From the standpoint of Christian theology, whether or not the universe is mechanically deterministic doesn't matter. Anyway appeal to free will is obviated by the threat of hell, because a choice forced under duress is not freely made.

It's as if you decide to relabel armed robbery donation.

It's also useful to consider the principle of casuality here. The most simple formulation is enaugh. I.e. every happening has it's cause. It basically leaves out all the posibilities for intuitively-defined variants of Free Will I've been talking about above, including those proposed by the religion. The principle of casuality works both for stochastic and deterministic systems so in both cases there have to be some laws of Nature involved in the process of decision-making. Otherwise said process doesn't make sence at all.

To sum it up, I'd say that the whole problem of Free Will stems from the fact that this notion is one of the most basic philosophical categories. Which means that it's either too underdefined, or outright undefinable or the definitions are too far from what an average human intuitively want. At least it is so at the current state of philosophy.

To add to what Parkers Tan said, if we consider more fundamentalistic interpretations of abrahamic religions, than any Free Will definition will do. Since if the threats of Hell were real any "normal" decision-making criterion works as if there were no Free Will at all. But without a notion of Free Will this scheme won't work because it's needed to introduce the fear of disobedience (obviousy, no Free Will - no chance to make a mistake by yourself - no guilt and fear).

(March 14, 2015 at 5:15 pm)rasetsu Wrote: The continuity would be in the set of things that make up the self, not the instantaneous values. For instance, if I've been practicing law for 30 years, I might consider myself a lawyer. However if I'd retired from practice 10 years ago, I'd say that I'm no longer a lawyer; I'm retired. The qualities that make up the self don't change, but the contents of those qualities do.

Mybold

Then the unchanging things in self are
"The qualities that make up the self"
Roll for:
Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

and the values instanced for each abstraction are the changing things (in self?)

(March 14, 2015 at 5:29 pm)JuliaL Wrote: and the values instanced for each abstraction are the changing things (in self?)

If that's a question, the answer is yes. The self is just an invisible database of values about our current and recent past. If I ask you if you are a patient person, or strong, or intelligent, you intuitively know an answer to these questions. That's transparently drawing upon that database of values. And these things might change over time, as in, "I was very impatient when I was younger, but I am not anymore."

(March 14, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Smaug Wrote: To sum it up, I'd say that the whole problem of Free Will stems from the fact that this notion is one of the most basic philosophical categories. Which means that it's either too underdefined, or outright undefinable or the definitions are too far from what an average human intuitively want. At least it is so at the current state of philosophy.

To add to what Parkers Tan said, if we consider more fundamentalistic interpretations of abrahamic religions, than any Free Will definition will do. Since if the threats of Hell were real any "normal" decision-making criterion works as if there were no Free Will at all.

I fully agree and would like to add that the closer I get to philosophical thought, the less certain of anything and the more confused I get.
My general principles lead me to think it is a conspiracy to extract money, but I'm not totally certain as to how.

At very least I will reject tithing, even in the face of threats of hell because that would not be acceptable behavior be it free or no.

(March 14, 2015 at 5:36 pm)rasetsu Wrote: The self is just an invisible database of values about our current and recent past. If I ask you if you are a patient person, or strong, or intelligent, you intuitively know an answer to these questions. That's transparently drawing upon that database of values. And these things might change over time, as in, "I was very impatient when I was younger, but I am not anymore."

So, if there is a time independent database of traits constituting the self, doesn't the existence of the database refute the claim that there are no unchanging aspects to the self? Not the entries in the database, but the fact that the database exists.

(March 14, 2015 at 4:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Is the self necessarily unchanging? The Buddhists make a lot of arguments that there is no unchanging thing in consciousness which would serve as the self. But I wonder why the self has to be considered unchanging; why can't it change along with everything else about us?

I analogize the conscious self to a river, in that both change, and yet remain selfsame.

I find the idea of an unchanging self to be frighteningly static, myself.

(March 14, 2015 at 5:45 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 5:36 pm)rasetsu Wrote: The self is just an invisible database of values about our current and recent past. If I ask you if you are a patient person, or strong, or intelligent, you intuitively know an answer to these questions. That's transparently drawing upon that database of values. And these things might change over time, as in, "I was very impatient when I was younger, but I am not anymore."

So, if there is a time independent database of traits constituting the self, doesn't the existence of the database refute the claim that there are no unchanging aspects to the self? Not the entries in the database, but the fact that the database exists.

I suppose one could say that, though the database itself never appears in consciousness, just the values, so it remains hidden to consciousness.

(March 14, 2015 at 5:45 pm)JuliaL Wrote: I fully agree and would like to add that the closer I get to philosophical thought, the less certain of anything and the more confused I get.
My general principles lead me to think it is a conspiracy to extract money, but I'm not totally certain as to how.

At very least I will reject tithing, even in the face of threats of hell because that would not be acceptable behavior be it free or no.

In fact these basic notions such as freedom, goodnes et al. are very convenient for all sorts of swindlers and control freaks. With them being so vague yet universally used for an experianced person it's almost always possible to get away with giving out a definition that gives them an edge in a compromising situation.

Speaking of fear of Hell, it is implied that the majority of people ("normal", average) are going to submit. At least unless there is a really severe cognitive disonance that will make them choose Hell.

(March 14, 2015 at 7:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 4:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Is the self necessarily unchanging? The Buddhists make a lot of arguments that there is no unchanging thing in consciousness which would serve as the self. But I wonder why the self has to be considered unchanging; why can't it change along with everything else about us?

I analogize the conscious self to a river, in that both change, and yet remain selfsame.

I find the idea of an unchanging self to be frighteningly static, myself.

I don't think the idea of an unchanging self is compatible with the knowledge we have about the brain or its contents, especially the personal experience of growing conscious of your surroundings and the mechanics that comprise any semblance of understanding them. I look at the brain as hardware that is pliable to whatever software gets uploaded, though the hardware itself is hardly static. The self is in some sense the thought or awareness of memories that are retained in the hardware; storage is probably unconsciously filtered so that some memories are permanently forgotten, others are filed away for convenience, and still yet others are perpetually recalled due to the structure of language, one such memory being this "person" experiencing "event X" at time "Y" that the dynamic system categorizes and defines as "I."

(March 14, 2015 at 9:03 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 7:02 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I analogize the conscious self to a river, in that both change, and yet remain selfsame.

I find the idea of an unchanging self to be frighteningly static, myself.

I don't think the idea of an unchanging self is compatible with the knowledge we have about the brain or its contents, especially the personal experience of growing conscious of your surroundings and the mechanics that comprise any semblance of understanding them.

It could be argued that even if everything, every atom, wave and relevant parameter but one were to remain fixed, that the self was changed because it now exists at a later time.
Yet I identify myself as the same person I was 20,30 or more years ago. This could be mostly illusion and false memory, but at least the experience is of continuity.

I like the river analogy. One much like that is the example of a lenticular cloud stationary over a mountaintop. The cloud stays in one place despite the fact that there is a wind of perhaps 100kt blowing through it. Every particle in the cloud is replaced over a period of seconds yet the cloud remains in place, unchanged.