On the Interpretation of Free Will

【Author•He Yongqi】

Today, we're going to talk about Free Will, but let's take a brief look at its definition:

Free will does not have a universally agreed definition. In the philosophical circles, the definition of free will is not uniform, and the "free will" that people talk about in everyday life is different from the "free will" as understood by the judicial and psychological circles. In its broadest sense, free will is the ability of people to decide whether or not to do something according to the conditions they have.

Note: The above is a brief introduction to "free will", which means: "There is no one of them that is universally recognized".

That is to say, free will is understood differently in different academic circles. It is sometimes close but not uniform, and in a broad sense it is universal, and it encompasses the attitudes of the majority.

That is to say, in the popular mind, people also accept the idea that man has free will, but the understanding of it varies from person to person.

For example, A says that free will is a kitten, B says that free will is a puppy, C says that free will is a small fish, and D says that free will is a duckling.

Because, it doesn't have a uniform standard; You can understand it according to your own knowledge and cognition, and there is no difference between high and low.

You can think that the other person is wrong, but for that "he", it is right.

In general: free will is influenced by each person's knowledge and knowledge, including the level of wisdom. It is because of the difference in knowledge and cognition that each person's interpretation of free will is different.

If you study philosophy, then your understanding of free will will be more profound, and it will inspire you even more. On the contrary, the average person's understanding of it should be shallow, and as a result, they will get a little less! Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the average person will not use it.

The key is that "point", for example, doing research, doing research, writing articles, and so on, if you grasp that point, the context of the article will be very clear! It will not be chaotic.

That is to say, the more the philosopher understands free will, the more inspiration he will get from it. Philosophers, then, will use free will.

There is a middle view that "the past will limit, but not determine", and that personal choice is one of many outcomes, although influenced by the past, but not determined by the past. Even if the actor is free to exercise his will in various choices, the actor is still not the only cause of his action. Because, no one can do impossible actions, such as waving their arms to fly.

"Free will" applies to the spiritual level, and this idea advocates that "a man can choose the options he can think of, but not the options that never come to his mind". From this point of view, the choice to "make" now may open, determine, or limit future choices.

Through the introduction of the above paragraph, we realize that "free will" is a very deep science! It is unimaginably deep, and it is far deeper than sophistry. The sophistry is: the grandfather paradox, the white horse is not the horse, it is me and not me, etc., and free will is much deeper than these......

I need to explain "I am not me" because I proposed it;

"It's me and it's not me"; there is a kind of confusion between me and non-me! You say it's me? Then what I don't want is not me. Because if it's me, why is there another voice that is stopping me? Then, it's not me.

For example, when I want to do good deeds, there is a faint law in my heart, which is invisible, resisting me who wants to do good deeds.

That is to say, there is an invisible resistance, which is invisible, that prevents the willing self, and then it is not the self. There is only one me, why are there two voices in me? Which is me?

I didn't do what I wanted to be good, and I did what I didn't want to be evil. Which one is me......

- Very humorous!

free will, which is closely related to people;

Well, the subject of free will is the specialty of philosophers, and philosophers like to study these things. For example?—— where do people come from?—— what is the meaning of life where do they go after death?—— people have a soul, what is the ?—— soul, what is the ??——, etc., philosophers like to study these things, and these things are also closely related to people.

Another point is that philosophers have an indescribable obsession. That is to say, "If they don't figure these things out, they themselves will feel that life is not interesting." ”

It is tantamount to saying that these things have a kind of magic power for philosophers, and if they do not understand these things, they will not be able to eat well or sleep.

In fact, it is mutual, the indescribable kind of attachment of the philosopher, which compels him to understand.

Let's take a look at how Baruch Spinoza explains:

He likened human free will to a stone that thinks it has chosen its flight path and landing point. In Ethics he wrote: "The decisions of the mind, if desire, are deducted, there is nothing left! Free will change according to the arrangements."

In the mind, there is no absolute value! and there is no free will. The will of the mind is determined by one factor, and this factor is determined by another, and then another, and so on and so on People will believe that they are free, because they know their will and desires, but... Contributing factors are ignored.

Above is Spinoza's interpretation of free will. In this way, Spinoza had two views: first, it was negative, that is, he believed that man had no free will. In Spinoza's view, if a person is free from all desires, he has no free will. I had to say, "Spinoza, that's too clever." ”

Second, yes, that is, in Spinoza's view, man has free will, but he is not sure yet.

It is equivalent to saying: If man does not have free will, then how does he choose??—— between doing and not doing what he wants to do, and how he should choose??—— then man has free will, but why do he have free will?

In this way, Spinoza was not sure about "free will". That is to say: Spinoza had two tendencies: on the one hand, he believed that man had no free will, and his main point of view was on "desire".

Another point of view, according to Spinoza, is that although free will depends on human desires, there is no human being without desires.

In this way, man still has free will. On the whole, Spinoza still preferred that man has free will, but Spinoza could not determine between the two.

Free will is a big subject, and there has not been an accurate definition since ancient times.

The topic of free will has existed since Augustine, and it has been around for more than 2,000 years.

The other courses, dabbling in free will, are not very much. But in philosophy and theology, "free will" is a necessary lesson.

The subject of free will is too general! Many great men have not had an accurate answer.

My personal understanding of free will is that it is a person's choice.

Good and evil are in everyone's consciousness, you have a choice, and after you choose, there will be a result. What is the result? It depends on how you choose in front of you.

Ideology and free will, in fact, are very contradictory. Sometimes it's the same, and sometimes it's a dead end, and that's the contradiction. I can only say: In the dark, my will has made a decision, and in the other in the dark, the subconscious has another resistance! At this time, the two consciousnesses and value orientations will form a "mutually exclusive" in the brain, and you need to make a choice or decision through your will. Otherwise, these two opposing states will continue indefinitely.

If you are entangled between these two different wills, and you do not make a choice, and you are unstable?—— then this stalemate will continue. Until you cancel a plan.

A theological course will be exposed to free will, and it will help you understand the two sides of free will. Theology makes you make your own choice! Theology will tell you that the choice is yours after figuring out the relationship between the two. Because of the difference in choice, the outlook on life and values will also be different! Values will change with the choice. It also depends on how much you love the goal you choose.

Sometimes, enthusiasm and impulsiveness are unreliable. It is often influenced by your mood and emotions, and it is easy for you to regret doing something with enthusiasm and impulse! Moreover, it will waste your time and youth.

Many people have the feeling that no matter what they do, when they are halfway through, you will have a sense of remorse1, saying, "If only I hadn't done it in the first place." It's not absolute, but it happens in a lot of people's lives.

Someone is doing business and is very successful! But in the middle of the process, he has also been confused. He has reflected on this question more than once, that is, he has asked himself whether he should do it or not, whether he should continue.

In general: enthusiasm and impulsiveness are unreliable. You have to think carefully before you choose to do it or not. It comes back to the choice of the person, it is the seat of your consciousness, the choice of the seat, everyone has it.

Free will doesn't depend on whether you admit it or not, you don't admit it? yes, it doesn't affect its role in your consciousness.

Whether you admit it or not, free will is exercising its function.

Fools are stupid, aren't they? He also knows that he is hungry, and he knows that it doesn't matter if he is hungry, he will go to eat. The choice before this "eating" was, in his subconscious, already made. It seems that free will is still invisible, it cannot be seen or touched, but it controls you.

Here's the question: vegetative people, do they have free will?

The first step is that from the outside, the vegetative person is nothing more than immobile and unconscious. But it's not dead, he's still breathing, just a little weaker.

Looking at free will from the outside, a vegetative person behaves as "he has no action, no action," you can't know what he wants to do, and the outside can't see it.

The second step, looking from the inside, first of all, he has to breathe, which is what the body needs. Again, his brain waves are still active, and his brain still has conscious intentions. It's just that the brain's attempt is very weak, it can't command and mobilize the body, and it manifests itself externally, that is, it doesn't move at all.

The beating of the heart, though weak, is a need of the body. So it seems that the vegetative person, although most of his organs are already asleep! In this way, free will also exists in vegetative people.

It should be noted that the vegetative brain is still alive, but it is very weak, and it cannot mobilize various organs.

That is to say: he is conscious, but he is not able to function. It's not that "the vegetative person deliberately doesn't move," he wants to move, it's just that this instruction in the brain can't be transmitted.

In other words, because the instruction information of the brain is too weak, it can't even run out of the brain area, and the external organs can't receive the instructions, so it can only sleep. But beware, there is still time to be awakened.

That is to say: he still has hope to become a normal person again.

In this way, a vegetative person also has free will, but he cannot exercise it.

First, he was breathing weakly, second, his heart was still beating slightly, and third, his brain tissue and the flow of thoughts. Someone will say, "Isn't that a brain wave??"

What are brain waves? Isn't that just the flow of ideology? It can only be said that the brain of a vegetative person is so weak that it may be disrupted! Just like a program, a command is typed out of whackles before it is sent. Such a bunch of garbled numbers cannot be executed by a computer.

It should be noted that computer programs and people's ideology are not the same concept. The vegetative brain is very weak! Its message cannot be transmitted. However, he still has thoughts. The information itself contains content.

Wave is just a form of information, a mode of transmission, and "wave" has no information content (wave is form).

Waves, just a way of transmission, can take an S-shaped route, or a Z-shaped route, but the "wave" has no content. What really has content is the information itself.

The wave doesn't tell you how to do it, it just passes the "how" to you.

In this way, a vegetative person also has free will, but his free will cannot be executed.

In other words, although 90% of the organs of a vegetative person are asleep, there is still a weak flow of thought in the brain tissue, but it is too weak or disrupted to mobilize other organs. This leads to the phenomenon of being in a vegetative state and unable to move. He wanted to move, but was restricted.

From the perspective of ideology itself, if there is no ideology?—— this can be said to be dead.

Ideology itself is the content of the directive. What does it want to do? What does it not want to do? That's what the message is about. It is equivalent to saying: the ideology has a will, how it wants to ...... And then it will be done.

Ideology is immanent, it cannot be seen or touched! Can you say that it does not exist?

The vegetative person is not dead, he is close to the intermediate state between life and death. But it's not dead, it just illustrates the state of a vegetative person (suspended animation).

That is to say: one day, the vegetative person can still be awakened! After being awakened, he will become a living normal person again. He has reverted to a person who has thoughts, goals, knows how to choose, and can work hard. Isn't this just the kind of person you and me?

In this way, it is even more certain that vegetative people have "free will", but note that this free will of vegetative people cannot be enforced.

Free will is the inner mind, a conductor of your choice, your sense of direction. Free will, or the conductor of actions.

First of all, ideology comes first, behavior comes second, right?

After the free will makes the choice, it is sent to the various organs, and then it is carried out by the body. This manifests itself on the outside of the human body, which is what is done and what is done. You see, free will, how important!

As mentioned earlier, free will does not have a unified understanding, it is influenced by each person's knowledge and knowledge, and different people will have different opinions on the same thing.

Philosophers, relatively speaking, have a deeper understanding of this. So he will get more inspiration from the reflection on free will, so that he can use it. Free will, indeed, is very important! It is closely related to human activity. I hope you have a better understanding of free will, so that you don't have to be blind before you do something.

Thanks for reading, welcome to follow!

Author: He Yongqi