Comments on: Free Agency isn’t Free & I’ve Lost All My Future Choices!

By: Paul Mortensen

Paul Mortensen — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:02:03 +0000

What about the possibility that all events/choices are random? I don’t think the concept of free will is capable of meshing with the concept of prophesy (at least if one is looking for accuracy in the prophesy) without assuming the randomness of existence. Random probability explains why some petitions are “heard and headed” and others are not. It also explains why prophets never (except in retrospect) place timelines on their prophecies. For all we know even salvation may be the result of a stochastic function.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:34:03 +0000

I thought you might say that Don… Alright here are a few questions then:

So what were our past choices (the ones before this life) based on? Were they also wholly determined by our prior experiences? If so, when did we ever have choice that was not determined by prior experiences?

Or are you implying that we had free will prior to this probation but don’t have it here? If we could make choices not caused by prior experiences there why can’t we do so here too?

By: don

don — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:19:29 +0000

Geoff, I don’t think it’s the “other external factors”. I do propose that our choices are “wholly determined by our past experiences”. My past experiences, especially those formulated over our vast time in the premortal life is who I am. The eternal me even as I continue to add experiences is still the eternal me. I will always make the same choice under the same circumstance. To do otherwise would be contrary to who I am.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:20:34 +0000

Don,

You seem to be flip-flopping between determinism and free will. If we are wholly determined by our past experiences and other external factors (and many people do believe this) then there is no free will — our every action is caused by prior events. If there is even some free will then we must have the ability to make self-caused choices that are independent of all external causes. We must have the ability to act rather than just react to our genes, passions, environment, history, etc.

BTW — I have posted on this subject in the past by positing that the “natural man” is the causally determined man and that we are only truly righteous when we use our free will to be better than that which comes naturally to us.

By: Tim J.

Tim J. — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:10:04 +0000

Don,

I think who we were in the pre-existence has a lot to do with who we are now. I believe we have been placed in certain situations according to what happened.

However, we have not yet gained our “inheritance.” I would believe David, Solomon, Jonah, etc., were possibly a few of the “noble” ones who also made choices that were contrary to who they were.

However, there was, of course, Saul/Paul who didn’t have much choice but to become a Prophet–but it was still his choice.

By: don

don — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:42:21 +0000

Geoff & Rusty, I don’t agree. I think we spent a very very long time in the premortal existence. There I associated with and was taught by God, Jesus and many other noble and great ones. That process helped me become who I am. Now I am on this earth. I don’t think that I’m going to “choose” something contrary to who I am. I don’t think the temptations I’m faced with will change what took and eternity to form.

By: don

don — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:30:49 +0000

The Narrator: if my speculation/theory is right then there is/was something in your fundamental personality that you used to choose to change and join the church. I would propose that it was something you brought with you from your premortal life. The real you might have had a few sharp edges that needed to be polished and that “caused” you to make choices that put you in your agnostic position. When the right circumstances came (or were put there by God) the real you recognized it – based on who you really are – and chose the church.

Last Lemming: you said, “The actual choices are then the result of random quantum fluctuations in our brains.” Interesting…but if that is the case then in fact all choices are either random, or random with prequalifications. If random then we really have no choice. If prequalifications are made based on who we really are (as I proposed) then we prequalify down to such a finite level that we in fact did make the choice (based on my proposal).

By: Rusty

Rusty — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:47:11 +0000

Yeah, I’m with everyone else, you’re wrong. Sorry.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:38:57 +0000

Don: if I’m right what does that mean?

It would mean 1) that you are a determinist and 2) that there is no such thing as free will.

The good news is that you are wrong.

By: Last Lemming

Last Lemming — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:12:32 +0000

Like the free agents of sports, we’re all free agents, looking to become players/disciples of someone or other.

Actually, before our baptisms, we were all free agents. Now that we have been baptized, we are no longer free agents because we have become “disciples of someone” (as Silus puts it).

But,we still retain our free will, which I think is what Don is really talking about. This is indeed a tough one. I have seen arguments that our choices are not fully determined by our experiences, but rather the probabilities of our making certain choices are what is determined by our experiences. The actual choices are then the result of random quantum fluctuations in our brains. This is still speculative, scientifically, but I have a hard time refuting it. And it is not much more comforting that pure determinism.