I think I go with Forest Gump and say "...it's both"

I think it's starts off as free will, but what does man do with free will? He or she finds what make them happy and in that search for happiness he or she creates their destiny.

Mind you I also believe in reincarnation so that search goes on until you reach that happiness.

If you are making a 'free' and conscious choice then you do so 'freely'.

In this discussion, because in necessarily involves the difference between being 'free' and being 'determined' I suggest the following definition, because it is so aptly worded.

Free equals not being determined by anything beyond its own nature or being...

Now if we are talking about the will, in order for it to be considered 'free' it must not be determined by anything else beyond it's own nature or being. Now what is the will? I suggest that no matter how one defines the will, as long as it has some form of meaningful coherency, it is always driven by what that person wants.

Because a person cannot intentionally make a mistake, the above must be true.

1.)Willful choices are necessarily deliberate ones, and therefore must be made on purpose.

2.)There is no such a thing as a mistake made on purpose.

3.)Therefore, all deliberate(willful) choices are made based upon what the person thinks is the 'best' choice according to the circumstances being regarded in thought and such a choice is necessarily determined by what the individual wants, because one cannot make a mistake on purpose.

That establishes sufficient reason to conclude that the will is necessarily dependent upon and reflected by what one wants.

It is the word "free" that is the problem in this argument so kudos for trying to nail it down. To me "free will" simply means "having an option", even if it is an ugly option. In this definition there is nearly always a choice and therefore so called "free will" exists for almost everything.

Another problem with the word "free" is it can imply no restrictions on will and this simply is not the case, even if those restrictions are only in the mind.

There are, however, times when "free will" does not apply. If someone were to stab someone else the person who was stabbed has no choice, so far as I know, in whether they will feel the pain associated with being stabbed. It has been determined by a force outside their control that they will feel that pain, they did not have free will in this matter. They still have a choice as to how to respond to that pain.

So the answer is not as simple as a blanket "yes" or "no" but more of a mix of the two. Interestingly all of the "no"'s seem to arise from the physical body and the feelings that come with it.

The will is (or has) the power and potential to decide WHAT one (it) wants.

Strange as it may seem, a lot of people don't clearly and specifically know what they want. One of the very first acts (or uses) of the will is to decide what one wants. After that decision is made, then action is initiated towards what one wants.

Choices are not determined "by" "what one wants" they are determined by the will who has determined what "It" wants. A choice must be made by a conscious thinking center. That conscious thinking center is the WILL. You could even say that the will is the soul. It is the person. It is the observer, the decider.

Your theories go round and round and you have not identified the self which is the essence of who and what you are. You have tried to suggest that the self is the brain, the memories, your beliefs, etc.

But there is no self in those things.

Take a person whose memory has been wiped clean. Global amnesia. They have no memories, no beliefs. But still, there is the self. They still are aware of them self. They still say I did this or I think that. They still want things. With global amnesia they have to learn and decide from scratch what they like and what they want. They have to decide from scratch.

The thing within them that decides from scratch, is the will. That is the self.

The will is the self.

I am.

I am the will.

I am free.

My freedom is the freedom to decide what I want, and what I think.

I call it courtesy.

I don't see where that is courtesy. You have still never located the self that decides. There is no self in "beliefs." There is no self in a "brain." You say the will is influenced by what the person wants. How/who decides what they want? Where does that decision originate?

Influences don't decide. The brain does not make decisions it processes data. Beliefs change. Information changes. Memory changes. These things are not the self. You dance around the self, you don't know what it is. You will never find it, because you refuse to acknowledge it. You imagine that you are a machine, a robot with no soul, with no self.

I am being extremely courteous, right now as well...

I don't see where that is courtesy. You have still never located the self that decides. There is no self in "beliefs." There is no self in a "brain." You say the will is influenced by what the person wants. How/who decides what they want? Where does that decision originate?


Where the decision originates is not the question but rather if it can originate on it's own, "freely", despite outside influences.


Influences don't decide. The brain does not make decisions it processes data. Beliefs change. Information changes. Memory changes. These things are not the self. You dance around the self, you don't know what it is. You will never find it, because you refuse to acknowledge it. You imagine that you are a machine, a robot with no soul, with no self.


You speak of self as if it were definable. What you would think of as your "self" is an ever-changing set of memories, actions, thoughts, feelings, and so much more and is not definable.

And how do you know it's not the brain that allows you the ability to decide something? That ability might very well hinge on chemical reactions within the brain, will we need to decide anything after we leave the brain behind? I don't know but possibly not, maybe that's left behind with the brain.

Self delusion does not count, does it?

Outside influences? What is outside? Outside of what? The body? The self? What is the self?

Of course there are 'influences.' Those influences are experiences.



The only way to "define" the self is with the exclamation "I am."



The brain is the machine. It is not the self. The self is the one that decides. The brain simply processes data. The self manifested the brain for its own purpose. The brain is a tool.

I am not a "brain."



That is the question, for some.

Well see, you were not being "extremely courteous" at all. You were working very hard at refraining from a rude remark. I see you lost that battle.

I guess "outside" was not the right word to use, replace that with "any" and we have the idea I was getting at.



Interesting but even "I am" falls short of defining any "self" since the very act of trying to define it changes it.


I wasn't saying we are our brains, quite the opposite. You say the brain is a machine that's purpose is just to process data, I can see how you might come to think this way and I totally agree that we are not our brains alone. How much do we really KNOW about the brain though? Do we know all of its capabilities? Its responsibilities? Its limitations? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that we do, and therefore shouldn't assume that its only a processor, perhaps it's more than just a processor. We must keep an open mind about all things, especially the things we think we know.

Also if the brain is a tool to process data does that mean we can no longer process things after we leave that tool behind? Seems like that would have to be the case if the brain was created by the self as you say. Its a hard thing to imagine.


Are you claiming to KNOW something they don't?

Seeing how self delusion exists, it is relevent. The courtesy factor had nothing to do with not saying self delusion does not count.

That is a valid and pertinent question, unlike the answer to it.

Didn't Jung coin the 'self' in his model of the mind?

We were not talking about self "delusion" and why do you assume it exists?

Instead of claiming that you are being courteous (by being silent), why not try to actually define the self? I don't see how it can possibly be defined by "what we believe" as you have stated before.

That would just be a description of what self believes. It is not the actual self.

I think I would define the self (at its core) as pure potential. The potential to be, to think, to observe and to manifest. The potential to choose and to act, and to imagine. Everything else that exists around that self are tools to aid in that potential. Those tools are the mind, the brain, the body etc. They have manifested from pure potential for the purpose of the expression and existence of the self.

Self is the will. It is the will to exist.

Yes I suppose since I don't question it.

No. And its not really hard to imagine either. (See below)

Think of the brain as being your personal computer. Currently, it processes data that you use every day.

Think of your mind and/or body as being the Internet. --(it is a higher mind that includes both the conscious and subconscious)--

Your personal computer can crash and end up in the junk yard, but if you have Internet email and if you have some on-line storage you (the person/self) can still access it, and you can still access the Internet if you get another computer.

Now assume your body and brain dies, and you still exist. It is your mind that continues to operate, not your body and brain. The mind is not part of the physical body, and it does not exist inside of the brain. It exists outside of the body and brain in a unified field that surrounds the self. That field stays with the self. It does not stay with the physical body after the body dies.

The Reincarnation belief:

When a person dies, the person (or personality) that they were does not remain the same person in the afterlife, but in a sense they become "more" as they join with their higher self.

When they die all they take with them is information, memories and experience. This is stored in the higher mind, the subconscious. It goes to the higher self (the true self) and it is shared with other incarnated selves who have also contributed the memories and lessons of their life. Together, a person retains and shares all their memories of all their lives and who each one of them were and what they learned and experienced. The true self is all of these together, not just one of them. You have lived many lives and now you are whole again and now you know who you are.

Why do you assume that I am assuming that?

Self delusion is a large part of this discussion - and many others as well - whether or not it is actually be directly addressed.



This is a good time to show a fine example which provides obvious proof(to me at least) that self delusion exists. Self delusion happens when one incorrectly assumes(and subsequently believes) that something is true and then acts upon, and according to, that justified false belief - that is self delusion.

As I have already indicated, and despite the fact that is not being recognized to be what it is, my claiming courtesy earlier had nothing to do with being silent and everything to do with maintaining a respectable dialogue with you even though there are continued assumptions which permeate your side of the discussion on a regular basis. Add to that your seeming to be unable to follow someone else's thoughts and nearly always focusing upon your own.



First of all, I did not define 'self' that simply, although the belief system is a huge part of 'self'.

While I can understand how you're arriving at the conclusion that you are regarding this aspect of the discussion, it really makes no sense if you think about a little differently. 'Self' is who you are, and that necessarily includes what you believe.



This sounds nice but means nothing. Potential doesn't do anything.

Potential is self?

Do you understand what potential is?



I thought the will was the soul? I thought the soul was the programmer, interpreter, interpretee, the person, etc...

You're not giving a coherent argument here, JB. I say that out of courtesy, and with respect for you, although my interest level in continuing to discuss this with you is waning. Earlier you made the remark that my "theories go round and round".

Do you understand why that is false?

I start and end at the same point, but only after wading through and courteously addressing your wording for so many pages, while showing you why your arguments against mine claims are failing, and giving credit where it is due.

So, it is not my theories that go round and round, it is my conversations with you that go round and round. That is because the only thing being addressed by either one of us is what you think. Why don't you focus upon what I am writing, especially when it is not a direct result of my following your thoughts?

There were several important and valid points made earlier which you either did not comment upon, or attempted to disprove but failed to do so. Those points were made on and with a purpose, one of which was to talk about the relevent aspects of this topic and to get off of the semantic merry go round which your continuing to create and fuel with a constant barrage of new terminology, most of which does not matter anyway.