Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

The problem you face, MG, is that everything you said about Sock Puppet applies to you. What you said here pretty accurately captures what I think about you:

I would like to think that you’re being honest with yourself and others but there is a part of me that doubts your sincerity and confidence in the path you’ve taken and are out to ‘convert’ others to your worldview/lifestyle.

And this is the part that really gives the symmetry away: "That is if we’re not dealing without outright half truths and lies" Those are not the words of someone whose world view is "I'm OK, You're OK."

I’m coming around to accepting the fact that I’m OK, you’re OK. And really meaning it.

You’ve put in a lot of thought along the way that has brought you to where you are at. From what I can put together you are coming from a place of integrity.

Some folks haven’t, in my opinion, put in the same sweat and tears that you seem to have. My dad is another person who has put in the time, the sweat, and tears, in trying to determine if Mormonism is ‘true’. He, like you, determined that it wasn’t. For him. We’ve had lots of lively discussions.

You have changed substantially the way I view some ( not all) of those that have left the church or are no longer attending. Some post Mormons are jerks. Some Mormons are jerks.

I try not to be a jerk but may come across that way at times. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. But I come from a ‘good’ place. I’m seeing that others here do too.

You don’t seem to be a jerk.

And I say that with respect for you and the way you conduct yourself on this board. Although at times I think we’ve riled each other up.

I did take exception to what sock puppet said and how he said it. I did take it personally because I don’t think it describes me. But yes, I may have done some ‘right back atcha’ in my response.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

There is very strong evidence that our brains make choices before any conscious awareness that there is even a choice to be made. Then, our brains make up a story to rationalize the choice. The story includes the feeling we have that we made a conscious choice. That doesn't mean that we never make conscious decisions. But it does mean that the subjective feeling we have of making choices is not a reliable indicator that a conscious choice has been made.

I am puzzled as to why a conscious choice should have more to do with free will than a pre conscious choice. They both work the same by the same person do they not. Well conscious may focus more on certain aspects of decision. As the quote suggests it may create excuses though the preconscious probably can do that as well. It may be that the conscious aspect is a bit of a traffic control perhaps sending some ideas back for reconsideration. Of course that may be controlled by the pre or unconscious portions of a person thought as well. Humans do not function with only one end of this relationship do they?

[honorentheos]

Hey huck, suppose we remove "free" and first discuss "will" given your statements above. You note that the subconscious decision making can readily result in the thing you "want" whether it is decided by reason or some other way. Fair enough. But what does that mean for agency in enacting this thing we call will? Is will merely acting on wants?

Honorentheos, I fear I am having a bit of difficulty locating your question.By agency do you mean my ability or inability to do something which my imagination might suggest to want? Are you limiting the word wants to a selection of basic biological needs or directions like food or getting up after sleep? I would think of will as the direction of action resulting from the collection of needs, imaginations, understanding of possibilities and necessities, curiosity, enjoyments, possibilities of sharing and perhaps some other contributions.

It is an exploration with the goal of finding clarity when we refer to something like will. If will is the direction of action, is that to say it is like water which inevitably finds the lowest point and flows that direction when it is above it in some way? Do we hand wave away the question of if there is a need for conscious decision making to call something a willed action so long as the action is considering our internal desire to move in that direction? So the only other alternatives are those where we do something based on external forces that prevent us from doing what we want? But why then do that in place of what we want other than due to some additional input where the consequences make it the option we do "want" after all given action moved that direction?

At what point does it becoming meaningless to refer to will then?

[Res Ipsa]

Leaving God out is my preference. The trouble is some folks just can't do that. I wonder why?

Simply because I think it is unreasonable to do so. Essentially it is a waste of time to not bring into the discussion the very ‘crux of the matter’. That which on everything might depend. Pulling out the axle and expecting the wheel to turn is an interesting exercise in creativity but ultimately futile.

Why is it unreasonable to examine the evidence for and against the existence of free will without assuming the existence of your specific God? There is no necessary connection between the existence of free will and the existence of God. Reformed Christians believe in God without human free will. One can easily find atheists that believe they have free will but have zero belief in God.

"Humans have free will" in no way implies the existence of God. "Humans do not have free will" in no way implies the non-existence of God. It is absolutely irrational to claim that God is a necessary component in a discussion about free will.

You make assumptions about God that force you to believe in free will. But those are just your assumptions. No one else in the discussion is obligated to entertain your assumptions about God when discussing free will. Describing God as the axle and free will as the wheel is pure, unadulterated question begging. You've made no actual argument that there is a necessary connection between free will and God -- just bare assertions.

Sure, you can try and explain your away around God. But it’s an exercise in futility. Although an interesting exercise in creativity.

There's that smug sense of superiority that is associated with people who claim to have superior access to objective truth and the derogation of people who beg to differ. You're making a 100% circular argument. No non-believer needs to "explain away" your God that you have constructed in your socially constructed LDS reality. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that your God exists. Why in the world would I waste time explaining away something that I don't believe exists?

Free will as a gift from God that surpasses all other gifts explains so much of why and what we see in the world.

Epicyles explained planetary motion. Newtonian physics explained the motion of objects in the universe. Once can conceive of thousands of stories that would "explain so much" of what we observe. That doesn't make the explanations true.

The mistake many non religious people make, in my opinion, is blaming God for the results of human agency. I would imagine that there very well might be some here who do that very thing.

And there it is. The passive aggressive slam on people who have different beliefs.

First of all, I don't blame God for anything, because I don't believe in any God.

What I do criticize are claims of the existence of Gods that are asserted to be loving yet take no responsibility whatsoever for human suffering.

How that impacts one’s belief in free will is another interesting question.

Why? I'll admit it's interesting that you use Free Agency as your God's get out of jail free card for human suffering. But, as I've already said, my opinion on free will has noting to do with my stance toward the existence of God.

[Res Ipsa]

To me, free will exists. I’ve experienced its effects in my life. Those that would explain it away I think have either ulterior motives or personal reasons to do so. And I’ll leave it at that.

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

by the way, you won't leave it at that. You'll do the same thing again and again and again and again.

How many more examples do I need to point out, MG 2.0 before you understand how empty your words about respecting the beliefs of others are?

[MG 2.0]

Honorentheos, I fear I am having a bit of difficulty locating your question.By agency do you mean my ability or inability to do something which my imagination might suggest to want? Are you limiting the word wants to a selection of basic biological needs or directions like food or getting up after sleep? I would think of will as the direction of action resulting from the collection of needs, imaginations, understanding of possibilities and necessities, curiosity, enjoyments, possibilities of sharing and perhaps some other contributions.

It is an exploration with the goal of finding clarity when we refer to something like will. If will is the direction of action, is that to say it is like water which inevitably finds the lowest point and flows that direction when it is above it in some way? Do we hand wave away the question of if there is a need for conscious decision making to call something a willed action so long as the action is considering our internal desire to move in that direction? So the only other alternatives are those where we do something based on external forces that prevent us from doing what we want? But why then do that in place of what we want other than due to some additional input where the consequences make it the option we do "want" after all given action moved that direction?

At what point does it becoming meaningless to refer to will then?

Whatever is going on in the background I don’t think it is meaningless to refer to will. If we feel that it is operative ‘in the main’ in the decisions and choices we make then that’s good enough.

Thus my responses, I know I have free will.

Call it what you want and look at the precursors for making a ‘choice’…but for all intents and purposes it can be described as agency to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and vice.

Unless we have limitations on our ability or recognizance of what the full range of choices are, we are able to choose our options in the way we respond to stimuli from the outside world.

The exception, for all, might be response to pain. Not sure if any one of us has any other choice but to scream out in agony when subjected to emotional or physical trauma.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

Whatever is going on in the background I don’t think it is meaningless to refer to will. If we feel that it is operative ‘in the main’ in the decisions and choices we make then that’s good enough.

Thus my responses, I know I have free will.

...

Regards,
MG

I think that's an honest summation of your position. So long as you feel you are piloting the car, that's good enough for you. Could be it's a dummy wheel and the car is a Waymo going to a destination based on programming and what the lidar is telling it about the environment. But no matter. "How you feel" is your criteria? You are locked in.

Again, it's a pretty good argument against free will that this is how the evidence is engaged but that's cool.

[MG 2.0]

Simply because I think it is unreasonable to do so. Essentially it is a waste of time to not bring into the discussion the very ‘crux of the matter’. That which on everything might depend. Pulling out the axle and expecting the wheel to turn is an interesting exercise in creativity but ultimately futile.

Why is it unreasonable to examine the evidence for and against the existence of free will without assuming the existence of your specific God? There is no necessary connection between the existence of free will and the existence of God. Reformed Christians believe in God without human free will. One can easily find atheists that believe they have free will but have zero belief in God.

"Humans have free will" in no way implies the existence of God. "Humans do not have free will" in no way implies the non-existence of God. It is absolutely irrational to claim that God is a necessary component in a discussion about free will.

You make assumptions about God that force you to believe in free will. But those are just your assumptions. No one else in the discussion is obligated to entertain your assumptions about God when discussing free will. Describing God as the axle and free will as the wheel is pure, unadulterated question begging. You've made no actual argument that there is a necessary connection between free will and God -- just bare assertions.

Sure, you can try and explain your away around God. But it’s an exercise in futility. Although an interesting exercise in creativity.

There's that smug sense of superiority that is associated with people who claim to have superior access to objective truth and the derogation of people who beg to differ. You're making a 100% circular argument. No non-believer needs to "explain away" your God that you have constructed in your socially constructed LDS reality. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that your God exists. Why in the world would I waste time explaining away something that I don't believe exists?

Free will as a gift from God that surpasses all other gifts explains so much of why and what we see in the world.

Epicyles explained planetary motion. Newtonian physics explained the motion of objects in the universe. Once can conceive of thousands of stories that would "explain so much" of what we observe. That doesn't make the explanations true.

The mistake many non religious people make, in my opinion, is blaming God for the results of human agency. I would imagine that there very well might be some here who do that very thing.

And there it is. The passive aggressive slam on people who have different beliefs.

First of all, I don't blame God for anything, because I don't believe in any God.

What I do criticize are claims of the existence of Gods that are asserted to be loving yet take no responsibility whatsoever for human suffering.

How that impacts one’s belief in free will is another interesting question.

Why? I'll admit it's interesting that you use Free Agency as your God's get out of jail free card for human suffering. But, as I've already said, my opinion on free will has noting to do with my stance toward the existence of God.

During this thread I think I’ve mentioned a time or two that I don’t necessarily see God’s existence as being joined at the hip with any discussion of free will. One can believe in some form of free will without belief in God.

As this discussion continues and if it is better for all concerned, other than myself of course , I will discontinue my attachment of free will to being dependent on God for its free exercise.

You already know my views on that at this point anyway.

Itself pretty clear that you don’t believe in God and I do. So on my part I don’t need to keep bringing it up in any way shape or form that you might take issue with or find offensive.

I’ll do my best!

You’ve come to the place where you’re at through due diligence and so have I. We can leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Honorentheos, I fear I am having a bit of difficulty locating your question.By agency do you mean my ability or inability to do something which my imagination might suggest to want? Are you limiting the word wants to a selection of basic biological needs or directions like food or getting up after sleep? I would think of will as the direction of action resulting from the collection of needs, imaginations, understanding of possibilities and necessities, curiosity, enjoyments, possibilities of sharing and perhaps some other contributions.

It is an exploration with the goal of finding clarity when we refer to something like will. If will is the direction of action, is that to say it is like water which inevitably finds the lowest point and flows that direction when it is above it in some way? Do we hand wave away the question of if there is a need for conscious decision making to call something a willed action so long as the action is considering our internal desire to move in that direction? So the only other alternatives are those where we do something based on external forces that prevent us from doing what we want? But why then do that in place of what we want other than due to some additional input where the consequences make it the option we do "want" after all given action moved that direction?

At what point does it becoming meaningless to refer to will then?

I think i made a description of will which was intentionally quite broad.It would exclude things like slipping on a steep slope and starting an unwilled downward journey.(yes being on a steep slope would be willed unless first carried there by force)

I suppose a person might make a narrower meaning of will for some specific purpose. My broad view is intended to consider interworking and interdependence of the varous aspects of a humans thought and actions.

[MG 2.0]

Whatever is going on in the background I don’t think it is meaningless to refer to will. If we feel that it is operative ‘in the main’ in the decisions and choices we make then that’s good enough.

Thus my responses, I know I have free will.

...

Regards,
MG

I think that's an honest summation of your position. So long as you feel you are piloting the car, that's good enough for you. Could be it's a dummy wheel and the car is a Waymo going to a destination based on programming and what the lidar is telling it about the environment. But no matter. "How you feel" is your criteria? You are locked in.

Again, it's a pretty good argument against free will that this is how the evidence is engaged but that's cool.

Using that analogy is one way of looking at it. I do think that much of the time we are literally on autopilot. But when it comes to making choices about those things that I’ve mentioned, good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness…in other words, right and wrong, or how we’re going to use our time, I think we disengage from autopilot and are able to take control of the wheel.

Regards,
MG