Soul, Determinism, Free Will...

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Mod note: spin-off from thread in Philosophy of Science...

But the non-physical aspect of the soul is bound to physical body. It can't make choices in the physical world without the physical world. Every decision the soul makes is through the processing of information that occured before the choice. It is completely determined.

Just because we can't understand why someone does something doesn't remove the fact that they have nothing but pre-experience, conscious or subconscious, to use as variables in that decision.

[Rich]

Yes, your version of the soul would make the it totally controlled by the physical world, thus unable to overcome it‘s pre-determined path. However, your assuming that the soul doesn’t have any inherent attributes within itself, such as self-awareness, self-will, and conscience. If these pre-exist as inherent attributes of the soul, then even though it depends upon the physical world for information about the physical world and expresses it's self-will through the physical world, these attributes would be a factor in the choices made by a person, and thus the person becomes capable of altering the predetermined path of a physical entity. Actually, I'd say that it is requisite for there to be a being with a soul or some form of extra-physical essence with inherent properties such as these in order for determined physical reality to be altered.

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

If these pre-exist as inherent attributes of the soul, then even though it depends upon the physical world for information about the physical world and expresses it's self-will through the physical world, these attributes would be a factor in the choices made by a person, and thus the person becomes capable of altering the predetermined path of a physical entity.

First, the existance of a predetermined path would not be alterable, its defined as such. So you are claiming there is no predetermined path.

Second, you stated clearly that the attributes of the soul would be factors that contribute to your actions. This doesn't weaken my arguement. Just because we can't predict how these attibutes will effect our choices doesn't mean that they don't have definite effects. Because you are self-aware and have freewill, you will make a particular choice. If you decide to make a particular choice it is because of X variables. But if you make a different decision, it can not be independent from particular variables. If you do something because you want to, there is a reason you want to, and that is freewill, but it is still determined.

For example, if someone throws something at you, logically you should move. And you will, unless some variable along the way changes that outcome. If it is internal, such as the knowledge that you are expected to move, then that variable still exists and can be calculated. If it is external, then you had no control to begin with.

Also, if the beginning can be described as *A*, and the end is described as *Z*, whatever these might be, there is only one path to *Z*. If any variable is changed then it would no longer be *Z*, it would be *Z1*.

In fact, the area of science is used to find out the properties of this existance through studying the patterns. If the pattern changes for any reason, it doesn't disprove the pattern. It only proves another pattern and another outcome. We have discovered how a significant portion of our reality functions through cause and effect.

As part of the same reality, we are no different.

[Rich]

I’d say that some of our differences in view are in semantics, though I also see subtle but important differences. One point I am trying to make is that in the absence of a soul such as that one I’m proposing, physical reality is completely predetermined and unalterable. With the introduction of a soul with the attributes I propose into reality, physical reality can be altered by the action of the soul upon it, thus physical reality is no longer predetermined, though it is still determined, because of cause and effect, with the actions of the soul as part of the cause. What you describe is predeterminism, while I’m describing determinism in relation to the actions of the soul.

In regards to the soul, your implying that the soul can only react to the information it receives from physical reality, thus it’s actions are simply the result of transforming one form of action to another. For me this properly describes an animal with a life force but not a soul. I’m saying that the soul is more than simply a transfer case, and it possesses attributes that are not created nor controlled by physical reality, and though informed in many ways by physical reality, also provides itself with information which is not rooted in or available from physical reality. I’m also saying that two of these attributes, self-awareness (conscious or semiconscious) and self-will, asserted or not, can exist without the existence of physical reality, thus are completely independent variables, though they become influenced by physical reality when united with physical reality. Before this kind of soul interacts with physical reality it’s reaction to and actions upon physical reality can not be predicted, not because they are random or probabilistic, but because they controlled by the free will of the soul. As the soul gathers information from physical reality it develops it’s intellect, and, guided by intellect, expresses it’s will in physical reality, revealing itself in patterns of action, which can be very predictable, though they contain the influences of the initially unpredictable elements of the soul.

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I agree with your assessment of the differences in our views. While you believe in the soul as something distinctly human, I see the soul as part of the energy that is contained in all things. You also see the soul as completely seperate from the physical world, as I believe the physical world to be part of the spiritual world. The physical world can not be seperate from the spiritual world, although I agree that the spiritual world exists without the physical. My opinions, though, do come from the idea that the soul has freewill. But within the ideology that all things are one, there would only be one will, and all of us will act in a manner that is condusive to that will. Moreover, if all things that come to be must one day cease to be, the logic implies that all things that cease to be must one day come to be. The cyclical reason of the Big Bang, its contraction, and this infinite process leads to the reasoning of: =>A=>B=>C=>.......Y=>Z=>A=>B=>.....so that it never ends. But there is only one path. Just because the soul has a will seperate from the physical world, doesn't mean that the soul is without reasoning from the spiritual world, which is predetermined.

That said, I appreciate your understanding, and I understand your reasoning as well.

[Rich]

Inter.

I also appreciate your understanding of my point of view.

Our views may be more similar than you think. I stated that the soul can be separated from physical reality, though I don’t think that it ever actually is, though it begins in a state where interaction is minimal, and thus how it will interact when it becomes more “entangled” with physical reality is still unpredictable. I presented the soul as completely separated from physical reality as I did in the previous post to emphasize the soul’s capacity for an element of independence, which makes it a true independent variable. This view is rooted in my belief that as individuals we must take at least some responsibility for our actions, no matter what are or have been our influences.

My view of separation can be understood in terms of points in time. While initially the soul has little interaction with physical reality, the soul is destined in time to be fully entwined with physical reality, and thus when considered in the fullness of time the soul can be considered to be unified with physical reality.

I also believe in a universal will, though I would describe this as the will of God. In my view this is expressed in all things, including animals, though this expression is not necessarily understood. Proper understanding by a soul will lead to unity with this universal will, but proper understanding is not a “fait accompli” for all souls, because of the element of free will that all souls posses.

As far as the cyclical nature of reality, I don’t believe this is true as I believe reality was created by God and is permanent, though I do believe that it is possible that the experiencing by a soul of reality can be cyclical. This means that we might always be repeating our experience of a constant reality, but our perceptions of the reality will always be different because our perceptions are altered by our experience. I hope that this cyclical nature of experience does not result in reincarnation in this world because as far as I’m concerned one life in this world is enough. My hope is for a better experience of a better world in my next cycle of experience.

Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

About your idea of same experiences but different perception, I can see your point. But I disagree. If a reality is cyclical in nature, then you will be experiencing reality in the same pattern, and therefore you would process that information in the exact same manner. I agree, though, that I wish for my next cycle to be a more enlightened one. As for taking responsibility for your actions, I completely agree that we should. Only through understanding your mistakes can you understand who you are. I believe that the soul is predetermined for a particular path. That path will eventually lead to back to the source (heaven). But how we act will determine how long we are away from the source (hell). I believe there is a purpose for our indiscretions as evidence of the truths that can be found in all things. When one realizes that the "idea" of a different outcome was "possible", it adds another variable of experience to that person. It was going to occur, and it is for the best. If a person can't imagine a better existance, there would be no reason to advance.

[Rich]

I don't believe reality is cyclicle, but permanent, though we can re-experience that permanent reality from a different perspective. An example of what I mean by this recycling is if I were to be born again into this reality at the exact same moment in time as I was the first time, but this time as a dog, it would different; I think.


Rich

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Now, if the cycle begins again, there is nothing that says that it will be different or that it will the same. But logic would permit the later. If all existance occured from the source, and that source being the first variable, there are no other variables to determine any other outcome. So the first occurance would be completely dependant upon the first variable. That occurance must necessarily be the same no matter what, because there is no other "what" to spoken of.

As for the probability of events, it seems so relative. I agree not all things can be determined, but that doesn't mean they aren't determined. And your comment about the effect of knowledge on reality, I think, strengthens my opinion. That knowledge is an effect of an effect of an effect. It was determined the moment we began to think abstractly. An that knowledge will necessarily determine the future. Every event alters the present, but the future isn't written until the present occurs. But the present is dependent upon all other occurances.

I have attempted to study the idea of a hidden variable in Einstein's theory, to no avail. I find it fascinating, so I appreciate the information.

[Rich]

Inter.,
You seem to be under the impression that genuine free will is not possible because all things must be predetermined at the source. I don’t think that this is the case. Certain things can be predetermined by at the source, while others things are not. For example, it can be predetermined that at the end of time this reality will divide into two separate realities, heaven and hell, but who will end up where is not predetermined, but instead determined in time according each person’s choices. Another issue is that you seem to think that all choices are informed by truthful information at all times. However, some people refuse to believe true information, and some persistently choose to live in a state of self delusion. Some might say that yes this is true but this is because they are predestined to be this way in the beginning so this is the inevitable outcome, while others, and this seems to be your view, believe that it is predetermined that all peoples’ self delusions will inevitably be cleared up and they will inevitably become enlightened. While one of these scenarios might be true, neither is necessarily true, as there is a third way, which is, that at the source a person is given the capacity to create, with their own will, their own version of reality in their mind, a version that can be a mixture of accurate perceptions of an objective physical reality and altered and false perceptions, with some of these altered perceptions being of a nature that it makes it more difficult to perceive objective physical reality. Let’s now assume that a person’s self induced delusion inevitably causes that person to follow a path in reality that moves them away from the heaven part of the end path described above and closer to the hell part, and that there is a fixed point in time when reality separates into heaven and hell, and this then meaning that there is also a point in time where if a person becomes positioned so far from the heaven point at that time because of their self delusion they don’t have enough time to ever get back to a position where they can end up at the heaven endpoint, thus they end up at the hell endpoint. With this view there are many possible paths, some better than others, that can lead to the end point of heaven, and many leading to hell, with the determining factor being a person’s willingness to discard their self delusions in a timely fashion. This is how I believe reality is structured.

While I acknowledge that it is possible that reality could be structured as you claim, with all beings inevitably being enlightened because this is predetermined at the source, I don’t believe that this is the case for the following reasons. I believe in the existence of God, and that the source of all is God. I’ve never believed in the concept of predetermination because this inevitably means that all the pain and misery that has occurred and is occurring in this world was predetermined by God to be experienced by people, and to my mind, for no worthwhile end. In my view, if God has allowed mankind to suffer as He has, and He obviously has, the only justification for this is to teach mankind the awesome responsibility that comes with of the gift of freewill, and this can only be done by allowing mankind to experience the consequences of their own wrongdoing. Now, you may say that this is true, but in the end all will inevitably learn this lesson and end up enlightened in heaven. My response to this is that the degree of pain that mankind has experienced proves to me that what is at stake is more than simply enlightenment, but instead a free willed enlightenment that requires us to know the severity of the consequences of our bad choices, consequences so severe that they might constitute a life in a self constructed reality of persistent agony, this being hell. This doesn’t mean that any need end here, but they could. On the other hand, the reward for successfully negotiating the path to free willed enlightenment is eternal happiness in a world where genuine free will is still exercised, but where all are enlightened enough to exercise it properly. For me, only if these are the stakes for mankind can I believe that God is justified in allowing mankind to suffer to the degree that He has.

Rich