It seems possible to me for a universe to exist which has both deterministic and non-deterministic mechanisms at play. Some of those deterministic mechanism might be absolute, universal, permanent, immutable. Thus the cause-and-effect chains that residents of that universe actually observe might never break; those chains are simply unrelated to the non-deterministic aspects of that hypothetical universe.

No problem. That often helps clarify things.

Well let me put it this way. I can decide to want something that I didn’t want before I made the decision to want it. This is why I say that decision precedes want, not the other way around. (However, I will admit that this is pretty much a chicken/egg issue.)

Yes, that would be a more concise way of putting it.

I can definitely say that it is not impossible, just as it is not impossible for me to hit 10 free throws in a row – but I may not actually succeed in accomplishing it invariably – or even once.

But the simple fact of the matter is that I do have a choice in what foods I find tasty, and I have decided that I like the taste of apple pie – regardless of whether that makes sense to you or not. Simple saying that I do not or cannot, does not make it so, paticularly in the face of direct evidence that I do and have.

Bottom line, you say I didn’t decide (or can’t have decided) that I like the taste of apple pie, and I say that I did decide that I like the taste of apple pie.

So where does that leave us?

Personally, I would choose my own observation of my own mind over someone else’s professions that they know how my mind works better than I do.



Well, there’s a piece missing there – one can decide to suffer (e.g. ascetics). So what you’ve just said “would be”, is simply an opinion that is contradicted by observation.

Personally, I think it is you who are doing the conflating by equating “choice” with “decision”. Without any differentiation between the two, you’re absolutely right that my view would not make sense.

The bottom line here seems to be that our concepts of “scope” are different. As far as I understand it, in your world view, everything having to do with human behavior starts sometime around conception, give-or-take a few weeks or months. But in my view, the events that contribute to shaping an individual’s “human behavior patterns” go back several dozen orders of magnitude farther than that – past even the beginning of this physical universe to the point where the original decision was made to “join in the game”.

Consider the game of basketball as an analogy. Suppose you decided to hypnotize yourself into believing that nothing existed before the game started and that everything would cease to exist after the game ended. As far as you’re concerned, you cannot quit the game, you cannot change the rules, you cannot break the rules without being punished, and you cannot do anything but play the game. (The three laws of thermodynamics: you can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game. :laugh) All the people in the stands are not people you could ever meet. They are simply part of the environment that you have no control over, as are the referees, the boundaries of the court, the baskets, the key, the freethrow line, the three point line, etc., etc.

Now in that analogy, you are talking about just the one game that you are playing, whereas I am talking about all the “before and after the game”, particularly including the decision to limit one’s awareness to only those factors that are present in that one game being played – which is the original (free will) choice to not have complete free will during the course of the game. (e.g. to be unable to quit playing.) But remember that the whole thing started with the original decision to play the game without any knowledge of anything outside the game.

Now don’t get me wrong. I completely understand how postulates of 1) a time limit measured in decades, and 2) a dependency on the physical, would logically result in the conclusions regarding human behavior that contribute to your world view.

I really do understand that.

I just don’t happen to base my world view on those same postulates is all.

Yes, that is true by definition.

But the act of deciding is the key point of free will. We are free to decide. What we decide may be dependent on other factors - or not. But the "decision to decide" (oh geez what a semantic mess) is totally free and unaffected by anything other than self. In fact, it must be so otherwise it cannot even be called a decision - it must be the effect of a cause and thus not a decision at all but a reaction. (Although, even so there must have been a prior decision to react. So we're back at the chicken/egg issue.

If "that" refers to "outside influence", I can only say that that is simply a statement synonymous with "everything is deterministic" (i.e. every apparent choice is not really a choice at all but the direct and invariant effect of a cause.) In other words, everything is deterministic because everything is deterministic.

Not side-step, recognize as being virtually irrelevant and not contradicting my own personal view.

I can show it, but considering your identification of “choice” and “decision” I expect that same conflation to occur when the explanation is evaluated by you. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. Only that if one’s only criteria for determining whether a fruit is an apple or an orange is color, then the result of making such a determination will be different if one uses other criteria such as texture, taste, origin, etc. Likewise, without any differentiation between “choice” and “decision”, the is no way to understanding my world view.

So with that in mind…

The main difference between “teachings” and “belief systems” is in point-of-origin. “Teachings” originate from “other”. Belief systems originate from “self”.

Or one could put it in computer terms - Teachings are “input” and belief systems are “output”.

Or one could put it in terms of foods – teachings are “unprocessed” and belief systems are “processed”.

Which means that either 1) there was a belief system in place to start with, or 2) there was no belief system and the belief system just magically popped into existence at some point.

Seriously. If one starts out with no belief system to color one’s interpretation of one’s perception, then how did any belief system come into existence at all? Where is the line between “no belief system” and “belief system”? What exactly is it that changed? (“A miracle occurred”?)

And yes there’s the tired old “emergent property” response. But as far as I’m concerned, saying “it’s a mystery” reminds me of the old George Carlin routine in the Catholic school where all the really hard questions were answered simply with “Well, it’s a mystery” and it ended there.

Basically you’re saying that “in the beginning” there was no belief system to color perception. So when the very first perception occurred, was it colored by a belief system?

According to what you’ve been saying, there could not have been any belief system in place, so that very first perception could not have been colored by a belief system. So then what? That very first, uncolored perception becomes the sum total of one’s “belief system” and every perception after that becomes, and is colored by, the existing belief system. In other words, one’s belief system is the sum total of all perceptions, colored by anything or not.

Now interestingly enough, I think that’s not far off. The result is essentially that the aggregate of everything one perceives is what makes up the belief system. The single place where this does not align with my view is in scope. As far as I’m concerned, a decision came before the first perception – that first decision being “to perceive”, with all it’s attendant implications. But before that decision was made, the was no perception.

I completely agree that the universe contains both deterministic and non-deterministic factors.

But if we’re talking “might bes”, then we cannot exclude the possibility that the deterministic factors could be a product of the non-deterministic factors. (Like a determinisitic machine that was built by a non-deterministic individual.) Which would make the non-deterministic factors the “absolute, universal, permanent, immutable” ones.

Such a system would look exactly like a wholly deterministic system as long as the non-deterministic factor did not alter it’s operation. So if one did nothing to change the operation of the machine (e.g. exercise one’s free will), the system would be indistinguishable from a wholly deterministic one.

Boo Jets!

Creative:



Let's look at the words in bold above. They are basically skipping over personal responsibility for the current situation that is the result of your decisions. not as a result of the influences.

You have admitted that influences alone don't "make decisions" or even force us to make decisions, and that a person does not have to make certain decisions according to the influences. Correct?

Do you assume then, that in the face of the exact same influences completely different people will always make the same decisions?

Do you claim that we are all at the mercy of influences that will inevitably determine what choices we make? If so, then we have no creativity and no will at all, and I strongly disagree with this idea.





You are making it too complicated. To use the will, all you have to do is direct where you will place your attention. (Mentally and physically.)

That means that you become more aware of your thoughts and actions. If you find that they are not in the direction of your goal, then you must use your will to direct them. Using the will is simply being conscious about your choices. Knowing what and why you are making them. It takes conscious choices. People just have to wake up and become conscious and make conscious decisions TOWARDS their desired goal.

Instead, most people self sabotage their own efforts. They take one step forward and three steps backwards.

Yes, you should first decide what it is that you want and where you want to go. Then you must use the power of your will to direct your attention to that. It is that simple.



Completely backwards conclusion. Successful self direction is the will in action.

When you are unable to direct your thoughts to what you want or choose you have no self discipline, or you just don't know specifically what you want. You are just plodding through your life being the effect of everything, being influenced by everything, making automatic unconscious decisions. You are just drifting through life with no goal, no focus.

People who claim that they can't help the way they feel are not taking responsibility. They are not using their will.

People who make excuses for the current state of their lives are not taking responsibility. They are not using their will to direct their attention to what they want to achieve. They are making excuses, and getting distracted, and blaming everyone else for their sorry life.

If your understanding of "freedom" is a something that is free from all influences then freedom does not exist and the whole subject becomes a moot point.

My understanding of freedom is having the power and ability to do and have what I want in spite of obstacles and influences.

Using your logic, one can decide a personality feature into or out of existence with the decision alone.

That is obviously false.

One does not just 'decide' a personality feature into or out of existence. It takes much more than that.



Yet you offer no logical reasoning which refutes any of it?

You really think that a decision alone has so much power and influence over reality/actuality that one can just 'decide' things into and out of existence?

Poof?



What are those decisions being based upon?



Is that supposed to mean something?



This needs some kind of direction/further explanation. If a thing exists, one cannot just 'decide' that it does not. I mean, they could but that decision alone has no effect upon reality. Just like one cannot just 'decide' Mt. Everest into or out of existence, one also cannot just 'decide' that they like brussel sprouts(assuming they do not) or just 'decide' that they are no longer caucasion, or just 'decide' that they are intelligent, or just 'decide' etc...

I could walk around 'deciding' that things are not what they are, and continue to believe and act as though my thoughts alone had that kind of power. I would call that being self-deluded.



Red herring is right on. This adds nothing to what is being discussed.



You're contradicting yourself here. It is either absolute or not. One cannot decide an absolute into a subjective existence.



Not a tangent! Cause and effect are absolutely necessary for any form of understanding. Humans would not be able to confidently function if the universe were not consistently predictable. The examples are endless, in fact every piece of knowledge is covered by this. Every opinion has it's grounding as well, some are based upon other opinion, and others are based upon known fact.



Another example which has nothing to do with the discussion.

The fact that you cannot give an example of something that lies outside of cause and effect is not a result of those rules and that knowledge being in place. It is because nothing in this universe exists outside of those universal laws, including your own thoughts on this matter. Your belief system is a product of what you have been exposed to in life in addition to that which you have inferred as a result of that exposure.

Your denying how the universe actually works, and that is not a matter of opinion, my friend.



That leaves us at a place for shewing...

Just because you think that your decision is the cause of your liking the taste of apple pie does not prove that that is the case. I can show why it is not, and already have given examples which, common sense alone, effectively refute your claims.

Here is another...

Anyone who has ever fed a newborn knows that there are some things they like, and some things that they don't. Science knows through fmri imaging that a child at that age is not consciously deciding those things, because the areas of the brain which are known to do such a thing are underdeveloped and cannot yet perform that type of thinking.

Earlier you mentioned something about your argument here being grounded upon things that constitute going back further than conception. Those types of argument have no value with me, because there is no evidence to support them. That is completely subjective to your own personal belief system, one of which has been given here without logical grounding to support it.

What evidence do you have - can you give - which would necessarily lead to the conclusion that one 'decides' to exist?

To me, that is not even possible because one must first exist in order to even be able to decide anything.

Personal responsibility is not in question here - it is a given. None of this logically contradicts what was written. Do you accept the above? If not, do you have logical grounds which support that denial?

Accepting responsibility for one's decisions does not enable one to correctly assess why those decisions were made, it just admits to making them. I can make the same decisions over and over again and take responsibility every time, and yet nothing changes. Taking responsibility is a necessary prerequisite to the rest. I did not think it needed to be said.



No. What I meant(and I think said) was one does not necessarily make a decision based upon a single influencing factor alone. All decisions are based upon something. That something is determined by prior influence.

Influences do not make decisions, people do. Those decisions are made with conscious thought. Conscious thought is based upon what has influenced that person's thinking. Influences do affect how one thinks and therefore must affect what one decides.



No, they're different people and have different innate tendencies.



No.

The acknowledgment of influencing factors upon the human will does not negate nor deny the ability of human inference or creativity. We can use what is learned in new ways... that is the very essence of logical inference and intelligence.




I am not talking about just 'using the will'. I mentioned succesfully changing one's self(by using the will)? Yes? That takes more than just attention.



How do you propose any of these things can be done without necessarily following those steps?



If it were that simple, most people would not self-sabotage their own efforts. What you are calling "too complicated" are the necessary steps required so that one better insures that they do not self-sabotage. No technique is foolproof though.

Your saying things, but are giving no logical grounds to support those claims. It seems to me that your response falls directly in line with what I laid out, despite the evidence here which suggests that you do not perceive this to be the case.



Interesting how you display this habit of claiming my expressions to be wrong without giving any logical grounds which necessitate that conclusion.



Not the only example of 'the will in action'. It is merely one example of many.



This is true if - and only iff - that is not what is wanted.



In some cases I would agree, however this is an extreme overgeneralization. It is not so 'black and white'. Emotions often override conscious thought.



Again, I would agree that this is true in some cases. However, in line with our current discussion, one who realizes that humans are influenced - even in the most minute of ways - by everything that we perceive, both consciously and unconsciously, are one step closer to being able to successfully know themself. In order to be able to change one's self, one must first come to know one's self. That necessarily includes more than just personal preferences.

I certainly would not call that 'making excuses'.

How else would you measure what is considered to be 'free'?

The 'act of deciding' necessarily presupposes conscious thought. What is being thought about, and more importantly how is it being mentally constructed during such? Seeing how those aspects are prerequisites to being able to decide, surely we can conclude that they necessarily influence the decision.



My thinking does not arrive at the chicken and the egg.

Decision and many(most) other things as well can be both the result of prior cause and the cause of future effects. So, a decision can most certainly be the effect of prior influences upon one's thinking and decision making capabilities and also be the cause of future effects. Your argument fails.

1.) One can decide to choose, but one does not decide to decide. That is meaningless.

2.) One is not unaffected by outside influence, therefore conscious decision making, which is necessarily made by one is also necessarily affected by that which influences one because it requires conscious deliberation(thought) which is necessarily affected by outside influences.

Therefore, your claim must be false. Decision making is not totally free and unaffected, in fact it cannot be. The below questions are clearly indicative of why that is the case.

What is being decided upon? How is that being mentally constructed? Most importantly, what prior influences are guiding that construction?

How does that decision then possibly qualify as being unaffected or uninfluenced?



All it takes is one example which shows that one chooses according to their will and that that choice is independent of any and all outside influence and/or the inference thereof.

One example to the contrary?

False dilemma... those are not the only two choices.

It could also be that belief systems necessarily evolved along with human knowledge. In fact, our current knowledge of human history completely supports that notion.



Consistent conscious correlation of observation. Becoming aware of the consistencies in observation would necessitate a belief system.



Emergent properties are easily shown. Easily proven to exist. Have nothing to do with the human will, or at least it is not necessary to invoke the concept.



Logically speaking, I would not conclude that. For one thing, this question cannot be confidently answered. Given what is known, I would not conclude that a belief system came before perception. In fact, I think it would be logically impossible. Perception can and does exist without conscious awareness and/or correlation of observation.



Here is one instance in which I find the commonly used definition of a term at a necessary loss for complete explanation. The term perception is always defined by awareness. I find that to be unnecessary form some levels of perception. For instance, a leaf will unfurl as a result of sunlight. I find no reason to believe that the leaf does not perceive the sunlight, but find many reasons to believe that the tree nor the leaf itself are aware of such a thing.

Perception, to me, is the ability to receive environmental stimulation and react accordingly. It does not require awareness nor knowledge. When speaking of human perception, however, I am talking about our physiological nervous system and it's functioning capabilities on a whole which happen to go far beyond mere perception alone, as in the leaf example.

To address your above question, I suppose that the first conscious perception had by a human being would not be a belief system. A belief system is everything that one has come to believe is true. That requires more than just the first conscious perception. A belief system is a very complex concept and requires complex thinking.



I find no logical grounding which would support this conclusion. A thing decides to perceive? How does a conscious and deliberate mental action such as decision making come without being able to think? For in order to be able to think, a thing must be able to perceive something to think about, even it that perception is of itself and something other than itself.

That is an interesting way to put it. Not surprisingly I disagree, and will show why.

My understanding of freedom is having the necessary understanding of myself to be able to acknowledge the fact that the human will is necessarily influenced, and use that knowledge to rid myself of bad influences which attains the freedom that allows me to consciously seek out 'better' influences.

The closest thing to a having a 'free' will is having a good understanding of determinism and how that affects one's thinking/will.

Well then we simply disagree. As far as I’m concerned, it is obviously true because I’ve personally observed it.

Yet you offer no logical reasoning which refutes any of it? Refute what? Your “five-step program for changing a personal preference”? There is no need to refute it. You can get peanut butter from a jar by smashing the jar. That cannot be refuted either. But there are better, more efficient ways to do it.

The simple fact is that the process starts with the decision that the feature exists. (Or maybe more accurately with the decision to rid oneself of the feature. But one had to have decided that one has the feature before on could contemplate ridding oneself of it.) And it ends with the decision that the feature does not exist – which decision is what marks the end of the process. You can put anything you want in between. But without those two delimiting decisions, the process never occurs, and it occurs whether or not anything happens in between.

Or put it this way: If one did not decide that one had the feature, then there would be no reason to attempt to rid oneself of it. And once one decides that one no longer has the feature, the attempt to rid oneself of it ceases.

Since we do not agree on what “decision” is, it’s obvious that we cannot agree on this point. But simply put, it is my opinion that decision is what creates reality/actuality. So yes – “poof”.

And again we get to the difference between our concepts of what constitutes a decision. As far as I’m concerned, “having a basis” is not a requirement for a decision.

Yes.

And we still don’t have a meeting of minds regarding what “decision” is. This particular statement is the most telling: “'deciding' that things are not what they are”. As stated, there is a decision of “what they are”. Following that is a decision of “not what they are”. In other words, it’s saying “I decided ____ (but not really.)” The example states an outright contradiction (“I’ll pretend that it is, but it really isn’t.”)

In short, the first decision is being maintained and the second one is being recanted. So it most definitely was not “decided out of existence” because there was no decision that it doesn’t exist.

This is the self-contradiction trap that most everyone sets for themselves and then steps into – saying that they decided something and immediately following (or preceding) that with a statement that denies the decision.

Well I do my best to try and add things I think will help illustrate my point/position. But if that didn’t help, then so be it. I tried.

You’re going to have to expand that some because you lost me completely. (Or would you prefer I just reply with something like “Is that supposed to mean something?” )

Hmmmm…

Ok, if this discussion is confined to “human beings” only, then I will concede that your logic is quite sound.

Just don’t forget that, by definition, it precludes any understanding of anything non-deterministic. So the whole thread is a moot point. You’ve postulated a starting point (human beings) from which you can never arrive at a conclusion of free will because the fundamental postulate excludes that possibility at the outset.

In other words, “you can’t get there from here.” Not because there are no roads, but because all the roads between here and there are purposefully and intentionally blocked before you even start out.

You’re right, it’s not. It’s because those rules are incorrectly applied to the example, just as with “orange rules” being applied to apples.

Well I prefer to believe my own observation and experience, which indicates otherwise. I’m sorry to end up with a subjective argument, but as far as I’m concerned, personal observation trumps logic every time. The only alternative is to accept someone else’s opinion over my own observations, which is not a healthy way to live life, in my opinion.

Well I won’t lower myself to accusing you of the very same thing. Rather than assuming you are in denial, I prefer to assume that you’re just missing some information, that’s all.

Just because you think that your decision is the cause of your liking the taste of apple pie does not prove that that is the case.Well I never said it did. But just because you think that my decision is not the cause of my liking the taste of apple pie does not prove that that is the case either. So we’re even.

And I understand and accept that that particular argument (pre-conception existence) has no value to you because you have never seen any (or enough) evidence to convince you that it is true. And since, as you say, it is necessarily subjective, it is impossible for anyone to present any “logical grounding” to support it. The very most I can do is inform you that I have seen enough evidence to convince me that it is true.

What would you be willing to accept as “evidence that would necessarily lead to that conclusion”? You tell me, and then I’ll decide if I want to try to give it to you.

I think we are actually saying similar things except what you are calling "the will" is probably not the same thing as what I am calling the will.

You regard "the will" as the power of your own mind. I regard the will more like my true self or soul. Since you don't seem to believe in a "soul" or "spirit" I'm sure you understand the difference. I regard my brain more like a computer that I use to function in this world. You regard your brain as the physical thing that gave rise to your mind and your consciousness.

How can a decision for self-improvement be personally observed?



That was not a method for changing personal preference. Some of those one has no control over(which is already being debated here evidently). That was a method for purposefully and intentionally(willfully) changing how one thinks about any given situation, which in turn changes how one reacts to that kind of situation in the future thereby effectively changing one's behavioral tendencies.

That is the only way I can think of for one to willfully change elements in one's own personality.

I would be interested in seeing another.



That is what I am saying is false. That process can begin any number of ways. Ultimately they all(willful attempts) have one thing in common, and that is the need/want/desire for an individual to improve themself for *some* reason or another.

The fact that the personality feature itself may not be recognized by the individual in question at the onset of such a journey(process) removes the possibility that the beginning of the process starts with that persons 'deciding' that the personality feature exists. In fact, one may not ever actually identify any particular feature, yet still successfully change it through behavior modification alone. That often happens with or without willfully choosing such a process. In other words, that happens naturally.



Your avoiding the relevent responses given regarding your use of the term 'decide'. The way your framing this discussion regarding a willfull attempt at self-improvement leaves much to be understood. Using your logic, all reasoning for self-improvement is contingent upon self admittance which your calling 'deciding'. For the reasons given above, that is obviously and patently false.

One can willfully change their own personality without ever identifying or, in your terms - 'deciding' - that the feature exists.



That is a verifiable claim, yet has been proven false. If it were true, we could think physical things into and out of physical existence. The only place that holds is in one's imagination. I can dream up whatever, and it has a state of existence. That existence is not, however, physical.



How does one 'decide' anything without consideration? To decide requires consideration, Sky. If your using the term in a way which contradicts that, it renders the term meaningless. In every case of decision, one is deciding upon *something*. That something is the basis of thought which is required in order to even be able to make a decision.



C'mon Sky, your insulting my intelligence here. Do you take me for a fool, simply because I continue engaging mostly on your terms?

You cannot explain away the fact that people do imagine a world which does not exist, people do necessarily believe that that world is reality, and act accordingly.

Delusions do exist and have an affect on one's thinking, despite the existence not being a physical one.



That attempt at clarification amounted to what you believe about 'God'. I am not at all interested in discussing religious paradoxes, and as far as I can see, it unnecessarily complicates the discussion.



The underlined in the first paragraph above is contradicted by the claims in the last paragraph. If free will and determinism are to be considered absolute, then one's decision does not change that. That is actually a prime hypothetical example of one beleiving that the world is something other than what it is.

You described a belief in delusion.



Well, we are talking about the human will.



Your kidding right? Your attributing the weakness of your argument to determinism? That is an argument which is attempting to attribute the inability to show indeterministic factors as a direct result of working within a deterministic system.

Show another kind to work with. I did not 'decide' how human knowledge works. It is not a subjective argument.



To what example? Your entire argument is grounded upon the idea that a 'decision' is an uncaused cause. Yet the only evidence given is your opinion of what that term means, which does not make sense to begin with. I am asking you to show how a 'decision' can be made without having *something* to be considered. Your saying that you cannot do that because I am asking for a necesary thought base which you are claiming does not need to exist.

I am saying that a decision cannot be made about nothing, therefore your argument fails. The failure of your argument is not due to the parameters of my discussion, it is due to the lack of parameters in your own. It is due to common sense involving how humans have come to learn and know anything.



That is not the only other option.

One can also use logic to trump their own opinion/prior understanding. It involves being honest with one's self and realizing that human perception is inherently easy to fool, in other words observation without strict parameters by which to measure it, is often misleading. In fact our minds compensate for optical illusions constantly by filling in the blanks with what may or may not be accurate depictions of actuality.



I owe you an apology if you feel offended about what I wrote.

Although, I do not feel like it is a negative thing. Your, perhaps inadvertently, attempting to negate the value of human knowledge. That being a necessary consequence of your argument here. It is not a matter of opinion that all we know is a result of our realizing that the universe behaves in consistent and deterministic ways. That is a fact. We did not, however, 'decide' that into existence, we came to recognize that that was the case through consistent and repeatable observation and rigid testing methods which help to eliminate the inherent flaws in human perception.



C'mon Sky, at least address the things given as grounds for the refutation. It involved much more than just that. As far as I'm concerned, when you give those things their just due, we would be even.



Being necessarily subjective does not mean being impossible to logically ground.



Sky, I cannot think of how that could even be established, but based upon my own mental shortcomings of past, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible.

please tell me which math or theory of einstein tells that???

Tells what?

Not exactly, I regard the will as that which drives one's deliberate decision making processes and actions, and equate that to personal preferences, innate tendencies, and the belief system.



Assuming the existence of a soul...

The brain would be an interface between the soul(true self) and the world. Knowing that the brain itself is the source of one's thinking and is influenced by exposure, adding the soul into the equation changes little, unless the soul does the thinking.

In that case, the actions are determined by the soul, and are not freely chosen by the body to begin with.

But what exactly is the thing that does the driving of one's deliberate decision making? You say you "equate that to "personal preferences, but who or what makes those "personal preferences?" The answer is "The Person." But the question is Who or what is "the Person?"

As for "innate tendencies" are you talking about genetics?

As for the belief system, who decides WHAT TO BELIEVE? Or how do you arrive at the decision of what you will believe? How do you identify self? Who and what are you?



Do you think that our beliefs are force fed to us? At what point do we exercise our personal choice about what to believe and why and who makes that choice? Or rather how do you think that choice made?

When you make a decision or choice do you constantly self analyze why you made it and what may have influenced you to do so? This kind of thinking strikes me as coming from someone who is not sure of anything and can't have any confidence in his own decisions for fear he has been swayed or influenced or manipulated into them.





I agree.



I do not agree that the brain is the source of one's thinking. It is still more like an interface that translates data from and to the soul. (The true self) Like a higher computer language translating to a lower computer language. And there are many levels of computer languages.

Yes, the soul is the originator of the thought. The mind and brain translate the thought to the lower levels of consciousness. (Human consciousness.)




True. But in this case, "the body" is not the person. The soul is the person. Many actions of the body are programed to be automatic and these programs are stored in the genes and the DNA. Ultimately the soul is the programmer of all these things but it has to work through the translators (the languages of thinking, thought and perception.)

I answered that already. It is not a personification of 'driving'. In other words, there is no need for a 'driver'. The human will is not a vehicle that needs an animated life form for it's ability to function(to drive it along like a car). By 'drives' I mean those things which directly influence the human will.



Your answer is 'the person'.

While that may be true regarding some preferences, it is certainly not true regarding all. There are some preferences which are innate. Therefore, because it does not apply to all preferences, the answer you give is not necessarily true. It depends upon which kinds of preference your talking about.

While there are some personal preferences which can be chosen 'at will', such as - I can choose what I want to eat from my kitchen cabinet supply, there are other preferences which exist independently of voluntarily 'choosing'.



Genetic predisposition.



Eventually, after the prefontal cortex develops completely and one has some worldly experience beyond the original belief system, I would think that one can decide for themself what they believe. However, that will be completely contingent upon what has been learned prior to that.



One identifies 'self' with an extremely self-invasive examination of all one has come to believe, and more importantly how and why they have come to believe that - whatever that may be. That is how one comes to know who one is.



I would not necessarily say that our beliefs are 'force-fed'. While that may be true in some cases, it is certainly not true in all. We certainly do not have a choice in our original foundation. It is learned/adopted from others.



That all depends upon the results of the choice, now doesn't it?



I guess that is one way to look at it. Certainly not the only way, but indeed, it is one way. I find it interesting how you equate self-reflection to a weakness or something negative. I suppose some do not find the same value in knowing one's self that I do.

Understanding one's own behavior/thinking does not necessarily lead to less confidence in one's own decision making abilities, I can assure you of that. It can however lead to a more well-placed confidence in them.



That is your prerogative.



If the soul has a translator - the brain - between it and the data(the world), then it cannot be the originator of the thought, because the originator would have to be the brain, because it did the translating.



Right...

The soul is the self, the orginator of thought, the will, the person, the tranlatee, the translator, the programmer of dna and unconscious response, and yet it still needs the brain for an interface...



Sounds like a fantastic imagination...