You make an interesting argument concerning free will, I am not smart
enough to argue ya or na on the subject. So I am gong to forward this to a
friend of mind who is much smarter and has a much better academic
background then I do. Not that would take much. St John the Atheist

"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Ar2dnbbr378O37reRVn-hg@io.com...

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character. It's also a thing that a lot of people think they
have. It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete
terms. And many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal
kingdom doesn't.

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of
meat, free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our
actions. It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a
consciousness. That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist
within the illusion.

Now, I'm thinking that it doesn't even meet the criteria for an illusion.
An illusion has to be "visible". Everyone in a rising elevator feels the
illusion that they're standing still and simply getting heavier. They can
point at that feeling and say it was an illusion.

What do you point at when you supposedly use your free will? At what
point in a decision is your free will employed? When I make a decision, I
weigh the options against my preferences. For instance, "this food tastes
better, but this other food is better for me, but right now I want
something light", your preferences (that are not subject to your will by
the way) are weighed against the options and a decision is reached.
Oddly, at no point was anything like free will employed, it was all
number crunching. You ran data through a formula and reached a result.
Any computer can be programmed to do that.

And weighty moral matters are no different. You weigh the options against
your preferences, modified by your moral rules, and reach a result.
There's no free will involved that you can point at. There's nothing to
call an illusion.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Now, if your definition of Free Will includes what computers do, then I
would have to agree that we have Free Will of that specific definition.
But I don't think the Christians will agree with that definition of Free
Will, and they're the one's deeply concerned with it.

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Denis Loubet wrote:

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character.

It is also used by our legal systems to decide whether or not someone
is "responsible" for their own actions.

You have different penalties ect for first degree murder (deliberate,
premeditated ...) and second degree murder (your actions lead directly
to a death - even if causing "death" was not your concious intent)

It's also a thing that a lot of people think they have.

People are concious of making choices.

People are aware of having a will - they can move from intent to action
- and be aware of it.

If that was the beginning and end of "free will" there would be no
controversy.

Animals also exhibit will - they intend to do things and then do them.

It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete terms. And
many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal kingdom
doesn't.

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

This is where the confusion comes in.
Is "free will" a seperate "organ" - some part of us that makes
decisions?

No - it cant be - and yet we make decisions.

"we" - who /what are we?
Who is Dennis Loubet, who is Mark Richardson?

We are a constellation of things physical and mental.

We are our bodies and we are our thoughts feelings and memories - we
are our active and evolving "conciousness".

We (this complex system) do stuff.
Some of the stuff we do we are concious of doing - Some of this stuff
we think of as choices.

Not only is "Free will" a sort of nebulous vaporous nothing - so is the
entire idea of "self".

There is no one True Eternal Dennis Loubet

- no immortal soul - There
is a body and a brain that uses that identification but its not the
same "being" in the mornng and the afternoon of the same day.

The being that thinks of itself as Mark Richardson has *memory* - long
term memory and short term "operational memory" - I can remember things
as a 4 year old "Mark" - I can remember a great deal more as a 20 year
old Mark (Strangely I can remember very vividly my 20's but 5 years ago
is very vague).
Is the "I" that stayed up all night with his friends at university the
same "I" that types this out?
They are certainly *related* - they have a connection - but they are
not the same.

The relationship between the twenty year old and the 44 year old is not
as strong as my relationship to the Mark Richardson that took his boy
to child care this morning.

The rational mind gets a grip on things by seperating, naming and
descibing "parts" of the reality around us.
Just because we name a part of teh body "hand" doesnt sudenly mean hand
is this seperate entity - there is no clear seperation of hand from arm
and arm from body - its all one whole thing - likewise with "will".

We have will - we make choices.

Philosophers and Theologians speak of/imagine a "free will".
What is this will "free" from?

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of
meat,
free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our
actions.
It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a
consciousness.
That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist within the
illusion.

Now, I'm thinking that it doesn't even meet the criteria for an illusion.
An
illusion has to be "visible". Everyone in a rising elevator feels the
illusion that they're standing still and simply getting heavier. They can
point at that feeling and say it was an illusion.

What do you point at when you supposedly use your free will? At what
point
in a decision is your free will employed? When I make a decision, I weigh
the options against my preferences. For instance, "this food tastes
better,
but this other food is better for me, but right now I want something
light",
your preferences (that are not subject to your will by the way) are
weighed
against the options and a decision is reached. Oddly, at no point was
anything like free will employed, it was all number crunching. You ran
data
through a formula and reached a result. Any computer can be programmed to
do
that.

And weighty moral matters are no different. You weigh the options against
your preferences, modified by your moral rules, and reach a result.
There's
no free will involved that you can point at. There's nothing to call an
illusion.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Well put.

Now, if your definition of Free Will includes what computers do, then I
would have to agree that we have Free Will of that specific definition.
But
I don't think the Christians will agree with that definition of Free
Will,
and they're the one's deeply concerned with it.

People are aware of having a will - they can move from intent to action
- and be aware of it.

The being that thinks of itself as Mark Richardson has *memory* - long
term memory and short term "operational memory" - I can remember things
as a 4 year old "Mark" - I can remember a great deal more as a 20 year
old Mark (Strangely I can remember very vividly my 20's but 5 years ago
is very vague).

Denis Loubet wrote:

[...]
At what point in a decision is your free will employed?
[...]

At what point in a decision is free will not employed? It can't be
proven either way.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:22:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character. It's also a thing that a lot of people think they
have.
It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete terms. And
many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal kingdom
doesn't.

it's what separates the human kingdom from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It's
well expressed in my Evidences of God.

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.

One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.

One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.

What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.

We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.

Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of
meat,
free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our
actions.
It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a consciousness.
That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist within the illusion.

Well, YOU might be fresh meat, but the rest of us are thinkers.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Well, you're got the free will to get up in the morning or stay in bed.
You
have the free will to hurt others or love others. It's your free will,
and you
will be rewarded accordingly by God basis your performance to spend
eternity in
his loving embrace.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:22:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character. It's also a thing that a lot of people think they

It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete terms. And
many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal kingdom

it's what separates the human kingdom from the rest of the animal kingdom.

well expressed in my Evidences of God.

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.

One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.

One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.

What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.

We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.

Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of

free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our

It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a

That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist within the

Well, YOU might be fresh meat, but the rest of us are thinkers.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Well, you're got the free will to get up in the morning or stay in bed.

have the free will to hurt others or love others. It's your free will,

will be rewarded accordingly by God basis your performance to spend

his loving embrace.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:22:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character. It's also a thing that a lot of people think they
have.
It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete terms. And
many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal kingdom
doesn't.

it's what separates the human kingdom from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It's
well expressed in my Evidences of God.

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of
meat,
free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our
actions.
It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a consciousness.
That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist within the illusion.

Well, YOU might be fresh meat, but the rest of us are thinkers.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Well, you're got the free will to get up in the morning or stay in bed.

You
have the free will to hurt others or love others.

It's your free will, and you
will be rewarded accordingly by God basis your performance to spend
eternity in
his loving embrace.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:22:07 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

Free Will is the thing that Christians use to hold people responsible to
their god-character. It's also a thing that a lot of people think they have.
It's a given. But strangely, no one can define it in concrete terms. And
many insist that humans have it, but the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't.

it's what separates the human kingdom from the rest of the animal kingdom. It's
well expressed in my Evidences of God.

5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:

The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.

One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.

One level up, the cow (complex life form) does not respond to, or
relate to, the human's existence, other than in very rudimentary ways,
because it lacks the faculties to do so. Man, on the other hand, has
a full range of knowledge and a clear relationship directed backward
to the cow including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man other than the cow sees the man,
but has no idea what the man is or what the man does or why the man is
there.

Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower level, but in the
opposite higher level only in a very rudimentary fashion. Yet each
higher level not only exists but exists "basically unknown" to the
level below it.

What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than the human?
As is seen at each level, the inability, or limited ability, to relate
to the level above it does not in any way negate its very existence.

We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to, or relate to, a
higher level above man. Does this negate the existence of such a
level? Why should we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't.
By all logic, there should be at least one level above human.

As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced faculties over
those of the cow - intelligence, reason, logic, love, empathy,
sympathy, knowing we suffer and why, etc. And we can use these
faculties to study, learn, reason, dream, and subjectively conclude
that, logically speaking, some level should exist higher than man.

As before, we too are limited in our ability to relate to that higher
level, but in no way does this negate its existence.

If there is no greater known than man, then man would be the pinnacle
of life, the top - evidenced by the mess we make of the world - war,
disease, pestilence, hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc.

Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical.

How many levels are there above us? We don't know - we can't even
prove so much as one level. The top level, by all logic, must be
*perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the move from man to the top
is made in one step? That is not very imaginative.

So let's think in term of two steps - one greater than man and one
lesser than a supreme being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the
position exactly, more than man but less than perfection.

Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our advanced
capacities to dream, to aspire, to reach out for that possible next
step, from which we can profess to truly be the creation of one more
perfect than us.
*****

When I used to think about free will, I figured I had it as everyone did.
Not in a religious sense, but just as a motivating force, the thing the
makes decisions.

Then I came to the conclusion that, since we're just machines made of meat,
free will is an illusion. It keeps us from second-guessing all our actions.
It's an evolutionary hack that allows us to function with a consciousness.
That was fine with me, and I decided to happily exist within the illusion.

Well, YOU might be fresh meat, but the rest of us are thinkers.

Free Will is not an illusion. It's less than that. It's an assumption. I
suspect it's a cultural assumption, but I suppose it could instead be a
result of evolution. But what it's NOT, is real or illusory.

Well, you're got the free will to get up in the morning or stay in bed. You
have the free will to hurt others or love others. It's your free will, and you
will be rewarded accordingly by God basis your performance to spend eternity in
his loving embrace.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

have you read Dennet's book Freedom Evolves?

the philosophy get pretty deep...maybe you can make sense of it, and
see if the argument holds water.