Free will..., Just an ideal? Options

[AC9breaker]

Suppose for an instance there was definative proof of a god in this universe. If he knows everything we do, then is there really such a thing as free will?

Something I saw in a movie, not the exact quote but something along those lines. He then went to elaborate how the notion of free will is just a belief, an ideal we created to make us feel we are in control. He pretty much said that it is a theoretical ideal much like karl marx and his ideals on communism. Later on in the movie it talks about how we act only because it is in our genes. All of our decisions and thinking have been pretty much been preordained by genes and the nature, henceforth instinct. An autonamus thought that makes us perform or think an image already set by our body. They also elborated that even in our society we are controlled by rules, laws, norms, and unwritten laws. They then suggested that these guidlines are so effective becuase everyone wants to have a place in life and meaning. Like a gear in a clock. As opposed to just wandering around aimlessly and erratically like elctrons and atoms.

I thin I was pretty much aware of the thoughts psoted above, but never really did bother to contemplate much on the meaning of them. It seemed to make sense and be true which pissed me off alot. I still haven't gotten over it. Not becuase of what he said, but because that fact that I don't really see a way to rebut this and it might be true. That I am not in control. There was also alot more information which I failed to grasp at the moment which I think did provided an alternative thought. But I'm just curious to know as to what everyone else thinks on the matter.

[HC82]

The below is my opinion, so deal with it.

Suppose for an instance there was definative proof of a god in this universe. If he knows everything we do, then is there really such a thing as free will?

The defintion of free will needs to have finite definitions. If the notion of free will is false, and there is no such thing as free will, then is that really a bad thing? What is free-will? In one aspect, me going to choose go to burger king or sub-ways in free-will. In another way, my hunger is making the real choice, so I had no free-will to begin with. Let's try to look at free-will in the absolute sense(the beginning).

Something I saw in a movie, not the exact quote but something along those lines. He then went to elaborate how the notion of free will is just a belief, an ideal we created to make us feel we are in control. He pretty much said that it is a theoretical ideal much like karl marx and his ideals on communism. Later on in the movie it talks about how we act only because it is in our genes. All of our decisions and thinking have been pretty much been preordained by genes and the nature, henceforth instinct.

People often think they define who they are and to some degree they do, but the majority of your personality and character isn't created by you. Ignoring outside influences, our talents, personalities, and the changes that the world inflicts on us is all pre-fabricated in the end, based on our roots(i'll explain). When taking geneology into consideration, outside influences affect our personality and people react different and are molded differently to these influences(be it good, bad, or traumatic). But what is it that determines why one person becomes one way and another person another way, assuming certain experiences are fairly similar. Geneology no doubt plays a role in this. Our basic character "blue-prints" or genes will cause us to act a certain way to certain events(because genes give us a root personality), but despite our "blue-prints," we are changed by the events around us. Thus, we are dynamic creatures that change from our "blue-prints," but those "blue-prints" have an affect on how we react to change, because genes are our building blocks. I can build a building of marble and paint over it in red. Now you see a red building, not the marble building you first started with. But regardless of what we see on the outside, the inside remains the same. The marble house will not catch on fire, unlike a wooden house, regardless of the red paint. The property of being fire-proof will remain with the marbel house, that the wooden house doesn't have. The same is with our geneology, it's always with us, even with the changes. But, despite our geneology, outside influences can be as strong as that which defines who we are. Essentially, both aspects play a role in regards to who we are... But, I say this. That which defines the root of what we are, is never defined by ourselves(geneology). Genes were never crafted by our own hands, but they have a say in our character.

When taking into consideration about free-will, maybe we have to consider that our will isn't our own to begin with. What defines why we do or don't think a certain way? Right now, you can read what I write and draw opinions and conclusions about it, but I ask, why? Why are you thinking that way? Why is the brain even able to think? Why do you even have a brain? Why are we even here? As we ask why, and ask why we asked why, we are left with unanswerable questions. What truely defines "you" is never determined by "you." Did you craft your own face before you were born, or determine the talents you have with you now? If you persue a career in art because it is your passion, whose will are you really following? If one decides to defy this passion, is their demonstration of free will a good thing or a bad thing? Are they even demonstrating free will to begin with? In a general sense, a person makes the choices they make and they are responsible for them. But when we take geneology into consideration, if our genes play a role in our characters, a part of us is already predetermined and as hard as we try, we are what we are(to some degree). Even that desire to rebel, how can you say that it is your choice when the very brain you reason with was not created by you, but concieved, instead, by someone else, whose geneology was pre-determined beforehand.

We can't ignore that humans are dynamic, regardless of "blue-prints," but we can't ignore that who we are was never our choice to begin with, so any free-will we think we have is stifled to begin with.

As smart and intelligent as humans might think they are, they need to humble themselves to the fact that their own complexity is something they can't even build themselves(yet). Thus, if they can't re-create the complexity of what they are, how can they dictate that their thoughts and actions are their own to begin with.

An autonamus thought that makes us perform or think an image already set by our body. They also elborated that even in our society we are controlled by rules, laws, norms, and unwritten laws. They then suggested that these guidlines are so effective becuase everyone wants to have a place in life and meaning. Like a gear in a clock. As opposed to just wandering around aimlessly and erratically like elctrons and atoms.

Our reality; what is it?
Our minds are limited to what we know. What I see, think, feel, hear, and perceive is the world in my mind. These norms, rules, and guideslines do and always will shape our character. So, in that sense, we can perhaps say that we lack free-will due to these influences. But such things as norms and guidlines are often man-made. These influences are by the "hand" of Man. But Man's hand is like that of a child, reckless and easy to manipulate. A man cannot mold his very own personage with his own hand(literally create his ownself before existing). Likewise, a man does not determine HIS own geneology before he is born. But, norms and guidlines are things that are created by the hand of man, thus they can be resisted all the same. Now, humans can procreate and they do create another person in the process. But such an action transcends the hand of Man. Man can't raise the dead, can he? Man can only recreate sentient life in a manner that was not dicated or created his Man's own mind. Man did not say "I will create more of myself in this manner and it is in this manner I have created on my own!" A lone man cannot create a differing version of himself, by himself, but a lone man can create law after law and notion after notion and these can be taken and applied to others subtly or forcefully. Thus, I don't feel norms and guidelines truely interfere with free will in an absolute sense, because the hand of Man is not absolute, but they do interfere none the less.


I thin(k) I was pretty much aware of the thoughts psoted above, but never really did bother to contemplate much on the meaning of them. It seemed to make sense and be true which pissed me off alot. I still haven't gotten over it. Not becuase of what he said, but because that fact that I don't really see a way to rebut this and it might be true. That I am not in control. There was also alot more information which I failed to grasp at the moment which I think did provided an alternative thought. But I'm just curious to know as to what everyone else thinks on the matter.

More on perceived reality:
The world in my mind does not equate to the world as it truly is(IMO). Maybe I'm just not egotistical enough to feel that I determine what is real and not real to myself. I'm flawed and imperfect, thus so can my judgement on what is truly real. If I accept the notion that reality is only what I precieve it to be, then I must accept the fact that this reality is flawed, as the one perceiving it is also flawed(man-kind). Regardless of what I perceive, it would be silly to think that my reality is only that which I know, and not what it might be.

So, with that said...

Are we really in control? And if so, what exactly is it we are in "control" of? Are we in control of ourselves? That notion is so incredibly vague. What defines who we are? As I mentioned earlier, who we are is never determined by our quintessential self. When you're born, you don't determine your geneology. As you progress, your character is molded and created, but are your "blue-prints" affecting what might seem to be the dynamic creation of your character, or is it all "you." If so, then what is "you" to begin with(more "blue-prints" that aren't your own doing)?

Point is, as we break down what we are, we are left with more questions that can't be answered. Because these questions can't be answered, ourselves can't be our own, otherwise we would have the answer to such questions that defines the quinessential "us."

In my opinion, we have no true free-will. In the "eyes" of our reasoning and understanding of the universe around us, we have free-will. But our reasoning and understanding is limited, because we don't have all the answers, only unanswered questions. Thus, when we try to think "why," we can only question the very basics of what defines a "us." Since we can only question our beginings and not answer it, our "blue-prints" are not our own doing. If our "blue-prints" were our own making, we wouldn't need to find an answer, we would already know it. We are not our own creators in the literal sense, thus we have no free-will, because who we LITERALLY are is not our own making(not figuratively).

The thought of lacking free will bothers you AC9? Consider this: Man does not truly steal the free-will of another man, he can only cloud it. If I'm the master of that which you cannot create and that which defines you, then I control your free-will, because I control what you do not in every sense of the manner(and I mean every sense of the manner). Maybe you need to consider that what "you" are isn't yours to begin with. There is much that you use and do, which is not of your own design, be it man-made or that which transcends the hand of man. When thinking that this world determines who I am, it can bother me. But think this: This world does not determine who I'm indefinately, because the world cannot determine what "IT" is fully(ex. Why is there life?). If you can see this, then this world does not own you in the least bit. The world is a slave to the things it cannot grasp(this has a triple meaning). How can a slave own another slave? The master owns the slave and anyone under that slave is yet another slave to the master. The world is a slave, so it cannot be the master of another. The world can never master you, because it a slave, as well. Thus, this world can only control a person in a limited sense, but it can't master anything greater then or equal to its self. But it is that which man can't do and can't create, which is its master and thus the controller of its free will. Since there are things we don't have answers to that define who we are, then man has no free-will(but man cannot truly dominate the will of another man, only cloud it).