I like that. It outlines an algorithm for attaining an approach to total freedom.

However, I think it can be refined by acknowledging acceptable degrees of freedom short of totality. So how about this sequence:

The totality of reality is self caused.
Free agents are a part of that reality.
To the extent that the agents understand or have knowledge of reality, they can operate with apparent freedom (or with some degree of freedom).

Joesus, even if I eventually get to the point where I could actualize your essence perfectly, which is highly doubtful, there would still be an infinite amount of design space left for me to explore.

So, no, we are both a part of reality, but neither of us are reality itself. This is a necessary condition of Being.

Yes, the idea that I've been trying to express is "degrees of freedom" through the use of "meta-programming". Paul from future-Hi has written an interesting article on the concept:

*Super Free Will: Metaprogramming and the Quantum Observer*

Paul is a bit too mystical for my taste, and I strongly reject his views on QM being relevant to the discussion as it amounts to attempting to solve a mystery with a mystery. With that said, my perspective does share some similarities with the concept of "meta-programming" and Paul's statement that "freedom comes from knowledge" also rings true for me.

Nothing more than a meatsack eh?...

Now that would be a value judgement.

No, reality is still something that is deeply mysterious to me. I just attempt to maintain consistency and intellectual honesty about what I know and don't know.

In regards to our exchange, I don't see my opinion as very controversial. Nothing, something and everything. These ideas are not difficult to grasp.

If one posits reality as an expansive array of infinite causal chains, then does it even make sense to speak of *determined* and *predetermined*?

If reality has no *beginning*, then what exactly was our ultimate cause?

If our exploration space is unbounded, then what logical possibilities aren't ultimately available to us?

The best argument I know of goes like this (nutshell form)

1) Some pattern rises up out of the muck that there is an awareness of (not conscious awareness)

2) Subconscious processing presents your response to the pattern

3) 1/2 second later (after some brain activity) conscious awarness occurs of the subconscious response as it proceeds

4) Your only conscious "choice" is to veto your predetermind subconscious response

It also takes a special sort of sadist to intentionally veto the good responses once you experiment with this yourself

For instance, being a celibate monk.

The memetic paradigm is what separates humanity from the rest of the natural world, and what grants us a greater degree of freedom. A mongoose can't conceptualize its instinctual behavior to procreate, nor can it create values which would override said instincts.

So one could argue that conceptualization and the creation of values (moralizing) is what bestows humans with their increased behavioral flexibility (freedom).

It would follow that striving towards being an optimized conceptualizer/moralizer increases freedom.

Is an altruistic act one of free will?

Of course, and so are the acts of CIA torturers.

I found the article to be highly interesting. Being that considerations of quantum mechanics enter into every chemical reaction, and I think consciousness has a strongly chemical component, it will not surprise me if it eventually turns out that quantum mechanics is intimately involved in either free will or consciousness or both.

At some point in our evolution, quantum mechanics may cease to be a mystery, in spite of what Richard Feynman said about understanding it.

Technically?
I would say no, if it doesn't register consciously that the outcome is altruistic.

In reality?
People get credit for being accidentally altruistic...

If a given altruistic act was under conscious control (I see a drowning child and I stop, think, and then DECIDE to swim out to save him) then this might seem like free will. But to even think and decide about what is an altruistic act demonstrates that one can be somehow "driven" to save another human, to potentially save the species. And that detracts from free will; rather, one is pre-designed to act in a particular. OK one might decide not to save the child, or the child might be replaced by a dog, another species. But how can the decision above, to save, be compatible with free will? Wouldn't free will always make us walk away. If not, then we are driven by our genes. That is, we are not the driver. Apologies for rambling - I've been up all night and day marking exams.

ps Wiki says: Altruism is the willful sacrifice ... which doesn't sit well with spontaneous (unconscious?) altruist acts. Maybe people just think fast?!

Free will is not well illustrated with easy decisions. Free will is best illustrated with decisions that are hard to make. Maybe you can find a better example.

Here's an example of anti-altruism:

Suppose you are a novice torturer. Your teachers are able but a bit disappointed in how you are turning out. It seems that you exhibit a nasty streak of squeamishness. You try to torture right, but it makes you sick. You decide to persevere and try harder to please the masters. After a while, you are over the hump, and have been satisfactorily desensitized. Your persistence and hard work have paid off. You get an A in torturing school.

No problem. I'll only be doing what comes naturally to many animals. I just love to see my cat juggling with mice! Like smoking, it takes a bit of time to get used to it, then you love it!

To this I add: Of course, there is no such thing as free will.

At this moment I write this simply because I am not free to do otherwise. Keep in mind that because I am not free, I am also not responsible for anything I write, anywhere in this forum. I hope that of my own un-free will and accord that I am making myself understood. Or, am I really free to say so?

Heh, on the torturing...

You're using your own perception that torture is bad.

Simplify things to an individual perspective.

Bad = What you don't like
Evil = What makes you unhappy

Rick, that argument goes in favor of the "veto" I mentioned being the only real decision making you have. After being subjected to an environment where you are reinforced on the subject of torture, inevitably your decision changes from the original "veto commiting torture" when the idea presents itself to the aftermath of "veto being soft" while commiting torture.

Edit: Forgot to add

The wiki doesn't know what it is talking about, so I blame the person who wrote that

Here's a more realistic scenario... the foolish little girl who was raised to be altrustic by dumb parents doesn't know any better to veto altruistic acts, and inevitably learns the hard way....

And inevitably (or hopefully? ) becomes wise enough to veto any altrustic idea she gets that is determined not to be selfishly-altrustic...

I'm a big believer in selfish-altruisim... it's typically a win win scenario... and when it's not, usually all parties involved have an understanding of why things didn't work out....

Being stupidly generous can have many unforseen outcomes that are bad for all parties involved.

So we are all in agreement that free will is an illusion, and that everything is embedded within a causal network? Reason triumphs again!

Then reasoning is also an illusion.

There is a certain irony in reasoning that reasoning is an illusion.

Even illusions are illusions, in a Heisenbergian sort of way.

Ah so weve finally returned to the underlying fundamental that there is no truth, only opinions. Whats real to one is illusion to another, Einstien himself had trouble coping with string theories and quantum mechanics, he was based in a diffrent sort of science. To quote him "Like god, I do not play with dice"

And soon enough we will have new theories (theyre already underway) that will replace current theories. Its only natural that there will be change and truths of the common man will be changed again. What is impossible today could be possible tommorow.

Which is the beauty of it, resolve in your mind that there is no hard and fast truth and you will be forever free to explore all the possibilities. This is not to lead to misinterpretation that one should abandon the sciences, rather when you get right down to it - science is a perspective on life. We can give diffrent interpretations of how the universe works, which is science. Developing theories as to why apples fall and why stars shine. When we use these perspectives on life in order to better our own lives - then, this interpritation of reality has been useful to us.

But do not hinder yourself by believing science as it is right now, its correct, because in another 50 years half of what weve learnt will be wrong anyways. This is the natural course of science and it is quite simply an evolution of knowlege.

Science is constantly being adapted and updated, while this helps us overall, it also means that what one knows now will inevitably be replaced by something else.

Max, you write And the following is an example of this. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that human beings evolved from a four-footed, knuckle-dragging ancestor. The lastest discoveries seems to point to the upright truth that we never walked on four feet. Like modern orangutans, our ancestors may have always walked upright, but in trees. For the full story check out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2709797.stm

The fossil of an early human-like creature (hominid) from southern Africa is raising fresh questions about our origins.

Remains from the Sterkfontein Caves near Johannesburg suggest our ancestors were less chimp-like than we thought.

The revelation follows the discovery of missing bones from a 3.5 million-year-old skeleton found in 1998.



Fragments of pelvis, upper leg, ribs and backbone have recently been dug out of the rock, allowing scientists to piece together its gait.

The anatomy of the hominid, a member of the genus Australopithecus, raises some interesting questions.

Its bone structure shows it did not walk like modern chimps, using the knuckles of its hands.

It probably walked on two legs when it was on the ground but spent much of the time climbing trees, says Dr Ron Clarke, of the University of the Witwatersrand, who discovered the fossil.

Tool-making

Dr Clarke goes further. He argues that the fact the hominid was not a knuckle-walker suggests chimps and humans are not as closely related as we thought.


It pushes the last common ancestor of chimps and humans much further back in history, he says.

Dr Clarke sets out his position in the South African Journal of Science, which publishes the latest data.

"My conclusion from the limb proportions and the morphology of the foot and of the hand is that this Sterkfontein individual was a climber in the trees (using its powerful thumb in a vice-like grip) and bipedal on the ground," he says.

"It would appear, therefore, that the strong opposable thumb evolved in the human ancestral stock for grasping branches. Then, in the mainly terrestrial subsequent descendants in the form of Homo, it was to prove useful for tool-making and manipulation.

"The suggestion in reconstructions and in the scientific literature that human ancestors were transformed into an upright position from a knuckle-walking ancestor is not supported by this new and important addition to the fossil record."

Max, if everyone had your kind of flippant attitude towards science, all the technologies that you take for granted would not be possible. The truth of science is not ontological; it is pragmatic. There's a big difference.

The 'truths' of science change, but not in arbitrary directions. The changes in science are constrained by prior science, paradigm shifts notwithstanding, so that the changes in science do not support the relativism you are espousing.

You have made your way from worm to man, and much within you is still worm.

LD, interesting comment. I ask: Are you addressing me with your opinion? Or the one I was quoting?

BTW, do you mean your comment to be a compliment to all? Or an insult?

Hah, all your bits replenish themselves every 5 years... so it depends

eg: Technically when you look up at ALCOR you absorb ALCORIAN photons into your eyes... so yes.. you are part ALCORIAN too.

Lindsay, the Nietzsche quote was in response to anti-evolutionists who somehow feel degraded by the fact that all life forms on earth very likely evolved from a single common ancestor, and choose instead to embrace ignorance and fantasy to salvage childish notions of dignity.

Orion, your comment is consistent with the fact that life forms are defined precisely by their forms, and not by constituent atoms. So the observation that life forms cycle through constituent atoms, while seemingly surprising on the surface, highlights the fact that we are not our atoms, but rather a form or process involving atoms and other things, and that individual atoms themselves do not define us or any other life form.

Do you believe, contrary to experience, that there is no intrinsic mathematical structure underlying everything?

To clarify, the process of reasoning is different from Reason itself. The process of reasoning is what we engage in to make sense of relationships in our experience, whereas Reason itself is the structure inherent in everything, independent of what our minds make of it.

Amen to that.

Thanks for the clarification.
Personally speaking, I have no problem whatsoever agreeing with the concept that all forms of life "processed" from a single source.

As you know, I call this single source, GØD, or--and here I will coin a new word--AGAPØ, which I offer as an acronym for all goodness and providence, everywhere present. In other words, let's think of Love as the highest good, whatever it happens to be.

why would anyone be inclined to think that? What utility does that that kind of nebulous thinking have for you? Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to think like that?

Consider the vast freezing (3 Kelvin) voids in space that are hundreds of millions of light-years in diameter: where's the Love in that?

Natural laws support certain structures where beliefs work. But then change the way things work and a different set of natural laws support a different reality.
What underlies everything is I suppose mathematical in that being the absolute, it is what all is reduced to in its essence.
I've never contemplated reason as absolute. But then again I guess you've not seen potential as Love.

And what ever happened to nature being "red, tooth and claw"?

I don't know about you, but during the first year of life for most people, they spend quite a bit of time getting around on all fours. Does this tell us something?

AGHAST - Another Goddamn Horrendous Acronym Suddenly Transpires ...

When I write 'GØD' I write it as a doublet of 'Love' (Agapo, not just eros, or philia), which means the highest good. I do not deny the reality of pain, suffering, evil or even of sin, the conscious doing of evil. I happen to believe that in all things, with the help of philosophy, science and art--my religions-- there is the potential for good (GØD, Love).

Rhetorically, L_D asks: Why would anyone be inclined to think that?

I respond with a rhetorical question: Why not?

L_D: What utility does that that kind of nebulous thinking have for you ?

LGK: Sorry to see that your listening is a little hazy. But at least you are paying attention.

L_D: Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to think like that?
LGK: I enjoy all kinds of thinking. How about you? Is your thinking always clear?

The action that is separate from the awareness of God in all things is Sin, not the doing of something that goes against ones belief in God and Gods ideals, that is just a belief.

Without the experience of the Supreme Being the awareness is projected forth from a belief that some things are separate from God.



This personal approach defines your GØD within the boundaries of your highest conception of Good, but it is not Gods highest conception, nor are you, in a search for knowledge and conception of yourself, Gods highest conception of you.


The potential for God in all the things that you don't experience as God, you see as needing your help. Your belief is that your philosophies, sciences, arts and religions will bring God into them.
This is the original sin, the knowledge of the fruit of duality, good and evil, the biting of the apple so to speak, and the duality of religion created to manipulate God into forms and ideals of fanatacism and beliefs.


That would be consistent with your sin

If sin is the doing of evil deliberately, then I can cast the first stone. However, there are inadvertant evils, and even evils we are unaware of because we didn't proactively seek them out and avoid them.

Good for you, Rick. But, if as you say, you "...can cast the first stone." I understand this to mean that you are careful not to deliberately, and willingly (using your free will) choose to hurt others.

As you point out, "... there are inadvertant evils, and even evils we are unaware of because we didn't proactively seek them out and avoid them."

In other words: there are sins of commission--deliberately and consciously hurting someone; and there are sins of ommission--deliberately avoiding to help those who need and deserve our help.

TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS A PERSON I HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO
Rick, your point brings up the question about whether or not God is an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful personal being.

If God is such a person, this means that he knows everything about us and all the dangers we all face, daily. This also means God knows when there is danger ahead for all, including those who pray to him, constantly, for protection. If this is so, how come that so often we read about planes crashing, killing all on board, including innocent children and those who prayed for protection?

BTW 1, it is said that all sin is evil, but not all evil is sin.

BTW 2, the fact of sin is a very complex matter. I make no absolute claim that I fully understand it. So are grace and forgiveness. How would you define these terms?

I'll quote you: I use the symbol, GØD, to refer to the entire physical COSMOS and beyond. GØD encompasses and interpenetrates all "things"--physical, mental and spiritual. This is panentheism--not just pantheism.

In GØD, all that is exists. In GØD, we all live, move and have our being.

Your interpretation of his point, being your own thoughts, (and the desire to hear your own thoughts and express them, in dialogue) is a reflection of your identification with God or God in a box.

From your profile, and many other repeated postings:
G=moral goodness.
Ø=the order of all nature as explored by science/maths, and
D=the discipline, design, direction and destiny leading to beauty.

1.Morality is interpreted through the beliefs of the personal. The beneficence of man is generally conditional.
2.The order of things as explored by the levels of conscious awareness and its interpretation when limited to an authority that is democratic in nature is constantly changing in its knowledge and its evolution of the support system that identifies the authority.
3.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if beauty is to be defined by the scientists and mathematicians then beauty found in an artist or a spiritualist or an athiest might clash with the authoritative nature.

If God is obliging then often the desires of the individual are in conflict. The surface thought being the one that is present in the moment with a greater thought more often entertained at a deeper level overriding the surface desire.
IF someone goes down in a plane and prays to God, "save me," Who's to say how God has worked within the nature of ones life and death if one is always projecting their beliefs onto God rather than walking side by side with God.

"I and my Father are One."Words spoken from the experience and union with the supreme being, rather than the projections of a mind absorbed in the illusions of egoic prejudice and pride.


Not all evil is evil for one without sin can carry out Gods will and be percieved by someone who doesn't know God to be evil.

Facts are often relative to beliefs. Anything that isn't understood becomes complicated when the ego tries to become its own authority of God and the universe, making suppositions into fact.

Grace is the nature of God moving within the individual and all things when personality is surrendered and the ego becomes the servant to the nature of God in expansion and evolution.

Forgiveness requires living without conditions on love and expectations of others.
In the Mahabharata war described in the "Bhagavad-Gita", the Pandava Brothers were trying to get a grip on what was happening as family was fighting against family in the struggle of evil against good. Each side saw themselves as righteous and each side could not understand the horror that was taking place, and Krishna was dancing among the chaos shouting "God O' God, everywhere is God".

So, what next?

Not satisfied with the present?

You understood correctly regarding the first portion, but regarding the second, you err again. Sins of ommision are not deliberate. For example, for an adult to tell a curious child that the force of gravity is due to the spinning of the Earth is evil. The adult who says such a thing is not lying, but he has failed to inform himself before presuming to "teach" a child.

To the extent that the child believes the ill-informed adult, he is harmed because someday he will have to unlearn the false explanation. The adult is negligent in not taking his role as teacher seriously.

Agreed. Not all sins of ommission are conscious ones. However, IMHO, many are. The good that I knowingly omit to do, because I just don't want to be bothered, or because of personal prejudice, can often do more harm than a sin of commission.

Read, for example, the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37. It is unique to Luke. Interestingly. Luke, a physician--who could have once been a slave--was a Gentile. Samaritan/Gentiles were not considered to be one with the "chosen ones".)

http://www.biblegateway.com/

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]" [Found in Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19. In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus quote the teaching, himself, as part of his summary of the Ten Commandments.]

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

JESUS KNOCKED ORGANIZED RELIGION
31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.

HE ALSO KNOCKED THE BUREAUCRATIC LAITY
32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

HE POINTED TO GOOD ACTIONS OF AN OUTSIDER
33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
================================
This is the kind of universalism--that good people are to be found in all races and creeds, not just among the chosen ones--is what got Jesus into a lot of trouble with the prejudiced types among his fellow Jews.

In 2003, the Archives of Neurology carried a startling clinical report. A middle-aged Virginian man with no history of any misdemeanour began to stash child pornography and sexually molest his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Placed in the court system, his sexual behaviour became increasingly compulsive. Eventually, after repeatedly complaining of headaches and vertigo, he was sent for a brain scan. It showed a large but benign tumour in the frontal area of his brain, invading the septum and hypothalmus - regions known to regulate sexual behaviour.

After removal of the tumour, his sexual interests returned to normal. Months later, his sexual focus on young girls rekindled, and a new scan revealed that bits of tissue missed in the surgery had grown into a sizeable tumour. Surgery once again restored his behavioural profile to "normal".

This case renders concrete the issue of free will. Did the man have free will? Was he responsible for his behaviour? Can a tumour usurp one's free will? With the tumour, he had powerful, but atypical desires; he was not himself. Even so, the case reminds us that most adults also have powerful, albeit typical, sexual desires - desires that are sometimes more powerful than the need for food or the fear of pain. These sexual desires are regulated by hormones that act on neurons in the septum and connected brain areas. How different, then, are normal humans from the Virginia man where free will is concerned?

Loaned from: Patricia Churchland, New Scientist, 18 November 2006

One cannot separate free and not free from different human beings. If a change in structure can so quickly change free will to no will, then one would assume that free will was not present in the first place.

However. This said, people do not always succumb to such trifles. It is, in fact, possible for one area of the mind to over-ride another. Such as when people are emotionally swept up -- the logical portion of the mind can be pushed aside by the emotional.

Yes, the chemicals released do have a direct effect on how a person acts. However, you do not turn into a mindless zombie after an extra boost in sex hormones.

Besides, an increase is sexual desire can be carried out in many ways and it can also be suppressed. Did this man HAVE to turn to illicit acts? I think not. Most teenagers probably have more adrenaline given the way their bodies are at the time.

And you don't see them turning to such heinous acts.

In fact, there is a wide range in the statistics of how teenagers act, from flamboyant to very reserved. They all experience increases in sex hormones yet react to them in very different ways.

It's really a matter of how strong a persons will is. Remember, the brain is a dynamic structure, it does not simply follow a preset set of instructions.

So, the brain is always changing and is capable of adapting to different scenarios. People who have deeply ingrained beliefs or core functional thoughts about their world, will not go against those thoughts or beliefs even if faced with death.

Besides, it is rather unreliable to be going off of just one case. We do not know if this man has a suppressed history of child abuse or was exposed to it in some other way. There are just far to many variables not accounted for to start basing theories off of it.

One would need to do some serious studies involving the deliberate increase of chemical activity in the sexual areas of the brain and see their relative reactions on patients.

Obviously their will be some form of changes in sexual desire, thats only natural -- it's how the brain works. The real questions is to what extent can a increase in stimulation of the sexual portions of the brain cause a change in an individuals ability to choose?

There could be a new police force created after scientists determine when an amount of hormones technically make you a psychopath to police humanity for hormone levels. Kinda like a breathalyzer or pee test, if someone shows an inclination towards too much friendliness or is buying too many porn mags or hoarding large quantities of Viagra, they swoop in and force themselves upon the perpetrator and analyze the hormone levels then lock em up or let em go..


Sorry, it's not my fault, I just couldn't help myself.

So what is the real "you"? The one with the tumour or without? The one with the high or low level of hormone? The one with the hallucinogen or without?

Ah... Know this, and you will have achieved enlightenment grasshopper!!