what would you do with it?

Take a trip to Vegas and blow my life savings.

My lack of free will, however, precludes such a thing.

I'm not free to will such an adventure.

Of course, that's my external free will, the one controlled by interested parties.

Internal free will; I'd do the same thing I'm doing right now, not one thing would change.

Biology fine tuned us so well, we don't know the difference anyway.

Not the best answer. Damn trick questions.

Exactly what I'm doing now.

The same thing I am doing right now.

I don't see life as a cage.

On a humorous note: "I would tell "The Man" to go piss off!"

So you'd be obeying biological imperatives? Your genes are no doubt pleased to hear it.

I listen to my instincts and my intelligence all at the same time. Some times they conflict but I never see that as a bad thing. In fact my genes and my grey matter upstairs have been good to me.

It's very easy to worm out of it with "I have free will so I'd do what I'm doing," but since what you're doing is what your body chemistry demands of you, you're only confirming my point, which is that free will is not only false, but impossible.

PS: Intelligence is a program too.

That's the kicker, even in our unique position to "override" imperatives, are we really overriding anything?

And does it even matter?

I don't think it does, and I don't think you do either.

Oh, I agree. Biological traits and reactions are what motivate me to do the things I do.

I actually dislike the phrase "free will". It is a statement of separating yourself from the fact of survival. Do people really do things that are based on free will or even against free will? What the hell is free will?

Humans do what they do for survival or for comfort. And there are plenty of times when survival and comfort are at odds and usually comfort wins out. It is how people are intrinsically programmed.

I can say this because of my "Free Will".

Intelligence is mostly a genetic trait and slightly a nurtured trait. And the ability to absorb what has been nurtured is genetic too.

So, yes. I agree.

Achieve my long-term goals that I'm planning to execute to as full degree possible. They include making a great amount of money, doing more traveling and sight-seeing, and not working at a conventional day job.

I can say this because of my "Free Will".

You said it mostly because you're biologically programmed to crave social interaction. The topic of this conversation is pretty much immaterial except for the fact that you found it stimulating, however briefly.

I'll be more impressed by free will when someone can decide to quit urinating or blinking.

The question is pretty simple: if you weren't busy obeying biology all day, what would you be doing, anyway? We're flesh-bots, and that's fine by me, since as a flesh-bot I can't possibly know any different. But high falutin' ideas of actually being in control are kinda silly in perspective.

What about suicide?

That seems to counteract the biological imperative and intelligence, to an extent.


Would you say that the human animal has at least some level of control over his actions?

Perhaps not "free will" ; but will as the ability to consciously choose between limited, preexisting options?

That comment was a joke. "Free Will" is a joke, especially if people condition themselves into thinking such a thing is true and important.

>>The question is pretty simple: if you weren't busy obeying biology all day, what would you be doing, anyway?

A person would be dead.

A living machine is designed to do what is necessary to continue living and reproduce. Since humans have developed a rather large brain it has both brought biological pros and cons onto itself.

Suicide is a means of comfort to some. That is a biological process with chemical reactions that can easily condition someone to assume suicide is the best course of action. To the person it is completely appropriate.

Definitely a defunct thinking process, but still being compelled by biological conditions.

The lancet fluke parasite invades the brain of an ant, commanding it to climb blades of grass doggedly, for no apparent reason, when that directly pits the ants survival against the parasites need to reproduce within the stomach of grazing animals. The parasite wins.

I'd argue that sicknesses and even ideas can act like a parasite, corrupting data and causing malfunctions.

When sufficiently corrupted, all bets are off.

Suicide is no more free will than your computer's hard drive crashing is free will.

I like this response.

Ironically enough, I made this thread with the prediction that I'd mostly get quick shrug-offs from the majority of respondents, because they prefer peace of mind - and hence I expected little social value for me. However, I get the amusement of watching an experiment play itself.

I can be a bastard like that.

Being a bastard is fun.

This is an interesting question.

By freedom, I'd want to know what exactly I'd be free from. Would I miss it or would I start with the assumption that I never knew I wasn't free?

Perhaps I'd create my own universe. Re-enact the Bible, create a race of beings, and play with their heads.

It sort of depends on what people mean by "Will" to then determine what a "Free Will" Would entail.

I don't like overloading serviceable concepts with metaphysical baggage.

My will is "free" in a substantial sense: I can make choices over meaningful ranges of options. That's all the freedom we need to talk about.

I don't view "free will" as requiring uncaused will. So I don't see there being an unresolvable conflict between having free will, and thoroughgoing causality.

There's an interesting and difficult philosophical problem here. But BBS forums are rarely a good place to pursue philosophical problems.

According to the Christians, we already have free will, although it is not very clear to me what do you or the Christians mean by it.

As I see it, the "will" is the ability to set (and pursue) goals, and maybe the exerted persistence in achieving them is also a part of it.

So it would be an act of exercising my free will to decide that I want to enjoy my life to the fullest.

If I would decide to heal all the tiny imperfections of my body that may causing me some difficulties enjoying my conscious existence, it also would be an act of will, though it would require me some other actions like seeing a doctor to heal my flu, or to treat my eyes with laser surgery to correct my nearsightedness.

There are limits in this Earth, and although I can decide that it is my will to fly without wings or machines, it is still only a daydream, a game of imagination, without any real possibility to achieve this goal in the near future.

So exactly how free is the will we are talking about?

If I had free will I'd market it and sell it to the highest bidder.

Joking aside, I think we do have free will, and for the most part simply do not act upon it, often wisely, as it is often counterproductive and self destructive to act solely on free will. Also, in a society with complete dominance of free will there is no order.

One CAN act completely free of the biological will, but doing so usually results in death. You can choose to stop eating, drinking, breathing, and so on, but at your own risk.

The paradox lies in the fact that like it or not we are all biological robots and to deny, ignore, or go against biologically programmed parameters and functions only serves to reduce pleasure, efficiency, productivity, longevity, and usefulness of said being. Sometimes to do so in one aspect may improve quality of life, many times it will not.

The argument of free will is often tied in with the purpose of life, another paradoxical quandary. There is the argument of "if we do not have free will than we must have an ultimate purpose" which some find comforting and others do not. I simply do not care if we have a "purpose" or not, I know my purpose. I see it as this: The purpose of My life is to enjoy everything I can for as long as I can. As for a grand scheme of things; the end purpose of life is to itself end. Free will is what it is and whether I choose to take advantage of it or not depends on whether it lends to or detracts from my personal purpose.

Free will is a tool and nothing more, many see it as an end all and be all because they cannot accept the fact that their life has no ultimate purpose nor the fact that they are nothing more than a aptly coined "flesh-bot". The appearance that free will permeates everything and balances everything is nothing more than an illusion, one that I am simply not looking at.

First one must research the mechanisms of suicide.
Mental illness is the main precursor to suicide; it can be caused by chemical/substance abuse, malnutrition, inhospitable environment, disease, injury, pain, and other changing factors which rewire the brain to make that decision.

I am in agreement to the concept that there is no free will, from my judgment based on observing the "tit for tat" experiment model. As complex biological processors and software that are constantly being updated by a complex environment in motion(being updated), we have no free will over our decisions just like a program must operate according to its written code.

Though the brain's wiring is complex, it will produce the same "output" until it's neuron connections are changed by an update from the environment or the memory center.

Each decision that a human makes will result from given (at that moment in time) variables of the environment and physiological connections in the brain.

On some side humor: Christians preach "free will" but also that god has a plan for them. How is that for short circuiting the brain.

Hey that was supposed to be MY response!

But I am not joking.

Good thing then, that I don't have a "free will", never had one, and never will. It is but an illusion created for the reflected self and its need for feeling important. The "choices" we think that we've got have very little significance on a biological level.

It is absurd really. To me, the concept "free will" sounds as preposterous as a "non material concrete building" (purely an imaginative thing), because all "will" implies "purpose" and thus a free will on a graded scale of existence, denominated by the increasing degree of "freedom", will be a superconducting phenomenon, approaching the absolute zero sum of predetermined purpose. Freedom and will are annihilative opposites.

>> free will is not only false, but impossible. <<

What about my choice to respond to this thread or not?

The concept of free will is much more simple than is being postulated in this thread.

I'd definately cut out sleep (how much time would you gain?!). I love sleep now, but that's only because my body gets tired.

I'd make the state of my body independant of the food and drink I consume, so I'd drink and eat only what I liked and when I felt like it.

I would cut out the need to eliminate too, it's boring.

Basically I wouldn't mind it if my body was completely maintenence free... like a god I wouldn't even age (being a 'flesh-bot' is do realise this is not really possible).

This would leave so much more time for playing my instrument, painting, reading, travelling, playing sport, hanging with my pets, doing all the things I love for a greater percentage of my life.

Free will is an odd thing... I don't really know how I would define it even (it's simple, yet complicated..) Really I am already free to do anything that's within the limitations of an average female human body... I guess I'll still have to pee then

If I had free will then I'd use lesser magic to make sure I got into heaven. As much as the iconography of hell is fun, burning in a lake of fire for all eternity just isn't my style.

"Free will" implies yet another childish philosophical dualism of the sort that spiritual types like to wet themselves over. I'll pass on the determinism versus indeterminism debate and take the third side.

My thoughts exactly. To me, free-will simply means the reasoning abilities to decide upon a correct (or incorrect) series of actions out of a variety of possible actions in accordance with what best suits ones needs and this choice according to biological mechanisms is, essentially, up to the sentient orgasm and not an external "puppet master" deity.

But that's kind of silly to say and is a bit inflated. Brevity dictates the term "free-will."

My other thoughts are is this thread merely ego masturbation (no disrespect intended because it seems to have been implied by Mr. Leviathan)? If so, that's fine, there's simply no choice in the matter as we've already discussed here.

Or, rather, is there an actual goal aside from being right in one way or another? What's the target, what is there to expose, in whom and why?

I just don't see much of a point. Sure, it's a valid topic.

But anyone that has ever studied philosophy with any seriousness already knows the problems with the notion of absolute free-will. This, to me, is as killed as the subject of "The color blue might be the color red to you!"

I think fucking with what makes human beings feel comfortable and in control is FUN.
It exposes the inability of many to deal with the supreme irony of life.

We might as well talk about;
• The blunt fact that we are all utterly meaningless, and all humans ARE equal in that meaninglessness of their lives.

• That it does not matter what you do in your life- your actual true self would be forgotten and you'll remain only a myth (if not completely forgotten) in the minds of other meaningless people.

• That we Satanist who think we are somehow better are actually greatly inferior to Muslims on a biological scale since they reproduce far more than we do.

• That love, like hunger or thirst, is merely a pre-determined chemical reaction of a body enslaved to nature, and there's nothing really romantic about it…

• That no matter what- you're always alone, and all sense of unity is delusional.

The list goes on, but I guess most Satanists are aware of some of those other points that would depress the shit out of most human beings (like the inexistence of god and of "fairness", indisputable moral truths and objectivity altogether etc etc….).

But it's actually kinda' comforting to know that all this life we take so seriously is a laughable matter.
Don't you think?


And yes, I just say this because I was chemically compelled to do so by my psychological structure (which is determined by nature and nurture, and not free will. [which, by the way, does not make me less responsible for all the above bullshit ;P ]).

I never said suicide implied free will.
That chemical reactions and/or a "sick" state of mind can lead to suicide is obvious.


Everyone jumped in to answer the first question, but not one reply is directed towards the latter, more substantial one.

Fall from heaven!

I could never co-exist with that asshole!



HS!

I'd stop thinking about free will.

(Maybe it was your recent 'baby beluga' comment but I keep thinking of that goddamn movie, Free Willy )

Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Wait...Jessica Alba!

Wait...hmm...I can't decide.

Okay both. That is how I would squander...I mean...use my super power of free will.

Just in case my response is mistaken for a deep philosophical discourse, I should make clear that "Free Will" is the pet name given to "Little Roho". By "Little Roho" I mean my man part.

Well, since you already seem to have made your getaway with the two hotties I would like to trade in my "Free Will" for a "Free Grace" since I kinda like Debra Messing
And by like, I mean like a lot, and by ... oh well, you get the drift

I will say this...Debra Messing and Gwen Stefani shows us just how good looking a woman can be without breasts. Really! It's all about legs.

My thought on this thread is that this speaks about Greater Magic again, but in another aesthetic.

Greater Magic is about the will. No will = nothing.

Agreed.

I think the question itself is flawed, much like "Is there a God?" is a preposterous question to ask a human being.

["I have no fucking idea.")

Rather than ask if there is a "free will" we should perhaps ask if we have a will that is exclusively our own, or if this is a clever illusion that is covering up the real dynamics of our situation.

"Is there a free will?" is too much of a chicken-and-egg problem. It is going nowhere, no matter how much you think about it. However, it is an interesting problem to bout with for the sheer mind exercise value. It can create some rather interesting ideas about ontology and being.

Yes, indeed... which is why trying to answer it is funny. =p

As I said, it's just some irony of life…. wondering over it is an obviously smart-ass exercise of fucking around with everything we hold as true and indisputable, for fun's sake. Human beings are funny like that.

Anyhow, in practice, it really REALLY does not matter rather we have free will or not. We would do what we do either way.



I'm not sure I get the difference between the two forms of this question....?

I would have to agree with you, I would cut out my body's need to sleep. It wastes so much time that I could be using learning, experiencing, indulging...

Perhaps not "free will" ; but will as the ability to consciously choose between limited, preexisting options?

By all means, let me answer that as well.

Yes, your choices are limited - by the laws of physics, by your chemistry, by a lot of things, and eventually by your biological urges.

However, it's pretty easy to deduce that whatever you choose, however much you think it was against biological urge, was in fact simply the one that your particular (possibly imbalanced) biology demanded most. If you really did refuse to piss for two weeks to prove to me that you could negate biology, all you did was prove that your mentality placed a higher priority on the comfort of attempting (in vain) to prove me wrong than it did on urination - and also proving you're a dumbass.

All you're saying is that you'd prefer to obey the more comfortable aspects of your biology.

Sorry, but I'm not completely buying it.

Biology directs much in the way of physiological function.
It is true that I have little or no direct control over my body when it comes to homeostasis, protein synthesis, or the like.
Still, Science differentiates between voluntary and involuntary for good reason.


Does biology satisfactorily grant practical insight on consciousness?

How does your view of biological imperatives work within the arena of quantum mechanics?

Do you see greater magic as merely a biological function?

The more I think about this question the more ridiculous it seems. I can do whatever I please at any moment.

This is something to ask a prisoner or somebody in a wheelchair.

...which goes straight to the ironic question :

so, if the "free will doesn't exist", what about the existence of Greater Magic then ?


That is too funny...

So because you postulate that magic is real (without saying why), free will is automatically real as it is a prerequisite? That's reverse logic.

My point is that free will is, like a number of other concepts we think are real such as meaning, deserving, right and wrong, a load of bullshit that is without relevance to the world. We are what we are, and that's all that we are. Fact is, however, that such a seemingly bleak view is ok, because it all feels the same. You're still happy with eating and fucking and sleeping like an animal should be, and that's enough (even if happiness is nothing more than biological approval of your circumstances).

Without saying why ! I don't see why I would have to. To me, if I was saying "free will doesn't exist", so I would also automatically question the existence of Greater Magic.. However I am here because Satanism is about this nightside dealing with it. Voilà, some answers were asked, this is mine.


Your point here is yours, and if you find happiness with that point, well, this is the goal of course. To cannot grasp certain things in life are, I would say, limitations, and yes we certainly all have some. But the thing to generalize this limitation to all individual's life is certainly not possible.

"You're still happy with eating and fucking and sleeping like an animal should be, and that's enough"

Woof, but I would be here sad to limit myself to this.

If you find biological reality limiting, I am sorry, but you're still made of flesh.

Two things:

You're still using reverse logic. You can't start with an assumption and postulate that all requirements for your assumption to be true are therefore true by default. That's called faith, and doesn't work very well.

Second, the train of logic you're following isn't even the case. Will independent of biology is not required for magic. If it were, then magic really would be impossible - and amusingly enough, every ritual LaVey mentions exists to serve biological needs (lust, greed, hatred), only further proving my point.

Voluntary biological actions are still biological actions aren't they? They still originated in the trigger of neurons directing the muscles to move. All involuntary means is that your conscious mind did not have to direct it, because your unconscious mind takes care of it.

Does biology satisfactorily grant practical insight on consciousness?

Sure. Consciousness is the byproduct of having developed senses and sensory processing. It seems like something profound but it's really a pretty mundane thing.

Just to advance counter-argue: you can still have consciousness without external senses only because you still have the sensory processing organs. However, I'd say it would be a pretty fucked up processor if it didn't even have memories of external senses to work with, and its consciousness would be highly debatable.

How does your view of biological imperatives work within the arena of quantum mechanics?

What do molecular physics really have to do with it? Yes, they're the template, but that's like asking how my preference for eating lobster is affected by the ocean's chemistry. It's way too reductionist to be practically applicable.

But if you insist, the answer is pretty simple. Quantum physics don't demonstrate any change in the macro-model of the universe, since they only apply to the micro-universe. In other words, just because we know crazy shit happens on really tiny scales doesn't mean our overall view of the world on the "normal" scale is in any way changed. To assume it does would be a leap in logic that is unwarranted, just like it would be a leap in logic to assume that some new discovery in ocean chemistry should affect how tasty lobster is.

Do you see greater magic as merely a biological function?

Since only biological organisms use it, yes. If you can program a computer to succesfully carry out a magical working I may change my mind.

Who said this ?

Then, who spoke about this kind of "will independant of biology"?

my only point: what one cannot grasp ( ideas, failure to understand or whatever ) can be called a limitation, his own one, but nowhere in hell he could generalize it to everyone. What one has experienced is validated to him, and this is certainly not faith.

"what if you had free will" ? > " Well I'd use it while some have a hard time trying to say it doesn't exist, and this because they aren't just able ?"

See, since I'm back, I read some threads in general, and see several funny things, like people finding so Satanic and Elite to go on a low paying job, describing it like they have reached the top. The worst is that because their situation, they have a hard time imagining that other ones can have more.. To them, it's like this doesn't exist. So this could also give such threads like: "if you were a Satanist with 1 million dollars, what would you do ?", and then saying "hah, thanks for the answers, but this doesn't exist"....



Here again, I was pointing my finger at the moon, you were looking at the finger. Nothing in my original answer was speaking about this.

Or rather, ONLY live with the enjoyable ones Life would be even more awsome were I not a 'slave' to sleep, food, disease, age, other 'limiting' conditions that come with being a human.

Ah... okay, no biggie.

The replies and arguments to this topic are surprising, I expected that these concepts would be somewhat easy to grasp.

Biology doesn't need to cease to exist for free-will to come into play.

Have you stopped to consider that at a certain point of evolutionary progress that a mental will can make a choice to change it's own biology, frivilously or otherwise, and that this choice constitutes "free-will?"

I think you're focusing way too much on the "free" and far too less on the "will" part of this term.

I've always seen "free-will" as meaning the ability to freely will into existence new patterns of behavior within ones self rather than being a living statue.

Free is a generalization. A more open ended version of choices, rather than preset instinct.

Need does not negate choice. Limits do not remove the ability to overcome them.

What you suggest is that anything short of absolute omnipotence is absolute impotence. That's kind of ridiculous.

In conclusion I am sticking my fingers in my ears and sticking my tongue out at you:

I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. I'm done.

NANNER NANNER!

This is probably the most ridiculous argument made here.

Have you stopped to consider that at a certain point of evolutionary progress that a mental will can make a choice to change it's own biology, frivilously or otherwise, and that this choice constitutes "free-will?"

You're trying desperately to envision some scenario in which you are not merely serving biological needs, but all you're demonstrating is a lack of understanding of biology.

If your body made the decision to alter itself, then...you have your answer.

What you suggest is that anything short of absolute omnipotence is absolute impotence.

I said what now?

I have demonstrated that the very concept of free will is a silly notion that doesn't even exist. That has nothing to do with power.

The thing is, you'll never notice that you have no free will because it's perfectly natural to be as you are - a human with a certain limited set of options and desires. It's also fine to be that way, most here seem to like the state.

Science is no longer science when it comments on things beyond the scope of its methods.

Biology and its supporting sciences (chemistry, physics) have no account to give of free will. It is a non-entity as far as these sciences are concerned.

It doesn't follow from this that there's absolutely no such thing as free will.

Nor would anyone here say that it follows that it's an entity that transcends biology.

All that follows is that insofar as behavior is an object of biology, its freedom is not relevant.

It may be relevant with respect to other considerations.

But maybe it would be helpful if you would define "free will" before telling me it doesn't exist. What exactly are you denying, and what are we affirming?

Once again it all depends on how you define "Will." And you have to wonder if "Will" can interrupt your own biology. There's certainly stories of people manipulating their bodies in very strange ways. Read The Exorcist (read, don't watch) sometime. All the documented cases of weird things happening to people, that are perfectly natural and seem a matter of "mind over matter." Perhaps in some way, Will can influence biology? Would that make it free? Perhaps not if you want to load on physics and other factors. We all obey the basic laws and motivations of the universe, after all.

And you have to wonder if "Will" can interrupt your own biology.

To put it plainly, that's one of the most off the wall concepts I've ever heard.

Let me lay it out for you:

Your mind is biological. Nothing else. Not spiritual, not mystical, not inorganic.

Will is a function of the mind, specifically your mind's determination to carry out a bodily function of some variety.

So no, your own biology cannot interrupt your own biology. That would be called carrying out a biological function, which is what I just said will is.

I don't buy this. Saying that "it's beyond the scope of science to comment on" is just a way for "disciplines" with no solid foundation in reality to justify themselves.

If philosophy contradicts a biological reality, namely that all actions are a process of a limited biological program, then guess which one has to give? That's right, the one that is a construct, not reality.

Free will is, like concepts such as "justice," "deserving," "ethics," and "meaning," nothing more than a more or less arbitrary and ethereal non-reality with no bearing on the universe at large.

That's not to say that you can't use the essentially metaphorical sense of "free will" to say that someone did something "of his own free will" as in not under coercion, but as a concept we can actually apply to the nature of reality, it's bullshit.

By the way, that doesn't absolve responsibility, since a bad program has to be dealt with anyway, and regardless we're all programmed for retribution.

Reductionist arguments that intense aren't even necessary.

The mind - that house of thought which causes so much controversy - is a by-product of a biological organ selected, modified and modulated - as per Steven Pinker, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby - by the process of evolution.

It can therefore be argued, and I think sufficiently well, that any action or reaction is merely a biological process.

The beauty of it is, however, that our organ for thought is so fine tuned, we don't have anything to compare our non-existent "free will" to; hence, we don't know any different. Since we don't know any different, this topic is really just good for some titillating conversation, but not any real practical concern outside of academia. You can go on living with a sense of philosophical, although completely false, "free will."

To postulate that "free will" actually exists as a metaphysical phenomenon completely separate from biology, I think it would be necessary to present a process which transcends biology, and that's getting too close to wishful thinking for my tastes; some might even call it faith.

Like it or not, we're just evolved organisms with the power to fool ourselves.

As the saying goes "nothing comes from nothing." And "free will" is nothing, without the biologically adapted organ necessary to even consider the damn concept.

I'm not contradicting biological reality. Or even current biological theory (which is different). I'm saying, a reduction is not an elimination, an explanation in terms of parts in motion doesn't make anything disappear in a puff of theory.

But since you won't define what it is you purport to deny, or give examples of who (who worth taking seriously) believes in it according to this or that definition, or survey alternate definitions and assess their relative merits, your denial has no meaning.

your denial has no meaning

Of course it doesn't, nothing does.

Wiktionary says:

Free will: The doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces.

Simply insert the fact that biological compulsion can pinch-hit as an "external force" and my argument is pretty clear. I have no idea why you'd need this defined for you, or why you think my definition was something different. Are you using a different definition?

Well there's another question. What in the hell is a mind? Its certainly the result of biological processes. No its not spiritual or anything silly like that. Certainly its something that has some sort of physical presence. I've always thought of the electrical impulses (bio-electricity if you like) that go on in your nervous system and your brain constituted the mind. Then again, I know absolute dick about the whole subject, so this is all speculation on my part.

I doubt the answer to any of this would bother me either way though.

And not to be disrespectful, but why is biological compulsion an external force?

Because biology produces the interactions we are capable of making in regards to external concretes.

AKA - reality.

How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature are two excellent companion books written by Steven Pinker, dealing directly with what the mind is, and how it necessarily came to operate the way it does.

I'll look into them.

A different notion, which I hope I can define.

I'm afraid to say, most scientists and philosophers throughout history have not had the benefit of Wiktionary. If only they had, so much ink might not have been spilled. But maybe, just maybe, they might have produced rival definitions that are worth taking a look at.

The underlying question is, What is will? and what does it mean to describe will as "free"? If you really have no idea why I made you take responsibility for your own answer to this question, then there isn't going to be much point to talking about the issue anymore. Philosophy doesn't begin with authoritative definitions, it makes them, and if you don't want to do the work of fashioning a good definition then this discussion isn't going to be very interesting for me.

Here's how I'd prefer to talk about it, my provisional definition: Free will is the doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to be the sufficient cause of their own choices.

Take out reference to "external forces" - "freedom" is a positive descriptor, not a negative one. Also "external forces" already presupposes a distinction between "internal" and "external", which implies two different kinds of forces, two substances, in other words dualism. We ought not build metaphysics into our definitions; that makes them tendentious. I'd call "choosing without being caused by external forces" something else, not freedom; maybe "undetermined behavior". There's no such thing as undetermined behavior.

My position is, we can regard ourselves as free, and we can also regard ourselves as fully determined, without contradiction, without dualism, and without mental gymnastics. My behavior, as a phenomenon that can be investigated empirically, is fully determined by other phenomena; but nevertheless I'm also capable of understanding myself as a will, as a being with values and interests, capable of reason and responsible for my choices.

I want to set up a distinction between behavior and will, but I'm not quite sure how I'd draw that distinction, and I'm too tired to think about it right now. If this conversation is still interesting in the morning, I might pursue that thought some more. My first thought is, you could have two questions: (1) "What would you do if your behavior, as a phenomenon, was undetermined by other phenomena?" - the answer to which would be, "The same as I already do, because I am already sufficient cause of my choices." (2) "What would you do if your will was undetermined?" - "Nothing - I couldn't do anything, because doing something would be a determination, which we've assumed away."

I'd like to point out that there is another definition, a Third Definition, for Free Will, one that when applied to the smaller biological process model is inaccurate and simply impossible.

Free Will: The condition of being able to set one's own will apart from a collective group will, to make one's own choices; i.e. Individualism, to seek one's own level on one's personal accord. To make choices not directly handed down from influencing stimuli, but choices developed from influence. This kind of Free Will does exist.

All action is the effect of a previous cause, there is no true "spontaneous" actions. So to use the definition that Free Will is the ability to make decisions without a prior influence is impossible and inaccurate. Whether the cause is one's own biology, or one's environment, or a very rare circumstance, no matter how much one wants to think that one's "Will" was "Free" of all influences is simply not true. One may not know the causative influence that brought about said "Will" and assume it was "Free", but it is not, and never was "Free".

To use the definition that Free Will is the ability to make decisions free of one's biology is also inaccurate and impossible. In this case, yes, Priest LeviathanXIII is correct in his assertion that THIS kind of Free Will does not exist. To even suggest the capability of a biological entity to do anything other than biological is to suggest that the entity is more than just biological by definition. Entities cannot simply Will into effect a change greater than the capability present in said type of entity. Take a sodium atom for instance, it simply can not be anything other than sodium under it's own will, nor can it do more than any other sodium atom could do in the same situation. Said sodium atom could become more than sodium via a nuclear event, but it would not be the sodium atom's Will that caused this, it would be the will of said nuclear event, perhaps neutron radiation's Will caused the evolution of the sodium atom. Even then the new (formerly sodium) atom is bound by the capabilities of its new element.

The definition of Free Will changes depending on what model you apply it to simply because the adjective "free" means nothing without first defining what one is "free" of. The definition of "Will" does not and need not change no matter the model one applies the issue "Free Will" to. As defined by Wiki; Will - One's accord, decisions, actions, intent.

This is actually a very good question and fun as well to ponder.

The fact of the matter is that I do indeed have 'Free Will'.

What I do, I do so freely without fear of punishment. Those things which are punishable I don't wish to partake in naturally so I am not out of anything.

Example: If you had free will to do drugs would you?

Answer: No. I know what happens to those who partake in such things freely or (illegally).

Now on the matter of warfare...... if I had total free will? Let's just say that.....let's just not say anything.

I have My own thoughts on this and how to end this big bag of piss but.......even though I have free will, I do not have the right to impose it on others.

I laugh when I read "Thy will be done not Mine". Bullocks!

I would put it on display in a glass case, with a placard that reads, "Most Useless Thing Ever".

My genes and my biology are what makes me. So the will of my genes, or my 'biology', is ultimately my own will.

I think the problem is not how you define will, but how you define free.

Hi all,

My question is: Free will and conscience with regard to satanism.

Teresa Salyer (Moon Shadow).

My question is: What?

I would only have free will if i had no other wills to contend with.

every action i take either affects or is affected by another action performed by another animal with a will just as i do or any other animal does, nature on the other hand has no will but it has rules as such you cannot will gravity to reverse to the best of my knowledge.

Therefore i would only have free will if there was nothing that could affect my own will and that wouldnt be much fun at all, so in answer to the question i would die quite quickly because i would have no air, gravity, food or water or indeed anything at all!

That isnt to say that i dont have "freedom of will" which is something very different, this term means the freedom to shape, change or manifest your desires useing all the tools at your disposal thereby pushing aside weaker wills than your own and attaining the freedom to do what you will.

If you are sitting here contemplating it, I feel you have already missed the point. Free Will is a concept. Therefore, it is already flawed and a big mistake. Thinking about it is like holding the key to your own jail cell and spending 20 years trying to decide what you will do first with your new found freedom.
Go and live it. Stop worrying about defining it. Go be the best YOU you can be. Push yourself, challenge yourself, reach beyond every boundary that is thrown up before you. Free Will is a concept invented by those who want to convince you you have more freedom that they are allowing you. Either go and BE FREE, or just shut your cell door and throw the key out the tower window!

I wouldn't want 100% total free will. Biological constraint is half the fun of living. If I could just will whatever I wanted I would have no need for lesser magic, and what fun would that be?

edit: To clarify, I like challenge. I find having challenges thrown at me to be enjoyable. If things are too easy, they're not fun.

So to answer "what would you do with it?"

My answer would be "get bored of it".

...and the drive and desire to achieve more must be prefaced by a state of dissatisfaction with your circumstances.

If it was truly free??

I'd put it on ebay and sell it for $100 profit.

I thought about this question under a different light. If "free will" is to be understood as "action without consequences" then I would be able to act irresponsibly without recourse. The law of my land would not apply to me, nor the law of any land for that matter.

The problem is that you didn't define what you meant by "free will." That phrase means different things to different people.

Thank you for this question, it really pushed my mind into unexplored territory.

Exactly what i do now. Enjoy the pleasures of life. Despite the countless laws against some carnal pleasures(i.e. brothels), you still have free will. However free will of behavior, and free will of the concious mind are two very diffrent things. Anyone at anytime, can do as they please. However they still have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

my mind tends to do a lot of self reflection lately. My mind, not me, as I *think* my self is a product of my brain. Don't *know* it, cannot. If the above statement is true, then every action of mine has its origins in some neural firings of "my" nerval network. No free will. No will at all.

I would very much prefer the question "what is luck/happiness". Serotonine (spelling, don't know) yes, but if that's all, why not just inject it? Because it loses efficiency that way. Got me.

I am a God, I have free will.

If I Had Free Will...

...I wouldn't be me.

To be me is to be an egotistical, self-absorbed primate of virtually no consequence in the universe outside of myself, a very small number of other primates and whatever other unfortunate life forms might cross my path.

The very nature of who and what I am precludes even the most remote possibility of ever possessing any trait which could truly be considered "free will".

So the question is moot.

Or at the very least, it's somebody else's problem.

Causative Determinism.

We are making the best decisions possible for ourselves in the moment, whether we are planning ahead or not. This is commonly mistaken as "free will".

If I had free will, I would log off and go masturbate in the shower. (That's still what I'm going to do, though.)

This post has stuck with me for some time. After reading back over THE ANTICHRIST; I found myself laughing when thinking about some of the replies. Imaginary causes indeed.

HS!

I enjoyed this thread more than most because I managed to make a lot of people disagree with me for entirely different reasons.

For a practical joke it sure turned into a nice argument!

Cynical SOB.

I didn't even see this thread until now. When I saw the question, I immediately thought of the Christians that say "God gave us all free will to do what we want."

I always saw that as an excuse for them to indulge in whatever they did naturally.

Since we, as Satanists, ARE our own gods, did we give ourselves this crazy little thing called "free will"?

HAIL SATAN!
HAIL ME!
HAIL YOU!
FUCK THE ABRAHAMIC deity!

Unimaginable things.

You must be right then. My imagination seems too limited.

Freedom sounds like fun, though.

The old "God gave mankind free will" is the ultimate get out of jail free card that xtians always play when questioned on why a God who loves us allows so much suffering in the world.
Surely if God is omnipotent and all loving he could do something about it ?, but no God gave mankind "free will" so it's mankinds fault.
End of debate, A-fucking-men etc, etc.

Many answers fairly similar to mine have probably been made already but here is my answer:

With "free will" or in other words supernatural powers I would probably have no will to survive as I would have nothing to strive for and it might thus be impossible to will anything at all.
If hypothetically in such a state where there are no boundaries for me at all I would still somehow retain a will to power and a will to life then I would probably reform the human body a little, make some important corrections like giving us resistance to viruses, a separate breathing tube and less tendency to be deluded but leave some flaws too so that we can have something to strive for that keeps the living as living and perhaps somehow increase our over all willingness to understand and seek knowledge.
I would then attempt to will the free will away and be enslaved in an immortal and exceptionally high potential human body with eternal capacity to a sensation of vivid life experience and sensation of growing power and accomplishments and that the choices I make towards better life experience would constitute my illusion of "free will" yet I would understand that it is an illusion as I do now.

However through methods of future technology it may well be possible to remove many of the aforementioned physical flaws even without such a supernatural free will.
And even if we find ourselves developing ourselves beyond our biological needs we may still be incapable to form free will for we may never be able to rid ourselves from that will to power that manifests in the nature of living things.
And why would we want to be free of that?
Would it not be a state of death itself?

This thread,

is,

a mind fuck,

( I'll also say that it is an old one now ),

mixed with several definitions of a certain term by people,

so here goes the cyber conflicts, and neverending pseudo-scientists "wars".

do not tell me people that this is the only thing you have done in your... >>> Elitist life.

The man concerned here (the Satanist) is building his own universe, in his own property, living according to the balanced nature,out of the so called dogmas of God. By definition you are free from the "white mafia's slavery". Be happy, stop masturbating online, life is your own definition, control it, you do have the choice.

There's not all answers, and life's short, just go for it : build, admire, be immortal thanks to it, indulge for you and your beloved ones,fuck the rest.



Edit : the "you" is general.

Thank you sincerely Assabrah for that take on the subject, as it holds value.(By sincerely I literally mean sincerely... no sarcasm)
It really can be quite a silly thing to contribute any time on such pondering, unless it is an indulgence to do so.

Free=something for nothing.

Will=choice.

Free Will.

I will get something for nothing, but I will be able to choose that something. Or will I?

There's no "Y," sir.

I keep noticing the same thing that often causes misunderstandings and pointless arguments with questions that are both scientific and political.

There is cosmology and then there is philosophy.
Free will does not exist in cosmology however it does exist as a depiction of an idea in philosophy.