Philosophical Speculations

Are We Deterministic Robots?

I have made this point before, but no one who denies free will has addressed it. Here is another try.

Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we have no free will. Okay, then. What must follow from that is that all of our thoughts, words and deeds are predetermined by physical laws of causation. We do not choose them; they are imposed on us. We are conscious witnesses to our own lives, but not active participants.

If all that is true, then neither you nor I are choosing what to do in this discussion. Neither of us is thinking for ourselves. It is all pointless and meaningless. Moreover, we could never evaluate our arguments for accuracy, because that evaluation itself would be predetermined in our brains.

If it is all pointless and meaningless cause-and-effect, then why are we trying to persuade each other, or to inform each other? To what purpose? All is futility.

On the other hand, consider the possibility that life, consciousness and free will are inter-connected. Free will requires consciousness, and consciousness requires life. From this, flows the concept that the physical universe is not all that there is. Our consciousness does not arise from, nor is it constrained to, physics. It exists apart from physics, and intervenes in the physical world, forming the biochemistry of life, and introducing meaning and purpose and planning into what otherwise would be an absurd universe where nothing matters.

Do you believe that you are a robot? Do you believe that all your thoughts, words and deeds are decided for you, not by you? Do you believe that you cannot help what you believe? Or do? Or say?

If so, then why should anyone pay attention to what we say?

Thus far, I have not seen cogent answers to any of this, but I choose to keep an open mind, in case you, who have no free will, are forced by nature to respond in a manner worth listening to.
-
-

Nah. No point. :p

So, Everything that is generated according to GOD's pattern which donates life and meaning and which is meant to be beheld is "pointless and meaningless" (no free will) but transient, contingent and finite human interference (free will) can make it "meaningful and valuable" ? Is work of art not a work of art unless you made it ?

> It is all pointless and meaningless.
This is a subjective statement.

An alternative outlook might be that the lack of free will allows for "sitting back and enjoying the ride. " with good conscience.

Is there free will?

To the extent you ARE mind at large: YES

To the extent you ARE a nominal abstracted alter of mind at large: NO

My comment on another thread applies equally well or better to this one.

viewtopic.php?p=6175#p6175

It is important to consider what we are talking about with "free will". We are generally asking whether we are determined from within or from without by 'external' causes. Our inner nature may determine us to act in very consistent and predictable ways, but as long as it is our nature doing so, it does not make us less free. And if we are self-aware, always expanding our knowledge of our own inner nature, we have the opportunity to influence that nature in ways which allow for more degrees of spiritual activity. The abstract metaphysical question of whether every occurrence has been determined from the "beginning" of existence cannot be answered and, fortunately, is completely irrelevant to anything of practical significance in our lives.

if we are self-aware, always expanding our knowledge of our own inner nature, we have the opportunity to influence that nature in ways which allow for more degrees of spiritual activity.

But the desire to expand our own inner nature is determined by our inner nature. It's a tautology.

Another take ... Only the Will is truly 'free' in that what can be Willed is unlimited. As for this 'you' character that has been Willed into being, that is but a self-restricted mode in which That which Wills explores all else that it Wills in this relational way, while under the spell that this 'you' character somehow exists apart from That.

And for Bernardo's take, the 'free will' question is addressed in some detail in this recent Q&A, in response to 'Itay' at around the 40 minute point—also relating to this topic thread ... 'Question about Kastrup's perspective on Freewill