Is man unique in his conscious desires and his ability to distinguish alternative methods to achieving the objects of them?

Are man's actions determined by natural principals as intrinsic as the motion of planets?

Can both be true? Or, do individual entities of existence, be they inert objects or ones that posess knowledge of an end, each move in accordance to their own essence? Are they assigned unique principals on which they operate?

If we define all objects of existence as what we can perceive, and suppose that our ideas and mental constructions are the only immutable reference points on which to base inquiry, does the knowledge of our composition define our consciousness, in fact, as perceptible and mutable as a cup of coffee?

I have a few thoughts on this whole determinism vs free thought debate.

The main arguments supporting determinism and free thought are valid and have very few weaknesses, but I think they fit together fine if we consider free thought as a subordinate, which means as a tool to serve the determined ends.

Quick metaphoric example : it's as if you're never free to determine the destination of the car you're driving but you can always choose between turning left and turning right to get there.

What do you think?


If we define all objects of existence as what we can perceive, and suppose that our ideas and mental constructions are the only immutable reference points on which to base inquiry, does the knowledge of our composition define our consciousness, in fact, as perceptible and mutable as a cup of coffee?

and about that. We cannot define all objects of existence as what we can perceive. And wtf, cup of coffee??? Are you trying to say <we are what we think we are>?

What do you think?

I probably agree. It's a somewhat Aristotlean view of the relationship between nature and man. That is, that we're similarly guided on principles of tendency towards something, or in a particular direction, in accordance with the laws of physics. What differentiates intellectual beings from the inert, say, a cup of coffee ;), is that the intellect has knowledge of the end, and therefore a conscious desire - in contrast to a purely causal necessity of the inert - to meet the end, whether by instict (animals) or reason (man). And what differentiates reason from instict is the ability to recognize and employ alternative methods to achieving the end.

Tangent:
Some would say animals are capable of recognizing cause and effect patterns, and running mental simulations of what would happen if it performed this or that action. Some would say that their deterministic behavior is evident in their lack of conventional forms. Beehives and spider webs are made relatively in the same manner, wherever they're made. Same fundamental structures. Human civilizations posess unique customs and constitutions, or conventions, which suggests that humans have a free will and the uniformity of the habits of other animals suggests instinctual constructions.


and about that. We cannot define all objects of existence as what we can perceive. And wtf, cup of coffee??? Are you trying to say <we are what we think we are>?

Are you saying that there are physical objects that we can't detect or that there are supersensible ones?

My point was: if we can totally reduce our own consciousness to simple necessary conditions, like electrochemical signals firing in direct necessary response to certain stimuli, the pattern of neuron firings triggering a muscle to contract, etc., that is, we can define our composition just as we can define a coffee cup's, then do unperceptable, supersensible qualities exist at all?

IMHO, free will is absolute. We all create our own reality, even at a preconscious level.

IMHO, free will is absolute. We all create our own reality, even at a preconscious level.

What creation posesses a reality that doesn't include the capacity to establish its own existence, yet has the capacity to establish its own direction?