I was also confused by your statement that foreign aid=socialism. Is it really so simple? Nice and easy to conventiently gloss over complicated ideas but it doesn’t make it true.

Socialism is quite simple to define: the mandatory taxation of one group of people to financially support another. Thus, foreign aid (through government) is a type of socialism. If you disagree, then say why; saying simplicity doesn’t make it true doesn’t make it false.

I was also confused by your statement that foreign aid=socialism. Is it really so simple? Nice and easy to conventiently gloss over complicated ideas but it doesn’t make it true.

Oh and “ergo”.. “therefore” sounds better and seems less pretentious : D

My question again (if you look above) referred specifically to Calvinistic “predestination”. That has everything to do with God.

I’m also open to hearing what other brand of predestination you would be referring to.

I didn’t see the question directed at me.

I have to admit that I don’t have an answer to your question as far as what I believe.

My point about free will only had to do with the fact that, as evidenced on Connor’s blog here, we can always find something on which to disagree. Though most of the time, we would like to believe that we disagree because the other person has flawed logic. I tend to think that we disagree because we disagree on the validity of the premises on which we base our arguments.

The more I think about your question, the more I start to realize that it is a confusing question. To believe in free will is to believe that there is no predestination and that we are all at the mercy of our whim – that we choose to do what we want to do necessarily without logic. If we use logic to make decisions, then our decisions are based on the premises that we hold true. These premises are taught to us in my opinion.

An example would be the value one places on law. Some people follow the law to the letter. . . others less so. I think these decisions are based on different premises on which each individual weighs the consequences.

To your comment, not believing in free will is to believe in predestination and this doesn’t have to have anything to do with God.

Agreed. My theology brings in the added problem of determining the role of the soul in decision-making. I see dualism as an impossible idea yet can’t come up with a suitable replacement philosophy, which is another reason I prefer to withhold judgment.

My reasoning is as follows: some people believe that the mind’s subconscious processes “fool” me into thinking that I make decisions. Yet without some sort of ability to make decisions, who is the “me” to fool? Automatons would have no need of sophisticated consciousness or illusive decision-making. My understanding of sociology and psychology leads me to believe that people often make the same sorts of decisions in the same situations, without necessarily knowing why they do so. But the illusion of decision-making is so great and so complete that I could sooner discount gravity and time (also possible illusions).

What is the definition of “untethered decision-making”? EVERYTHING has conditions. This is why I asked Adrien before about the “pinball” or predestination. Too bad he didn’t respond.

Externalities are of course an element in decision making. Any real decision is something that changes the world in some way. Without a world to change, what exactly are we deciding? If there is no criminal to punish how can the decision of punishing a criminal even be invoked? If we don’t have candidates to elect, we can’t vote.

They also depend on ability (or belief in ability). I’d love to fly (like Superman, not Lindberg). But that is not a decision I can make. I have certain limitations. (Well, Carb, I’m glad you can admit that).

All decisions are not only EFFECTED by circumstances, but DEPENDENT on them. The effectiveness of those decisions is then dependent on the implementation as well as the ABILITY to implement said decision. But the actual making of the decision is who we are.

Since you are LDS, you can see deeper than just “inborn personality and desires, experiences and current chemical state”. You know that we have a spirit born from that intelligence that has always existed. This is the basis of all individuality, shaped by whatever forces throughout our existence. Understand the nature of those intelligences, and you will understand Agency. So, yes, you are right. Our debate is very limited.

I’m not sure what your viewpoint is based on your statements, though I’m uncomfortable with any strong viewpoint on free will, mainly because we know so little about our decision-making process, but also because no suitable definition for “free will” has ever been given. None of the defenses made in favor of an untethered decision-making apparatus are convincing, yet the feeling (some might say “illusion”) that I am in charge of myself and can make choices is so complete that I believe in it.

I just think that our debate is too limited, and we’re missing an important part of the equation. Choices can be influenced by our inborn personality and desires, experiences and current chemical state and nothing else, yet be significant and very real.

That reminds me of what some friends said to justify working at In-n-Out Burger:

If God didn’t want us to eat animals, why’d he make ‘em out of meat?

I have no problem with your statement about animals. I don’t think about animals that much, even when I eat them.

Oh! How disgraced and humiliated I am! I’ve been found out! I’m PREJUDICED against ANIMALS!!!

Yes, it’s true. If a non-human animal asked me for sex, I would say “no” purely on the grounds that she was not human.

And if a pig ran for president, I wouldn’t take his candidacy seriously. Too late.

If a flea wanted to be a rocket scientist, I wouldn’t want to go through the effort of giving him a written exam.

OH THE SHAME OF IT ALL!!!

How can I ever regain my station in life??? What will my family think?

But seriously,

It is interesting that you bring up the Buddha and sleep deprivation in the same post.

I believe “enlightenment” is an older translation that has blurred through semantic shift to where it does not mean what it means to us today. I would translate it as “awareness”.

It is because we are more “aware” than animals that we are “better”. Animals senses tend to be keener than man’s. Thus it may seem that they are more aware than humans. But that is only part of the truth.

Sleep deprivation works as a method of torture by stripping an individual of his awareness. Thus he becomes more animalistic. He reacts and has only his physical senses. No logic, reasoning, thought, understanding of time and space. He knows only action – reaction.

An aware individual can see cause and effect. He can reason and intuit future events that are not always obvious from our senses. He can intercede between action and reaction with the blade of awareness and make A CHOICE.

If we lose our awareness due to choice, carelessness, distraction, or whatever — we will often meet action with reaction rather than choice.

The reason Sun Tzu’s writings were so profound and revolutionary was that kings and generals at the time didn’t think about cause and effect in warfare. They thought they were better, so they went to war and expected to win. They just couldn’t figure out why they lost sometimes.

Today, anyone who understands basic principles of warfare read Sun Tzu and say,”Well, duhhh”. That is because mankind has advanced somewhat since his day. We do understand a lot more about cause and effect. We are trained to be more aware of time and space and our place in it.

Does that answer your question?

Honestly! Did anyone else have a problem with my simple statement that man is “better” than animals?

I believe that the idea of ‘conditionality’ is an attempt to go the ‘middle way’. Such that questions of ‘free-will’ or ‘predetermination’ are not part of the equation for determining what is real, and what is not. This is how I understand it.

From what I understand Buddha also avoided questions relating to if there was a supreme being or not, or questions about the origin of the universe. Belief and disbelief are sort of the same thing when viewed in this way.

You stated the following:

“1) We don’t always have control over that which happens TO us.
2) We always have control over how we re-ACT to what happens to us.

It is the exercise of this power in human beings that make us better than the animals. Those who do not exercise this power are no better than animals.”

In what sense did you mean ‘better’? It sounds a little bit arrogant on the side of humanity, and a bit judgemental about animals. I don’t agree that we always have control over how we ‘re-act to what happens to us’.

If you were tortured by various means, anyone would likely to be affected by it. For instance if you were deprived of sleep, you would be much more susceptible to suggestion, and you probably might be more apt to reveal information that you normally would not. Irrational behavior probably would also be more present, and you might do things you normally would not.

If you don’t believe in “free will” what do you believe? That we are just random balls of matter being thrown about the pinball machine of the universe?

If you believe in “predestination” (per Calvinism) then you believe that God created some men to go to heaven and some men to go to hell. It seems like a pretty benevolent god that creates something just to put it in Hell.

I think people are generally more sophisticated and complex than animals, but not better.

Thank you for stating the obvious. This is just a semantic argument over the word “better”.

Now, to connors statement about enticements… If there were no enticements, one way or another, then we really, truly would be just as adrien described. I mere product of our environment and experiences. For what would we choose in the absence of all influence? It would either be deterministic, meaning we would always do the exact same thing every time (predestination or such) _or_ our life’s course would be completely random, randomness not being a choice.

In reality, we are subject to persuasions and logic and enticements and temptations and divine inspiration. As such we can take in those things, weigh them, and act _on_ them (rather than be acted upon, as in the case of predeterminism or randomness). This is where our agency comes from, this is how I understand the scripture connor quoted.

The invention of money is a type of conscious resource management on behalf of humans, except its not the resources itself, so its not quite the same as animal means of managing resources. The psychology it takes on in humans is another different factor. Animals can and do hoard and fight over resources, but as far as I know its always over actual resources, not over something that represents access to resources or services.

The current economic crisis which is happening around much of the world makes me wonder if there is something seriously wrong with capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are actually both monetary systems. The video ‘Zeitgeist Addendum’ lists some major problems with monetary systems. Is is that can lead to inefficient use of resources. Maximizing profit relies on real or created shortages of resources. The main problem I have with a non-monetary system, is what else is there? There is barter and trade, but I don’t think that is suggested in the video. I think there would have to be a complete new way of looking at everything, which is possible, but there would definately be a very uncomfortable transition to a non-monetary system if it is to be.

I believe we have choices. I just believe that the process of making choices are related to ones knowledge, experience, and previous choices. Also to all other events and choices which everyone else makes. I don’t see this process as being ‘free’. This is linked to all other events, its ‘conditionality’.

I found that so funny! Thank you, its great to keep a sense of humor, even while disussing deep philosophical things.

“Agency will no longer be free, but a surcharge will be added whenever it is used.”