Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 05, 2010, 16:09 (5192 days ago) @ dhw

We are discussing whether / to what extent we have free will, and for this we obviously need a definition.
> 
> ROMANSH: The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.
> 
> DAVID: I would fully agree, and if you don't mind I will use that brief sentence as my definition also.
> 
> This definition excludes even the possibility that our actions and choices may be determined by factors within ourselves that are beyond our conscious control.
> 
> (It may be too late, but I've started this new thread because 'What exactly IS Intelligence?' has become somewhat overcrowded.)-Some old questions about free will will definitely prove of interest to us here, to help us shape what free will is, and is not. -First, I find ROMANSH's definition only intuitively correct. Considering that we do not have a solid picture on the question of nature vs. nurture, we don't have a clear picture on how independent we truly are from our environment. This gets more complex when we move beyond the physical environment (what I assume ROMANSH was talking about) and include the social environment. I would also go so far as to say that humans at this level are a kind of superorganism; there is a group will as well, centered on ideas, and is self-perpetuating. The most troubling thought of all is Nietzsche's pointed observation that a thought comes when IT wills. So to what extent do we actually control? Also troubling to me is any assertion that we do anything independently of nature or the universe. We have a reptilian brain that we are always responding to. And if your basic needs aren't being met, you'll never get to the point where you'll be able to ponder free will. -I would offer that the definition that should be used for free will contain these elements:-1. An explicit assertion of conscious control. 
2. An ability to create. 
3. An ability to do something contrary to solid reasoning. -
The first is obvious--free will must be tied to conscious thought. To what extent a subconscious filter restricts things makes this a murkier question, but must be acknowledged. The second and third points are absolute: Only a being with free will could for example, sacrifice food and shelter to create a sculpture. As I am also always tied to keep things into territory that we can know something about; this implies the ability to create art for no reason but leisure. We can only guarantee free will to a being that can say "I did X just because." -So using these three points I'll take my first stab at the definition of free will.-FREE WILL: Free will is the ability to alter circumstances of some situation through innovation. -This statement brings in my point #2. The definition espoused by Romansh and David doesn't take into account the human ability to act in innovative way. Choosing among options is far too simplistic for what humans are capable of doing--and lest one forget--the power of spontaneous intuition is something that can never be set aside. And as a definition, it is broadly applicable.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"