Although I don’t necessarily agree with the physiological mechanism you described, I will agree that there is a mechanism whereby the attitude we project is a big factor in how we are treated by others. A sort of “you get out of it what you put into it” thing.

69 baby, it's not just a "sex" thing!

Why do you ask?

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that for any given situation, there is a set number of outcomes.

Sure, you can choose the type of cereal that you want in the morning. But your selection is governed by what cereals you have in your cabinet, which is governed by when you last went shopping, which is governed by how much money you have (or some form of time constraint), which is governed by where you work, which is governed by how much skill/schooling you have, which is governed by money or previous skill, which is governed by previous hard work or your parents (money or good genetics)... etc. etc. etc.

And we can't really be someone that we're not. I can never have an Einstein equivalent IQ. This is a set factor in who I can become. Both our current and past environments dictate "who" we are by placing limitations on what we can be.

Well, seeing as to how I disagree with omnipotentcy (can't make a rock that you can't lift), that's not really an option. If you wanted to define free-will as the choices that you can make given your situational disposition, I think that might be the closest we could probably get to agreeing.

And, for the record, I'm a little biased towards free-will, being a bit of a fatalist and all.

And I know you don't seem big on the whole physiological aspect Sky, but what is it that you disagree with? So that I may attempt to change your mind. :)

Oh, and thanks to CreativeSoul for creating a thread with a good potentiality for debate. Huzzah. Though I'd have to disagree that violence and calmness are necessarily learned behaviours. Some people are born screamers, and some aren't. Plus, it's bred into us to fight. We've only been "civilized" for the past few centuries. And I wouldn't even call us that yet.

Even if one allows for the “number of available options” as an argument, there is another indicator of free will which is more convincing (to me at least) than the ability to choose from the available options – that is the ability to not choose. This is a choice that you always have, regardless of any “situational disposition”.

In any case, I agree that free will does not require omnipotence and thus is usually constrained by avalable potions.



I don’t have any disagreement with physiology itself. What I disagree with is the idea that physiology is the cause of all behavior. And don’t get me wrong there either. I’m not saying that physiology has nothing to do with behavior, or that it doesn’t cause any behavior. Just that it doesn’t cause all behavior. This is rooted in the same belief that gives rise to my belief in free will – that there is a non-physical, or at least a non-deterministic, component to life.

Or maybe a better way of putting that is – the non-deterministic element is life, and all else is physics.

And yes, I realize that definition for “life” does not agree with how modern science defines it. However, short of making up a word, there is no word I could use that hasn’t already been co-opted to mean something other than what I intend.

I would really like to know what some other people think beside myself!

omg I love this subject!!!!

To answer any of it "correctly"......well there are too many variables.

Free will = choice. We all choose our destiny whether we like to think so or not. We are the most powerful beings on this earth yet so confused at the same time.

C.S.;

While I think that your observations about the essense of Free Will and Determanism and the attempt to briefly define them are fairly accurate - I would think that an underlining need to examine what each of these terms is NOT is going to bring you closer to determining which one best represents what guides one through life. For instance - though the term "free will" is best used to describe the randomness behind choice, it does not however represent the ability of one to get whatever one wills. For instance - I may freely will to win the lottery - but my will in this matter is neither free, nor necessarily attainable. However, in order to qualify to win said lottery, I must chose to participate, and in that - I have the freedom to chose to do so or not. Determinism comes into play here in the matter of my not having the ability to chose to play the lottery if there is an age restriction, and I do not meet it, and therefore it is determined I do not qualify. Now my "free choice" is taken away by determinism. Here, one clearly depends on the other, but does not present an either or scenario.

My $0.02...

What you've described is not what I'm referring to when I say "free will".

There is a very distinct difference between freedom of choice and freedom of action. Free will requires only the ability to choose. It does not require that the choice itself, or any manifestation thereof, be detected or observed by anyone else.

Requiring proof of free will is contradictory by definition.

Saying that someone or something can affect one's free will is contrary to the very definition of free will. It's not an argument against free will, it's an argument against the definition of free will. Trying to use a map that has no mountin symbol on it, to prove that the territory doesn't have a mountain on it.

So just tack one on to the number of potential choices.



Ahrg. I'm so close to agreeing with you as far as that goes. Except that making a choice should dictate a relevant action from the chooser, if said chooser desires to express his/her will. If we were to call it free-thought, I would absolutely agree with you.

As it is, I have to define free-will as the freedom to enact a choice. Because you can choose to believe all kinds of things, but belief doesn't make it so.

Very, very well put though.

The intent was to add some form of understanding to those who had not taken into consideration the viewpoint being expressed. That alone is considered positive from my perspective. True understanding cannot be considered negative if wisdom is gained. If one finds an accurate correlation in my words, then it is a positive outcome in my book. Unless of course one equates an accurate correlation to actuality with a negative outcome.





The first statement here confuses apples and oranges. Dismissing the human need to be accepted by wrongfully redefining it does not reduce it's actual existence. It just avoids dealing with actuality.

Communication is a completely different animal.



This is a very intriguing way to propose what is being considered to be the fundamental purpose for the concept of communication. I had always thought that the fundamental purpose of communication was the accurate conveyance and understanding of one's thoughts.

The definition you have used seems more like the purpose of any form of self-serving manipulation.



I do not agree with this, it presupposes that all communication is built upon imitation, which is known to be false. The most basic form of anything is that which is the foundation.

Do babies imitate first? Of course not!!!

It only follows that imitation is not the "very most basic form of communication"...



Euphemisms candy coat things without changing the actuality, which in turn simply creates more inaccuracies. So then how is this a more positive light???





For lack of sympathy here, I will just say...

Absurdity at it's finest. You have attempted to equate the need for acceptance with the concept of communication by confusing two completely separate aspects of human nature into one.

Dissonance....

Ok, I can live with using the term "free thought" as a label for what I mean.

Choosing not to do anything is still within the set of things you have to chose from . . . .

it appears your version of free will is a consciousness that has options . . . pretty loose definition.

Ok, so we have different perspectives. I made the personal value judgment that “need for approval” was negative and “desire for communication” was positive. That’s just my opinion. And this is, after all, simply an exchange of opinions.

No confusion in my mind. I think that what you call “need for approval” is based on the desire for communication. But if you don’t think so, that’s fine.

I don’t see where we disagree on this. If the thought that the other person gets is not a duplicate of the thought that you intended to convey, then the understanding is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Yes, it is a form of self-serving manipulation. Although I wouldn’t use those words to describe it, you can if you wish.


Ok. Forgive me for not clarifying. I took an extra step in that explanation without stating it explicitly it.

There is one-way communication, and two-way communication. In one-way communication, an idea goes from one person to another.

In two-way communication, the idea goes from person A to person B, and then an “acknowledgement” goes back from person B to person A. The purpose of this acknowledgement is to make person A aware of the fact that the idea got to person B. In other words, without the acknowledgement, person A has no way of knowing that the idea was actually received and understood by person A. Thus, with two-way communication, the simplest method of achieving that “acknowledgement of receipt” is by imitatation. An example in gross terms would be a baby imitating the sound patterns he has heard.

Well, since the whole exchange has been simply the expression of opinions, any perceived “inaccuracy” is also a matter of opinion. So you say toMAYto and I say toMAHto. That’s what my whole post was about. We look at situations differently.

I wouldn't put it that way simply because to me, free will is a necessary requirement for "consciousness". The two are practically synonymous. No "options" required.

Sky,

The attempt to suggest that the only difference between our views is as simple as the two differing pronunciations of tomato is to be blind to actuality.

Communication does not equate to the need for acceptance. The need for acceptance is a well known property of human behaviour. Communication is as well. The problem with an attempt to equate the two lies in what is lost in the merge. It is a dangerous business to mislabel the human need for acceptance by calling it a communication problem. Consider the following notion that all humans face at some point in time...

Everyone needs to "fit" into a peer group and/or social setting. How well one fits in depends not only on one's talents and/or personality traits, but also on what "position" is available to be filled. That is a fact. In life experience, a newcomer often finds that his/her own personality traits, talents and/or personal taste conflict in some way with the collective sense of the group. If it is a matter of personal taste and/or personality, the differences between the newcomer and the group could be effectively expressed without being accepted by the peer group.

This is actuality.

Successful communication does not equate to acceptance.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. That could be my fault for expressing it poorly. So let me just ask a question: Do you believe it's possible to achieve acceptance without successful communication?

Well you have to get even more specific to answer this.

Essentially yes I can envision a scenario where acceptance can occur without an active communication between the parties.

Again the word acceptance, and the word communication are not specific enough to really get at what is being looked at.

A person has been injured in a car accident and is unconscious. You drive up and see the remnants of the accident, you find the person unconscious and accept that this person needs help and accept that responsibility.

This person has not communicated anything whatsoever to you. The state of actuality has communicated everything you needed to know to make the choice of acceptance.

How does this scenario if at all play into this conversation, perhaps not at all, but it highlights the need for tight definitions.

Perhaps it does play into the conversation on a cultural level . . .

Sky,

You said this...



The only thing I can address is what you write, which is exactly what I have been doing, to the best of my ability. Below are a few of your points, which have already been taken into consideration. I feel like it is perhaps you who have been missing the point, so I have taken the liberty of elaborating a little later on in this post in order to build that bridge of understanding between this author and the reader(s). First I will address a few other things...

You asked...



What does the answer to this question have to do with the fact that you have attempted to dismiss or deny the existence of the human need for acceptance?

Your points to support the alleged need to redefine the human need for acceptance as if it were equal to a desire to communicate are below, as stated...



To which I had already shortly responded as such...



Then you said the following things...



Here you define your stance again, quite clearly. You suggested that the innate human need for acceptance(approval) is based upon a desire to communicate.

I hold that the diagnosis you give is grossly incomplete, and therefore as a result of being based upon only a few minor factors involved, it is also inaccurate . In fact, the need for acceptance has little to do with the desire to communicate and everything to do with the judgmental nature of humans which results from none other than the fact that we are self-aware. Making distinctions between us and other things through the use of language meant for value assessment which was originally based upon a collective sense of ought is what the need for acceptance stems from. Allow me to extrapolate...

The beginnings of a learned language are rooted early in childhood. At this time children are taught meaning behind vocalizations and gestures. As the knowledge base grows so does the (mis)understandings. The influencing parties involved not only teach the child the names of things, but also the different properties which belong to those things. Children are taught WHY so and so is what it is. They are taught judgement.

When a child speaks s/he is laying out their own personal thoughts according to their individual interpretations of what the words being used mean. This is in an effort to seek approval for the expression. The reaction either supports or negates the confirmation, and either way the child is instructed. As a result, in the next venture of the same sort, the child will adjust the method accordingly while continuing to seek the approval from those who the child deems admirable. It is clear that knowledge and understanding lead to judgement(value assessment) through a general consensus, the collective sense of ought.

As a result of not only how humans are hardwired but also the different environmental(human) influences which are present in everyone's life, there are certain words and phrases which each of us transform into a significant series of individual elements pertaining to a general idea and/or symbol which is stored into our perceptual faculty for later revisitation. Those key words bring about entire conceptual (mis)understandings depending upon the accuracy of the initial assessment. The element which determines which pieces of knowledge are judgmental is identified by which ones exist independently of social confirmation. The meanings which are used and intended for judgement are those previously developed in their presuppositions and implications during the confirmation of social intercourse.

Therefore the personal sense of ought is acutely trained within social renderings and honed by the successive interaction it's social world which thereby validates it's accuracy within the person. Subsequently, the personal truth, being a product of the personal sense of ought, will later be projected upon that world.

To deny the existence of the innate need for acceptance in humans is to deny the existence of the products which facilitate that need's fulfillment such as the ego, persona, masks, worldly fingerprint,etc. I would suspect that any person capable of volition would concur that those things exist regardless of what we name them, and that they are products of the human need for acceptance, which is a bi-product of personal judgement.

Sky, what you suggested actually is the exact opposite of what is. The conscious adaptation of one's behaviours in an effort to become more acceptable to others is a direct result from precisely understanding that there are things about us that others do not like and/or find unacceptable. Therefore, the need to feel as thought you are accepted can, and often does, override one's natural inclinations for certain behaviours and/or likes and dislikes in such a way that the person consciously chooses to modify themselves or their behaviour accordingly, not in an effort to be better understood, just better accepted.