Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Doing God's will.


Will Due

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Obviously there is a physical component that is concomitant with our psyche/consciousness, since we know of no consciousness without a physical frame.

You are implying here that our psyche has a non physical component? Care to explain how and why you would know that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XenoFish said:

To be honest with you Will. It is extremely rare that you bring any value to a thread. Most of the time you are for the most part junk posting. When you actually do discuss things with us it's a welcomed change. But I can't help but feel that the only intentions you have here are to troll people. 

 

Lighten up Xeno. I'm just having a little fun right now. I haven't had a vacation since 1979.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Horta said:

Though the whole point in the original post you responded to, was that the psyche is derived from a physical system that underneath it all it is bound to the principles of physics. 

OK, I understand how a sub-standard mental ability will limit a persons education.

i.e., a person with an IQ of 80, will never be a mission controller for NASA.

However, I think my confusion resulted from your fiat statement that 'genes interact with our environment'. 

For example, I am considered to be rather intelligent by friends and family. My parents were both blue collar workers, who had never finished high school. By your argument, I should be no more than a blue collar worker, with limited schooling.

 

Or am I misunderstanding your premise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Lighten up Xeno. I'm just having a little fun right now. I haven't had a vacation since 1979.

I don't see where that's my problem. I'm going to be honest with you. Ever since you became a member of this forum you have been highly evasive. Then you got into a group that basically harassed the whole forum and you were right there with them. Even now you still use fortune cookie talk and can't seem to give a direct answer to anything. It seems to me that more and more of us are putting you on ignore. The reason may vary, but I'm pretty certain it all has to do with how you've chosen to interact with us. 

I barely have a reason to bother, as I know it will be pointless. Good luck Will. Count me among those who've added you to their list.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Horta said:

You are implying here that our psyche has a non physical component? Care to explain how and why you would know that?

How did you deduce that, from my post?

As I thought I stated clearly, there IS a physical component to consciousness & intelligence, since there is NO evidence of a non-corporeal intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Frankly,  I find it amusing that anyone would think that someone else would be responsible for giving instruction as to how to do God's will.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Doing God's will is like walking. You learn it by trial and error.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

OK, I understand how a sub-standard mental ability will limit a persons education.

i.e., a person with an IQ of 80, will never be a mission controller for NASA.

However, I think my confusion resulted from your fiat statement that 'genes interact with our environment'. 

For example, I am considered to be rather intelligent by friends and family. My parents were both blue collar workers, who had never finished high school. By your argument, I should be no more than a blue collar worker, with limited schooling.

 

Or am I misunderstanding your premise?

Yes, you're misunderstanding.

That someone is a blue collar worker is no necessarily indicative of intelligence anyway. One of the most intelligent people I ever knew finished school at 13.

That's a bit like expecting that gay people can't be derived from straight couples.

Without our genes we wouldn't have a brain to begin with. I don't see the problem in the statement "our psyche is derived from physical processes" or that "we are an expression of our genes". We are, that's our baseline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

Yes, you're misunderstanding.

That someone is a blue collar worker is no necessarily indicative of intelligence anyway. One of the most intelligent people I ever knew finished school at 13.

That's a bit like expecting that gay people can't be derived from straight couples.

Without our genes we wouldn't have a brain to begin with. I don't see the problem in the statement "our psyche is derived from physical processes" or that "we are an expression of our genes". We are, that's our baseline.

OK, I must be stupid then, because I cannot see your point.

 

ETA: And I think you may have invalidated your argument. If our genes control our psyche/consciousness, then a hetero couple could NOT produce a homosexual child, no?

Perhaps if you explained what you mean by "psyche"?

Edited by Jodie.Lynne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

How did you deduce that, from my post?

As I thought I stated clearly, there IS a physical component to consciousness & intelligence, since there is NO evidence of a non-corporeal intelligence.

The underlined. That there is "a" physical component to our psyche.

That seems to infer there could also be other components, that are non physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

OK, I must be stupid then, because I cannot see your point.

Lol.

You missed a lot of preceding discussion.

The original point was that, as our psyche is derived from and reliant on physical processes not only in its operation but for it's very existence to begin with, that it is bound (underneath all of the complexity) by physical laws and principles (physics, chemistry) and this leaves no room for "free will" in any meaningful way.

ps. It is causally determined, in other words. But even if it wasn't (and there is no reason to think it isn't), it would be prone to some randomness, which itself can never be willed.

pps. This is a response to Will's claim that we can, of our own "free will", merge this with "Gods will". I don't think he has demonstrated the assumption that we have free will ourselves, to begin with.

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

The underlined. That there is "a" physical component to our psyche.

That seems to infer there could also be other components, that are non physical.

Incorrect analysis of my statement. Which should have been made clear by the latter portion of that same post.

How else would you have me say that mental characteristics are only evidenced by physical bodies?

Or can you produce a non-corporeal intelligence?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Incorrect analysis of my statement. Which should have been made clear by the latter portion of that same post.

How else would you have me say that mental characteristics are only evidenced by physical bodies?

Or can you produce a non-corporeal intelligence?

Fair enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Horta said:

This is a response to Will's claim that we can, of our own "free will", merge this with "Gods will". 

 

Free will (the power of choice) is not absolute. Nevertheless, it is relatively final concerning destiny.

Choosing to make a gift to God by dedicating the free will to the doing of God's will, can only be demonstrated personally. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Free will (the power of choice) is not absolute. Nevertheless, it is relatively final concerning destiny.
 

Not necessarily. If I freely of my own will choose to be 8' foot tall, destiny and finality are likely to be very inconsistent with my free will choice.

Quote

Choosing to make a gift to God by dedicating the free will to the doing of God's will, can only be demonstrated personally. 

Therefore this is a personal belief. To that extent, I see no problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Free will (the power of choice) is not absolute. Nevertheless, it is relatively final concerning destiny.
 

If you are just saying the (apparent) "ability to make a choice" is free will, that's ok, but I have a different definition.

The idea that we "could have chosen differently" in exactly the same circumstances with all else being equal, would generally be accepted as "free will". There is no reason to think this could happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

ETA: And I think you may have invalidated your argument. If our genes control our psyche/consciousness, then a hetero couple could NOT produce a homosexual child, no?

Perhaps if you explained what you mean by "psyche"?

Did I say "controlled"? I don't think I did, but if I did it would have been careless. It is the blueprint for the nervous system we have though which is a physical system. I thought the whole point I made was that our psyche was "causally determined". Thus our psyche is an expression of our genes, interacting with the environment. The psyche is the end result of a prior causal chain (if you see this as "controlled", then yes it is controlled).

I completely disagree with your statement. This would require that being gay is "learned behaviour" or that it somehow constitutes a genuine "choice". Why couldn't straight people derive gay people, or short people derive taller people? Where and how does my logic lead you to this?

Psyche.

The totality of our mind.

Edited by Horta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Horta said:

If you are just saying the (apparent) "ability to make a choice" is free will, that's ok, but I have a different definition.

The idea that we "could have chosen differently" in exactly the same circumstances with all else being equal, would generally be accepted as "free will". There is no reason to think this could happen.

 

No. You can't go back in time.

Free will (the power to choose) implies that a person "could have chosen differently". Therefore, there is no reason to think that a person could NOT have chosen differently in the same exact circumstance. This is the purpose of the power to choose is it not?

Destiny is determined by these choices. However perturbing or satisfying that might be.

But if a wrong choice was made in the past, there will always be an opportunity to make choices that aren't wrong (for a while) in the future. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Free will (the power to choose) implies that a person "could have chosen differently". Therefore, there is no reason to think that a person could NOT have chosen differently in the same exact circumstance. This is the purpose of the power to choose is it not?

 

This is discredited by every understanding we have of the universe so far. It requires choice to be either contra-causal or acausal. There is no reason to believe that anything that happens in the brain resulting in a "choice" is contra-causal. Exactly the opposite. If choice could be acausal, it couldn't be willed.

Quote

Destiny is determined by these choices. However perturbing or satisfying that might be.

But if a wrong choice was made in the past, there will always be opportunities to make choices that aren't wrong in the future. 

Yet these choices themselves are the result of a causal chain that is almost entirely out of our control and that we are mostly oblivious to. That's what we need to take into account. Of course people can learn from mistakes. If machines can learn, so can we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Horta said:

If choice could be acausal, it couldn't be willed.

 

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if choice could occur without it being caused (which it can't) choice couldn't be willed. Is that right?

My head is spinning Horta.

Could I choose without causing myself to choose? 

No.

In order to choose, I definitely need to use the power to choose (free will) to cause a choice to be made.

I'm really baffled why you are arguing that the ordinary everyday occurrences of simple choice is somehow not real. It feels like you're trying to avoid something. But correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Every new choice is independent of every other past choice.

How else would it be possible to realize that morally (or ethically) you were ever wrong about something?

How could anyone ever "correct a wrong"?

No machine can do that. Not now, not ever. But a person can.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if choice could occur without it being caused (which it can't) choice couldn't be willed. Is that right?

My head is spinning Horta. 

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

The only option for you to make a freely willed choice, requires contra-causal will. If you "could have chosen otherwise" for any given state of the universe. That's because the brain states that  are part of that given state of the universe (that led to your choice), would be identical no matter how many times it is replayed. So you need some principle that allows different choices from the exact same brain states. Can't happen.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.