Exactly what is FREE WILL?

I think I would like to know what exactly happened to my first child said to have died.

Free will is the free exercise of choice, so you can choose to do what is necessary now in order to guarantee access to God when you exit this life, or you can choose not to bother and never be any the wiser. Can you see how free will works?

I would like to be rich and feed all the hungry.

You don't need to be rich to feed the hungry. Just rethink what you are doing with what you currently have and use your free will to CHOOSE to give more of it to those in need. You don't have to feed ALL the hungry, just start with the ones who come to you immediate attention.

I would like enough arms to hug all who need it.

Same as the last point. You don't need to hug everyone. Why not CHOOSE some of those who you currently stuggle to WANT TO to hug. You know, the ones whose personalities rub you the wrong way. Family members who you have fallen out with can often be in great need of hugs.

I would like all the answers to all of my questions.

You can always CHOOSE to exercise faith that all your questions will have answers if you WANT TO be part of God's family.

I would like perfect love in my personal life and in this world.

You can exercise your free will to CHOOSE to be reconnected to God or CHOOSE to stay disconnected.

I would like to meet Jesus (and Elvis)

Again, this requires the exercise of your free will in regard to faith. You will either CHOOSE to enter God's kingdom through Jesus and believe his promise that you will live again, or CHOOSE not to bother.

Yes, if were in prison I could think about breaking out, but if I had free will in the first place I would not be in prison.

I think you have the wrong idea about free will, Misty. The exercise of free will is what gets people into prision. However, if you found yourself there, then you could choose to exercise your free will in regard to how you spend your time, who you would connect with, what you could do about your future once you have served your sentence, etc.

No, I did not say we do not have free will because we poop, but that it is programmed into our systems, so we poop when our systems determines and alerts us.

Yes, pooping is a programmed necessity, but there is still much room for the exercise of free will in regard to pooping. People exercise their free will in terms of the condition of the toilet when they have finished their poop, CHOOSING to clean up the mess they create in the bowl, or CHOOSING to leave it for some else to do. You can also CHOOSE to wash your hands, or not bother.

I would not choose to be programmed to die- would you? True free will would be unrestricted not confined and limited.

Seeing that I was not born perfect, there are aspects of my genetic wiring that require a degree of stuggle to keep under control. My free will allows me to CHOOSE to engage in that struggle or not to. I CHOOSE to engage in the struggle because God tells me it is of greater long term profit than not struggling and I choose to TRUST God's wisdom. The exercise my free will also allows me to TRUST that dying will bring me into a future state of existence without the need of such struggle.

TRUST does not exist in the absence of free will.

Cheers, enegue

Sometimes I find that considering non-humans removes a little of the mist. An amoeba is a single-celled animal that survives by enveloping food, and reproducing asexually. In doing this, it demonstrates as much free will as we have. However it cannot sit back and debate whether or not it is exercising free will. Free will is a property of all living organisms. Rocks etc. do not have free will. Free will is the ability to move to effect your immediate environment. It does not mean you are exempt from the laws of nature, but it does mean that you can use the laws of nature for your benefit.

Morning enegue,

You could have saved a lot of space by just making one comment instead of saying the same thing over and over again after breaking up all my sentences. You clearly know NO more about free will than the rest of us.

You said "Trust does not exist without free will". Lie. A baby has no free will but trusts it will be fed if it cries. I can think of many more examples but no need.

Are you a preacher? Sound like one. True free will would be uninhibited, not a few choices within boundaries. Your answers seem to assume I am a heathen? Assumptions are dangerous and reveal your own lack of control of your limited choices.

No wonder you wanted me to answer your "questions", you wanted to blow out your own hot air! Hope the release made you feel better.

Sometimes I find that considering non-humans removes a little of the mist. An amoeba is a single-celled animal that survives by enveloping food, and reproducing asexually. In doing this, it demonstrates as much free will as we have. However it cannot sit back and debate whether or not it is exercising free will. Free will is a property of all living organisms. Rocks etc. do not have free will. Free will is the ability to move to effect your immediate environment. It does not mean you are exempt from the laws of nature, but it does mean that you can use the laws of nature for your benefit.

I agree with your last sentence, James. Misty seems to think that free will is the same as freedom from consequence. However, as you say we are not exempt from the laws of nature.

Every choice we make creates a branch in the chain of events that makes up our life journey, and we are not prevented in any way from choosing from any of the options available to us at any instant. God tells us that one of the options available to us is to keep his commandments, which he promises will lead to abundant life. No-one is unable to exercise their free will to put him to the test.

In regard to amoeba, I don't believe they have the same capacity to choose the type of response to a stimulus that we do. For example, do you imagine them able to respond to a stimulus with anger, surprise, joy, amusement, or indifference?

Cheers, enegue

Yes humans have much much greater variability in their responses than amoebas. Would you be prepared to restrict your concept of God to the following, which removes some of the 'intellectually offensive' attributes. Mentally fabricate a concept which is responsible for the existence and design of humans, and label it God. This conceptual God would look very powerful but with limitations as exemplified by humans being eaten by lions, falling into quagmires, and having severe birth defects. He has been responsible for all sorts of adaptations that help us to thrive, so he is on our side. He is ancient by the standard of human life-times. All the adaptations and desires that God has put into us have helped us to succeed so well that we dominate the earth, hence he must be fairly wise. When we confront our feelings, emotions, desires and competencies, we will in a way be confronting God. Although the search for truth in the real external world has led to many useful advances, concepts that do not correspond to real external entities can also be enormously useful in the day-to-day life of humans, potentially such as the concept of God.

Sometimes I find that considering non-humans removes a little of the mist. An amoeba is a single-celled animal that survives by enveloping food, and reproducing asexually. In doing this, it demonstrates as much free will as we have. However it cannot sit back and debate whether or not it is exercising free will. Free will is a property of all living organisms. Rocks etc. do not have free will. Free will is the ability to move to effect your immediate environment. It does not mean you are exempt from the laws of nature, but it does mean that you can use the laws of nature for your benefit.

Hi James, I wrote you earlier this morning but I guess I should have waited to make sure the submit went through properly. So I will give it another go -

I like the amoeba example lacking free will. Rocks grow in size, roughness, change location so they have a type of life going on. No, rocks do not have free will. Neither does the amoeba, and neither do humans. You should talk to a child that has been abused and incarcerated by a lunatic parent/parents and ask him/her if they had the ability to "move to effect his/her immediate environment". Rocks and rock formations move all the time and effect their own and others environment, I.e. tsunami , volcanoes, etc.. Man has used the laws of nature for benefit, but they also die because of those same laws of nature. Free will implies without constraint or consequence. A choice has prerequisites and will have a consequence, but both the choice and the consequence has limited boundaries. Free will would not have prerequisites, consequence or boundaries. Free will would exist without being subject to anything.

-- Updated Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:37 am to add the following --

Sometimes I find that considering non-humans removes a little of the mist. An amoeba is a single-celled animal that survives by enveloping food, and reproducing asexually. In doing this, it demonstrates as much free will as we have. However it cannot sit back and debate whether or not it is exercising free will. Free will is a property of all living organisms. Rocks etc. do not have free will. Free will is the ability to move to effect your immediate environment. It does not mean you are exempt from the laws of nature, but it does mean that you can use the laws of nature for your benefit.

I agree with your last sentence, James. Misty seems to think that free will is the same as freedom from consequence. However, as you say we are not exempt from the laws of nature.

Every choice we make creates a branch in the chain of events that makes up our life journey, and we are not prevented in any way from choosing from any of the options available to us at any instant. God tells us that one of the options available to us is to keep his commandments, which he promises will lead to abundant life. No-one is unable to exercise their free will to put him to the test.

In regard to amoeba, I don't believe they have the same capacity to choose the type of response to a stimulus that we do. For example, do you imagine them able to respond to a stimulus with anger, surprise, joy, amusement, or indifference?

Cheers, enegue

Can't stand on your own two feet so you talk about me instead of to me! Your choice but a silly one.

Can't stand on your own two feet so you talk about me instead of to me! Your choice but a silly one.

You appear to be annoyed that I used your name in my last post to James. Your suggestion I can't stand on my own two feet implies that you believe I am trying to enlist his aid against you somehow. What if I were to reassure you that your name only came into my mind because, as I was reading James' post, it just struck me that your understanding of "free will" is what I would refer to as "freedom from consequence"? I can only guess that your past experience on forums has rendered you a little sensitive to the use of your name.

BTW, not all my comments regarding your suggestions were the same. A number had to do with faith, because only a couple of all your suggestions were related to DOING, most of them were related to KNOWING. The two that were related to DOING, i.e. giving to the poor and giving hugs, I gave some down to earth practical alternatives to your grand suggestions. Do you understand that you are always free to be a small participant in a grand venture - if you can't give money, give your time. Look at this amazing organization - ChildFund International.

What about a comment concerning this statement? Every choice we make creates a branch in the chain of events that makes up our life journey, and we are not prevented in any way from choosing from any of the options available to us at any instant.

Cheers, enegue

Can't stand on your own two feet so you talk about me instead of to me! Your choice but a silly one.

You appear to be annoyed that I used your name in my last post to James. Your suggestion I can't stand on my own two feet implies that you believe I am trying to enlist his aid against you somehow. What if I were to reassure you that your name only came into my mind because, as I was reading James' post, it just struck me that your understanding of "free will" is what I would refer to as "freedom from consequence"? I can only guess that your past experience on forums has rendered you a little sensitive to the use of your name.

BTW, not all my comments regarding your suggestions were the same. A number had to do with faith, because only a couple of all your suggestions were related to DOING, most of them were related to KNOWING. The two that were related to DOING, i.e. giving to the poor and giving hugs, I gave some down to earth practical alternatives to your grand suggestions. Do you understand that you are always free to be a small participant in a grand venture - if you can't give money, give your time. Look at this amazing organization - ChildFund International.

What about a comment concerning this statement? Every choice we make creates a branch in the chain of events that makes up our life journey, and we are not prevented in any way from choosing from any of the options available to us at any instant.

Cheers, enegue

1) The idea of free will is not the same as freedom of consequence 2)The phrase 'free will' is not in the bible 3) Your question was -what did I want to do that I do not feel free to do - followed with a hostile post #178. You assumed I don't DO the things within my limitations by giving me a list of things I can do which were on a smaller scale than my list to you. Did you expect me to give you a list of things I could do? I am quite aware of ChildFund and other charities and things to do on a small scale. I am not "free" to do my dream list. 4)You ask for a comment on the statement above - two words describes it - inaccurate and unknowable - choices are not the only criteria that make up a life - and no one knows what may prevent a choice in a persons life - Example - you are driving down the street, you can turn left or right, but a truck hits you head on and you die - your choice was prevented.

Free will is an illusion created by a Human mind that expresses culturally-nurtured defiance. We are inherently driven by our innate set of instructions just as every other animal. The illusion of choice is merely our inability or unwillingness to recognize our own instincts as being the choice made for us. We 'choose' what we've been designed to choose. I think if we possessed true free will we would not have made it this far as a species.

The majority view, however, is that we can readily conceive willings that are not free. Indeed, much of the debate about free will centers around whether we human beings have it, yet virtually no one doubts that we will to do this and that. The main perceived threats to our freedom of will are various alleged determinisms: physical/causal; psychological; biological; theological. For each variety of determinism, there are philosophers who (i) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (ii) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (iii) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will. (See the entries on compatibilism; causal determinism; fatalism; arguments for incompatibilism; and divine foreknowledge and free will.) There are also a few who say the truth of any variety of determinism is irrelevant because free will is simply impossible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

The above and the much larger article shows that the discussion on freewill has been ongoing for a long time, but I think it may help clarify the issues for some.

Regards, John.

Human action according to true free will, this is chaos. Human action according to innate impetus, this is society.

The idea of free will is not the same as freedom of consequence

If you believe this is so, why did you give the example of the head on collision with the truck? Because you want to be free from consequences. You don't understand that being hit by the truck before you could effect your decision, in no way affected your freedom to make the decision. You seem to believe the possibility of being hit by a truck needs to be removed in order for you to have free will. Consideration of consequences is at the core of what free will is all about. What are the chances of being it by a truck anyway? According to this insurance site, the chances are 1 in 200, which means it's highly unlikely that the exercise of your free would ever be thwarted in such a way.

You say, "A baby has no free will but trusts it will be fed if it cries.", but I have to ask, do you honestly think of yourself as a baby? Whether or not a baby has free will is not material to whether you have free will. It's irrelevant. Your desperation to prove you have no free will suggests you are tying to convince someone that you are not responsible for what you do. Maybe you are establishing a case for your defence before God, eh? I really don't think that will work, Misty. The things you do are the things that you WANT TO do: i.e, the things you FREELY CHOOSE TO DO.

The phrase 'free will' is not in the bible

So, when God says through Moses:
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deuteronomy 30:19

He was addressing a bunch of robots and asking them to perform a task that was not in their programming? Like God created a bunch of red lights and told them that life would be theirs only if they chose to shine green. Come on, Misty!

Your question was -what did I want to do that I do not feel free to do - followed with a hostile post #178. You assumed I don't DO the things within my limitations by giving me a list of things I can do which were on a smaller scale than my list to you. Did you expect me to give you a list of things I could do?

No, but responding with, "I would like to be rich and feed all the hungry" is unrelated to free will because it's not one of the options you can choose. If you DID have enough money to feed ALL the poor, then you could exercise your free will to do so or not to do so, but you don't so I made a suggestion that was within your grasp.

Free will is seen best in situations where you are asked to do something or asked not to do something - "Please place trash in the bins provided! or "Please don't walk on the grass!"

Rules!!!!

Cheers,
enegue

Misty,

If you are not just blowing hot air, please answer my question!

What do you want to do that you are not free to do?

Cheers, enegue

There is plenty that you might want to do that you cannot, such as fly. Sadly we are bound by the laws of physics to be able to do that which we are capable of. As this is well understood on the human level the myth makers that insist that our will is 'free' fail to imply this necessity to the level of the conscious brain. They assume that, in some way, the brain is capable of foregoing the necessity of cause and effect so that our actions someone do not need to comply with physics.

But as we are not capable of knowing a thing we have not learned, so we are not capable of following a course of action for which we are not determined. We are not capable of freely ignoring our experience, motivation, genetics, strength and resolve - and a whole host of complex causal factors for these also must comply with necessity. To assert that our will is in some way 'free' is to deny the person we have become by our own experience.

As Shop says' "we can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will. " Our will is determined, and it is who we are. To suggest free will is to suggest that we might escape ourselves.

Free will is an illusion created by a Human mind that expresses culturally-nurtured defiance. We are inherently driven by our innate set of instructions just as every other animal. The illusion of choice is merely our inability or unwillingness to recognize our own instincts as being the choice made for us. We 'choose' what we've been designed to choose. I think if we possessed true free will we would not have made it this far as a species.

It depends how you describe free will. If it is in human terms then how can you oppose it? If it for some impossible reason then even the concept becomes impossible. Any information you are imbued with has to be totally correct, any judgement you make would have to be free of experience, bias or biological interference. In fact you would not be able to exert your will let alone freely because you would have no reference. Just like a computer that can only make logical decisions on the information it has accumulated. It is not free to exert an illogical act of freedom. So yes we have free will but only in human terms, no matter how tainted it becomes.

As a wilful beings we humans, as with other animals, are active agents determined by their pasts. Adding the word "free" to the word will adds nothing but confusion and contradiction. Free from what?