Mantus

I have always suspected that there was something amiss about the concept of free will. It appears to be our most precious possession yet we don’t seem to give much though to the truth of it. Then I stumbled upon an article by a certain man named B. F. Skinner which peeked my interest. Soon enough I stumbled upon hard determinism. So far I haven’t seen a single argument disprove hard determinism. It appears be the best explanation of our ability to make choices.

Hard determinism:
1. Every event has a cause
2. Every cause is also an event
3. Human behavior is an event
Thus: All human behavior has a cause
4. If an event is caused, it is not free
Thus: No human behavior is free
I.e. - free will does not exist

Obtained: here

My own glance at hard determinism:

- A person has no freedom to choose events that influence life. The universe is older then humanity. Hence events happened which were not determined by human action. Since these events caused the first human choices the first human choices were not free. Since the first human choices were not free the effects of these actions caused further responses, which also lacked freedom of choice. Hence no human choice was ever the first link in the chain of causality that was caused by freewill.

- A person has no choice in his own genetic makeup and hence has no choice in the predetermined factors of his mind. If a person chooses to alter himself later on such a choice will be made based on previous causes, thus no freewill is executed.

- A person appears to have a choice in the knowledge that is assimilated into his mind, but this assumption is false. We can only choose to learn from what is put before us. At first knowledge is acquired instinctively, and forced socially as well as circumstantially. Hence the acquisition of fledgling knowledge is not a choice. Since knowledge acquired by an infant is not a choice the choices that such knowledge will determine in a child is also not a choice. From birth onwards all knowledge is determined though circumstance therefore it is not acquired though freewill.

All options to act are determined by previous factors. The options of human beings are limited by our knowledge and by circumstance. Since both knowledge and circumstance are determined by causality the choices that are before us are determined by causality.

A human being’s ability choice is determined by three factors: the event (circumstance), genetics (hardware: brain, instincts, emotions) and knowledge. A human being is essentially a processing device. We receive input from the outside world and use our minds to access knowledge with which we determine our choices and our responses. Yet this process, which happens in our minds, is in no way free of causality. The individual does not have a free choice over the even that forces him to make a choice, genetics or knowledge. Hence human beings do not have the quality of freewill and human beings are at the mercy of causality.

Freewill is absurd.

People who advocate free will believe that there is a part of the human mind, which is in equilibrium to the world and is outside of causality. This part of the mind has the power to alter our behavior. I believe that if human poses such a quality it would be completely useless. For if there were no inclination to act, there would be no action or response from this part of the mind. Further more I believe that this part of the mind cannot be self aware. As all decisions are based on the circumstance and the deliberation of the mind. The thought process of the mind is based on knowledge and genetics capabilities; therefore it is not free of causality. Hence the thought process cannot affect freewill otherwise freewill be corrupted by causality. If freewill is not affected by the mind then it is not aware, hence it cannot respond to input of any kind.

All our choices are determined by causality.


References to other views on free will:
http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-determinism.html

SVT01Cobra

inappropriate comment

SVT01Cobra

How was THAT for free will?

We can CHOOSE whether to acknoledge the cause or not, in this case, I chose to say - something that was edited.

Mantus

My apologies Cobra, I know this is a very touchy subject. I suppose I will have to talk about the consequences of such knowledge but first I must determine whether this knowledge is correct.

wilbjammin

All of existence is absurd.

"We are not born for liberty. But determinism likewise is a mistake" - Camus, Notebooks

This doesn't take into account imagination at all.

A person has a great amount of freedom in deciding to how to interpret events that influence life.

I'm having some trouble with this one. Experience does have a lot to do with what ideas you have, and how you choose to live your life. But an absolute stranglehold? As metaphorical creatures, this does nothing for my aesthetic persceptions of life.

To say that because of genetics and the interconnectedness of existence we have nothing original and spontaneous to produce is likewise absurd.

Everytime we are placed in a circumstance where we have several options and don't know which one is best, that act of deciding finally is certainly an exercise fo freewill. Not absolute freewill, but certainly of some freewill. As long as the outcome is not already known previously.

The cause and the event can both be self-contained within the individual. I don't see how determinism can explain that away. We are at the mercy of facticity, but not absolutely.

I'm having trouble with "If any event is caused, it is not free"... what determines freedom? An absolute lack of relationship between an event and reason?

__________________
Innominate.

SVT01Cobra

lol, I was only joking around. To each his own.

Just demonstrating my free will.
Sorry about that comment.

inkriminator

Perhaps some of the physicists on the knowledge board can correct me, maybe a multi-board topic, but it is undetermined as yet if sub-atomic molecules move randomly or behave like macro objects with effect being reducible to certain causes. If they are truly random, then the cumulative effects of all randomenness of all the atoms operating in the brain could give rise to a free-will. this is all predicated on the randomenness of sub-atomic molecules however. Anyone know more/

CSflim

Yes inkriminator, it is possible that quantum randomness has effects inside your brain...the current scientific attitude is that they don't but it remains a possibility.
But when you think about it, does having RANDOM events occuring in your brain really have any positive effect towards giving you free will? How is that really any different from being entirely deterministic? Your brain is still following the laws of physics, and "you" do not get to make any choice about what the outcome is.

I don't believe in "free will" in the naieve sense of the word. At no time does anything in our brains defy the physical laws. So we lack "free will" in the mystical sense.
But in a deeper sense you have to see that free will does exist. "you" must always be held responsible for your actions. You can't plead innocent to a murder charge on the basis that "my brain caused it....I was a victim of the laws of physics!"

No, what is called for is a stronger definiton of "the self". You have to realise that you are not "under control" of some massively complex algorithm being excecuted on the hardware of your brain...you ARE that massively complex algorithm!
That massively complex algorithm makes "decisions", which in turn causes your body to move. This is what "you" are, and in this sense you have free will...yet all the time being under control of the (deterministic?) laws of physics.

__________________

Mantus

wilbjammin,

I am not going to answer all of your queries line by line, instead I will try to re-iterate my view form a different angle and try to tackle all the problems you posed. PS. Sweet new avatar you got there

A common definition of freewill is the ability to freely exercise one’s will. Where “will” is defined as the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action. Since the reason behind the choice or decision as well as their unimpeded execution are always determined such freewill does not exist.

* * *

The human mind and the material world are two separate realities. With interaction happening between the two via the body. The mind interprets reality and responds accordingly. Each mind develops though experience; no two experiences are the same. So all minds are unique. Therefore people have a unique metaphorical reality within their minds. Yet the processes of the mind are not free from the laws of causality.

Consequently when we respond to an event our mind does not follow the same laws of causality as the event that caused it. The event is translated into the minds interpretation of reality. The response is determined according to the laws of causality within the mind. The mind then uses the body to translate its response back into the physical reality at which point physical causality continues.

The above said; even though the laws of causality bind us, our exact behavior would be incredibly hard or impossible to predict. In order to precisely determine all human action one would have to know the exact composition of the brain at birth as well as the precise growth pattern of inborn attributes; one would have to know all that has been experienced by the mind and determine how this experience is processed by the mind; one would have to be aware of past casual events in order to determine the events that will force input from the individual. Thus each individual’s actions are determined by an incredibly complex causal system. If one were to determine the outcome of events based on social interaction then one would need to know all information for each individual involved in the web of causality. Hence only an omnipotent mind would be able to predict exact human behavior. Though it is possible to roughly predict behavior if we are aware of enough factors. Our minds perform such tasks every day by predicting the actions of individuals we interact with.

I believe that the laws of causality bind all actions within the mind including imagination and creativity. These rather fascinating aspects of humanity are not all that mystical. Fundamentally creativity is an extension of our problem solving skills combined with our memory, communication skills and emotions. When one looks upon new ideas one will notice that they are a recycled or rehashed or modified existing concepts. The human mind holds no originality, but each mind is uniquely developed due to our one-of-a-kind perspective. Hence Van Gogh was caused to paint Starry Night. Due to the uniqueness of his experience the odds of some one else creating the exact same work of art are astronomical. Therefore I do not believe that creativity is outside causality.

Obviously the burden of proof rests with me and all I have is speculation at the moment. There is still much to learn.

One undetermined factor that often comes up is randomness. Even if random events could happen I do not see how they would give us freewill.

Some people prefer to define freewill as the ability to perform an undetermined or un-caused action. I would argue that such definition is better suited for the term “random action”. As such an even would not allow meditation within the mind. If our action is a random event then certainly we have no freedom in its occurrence, from there on the random event will fall into the web of causality and we end up no less determined then before.

:::OshnSoul:::

I had a deep thought last night while smoking a clove.

All experiences in your life are created by YOU.
Painful & joyful.

The silky stream of smoke floated steadily through the air as I sat still. I decided to blow gently into the stream of smoke, as it then bowed slightly without seperating the line.
Then, I blew strongly into the smoke, as it then went wildly out of control, loosing its connected stream, scattering itself until the wind of my breath passed as I was waiting patiently and still for the stream of smoke to return to a steady stream. Then I took small, light, quick puffs to the stream as I watched it create slight ripples.
With force, I created the smoke to curve, ripple, or scatter. With patience, stillness, and thought to the stream of smoke and how it was, I created it to be steady.
Can we not see that same cause and effect in every situation and experience in our life? Only if we grow still, observe the circumstance, and gather our patience and thoughts on it, do we realize what can be done to keep it steady- smooth.....but if we are to rush into something with impatience or without thought (or with negative thought), we may not have a chance to realize all the possiblities of paths that could be taken to create a smooth experience, therefore leading to pain and/or disappointment.
The choices we make in every experience we have, big or small, is created by us, therefore there being free will. Nothing outside of us creates our experiences nor tells us what to do, nor brings fate or any other outside source of will.

Fibrosa

The problem is, hard determinism is completely destroyed because of advances in science; namely quantum physics. The discovery of which led Einstein to exclaim "God doesn't play dice" (or something to that effect). What Qp effectively did was introduce totally random and events that did not have causes.

wilbjammin

We are slaves to our synapses and our bodies, but that doesn't seem to preclude still having and kind of "freewill". The facticity of our body and chemistry is the same as the facticity of the composition of the earth that we walk on. This is just another layer of absurdity that could have been added into Camus's essay "An Absurd Reasoning". As often as we look at cause and effect, there is something different that humans have - intention. Does the earth intend to make me cold when a cold front floats through? Does the wind intend to fascinate me by its sounds? Did the thunderstorm intend to inspire me to write a poem relating my emotions surrounding my life and relationships with other to the metaphor of electricty?

If all hard determinism says is that we are greatly determined by our situations, including our bodies... then I can agree to that. But going beyond to this concept that every cause and effect is determined by something as though it were simply a physics problem, I don't buy it for a second. Life isn't in binary.

__________________
Innominate.

nash

My two cents, I don't have much to say:

I think we need to clearly define the terms that we are discussing, especially here in the Philosophy forum. If by "free will" y'all mean the ability to be free of any "causes" then I agree that we have no free will. We live in a three (maybe four if you want to argue that) dimension world and because of that, we can't imagine or conceive, say a 10 dimensional "object." The three dimensions that we live in prohibit us from understanding what goes on in 4+ dimensional worlds, hindering us from being totally free in that respect. But if you say that "free will" is our ability to have opinions, have thoughts, and make choices aside from what we can't control, then I would say that we do have free will.

Words that could have subjective definitions (and that I didn't define clearly) are in quotation marks, by the way.

Random point to ponder:
According to hard determinism: How did the first event/cause come about? Can the chain of events/causes be thought of as having a beginning? Or is there no beginning and no end? Sort of like a "Did the universe have a beginning?" type of question.

Xell101

I'd say the argument lie in determining whether or not we simply respond based on preestablished routines, responses, reaction types, etc. or if there is something special introduced from the person that is what we call free will.

orange monkeyee

To drink one beer, or to drink 6 beers, that Is the question.

i do what I want and that's that.

degrawj

wow, this is a very insightful thread. I took a couple classes in college that deat with free will and determinism. i only learned one thing in that class: people will NEVER agree on this subject.

klt2

It seems to me that "Free Will" can be found in degrees. Many people have no real will. Some do, and very few have a lot of it.

I don't know if it's possible for a human to have absolutely free will - that's something we might ascribe to God.

I believe that it is possible to strengthen one's will.


orange monkeyee - doing what you want isn't free will.

CSflim

Before we continue this argument, could someone perhaps explain to me what "free will" is?

If you define it as "events without a cause", then you are not talking about free will, you are talking about randomness.

If you define it as "an event which takes place due to the conscious intentions of a self", then we are talking about free will, and yes, we have it.

Raise your left arm!
Did you do it? Whether you did or not, you made a choice to do it. You did not find to your horror that your arm leapt up on its own accord! Not did you find it completely paralysed when you attempted to move it (at least I hope not! )
On this level you have exercised free will, you made a choice.

As it happens the cause of your consciousness and your choice were the result of deterministic physical reactions (or perhaps ones with random elements?).
Yes each neuron in your brain is acting according to physical laws...laws over which your have no power...but the resulting behaviour of these physical laws, is conscious perception, the perception of making a choice, and the resultant behaviour.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself very clearly. It is all clear in my mind...but explaining such an abstract thing is not very easy for me.

Let me analogise...are you ALIVE?
Think about it. Can you define yourself as being alive? Most certainly you can...but think deeper! Ultimately your body is just made up of various subsystems, which in turn are made up of dead chemicals.
Where is the spark of life!? Surely we are forced to conclude that we are in fact not alive at all!?
Of course not! We realise that life is not a "thing"; there is no "life stuff". Rather we conclude that life is a process.

Just as we don't need "life stuff" in order to have life, we don't need "free will stuff" in order to have free will.
Life emerges out of a highly complex interaction of dead materials.
Free will emerges out of a highly complex interaction of deterministic elements.

So, to reiterate my previous post, I don't believe that we have free will in the naive sense. We don't have Cartesian homunculi beaming instructions into our brain from a level of existence outside of our normal experience (and hence outside of physical law).
But we do have free will on a deeper level. If you raise your left arm, it is YOU who decides to do it, nobody else! We have free will because we have intentions, beliefs, opinions, goals, feelings, all of which inform us, and help us come to a decision.

I think the reason that, as degrawj said, people “NEVER agree on this subject”, is because of a misconception of what “free will” is.
And this confusion of what free will is, stems from a confusion of what the “self” is.

__________________

Mantus

On quantum uncertainty.

I am no scientist but I did read a bit on the subject. From what I understand, there is no total agreement on whether the quantum world really is random or not. Infact the word that scientists use is “uncertain”, which is not a synonym for random. Some believe that we simply lack the instruments or the detailed knowledge of quantum events to determine their precise cause. It seems that quantum entities do behave statistically, hence giving indirect evidence that they might be the under influence of some laws.

The two major theories that show the uncertainty of the quantum world are the Uncertainty Principle and Schrödinger Equation.

The Uncertainty Principle, which states that one cannot know the momentum and position of a particle simultaneously. This is because we must hit a particle with another particle in order to gage it’s position or momentum.

Schrödinger wavefunction theory describes all particles as a probability waveform; because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle dictates that position and momentum can't both be known to arbitrary precision. This led to the famous Schrödinger Cat though experiment. Though it should be noted that Schorodiger did not intend to educate with this though experiment but rather to show the absurdities that can result from the wavefuncition concept of the quantum world.

In the end though I believe that the burden of proof lies with the Determinists. Since we simply do not know if there could be random events in this world, I suppose that Determinism will never be proven absolutely correct. Though it is often argued that the workings of the quantum word have no bearing on human action. Since any quantum uncertainty is canceled out by statistics. I do not know enough about this to discus it further though.

A side comment: when Albert Einstein said that “God does not play dice with the universe." I believe he was advocating that everything has a cause.

CSflim

Mantus, you are correct in all that you have said, and quantum uncertainty is often mentioned with reference to free will...my question is WHY?

If you are of the opinion that "as we live in a deterministic world, we cannot have free will", does throwing in a bit of RANDOMNESS really help give you free will? After all, "you" can have no conscious input on what the result of a quantum wave collapse will be...it is of course...random!
Free will based on uncontrollable random events doesn't sound much like free will to me!

Besides, the vast majority of scientists believe that quantum uncertainty does not play a role in the brain's operation. As far as neuroscience is concerned, individual neurons behave predictably and deterministically. This is not however a rigorously proven fact. It is always remains a possibility that quantum effects are involved, but the current scientific thinking is that they don't.
There are plenty of pseudo-scientists who are derrogatorily termed "quantum mystics" who like putting forward quantum-magical theories of the mind. This have been thoroughly debunked where necessarry and are not taken in any way seriously by the scientific community.

__________________

Mantus

Csflim,

People were mentioning quantum uncertainty as a way of disproving Determinism. I just wanted to point out that quantum uncertainty is not the same as quantum randomness.

I totally agree with you though (as I said before), existence random events would not give us freewill.

Your Life analogy was quite excellent. If we perceive life on its basic level then yes we have life, but the moment we begin breaking it down we lose it.

Therefore if we perceive freewill as “the freedom to execute an intention”, and choose not to probe further into the complexities and causes of both our intentions and our ability to execute them then yes we have freewill. The moment we look into the cause behind our intentions and the actions that result we lose freewill.

The question is: which view point should we use? I suppose the answer is both. We end up with infinite regress if we continue to break down causes of our intentions. On the other hand if we take freewill at face value we many lose sight and understanding of our intentions.

Some would not accept this doulbe-think. Technically speaking, we really do not have free will, just as technically speaking, we really aren’t alive. I cant say that they are wrong. It's a pickle I say...


Aside - Is it free will written as two separate words or as one words eg. “freewill” or "free will"? Is there a difference in use?

:::OshnSoul:::

"You have already made the choice. You are here now to see why you made the choice."-Oracle, Matrix Reloaded

Movies sure do have a way of giving messages that we often look passed.

We think that free will is not always, if at all- mainly because of the *bad* things that happen to us. That's what most humans focus on- negativity, *bad* things. That's what they hold on to, conjuring up negative thoughts, doubt, skepticism......
But why can't we think of it as something We (meaning our Souls) already chose- then it becomes to be our reality. And that reality is what we make of it- perception, ideas, thoughts.
We think that the person who steals your car is a worthless jerk and that we didn't deserve this and that it was *bad*. Not saying I would be thrilled if my car got stolen, but I wouldn't blame someone else for what has happened. Sure, they made the choice to steal my car in the perception of reality- but maybe perhaps before it even happened, I (my soul) chose for it to happen- as there would be a valuable message for me. Such as- being more careful about locking my car, having an alarm, taking more thoughtful precaution...also, that I may have feared my car getting stolen. Fears become our reality. It is a conscious- subconscious mindset that when you fear something enough, it will come true. ("our deepest fears come true.")
If we start asking ourselves about a situation, its message, and what could be changed about it in the future- we might just get ahead a little bit further- blaming, doubting, or feeling sorry for ourselves won't get us anywhere. We can make things happen, we can prevent things from happening- it's all within how we think and perceive our experiences in life.

Strange Famous

Why does free will have to have an effect for it to exist? Free will can exist in the imagination, and many places.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

:::OshnSoul:::

We have free will. Therefore, we have to face consequences- and witness the results- and decide if they work for us or not, then persuing the message given in the experience and what we gathered from it.
No judgement, no evildoings, no mistakes, all is forgiven- because we have the best gift of all.

riptide4070

is the cause of a choice ever free will?

__________________
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was making the world believe he didn't exist" -Kevin Spacey 'The Usual Suspects'

asaris

A short argument for free will:

1. Free Will = (df) whatever it is that makes us morally culpable for some of our actions, but not all of our actions.
2. If we are morally culpable for some of our actions, but not all of our actions, then we have free will. (1)
3. We are morally culpable for some of our actions, but not all of them.
4. Ergo, we have free will.

Now, I'm not claiming I know what free will is. My suspicion is that we're better off looking in authors like Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty than in authors like Alvin Plantinga or Peter van Inwagen.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

pyraxis

Sounds like a circular argument to me. On what grounds do you claim that we are morally culpable for some but not all of our actions? If you define the cause of moral culpability to be free will, you can't turn around and prove free will's existence by pointing out the existence of moral culpability.

__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson

Mantus

Judgments of law are made on effects, which result from choices. If there was no causality then moral judgments could not exist. No one could be held responsible if there was no cause to an effect. No one could be held responsible if all effects were based on random causes. For we cannot punish some one for making a random action they have no control over.

When we judge an individual with a moral crime we are presuming that they were the first link in causal chain. But if something does not have a cause then it is a random event. Consequently we either deal with a caused or a random even. Defense lawyers do this all the time, they make arguments that either their clients were traumatized or forced into an unscrupulous act or that their clients were insane and hence had no control over the choices made. Causality plays a very large role in laws and judgments.

The problem lies in the fact that when disassembled, even the worst human choices are the result of causality (or posibly a random event) and freewill is nowhere to be found. Therefore there is no such thing that would make some one culpable for any action.

So I believe that your inference (line 3) is false asaris.

Mantus

:::OshnSoul:::,

If all lessons in life are already decided by the soul then we have absolutely no freewill.

Causality flows forward though time. All events influence other events. There is no event that ends a chain of causality. If all events are a lesson in life then all lessons influence future events and therefore future lessons. We learn the final lesson of upon death. If our soul determined that final lesson of life then our soul also determined all the previous causes, which lead to that lesson. That would mean that we did not have a single free choice in our life. All our choices were predetermined by our soul outside time to teach us the final lesson of life. Therefore we have absolutely no freewill.

asaris

It's not really circular. It rests on an assumption that can be disagreed with easily, but it's not circular. The assumption is just the observation that we draw a distinction between the man who trips us accidentally and the man who does it on purpose. We blame the second and not the first, and that's the difference between a free action and an unfree action.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Yakk

You defined free will to be events with no cause other than "you".

You failed to define what in the hell do you think "you" are. A homoculus that exists outside of spacetime and plucks at atoms?

Hidden variable theory (the idea that the problem is our instruments aren't sensative enough to detect the data that would make QM go away) seems to require faster than light communication between the hidden variables.

And FTL implies the failure of causality, so just don't go there...

Now, lets say we are some homoculus poking atoms.

Maybe we poke atoms in a way we can't predict, at FTL speeds, causing QM! ;-)

The very fact that QM seems completely random and causeless is just because the homoculi have true free will, and are unconstrained by any cause in this universe. If we where able to find a cause behind the homoculi's actions, it would be proof that they didn't have free will!

Thus, showing that under your definition free will and randomness are indistinguishable. I think your definition is poor.

But the soul would have freewill, wouldn't it?

It would exist outside time, but stop being so 3 dimensional.

I still hold your definition, or lack thereof, of free will to be ridiculous.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

tiberry

Mantus -

The flaw you're looking for in determinism is this:

Every event is stimulated by a cause.

Every cause was stimulated by an event.

Cause -> Event -> Cause ...

This supposes that there had to be either a first "Cause" or a first "Event" from which all other causes and events arose from.

What was the first event? or What was the first cause?

There was no 'first' at all. Free your mind to accept that everything that is, always was. Everything that you perceive as reality - that which is 'happening' is because you CHOSE to experience it.

If that's not free will, then what is?

__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

nanofever

My favorite quote to go with that, from Alpha Centauri is "God does play dice and the dice are loaded."

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

FaderMonkey

So, if free will does exsist...if I do indeed have "choice", then where is the line drawn between who (or what) has free will and who doesn't? Does a dog have free will? Does a tree? Does a basketball?

I don't know if I believe in free will or not, but I don't think anything that has been written here so far is proving in any way that there is. Why are my actions any different than that of a basketball? When a basketball is thrown against a wall there is only one way it can react. Because of the way it was thrown, the texture of the wall, gravity, wind...all of these things (in other words, physics) cause the ball to react a certain way. Why am I any different? I know I chose to write a reply to this thread, but in the bigger picture is choice just an illusion?

Xell101

A lot of these arguments seem to stem from the idea that if there was nothing, nothing would be done, for there was nothing. Therefore if something is because of something then life is all cause and effect because everything is of, by, or induced by something, which confirms the lack of free will by virture of the fact you cna logically conclude that life is fundamentally cause of effect.

I think I'm missing a whole lot of something somewhere on this.

:::OshnSoul:::

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

Thus quoted, Mantus-
WE ARE OUR SOULS. We could say we are our own Gods. Our SOULS are really Who We Are. This being we see in front of us is magnificent, beautiful- created by God- but is nowhere near the powerful light of our Souls. Look past your costume, and see that you are more than what you see in the mirror.

Therefore, WE (our Souls) DO have Free Will. This instrument we call our body helps us see why and experience the choices of our Souls- to evolve.

CSflim

Yes. I failed to define what I believe to be "the self".
It is a very difficult thing to define, especially with the aim of illuminating free will. Also my answer to this would bring up all sorts of tangent arguments, mostly related to religion, which is something I want to explicitly avoid.

So I guess, we will have to ask again, what is the question we are really looking to answer?

The question of whether we are deterministic/indeterministic is pretty irrelevent, and is purely a question of scientific investigation and emprical observations.

What the crux of the matter is, to me at least, is whether we are responsible for our actions.
A very naieve approach to the issue is to claim that as we don't have 'free will' (in the sense described above), we are not responsible for our actions, and hence, should not be punished for shooting someone/robbery/etc..."I wasn't acting out of free will. I was a slave to the laws of physics"

So can we reconcile our "lack of free will" with the concept of "responsibility for our actions"? (I hesitate to use the word morality, as that would bring up all sorts of other unrelated arguments).

I believe that we can.

I will post again later.

__________________

Yakk

Of course we are responsable for our actions.

Hell, a gun is responsable for shooting someone. If there is a gun that is attached to a tripwire and is shooting passersby, then you destroy or disassemble the aparatus, and prevent the gun from shooting the passersby.

Possibly you attempt to fix the device so that it doesn't kill passersby, or you give it to the berieved people who's friends where killed, or you destroy it. But, people where shot because the gun was there.

That's your question, not the one everyone else had. =p~

Look, if you want to argue :
Presume we don't have free will, as a matter of arguement. Then, can we still have responsiblity for our actions?

Don't claim we don't have free will and then argue about responsibility. You can talk about "responsibility without free will" even if we do have free will.

Otherwise, you will get people argueing people do have free will, and you claim to be uninterested in that arguement.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mantus

Asaris,
So freewill is the ability to act of one’s intentions(?) – I think I am pulling a straw man here but ill go on.

And an accident is an event that happened though circumstance, without one’s intentions.

Yet if the motivations behind our intentions we come from circumstantial sources then our intentions are not our own. Since all intentions happen though circumstance there is no freewill.

Yakk,
I agree, though it is not my definition. It is one I picked up from various people. You are welcome to add a better one. At the moment I myself believe that the whole concept of free will is absurd.

Tiberry,

Indeed, the flaw of determinism is that causality cannot be proven to hold total sway over the universe. It was a mistake to base my first argument of determinism. Yet whether an action was caused or simply came to be does not make it free or of our will.

How exactly does everything being one give us a choice?

Being gods or having souls does not necessarily give us free will.

:::OshnSoul:::

Ok, let's attempt to break down the big picure, instead of seeing a part here and a part there.......
Now, this is my Truth- this is (free will) for you to decide whether or not to see it as your Truth or not. I respect each and every one of your posts.

God= a Force that binds everything, in which everything and everyone is made of. "Energy".
This Energy is neither good nor evil- it just IS. It's simply "being".
God= "being"- "BE-ing".
Now, for God to just BE, it has the will to BE- BE everything all at once. That is what is "free will". Yet, people define free will from a physical, human point of view.
To have free will- has no exceptions to it. Either it's free or it's not.
FREE- def.: self-governing, unrestricted in opinion, choice, or action; independent.
WILL- def.: choice, desire, purpose, determination.

So if you imagine "God"- "energy" be of complete and ultimate free will, create His offspring "in the image and likeness of Him"; We are made up of this "energy" (God does not have a form or Superiority over his own offsring) then since We are pieces of Him, we are with complete and ultimate free will as well.
Having no limits, no set boudaries, no exceptions to this great gift we have.
GOD gave that to Us, because He gave Us experience of Life.
This life He gave us He designed with the utmost care- taking the pieces of Him (His offspring)- which are called "Souls"- and putting them into a reality with physical tools (our minds & bodies) and physical experiences.
The physical part of Who We Are is not WHO WE TRULY ARE. It is our tool that was given to our Souls to experience Who We Are in a physical manner.
Our Souls, however, ARE WHO WE ARE. That is our pure, true entity. And, our Souls being offring of God- We have FREE WILL, just as God does.

So- therefore, since we have Free Will, we have choices to make in every little detail of our life.
There is a "higher" choice we can make, then there are "other" choices- not good, not bad- just "other".
The results of the choices we make are there to show us messages of the experience that already took place. We never learn from the experience, we learn from the outcome.
But it's not ever a bad thing. No mistakes, no sin....sounds crazy- sounds unfathomable.....but it all makes sense.
Hope that all makes sense.
Words can tend to be confusing and unclear.