Free will and Panendeism...

How do you view the idea of "free will"? Do you think it's compatible with a Panendeistic God?

I'm not sure how Panendeism defines this issue, but in my book Free Will is the key and reason for our existance. Of course I've recently learned that I was born with a certain type of personality that makes me the way I am, so I'm not sure how it applies to the other 99% of the people in the world. Maybe they like to live like Pavlov's dog, salivating at the sound of a bell, but then again it's their choice. Or is it?

I've yet to see a satisfactory definiton of "free will", so I cannot affirm, deny, or characterize its existence.

Here's how I see it. Free will is the capacity for novel creation and action based on existential conditions within the cosmos.

We live in and are a part of a cosmos that has it's own will that acts on and limits our ability for novel creation and action, therefore we have "limited free will". However due to our complexity and evolved nature we have less limits to our "limited free will" then say a honey bee or a blade of grass would.

There are even variations of free will among people based on these existential conditions. For instance someone in prison has less free will (or capacity for creation and action) then someone who's not. Age, health, intelligence, and wealth can also place restrictions on ones free will.

Here's where I get nit-picky. Why does "free will" mean "free action"? The words "will" and "action" are not normally used interchangeably, nor is "action" needed to define "will". Somehow over time the word "free" has caused us to forget the base terms.

One could theoretically have will that is free without freedom of action. That is the origin of the phrase "against his will".

I think that this distinction is wholly necessary before we can have any reasonable discussion about the existence of "free will". It also saves us the trouble of physical limitations. For example, I could have the will to defy gravity without ever having the physical capability to do so (due to the nature of the physical universe).

I think "will" is one of those nebulous terms that can mean many things based on context. In most cases it either refers to intent or action. In the case of "free will" I think it refers more specifically to action or one's ability to act or think freely or in a novel manner.

This is from the Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy...

Quote :

will- the faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting. Recommended Reading: Gary Watson, Free Will (Oxford, 1983) and Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will (Oxford, 1998).

Just another note... Action can take place in both the physical realm (within space and time) and the contemplative realm (outside of space and time?).

Aaron wrote:

I think "will" is one of those nebulous terms that can mean many things based on context. In most cases it either refers to intent or action. In the case of "free will" I think it refers more specifically to action or one's ability to act or think freely or in a novel manner.

This is from the Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy...

Quote :

will- the faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting. Recommended Reading: Gary Watson, Free Will (Oxford, 1983) and Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will (Oxford, 1998).

Just another note... Action can take place in both the physical realm (within space and time) and the contemplative realm (outside of space and time?).

Part of the contemplative is governed by the physics of firing neurons.

Our disagreement aside, I don't think that freedom of action can really be explored much outside of physics. The real freedom we speak of is the intent that precedes the action. I can't do everything I want to do, and we will not have a good understanding of physical limitations for a LONG time. A philosophical question more removed from action is the matter of whether my wants and intentions are my own.

Forget following through with a choice. The real issue is the choice itself. I can choose to walk through walls without the ability to actually do it. Is such a "choice" my own and freely acquired?

native_son wrote:

Part of the contemplative is governed by the physics of firing neurons.

Yeah that's why I put the question mark next to it. I don't know if "the contemplative realm" is really the correct terminology. Perhaps "the realm of the mind" or "the realm of conceptualization" would be better?

native_son wrote:

Our disagreement aside, I don't think that freedom of action can really be explored much outside of physics. The real freedom we speak of is the intent that precedes the action. I can't do everything I want to do, and we will not have a good understanding of physical limitations for a LONG time. A philosophical question more removed from action is the matter of whether my wants and intentions are my own.

Forget following through with a choice. The real issue is the choice itself. I can choose to walk through walls without the ability to actually do it. Is such a "choice" my own and freely acquired?

Yes this is the crux of it and I believe so. At least partially. Although I don't think that we practice free will as often as we think we do, I do think it exists. Without it I'm not sure that evolution would be possible.

I was thinking about the breakdown of it all with respect to board games a couple of months back. (See http://www.boardgamegeek.com for info on Euro board games.) The progress and outcome of game is dependent upon three factors:

1. Rules (determinism),
2. Things like dice throws, card draws, etc (randomness)
3. Player decisions (choice).

I was thinking that I find a game most enjoyable when the game is governed mostly by #3 rather than the other two. Such a game is more dynamic. I also gave some thought to the concept of "uncertainty" in a game. Some of the uncertainty comes from randomness, but some of it comes from not knowing the future choices of the other players. I find a game most enjoyable when the uncertainty comes more from player choice rather than randomness. Such a game forces you to consider not only long term strategy, but also short term tactics. But here's the rub: a good tactician can "force" the choices of other players.

Anyway, here is the point. Perhaps our notion of free will is not an absolute notion about natural laws, but instead a function of the limitations of our understanding of the universe. Perhaps we cannot define it or debate it from a "God's eye view", but instead we have free will as long as we have limitations on certainty. If you're thinking that is a bunch of philosophical triangulation B.S. and that even when we do not know whether we act freely or not, there is a TRUE answer to that question, I remind you that perhaps God transcends the absolute-relative dichotomy. From the God's eye view there is neither absolutism nor relativism, so inquiring about the absolute (or relative) existence of free will is no longer an appropriate question. The question only makes sense from the perspective of we mere mortals living in a manifest universe that we perceive to have absolutes and relatives, but we are forever plagued with enough uncertainty that we cannot answer the question.

In summary, I suggest that perhaps the question of free will becomes a catch 22: When the question is askable, it is not answerable. When it is answerable, it is not askable.

Interesting... It sounds like the heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to philosophy... Which brings up an interesting question about the possible relationship between quantum physics and consciousness.

Anyway. It's my opinion for all practical purposes from our relative vantage point, free will exists, even if not from a universal perspective or a "god's eye perspective". I see the universe as an open system rather than a closed one. It's this open aspect that allows for free will.

Well, I agree that it is pragmatic to assume that we have free will. I am careful to make this distinction, however, between stating it as pragmatic assumption and stating it as definitive conclusion.

However you define consciousness, the Integral POV maintains that there is an upper right quadrant holon associated with it. This holon has to do with the neural network. In terms of pure physics and biology, this neural network depends upon tiny stuff (particles or wave-functions or strings, depending upon which model you prefer). This tiny stuff is subject to the uncertainty principle. As long as your definition of consciousness is associated with the UR holon, then yes the uncertainty principle plays some role indeed with respect to consciousness.

As most of you know, I wrote something a few years ago on my thoughts on determinism and free will. To sum it up, Free Will basically means "increased options" and determinism means "fundamental patterns" and there is a dynamic interplay between the two so that you are never totally free of one nor in total possession of the other. Deity, therefore, is the context of all possible patterns and all possible options, in true paradoxical expression!

There's been a lot of talk on this forum lately on topic of "free-will".
(Perhaps it's already been talked to death?)

In any case, I thought I'd open up the discussion again in an old thread with this definition from wikipedea...

Quote :

The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

native_son wrote:

One could theoretically have will that is free without freedom of action. That is the origin of the phrase "against his will".

I think that this distinction is wholly necessary before we can have any reasonable discussion about the existence of "free will". It also saves us the trouble of physical limitations. For example, I could have the will to defy gravity without ever having the physical capability to do so (due to the nature of the physical universe).

Yes, I am free to think whatever I wish to think and to believe whatever I wish to believe. My mind has free will.

Freedom of action also exists. I cannot successfully defy gravity, but I am free to try!

My conception of free will is similar to that of Meister Eckhart and he understood and desribes it far better than I can:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Sounds good to me.

Nick_A wrote:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Well, that's fine...if you're a theist!

"The spirit of Man may not will otherwise than what God wills..." is double-speak for: We have no will unless God allows it.

That's just not compatible with the concept of a God that does not intervene.

Hi Paul

As I see it, the reason the universe is logical and intelligent design exists is because of the results of God's will occurring through universal laws. God does not exist for us since we are so far removed but that is not to say that all that exists is not the result of universal laws.

If man does have a universal purpose, it must be connected to universal laws. I believe that Man has both a mechanical purpose common to all organic life on earth and a potential conscious purpose Man can evolve into.

Meister Eckhart suggests freedom as related to conscious purpose which is freedom from our normal reactive life on earth that leads from dust to dust and into human conscious potential. We have a choice then of what laws to reflect.

God is not intervening but being outside creation only created the great living machine we call universe within which we exist. It continues to function by eating itself much like Plato described the ouroboros:

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

Quote :

God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom.

Well I completely agree with that. It doesn't deny free will and you could reword it like this if you chose ...
God ... does not constrain the will. Rather he sets it free, so that it may choose truth ...

Quote :

The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

This sentence I don't understand. Because God gave us free will, we are certainly free to excercise that will, for good or for evil.

Paul Anthony wrote:

Nick_A wrote:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Well, that's fine...if you're a theist!

"The spirit of Man may not will otherwise than what God wills..." is double-speak for: We have no will unless God allows it.

That's just not compatible with the concept of a God that does not intervene.

I disagree. The way I read it is that everything is a part of god. Therefore the will of man is the will of god. Or at least a part of it.

Aaron wrote:

Paul Anthony wrote:

Nick_A wrote:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Well, that's fine...if you're a theist!

"The spirit of Man may not will otherwise than what God wills..." is double-speak for: We have no will unless God allows it.

That's just not compatible with the concept of a God that does not intervene.

I disagree. The way I read it is that everything is a part of god. Therefore the will of man is the will of god. Or at least a part of it.

I agree. I've come to accept that we live in Plato's cave and as such live in imagination. If this is true it is easy to see why we would oppose the reality of God's will. Our imagination including our imagined self importance denies reality.

If Pandeism asserts that God blew himself up in the Big Bang to create and become the Universe, then what is free will to humans?

Isn't free will that percentage of existance God left to chance?

Couldn't it be a matter of percentages? 100% of matter responds to gravity, 100% of matter suffers from entropy... but only 99% of human activity is governed by pre existing conditions?

Maybe the remaining 1% is free will. It is God "rolling the dice with the Universe".

Why did God blow himself up in the first place? What possible purpose could it have served if he already knew the outcome?

Duh! While he might have a plan, He has opened himself up to some sort of transformation. I think there is some part of the outcome he doesn't yet know ...that's free will.

Well, the "Big Bang" was not necessarily an explosion, at least not as we understand them.

Rather, the "Big Bang" was an explosion of space, not in space. But it can better be viewed as an extremely rapid (lightspeed, in fact) expansion of space that is still occurring.

TXM wrote:

If Pandeism asserts that God blew himself up in the Big Bang to create and become the Universe, then what is free will to humans?

Isn't free will that percentage of existance God left to chance?

If you want to know why God blew himself up to create the universe, you need to read the little book by Scott Adams (Dilbert comic strip), God's Debris : A Thought Experiment. It's an unusual and interesting what-if scenario.

Regarding Freewill, I agree that what little freedom from determinism we have is due to the unpredictable randomness that is inherent in the evolutionary process. Absolute determinism would involve directly-coupled cause & effect, without any statistical probability coming between them.

Absolutely; the Maker of Life invests most in those who recognize that they alone are responsible for the way they handle things