A thing about religious (and other) people and the illusion of free will

[ShinyCrystals]

Now that's what I'm talking about, or was talking about. It would probably be that free will was a mad made concept, in other words, artificial, not occurring in nature. So, with that, free will can't possibly be something that is actually real.

Just because man thought of or made something doesn't mean it isn't real. Apartments are just as natural as beehies.

Sorry.

I meant real as in other than a concept and something that is there physically and not an illusion. Something that exists beyond the state of being of being a mere thought and having some physical existence, like how the brain works in terms of free will.

Does that make sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I mean, IDK. Maybe we wouldn't have destroyed ourselves but it would probably not be all that great for a hypersocial species to be genuinely individual in their interests. In what they will. It could have made organizing large numbers of us more difficult. That we indoctrinate our societies probably shows that whatever latent individuality or freedom escapes our upbringing we hope to trample down with proper education.

A world of truly free wills might be ungovernable, and, in being so, could not provide the benefits that our governable world has.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry.

I meant real as in other than a concept and something that is there physically and not an illusion. Something that exists beyond the state of being of being a mere thought and having some physical existence, like how the brain works in terms of free will.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I still think it's wrong. Airplanes are real things that you will not find in nature, as are autos, satellites, and so on. They're all quite unnatural, and all quite real.

My objection is not about free will per se. It's about the assertion that what is man-made is not real.

[ShinyCrystals]

Yeah, I mean, IDK.  Maybe we wouldn't have destroyed ourselves but it would probably not be all that great for a hypersocial species to be genuinely individual in their interests.  In what they will.  It could have made organizing large numbers of us more difficult.  That we indoctrinate our societies probably shows that whatever latent individuality or freedom escapes our upbringing we hope to trample down with proper education.  

A world of truly free wills might be ungovernable, and, in being so, could not provide the benefits that our governable world has.

Yeah, perhaps the last sentence you were saying in your post was what I was trying to say when I said the "destroying ourselves" part. I would also like to point out that in a truly free will word, governments cannot really exist. There would be no point in such a concept as a government. I also think people would not be so responsible with free will without proper education and begin raised well. With that, as well as other things I have said, I do not think free will is something that can really exist, not even in the way us humans imagine it to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm right there with you. I think free will is how we explained something that does happen, that we didn't understand. Still don't - fully. I do think we know enough about it now to say that it was not what we thought it was, lol.

[ShinyCrystals]

Sorry.

I meant real as in other than a concept and something that is there physically and not an illusion. Something that exists beyond the state of being of being a mere thought and having some physical existence, like how the brain works in terms of free will.

Does that make sense?

It does, but I still think it's wrong. Airplanes are real things that you will not find in nature, as are autos, satellites, and so on. They're all quite unnatural, and all quite real.

My objection is not about free will per se. It's about the assertion that what is man-made is not real.

We weren't talking talking about airplanes and beehives. Still, I must have misspoken. That said, I probably should not have used the word man-made. I did not, however, say all man-made things are not real.

Still, what can exist as a concept, does not necessarily translate into something physical, or even something existent, for that matter. There are people like most of us here who believe free will does not really exist. I was saying that free will exists as a concept only, not something that exists as part of the human brain and biology, let alone the human mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get it. Still, in physical determinism concepts literally are bits of brains. That's why we're talking about it. We feel it even if it isn't true. Because we're also bits of brain. We are not the we's we thought we were. We're a description of a process.

[ShinyCrystals]

I'm right there with you.  I think free will is how we explained something that does happen, that we didn't understand.  Still don't - fully.  I do think we know enough about it now to say that it was not what we thought it was, lol.

Thanks, Grand Nudger. And yeah, I agree. I'd even bet people in the past, or even the founding fathers of the United States did not know as much about free will as much as people nowadays too, though maybe the founding fathers part I said was perhaps a bit of an exaggeration?

I get it.  Still, in physical determinism concepts literally are bits of brains.  That's why we're talking about it.  We feel it even if it isn't true.

Ah, gotcha. Then again, I know I was missing something on the concepts part.

[Angrboda]

I don't know that I'd use artificial that way, or draw that inference based on that use.  I don't want to argue too many things at once.  Everything that occurs "occurs in nature".  If there were a free will it would be a free will occurring in nature.  Artificial things do occur in nature.  Artificial selection - breeding, is real.  It exists.  So some thing x being artificial or "non naturally occurring" in whatever novel sense is in no way any indication that it cannot exist. That it cannot possibly be real.  

Free will and fate.  Free will and fate.  The fundamental drama of experiential content.  We feel like we choose, and we know how often we're pushed.  I think it's somewhere in the middle.  Our choices are also pushes and vv.  I don't think that place has free wills...but I don't think that place is predeterministic either.  Yes, things that happen effect what happens.  The decisions that I make, free or otherwise, can be consequential.  Adding me to a situation adds something, multiplies the possible consequences and outcomes of whatever it was.  Fields don't just grow the way I use them.  None of this needs me to be any more to what I do than an ant is to collecting aphids, though.

For some people, this is an apocalyptic suggestion.  Hallowing out the very foundations of law and society.  For me, it's an observation of connectedness.  Of common origin.  Of common purpose.  Of common interest.  Religious ideas, to make that explicit.

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
― Voltaire

[Angrboda]

Here's a hypothetical. Let's suppose a man is arrested and convicted because he's a serial arsonist. When he was free, he couldn't afford health insurance, but now that he's in prison, he has access to good medical services. They discover that he had a brain tumor, and that but for that tumor, he wouldn't have started those fires. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and though they now know the cause, they can't reverse the damage -- the damage which is causing him to light fires. So he was a serial arsonist through no fault of his own, yet now he is an arsonist likely to re-offend regardless. Do you make him serve out his sentence? Do you try to rehabilitate him, only to fail because no amount of therapy will fix his brain? Or do you lock him up and throw away the key because you know that he is a danger to his community, even though he made no choice that resulted in his becoming one?