Atheist friend says: "There is no free will, we are domino's"

[Trident_H]

Scott Peck in his book **The Road Less Traveled **talks about spiritual entropy.

People often choose the wrong path because it is the easy path.

You chose the road less traveled by trying three times to get through to Bradski.

Yeah. I’ll say.

After the Serpent got through lying to Adam and Eve, they could have chosen the road less traveled by going back to God to get an answer to the Serpent’s lies. They chose instead the easier and tastier path by picking that ripe plumb from the tree.

The Serpent did not make them do this. It wasn’t that he made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. It was an offer they were glad to refuse.

You got it Charles.

 

[Bradski]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. then it probably IS a duck…

I’m glad you said ‘probably’.

Let me ask you that if you believe a cat has free will, then work your way backwards down through the animal kingdom until we get to, let’s say, coral.

Now coral doesn’t have free will. So is there a gradual diminishing of free will as we work backwards or is there a point at which is abruptly disappears.

Neither makes sense to me.

 

[Bradski]

Because that’s how you test out free will. By doing hard things. When the easy would be free of charge.

We do the things we do because we believe they will result in the best outcome (or we revert to instinct). That doesn’t equate to taking the easy option. Sometimes it’s the more difficult option in the short term but will result in an overall gain in the long run.

There will be one optimal course you can take every time you make a decision. Or at least, one that is apparent to you. You will always take that choice…or revert to instinctive behaviour. Which I would suggest is maintaining the status quo. It’s equivalent to NOT making a decision. You allow your body to make the call.

That goes back to what I said earlier. There are always two choices. Do something or maintain the status quo. Allowing your natural instincts to ‘win’ is equivalent. As people say: ‘I didn’t want to eat the ice cream but I just gave in to my craving’.

Which is exactly what happened last night after coming across some chocolate covered icecream in the fridge. There was an internal debate about whether I should eat it or how much I should eat, all taking place while I actually ate the whole thing.

No decision was really made.

 

[Tomdstone]

We do the things we do because we believe they will result in the best outcome.

I kind of feel that that may not always be true, but I don’t see any way of disproving the idea that we always choose what we believe will result in the best outcome.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m glad you said ‘probably’.

Let me ask you that if you believe a cat has free will, then work your way backwards down through the animal kingdom until we get to, let’s say, coral.

Now coral doesn’t have free will. So is there a gradual diminishing of free will as we work backwards or is there a point at which is abruptly disappears.

Neither makes sense to me.

Who knows? Coral may have the freest will of all. Letting the ocean currents do all the work !

 

[Bradski]

I kind of feel that that may not always be true, but I don’t see any way of disproving the idea that we always choose what we believe will result in the best outcome.

I must admit I wrote that but didn’t post it for a while. I needed to think about it. Having thought about it, i can’t see any way that it could be wrong.

Even the worst possible outcome - death, for example, for people who commit suicide, is the best option available at that time for that person.

We would naturally beg to differ, but it isn’t about what we think.

If you decide to smoke, it is without question NOT the best outcome overall, but at the time you feel you can justify the nicotine hit without considering the long term effect. It is, as far as you are concerned, the best option at the time. Temporary pleasure versus some possible problems in the future.

 

[Tomdstone]

I must admit I wrote that but didn’t post it for a while. I needed to think about it. Having thought about it, i can’t see any way that it could be wrong.

Even the worst possible outcome - death, for example, for people who commit suicide, is the best option available at that time for that person.

We would naturally beg to differ, but it isn’t about what we think.

If you decide to smoke, it is without question NOT the best outcome overall, but at the time you feel you can justify the nicotine hit without considering the long term effect. It is, as far as you are concerned, the best option at the time. Temporary pleasure versus some possible problems in the future.

In a sense it is kind of like an unprovable axiom. I don’t see any way to disprove or to prove that you always choose what appears to be the best possible outcome for you.
Even for a person who wanted to be contrary and choose a bad outcome. You could then come back and say that he did so, because he wanted to be contrary and so that was the best possible thing he could do in order to prove his point.

 

[Trident_H]

We do the things we do because we believe they will result in the best outcome (or we revert to instinct). That doesn’t equate to taking the easy option. Sometimes it’s the more difficult option in the short term but will result in an overall gain in the long run.

There will be one optimal course you can take every time you make a decision. Or at least, one that is apparent to you. You will always take that choice…or revert to instinctive behaviour. Which I would suggest is maintaining the status quo. It’s equivalent to NOT making a decision. You allow your body to make the call.

lol

How do you believe this? Haven’t you met people? How many have you seen who choose the same thing every time they go out?

I mean have you never seen a gal agonize over what to wear?

To hear you say it they should be able to pick the same outfit every Tuesday.

And I mean whether I choose bananas or strawberries is non-optimal. It makes no difference. Except I’m just a bit allergic to strawberries. So why do I eat them anyway? Because sometimes I just want to have one. I’m not forced into it. And it’s not optimal. And I’ll tell you I don’t crave them. But sometimes I’ll eat them if they’re handy. Sometimes I’ll even buy them.

That goes back to what I said earlier. There are always two choices. Do something or maintain the status quo. Allowing your natural instincts to ‘win’ is equivalent. As people say: ‘I didn’t want to eat the ice cream but I just gave in to my craving’.

Which is exactly what happened last night after coming across some chocolate covered icecream in the fridge. There was an internal debate about whether I should eat it or how much I should eat, all taking place while I actually ate the whole thing.

No decision was really made.

Ah. So does that mean if you’d decided not to eat the ice cream you also wouldn’t have made a decision? I don’t get it.

 

[Bradski]

How many have you seen who choose the same thing every time they go out?

If the situation was EXACTLY the same, then they would. If you were able to rerun the film, the decision would be EXACTLY the same. Surely there can be no doubt about this.

But…we only get to run it once. But does that make the slightest bit of difference? If the choice is always the same for umpteen iterations, then it is always the same for every single one.

Let’s any that you are watching someone make a choice. The you step back in time and watch him again. Are you going to bet against him making the same choice? Of course not. The situation is EXACTLY the same, so the choice is the same.

Now you have the ability not to step back in time but to ensure that the conditions that apply are EXCTLY the same. So what changes? Nothing at all. He makes the same choice.

So for every set of circumstances there is only one choice that will be made. And this is not some verbal or psychological sleight of hand. It is literally true.

 

[ffg]

I kind of feel that that may not always be true, but I don’t see any way of disproving the idea that we always choose what we believe will result in the best outcome.

It kind of follows the ‘I like’ trend.

It kills discussion / debate.

Just read up on it recently about how the younger generation uses ‘I like’ constantly.

There is nothing to discuss, just head nodding or shaking.

It certainly doesn’t help discovery and is an insult to people who do a lot of learning to come to a conclusion.

There have been people on this site who’s claim to be Catholic existed solely because it was the most logical option for truth, they did not like it.

 

[Trident_H]

If the situation was EXACTLY the same, then they would. If you were able to rerun the film, the decision would be EXACTLY the same. Surely there can be no doubt about this.

But…we only get to run it once. But does that make the slightest bit of difference? If the choice is always the same for umpteen iterations, then it is always the same for every single one.

Let’s any that you are watching someone make a choice. The you step back in time and watch him again. Are you going to bet against him making the same choice? Of course not. The situation is EXACTLY the same, so the choice is the same.

Now you have the ability not to step back in time but to ensure that the conditions that apply are EXCTLY the same. So what changes? Nothing at all. He makes the same choice.

So for every set of circumstances there is only one choice that will be made. And this is not some verbal or psychological sleight of hand. It is literally true.

Except I answered your comment 3 different ways. Even though it was EXACTLY the same question. I had options. I took them. I gave you 3 ways to answer me back. So no. There’s nothing to this. Not from where I’m standing.

I mean I’ve been behind someone agonizing over which flavor of ice cream they want to get. I’ve stood there as they really decided hard on that. There was no easy flow-through. No easy path of most obvious choice.

 

[Bradski]

Except I answered your comment 3 different ways. Even though it was EXACTLY the same question. I had options. I took them. I gave you 3 ways to answer me back. So no. There’s nothing to this. Not from where I’m standing.

Each time you answered, the conditions were different. If they were EXACTLY the same, you would have done EXACTLY the same.

For every single set of circumstances, there is, obviously, only one course taken. If that set of circumstances were to be repeated ad infinitum, the same course would be taken each time.

 

[Trident_H]

Each time you answered, the conditions were different. If they were EXACTLY the same, you would have done EXACTLY the same.

For every single set of circumstances, there is, obviously, only one course taken. If that set of circumstances were to be repeated ad infinitum, the same course would be taken each time.

You have no proof of that. I mean I had options at my fingertips. I thought this way. Then I thought that way. Then I tipped my head a bit. And wrote my first answer. So if I’d decided to not write to you in that minute I’d have written something else later? But then I’d have decided not to write to you.

Just like my deciding never to check this thread again means I’ll have to decide to not check each and every day. Even if I might want to. So what set of cosmic events would make me face away like that?

 

[Bradski]

You have no proof of that. I mean I had options at my fingertips. I thought this way. Then I thought that way. Then I tipped my head a bit. And wrote my first answer. So if I’d decided to not write to you in that minute I’d have written something else later? But then I’d have decided not to write to you.

I think I’m beginning to simply repeat myself. But the situation that you found yourself in when you made a particular decision would, again obviously, result in the exactly the same decision if it was repeated exactly.

It cannot be any other way. It would be like replaying a CD of the Godfather and getting a different ending each time.

Your life has an infinity of different paths it could take. You have multiple decisions you could make. But for any given set of circumstances, you will only choose one. For that not to be the case, you are going to need to tell me what it is that would cause you to make a different decision if the conditions were EXACTLY the same.

If you change nothing, there is nothing that is changed that will give a different result.

It’s no good, and in fact, entirely irrelevant, to say that you had many choices that you could have made. You always do. But the conditions under which you make a decision will always lead, irrevocably, to the one and only decision.

If that is not the case, the next time I watch the Godfather, Sonny doesn’t get killed on the causeway.

 

[Trident_H]

I think I’m beginning to simply repeat myself. But the situation that you found yourself in when you made a particular decision would, again obviously, result in the exactly the same decision if it was repeated exactly.

It cannot be any other way. It would be like replaying a CD of the Godfather and getting a different ending each time.

Your life has an infinity of different paths it could take. You have multiple decisions you could make. But for any given set of circumstances, you will only choose one. For that not to be the case, you are going to need to tell me what it is that would cause you to make a different decision if the conditions were EXACTLY the same.

If you change nothing, there is nothing that is changed that will give a different result.

It’s no good, and in fact, entirely irrelevant, to say that you had many choices that you could have made. You always do. But the conditions under which you make a decision will always lead, irrevocably, to the one and only decision.

If that is not the case, the next time I watch the Godfather, Sonny doesn’t get killed on the causeway.

He doesn’t always die when I watch it. Sometimes I turn it off before that.

 

[Bradski]

He doesn’t always die when I watch it. Sometimes I turn it off before that.

Wouldn’t be unnerving if you watched it and he didn’t die. I’m not sure if I would dare ask anyone if there was anything wrong.

And then you watched The Shawshank Redemption and Red didn’t get paroled. And Ripley got killed in the first reel. And Lisa left Laszlo.

Maybe then I’d agree we had free will…