.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
Knowledge begins a pool of shared knowledge

ok

so when you say "That's a decontructionist method which doesn't further our understanding. This means this definition is not knowledge."

how is this not "knowledge"


also,


when you say "knowledge is a pool of shared knowledge"

you are using the term "knowledge" to define "knowledge"
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
Hmm I would say this is a Buddhist conception. You can simply frame no obstacles as no obstacles to your own will. So as you well know, it's something that borders on soliplism.

But the case with you AK is that you don't exercise and engage with nature. Too much computer "zenning" is going to numb your brain into habitually dig into this habit.

Until you've come to realize that, the more endless you'll find in doing all this zen. I wonder if you've seen Rick and Morty, you'd probably like that show.

I think that in reflection as Buddhism is about mentality or the science of mind, I am not saying other minds don't exist but that you cannot get in touch with a diety if you do not have the physiological ability to. You do not run fast if muscles are atrophied. Or if you are dehydrated you can lose consciousness and not know other people exist that way. God can't be known in the same way. Some people just do not have in them the ability to sense another mind called "God" and I know the reason because of physiology.

The body is in constant resistance against the environment and that is why it uses attention of attention to match what is coming into it to stabilize. He said people are happy with things as they are because it matches what is coming in at a consistent rate. Somehow an overwhelming experience can disrupt that equilibrium enough that recovery requires more attention than normal.

I already knew this from the video. I think it is the basis of self-awareness.

I have felt numb because the mechanism of attention was disrupted.

Sensation could not get to the core and that is a primitive necessary way for the system to protect itself. When the core is enclosed in a shell then that separates the function of the other subsystems. It becomes impossible to accept certain stimuli.

It is necessary to feel things at the center. So what is blocked must have a passageway opened up. Some kind of energy must be channeled into the right spots to break up the hardness. And in the case of other parts of the system, it must be firmed up.

In me, I have trust issues. I felt rejected so I would need to find someone to trust. but who and in what? First, it must be felt, the rejection, not suppressed. It must be embodied. Some things are okay to feel that I was not allowed to feel.

If I am allowed to feel things it is not that I have to act in a certain way or anything. I can be in control of myself but I am allowed to say yes or no or be silent. When people hurt you it seems that they are in control but it is not the case if you can say no.

It is important not to think you have no power. They cannot hurt you if you have the power of self-control. Self-control was damaged by something long ago that is not here right now so it does not matter.

If damage is the cause of all the problems it is important to know what and where it is to repair it. That cannot be done if you are in constant opposition to the world that disregulates you. The senses, the responsibilities, and social interactions. It is all in the body's connections.

What is it that I need to do is considered in those instances and they push and pull on us internally and show us what we can and cannot do. It is not easy when the internal forces will not allow us to do what we need to. It is these internal forces that need to be dealt with. To get them to flow with each other. We have poor circulation of psychic energies.

God's will seems to only be active in persons when certain physiological conditions are met. because those conditions affect how your will is able to connect with God's will.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,936
---
Free will doesn't work outside the framework of Christianity.

If you are a naturalist, there is no empirical way to define will, which is a word from a religious context. If you mean will by authority, then it simply means power, and in naturalist terms this means darwinian survival. If you displace Christianity from the scientific history, you are essentially going to starve yourself into Schopenhauer, who believed that the World was Will, which, given further philosophical development, will give you Mainlander, who promptly reasoned that humans have no rationale for life and then committed suicide. Or, you can go the Nietzschean way of breaking away with Schopenhauer, someone who eventually contributed nothing to the edifice of human civilization, going all the way back to step one, then going mad. Nietzche's corruption of German Christianity led to weakening its conservative bent, allowing the bloosming of Christian liberalism, which came about with Friedrich Schleiermacher, and evidently to Bismark, who united the German principalities, got himself exiled by the young prince, to which after WW1 happened.

Many non-Christians tend to speak of will as if it was some kind of shared word, as in with the secular, but we always have to be careful of words themselves. Buddhists call their temples 'churches' these days, and 'theology' now means 'the study of deities' rather than 'the study of God'.

If you take a look at this history of the doctrine of 'free will', to me, honestly, is nothing more than a jargon framework in order to make peasents believe that God had given them something extra, something more upon their sanctification. What I mean by this is that free will is a type of 'common grace' framework that leads laymen into understanding God's grace.

After Augustine, John Calvin kind of ran with it in a more analytical way, thus we get predestination and TULIP and the like. These are just expressions of serving God with all one's mind, which is a certain dimension of human extention.

Is this the first time you have entered the thread? I would be curious what you think of my view of free will. I'm interested to know what you think of the idea that free will is not grounded in a secret power separate from any moral underpinning, but the ground is what is true. In a sense, I believe in free will, but it is different because I try and ground it in something besides a secret power. If you have any questions about my view, feel free to ask.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,936
---

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
Yes. I guess, one way to explain things is this.
I would for one say that the next thing I say should be taken with reserve.

For instance when people say be in present moment.

What is being in present moment is my subjective sense of self.
My sense of self can actually be compromised in many ways.
I could be blind, or in shock, or tired or drunk or many other things which would completely compromise my sense of self.
In and of it self whether I am in coma or sleepwalking I am always trapped in the current moment.
Even so my brain might or might not be fully aware of it.
My human though travels through every moment nontheless.
What is interesting is that intuitively we are exposed through all things we experience to some weird order of things. This order often expands beyond our comprehension.
For instance tangible things are few. Beyond that our brains have greater subconscious awareness. But even beyond unconscious there seems to be some orderly feature of our subjective self passing through time.
As if there being order.
Now this it self is not actual evidence of anything.
But for instance one can conceptualize reality as something created in front of one eyes. Much like in games where beyond certain horizon the player actually has no view, as the computer still failed to generate the open world.
In the extreme polar opposite I could view all moments as discrete moments that have no cohesive meaning. We humans with our awareness are able to accept the passage of our present self from past through present into future.
However as we pass through every moment we can somewhat intuitively see there is kind of order to every eventuality.
I don't mean just coincidences, or merely simply trivial laws, of physics and stuff.
I mean there seems to be this emerging knowing that there is something more to this whole thing.
Now I don't exactly want to be mystical here. I mean it in non mystical sense.
Yes there is sense of vague mystery.
But for what its worth, this idea that world happens merely the way it does does not seem to follow from my experience of human condition awareness.
There is just this "I don't know what" factor to everything.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
But for instance one can conceptualize reality as something created in front of one eyes. Much like in games where beyond certain horizon the player actually has no view, as the computer still failed to generate the open world.

PHANERON
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,936
---
Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

No, grace is not merely intellectual ascent. That is categorically not a Christian idea. Read the Beatitudes.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

No, grace is not merely intellectual ascent. That is categorically not a Christian idea. Read the Beatitudes.

You need to take into context everything I said in that post and the post where I responded to @onesteptwostep Anything spiritual cannot happen without some basic physiological condition in place. If you experience God or whatever spiritual force there is then it is in relation to having the ability to connect as a person with them. Some people just lack the basic physiology to interact with God as a person. And whatever you mean by "grace" what I mean is that you don't experience it without that connection.
 

Old Things

I am unworthy of His grace
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,936
---
Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

No, grace is not merely intellectual ascent. That is categorically not a Christian idea. Read the Beatitudes.

You need to take into context everything I said in that post and the post where I responded to @onesteptwostep Anything spiritual cannot happen without some basic physiological condition in place. If you experience God or whatever spiritual force there is then it is in relation to having the ability to connect as a person with them. Some people just lack the basic physiology to interact with God as a person. And whatever you mean by "grace" what I mean is that you don't experience it without that connection.

It's not a "spiritual force"; it is the Holy Spirit.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 2:50 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
Grace is what happens when you have no brain damage and when you can induce from a belief that the deity exists and that they are a person and that as an entity (person) that sees hears and knows that you exist.

No, grace is not merely intellectual ascent. That is categorically not a Christian idea. Read the Beatitudes.

You need to take into context everything I said in that post and the post where I responded to @onesteptwostep Anything spiritual cannot happen without some basic physiological condition in place. If you experience God or whatever spiritual force there is then it is in relation to having the ability to connect as a person with them. Some people just lack the basic physiology to interact with God as a person. And whatever you mean by "grace" what I mean is that you don't experience it without that connection.

It's not a "spiritual force"; it is the Holy Spirit.

And neurophysiological conditions must be in place to commune with it.

Those conditions are not met by certain persons and they do not commune with it.

Under grace, a person finds peace and love from that person (The Holy Spirit).
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
Free will doesn't work outside the framework of Christianity.

If you are a naturalist, there is no empirical way to define will, which is a word from a religious context. If you mean will by authority, then it simply means power, and in naturalist terms this means darwinian survival. If you displace Christianity from the scientific history, you are essentially going to starve yourself into Schopenhauer, who believed that the World was Will, which, given further philosophical development, will give you Mainlander, who promptly reasoned that humans have no rationale for life and then committed suicide. Or, you can go the Nietzschean way of breaking away with Schopenhauer, someone who eventually contributed nothing to the edifice of human civilization, going all the way back to step one, then going mad. Nietzche's corruption of German Christianity led to weakening its conservative bent, allowing the bloosming of Christian liberalism, which came about with Friedrich Schleiermacher, and evidently to Bismark, who united the German principalities, got himself exiled by the young prince, to which after WW1 happened.

Many non-Christians tend to speak of will as if it was some kind of shared word, as in with the secular, but we always have to be careful of words themselves. Buddhists call their temples 'churches' these days, and 'theology' now means 'the study of deities' rather than 'the study of God'.

If you take a look at this history of the doctrine of 'free will', to me, honestly, is nothing more than a jargon framework in order to make peasents believe that God had given them something extra, something more upon their sanctification. What I mean by this is that free will is a type of 'common grace' framework that leads laymen into understanding God's grace.

After Augustine, John Calvin kind of ran with it in a more analytical way, thus we get predestination and TULIP and the like. These are just expressions of serving God with all one's mind, which is a certain dimension of human extention.

Is this the first time you have entered the thread? I would be curious what you think of my view of free will. I'm interested to know what you think of the idea that free will is not grounded in a secret power separate from any moral underpinning, but the ground is what is true. In a sense, I believe in free will, but it is different because I try and ground it in something besides a secret power. If you have any questions about my view, feel free to ask.

I don't really have much thought on it, but I just think it's an interesting schema that uses the 5 question words to frame worldview.

It reminds me of Kierkegaard's 3 stages of life: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kierkegaard/idea-aesthetic/

The aesthetic, ethical and religious stages.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
Knowledge begins a pool of shared knowledge

ok

so when you say "That's a decontructionist method which doesn't further our understanding. This means this definition is not knowledge."

how is this not "knowledge"


also,


when you say "knowledge is a pool of shared knowledge"

you are using the term "knowledge" to define "knowledge"

You are focusing on the 1s and 0s and missing the meaning.

When I used knowledge in the first part I mean understanding from the first person, as in the singular or particular man. When I used knowledge again, I said 'shared knowledge' which is what kids come into contact with as they know more about the world.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
You are focusing on the 1s and 0s and missing the meaning.

When I used knowledge in the first part I mean understanding from the first person, as in the singular or particular man. When I used knowledge again, I said 'shared knowledge' which is what kids come into contact with as they know more about the world.

if you can't tell me what "will" means

then you can't have a meaningful conversation about what "free-will" means
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 9:50 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
5,262
---
Location
Between concrete walls
I guess, not sure what this constitutes, but my explanation probably is poor, since what I am trying to describe is not something I ever made effort to describe in words.
I suppose what I am describing is awareness of sorts, but I never really put effort into explaining how my eyes work to other people. We generally agree that we see the world using eyes. We rarely talk to other people how or in what way we actually see things. I think we just kind of assume most of the time our perceptions work same way.
Anyway its hard to describe certain things.
Kind of like a funny meme can perfectly capture something that happens in life, better than say some ordinary words.

I think what my aim was describing the part of human perception where awareness of perceiving intersects with perceiver.

Or simply what I know (the sum of things what you pointed out as phaneron) to me experiencing the subjective. So I look, but the looking is done by me, and the in-between of the two things is some odd reality of it self.
Sort of vague, mystical, not sure what, but obviously this can be by product of say mind illusion.
I just think there is certain perceptual existence there but has meaning, is not bias.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Tomorrow 6:50 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 3:50 PM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
2,811
---
Perhaps if you want to know that, you'd go and explore the etymology of the word will and how that word was first used. The context and for what purpose.

GOAL SEEKING IN SERVICE OF DESIRE
 
Top Bottom