If there is no free-will, then what makes people think that they can still have a rational debate?

[ReapReason]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

 

[TEPO]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

Free will is our ability to choose our influences, not necessarily an ability to create thought… So any debate we have here will be based on what information weve gathered up by our own free will through our experiences.

 

[ASimon]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

What physical events in your brain are you capable of influencing?

 

[ReapReason]

Free will is our ability to choose our influences, not necessarily an ability to create thought… So any debate we have here will be based on what information weve gathered up by our own free will through our experiences.

By thoughts, I mean rational thoughts. For example: “I thought that was clear given the subject of the thread.”

 

[ReapReason]

What physical events in your brain are you capable of influencing?

This is not a question of what I can influence, but rather this thread is about what it would mean if I could not influence events.

 

[ASimon]

This is not a question of what I can influence, but rather this thread is about what it would mean if I could not influence events.

You made a truth claim:

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain

If that’s your conclusion, then I’m just wondering what physical events in the brain you can influence using your self-will. Since you’re basing your assertion of self-will on the fact that you have such a capacity.

 

[sdegutis]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

Didn’t you read Saint Augustine’s Confessions? I think he discusses a good amount of this subject satisfactorily in it.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

Free will is an ability to make decision and it is capable of making both rational or irrational decision. Rationality comes about during exercise of reasoning of free will when it distinguishes what leads to logical consistency and what not. As the free will of reasoning is exercised to various degree, some have arrived at logical consistency while some are still iterating the reasoning process until it reaches logical consistency.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

Well, freewill presupposes consciousness and consciousness seems to originate from the frontal lobe. Your left hemisphere and your right hemisphere have distinctive consciousness if not for the connection between them. This brings to mind Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor’s temporary “lose of free will” and “becoming one with the universe” when her left hemisphere suffered a stroke. Since physical damage to the brain can affect a person’s ability to exercise free will, I suppose it does have a physical quality. However, self will seems to be limiting for example you cannot influence your sympathetic nervous system such as the flight-or-fight reaction and this response in certain contexts can be quite irrational or causes more damages than benefits.

So, I guess whether or not free will leads to rational debate depends on how one exercises it, based on prerequisite knowledge and experience. May be also a bit of intuition.

 

[ReapReason]

You made a truth claim:

If that’s your conclusion, then I’m just wondering what physical events in the brain you can influence using your self-will. Since you’re basing your assertion of self-will on the fact that you have such a capacity.

Its irrelevant whether or not I know the answer to that question. What is relevant however is that my argument is not simply a truth claim. I wasn’t simply making an opinionated statement nor an assertion. There is clearly conditions involved in the argument.

I am not saying that we have self will or freewill. I am saying that if we want a truly rational debate in which we can know the truth, then a rational free-will or self-willing is a necessary component; otherwise everything we say and think is contingent upon and determined by non-rational objects as opposed to being intrinsic and contingent upon free-thinking or a rational self will being. If we have no rational freedom then we cannot know that anything the brain produces is true, since we cannot freely distinguish the truth apart from what we are physically forced to think.

You cannot accept freewill with out rejecting naturalism.

 

[TEPO]

If that’s your conclusion, then I’m just wondering what physical events in the brain you can influence using your self-will. Since you’re basing your assertion of self-will on the fact that you have such a capacity.

When I choose to drink alcohol, it effects brain activity.
If I choose to exercise, my brain recognizes it and tells the heart to pump faster.
If I choose Christianity, it might be possible that there will be more heart pumping and less alcohol… But actually any decision alters electron activity in the brain.

 

[ASimon]

When I choose to drink alcohol, it effects brain activity.
If I choose to exercise, my brain recognizes it and tells the heart to pump faster.
If I choose Christianity, it might be possible that there will be more heart pumping and less alcohol… But actually any decision alters electron activity in the brain.

And what influences the decision you make that alters electron activity in the brain?

 

[TEPO]

Its irrelevant whether or not I know the answer to that question. What is relevant however is that my argument is not simply a truth claim. I wasn’t simply making an opinionated statement nor an assertion. There is clearly conditions involved in the argument.

I am not saying that we have self will or freewill. I am saying that if we want a truly rational debate in which we can know the truth, then a rational free-will or self-willing is a necessary component; otherwise everything we say and think is contingent upon and determined by non-rational objects as opposed to being intrinsic and contingent upon free-thinking or a rational self will being. If we have no rational freedom then we cannot know that anything the brain produces is true, since we cannot freely distinguish the truth apart from what we are physically forced to think.

You cannot accept freewill with out rejecting naturalism.

The Catholic Church teaches that nature is designed for creation to strive towards Eternal Law (total truth).

 

[TEPO]

And what influences the decision you make that alters electron activity in the brain?

Other people who have been influenced by other people, stemming back to the creative act when the Holy Spirit was “breathed” into creation. In other words, all things come from God.

But the Holy Spirit also “breathes” into our conciounces what God wants us to know, whether through indirect methods such as His prophets, or directly through His Graces.

 

[ASimon]

Other people who have been influenced by other people, stemming back to the creative act when the Holy Spirit was “breathed” into creation. In other words, all things come from God.

But the Holy Spirit also “breathes” into our conciounces what God wants us to know, whether through indirect methods such as His prophets, or directly through His Graces.

Okay - so we don’t have free will. That’s what I think too.

 

[TEPO]

Okay - so we don’t have free will. That’s what I think too.

Then we agree in part. All thought comes from the creator. But that’s not free will. Free will is our ability to choose which influences to accept and which ones to reject. Even though God gave us the ability to blow up the entire planet with nuclear weapons, we should “choose” not to… Although we may in fact choose to someday.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If there is no free-willl, then everything you think and say is determined by blind chemical reactions. It is not intrinsically caused by a “self-will” since our thoughts and words are nothing more than the contingent effects of bind non-rational causes; not a “will to act”. Therefore the idea that we can have a rational debate or know the truth is nonsensical since you are only going to say and think what you are caused to say by the motion and interaction of non-rational objects; and not what you will to say as a free independent expression of you.

It therefore follows that if we do in fact have a personal self-will that can influence physical events in the brain, then such a quality cannot be physical, since it is not entirely subject to physical events or the human brain; a brain which naturalists claim to be synonymous with the “self”.

If things are all deterministic then we have no choice in what we believe, now do we.

 

[Maria1993]

Then we agree in part. All thought comes from the creator. But that’s not free will. Free will is our ability to choose which influences to accept and which ones to reject. Even though God gave us the ability to blow up the entire planet with nuclear weapons, we should “choose” not to… Although we may in fact choose to someday.

 

[Anthony_V]

I would disagree that the choice of an individual is necessarily the summation of all attributed passionate factors. Because the will works in tandem with the intellect, the question becomes not of freedom, but of purely objective rationalization. In which case, the human person has no such capabilities because we are not esse. We are perceptive beings, but not being itself.
All things considered, I have to leave my position at this:
the will, when formed by the intellect, can create a disposition of it own. Therefore, the options of an individual are expanded from only the most reactive choice to the potency of the most reactive choice minus the disposition of the individual’s will.
To help provide contrast, in the case of extremes, addicts have little to no willpower over their desire for their drug. This is proven both neurologically and psychologically (and philosophically, obviously). With that said, we are not “addicted” to the most reactionary choice in a given situation. As I said, we can create certain mental dispositions e.g. “I’m going to run even though I don’t feel like it”
In the running situation, the person creates a mental disposition to override their appetite otherwise. That goes without saying, such mental gymnastics expend a good deal of energy.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

And what influences the decision you make that alters electron activity in the brain?

electron activity in the brain? neuron impulses moves in the form of action potential generated by difference in ionic concentration.