[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: free will (was Radio Satan)




>From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>Reply-To: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>CC: Over the Rhine listserv <Over-the-Rhine at actwin_com>
>Subject: Re: Radio Satan
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Wed, 22 May 2002, ryan richards wrote:
>> > In my view free will is the God given ability to act outside of preset
> > conditioning.  Maybe it's best to compare humans to animals in order to
> > be convincing.  Take a cat for example, a creature that is constantly
> > reacting to it's environment.  Experiment on (in an uncruel matter of
> > course) and observe a cat's behaviour for any extended period of time
> > and you will soon learn what free will isn't.  If you make a gesture to
> > strike the cat for instance it will always react in selfdense- it Cannot
> > help it.  I, on the other hand, could choose to let someone strike me
> > for some moral cause or what have you.  If you think that Ghandi for
> > instance had an impulse to starve himself and then had no choice but to
> > follow through because his brain chemistry, which function to help him
> > survive, wouldn't let him eat a rice cake then your view of impulses
> > don't seem to jive with what seems "natural" if you will (but probably
> > won't).  More later.


and Peter replied:
>
>Well, I think a person who didn't believe in free will would simply argue
>that Ghandi, like many people, had a more complex brain than a cat, and
>thus, his actions would not have been influenced quite so directly by
>external stimuli.  But Ghandi was certainly responding to his environment
>when he went on hunger strikes -- he observed a political situation,
>formulated an opinion concerning what the most effective response to the
>situation might be, and then chose to act as he did.  If he had made
>political ideals more important to himself than his personal health, for
>whatever reason, then his actions would have been an appropriate, and
>possibly even predictable, response to his external stimuli.


Then Ryan finally responded:


I agree with everything stated above.  The problem with the counter 
arguement is that Gandhi (sorry, my original misspelling) had to choose to 
make his political ideas more important than himself.  Now did this decision 
come from some impulse further back in his consciousness (or brain chemistry 
if you don't believe in a soul)?  The answer is Yes!  When it comes down to 
the actual act of course it is ultimately a neurological impulses that cause 
the body to move, or be still in spite of the impulse to not be struck in 
the case of Gandhi's followers.  Just because the direct cause of an action 
can finally be reduced to an electrical charge in the brain that tells the 
fist to strike or the head to duck doesn't mean that said person necessarily 
had to obey that impulse.  My experience is that it possible to overcome 
these instinctual drives through conscious choice.  Again, my conscious 
choice does not cause my action, it is only a precursor to what I am about 
to do or not do.  I think that our good friend from Nazareth is probably the 
ultimate example of a person overcoming the human tendency to conform and 
let one's actions be controlled by external stimuli.  Oh, and by the way, 
"He that the Son has set free is free indeed". :)))




>
>--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
>  "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
>       Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
>
>---------------
>Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: