Admit it, you really don't believe that you create your own reality...

[LisaDreams]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Who said that? I don't see anyone here saying that. I do see debates as to the definition of free will, and argument about how to define free will, and argument as to whether free will exists or not.

But I didn't see where people are claiming that the only way to alter your experience is externally? Of course its all about how you look at something. That is what psychoanalysis and counseling and AA and nearly all psychological therapies and religions are about.

Okay. Have a lovely evening.

Lisa ... makes very short posts using a phone

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by LisaDreams

Okay. Have a lovely evening.

Lisa ... makes very short posts using a phone

Wait. I didn't mean to shut you down. I know I sometimes sound "short" and snarky online but that is not the way I feel. I liked your post, and agreed with it, and thought you spoke clearly and simply and gave a good example of how the way we look at something affects our reality of it.

[James81]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

It is not good enough to say free will involves changing your mental state. That is not enough for humans, or rats.

That's strange, because I've found it to be the single-most empowering and results-wielding thing I've learned thus far in the personal development world.

Your internal state literally shapes your entire experience. But it's sort of one of those things that you have to experience before you can see its power rather than me telling you about it.

I've found a lot of healing and inspiration simply by changing my perspective on things. And my external reality keeps shifting to reflect that.

So for me anyway, free will is all about the internal choices we make. External circumstances will automatically shift to reflect the internal choices you make. For example, if you choose to become 100% responsible for your experience rather than, say, a victim of your experience, your external world will radically shift. People will come and go out of your life, opportunities and experiences will come and go, and where you end up will ultimately be a completely different experience based on your most recent decision about who you are and who you choose to be.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by James81

External circumstances will automatically shift to reflect the internal choices you make.

Well done, James. Press on a little further and you'll soon reach the magickal territory.

For external reality will also shift to reflect the internal thoughts you hold.

Gasp!!!! James is almost a member of the IM club already

[truant]

The 'dodging the car' example does not invalidate free will. The fact that the action occurs spontaneously outside of awareness and that you only become aware of the action 'after' it occurs is irrelevant. Your experience is determined by your beliefs and intentions. If your will to live is strong, your body consciousness (which is 'un'conscious, or outside of your awareness) will take the necessary steps to ensure your survival. The fact that you dodged the car simply validates your continued will to live: it manifests your intention or expectation. Almost everything that happens to you has its origin in something outside your awareness, but it is still determined by your conscious choices. Someone who felt that they had no more reason to live, or felt like they were in an untenable situation that could only be resolved through death would have taken the car incident as an opportunity to 'exit'.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by LisaDreams

Changing your mental state can radically change how you perceive your environment, what you notice in your environment, etc. Something as simple as reading a sentence in this forum and noticing how differently it can be experienced by each person that reads it shows this. It's the same sentence. The words are the same for each person, yet many things internal to the mind of the reader can alter the perception of the sentence.

but what made you read that sentence? then what you think about what you read is colored by how you think.

I'm curious why some of you seem to believe that the only way to alter your experience is to change what is external to you?

Lisa

also some will say there is no inner of outer. and there is nothing you can alter in either. you get exposed to things (inner and outer) and form an experience.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by James81

That's strange, because I've found it to be the single-most empowering and results-wielding thing I've learned thus far in the personal development world.

Your internal state literally shapes your entire experience. But it's sort of one of those things that you have to experience before you can see its power rather than me telling you about it.

what made you get exposed to things that helped you change your internal state to something else? why did you end up on stevepavlina.com and learn about NLP? how did this new information color what you wanted to see? how is that different than you doing something that looks like the next best thing to do for you form where you are coming from?

I've found a lot of healing and inspiration simply by changing my perspective on things. And my external reality keeps shifting to reflect that.

changing a perspective requires knowledge that you got from the external world first, yes?

So for me anyway, free will is all about the internal choices we make. External circumstances will automatically shift to reflect the internal choices you make. For example, if you choose to become 100% responsible for your experience rather than, say, a victim of your experience, your external world will radically shift.

you wouldn't know to try this unless this idea came in your path. you can not go out and learn these ideas unless the external world gave them to you. well, maybe you can contemplate your suffereing and arrive at a new perspective too. but that is just awarenss being doing a focusing and paying attention, not so much deciding to do something new. the deciding to do something new comes after noticing something is suffering and then just kind of letting go of junk that you looked at.

People will come and go out of your life, opportunities and experiences will come and go, and where you end up will ultimately be a completely different experience based on your most recent decision about who you are and who you choose to be.

somehow the dominant behavior changes. you become convinced to try something else.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

If you are connected to Source, and thus your feelings and intuitions flow smoothly and truthfully to you, and they provide guidance when you make choices so that you choose that which is beneficial to you and others, then no amount of advertising should theoretically be able to sway you one way or the other.

If a person's choices are swayed by advertising, how is that evidence of free will? Isn't that evidence that a person's ability to choose is determined by the most effective advertising, and not their free will?

"Free will" vs advertising has come up before. I'll tell you how I see it further in this post.

As for your comments, I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent. I wish I was always “connected” to Source and that my feeling flowed “smoothly and truthfully.”

I do believe that my emotions “sum up the totality of the information" I have at the moment. However, I am well aware that my choice could be wrong because there are numerous “conspiracies” being cooked up to rob me of my “free will.” To say it differently, and paraphrase President Lyndon Johnson, “it’s up to me to know the difference when someone is selling me ‘chicken ****’ and telling me it's ‘chicken salad.’” I know that “garbage in,” means “garbage out.”

I might watch a James Bond movie where he drives a new BMW about to be introduced to the market place. I might watch a “Colombo” TV re-run where actor Peter Falk drives an old, non-descript foreign car. Now, nobody would mistake me for James Bond or Colombo based upon the vehicle I’m driving. But if my vehicle reminds them of either one of these actors, I would perfer it be James Bond. I would be more inclined to buy the BMW rather than a “Colombomobile.”

My choice of buying the BMW is “free will” when I know that BMW boys are consciously intending to manipulate me, and I choose to see it as “information” or ignore it. They “informed me,” and I agree with them. They presented it seductively. They added panache to the vehicle—at least until the movie is forgotten. I paid to watch a 2-hr. commerical. They added a new element of value to the purchase; people, "I think," will recognize the vehicle and think that the driver is “cool, sophisticated and a worldly jet-setter.” I like that. They’ll get this message by looking at me even when I forgot to put the sign on my back which says, “I’m cool and sophisticated.” Now I can get rid of the “Colombomobile”--I always felt silly getting out of that car with that sign on my back. The sign never matched with the Colombomobile or how I see myself. But, this BMW--it's me.

This is “advertising,” but advertising is a broad term. Take the insert, for example, in your local paper announcing that a gallon of milk is $1.59 this week at the local food store. You may think, as consumer, this ad is “merely information” or you mihgt not think about it all. Actually, it’s using a tried and true method to manipulate you; it’s trying to hook you to come into the store by saving money. The store owner knows that the majority of people who come to buy milk on sale will buy other things. The milk producer probably cut his price on a larger than average purchase. The store is running that ad for their benefit, not yours. When you know the foregoing and choose to buy the milk anyway, it’s “free will.” If you don’t know what going on here or elsewhere--where you are being manipulated then you are not “utilizing your free will” but you still have free will. Falling for manipulation does not mean you don’t have free will; it may mean you were “tricked, seduced, lazy or didn’t care to apply your critical powers”—the latter can be real work.

And, by the way, "No," I do not own a BMW and never have onwed one.

[MariconesUnited]

I really like this. Makes a lot of sense. Will have to try it out sometime

Originally Posted by sunshineXTC

It's foolish and naive to think or believe you will never have or currently have no doubt, fear or disbelief. Creating your own reality is not the norm in this world. Most people accept the lot they are given and see themselves as powerless victims. Probably everyone has done it with at least one situation or event in their lives. It's natural and normal. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The REAL RAW POWER of creating your own reality comes FROM disbelief, fear and doubt. This may seem contradictory, I know, but it has been my experience.

Anyone can do the easy part of creating - the focusing, the hoping, the reaching, the wanting and desiring, the attracting - and yet that doesn't always get you across the finish line, does it? When it doesn't, it's always because of one thing way down at the root (though possibly there may be other beliefs of unworthiness, lack, etc that may also interfere) is that core fear, doubt and/or disbelief that does most everyone in at some point. What most don't understand is that they need to harness that energy and take it to manifest what they want. Lots of frauds miss this very fine point and gloss over it by saying things like stay positive and repress or ignore negatives, etc. That's how you know they are a fraud because that is not how you create your own reality. It's how you DON'T create it.

When fear, doubt or disbelief come up in you, you need to look right at it rather than ignore or repress or deny it because it is a contradictory belief you have that will at bare minimum stalemate your creation so that it does not happen. By looking right at it, seeing that it exists as a POSSIBILITY, accepting and acknowledging it presently exists in your reality as a POSSIBILITY, you begin to change the outcome. As you face this POSSIBILITY you choose to not believe in it. You play chicken with it in your mind, seeing that only fear and doubt are its allies and you do not embrace them. You do not imagine this POSSIBILITY becoming THE ACTUAL OUTCOME. It is but an option. All options exist. You are seeing this because it is powerful enough within you (this doubt, fear and/or disbelief) to cross into your awareness.

As you look straight at it, ACCEPTING that it does exist BUT ONLY AS ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME WITH THE OTHER BEING THE OUTCOME YOU DESIRE, you DO NOT CHOOSE IT. You see that the only way this option can become your reality is to believe it is real. IT IS NOT REAL. IT IS NEVER REAL UNTIL IT HAS HAPPENED. Until the last moment of the event or situation or circumstance has passed in your present moment, IT IS NOT REAL. IT IS ONLY A POSSIBILITY. So you DO NOT ACCEPT it as the outcome. You detach from it and do not get caught up in the drama of that possibility for it is ONLY A possibility. As you do this, you take the power from that POSSIBLE outcome and channel it into the outcome you want. You are deactivating that contradictory belief that you cannot have what you desire. You deny that it will be THE outcome while pushing it right out of your experience. And as you watch it fade out of your experience you feel that raw power of creation surging through you. It's the most amazing feeling you can ever know. Once you have experienced that, you understand fully and completely that you are truly the creator of your reality. That is how you create your own reality.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

When you know the foregoing and choose to buy the milk anyway, it’s “free will.” If you don’t know what going on here or elsewhere--where you are being manipulated then you are not “utilizing your free will” but you still have free will. Falling for manipulation does not mean you don’t have free will; it may mean you were “tricked, seduced, lazy or didn’t care to apply your critical powers”—the latter can be real work.

But you're still saying that free will is contingent upon having the ability to think critically (which is a result, for most people, of education, genetics, and socio-economic status). I don't see how to avoid coming to the conclusion, by your definition and description of free will, that some people have more free will than others. Do you disagree?

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by James81

External circumstances will automatically shift to reflect the internal choices you make.

Yes, exactly! Brilliant and concise.

But the free will question isn't a necessary part of this conclusion. "Is there free will?" is a nonsensical question, much like asking, "how many turtles are holding up the earth?" Its a question that has no answer because it makes presumptions about reality and frames reality in a way that isn't meaningful. As philosophers have shown throughout the centuries, the question cannot be answered satisfactorily. What is the correct question? I have no idea.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

But you're still saying that free will is contingent upon having the ability to think critically (which is a result, for most people, of education, genetics, and socio-economic status). I don't see how to avoid coming to the conclusion, by your definition and description of free will, that some people have more free will than others. Do you disagree?

If you think that I believe that “free will” is contingent upon anything at but being a human being, then please allow me to gently and politely disabuse you of this notion. I believe that “free will” is a gift with which we are endowed by our creator. Thus, I do not believe that free will is “contingent” upon critical thinking, or education, genetics or socio-economic status.

And, that is how you avoid concluding that “some people have more free will than others.”

Critical thinking, in this world, is amazingly absent in my opinion. I believe “education” hinders critical thinking when it is based upon indoctrination.

The key in my humble opinion to critical thinking is “experience and information”--yes, your “genetics” should be sufficient that you are able to read, comprehend what your read, use a computer, access the internet and access independent thought. So, when you read, as I recently read, that some lady telephoned her ex-boyfriend 65,000 times in a year, you can ask, “How is that possible?” You should be sufficiently experienced in the subject, matter, in this case, ”ex-girlfriends, telephones, and ordinary mathematics” to evaluate the information and hone in on what does not “ring” true.

I think socio-economic status could have an effect on “choosing the subject” of my critical thinking. What is interesting and relevant to me, and in my circles? It also might restrict critical thinking because they may not want to hear your conspiracy theories at the country club.

All people have “free will.” They just have different choices.

[James81]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

what made you get exposed to things that helped you change your internal state to something else? why did you end up on stevepavlina.com and learn about NLP? how did this new information color what you wanted to see? how is that different than you doing something that looks like the next best thing to do for you form where you are coming from?

changing a perspective requires knowledge that you got from the external world first, yes?


you wouldn't know to try this unless this idea came in your path. you can not go out and learn these ideas unless the external world gave them to you. well, maybe you can contemplate your suffereing and arrive at a new perspective too. but that is just awarenss being doing a focusing and paying attention, not so much deciding to do something new. the deciding to do something new comes after noticing something is suffering and then just kind of letting go of junk that you looked at.

somehow the dominant behavior changes. you become convinced to try something else.

I'm not invalidating external circumstances. I'm just saying that the ONLY place we will ALWAYS (that is always...in ALL ways) have free will is internally. In the external world, there are many different circumstances that can "force themselves upon you" so to speak. For example, a woman who is raped did not consciously choose to be raped. The Jews in Nazi Germany did not consciously choose to be rounded up. But BOTH of those people always have/had the power to choose their RESPONSE to those circumstances.

I'm not dismissing external choice. I'm just saying that external choice can be taken from you at the whim of the strongest/most powerful. Internal perception can NEVER be taken from you (unless you choose to give away that power), and that is why I believe that internal perception IS free will.

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

"Is there free will?" is a nonsensical question, much like asking, "how many turtles are holding up the earth?"

I think it makes total sense, and my interpretation of what free will actually is makes complete sense to me as well. Personally, I think it's the only way you can make a concept like free will make sense. (That is, that free will is an internal choice, based on how you perceive circumstances whether you have control over the external circumstances or not.)

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For external reality will also shift to reflect the internal thoughts you hold.

This is my experience.

Shifting and/or maintaining and controlling my inner thoughts, there's where it gets tricky.

[Derelle]

I believe we create circumstances but not reality. The circumstances become reality. In the statement of getting hit by a drunk driver. No you didn't create the reality but the circumstances yes. Maybe not in the instance that you wanted to be hit but the fact that you left the house at the time you did. I do agree however, that many people do have conflicting thoughts and at times it is hard to maifest your destiny, until you work through some of the conflicts.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by James81

I think it makes total sense, and my interpretation of what free will actually is makes complete sense to me as well. Personally, I think it's the only way you can make a concept like free will make sense. (That is, that free will is an internal choice, based on how you perceive circumstances whether you have control over the external circumstances or not.)

I see “free will” as a gift from one’s creator. Why would anyone want to deny its existence? It’s all in the mind but it is one of life’s essential gifts. Without it, life would be lesser for it and a great deal of good movie dramas would not have been made. No matter what one’s physical or mental circumstances may be they always have “free will” and the right to have an “attitude” about their circumstances. Nobody can take this away from anyone, but one can fail, or lack the courage, to exercise it.

Don’t we love the movie drama where somebody who is stripped of everything, tortured and humiliated, but still expresses the last remaining human attribute he has—his free will to be defiant, and to spit in the face of his accusers and tormentors? And where he does not do so, don’t we want to reach through the screen and do it for him? Don’t we love it when he turns the tables on his tormentors?

And don’t we pity those people, like the Jews who co-operatively went to their deaths because they were either tricked to not use their free will or lost all hope and gave up their “will” to use their “free will.” Was it not then that they became the “walking dead?”

Victor Frankel wrote a book, “Man’s Search for Meaning.” It’s about his experience in a concentration camp. I recall reading, to the effect, that the people who survived the camp in his experience were people who wanted to live, had the will and a reason to live, who had something they yet wanted to do in life. They were, in effect, applying and using their free will in spite of reality and, the “what-is-ness,” as Abraham puts it, of their circumstances.

[LisaDreams]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Wait. I didn't mean to shut you down. I know I sometimes sound "short" and snarky online but that is not the way I feel. I liked your post, and agreed with it, and thought you spoke clearly and simply and gave a good example of how the way we look at something affects our reality of it.

Thank you!!

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

I see “free will” as a gift from one’s creator.... Nobody can take this away from anyone, but one can fail, or lack the courage, to exercise it.

Dear Creator,

Not a whole lot of evidence in favor of free will here, Sir. Could you please turn up the volume a tad? Not all of us are able to respond to trauma like Saint Francis. And is it really fair that some of us get more trauma than others? And do the results have to be... well... so predictable?

Sincerely,

A Concerned Piece of Clay



The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime - The Natural Child Project

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

And do the results have to be... well... so predictable?

The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime - The Natural Child Project

I don't know though. In the other thread about disciplining children, plenty of people are saying that any physical punishment is a bad thing, and some have said it's . . . psychopathic. Yet this chart implies that for the best chance of a kid going to college and/or becoming a professional, the parents should apply at least rare to moderate corporal punishment.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I don't know though. In the other thread about disciplining children, plenty of people are saying that any physical punishment is a bad thing, and some have said it's . . . psychopathic. Yet this chart implies that for the best chance of a kid going to college and/or becoming a professional, the parents should apply at least rare to moderate corporal punishment.

I like the way you are using the data to draw conclusions about what is the best way to raise humans, and moving away from the Free Will argument, as if it is no longer relevant. And you're right - it isn't!

Its much better to look at data indicating cause and effect when making social policy or determining your own personal social values, rather than throwing up your hands and saying, "but those Quentin inmates could have used their free will and didn't! Not my problem!"

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

Dear Creator,

Not a whole lot of evidence in favor of free will here, Sir. Could you please turn up the volume a tad? Not all of us are able to respond to trauma like Saint Francis. And is it really fair that some of us get more trauma than others? And do the results have to be... well... so predictable?

Sincerely,

A Concerned Piece of Clay



The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime - The Natural Child Project

Play nice now. I don't get the connection between my comment above, your comment, and your article below. I don't see how or why you are connecting "free will" to "beating children."

I'm starting to feel as if you don't like the concept of "free will," or you don't like my definition of "free will" as something possessed by every human being.

[SkylightMT]

Originally Posted by iraro

Play nice now. I don't get the connection between my comment above, your comment, and your article below. I don't see how or why you are connecting "free will" to "beating children."

I'm starting to feel as if you don't like the concept of "free will," or you don't like my definition of "free will" as something possessed by every human being.

I meant that data show a clear correlation and predictability of cause and effect regarding human behavior. The study itself is not particularly relevant to the discussion of free will (any more than a study on advertising, for example) it was just to show how strongly cause and effect can be demonstrated. There is no wiggle room for free will in the study. 100% of inmates at Quentin were tortured as children, and grew up to torture others.

If free will is true, it is mere epiphenomen (having no causative effect). The effect of brutally beating children is the opposite: it has a very strong causative effect.

Why would I want to deny its existence? Because blaming human behavior on "choice" or "free will" does little to better the lot of mankind. We'd be better off leaving free will completely out of the discussion, and focusing on what kinds of changes to the environment will result in healthier, happier, safer people. I also think sometimes the free will argument is used as an excuse for lack of positive social action, particularly by conservatives.

Dostoyevski said something along the lines of "if you want to understand human behavior, look at its extremes." If an argument does not hold up for the extremes, it is an invalid conclusion. The Quentin inmates are at the extreme. The free will argument continually falls on its face when you look at the extremes.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I meant that data show a clear correlation and predictability of cause and effect regarding human behavior. The study itself is not particularly relevant to the discussion of free will (any more than a study on advertising, for example) it was just to show how strongly cause and effect can be demonstrated. There is no wiggle room for free will in the study. 100% of inmates at Quentin were tortured as children, and grew up to torture others.

If free will is true, it is mere epiphenomen (having no causative effect). The effect of brutally beating children is the opposite: it has a very strong causative effect.

Why would I want to deny its existence? Because blaming human behavior on "choice" or "free will" does little to better the lot of mankind. We'd be better off leaving free will completely out of the discussion, and focusing on what kinds of changes to the environment will result in healthier, happier, safer people. I also think sometimes the free will argument is used as an excuse for lack of positive social action, particularly by conservatives.

Dostoyevski said something along the lines of "if you want to understand human behavior, look at its extremes." If an argument does not hold up for the extremes, it is an invalid conclusion. The Quentin inmates are at the extreme. The free will argument continually falls on its face when you look at the extremes.

I only describe “free will” as an “epi-pheonomeon,” that is as “by-product of a phenomenon,” when one defines the “phenomenon” to which the term is attached as “being human;” only then is there a direct “cause and effect relationship,” i.e., you have a “free will” because you are “human.” I do not find using the term “epiphenomenon” to be useful when it is used “broadly” because there are so many “by-products” of being human to which it could be applied.

I believe “free will” exists, but I, for one, do not try to suggest that failure to use one’s free will is the cause of all one’s problems and therefore the solution is merely using one’s free will. I recognized that there is a world full of obstacles and interests adverse to one’s free will. One can, among other things, be mis-educated, mis-informed, tricked, seduced and persuaded, etc. to act in a manner which is contrary to one’s free will. Blackmail comes to mind as an obvious example, but less obvious obstacles, and more subtle factors such as a belief “in damnation and the fires of hell, the need to marry within your nationality, race or religion,” for example, among others, can effectively interfere with one’s free will. Free will does not fall on it's face any more than a hammer falls on its face when you try to hammer a lag bolt-- rather than screwing it in with a rachet. One is merely applying the wrong tool in the wrong circumstances.

It appears that you and I have had different experiences with “data.” College, I think, can be easy because they give the data and they tell you it is “true,” and it is, for purposes of that course. In reality you find that “figures lie, and liars figure.” And, “scientists” lie too. They often have “benefactors” interested in a particular outcome.

Phony drug trials come to mind. Do you remember when scientists claimed to find the “homosexual” gene? Have you read the National Institute of Safety and Technology’s (NIST) fiction report on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings? There’s “global warming” where the “settled science” is far from settled. Remember the ozone layer? Then, some said that “second-hand smoke” is worse for you than smoking —I only briefly contemplated how I would set up such an experiment before I could see how many problems would be involved. I would have to consider the room size, air circulation, the concentration of smoke, the time of exposure, etc. Where would I get this base-line data? Does it even exist? What would I compare; bars, offices or outside smoking areas?

I hope you figure out how cause and effect works and share it me. I’m stumped when I apply it to complex issues.

I have problems with the article you cite. I’ll point out two areas, Charlie Manson and drinking and driving.

The study you point out mentions Charlie Manson. He was beaten, he claims, like the others in jail. Thus, “beatings” are the common denominator. You suggest that there is no “wiggle room” around this. However, in Charlie’s case, it also says, he had no father in the home and no mother after age 7. For these other inmates, we don’t know if they had 0, 1 or 2 parents at home, whether their parents were addicted to drugs or alcohol, whether they were in gangs, whether their families were poor, middle class or wealthy, whether their parents were educated or uneducated? I would submit that the foregoing factors could be relevant to where they find themselves today.

There are links in the chain of events which put people in jail. Cause and effect is clearer, we think, once they are in jail. The immediate reason they are in jail is because they got convicted of crime. That’s clear “cause and effect.” If they did not get caught or convicted they wouldn’t be there. Contrary to the article you cite, I would not think that being disciplined in high school is a cause of drunk driving, for example.

If a drunk driver smashes into my car is convicted of drunken driving then clearly there are links in that particular chain, anyone one of which if removed or “broken” would end in a different result. Some, for example, if he didn’t hit me, the police would not have been called. If he was drunk, but driven by someone else, he would not be convicted. If he was drunk at home he would not be convicted. If he was drunk but not charged, he would not have been convicted. If he was drunk and charged but not convicted he wouldn’t be in jail.

I would not consider being disciplined in high school as a link in the “cause and effect” chain of drunk driving. One’s belief system, and the belief that it is okay to drink and drive is probably more relevant than the preceding statement, but I don’t want to put any more worms in this can by adding Seth and Abraham.

The article you cite overlooks the more proximate causes I cite above and attempts to make a causal connection between discipline in high school (beatings) “ causing anger against the educational system” which somehow becomes “anger against the highway system,” which is “more dangerous than drinking per se” but results in a “deadly combination.”

The logic used escapes me as does any obvious “cause and effect” relationship. I would love to identify a reliable format to apply “cause and effect,” but I find this article, like others, combines disconnected assumptions, stirs them around like a stew, and says the result proves their case. I don’t think they prove their case. Still, I am not against good logic or good science.

As far as, Dostoyevski, I wish you and he were right and that theory was applied to airline passenger seats as well as there bathrooms. But, thankfully they provide buses to the parking lot even tho several people have run the mile in under 4-minutes. In law, "extremes" and unusal facts make bad case law and sometimes they are changed or left out of published decisions.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by James81

I'm not invalidating external circumstances. I'm just saying that the ONLY place we will ALWAYS (that is always...in ALL ways) have free will is internally. In the external world, there are many different circumstances that can "force themselves upon you" so to speak. For example, a woman who is raped did not consciously choose to be raped. The Jews in Nazi Germany did not consciously choose to be rounded up. But BOTH of those people always have/had the power to choose their RESPONSE to those circumstances.

I would wonder, those in dire positions are able to view the situation in different ways. And then what makes them view the situation differently? Is it just their free will? Or does training or previous knowledge of some kind come into play for how they react in different ways?

I'm not dismissing external choice. I'm just saying that external choice can be taken from you at the whim of the strongest/most powerful. Internal perception can NEVER be taken from you (unless you choose to give away that power), and that is why I believe that internal perception IS free will.

How free is this internal perception? I understand you see it as very flexible and at your disposal to be whatever you wish it to be. Even though I like to say that is the case as well, because saying so makes it seem like we have some sort of control - what it looks like to me is I only make the internal perception that makes the most sense to me at the time. I am not sure that it's giving up power, it may be like letting go of trying to control anything and getting into the flow of things. But I do seem to search for what would be a better way to respond to the world. And then I just wonder that getting information or techniques and then doing them is the way my inner perception changes, because I have new info or ideas to free up the old ways and start newer ways. However I can only decide to choose something that I understand or am able to see as the next best way to deal with something. The next best way to deal with something is not really a choice I can say I make on my own without having new knowledge or ideas about how to look at the world.

I think it makes total sense, and my interpretation of what free will actually is makes complete sense to me as well. Personally, I think it's the only way you can make a concept like free will make sense. (That is, that free will is an internal choice, based on how you perceive circumstances whether you have control over the external circumstances or not.)

If free will is an internal choice based on how you perceive circumstances, then you'd have to look at how it is you come to perceive circumstances.

Isn't how we perceive circumstance actually a condition response? Perception itself is all about our behaviors, or filters on what's going on, yes?

[Acting Like Godot]

Assuming that free will exists, I would think that firstly, it's also a matter of degree, and secondly, your past experiences do shape how you are most likely to use your free will.

For example, with regard to the Quentin example, if I grew up in a violent environment, I would likely be accustomed to regarding violence as relatively normal. Thus in a given situation, where there are, say, violent and non-violent options available to me, I would likely exercise my free will in favor of the violent response, since it is what I regard as normal.

Now, as for my point about free will being a matter of degree. Here are some examples. If you are addicted to alcohol, you probably have less free will as to deciding whether you will gave a drink or not. If you lack confidence, you will also have less free will to do things which are considered unorthodox or unconventional.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Now, as for my point about free will being a matter of degree. Here are some examples. If you are addicted to alcohol, you probably have less free will as to deciding whether you will gave a drink or not. If you lack confidence, you will also have less free will to do things which are considered unorthodox or unconventional.

What makes an alcoholic stop drinking?

Isn't included in the 12 steps, to admit to being powerless over the addiction or letting go to let God? Which is about letting go of control instead of trying to control it?

Is it about getting more free will to be able to stop drinking? What affords the individual more free will? I know some hit absolute rock bottom before they stop drinking. What happens is they see the situation differently. Did they choose to stop drinking or just get a wake up call that gave them a scare such that it all looks different and makes them see maybe there has to be a different way to deal with things?

What makes them choose to not drink may be that they were shown enough that what they are doing is destructive and have information that helps them see a different way of going. Now, do they choose this different way or just get to a point where the dominate response starts to change because of the influences of seeing the destruction and not seeing that way as useful anymore? They only choose what makes sense at the time they choose to drink or not. Is it free will to make that choose, or realizing and seeing and being aware and noticing there's some other way to live life that looks better and they start changing?

[iraro]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I meant that data show a clear correlation and predictability of cause and effect regarding human behavior. The study itself is not particularly relevant to the discussion of free will (any more than a study on advertising, for example) it was just to show how strongly cause and effect can be demonstrated. There is no wiggle room for free will in the study. 100% of inmates at Quentin were tortured as children, and grew up to torture others.

By the way, I interpreted your article to say, "all 'violent' inmates" were beaten--not that 100% of all inmates were either violent or beaten. "Violent inmates" seem to be a subset of the larger set of "inmates"--and they were beaten. The article did not identify the subset of "inmates who were 'beaten' but who were not violent" or "inmates who were not violent." Wasn't there even one in these latter subsets?

[MariconesUnited]

If we're using the San Quentin example to invalidate free will we'd have to show that everyone who was beaten becomes violent afterwards. Not that everyone who is in prison for violent offenses was beaten first. Key difference.

Not to say that I believe in free will. Just saying that that particular line of thinking isn't perfectly sound. There was another thread in these forums where someone posted a scientific video disproving it. IMO, it sucks! But...It is what it is, I'll just have to get over it somehow haha.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by SkylightMT

I meant that data show a clear correlation and predictability of cause and effect regarding human behavior.

It does no such thing. Maybe more violent and volatile children require more violent upbringing. The quiet and smart ones on the other hand, can be reasoned with. The physical punishment didn't lead to San Quentin, it was simply the consequence of their earlier free will choices, the warning telling them where they were headed; that is, the "being tortured as children" was not a cause (correlation does not imply causation). The problem is that you are already assuming that children have no free will and then asking yourself if adults do, as if people only became people at 18.

[iraro]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

What makes them choose to not drink may be that they were shown enough that what they are doing is destructive and have information that helps them see a different way of going. Now, do they choose this different way or just get to a point where the dominate response starts to change because of the influences of seeing the destruction and not seeing that way as useful anymore? They only choose what makes sense at the time they choose to drink or not. Is it free will to make that choose, or realizing and seeing and being aware and noticing there's some other way to live life that looks better and they start changing?

Said another way, somebody once told me, "Nobody goes to A.A. because they had a good week."