Most philosophers cite determinism in physics and conclude that people have no free will. They say that all the events in our lives are beyond our contol and that the world configuration at each moment is determined completely by the world configuration at the preceeding moment.

However, this mainstream philosophical notion runs into problems with ethics. How can we hold anyone responsible for anything if nobody has free will? If a person's genetic predisposition, upbringing, and various circumstances determine what a person does, how can anyone be blamed for anything?

I think people do have free will. What do you think?

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

I agree that people do have free will.....as long as they choose to recognize it.

Do not forget the world of quntum jumps.....those unexplainable momentary absences and occurances innate within the sctructure of Einstein's relativistic space-time.

.....the absence of matematical equations within a physical/temporal structure rife with and based upon mathematical sequences and analogies.

I believe in Causality and freewill.
Causes have by definition already happened, but for freewill I accept Natural limitations (I am not free to walk to the moon).
The greatest area for the exercising of freewill is in thought.
I am able to freely think of anything I want.

You have CHOICE and INFLUENCE and the capacity to make DECISIONS for which one has to take responsibility. Even if those are predetermined, so what?


Schopenhauer: " A man can do what he will, but not will as he will."

In any case, our perspectives on "causation" might have to change....

Why?


btw, the Schopie interp I prefer is "Man can do what he wants but not want what he wants".

in any event, the causal structure of modestly complex organisms is so vastly complicated that it is technically impossible to foresee building a computer to solve for these types of systems, let alone that for a single human, making the issue of 'free will' reduce down to a euphemism concerning our ignorance of causes underlying our behavior or other people's behavior (and I'm not talking about high-level psychological pseudo-causes that we are conscious of, but fine-grained causes at the biochemical, molecular, and physical levels).

Schopie? Are you guys good buds,...Lucie? Anyway, Schopie and I must agree to disagree. I want what I want--by definition. How can anyone say I don't? However, I'm certain I can't always do what I want. I want to solve all the world's problems immediately, for instance. I KNOW that's what I want. However, I can't do it. I also want to create a square circle--not only for the sake of this argument but also because it would really stir things up. Can't do that either.

Next to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre, initiating a philosophical discussion of "free will" is the most guaranteed to provoke a maximum of frenzied pandemonium. Everyone leaps in with an unwavering opinion and agreement is never achieved. Over the historical span of recorded philosophy, just about every philosopher of note has pondered the question of free will and no definitive answer, that all can agree to, has been reached yet. It's not even that there is a broad general consensus and only the details are under dispute. Rather, the positions cover the entire spectrum from outright denial of free will (hard determinism) to unequivocal acceptance of free will (libertarian version) and everything in between.

To me this is a perplexing phenomenon. Could it be that, although everyone claims that they are talking about the same "free will", they are really talking of different things but calling it by the same name? David Hume addressed just this concern in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding


Everyone claims to know what free will means, but when the details come out in the debates, it becomes clear that each person brings their own unique wrinkle to the notion. Often, one of the first things mentioned by those expressing an opinion is something to the effect, "...in my opinion, free will means ...", followed by their definition or understanding of the term. Many variations of meaning are expressed, and the problem then regresses to getting an agreement on these definitions, which problem appears no easier to resolve either.

Whether or not we possess free will, no matter how different people construe it, is invariably tied in importance to blame and praise. Without this link, few would care much about free will. The common sentiment is that, without free will, how can we be blamed or praised for our behaviour? It would be all entirely out of our control.

And finally, after this lengthy preamble, on to the point of this topic. If free will is a notion whose semantic boundaries are so patently unclear and unyielding to agreement, shouldn't we simply admit that it is an irresolvable term and we should focus our attack on the questions of blame and praise directly?

Here's how I reason this. Blame and praise are natural human sentiments; that is, we all intuitively know and feel them without having to be taught. We all have a sense when blame or praise is mitigated by obvious factors, such as a gun to the head in the case of blame or inheriting the family fortune in case of praise. We would not be inclined to mitigate blame in the case of a cosmic series of connected events that started at the Big Bang and ended in a premeditated act by a rational person, even if we believed that the outcome of those chain of events was inevitable in principle. It would just not feel right and we, as humans, could never trace those events anyway. They are just not on our human radar. Most would be inclined, by gut sentiment, to directly blame a rational, thinking, and uncoerced individual for his/her acts. Our gut sentiment is influenced by the choices, that we can perceive and understand as humans, that were available to the individual, in conjunction with that individual's understanding of human values.

More importantly, society would only be successful if behaviour of its members is sanctioned commensurate with the common human intuitions that likely evolved just for that purpose - the success of society. That is, those are the intuitions for which we're most likely hard wired by evolution. Although working out the pragmatics of blame and praise would not be simple, I feel that the notion of free will does not add anything useful, and is in fact an impediment, if it so patently resists resolution and understanding.

Nice points to ponder, Culture.

My view:

We don't have free will. Every single thing that happens, including all of our thoughts and actions--occur because of the sum total of what happened before. No other outcomes are possible--in all instances--other than the ones that occur. I'm thinking that if an identical universe were hypothetically created right now, everything in both universes would continue to match each other exactly into eternity.

That said, it's apparent that we've evolved to live our lives under the impression that we have free will. I think that's why there is always such a debate on the question of free will.

A mathematical proof by induction starts out by assuming what is to be proved and then showing it all hangs together. If we start by assuming we are free, and then acknowledge that a free agent is then a part of the computation of what gets chosen in the next instant, the assumption of free will breaks the cycle of determinism.

On the other hand, if we deny free agency exists, we get hard determinism and we are not free. That's why this particular problem has no philosophical solution.

Therefore, Culture's observation that praise and blame are the more important and direct considerations is quite relevant. This leads me to consider culpable ignorance, which is probably the cause of our lousy political leadership right now, resulting in unnecessary FUBAR in certain parts of the world. "Unnecessary harm" is my definition of evil.

FREE WILL. AH, YES!
I am reminded of and compelled to tell you the old joke about the debate between the Calvinist and Arminian.

The Calvinist finished his part in the debate by affirming: "I believe in God. He knows and determines all things, including my eternal destiny. I would rather believe in a god who knows that I am going to hell than to believe in a god who does not know where the hell I am going."
====================================================
Calvinism is based on the concept that God knows and rules all things, past, present and future. It teaches that everything that happens is under the sovereign will of God. For your information, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#.22...nt_Calvinism.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

I hope you recognize that Calvinism is just plain horribly wrong. Enormous (and unnecessary) harm has been done because of that false belief. The "elect" aren't justified in believing they deserve their ill-gotten wealth, and their belief that the poor deserve their lot as "god's will" does not justify their selfishness and greed.

The past and future don't exist, so there is no future for any god to know. In a classical (Newtonian) view, two identical universes set in motion would evolve identically. That's not true in a quantum mechanical universe, where uncertainty is the rule.

I think the 'preamble' by Culture above is very sensible.

As an example, if I have 3 bottles of different beers (I own) in front of me, and choose to drink only one bottles worth, am I free to choose which bottle of beer to drink? Is this free will?
I believe I am. I believe it is.
I admit that I can only choose between the three bottles, but surely the choice is mine to take!

Well, my thought is that the beer you decide upon is the only choice you could have made, given the sum total of everything leading up to that moment of choice. It's all cause-and-effect, really, and every single thing that happens follows a "logical" path and could be predicted, given enough information. I used to think--wait a minute, what about random events influencing everything? Using my duplicate universe idea, let's say both of you decide to flip a coin to assist your beer choice. (heads=beer 1, tails=beer 2. I guess beer 3 could be your least favorite and would only get chosen if the coin lands on edge or you can't find it). Couldn't universe A's coin land heads up, and universe B's coin come up tails? But assuming both of you pick up the coin in the same manner and flip it the same way, in the same place, same time, same everything, you're going to get the same result. There's no reason to think your alter ego in his absolutely identical circumstances would behave any differently than you. And hence, it's all determined. (We had a discussion here on the forum not too long ago concerning whether anything at all is truly random. Nobody could come up with anything.)

Anyway, this is what I think (at the moment), but I could never prove it.

I think I do. This is why I chose to give up traditional theism--believing in a know-it-all and personal god.

BTW, I presume that there is a balance here. Certain things that I am and do seem to be "determined". There are some things I cannot change, at this point. For example, I cannot change the fact that I was born into a certain kind of of family with a certain DNA structre. But I do seem to have some control of how I feel about my heredity and environment.

Another example: if anyone invited me to play Russian Roulette, I feel certain that I could, and would, refuse to play.

Why?

Because I am fairly certain that, over a period of time, one of us will lose. If the "winner" chooses to keep on playing, I am fairly certain, both will lose, eventually. By using a neutral target it would be easy to demonstrate, safely, that this would be so.

Calvinism is wrong. Enough said.

May I assure you that I agree with you. My joke was intended to poke fun at Calvinism.

However, it seems that many people are not as free as they can be, especially those who have not yet explored what I call the pneuma factor and component--having to do with the spiritual or conscious leveL of our human nature.

But a word of caution: Being very intelligent and consciously aware--empowered by pride, greed, selfishness, anger and the like--can be the source of much evil as well as good. I recently heard Matthew Fox--a modern reformer of religion--make the point that one fully conscious human being can do more harm than millions of insects.
=========================================================
ABOUT THIS GREAT MODERN MYSTIC
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/fox.htm
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/door/
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=773
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage10/

I wrote, MIGHT have to change. We´ll see, as there are studies related to the a priori concept of causation being done in neuroscience which MAY prove to be interesting.


I don´t appreciate your interpretation of Schopenhauer´s quote.

Maybe I agree with Schopie on this thought:

"You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

In this sense, it could be argued that people do have free will. However all of their choices and actions are utterly and absolutely predictable, locked, determined. The panoramic painting is as good as finished, in a sense, but we mere humans are unable to see the whole thing, let alone change it. Let's pretend that a being exists who knows everything (and I mean everything) that has ever happened and is perfectly skilled at predicting logical cause-and-effect events based on everything known. Such a being could write down every single thing I'm going to do tomorrow--and there's no way I could deviate from that, even if I were to read what she wrote. It follows that she could have just as accurately predicted tomorrow's events a fraction of a second after the big bang.

The soul is inimately connected with the Universal mind. That mind is unlimited in its abilities.
The word Creation limits potential by the definitions placed around it of having come from nothing and ending in something or nothing.
Manifest reality is experienced in time and space but all events are not created in sequence of time, they exist eternally in the now.
The universal mind is omnipresent and exists in the now and can be perceived in the relative movement of time and space.
The soul, manifested on a thought stream from potential has a path that if follows in time and space and experienced in time and space, generally a starting point and a projected finish to a pathway that is lined with intent interpreted as time lines but more like the sparks from a flame.
Most people enter this ray of manifestation with their parents, earthly location, relatives and people they will meet along the way predetermined from the souls activity and desire having layed out the intent in the universal absolute, be it in another ray or universl mind. This freedom of expression that the Universal mind experiences extends from the absolute into the ego which can of itself experience free thought and the ability to travel within the projected ray as would someone driving from the west coast to the east coast. There are many roads but no mandate which road you take while travelling. You can take the freeway or the back roads and see the sights along the way of random thought and the choice to experience life as you will either closer to the Self or further away from it descending into personal desire and addiction to the senses.

When the ego mind has turned away from its source in union with Universal mind it limits itself by its identity of separateness. When it realizes its Self as Universal mind all barriers of separation are removed.

Legend has spoken of the great teachers like Machiventa Melchizedek, who was not born of a woman, but appeared fully manifest as an adult to teach of the coming of Jesus as well as prepare the way for the doctrines that would lay the foundation for his appearance and the reiteration of truth that would occur when he would come and remind them of the truth the scripture contained. Later, after his teachings, Machiventa Melchizedek dissappeared as mysteriously as he appeared
Jesus was spoken of as having the ability to raise the dead, heal the sick and be in more than one place at a time or travel instantly from one place to another.
Baird spalding an archeologist took a team of scientists to the eastern mountains of India, China and Tibet to live with and document the abilities of the Masters who demonstrated the same abilities that were spoken of Jesus and Melchizedeck.
They like Jesus spoke of the ability within each human being to do the same miracles if they would stop believing in the limitations that were created through fear and separation of the inner self and the outer manifestation of perception.

Freedom and free will is absolute. There are no conditions to being human other than those that are self imposed.

A coin flip is a macroscopic event and not subject to quantum uncertainty. The universes will evolve differently, however, due to quantum phenomena, and once any difference appears, it will be magnified chaotically. Take for instance radioactive decay.

A uranium atom decays by emitting an alpha particle and a gamma ray. A particular uranium atom might decay today, or it might decay a thousand years from now. There is no way to tell. Its twin in a parallel universe will not be synchronized with it. Therefore, identical universes will evolve differently.

But further, even macroscopic phenomena are inherently unpredictable. For a good explanation of why this must be so, see Rudy Rucker's new book The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul.

Most non-trivial natural phenomena constitute what Rucker calls "gnarly computation," which is inherently unpredictable. Given perfect knowledge of the state of the entire universe, there is no way to predict future events, even in principle. The future can't be accurately predicted and the past can't be fully reconstructed. There is only now.

Hmmm. Agreed that there is OnlyNow.

If things at the quantum level are truly random, then maybe there's a little magic in the universe, after all. I'm not really married to the idea of determinism. But I'm thinking we may not have enough information yet. Things that totally look random might not be. Maybe we don't understand it right now, but that doesn't mean that some currently unforeseen cause-and-effect won't be figured out at some future time. There are too many things--alternate dimensions, unexplained characteristics of the cosmos, and even a few basics (like gravity)--that we haven't even begun to figure out. Perhaps saying, "It's got to be random" is the modern-day equivalent of saying, "It's got to be God." Just a thought.

Free will is a kind of magic that doesn't depend on randomness. Free will is fully compatible with determinism. Take for, instance, the statement (from Wikipedia):

"...everything man does is caused by events and facts outside his control…"

which (along with other similar things) is used to justify the determinist-incompatibilist conclusion. The statement is not literally true because it does not take into account the fact that the experiences of people include their own actions and decisions. That is, it assumes what it concludes. If the events that cause the decision include prior decisions that are free, then those events are in fact under his or her control. QED.

The following quotes make sense to me and so does the following Question:If there is only the NOW, what is the FUTURE?

What do you mean when you speak of And, what do you mean by saying
For me, GØD is the symbol I use to refer to an all-pervading non-dogmatic consciousness--in which I live and move and have my being.

GØD consciousness never imposes itself on us. It is only in those who consciously choose to be consciously aware of it. For me, it is that which enables me to bring order out of chaos. In Genesis 1, it is referred to as light. In John 1, it is referred to as the "word".

A concept

Good point, CB. I don't recall where I got it from, but one of my favourite sayings is: "The future I used to dream about it now." This prompts me to ask: Does this mean that the past is, also, now?

Not necessarily a concept more of a projection, There is no future and there is no past. Only Now.
Every possibility exists in the multidimentional now.

Lindsay--to answer some of your questions of me:

***If there is only the NOW, what is the FUTURE?
When Rick said, "There is only now," I had to agree with him, not only to validate myself (and user I.D.) but also because it's a concept I toy with from time to time (didn't intend that pun, really). Sometimes I think that we're all just dancing on a pinpoint in "time" from which we never get off. Maybe there's not really such a thing as time but instead only movement during the ever-present now. No matter what, it's ALWAYS now. The past and the future--all of it--are just things that occur in the now. Try as you might, you can't really do anything in the "future". When it comes down to it, every single thing you ever did and every thing you'll ever do has do be done in the now.

***What do you mean when you speak of alternate dimensions, unexplained characteristics of the cosmos, and even a few basics (like gravity)?
The more we know, it seems, the more we run into things we can't explain. Alternate dimensions are often suggested to resolve current mysteries. String theory attempts to solve the discrepancy between relativity and quantum physics with eleven dimensions, no less. We know about four of them, so that leaves seven mysterious dimensions into which we never knowingly venture. Many things about the nature of the cosmos are unexplained. For instance, dark matter might exist, but the nature of it is not yet undertsood: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ter_011211.html Gravity is still a mystery:
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/

***And, what do you mean by saying '...Perhaps saying, "It's got to be random" is the modern-day equivalent of saying, "It's got to be God."'
Primitive man often explained things that seemed to defy explanation through religious superstition. Modern-day scientists have debunked many of those myths through rational observation and discovery. God is no longer part of the equation. However, when encountering something that doesn't appear to follow a predictable cause-and-effect path (ie, quantum mechanics), scientists often declare that they've encountered a random event. I think it's possible that a logical cause-and-effect explanation exists, but it's just currently out of the grasp of known science. Concluding an event is random might be premature and incorrect much like the ancients attributing anything they didn't understand to supernatural forces.

God being the man in the sky that is separate from the mechanical human properties that allow us to control what we can control leaving all that which is unexplained and out of our control.

It is superstitious thinking to separate ones self from the universe in any way by a force that is out of our control. That knowledge which exceeds present understanding will always exist in the relative universe.
Man living separate from the Universe, will never contain the universe tho he will always try to explain it. Every explaination will of course evolve into a greater explaination.

The Upanishads tell us that the manifest universe is becoming, So did God say to Moses tell your people,
"I am Becoming"
The evolution of intelligence is subject to the same reality as evolution of conscious awareness. Before you can put something in the hand that is full you must first put down what you are holding.
The past doesn't exist because you have put it down for the present. The Future doesn't exist because it never comes, it is always now. In that is a hint to the nature of being.
The universe opens up to omniscent knowing when the mind does not grasp onto the past thought of reality in definition or Scientific explaination. The now exists in its experience when the mind does not drag the past along ignoring what is in the now to project its past impressions into a thought of what is coming in some moment called future.
It all exists now, every definition, every scientific explaination and it is all Good and all God.

If you separate the heart from the body there is no spirituality in science and that is not living. IF you separate the body from the heart there is no life to live. God represents the ability to project and experience as well as to allow in unconditional acceptance through omniscience. God represents the totality, a concept of what is known has been known and what will be known and experienced as well as the still pond from which all known emerges.... and then some, it is a word and as such removing the word from the equation only rmoves a piece of the puzzle when it appears to not belong.

Before definitions according to technical wizardry born of ignorance was omniscience, the state of all knowing which occurs and only occurs while living in the eternal now.

ON, you comment Thanks for your thoughtful answers.

BTW, the older I grow--I will be 77, Jan.14. Jean and I are near the same age--and the more I get to know of life, the more questions I have. I presume readers and posters, here, like to ponder questions and are not too annoyed by them. I am beginning to get back some of the wonder I used to have as a child. Meanwhile, I think I have learned not to paint myself into the corner of dogmatism.

One thing I seem to know is this: Physically speaking, while I have maintained the shape and weight of the body I had when I was in my twenties, I am different. So is the space in which I live. I am thankful for both events. I think I am learning to conceptualize the past in terms of my memories.

HOLISTIC HEALTH
I am thankful to be in good physical health. I give credit for this to those who, over the years, taught me, personally and by their writings, the value of approaching life, holistically. From them I also I learned some of the basic principles of physical and mental nutrition.

Thanks, also, to my daughter's experience and influence. For example, influenced by her, for over a year, now, I have be doing the five Tibetan Rites http://www.mkprojects.com/pf_TibetanRites.htm
How many have heard of them? Each morning, I use these RITES as a time to remember the past and to conceptualize the future--the next twenty-four-hour segment of life. During this time, I affirm that I will be led to the people I need and to those who need me; that I will be led to do the things I need ot do and that I will enjoy doing them.

I like this: and the sincere humility which seems to pervade the rest of your post.

I must check out http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astr...ter_011211.html Gravity is still a mystery:
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/


I like to think of all the "things"--physical, mental and spiritual--that I experience, as being both natural, and/or supernatural. I hope it doesn't annoy readers too much when I use the code form, GØD, simply as a short-form way of referring to that which I look on as the natural/supernatural and all-inclusive mystery of all that is.

It sounds like keeping a good balance in your life has kept you healthy and happy. I didn't know anything about the Tibetan rites, but I looked at the site you provided. The poses resemble certain yoga poses. I can see how doing them consistently would help keep a person fit and also help with daily stress.

You mention "yoga". Yoga. Of course, I am interested in yoga, in all its forms--physical, mental and spiritual. Also, I would love to know: How many readers and posters are also interested, and to what extent.

THE YOKE OF GRAVITY ( From the Latin, gravis)
The root meaning of this Greek word, zugos--it comes from the Sanskrit--is "union with". Keep in mind that we need to ask: Union with what? For what reason? And in what way? In one way or another, we are all yoked to one thing or another--physically, mentally and/or spiritually. We make common use of the word when we speak of the grave, or that a situation is grave.

As Thomas Gray (December 26, 1716 – July 30, 1771) put it in verse 9 of his great poem:
"ELEGY WRITTEN IN
A COUNTRY CHURCH-YARD"

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

For the whole poem:
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Poetry/Elegy.htm

YOKES, IT SEEMS, CAN BE STRESSFUL OR HELPFUL
Yokes can be for good or ill, negative or positive. Like it or not, there is this natural force, gravity, which causes all objects, including us, to be drawn towards the centre of the earth. It also causes object to move or tend to move towards each other. Gravity causes objects to have weight. As I understand it, outside any gravitational field there can be mass without weight.

BTW, in Matthew 11:28-29 Jesus speaks of "yoga"; of being yoked to "my Father" (God) as a way of dealing with all kinds of stress. I take this as teaching: Yoking the self to the source of all that IS, whatever name we give it, makes life a joy, not a stress. This is the kind of relative freedom we have. As Spinoza puts it:

SPINOZA AND "FREE" WILL

The intent of many styles of psychotherapy is to make the patient more free. To the extent that the rational actor takes responsibility for his decisions, he is free.

Rick, what are you saying here? Are you saying that you agree with Spinoza's contention that: "...an emotion can be displaced or overcome only by a stronger emotion" ? but that a rational actor (you or me) is one who knows this and knows how to apply this principle?

Perhaps this is why Spinoza distinguised between what he referred to as "active and passive emotions".

For example, I remember, on certain occasions, having to discipline my children--even preacher's kids are not perfect. Thanks to the wisdom I learned from others, I dealt with the situation by simply telegraphing my emotions, my growing feeling of anger. Without allowing my anger, at their behaviour, to actually make me lose control and act, without thinking, I simply told them how angry their mother and I were feeling, and why. Then we gave them the space and time to meditate on what we said. That was in the seventies.

It must have worked...Because, here they are, now, grown and disciplined adults, both with their own adult responsibilites, including children. This must mean that the game of life is continuing. Furthermore, it continues to be fun.

BTW, my BrainMeta family, if you do not hear from me for awhile, do not fret. It could be because I am having some 'puter problems.
I may have to take my 'puter in for some disciplining and de-bugging! Meanwhile, I will carry on, until my 'puter guy arrives.

Not exactly. An emotion will fade by itself with time. Only now exists, but time is still a very useful mental construction, especially for rational human beings. Your example is the optimal way to discipline children. Negative reinforcement (corporal punishment) is always harmful. Children are rational at an early age, but even pre-rational children respond to perception of a parent's emotion. Children will seek to please a parent if approached rationally and lovingly.

That we learn with experience is the way we are free. If we consider only the moment, there is only one possible choice (what we instantaneously feel is best). But if we use our rationality to project future based on past, then as we evolve through time we become capable of choosing otherwise. The better we get at being rational, the more free we become.

writes Rick.

Interesting comment, Rick. I wonder if this principle would hold true in our dealings with members of the wider community, including the international one?

I love yoga--It's the one exercise after which I feel totally energized and wonderful. I intend to do yoga every day, but I normally get to it about once or twice a week. I really need to work on that, because any progress I make is lost unless I'm consistent--at least every other day.

Sorry to hear about your ill computer. It's amazing how much we rely on them. How did we ever do without them?

The brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields.

I was just thinking that your work of art really looks amazing from the angle shown in the latest picture. Then it occurred to me--how do we account for art appreciation? What is it about our material brains that make them contemplate and pursue lofty intangibles--like art, philosophy and spirituality--things that at face value seem to have little to do with our immediate survival?

Great question!

....immediate survival no....future evolution yes!

Could this be a generational question? Where members of certain age stratifications reared under prevailant intellectual endeavours are motivated via their varying exposure and exposure levels of relative cultural formations that articulate whether they have free will or exist in a pre-determined mechanical reality as a mere cog of a vaster universal machine....that turns when its told to turn.

Check out the FIVE TIBETAN RITES
http://www.mkprojects.com/pf_TibetanRites.htm
These do not take long to do. I do them every day. If you you do this, consistently for 5 days, you will not regret it and you will not want to pass a day without them. Let's know what happens.

Maybe I need to put my machine through the 5 Rites.

BTW, I just spoke to my 'puter guy. He told me to turn off the machine and re-boot.This sometime works. If it fails, he will have to come over in the next day or so and work on it. If I do not get back on line, soon, you will know what happened.

I would venture that the question of free-will depends on whether the temporal register doing the deciding is rooted from a single pivot or not.

From the Upansishads introduction, by Sri Radhakrishnan:

Only Spirit in us can raise us to the spiritual status. The Real, which is the basis of this manifold world of things and minds, can be apprehended directly and immediately only by those who fulfill certain conditions and submit to the leadings of spirit....




"Grace is necessary to salvation, free will equally so, but grace in order to give salvation, free will in order to receive it. Therefore we should not attribute part of the good work to grace and part to free will; it is performed in its entirety by the common and inseparable action of both; entirely by grace, entirely by free will, but springing from the first in the second."
-St. Bernard-

The simple answer is: if you are born human, you have no free will really. Your decisions are based upon the pattern of your personality which is derived both genetically (through the expression of genes at birth and the activation of genes during certain circumstances) and circumstantially through the influence of your parents, society and the present general knowledge at the time. In fact the only choices you have are the ones laid out for you already, how then is that free will? Maybe we should be asking, what exactly is free will?

I agree. And I do so because I, freely, choose to do so. However, I enjoy this "gift" because, somewhere in the past others provided for it in one way or another. "Free" will is like "free" lunch: It comes because we live in community--such an important concept. It is related to words like: common, common-wealth, commune, communication and communion. The Latin prefix 'com' means 'together'. 'Munia' is the Latin for 'duties'. In community we share our duties and our gifts with one another.

Few of us freely choose to live without some kind of community, agreed?

The "influence" on your decisions includes your own past actions and decisions. That feedback loop is the escape that provides us with free will. Free will means being able to choose otherwise than we do, and we can, generally, although some people are more free than others.

Yes, of course. This is abundantly illustrated by the current political bungling of the Republicans, exacerbating the "war of terror."

Maybe I need to put my machine through the 5 Rites.

BTW, my 'puter guy told me to turn off the machine and re-boot. "This sometime works..." he said. I followed this suggestion and did some process-praying. It worked. I am back in action, for now.

Having free will is being able to choose otherwise than we do. Do you think every decision you make is compelled? That's unfortunate.