Free Will ?

[CV75]

Its just the basics of agency- the basics of freedom to act according to ones will.

I've always found this article very interesting, in that it talks about will without any reference to agency: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/swallowed-up-in-the-will-of-the-father?lang=eng

 

I think "will" has more directly to do with "mind" than with agency. For example (from the article), “If one “mind the things of the flesh” (Rom. 8:5), he cannot “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16) because his thought patterns are “far from” Jesus, as are the desires or the “intents of his heart” (Mosiah 5:13). Ironically, if the Master is a stranger to us, then we will merely end up serving other masters. The sovereignty of these other masters is real, even if it sometimes is subtle, for they do call their cadence. Actually, “we are all enlisted” (Hymns, 1985, no. 250), if only in the ranks of the indifferent.”

 

God gave man his agency, and so "the submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we “give,” brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!" We use agency to submit our will, but our will comes first (co-eternal?) and our agency next (given to us).

 

So I view the answer to the question:

 

1- What is "the will"?  Where does it reside?  How much does it weigh?  Is it a spirit?  What is "IT"?

as being, the will is the mind (referencing the article above), and it resides wherever I am, or you are, or He Is, and so forth. We suppose we have a mind, as we suppose of those we relate to. We know that "man is spirit" and that the carnal mind (an integral part of man) cannot abide the presence of God (D&C 67:11-12). As to how much it weighs, that is "immaterial" (just kidding!!!)...

[pogi]

My long argument with agency is that agency truly only exists when we act obediently in accordance to Gods will

 

If agency only exists through obedience.  What of the disobedient?  Do they not have the agency to choose to obey?  

 

I In a free society where one acts obedient to law he is truly free and as such making conscious choices that lead to more freedom and more choices which equates to having a freedom and peace of conscious. That is free will. 

 

 

Agency exists only in our ability to choose which master we will serve.  After that, we are either servants of sin and free from righteousness, or servants of righteousness and free from sin (see Romans 6:18-23).  One leading to death and the other to life.  

 

 Once we become servants of righteousness, we lay our will on the sacrificial alter to do only the will of God.  We become His' through righteousness, just as much as we become Satan's through wickedness.  

 

Now here is the miracle.  It is in the laying down of our life (will), that we find it.  His will becomes our will as we become one. 

Edited November 20, 2014 by pogi

[Stroopwafel]

I always hated running,  Though I did not want to run, I willed myself to run.  Now I love running, I want to run.  Seems as though I did indeed will my want. 

 

This is all kind of silly though because you could say that I did want to run, but I simply didn't like it.  It is a semantic mess.  I always considered want (desire) to be will.  What else could it be?

 

What you describe here isn't you willing your will, but rather how this particular habits was formed. What exactly made you choose in the first place to want to run, even though you hated it in the beginning? You had a motive that pushed you hard enough, even through your dislike, to make you run. It isn't a matter of enjoying or not a given course of action. A desire may be your will, but what real control do you have over your desire? Your desires are an expression of your inner constitution being moved by external motives.

[Stroopwafel]

Nah, it just pushes the friction point back a step, which is a pretty nebulous step.  It's still a circular argument where you presume lack of freedom but now blame it on a different "faculty" when all "faculties" are made up abstractions anyway.  Words.  That's all.

 

1- What is "the will"?  Where does it reside?  How much does it weigh?  Is it a spirit?  What is "IT"?

2- How would one determine if the Schopenhauer quote is true or false?

 

One cannot determine if it is true or false. 

 

It is ironic that one of Schopenhauer's philosophical great-grandchildren, Wittgenstein, would point these out to him- not in those words, but with those thoughts.

 

I myself have said repeatedly that "we do what we want", knowing full well the problem.

 

The real problem here is that we ARE responsible for our actions, and we CAN make ourselves happy as an act of choice.   I know it is possible because I have done it.  We CAN change "what we want" if we WANT TO badly enough!

 

Perhaps you have not had to repent as much as I have, but I can testify that one can change the very core of who you are, what you want, and the actions you choose to use to get there.

 

I know a brother in church leadership now who was once a street junkie, addicted to heroin and who's father was (no kidding) a voodoo priest.  He has entirely turned his life around.   He was addicted to every substance known to man to get one high, and he is now a priesthood leader.

 

...

 

(Responding to the bolded part) Of course we can "make ourselves happy" or "change what we want" if we really want to. That isn't the problem. This force, or rather the first impulse for this change, your "willing to change", where does it come from? Well, I know it doesn't matter to you in the end because, well, pragmatism: "it works, we see the difference it makes, end of the matter." Being able to change one's life, no matter how drastic the new direction may be, doesn't say anything for, nor against, free will.

 

However, to be fair, I'll confess my own position for now actually seems close to a pragmatic one; after all, didn't I say I believe free will to be a useful illusion?

[Stroopwafel]

I know a brother in church leadership now who was once a street junkie, addicted to heroin and who's father was (no kidding) a voodoo priest.  He has entirely turned his life around.   He was addicted to every substance known to man to get one high, and he is now a priesthood leader.

 

It was a good thing he was not a determinist because he would have never gotten off his duff and changed his life if he believed he could not.

 

Thank God he never studied old school philosophy!

 

Here are some other quotes from the same Nietzsche's work I referred to previously that I feel speak to what you wrote there (more so number 61).

 

By the way, I'll encourage anyone who wishes to further consider the issue of the freedom of the will to study in your heart and ponder these things. By using this familiar phrasing, I wish to emphasize the importance of actually reading the material provided here, which speaks directly and reach deeply to the matter. And by "these things" I mean the following quotes and the ones found in post #23 and #24 of this discussion.

 

23. Whether the Adherents of the Doctrine of Free Will have a Right to Punish?—Men whose vocation it is to judge and punish try to establish in every case whether an evil-doer is really responsible for his act, whether he was able to apply his reasoning powers, whether he acted with motives and not unconsciously or under constraint. If he is punished, it is because he preferred the worse to the better motives, which he must consequently have known. Where this knowledge is wanting, man is, according to the prevailing view, not responsible—unless his ignorance, e.g. his ignorantia legis, be the consequence of an intentional neglect to learn what he ought: in that case he already preferred the worse to the better motives at the time when he refused to learn, and must now pay the penalty of his unwise choice. If, on the other hand, perhaps through stupidity or shortsightedness, he has never seen the better motives, he is generally not punished, for people say that he made a wrong choice, he acted like a brute beast. The intentional rejection of the better reason is now needed before we treat the offender as fit to be punished. But how can any one be intentionally more unreasonable than he ought to be? Whence comes the decision, if the scales are loaded with good and bad motives? So the origin is not error or blindness, not an internal or external constraint? (It should furthermore be remembered that every so-called “external constraint” is nothing more than the internal constraint of fear and pain.) Whence? is the repeated question. So reason is not to be the cause of action, because reason cannot decide against the better motives? Thus we call “free will” to our aid. Absolute discretion is to decide, and a moment is to intervene when no motive exercises an influence, when the deed is done as a miracle, resulting from nothing. This assumed discretion is punished in a case where no discretion should rule. Reason, which knows law, prohibition, and command, should have left no choice, they say, and should have acted as a constraint and a higher power. Hence the offender is punished because he makes use of “free will”—in other words, has acted without motive where he should have been guided by motives. But why did he do it? This question must not even be asked; the deed was done without a “Why?” without motive, without origin, being a thing purposeless, unreasoned.—However, according to the above-named preliminary condition of punishability, such a deed should not be punished at all! Moreover, even this reason for punishing should not hold good, that in this case something had not been done, had been omitted, that reason had not been used at all: for at any rate the omission was unintentional, and only intentional omission is considered punishable. The offender has indeed preferred the worse to the better motives, but without motive and purpose: he has indeed failed to apply his reason, but not exactly with the object of not applying it. The very assumption made in the case of punishable crime, that the criminal intentionally renounced his reason, is removed by the hypothesis of “free will.” According to your own principles, you must not punish, you adherents of the doctrine of free will!—These principles are, however, nothing but a very marvellous conceptual mythology, and the hen that hatched them has brooded on her eggs far away from all reality.

61. The Fatalism of the Turk.—The fatalism of the Turk has this fundamental defect, that it contrasts man and fate as two distinct things. Man, says this doctrine, may struggle against fate and try to baffle it, but in the end fate will always gain the victory. Hence the most rational course is to resign oneself or to live as one pleases. As a matter of fact, every man is himself a piece of fate. When he thinks that he is struggling against fate in this way, fate is accomplishing its ends even in that struggle. The combat is a fantasy, but so is the resignation in fate—all these fantasies are included in fate.—The fear felt by most people of the doctrine that denies the freedom of the will is a fear of the fatalism of the Turk. They imagine that man will become weakly resigned and will stand before the future with folded hands, because he cannot alter anything of the future. Or that he will give a free rein to his caprices, because the predestined cannot be made worse by that course. The follies of men are as much a piece of fate as are his wise actions, and even that fear of belief in fate is a fatality. You yourself, you poor timid creature, are that indomitable Moira, which rules even the Gods; whatever may happen, you are a curse or a blessing, and in any case the fetters wherein the strongest lies bound: in you the whole future of the human world is predestined, and it is no use for you to be frightened of yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited November 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[lds-convert-sw]

Maybe this thread is effectively dead, but since I found it, I'll put in my two cents. Here's how I see God, as He relates to Free Agency/Free Will, and predestination... Anybody remember the adventure books they used to have, where you decided the outcome of the story, based on what action you took? What the books used to do is:  You come upon a trail, the trail splits. You can 1. Choose to take the left trail, it is a short distance to your destination, but much steeper, or: 2. You can take the right trail, which is a much longer route to your destination, but is fairly level. If I were to chose the left trail, or even the right trail, there are many further actions/steps to take, based upon how you react/what action is taken, that determines the final outcome. Through the whole "story" of our life, there are innumerable paths we can take, and outcomes. Does that mean that God for sure, KNOWS the outcome? Well, I don't think the answer is that simple. I think God knows all the possible outcomes, similiar to those books. In the books, there were, I think, maybe 10 outcomes? The author of the book knows all the outcomes, but which outcome we finally arrive at is up to us. That is Free Agency. God knows what the result of each action is, but we still make the choice every time. God is the author of the book we live in.

[LinuxGal]

Maybe this thread is effectively dead, but since I found it, I'll put in my two cents. Here's how I see God, as He relates to Free Agency/Free Will, and predestination... Anybody remember the adventure books they used to have, where you decided the outcome of the story, based on what action you took? What the books used to do is:  You come upon a trail, the trail splits. You can 1. Choose to take the left trail, it is a short distance to your destination, but much steeper, or: 2. You can take the right trail, which is a much longer route to your destination, but is fairly level. If I were to chose the left trail, or even the right trail, there are many further actions/steps to take, based upon how you react/what action is taken, that determines the final outcome. Through the whole "story" of our life, there are innumerable paths we can take, and outcomes. Does that mean that God for sure, KNOWS the outcome? Well, I don't think the answer is that simple. I think God knows all the possible outcomes, similiar to those books. In the books, there were, I think, maybe 10 outcomes? The author of the book knows all the outcomes, but which outcome we finally arrive at is up to us. That is Free Agency. God knows what the result of each action is, but we still make the choice every time. God is the author of the book we live in.

 

But that leads to the question, does God know what outcome we will finally arrive at?  In other words, the one that is changed from "possible" to "real" ?

[lds-convert-sw]

But that leads to the question, does God know what outcome we will finally arrive at?  In other words, the one that is changed from "possible" to "real" ?

Just my opinion, but I don't think he does. If God knew the choice we will make, that completely nullifies free agency.

[LinuxGal]

Just my opinion, but I don't think he does. If God knew the choice we will make, that completely nullifies free agency.

 

That's a brave position to take.   Too often, people focus on God saying "Yet forty days and Ninevah will be destroyed" without granting him the right to call off the prophesied doom if the city repents.

[WmLaw]

I want to hear more about the car-heading-for-the-cliff analogy.

 

Does god ever intervene, in such a scenario?  or does he always just observe and let nature and/or free will take its course?

[ERayR]

I want to hear more about the car-heading-for-the-cliff analogy.

 

Does god ever intervene, in such a scenario?  or does he always just observe and let nature and/or free will take its course?

 

Sure he does he suddenly evolves a car with wings.  On the fast track method it only takes about half a million years.  And a new life form is created.

[mfbukowski]

Just my opinion, but I don't think he does. If God knew the choice we will make, that completely nullifies free agency.

Poof.

We are back to the beginning. Sigh

[mfbukowski]

I want to hear more about the car-heading-for-the-cliff analogy.

Does god ever intervene, in such a scenario? or does he always just observe and let nature and/or free will take its course?

God observe the laws he sets for himself. He is self determined.

He creates the laws through his agency, and then lives by the law he has created for himself.

Analogy: you decide to stop eating cookies and exercise for one hour a day. You have voluntarily limited your agency regarding eating cookies. God has voluntarily decided not to interfere with our agency and does not cheat on his diet

Edited November 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

"You remind me of a man.  What man?  The man with the power.  What power?  The power of voodoo..."

 

 

Like father, like son.

 

I think pogi, there is a different answer to the question, "What power?" My recollection, confirmed with one other fan of the Bachelor and the Bobby-soxer is that the answer to the question, "What power?", is, "The power of who do?", and then like Repeat and Pete, or Pete and Repeat, you start all over again. I used to ask the kids about Pete and Repeat walking over the bridge, "Repeat fell in", I said, "who was left?" "Pete," they answered correctly. Not much of a joke that way though. Heh.

 

I don't know. We may be wrong. Whoever is right, the important thing, in my opinion, is to appreciate Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, Congresswoman Black, and one of the very best movies ever made. Good job pogi. Nothing but respect for the reference...But whaddya think?

 

Oh...I also have a preference for free will. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

God is bound by law, but they are the laws he has created and taken upon himself. So he can be said to be both bound by what we call natural law, and omnipotent at the same time.

Should God cheat on his diet, and break a law he set for himself, he would cease to be perfect, and therefore cease to be God

[mfbukowski]

That's a brave position to take.   Too often, people focus on God saying "Yet forty days and Ninevah will be destroyed" without granting him the right to call off the prophesied doom if the city repents.

I see that as a teaching moment to teach us that God hears our prayers, not about God actually changing his mind

[WmLaw]

God observe the laws he sets for himself. He is self determined.

He creates the laws through his agency, and then lives by the law he has created for himself.

Analogy: you decide to stop eating cookies and exercise for one hour a day. You have voluntarily limited your agency regarding eating cookies. God has voluntarily decided not to interfere with our agency and does not cheat on his diet

So to clarify your POV, god does not interfere?

[mfbukowski]

So to clarify your POV, god does not interfere?

That really doesn't "clarify" it, it over-simplifies it.  He hears and answers prayers and can interact with us and teach us.  Is that "interference"?

 

When teaching you as a child did your parents "interfere" in your life?  Did you therefore not have "free will"?

 

We believe that choice is real and there is no way to verify that any more than there is a way to verify that abortion or gay marriage is wrong or any other moral question.  Such ideas are not subject to verification in a scientific sense- there is no way to answer that question in that way.

 

It all depends on what you want to believe and what good it does you in your life to believe that way.

 

Why are you asking, and what do you think?   I would wager you have not read much Wittgenstein if you are asking that question- which I think is relevant to understanding my way of thinking.

 

My previous post described a thought model to resolve the silliness about free-will and determinism, which is, I think a linguistic confusion.

 

Religious and moral questions are not about "objective reality" whatever that even means.  All we know is what we can experience as humans and we certainly experience choice.  I leave God's business to God.

Edited November 24, 2014 by mfbukowski

[LinuxGal]

I see that as a teaching moment to teach us that God hears our prayers, not about God actually changing his mind

 

It's no big deal, there is, after all, scriptural precedent for God changing his mind:

 

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

 

1 Samuel 15:11  It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

[mfbukowski]

It's no big deal, there is, after all, scriptural precedent for God changing his mind:

 

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

 

1 Samuel 15:11  It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

It's only a problem for those who think it is.

 

It's all interpretations and we all see it as we want to see it.  That is what it is for.  We are organizing our little worlds from matter unorganized here- after all, isn't that what we godlings do?

[JLHPROF]

It's no big deal, there is, after all, scriptural precedent for God changing his mind:

 

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

 

1 Samuel 15:11  It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

 

Biblical error - fortunately Joseph Smith set the first one straight:

 

"And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life."

 

and oddly enough in Samuel God says

²⁹ And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

so how could verse 11 mean what you claim - got to love those biblical contradictions.

[LinuxGal]

Biblical error - fortunately Joseph Smith set the first one straight:

 

"And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life."

 

That's really interesting, I learned something today.  God spent all that time and energy creating the animals (including the genera of great apes called homo), inspecting his handwork, and pronouncing it good.  But he had to start over because Noah was afraid of them.

Edited November 24, 2014 by LinuxGal

[JLHPROF]

That's really interesting, I learned something today.  God spent all that time and energy creating the animals (including the genera of great apes called homo), inspecting his handwork, and pronouncing it good.  But he had to start over because Noah was afraid of them.

 

You mean because the wickedness had pervaded both the man and animal kingdoms and corrupted the face of the earth beyond fixing.  The wickedness was too deeply ingrained in all life.

 

And yes, you get to learn something - that's why Mormonism has "further light and knowledge".

[LinuxGal]

You mean because the wickedness had pervaded both the man and animal kingdoms and corrupted the face of the earth beyond fixing.  The wickedness was too deeply ingrained in all life.

 

I wonder how wickedness is expressed in the animal kingdom.  Do you think birds and bees are free moral agents who can choose to "abuse" their free will.