Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Morley]

As a lead in I referred to Victor Frankl earlier. No one here responded in regards to his expertise in psychiatry and his horrific experiences in the concentration camps.

Drumdude did. I will too.

I’ve read and like Viktor Frankl. I’ve also read and like Bruno Bettelheim, who wrote about the same thing. Neither were neuro-scientists. What more do you want me say about them?

[MG 2.0]

Does the 7 year old child of Mormon parents in Utah really have a free will choice about being baptised at 8 years old?

Does the born-in-the-the church married man, with a Mormon spouse, Mormon parents, a Mormon boss at work, and a social group entirely consisting of Mormons, have a free will choice about their religious belief and in attending church?

Do people have a free will choice about their sexuality?

Do people have a free will choice about what their native language is?

Genetics, nurture, experience and environment will ensure that you don’t make any decision based on pure cognitive freedom (free will).

An entry produced by Pi A.I. in regards to limited options as it relates to free will:

This is a philosophical question that has been debated extensively. Some argue that strictly limited free will is still a form of free will, albeit constrained. This is because even within limitations, an individual can still make choices. For example, a prisoner may not have the freedom to leave their cell, but they can choose how to spend their time within it.

Others contend that if free will is strictly limited, it ceases to be truly "free." This is especially true if the limitations are coercive or manipulative, as in the case of the Mormon child and baptism.

In the end, whether strictly limited free will is still considered free will depends on how one defines "free" and what level of constraint one is willing to accept as compatible with free will.

So again, as has already been mentioned, IHQ, there are limitations that may come in the way of being able to exercise complete free will. All of us have some if not many limitations placed on us. We’ve already determined that even within that framework (where external factors come into play)there are opportunities to choose, even if within the ‘lockbox’ of a reality not chosen by the person with restricted free will.

We live in a natural world where operational logistics of cause and effect does not lend itself to creating a utopia where everyone is on equal footing in regards to choice and opportunity.

The examples abound.

I think that the section I cut and pasted from I’mwashingmypirate’s post earlier stands on its own. It makes sense.

Pirate was responding to something I said at greater length.

We will always be able to find examples in which free will is restricted. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Often it is only operational within the ‘lockbox’. Those lockboxes can even be constructed and put into play in an organized religion that promotes and teaches free will as being paramount in God’s plan.

But there’s the rub. Parents have the free will to teach their children the importance of baptism. Communities may be overwhelming comprised of influences that sway beliefs and actions one way or the other…not just within Mormon communities. People are born into their native language.

But in and through it all, free will is still ‘a thing’.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Thanks, MG. If we want questions answered by A.I., we can ask them ourselves.

[MG 2.0]

So, you’re saying we have 100% free will?

I think that between what I’mwashingmypirate said and my responses to him, and other comments I’ve made, you have my answer. I didn’t attach a numerical valuation to something which is nigh unto impossible to accurately do so.

As much as you might like it to be cut and dried.

I’m still curious. Why is it that non religionists tend towards seeing the world through the lens of no free will?

I’ve brought this up a number of times now and I don’t think I’ve seen a response.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Thanks, MG. If we want questions answered by A.I., we can ask them ourselves.

I’m sure YOU can (but would you?). But many won’t. It expedites and puts the information in front of ALL of us so that we can then interact with and make comment/expound on that information.

It’s a help, not a hindrance.

If you were to post some information from a question you asked A.I. it doesn’t mean that I or others would have thought of and asked the same question.

Anyway, I’m exercising my free will as I determine where and how to access information.

But thanks for your recommendation/input.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps no true free will. But a choice is available. The consequences of the choices make them cost…
*snip

Good post. Interesting perspective. Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

So, you’re saying we have 100% free will?

I think that between what I’mwashingmypirate said and my responses to him, and other comments I’ve made, you have my answer. I didn’t attach a numerical valuation to something which is nigh unto impossible to accurately do so.

As much as you might like it to be cut and dried.

I’m still curious. Why is it that non religionists tend towards seeing the world through the lens of no free will?

I’ve brought this up a number of times now and I don’t think I’ve seen a response.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think they necessarily do. I know that I certainly don’t.

But then, I’m not sure what a non religionist is, either.

[MG 2.0]

But then, I’m not sure what a non religionist is, either.

From Pi A.I.:

A non-religionist, also known as a non-religious person, is someone who does not adhere to any particular religion or religious belief system. This term can encompass a wide range of individuals, including:

* Atheists: those who do not believe in the existence of any deities or higher powers.

* Agnostics: those who believe that the existence of deities or higher powers is unknown or unknowable.

* Secularists: those who believe that religious beliefs should not influence public life or government policy.

* Non-theists: those who simply do not have any religious beliefs or practices, but may or may not believe in the existence of higher powers.

Non-religionists often base their beliefs and values on secular sources, such as science, philosophy, or humanism, rather than religious doctrines or traditions.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

But then, I’m not sure what a non religionist is, either.

From Pi A.I.:

A non-religionist, also known as a non-religious person, is someone who does not adhere to any particular religion or religious belief system. This term can encompass a wide range of individuals, including:

* Atheists: those who do not believe in the existence of any deities or higher powers.

* Agnostics: those who believe that the existence of deities or higher powers is unknown or unknowable.

* Secularists: those who believe that religious beliefs should not influence public life or government policy.

* Non-theists: those who simply do not have any religious beliefs or practices, but may or may not believe in the existence of higher powers.

Non-religionists often base their beliefs and values on secular sources, such as science, philosophy, or humanism, rather than religious doctrines or traditions.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

It does not. I’m not after the opinion of Pi A.I..

[IWMP]

So, you’re saying we have 100% free will?

I think that between what I’mwashingmypirate said and my responses to him, and other comments I’ve made, you have my answer. I didn’t attach a numerical valuation to something which is nigh unto impossible to accurately do so.

As much as you might like it to be cut and dried.

I’m still curious. Why is it that non religionists tend towards seeing the world through the lens of no free will?

I’ve brought this up a number of times now and I don’t think I’ve seen a response.

Regards,
MG

I'm a female MG.