Taoism is very similar. save that it doesn't label the process as god. it labels it as the tao, thus the name of the philosophy. I'm not sure how dieties play into it or how taoist view the dieties if there are any. i know that indian mysticism(not native american) has several dieties, literally hundreds. But for the most part they are understood to be labels to identify with the different aspects and manifestations of the one ultimate truth,god, reality. this ultimate thing lies outside of normal human consciousness and thus outside language and labeling.

I've been to a Taoist temple before and they do have a lot of godheads incredibly depicted in ornate statues. I went by myself and there was no-one around so I didn't get to hear anything of their philosophy.
I do wear an Om around my neck though, just to keep me aware of my universal connection to everything.

Free will is limited to experience and knowledge.

Taoism is a very difficult philosophy to pin down. That, in itself, is the very nature of the Tao. If you read Lao-Tzu's original writings concerning the Tao, his explanations are circular, evasive, and not terribly enlightening. The whole idea is that it is a concept that cannot truly be explained, for to explain it is to destroy what it is. See, even briefly discussing the subject, I'm not making any real sense myself...

On the contrary. I actually believe the less you know, the more you are able to break it.
But anyway, I don't think of free will like that.
I think of it objectively and subjectively.
Objectively, it's all just physics; you know, how the brain works, our experiences, memories, our senses and then the way our brain churns all this information and uses it to make decisions.

But on a subjective level, if every hint, everyone in the world wants me to go left, and I go right, that's an indication of free will.
And we also make choices like this all the time, what to eat, where to go, who to go out with and what job we want. It's all free will, but it's an illusion, so to speak. Then again maybe not, in this universe almost everything is governed by physics so.

It will be interesting to check it out, ta. I think I'm over my yearn for a place in organised religion. I've vaguely deduced what the essence of many are. The only difference being technique. That part is still intriguing.

Break what? Are you saying with more knowledge, we create more restrictions for ourselves? Our will becomes less potent with choices we perceive to be law?

Kind of. The more we learn and the more experience, the more we get into habits and "normal" behavior.
Even though mind can't control matter, to be able to break our subjective free will, we have to know as little as possible, because then we have so many choices.
If that makes any sense.. I'm not sure it does to me..

edit: ok something just hit me.
The less we know, the more our brain uses um, instinct, or whatever to make a choice. In a new situation you only use that gut feeling.
As opposed to when we know alot abouta situation/circumstance, the brain has alot more info on it, and then it usually follows the pattern it has found to fit best.
Now, since my definition of 'free will' is actually a little rusty, I don't know exactly what the difference between a free willed decision and any other decision would be. But it seems to have something to do with what I said above.
Heh I'm losing myself here..

I think free will is based on the unimpared ability to make a decision, and possibly to carry out that decision.

Yeah, that's sorta what nathan is saying, isn't it. Unimpaired being the operative word. Are we impaired by knowledge or liberated by it? Has our knowledge created limits to our own free will?

Of course there's no such thing as free will. Problem is it doesn't mean anything useful when it comes to actually living, so I'll keep living like I make my own choices, and you'll do the same.

The question then becomes, why does it matter if we have free will or not? I guess the only possible relevancy would be in justifying vengeance. If someone kills someone you know, should you kill them? Should they be tortured? If they had no free will, because we all have no free will, then it is not sensibly to seek revenge by torturing them or even killing them. However, if they had free will, we would be partially vindicated in our desire for revenge, because they could have chosen not to kill the person we loved.

But with perfect knowledge of our options our choice would become %100 predictable -- i.e. determined.

This is exactly what I argue with my girlfriend about. I am still not convinced that our lack of free will means nothing, she is. The justice system is the only thing I've ever tried making an argument about. It does seem like a lack of free will would have implications since it's debatable we punish people we see as evil and with no free will, there is no evil (although I didn't believe in evil before I was a determinist). If you come up with any developed arguments about justice and determinism, message me and we'll talk about it over lunch.

punishment is a factor that plays into determining the action of people. It is one of the aspects that will determine wether i kill my sister for eating the last of my co co puffs. if i have the knowlegde that i will go to jail for it i might not do it. or i would just do it and cover it up really good. which is what tends to happen with murders. Everyone always knew punishment had this quality but it was scientifically proven last century by behaviorism. so the justice system can justify using punishment as a tool to elicit proper behavior from it's citizens.

this is one of the avenues i wanted to go down when i was convinced of the lack of free will (wich i've firmly believed for the last few years) so i am left with questions of how this affects morality and ethics when it comes to living both as an individual and as a part of a society. the justice system is very fucked up. I've always felt this way. but i think if i approach the issue with determinism in mind i can pin point exactly why it's fucked up and come up with a good argument against it. unfortunately civilization has been using the same system to govern for millenia(punishment), that it seems impossible to turn the wheels and instill a new system for eliciting good citizenry.

But someone else in the same situation might make a different choice. Even if you could work out what the choice could be, we are following our own road for our own reasons.

Free will cannot be imposed on others. Nor should others choices be imposed on any one else.

I used to love argue about free will. I don't anymore. I don't have free will. No one does. It's a false term to try to explain an illusion created by other phenomena. I've accepted that now, so I ain't worried.

You've become one of 'them'.

*shrugs* I guess i have. You should join, Soulfull, it's bliss.

Nooooooo, I shall fight to the last for idealistic believers of free will and personal responsibility; of universal consciousness and one mans/womans ability to change the world. Viva la non compos mentis.

Lies! Illusions! Meaningless words used to describe optical illusions created by greater realities!