He says that type of free will is illusionary, not free will at all because of the negative consequences. He believes free will is doing whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want without consequences. I say that's anarchy. I say the opposite of free will is a robot (not android or cyborg) where its actions are programmed into it and cannot deviate from those actions.
I gave him the following situation: You see a child crossing the street. You also see a speeding car being chased by police. It is rather obvious that the child will get hit and probably die if you don't do something. There's nobody else close enough to save the child other than you. It is also obvious that you only have time to push the child out of the way before getting hit yourself. What do you do. You have the free will to choose to stand by and watch the child die or you have the free will to save the child and die yourself. He never answered me.
All I ask is to keep religion out of this discussion per the sticky.
Free will is the ability to murder brutally anyone you want, to not give a damn about anything or anyone, to steal, lie, cheat, blackmail, to help, love, cherish, build, learn, destroy, undo... basically the ability to live your life.
Everything else is consequences of you enforcing your free will. Nobody can take your free will from you, other then by killing you.
Free will is the ability to choose your own actions, which is something you can always do. The only things that can limit your free will is death.
Free will is the ability to murder brutally anyone you want, to not give a damn about anything or anyone, to steal, lie, cheat, blackmail, to help, love, cherish, build, learn, destroy, undo... basically the ability to live your life.
Everything else is consequences of you enforcing your free will. Nobody can take your free will from you, other then by killing you.
free will is the ability to choose. nothing more, nothing less.
anarchy, to me at least, is best described by this story i read a while ago:
a guy was walking down the street and he meets a young punk spouting stuff about pro-anarchy. guy asks the teen if he honestly believes in a system where anarchy prevails.
teen says yes and that the current government (i don't remember which one it was) should be brought down. guy slaps the teen in the face, puts the kid in an armlock while the kid's still in shock and takes the teen's wallet with his free hand. guy then asks if he (the teen) liked that. teen of course says no and asks for his wallet back. guy laughs, throws the wallet back to the teen and says he's not ready for a system based off "anarchy".
Also, you quoted my post but you seem to agree with it, or am I looking at it wrong?
I say that free will is the freedom to choose whatever action you may want to do as well as the freedom to form opinions regardless of the consequences.
He says that type of free will is illusionary, not free will at all because of the negative consequences. He believes free will is doing whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want without consequences.
... right, so basically he's saying free will doesn't exist, because being able to do whatever, wherever, whenever, with no consequences is impossible. If nothing else, there's gravity, over time hunger and thirst, and eventually the need for sleep. That level of "free will" is, quite simply, a myth. There will always be consequences, imposed by physic and your own body if nothing else.
But really, saying that you always have free will because you can always try... is also meaningless. When the game is rigged so that you have no meaningful choice, free will stops existing. If I only have one choice, I have no meaningful free will1. Not to mention that in many ways our personalities, life experiences, character flaws and virtues and so-on will effectively remove an option. Throw in coercion, intimidation, and so-on, and it's easy to remove someone's free will from a situation. If they have no ability to alter their situation, then whatever "free will" they have is meaningless.
Or to put it another way... I'd say that free will needs to be meaningful, that is, your choices need to matter, for you to truely say you have free will. So yes, free will is something that can be taken away, but your choices don't need to be free of any consequence for it to be there (the consequences just need to be different).
Or to use a D&D metaphor... If your GM is railroading you through a game, then being able to choose between two at-wills for a given encounter doesn't mean much. The story ends the same2.
________
1Note, I am using the "meaningful" qualifier here. If you're talking about free will regardless of whether it has meaning, then eh. Sure, we always have free will. But reality is a little more complicated then that.
2Of course, if you play the tape long enough, all of our stories end the same3.
3They all end in death.
Hehe, that's a good example of why Anarchy wouldn't work with people. Nice.
Also, you quoted my post but you seem to agree with it, or am I looking at it wrong?
i agree with you.
i think the issue you're having is that that i tend to have a problem at times expressing my thoughts, especially at length, and they can end up a bit... muddled... due to english not being my first language. my bad if the train of thought jumped track and started multi-rail drifting.
on "meaningful" actions: this really depends on who you're talking to as to what actually is meaningful. as much of a jerky frenchman as i seem, i'm a really simple guy who likes the simple things in life. to quote my roommate: "Mark's perfectly happy with a cooked chicken in one hand and a jug of water in the other". and he's right... good food, good company and a roof over my head is all i really care about. everything else is gravy. delicious, delicious gravy.
i'm not rolling in dough, but i'm not poor. i make enough money to support myself and feed myself. i have enough free time to pursue relatively conceited activities like D&D that don't do much other then get me out of the house and waste time pretending to be a magical elven princess, just because i can. i can also choose to simply sleep in until 4PM (hooray for late shifts).
sure i don't have the free will to choose every single thing in my life. to think you ever will is about as silly as a man with a windmill in his beard. free will still exists though: you still have options regardless of situation. even inaction is an action in itself. people can try to coerce you into a certain decision and whatnot, but in the end it's your decision to follow their suggested course, or go your own and bare with the consequences you expect.
my concept of free will does take into consideration that there are consequences. if there is a road and it branches left and right, the consequence of choosing left is that you didn't choose right. you made the choice though. the fact that there are people who have martyred themselves for their cause, people who lost everything despite knowing the consequence of their choice, to me at least, is proof of free will. despite the constraints placed on you, you can those to push through them for good or bad.
either way this is the domain of philosophy, and probably won't be resolved on a form for game of magical elves and dwarves and stuff.
but i do like the thought of discussing this.
The Will part of it gives you the idea that it's something in the mind, something inherent to people, not a cultural or social rule.
Escher, wouldn't what you're talking about be more accurately described as "Freedom", instead of "Free will"?
As I said, I'm talking about meaningful free will. If the direct consequence is the same regardless, I don't find much meaning in being able to think "blue dog runs fast" over "red cat jumps slow".
That is to say, if a choice is only an illusion, then so is having the free will to choose between them.
Escher, wouldn't what you're talking about be more accurately described as "Freedom", instead of "Free will"?
As I said, I'm talking about meaningful free will. If the direct consequence is the same regardless, I don't find much meaning in being able to think "blue dog runs fast" over "red cat jumps slow".
That is to say, if a choice is only an illusion, then so is having the free will to choose between them.
is every action you do controlled? unless the place you live is VERY different then my little PEI, you probably chose to go on the WotC forums and read this thread, as well as reply.
free will dude, free will. you exercised it by posting.
you exercised it by posting.
So it's probably for the best I never claimed otherwise, no?
Escher, wouldn't what you're talking about be more accurately described as "Freedom", instead of "Free will"?
As I said, I'm talking about meaningful free will. If the direct consequence is the same regardless, I don't find much meaning in being able to think "blue dog runs fast" over "red cat jumps slow".
That is to say, if a choice is only an illusion, then so is having the free will to choose between them.
Interesting. This means I can take away your free will by locking you in a box then?
Interesting. This means I can take away your free will by locking you in a box then?
'course not.
And if this answer seems at odds with what I've been typing, then you need to review what I've written so far.
I guess all I'm asking is who determines what is meaningful.
BTW, locking somebody in a box doesn't take away free will, but it does limit it by limiting the that person's choices.
But I think I'm just reading you wrong Escher, can you explain how what you've said is not at odds with losing free will by being locked in a box? This is probably just a misunderstanding...
I say that free will is the freedom to choose whatever action you may want to do as well as the freedom to form opinions regardless of the consequences.
He says that type of free will is illusionary, not free will at all because of the negative consequences. He believes free will is doing whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want without consequences.
You're both wrong. But your friend is completely wrong, while you might be just slightly off (or might have misunderstood you).
Free will is not freedom of action, or freedom from coercion in making chioces. It's the idea that when you make a choice, your choice is not pre-determined. That is, that there is something beyond a mechanistic cause-and-effect behind the choice you make. In the absence of free will, for instance, if you were faced with a choice you would always make the same choice given /exactly/ the same conditions. (That's not testable, of course, since having made the choice before changes the conditions the second time around - buy, hypothetically, in some sort of time-travel or pre-cognition or infinite-universes thought experiment.) If free will exists, then no degree of knowledge about the conditions of a choice (including things like complete knowledge of the individual's past experiences, brain chemistry, etc, etc, etc) could perfectly predict behavior. That quality that defies mechanistic cause-and-effect in the sentient decision making would be free will. It's logically and scientifically impossible to prove or disprove.
is every action you do controlled? unless the place you live is VERY different then my little PEI, you probably chose to go on the WotC forums and read this thread, as well as reply.
free will dude, free will. you exercised it by posting.
Unless it was predetermined that he was going to go to the WotC forums and post in this thread. If this situation recurred a million times he may do the same thing a million times. Maybe he just thought he was exercising free will when he posted, but all along he was going to post and there was nothing he could do about it.
Free will untempered by ethics, morality and consideration for others is anarchy.
Free will is the ability to choose one's actions actions.
I agree.
Free will untempered by ethics, morality and consideration for others is anarchy.
I disagree. Anarchy has nothing to do with ethics, morality, or consideration for others. Anarchy is just a system (social or political) where the individual units are the highest authority. They do not yield power to any sort of higher governing body.
For example, international relations used to be/should be an anarchic system. Each state is the supreme authority and there is no governing body. But that does not mean each state has no regard for ethics, morality, or the consideration of others.
Obviously, this example has been worsen by the establishment of powerful international organizations like the EU, NATO, and a lesser extent the UN. But think of how things worked 100 years ago.
I disagree. Anarchy has nothing to do with ethics, morality, or consideration for others. Anarchy is just a system (social or political) where the individual units are the highest authority. They do not yield power to any sort of higher governing body.
For example, international relations used to be/should be an anarchic system. Each state is the supreme authority and there is no governing body. But that does not mean each state has no regard for ethics, morality, or the consideration of others.
Obviously, this example has been worsen by the establishment of powerful international organizations like the EU, NATO, and a lesser extent the UN. But think of how things worked 100 years ago.
But a state is not the individual unit, the person is. By forming a State, the individual has already ceded power to a higher governing body.
Ultimately, human nature will always win out and Anarchy breaks down into "every man for himself", wherein lies the lack of consideration for ethics, morality and other people of which I spoke.
But yeah, anarchy can tend towards a lack of morality, ethics, and concern for others, but it does not possess them inately. Also, even in a free for all, its entirely possible that people can still associate benefitally using ethics, morals, and having concern for each other.
I say that free will is the freedom to choose whatever action you may want to do as well as the freedom to form opinions regardless of the consequences.
He says that type of free will is illusionary, not free will at all because of the negative consequences. He believes free will is doing whatever you want whereever you want whenever you want without consequences.
You're both wrong. But your friend is completely wrong, while you might be just slightly off (or might have misunderstood you).
Free will is not freedom of action, or freedom from coercion in making chioces. It's the idea that when you make a choice, your choice is not pre-determined. That is, that there is something beyond a mechanistic cause-and-effect behind the choice you make. In the absence of free will, for instance, if you were faced with a choice you would always make the same choice given /exactly/ the same conditions. (That's not testable, of course, since having made the choice before changes the conditions the second time around - buy, hypothetically, in some sort of time-travel or pre-cognition or infinite-universes thought experiment.) If free will exists, then no degree of knowledge about the conditions of a choice (including things like complete knowledge of the individual's past experiences, brain chemistry, etc, etc, etc) could perfectly predict behavior. That quality that defies mechanistic cause-and-effect in the sentient decision making would be free will. It's logically and scientifically impossible to prove or disprove.
I don't think I'm off. I also don't think you are either. You just said it more eloquently than I could.
Teenaged supporters of anarchy are the worst. Most of the time, they have no idea what they're talking about and think its cool just because some bands sing about it.
But with that said, plus with what I said about how dumb anarchy is, its not an impossible state. People can still group; they just have to not give up their individual power. Its possible, just highly unlikely because of how people current are.
Its like communism. If you can change people, then it could work. But as it is right now, people just foul up the system too much.
It's in our nature to need others. It's in our nature to find a place. We aren't always aware that we've found one, but I guaran-damn-tee you we always do. I wish it weren't the case (not a huge fan of people), but it is. It would take some sort of impossible event to change us enough to make it happen, but, as you suggested, if space aliens do ever come down and reprogram us to be independent beings, I suppose anarchy is possible. If they did that, though, I'd probably lobby them to reprogram us in a way that made Communism possible. Anarchy - even if it did work - just won't work. ;)Well obviously locking someone in a box limits someone's choices.
But I think I'm just reading you wrong Escher, can you explain how what you've said is not at odds with losing free will by being locked in a box? This is probably just a misunderstanding...
To quote myself:
If you're talking about free will regardless of whether it has meaning, then eh. Sure, we always have free will.
If you have a dark street and a normal one. which one do you pick?
If you're afraid of the dark, one could say its free will that you can choose the normal one
- however, why are you afraid of the dark? maybe as a kid you've had some bad experiences? then one could say that its not free will, but that you're inatvertable being coerced by your parents to take the normal road ...
As such, free will is an illusion. any decision we make, we make thanks to our personal baggage (in this case, do you fear the dark?)
I would say that free will is the ability to make a choice and that you feel that you personally made that choice.
If you don't feel like someone traumatized you, but you simple don't like the dark (whatever reason), chosing the normal street is free will.
If you feel like someone is forcing you in that direction - then its not free will
As far as anarchy is concerned, morals still exist. However, it is the individual's morals, not the anarchic society's morals. This is why anachy cannot succeed. Since each individual has his or her own set of morals and if the morals do not agree with each other, there will be conflict. For example, one individual says it is "moral" not to kill, whereas a second individual says it is "moral" to murder for pleasure. It is impossible to reconcile these individual's differences in morals. Somebody is gonna die, and it won't be the second individual.
Actually, I just thought of a way that anachy can exist. A single person on a deserted island.
1. What is the difinition of free will that is being used here for this dscussion?
2. Some people have mentioned "meaningful" free-will. How is meaningful being defined?
Two questions...
1. What is the difinition of free will that is being used here for this dscussion?
2. Some people have mentioned "meaningful" free-will. How is meaningful being defined?
1. The definition of free will is being discussed. Different people are definining it differently.
2. My opinion of meaningful is that it is meaningful to the person that is exhibiting free will rather than the observer. The definition of meaningful and how it relates to free will is also being discussed.
Right now this discussion is a friendly non-heated discussion and I hope it stays that way.
Two questions...
1. What is the difinition of free will that is being used here for this dscussion?
2. Some people have mentioned "meaningful" free-will. How is meaningful being defined?
The thread is titled "free will, what is it?". Clearly, if we had an agreed upon definition, the thread would be rather pointless.
I was making a joke and a refrence to an old news story, about the python that tried to eat the aligator.
1. The definition of free will is being discussed. Different people are definining it differently.
2. My opinion of meaningful is that it is meaningful to the person that is exhibiting free will rather than the observer. The definition of meaningful and how it relates to free will is also being discussed.
Right now this discussion is a friendly non-heated discussion and I hope it stays that way.
i think the first thing that should be done is determine what is meant by free. are we refering to something is not cause? something that is not forced? or both?
Yeah, 'Free Will, What Is It?', to me, suggests that the idea here is to define the term - not to talk about it as it relates to a set definition. The point is to present and, possibly, debate different ideas of what that definition is.
It's actually both. However, the set definition is different from each person's perspective of what free will is.
It's something people say, and from their perspective, how could they have chosen differently? Could I really buck going to my grandfather's funeral by saying "oh, it's too far away, I have to work, it's too hot in Yuma..." and so-on, and still be me?
I don't think so.
For me, there only was one choice.
So do I have free will? I find if hard to imagine that, if I had a choice, that I would still be me. So while someone else may have had free will in this situation, I don't. Because to do otherwise would to not be me. And I don't have a choice to not be me either.
As far as you not having a choice not to be you, my question is this: how can you play rpgs then. Playing rpgs allows you to be not you, albeit in an imaginary setting. If you have no choice not to be you, then you will always play yourself exactly no matter what PC in whatever rpg you play in.
I have Asperger Syndrome. My brain is hardwired that way. It probably is genetic (don't know for sure because I'm adopted). One of my symptoms is my eating habits. There are foods out there that I do no like and if I eat something that I do not like, I will get some sort of physical sickness, from a mild stomach ache to needing to use the bathroom in more ways than one. Question: do I have a choice in what I eat if I am presented with some food I don't like? You could say I have only one choice. But I do have a choice. I can either not eat and go hungry, or eat and become sick. (An aside: there have been many times that I went hungry because the food offered was what I did not like.)
Oh wait!
Free will is an illusion only if consciousness is an illusion. You are free to ignore your fear of the dark and you are free to chose the normally lit road even if you love the dark.
Consciousness is the key though, you have to consciously make a decision either way.
I would think you are only denied free will if you are incapable of making rational decisions, such as during times of insanity, extreme external pressure (major drug use, tasers, pepper spray), and mind control (not saying mind control exists in any form, but if it were it would obviously count).
"Personal baggage" doesn't exclude freewill, it modifies your consciousness to the degree that the rational choices you make start from a different set of precepts than the next person.
Consequences are of no consequence, nor is meaningful outcome. Only conscious choice.
Even if you were in a cramped box in a straight jacket, you would still have choices. What do you think about? How do you emotionally react to your current state? Do you struggle? Do you passively wait?
"There only was one choice."
It's something people say, and from their perspective, how could they have chosen differently? Could I really buck going to my grandfather's funeral by saying "oh, it's too far away, I have to work, it's too hot in Yuma..." and so-on, and still be me?
I don't think so.
For me, there only was one choice.
So do I have free will? I find if hard to imagine that, if I had a choice, that I would still be me. So while someone else may have had free will in this situation, I don't. Because to do otherwise would to not be me. And I don't have a choice to not be me either.
You most certainly do have a choice to not be you.
People change. Sometimes they change consciously. Just because you don't choose to act in a way that you don't want to act doesn't mean that ultimately you didn't choose to think you didn't have a choice.
If you forgot about an event you had no choice. If you went despite numerous reasons not to go, then you made a choice.
In my opinion (assuming I'm reading you correctly), you're adding a layer of complexity that is illusory. At least as far as defining "free will" discussions go.
As far as the importance of free will it is quite relevant.
Of course, on a quantum scale, one could argue that there is no free will, since each event comes from a previous event and if you know everything then there is only one possible following event based on the pre-existing conditions.
Randomness, consciousness, and choice disappear if you zoom in too close.
As far as you not having a choice not to be you, my question is this: how can you play rpgs then.
Because despite what the talking heads like to say, I can differentiate between reality and fantasy.
You most certainly do have a choice to not be you.
People change. Sometimes they change consciously. Just because you don't choose to act in a way that you don't want to act doesn't mean that ultimately you didn't choose to think you didn't have a choice.
I would say that if I were able to choose to not be me, I would already not be me.
I will summarise my perspective on this matter.
I define free will as a dynamic parameter system that changes due to experience and/or chemical influence. Your basic instincts are the foundation of the system, and it is modified as you grow and (possibly) learn. Humans come in a variety of construction specifications, and thus certain experiences will affect individuals differently due to the inconsistencies. You evaluate situations whether intentionally or subconsciously and determine your response according to what your parameters dictate. A slight change in a situation however could cause your parameters to alter your response as opposed to the original evaluation.
Thus I am inclined to theorise you would react to a particular situation the exact same way should it be repeated perfectly. Only an alteration (slight or drastic) in said event could cause you to respond differently.
I will summarise my perspective on this matter.
I define free will as a dynamic parameter system that changes due to experience and/or chemical influence. Your basic instincts are the foundation of the system, and it is modified as you grow and (possibly) learn. Humans come in a variety of construction specifications, and thus certain experiences will affect individuals differently due to the inconsistencies. You evaluate situations whether intentionally or subconsciously and determine your response according to what your parameters dictate. A slight change in a situation however could cause your parameters to alter your response as opposed to the original evaluation.
Thus I am inclined to theorise you would react to a particular situation the exact same way should it be repeated perfectly. Only an alteration (slight or drastic) in said event could cause you to respond differently.
Observation: You sound like a lawyer of psychology. BTW, this observation was an act of free will with coming up with the observation and an act of free will to put this observation on the forum.
Opinion: The above observation could be wrong.
I would say that if I were able to choose to not be me, I would already not be me.
So, are you saying that you are hardwired into your choices? Then, in my opinion (no insult intended), you are a robot. The only thing I will agree on about not being a choice is one's personality. But, even one's personality is fluid, always changing because of choices being made. So, free will influences one's personality and vice versa.
Here's a question for you, if somebody comes up and slaps your face for no reason (from your perspective), are you forced to slap that person back because your personality forces you to? And by not slapping that person back denies you from being you? You know what I think? This is one way wars start (not the only way, and no where near the most common way).
The beauty of free will a choice is available, if not always visible. It seems to me that your arguement about you not being you if you have a choice available is a choice in and of itself because you choose not to see any other choices that are available. In other words, you choose not to see the choice(s). Therefore, you are exercising free will in order for you to be you even if it is not obvious.
So, are you saying that you are hardwired into your choices?
Only in that, at a given moment of time, there are some things that may appear to be choices but really aren't for that person at that time. In another decade who knows. People change. But, today, now, I am this way.
And I don't have a choice to not be me either.
That is a load of crap. At any time, according to your definition of "being you", you can choose to stop being yourself. Thats not to say your old self won't fight back, but at any point you can do the opposite of what you normally would, force yourself to be a diffrent person. Not wanting to force yourself to be a diffrent person is not the same as being unable to.
And I don't have a choice to not be me either.
That is a load of crap. At any time, according to your definition of "being you", you can choose to stop being yourself. Thats not to say your old self won't fight back, but at any point you can do the opposite of what you normally would, force yourself to be a diffrent person. Not wanting to force yourself to be a diffrent person is not the same as being unable to.
Ditto, but with a nicer tone.
You can choose to change. Not wanting to choose to change is not lack of opportunity or conversely it is the will to stay the same.
Your will is free, even if your will is to remain the same.
You had a choice, you weighed your options, found one more acceptable to the point that it appeared you had no other choice.
The lack of free will is the illusion in this case.
One of the benefits of self-actualizing is that you can observe your own behavior and choose wether your default behavior is beneficial or detrimintal.
In your case, you know that you could choose to be not you, but you choose to go with your preset determination.
Yeah, 'Free Will, What Is It?', to me, suggests that the idea here is to define the term - not to talk about it as it relates to a set definition. The point is to present and, possibly, debate different ideas of what that definition is.
That’s what I thought. Which is why I asked how people were defining “free.”
Mr. (Miss? Mrs.?) Squirrel. I'm going to lob the ball back into your court and ask what do you think free will is and what do you think meaningful free will is.
Dude… I’m a dude…
I have no idea what is meant by “meaningful” free will. I didn’t come up with that term, which is why I asked what was meant by “meaningful”. I don’t think the term meaningful free will should be allowed in this discussion. At least not until we can define free will. We seem to have a hard enough time determining what free will is. In order to determine what meaningful free will is we would definitely need to define “meaningful.” I don’t even know to whom it would be meaningful. Is it to the individual exhibiting free will? If it is, does that mean that it is not meaningful to observers? And if so, would it even matter if it is not meaningful to observers? Also, we would have to determine what meaningless free will is. Is it even possible for free will to be meaningful or meaningless?
As to what free will is… well… that is the question isn’t it? You are going to have to give me some time so I figure out what I think is meant by free will.
Of course, on a quantum scale, one could argue that there is no free will, since each event comes from a previous event and if you know everything then there is only one possible following event based on the pre-existing conditions.
Randomness, consciousness, and choice disappear if you zoom in too close.
Wait, doesn't quantum mechanics say that everything is random? Its just statistically likely that certain outcomes occur, hence the whole "statistical" added to many fields (like statistical thermodynamics).
Maybe we're talking about different fields or theories, but from my viewpoint (chemist so stuff like physical chemistry: quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics), things appear to get MORE random the closer we look at things. Its just that we don't see the randomness (as much) because we don't percieve what one electron, atom, molecule, etc does, we see the result of a whole set.
I've heard that science can imply a deterministic universe (just like I've heard a random universe). I just wanted to know what fields or theories support this and share my different experiences.
All joking aside, you are getting off-topic. Thx.
As much as I like puns (I'm an incurable punster, so my counselor tells me), I would like to see the sexual puns stop. Sexual puns and the like have no place in a family friendly forum. It is "Free Will", NOT "Free Willie".
If I knew how to force nerds to stop making bad sex puns I might be able to get my wife to play in an RPGA game...
Let me know if you figure something out.
As much as I like puns (I'm an incurable punster, so my counselor tells me), I would like to see the sexual puns stop. Sexual puns and the like have no place in a family friendly forum. It is "Free Will", NOT "Free Willie".
Don't freak out if this thread is derailed at some point. This is the off-topic tavern and a lot, if not all, threads derail at some point.
Just friendly advice from your friendly neighbourhood perv.
That should be your "Resident" title. "Resident Pervert"... It describes you quite well.
Oh, there's also something we all need to be reminded of from time to time, too. A thread you create ceases to be yours the moment you click the 'Submit' button. From there on out, it's the community's baby.
That should be your "Resident" title. "Resident Pervert"... It describes you quite well.
What does Resident mean? I can only imagine it in connection with Resident Evil.
Here ya go. Here, the titles are used by anyone who frequents the OTT.
Free will is what God gave humans as his most beloved creation. Humans can choose whether or not to obey God and atone for it, all other creatures (including angels, read: Lucifer) cannot.
Free will is what God gave humans as his most beloved creation. Humans can choose whether or not to obey God and atone for it, all other creatures (including angels, read: Lucifer) cannot.
I thought Christian mythology held that free will - and the commensurate ability to choose between good and evil - was gleaned from eating from the tree of knowledge which, if memory serves, didn't go over too well with their Lord and master.
My understanding came pretty late in the game, revelations (aaaah biblical puns).
It's my understanding from the Catechist (which is basically a big FAQ about catholic beliefs) that we read from revelations that angels were created to serve god unquestionably, they are devoid of free will.
Now Lucifer rebelled against God; meaning free will isn't about control of ones actions but about consequences. Lucifer will eternally be the demon from now on where as a human can rebel against God and be forgiven due to the sacrifice of Jesus.
To look at it from your own example - God told Eve to never eat from the tree. But Eve chose to disobey God before she ever ate the apple condeming the human race out of paradise for the time being. So free will was not gained by eating the apple.
To us, Free-will does not denote the decision of choosing between good or evil but the ability, given to us by God, to atone/ramify our mistake of choosing evil over good.
From a different perspective than most on these forums...
Free will is what God gave humans as his most beloved creation. Humans can choose whether or not to obey God and atone for it, all other creatures (including angels, read: Lucifer) cannot.
Explain Freewill vs Omniscience.
GO!
Explain Freewill vs Omniscience.
GO!
From my point as Freewill above - God gave us Freewill because he is Omniscient and knew we would fail to be perfect.
Eazy-peezy-lemon-squeezy :D
I'm sure every religion has something similar to this. I'm not familiar with their creation beliefs. This is why I did not want free will to be discussed from a religious standpoint, because the discussion usually gets so heated the Orcs step in to block the thread. There is a ban on discussing religious beliefs. See this thread: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...(Cute_way_of_saying_ban_on_some_topics.)?pg=2
Explain Freewill vs Omniscience.
GO!
From my point as Freewill above - God gave us Freewill because he is Omniscient and knew we would fail to be perfect.
Eazy-peezy-lemon-squeezy :D
That's not the specific argument I was referring to. Also, we would only "fail" to be perfect if he gave us free will to choose otherwise.
The logical progression goes as follows :
God is omniscient.
Omniscience is the knowledge of "everything".
Included in "everything" is the outcome of the choice you think you are making.
If the result of the choice is known before the choice is made then there was not actually a choice.
There was only one possible outcome, the outcome that god knew.
If you have only one true choice, you have no free will.
It either shows that God is not omniscient (the bible kind of supports this), or that He/She/It planned for all the "evil" in the world (also supported), or that our definition of Omniscience is limited and the progression is invalid to begin with (my personal view from a thought-exercise standpoint, but I also view the presence of a relevant God-figure with skepticism).
[Self editted]
If you want to have a religious discussion on why God is a jerk, please, please, please take it to a religious forum. Derailing a topic to some other relevant topic is fine (such as the whale joke), but derailing it to spout religious views is a banned topic and for good reason. If this keeps up, I might have to go to the Orcs, myself, and have this thread locked because it is now serving no purpose than to inflame others whose viewpoints are violently opposed to yours. Next post about a religious topic will be flagged (including mine).
Good point. Editted.
Observation: You sound like a lawyer of psychology...
For the record: I am not a certified lawyer of psychology. I lack the funds to appropriate for universal study and recognition.
Take what you will of my theory as that is all it is currently.
Now Lucifer rebelled against God; meaning free will isn't about control of ones actions but about consequences. Lucifer will eternally be the demon from now on where as a human can rebel against God and be forgiven due to the sacrifice of Jesus.
So, humans only gained free will after the death of Christ? We where created without it? That does not make a whole lot of sense.
To look at it from your own example - God told Eve to never eat from the tree. But Eve chose to disobey God before she ever ate the apple condeming the human race out of paradise for the time being. So free will was not gained by eating the apple.
This is also illogical. You yourself stated that free will is not related to thought or deed, but rather the ability to attone. So, how does her decision to go aginst gods will, and her subsequently carryign it out (which is not a sign of free will, as angels, who you claim have none, have done likewise) or gods subsequent reaction to her disobedience, have anything to tell us about the nature of free will?
Derailing a topic to some other relevant topic is fine (such as the whale joke), but derailing it to spout religious views is a banned topic and for good reason.
Intolerant man is intolerant :D.
My initial post was on topic because it explained a definition (my own) of free will. This is what the OP asked for so I don't see how anyone can possibly overreact about that.
I though the idea that free will was not the the ability to choose but the consequences there in would be an interesting point for DMs and Players alike to expand on in their campaigns.
The one thing I do agree with though is that if you want to ask question about my beliefs please do so in PM and lets not derail this thread. I was bad and took the troll bate earlier, but my initial response was not to argue whether my viewpoint was right, wrong or shared by you; but to share it because it was different.
Regards-
The one thing I do agree with though is that if you want to ask question about my beliefs please do so in PM and lets not derail this thread. I was bad and took the troll bate earlier, but my initial response was not to argue whether my viewpoint was right, wrong or shared by you; but to share it because it was different.
Or perhapes we could take it to the private "Otter" group? Such conversation is not a violation of the CoC but rather simply prhoibited on this section of the forum. It seems to me that it could prove to be an intersting conversation in and of itself, and I see no gain in keeping it restricted to personal correspondence.
Explain Freewill vs Omniscience.
GO!
bah - done already (not sure if the thread is still around). That's the particular musing that bought me a ride on the Zyprexa wagon.
Explain Freewill vs Omniscience.
GO!
bah - done already (not sure if the thread is still around). That's the particular musing that bought me a ride on the Zyprexa wagon.
I would imagine it like a "choose your own adventure" book, but on a cosmic scale. The author knows the outcome of any choice you could choose to make, but you still get to make the choice.
Intolerant man is intolerant :D.
If it's intolerance, it's intolerance to having a thread closed because of a discussion of a banned topic. We ain't supposed to talk about religion here - any religion. It's even in (IIRC) two of the stickied threads at the top of the forum. The issue is that some people take religion seriously and others do not. These people often enough drag the worst out of each other so it's best to just leave it at home. Or in the OTTer group. Whichever. My point, I guess, is that he didn't say that cuz he's got some problem with religion. He said it cuz the mods do.
Derailing a topic to some other relevant topic is fine (such as the whale joke), but derailing it to spout religious views is a banned topic and for good reason.
Intolerant man is intolerant :D.
In his defense, I believe he was actually talking to me. I said some questionable things that didn't belong in the public forum that I have since editted.
Religious discussions are a banned topic. The real problem here is that Philosophy is not, but religion includes philosophy. So you can't say your philosophy without "spouting religious views".
Though really "free will" is kind of a religious topic anyway in my opinion.
On topic. Also yes. It can be difficult to discuss free will without getting religion into it. But I thought I'd try.
I believe omniscience is defined as "all knowing". Again, my opinion, all knowing means you know everything that can be known, as well as, everything that could be known. For example, almost everybody knows that 2+2=4. A person with omniscience will also know of a way that 2+2≠4. Now onto free will. A person with omniscience will know all possible outcomes of his/her choices. He/she will also know what choice he/she will make. Question: does that take away that person's free will? That's a difficult question to answer. One would say yes, he/she has no free will since all of his/her the outcome of the choices are predetermined. Others will say that, no, he/she still has free will because it is not the outcome of the choice that determines free will, but having the choice itself. I'm in the second camp.
I think ToastAmphiban provided a really good analogy with the Choose Your Own Adventure. Someone who is omniscience will just know all the possible outcomes. Many chooses will effectly be meaningless, but choices are still possible. And for choices which are important, the resulting paths will be chosen.
But I could also see the argument that people don't actually make choices. They think they make choices, but other factors determine what "free choices" someone will make. Person A has a free choice to go down Alley A or B. He was truamized in the past so he'll chose A. But Person A just saw a movie where the hero overcame a fear so he'll chose B. You can add extra layers, but the idea that people are just a collection of experiences is the main point.
I can definately see the second option, but based on the randomness of the universe, I'll go with the first one. I think people normally try to see meaning in randomness.
Can somebody tell me how the randomness of human consciousness relates to free will?
...
Can somebody tell me how the randomness of human consciousness relates to free will?
I'd try, but first I'd need to be convinced of the randomness of human consciousness. If we go by current knowledge of brain activity and chemistry, randomness is not a major player. Also - the phrase "evolution or religion" uses an INCLUSIVE (not exclusive) "or".
...
Can somebody tell me how the randomness of human consciousness relates to free will?
I'd try, but first I'd need to be convinced of the randomness of human consciousness. If we go by current knowledge of brain activity and chemistry, randomness is not a major player. Also - the phrase "evolution or religion" uses an INCLUSIVE (not exclusive) "or".
Not completely inclusive. There's people out there that doesn't believe in either one.
(of course, the ors in this case are all exclusive)
However, thinking about it more, I see even more reason to believe that human consciousness is anything but random. For example, if truly random (given the number of our species) then there should (statistically) be varying levels of consciousness, including those that have none whatsoever. To my knowledge such is not the case. If you equate consciousness with awareness, then sensory data must be taken into account. In addition, perception - would a person that suffers from delusions be considered non-conscious? A lot of variables in this, but I lean to it not being random at all.
Now, let's tie this back to free will. I don't have an answer to this right at this moment. I'll need to think on it a bit more before I offer my opinion. I'll let others try to tie what I have written in the above paragraph to free will and maybe it'll help me form my opinion.
I pretty much believe things are very often random and just because there are results, people assign reason and causation behind it. Evolution is a perfect example. The changes occur randomly, some work, and organisms evolve. But people see how well adapted an organism is and assign a reason or cause (intelligent design or creationism). People just don't see all the random changes that didn't work.
Its like the idea that everything needed to be perfect for life to start. If you change one of thousands of factors, things would be radically different. Well, my thought is that, life wouldn't have started (like on countless planets) and we wouldn't be here. But life could have started elsewhere and they'd think the same think about how perfect things needed to. Or, things would just look radically different. Life could just start and look very different. (I think the scientific definition of life is very lacking, but that's a different topic.)
So yeah, random chance for the win. (Plus quantum helps my belief of the randomness of the universe.)
EDIT: Connecting the dots in the sky is pretty much the definition of searching for a meaningful pattern where there is none.
Ah, and there I thought this thread was a typo and talked about my fav. movie:
Get with it, man. I already made that joke.
Ah, and there I thought this thread was a typo and talked about my fav. movie:
Get with it, man. I already made that joke.
But I had already made it when you got here.
I thought Free Will was a movie about an orca and a little boy...
Just without the picture.
The picture makes it funnier though, and that's what I get for being too lazy to google it.
Evidence of the 'randomosity' of human conciousness?
The fact that several people found that lame joke to be funny; Evidence of the 'orderedness' of human conciousness, or a random convergance of fail?
Now, back to our previously interupted topic....
I disagree. I don't think any of the free will to free willie jokes where funny. Each one was stupid, and more eyeroll worthy than the last, as it had already been done moments before. One person did it, a bunch of other people didn't, and then some more did.
Evidence of the 'randomosity' of human conciousness?
The fact that several people found that lame joke to be funny; Evidence of the 'orderedness' of human conciousness, or a random convergance of fail?
Just because I posted a joke, it doesn't mean I think it's funny. In fact, I only thought it was funny to pretend that it would be funny.
The eye-rolling badness was the joke, not the joke itself.
True free will is doing whatever you want wherever you want whenever you want without consequences because true free will is Libre Gratis (Libre “having freedom”, Gratis “at zero cost”), and consequences are a cost.
True free will is doing whatever you want wherever you want whenever you want without consequences because true free will is Libre Gratis (Libre “having freedom”, Gratis “at zero cost”), and consequences are a cost.
That's not free will. That's anarchy. And as we discussed before true anarchy does not work. If the author of the above quote really believes that, then I am completely free to kill him without consequences becauce he chose to believe and act that way. Say what???? Isn't that a consequence???? The Libre Gratis is a fallable because the person following the Libre Gratis lifestyle will eventually die because of somebody else following the same lifestyle doesn't like him. So there is a consquence of following the Libre Gratis lifestyle.
True free will is a matter of choice before consequences are applied. Adding consequences does not take away free will. The consequence does not invalidate the choice. The choice is still there.
You want to go through a closed door. You do not know what is behind it. Choice, do you open the door or not. The consequence is unseen. If the door is locked and you don't have the key, you still have a few choices: 1) stand there and wait for somebody that has the key to come by, 2) go find someone with the key, 3) give up and go away, 4) try to open the door by force.
Let me go back to my example from a previous post: There is a child walking across the street with the walk light on. There's a speeding car being chased by the police. You see that the child will be hit if nothing is done. You also see that if somebody saves the child, that person will be hit.
You have a choice: 1) stand there and watch the child get hit and probably die, 2) rush out and push the child out of the way and get hit by the car yourself and probably die, 3) stand there with indecision knowing you want to save the child, but you don't want to get hurt or die yourself. By the time you make up your mind, it is too late and the child gets hit. You have the free will to choose scenario 1, scenario 2, or scenario 3. Each scenario has a consequence. All the consequences are equally bad in that somebody gets hit by the speeding car. Question: does the above consequences invalidate free will? Of course not.
Every single choice we make has a consequence. Most of the time, the consequence is not consciously visible. Cars stop a stoplight and you choose to cross the street expecting the cars to obey that stoplight. Consequence: you get safely across the street. This is a consequence you don't really think about.
Bad consequences only appear to limit free will. Mugger, give me your money or die. There are 2 choices. Either give the mugger your money or he kills you and takes it anyway. Most people will probably give the mugger all their money. There will also be a small amount of people that will choose to die (not because they are suicidal) because of their personal principles. You could even go so far and say that the mugger is practicing Libre Gratis because he believes he will not get caught.
Gratis “at zero (no) cost”, if something has a cost it is NOT free and since consequences are a cost it is NOT free.
You are using the wrong definition of the word "free".
True free will is doing whatever you want wherever you want whenever you want without consequences because true free will is Libre Gratis (Libre “having freedom”, Gratis “at zero cost”), and consequences are a cost.
Gratis “at zero (no) cost”, if something has a cost it is NOT free and since consequences are a cost it is NOT free.
If you are going by that definition of free will then there is no such thing as free will. First, doing whatever you want whenever you want is not possible. Your choices are limited by your environment. For example: let’s say an individual is sitting in a room in a school. Could he choose to take the escalator to the 5th floor to use an Olympic size swimming pool? Sure… if the school this individual is in has an escalator that lead to the 5th floor (assuming the school even has a 5th floor), and there is an Olympic size swimming pool on that 5th floor. If there isn’t any of that then this individual can’t make that choice. Yes, this may appear to be an extreme example, but the terms whatever and whenever are just as extreme.
Second, everything you do has a consequence. Whether those consequences are good or bad is irrelevant.
Question: Why is a consequence a cost? Consequence is defined as a result or outcome.
Question: Why is a consequence a cost?
Answer:
I offer you an orange at no cost, the man across the street from me offers you an orange @ $5. What is the consequence for accepting his orange over mine? You have $5 less in your pocket by accepting his, that is the cost or consequence.
Question: Why is a consequence a cost?
Answer:
I offer you an orange at no cost, the man across the street from me offers you an orange @ $5. What is the consequence for accepting his orange over mine? You have $5 less in your pocket by accepting his, that is the cost or consequence.
Actually… you are placing a value of $5 on that orange
For your example, it doesn’t matter what orange I choose to take. The consequence of my choice is that I have an orange. Ideally there should be no difference between the free orange you offer and the $5 orange the other guy offers. The only difference is this “cost” that is forced by the other guy because he sees some other value in the orange.
Let’s take a similar situation. Let’s say you want an orange. 2 different people offer you an orange. Both are “free” oranges. You don’t have to pay for either one. Would this be a situation where you have free will to choose which orange you want? How about if both oranges cost $5? Would you be demonstrating free will in choosing either orange? Or has your free will been removed because you have to pay for either orange? How about if one orange cost $1 and the other $5?
If cost limits free will then the last time humans had any free will was before the concept of goods and services having some kind of value was invented. This would indicate that unless you get things free, you don’t have free will. This would lead to the realization that only animals (excluding humans and bonobo monkeys who barter sexual favors for food and other stuff) have free will because they don't pay for things.
Your example actually has 3 choices that have to be made. Choice 1: which orange do I want? Choice 2: do I want to pay money (any amount) for an orange? I can just as easily choose to go with the other guy’s orange and hit him take the orange without paying for the orange. Choice 3: do I want an orange or do I want something else (like an apple or to go to sleep)?
If cost limits free will, then there has never been free will. There's always a cost. A cost in opportunity, resources, time. If nothing else, there's the cost of calories burned walking from point a to point b, or the seconds it takes you to decide.
Good point.
If cost limits free will, then there has never been free will. There's always a cost. A cost in opportunity, resources, time. If nothing else, there's the cost of calories burned walking from point a to point b, or the seconds it takes you to decide.
that has always been my point.
Suppose you are hungry. You have several choices. 1) Go hungry because you cannot find anything you want to eat. 2) Find something to eat. The consequence of choice 1 is going hungry. The consequence of choice 2 is even more choices. Basically, what do you want to eat. The consequence of eating is satisfying your hunger.
As I said before consequences only appear to limit one's free will. Consequences do NOT erradicate it. See my previous posts for my reasoning.
The fact that you disagree with me is, in fact, an exercise of your free will. What's the consequence? In this case, the consequence is not seeing eye-to-eye. But that's ok. It's neither a good nor bad consequence. Contributing this forum thread is also an act of free will. Nobody held a gun to your head and said "do it." Even then, you have the choice of contributing or being shot. The consequence is no matter. The only way that free will can be taken away is to take away ALL choices. In other words, kill you. A dead person has no free will. A robot has no free will. Even the lowly mosquito has free will. It can either to choose to bite you, or bite the person next to you, or bite the dog that you are walking. I think, for the mosquito, it will be whoever "smells" better.
that has always been my point.
Yeah, but you're wrong.
Free will does not equal free action. Free action is a subset of free will. Free will can never be limited, while free action can be. What Kargir01 is concentrating on is free action, not free will. Free will is the ability to choose an action. However, it is the action that has consequences, not the free will to choose the action. This has been my point since I started this thread. Agree? Disagree? You have the free will to choose.
that has always been my point.
Yeah, but you're wrong.
please explain how
please explain how
I've had a couple beers so for the moment I'll let Astromath do the heavy lifting.
Free will does not equal free action. Free action is a subset of free will. Free will can never be limited, while free action can be. What Kargir01 is concentrating on is free action, not free will. Free will is the ability to choose an action. However, it is the action that has consequences, not the free will to choose the action.
What if you "break" someone? Like at the end of the novel 1984. They break the main protagonist's will. Can we still consider that he has free will since psychologicaly the guy is broken and won't think or act like he use too? Even if he still can make choices, the drive and will power to make them have been taken away from him, like conditionning. Maybe I am going to far with my interpretaion of the novel.
In the same novel, the authorities try to restraint individual free thinking (I am guessing a extention of free will) by limiting how people can conceptualize the world by limiting the words they can use. Can we consider these individual to have free will?
actually 1984 explains why free will is an illusion FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
A more severe brainwashing would entail somebody who knows about that bomb and does not want to take it to the airport. Again, the brainwashing takes away choices, not because of the consequence of the choice, but that the choice no longer exists.
However, let me also say this, there's no such thing as 100% brainwashing. It is impossible to turn someone into a complete robot. My supposition is that if somebody was to try to do 100% brainwashing, the person being brainwashed will end up being a vegetable, if not brain dead. No will of his own. Cannot feed himself. Cannot go to the toilet by himself. Basically, have somebody do all the choosing for him.
An action that has consequences is still a legal choice. A choice where the action is denied has no consequence and is therefore not a choice. you cannot normally go through a locked door without a key. The locked door denies you acting on the choice of going through the door. Since you cannot go through the door, there is no consequence, unless you are being chased by Freddy Kruger and getting through that door will lead you to safety. Now there is a consequence: death.
'God is power. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation – anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it.' 'How does one man assert his power over another, by making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. - 1984, Pt 3, Ch 3
If cost limits free will, then there has never been free will. There's always a cost. A cost in opportunity, resources, time. If nothing else, there's the cost of calories burned walking from point a to point b, or the seconds it takes you to decide.
that has always been my point.
So will isn't free because the outcome of that will does something?
That's ludicrous.
You have a choice to choose between different outcomes. The choice is the "Free will" part, not the outcome.
------
I will however say that limits of understanding and extremes of conditioning limit free will. We may not have true free will because we dont' understand the ramifications of all actions, nor the entirity of the situation we're in.
For example:
You stand before two gentlemen selling oranges. One selling his for a penny, the other for $5.
You freely choose to buy the penny orange. It looked good, but was rotten. Had you known this you would have chosen the $5 orange. Or no orange. $5 is a stupid price for an orange.
You didn't choose to buy a rotten orange. You chose to buy an orange for cheaper without knowing it was rotten.
Your will is free, but limited by consciousness.
It's kind of like when someone gets you to sign a contract you didn't read. You chose not to read it, but you didn't explicitly choose to agree to what it said.
Continuing in this line of reasoning:
We do not have free will becaues we don't know enough.
Were we omniscient we would know everything, and by knowing everything it could be argued that we would also lack free will as we would only have the choice to make the choice we were going to make anyway.
Here's a comment by Orwell himself concerning 1984:
"My recent novel [Nineteen Eighty-Four] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter), but as a show-up of the perversions . . . which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere."
This quote is from The New York Times Book Review (31 July 1949).
Again, 100% suppression of free will is but a pipe dream. It only leads to roboticism where it is impossible to think on your own. Orwell's book (which I still haven't read) seems to take totalitarianism to the extreme, where it is attempted to suppress free will to the utmost.
One of the reasons why America broke away from Britain is because Americans wanted to be free from the British tyranny (as they saw it) at that time. Even though America is described as a Democracy, it really isn't. It is a Democratic-Republic. The founders looked at most of the stablest governments at that time and found them wanting. However, they didn't come up with this government from scratch either. Where did they get the idea? The Bible. The saw that the most stablest system is that of a head (the President), a body (Congress), and a way to keep each other in check (the Supreme Court). None of the three branches is to have more power than the others. They also saw that the only way to keep all three in check is to have the officials elected by the people (except for the Supreme Court). They also set it up so that any American by birth could be elected, not just the rich and powerful. (Also, from what I've read, they never intended for any elected official to be a lifetime post [again, except for the Supreme Court].) America has one of the most stablest forms of government there is on Earth. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it does have the most freedom of any government.
Now before we start get any further into a banned subject, how does this relate to free will. A Democratic-Republic allows free thinking as much as possible. It only has consequences for certain forms of free action (such as murder). Anybody can have an opinion, however, acting on that opinion may have disastrous consequences. Look at the Civil War, the Boston Tea Party, even both World Wars. Hitler had the opinion that the **** race is the perfect race. No problem there. The problem came when he acted on his opinion and tried to set up such a regime with him at the top.
Free will will never have any consequences. Same for free thinking, which is a subset of free will. It is only free action that has consequences.
However, they didn't come up with this government from scratch either. Where did they get the idea? The Bible.
LOL.
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Signed by John Adams
"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and **** the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
-Thomas Paine
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
-James Madison
I realize most of these quotes are pointed at christians and leaders, not the contents of bible, but the Bible has nothing in it remotely resembling our government and attributing the efforts of our founding fathers to making a passable system to the Bible is wrong.
'God is power. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation – anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it.' 'How does one man assert his power over another, by making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. - 1984, Pt 3, Ch 3
However, they didn't come up with this government from scratch either. Where did they get the idea? The Bible.
LOL.
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Signed by John Adams
"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and **** the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
-Thomas Paine
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
-James Madison
I realize most of these quotes are pointed at christians and leaders, not the contents of bible, but the Bible has nothing in it remotely resembling our government and attributing the efforts of our founding fathers to making a passable system to the Bible is wrong.
I NEVER said that the American government was based on Christianity. Those are your words, not mine. All I said was the idea of our present government was found in the Bible, not on religion in any sense of the word.
I NEVER said that the American government was based on Christianity. Those are your words, not mine. All I said was the idea of our present government was found in the Bible, not on religion in any sense of the word.
You said that they got the idea for our goverrnment from the Bible. This is verifiably and completely untrue in every sense of the word.
BTW I never said you said that the government was based on Christianity, so those are not my words either.
I found the idea that our founding fathers based our secular government on any portion of the Bible laughable, that's all. All of them were Christians, no argument there, and that may have influenced their ideals and philosophies, but our government has 0% in common with anything set forth as a government in the Bible and none of the features of our constitution are drawn in any way from the Bible or Religion.
Sure, many things in our government may coincidentally show up in the Bible, but that's because they're both sometimes written in English. I could equally say that the Founding fathers based our government on the Kama Sutra or this current thread and be equally correct.
I could equally say that the Founding fathers based our government on the Kama Sutra...
That is genius. Our government is based on different ways in which to #$%& us...
You sir, deserve your own political show. I'd watch.
The first rulers of Israel was God ordained. That failed. The next rulers were either self-ordained or people ordained but with absolute rulership. That failed. So when I say they learned from the Bible, I am referencing all the failed governments that arose and how they failed. The Continental Congress learned from these failures. They also learned from Britain's failure in that the people must be represented somehow.
I will admit that there seems to be now no written record of how the people came up with the plans that were considered, but since I learned this in a secular high school from a secular high school book (~late 70s), there must be some truth to the matter.
"free" will , "free" action ", free"dom cannot exist as long as there is any type of cost
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. Free will is nothing more than chosing an option from a bunch of choices. There is no consequence. Now, acting on that choice has a consequence (notice I am avoiding the word cost), either good or bad or indifferent.
Look at a restaurant menu. There are many choices to choose from. I choose pizza. There is no consequence in making that choice. It isn't until I act on that choice by notifying the waiter that I want a pizza that there is a consequence, which in this case, the price of the pizza (and indigestion if it is a bad pizza).
There is no consequence in making a choice, but there are consequences attached to acting on that choice.
One of the basic principles that was found was that no one person should have absolute rulership.
Which is directly counter to the Bible.
The second principle is that the leaders of the country should be elected.
Also counter to the Bible.
These principles can be found by looking at the negative aspects of what happened in the Bible. The several plans that was considered in the Philadelphia Convention included these main principles. Each plan included an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a tribunal branch. The executive branch is the "head" of the the people. The legislative branch is the "body" of the people. The tribunal branch is the people's "limiter" of the prior two branches so that they don't get too powerful. Each plan also had their own way of how each of the branches interacted. This part is not found in the Bible (at lest as far as I know). Each plan had merit, but only one plan eventually got enacted by a 5-4 vote.
OH! So you're saying that they didn't base it on the Bible so much as the Antibible. Everything the Bible says, we did the opposite of, so therefore we based it on that?
Well that I Can agree with. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The first rulers of Israel was God ordained. That failed. The next rulers were either self-ordained or people ordained but with absolute rulership. That failed. So when I say they learned from the Bible, I am referencing all the failed governments that arose and how they failed. The Continental Congress learned from these failures. They also learned from Britain's failure in that the people must be represented somehow.
Sorry, the way you worded the first quote that really made me laugh was that the Bible supports our governing system. I understand now that you're saying that the logical progression from the horribly designed governments that "God" told people to make (Monarchy, Theocracy, etc) is a democracy for the people by the people without Religion mucking it up. That's all good.
I will admit that there seems to be now no written record of how the people came up with the plans that were considered, but since I learned this in a secular high school from a secular high school book (~late 70s), there must be some truth to the matter.
What school did you go to?!
There's plenty of written records about the plans that were considered. They're based on well known French and English Philosphers.
I just thought of something else about "free action". I define free action as the ability to act in spite of the consequences, therefore you are free to act however you want. If you define free action as acting with no consequence, I'll say again, that is a pipe dream.
+1.
Free will is the choice made by a being conscious of options. 'Free action' does not and can not exist. There is always a consequence to an action, even if the consequence is beneficial. Action -> Reaction
I would say in this respect even animals have free will, though reduced capacity to use it. My dog knows not to bark, but chooses to anyway. Stupid dog.
The first rulers of Israel was God ordained. That failed. quote]
So god is a failure, and not perfect, which means everything is a pipedream.
I just thought of something else about "free action". I define free action as the ability to act in spite of the consequences, therefore you are free to act however you want. If you define free action as acting with no consequence, I'll say again, that is a pipe dream.
+1.
Free will is the choice made by a being conscious of options. 'Free action' does not and can not exist. There is always a consequence to an action, even if the consequence is beneficial. Action -> Reaction
I would say in this respect even animals have free will, though reduced capacity to use it. My dog knows not to bark, but chooses to anyway. Stupid dog.
Isn't making a choice still an action? It may not be a physical action but it is still an action.
I thought it was said in the OP that there would be no discussion of religion but not only has the discussion vered to religion but also politics.
I'm still waiting for him to report himself...
If you want to have a religious discussion on why God is a jerk, please, please, please take it to a religious forum. Derailing a topic to some other relevant topic is fine (such as the whale joke), but derailing it to spout religious views is a banned topic and for good reason. If this keeps up, I might have to go to the Orcs, myself, and have this thread locked because it is now serving no purpose than to inflame others whose viewpoints are violently opposed to yours. Next post about a religious topic will be flagged (including mine).
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.
Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
I just thought of something else about "free action". I define free action as the ability to act in spite of the consequences, therefore you are free to act however you want. If you define free action as acting with no consequence, I'll say again, that is a pipe dream.
+1.
Free will is the choice made by a being conscious of options. 'Free action' does not and can not exist. There is always a consequence to an action, even if the consequence is beneficial. Action -> Reaction
I would say in this respect even animals have free will, though reduced capacity to use it. My dog knows not to bark, but chooses to anyway. Stupid dog.
Isn't making a choice still an action? It may not be a physical action but it is still an action.
Yep. Free action is being able to make choices without consequences (which is nonsensical). Free will is an action in which you choose between consequences.
I never said will wasn't an action, nor that actions don't have consequences, only that choice is the ability to choose between consequences.
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes.
But then again, you weren't asking me. He would have free will as long as he was conscious regardless of his location or religion.
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes.
But then again, you weren't asking me. He would have free will as long as he was conscious regardless of his location or religion.
So as long as he is not asleep he has free will?
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes.
But then again, you weren't asking me. He would have free will as long as he was conscious regardless of his location or religion.
So as long as he is not asleep he has free will?
Effectively, yes. But actually no. It is only because our definition of unconscious tends to include "asleep".
My definition of unconscious doesn't exactly include sleep because I'm pretty conscious when I sleep. I am usually/always aware that I am dreaming and I can usually make choices within my dreams.
Sleep contains various degrees of consciousness.
So how about if he was knocked out?
Could you explain these various degrees of consciousness contained in sleep?
So how about if he was knocked out?
Could you explain these various degrees of consciousness contained in sleep?
If he is actually unconscious and not thinking about something, then no he doesn't have free will at that moment. He has no choices to make and no will to speak of, free or otherwise.
I do not care to explain the various degrees of consciousness contained in sleep. Look up a study if you care to learn.
Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes, as long as no outside influence can get to him to tell him what to do.
I thought it was said in the OP that there would be no discussion of religion but not only has the discussion vered to religion but also politics.
I wasn't talking about religion, I was talking about the Bible as it pertains to history. I also wasn't talking about politics, I was talking about the history of how America came to be.
Way off-topic: Talking about the Bible is fine, but talking about one's religious views about the Bible is not. Talking about America is fine, but talking about one's political views is not. So, where is my religious views in my post? There aren't any. Where are my political views in my post? Also, there aren't any.
So how about if he was knocked out?
Could you explain these various degrees of consciousness contained in sleep?
If he is actually unconscious and not thinking about something, then no he doesn't have free will at that moment. He has no choices to make and no will to speak of, free or otherwise.
Could you explain why you don't understand the basic concept of degrees of consciousness? ;)
Sure.
First I am not completely clear on how you define "conscious." Are we talking about being awake and aware of your surroundings or something else? We can be aware of our surroundings, but not neccesarily aware of our thought process unless we focus on that thought process.
Second, you can say that you are aware that you are dreaming, but let's think about this. Are you actually aware of being asleep and dreaming at the exact moment that you are asleep and dreaming? Or do you become aware that you were asleep and dreaming after waking up? I know what you are thinking... you can tell you are asleep and dreaming at the exact moment right? But could it be that you are actually awake in a near dreaming state similar to when you roll over in bed. When you are asleep, your body is basically paralyzed. You can't move your arms or legs. This is why when you have those dreams you are running, you move so slowly in them. You are actually trying to move your legs but can't. So could you actually be awake when you finally realize that you are dreaming?
How would that level of consciousness be different from any other?
How would that degree of consciousness be different than being awake, but not thinking about anything specifically?
Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes, as long as no outside influence can get to him to tell him what to do.
Outside influence: hurricane. The hurricane forces the athiest to seek shelter. In other words, the hurricane is telling the athiest what to do.
You still have the choice to stay outside in a hurricane.
Free will: the ability to make a choice.
Free action: the ability to act freely in spite of the consequences.
You have the free will to agree or disagree.
You have the use your free action to make a post about it in spite or the consequences.
The hurricane can't talk. It isn't telling anyone to do anything. LOL
You still have the choice to stay outside in a hurricane.
Exactly my point.
Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes, as long as no outside influence can get to him to tell him what to do.
So what you actually meant was that free will is like the invisibility power that kel mitchell's character (invisible boy) in "Mystery Men" had. It's there, but as long as no one is looking we can use it.
Edit: Forgot the title of the movie.
Second, you can say that you are aware that you are dreaming, but let's think about this. Are you actually aware of being asleep and dreaming at the exact moment that you are asleep and dreaming? Or do you become aware that you were asleep and dreaming after waking up? I know what you are thinking... you can tell you are asleep and dreaming at the exact moment right? But could it be that you are actually awake in a near dreaming state similar to when you roll over in bed. When you are asleep, your body is basically paralyzed. You can't move your arms or legs. This is why when you have those dreams you are running, you move so slowly in them. You are actually trying to move your legs but can't. So could you actually be awake when you finally realize that you are dreaming?
I see what you're getting at, but I personally think I am conscious during some of my dreams. To the point that I can control them to varying degrees of success or choose to leave them and wake up.
How would that level of consciousness be different from any other?
How would that degree of consciousness be different than being awake, but not thinking about anything specifically?
Well... it's different. Have you never slept before?
I don't see why have to explain sleep and dreams to another (and I'm assuming here) human being.
Second, you can say that you are aware that you are dreaming, but let's think about this. Are you actually aware of being asleep and dreaming at the exact moment that you are asleep and dreaming? Or do you become aware that you were asleep and dreaming after waking up? I know what you are thinking... you can tell you are asleep and dreaming at the exact moment right? But could it be that you are actually awake in a near dreaming state similar to when you roll over in bed. When you are asleep, your body is basically paralyzed. You can't move your arms or legs. This is why when you have those dreams you are running, you move so slowly in them. You are actually trying to move your legs but can't. So could you actually be awake when you finally realize that you are dreaming?
I see what you're getting at, but I personally think I am conscious during some of my dreams. To the point that I can control them to varying degrees of success or choose to leave them and wake up.How would that level of consciousness be different from any other?
How would that degree of consciousness be different than being awake, but not thinking about anything specifically?
Well... it's different. Have you never slept before?
I don't see why have to explain sleep and dreams to another (and I'm assuming here) human being.
I'm not asking you to explain sleep and dreaming. I'm just asking you to explain how you view consciousness and the varios degrees of consciousness. I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't interested in your answer, so I hope that I haven't come off as confrontational.
And no... I am not a human being... not unless you can define what a human being is...
I'm joking of course
I'm not asking you to explain sleep and dreaming. I'm just asking you to explain how you view consciousness and the varios degrees of consciousness. I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't interested in your answer, so I hope that I haven't come off as confrontational.
Hmm... well... I'll try. These are just my personal levels of consciousness.
I have "conscious" which is me, now.
I have "trying to sleep", the annoying stage where I think much more randomly and it can cause physical reactions (jerking or saying something out loud).
I have "unconscious" where I am neither dreaming nor awake.
I have "hard dream" where I'm an observer/participant, but may not be directly conscious of the fact that I'm dreaming.
I have "Lucid dream" where I observe, but can also make changes to the dream and am quite aware that I am dreaming. Too many changes and I'll often wake up, but can usually slip right back into the dream or a modified version of it.
I have "pseudo dreaming" where I'm also aware of what's going on around me, but don't care. That's where I spent most of highschool geometry. I can accurately answer questions, but am also dreaming.
Also I'm assuming there's a state in there somewhere where I'm dreaming, but not aware that I'm dreaming (in that I don't have any recollection of the dream, not that I don't know I'm dreaming while I'm dreaming).
On average, most of my sleeping varies between unconscious and lucid dreaming. I never have nightmares (they quickly become comical). I rarely have trouble waking up.
I'm not asking you to explain sleep and dreaming. I'm just asking you to explain how you view consciousness and the varios degrees of consciousness. I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't interested in your answer, so I hope that I haven't come off as confrontational.
Hmm... well... I'll try. These are just my personal levels of consciousness.
I have "conscious" which is me, now.
I have "trying to sleep", the annoying stage where I think much more randomly and it can cause physical reactions (jerking or saying something out loud).
I have "unconscious" where I am neither dreaming nor awake.
I have "hard dream" where I'm an observer/participant, but may not be directly conscious of the fact that I'm dreaming.
I have "Lucid dream" where I observe, but can also make changes to the dream and am quite aware that I am dreaming. Too many changes and I'll often wake up, but can usually slip right back into the dream or a modified version of it.
I have "pseudo dreaming" where I'm also aware of what's going on around me, but don't care. That's where I spent most of highschool geometry. I can accurately answer questions, but am also dreaming.
Also I'm assuming there's a state in there somewhere where I'm dreaming, but not aware that I'm dreaming (in that I don't have any recollection of the dream, not that I don't know I'm dreaming while I'm dreaming).
On average, most of my sleeping varies between unconscious and lucid dreaming. I never have nightmares (they quickly become comical). I rarely have trouble waking up.
So follow up question...
During which of those do you have free will?
So follow up question...
During which of those do you have free will?
Sorry, forgot about that bit:
Conscious. - > as full as it gets.
Lucid dreaming. - > Limited to dream (not fully aware of my surroundings)
Pseudo dreaming. - > wavers depending on how asleep I become.
I have to be aware I'm making a choice to have free will about that choice. It's also a tenuous and sliding scale.
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
Except that often you have no control over where you go next and are completely lacking in will. Unless you are postulating that your subconscious is your free will and your conscioussness is your lack of free will. At least that makes more sense than "free will is action without consequence".
Neuroscience of free will refers to recent neuroscientific investigations that have been interpreted as shedding light on the question of free will, which is a philosophical and scientific question as to whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices. As it has become possible to study the living brain, researchers can now watch the brain's decision-making process at work.
One significant finding of these studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_fr...
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
Again, you are mixing up free will and free action. The 2 are NOT identical. Free will is the ability to make a choice. No more and no less. Free action is the ability to act in spite of or in the face the consequences. THAT is true freedom.
Have you ever noticed that in all my posting, that I have steadfastly refused to use the word cost. This is because the word cost implies that you are paying something, either before or after the act. And there is nothing good, bad, nor indifferent associated with a cost. Whereas a consequence is something received; and a consequence can be good, bad, or indifferent.
Free will: I choose to go through an open doorway. Is there a cost or consequence in my choice? No.
Free action: I act upon what I just chose to do and go through the doorway. Is there a cost involved? Not unless it is a tollbooth. Is there a consequence for going through the doorway? Yes, I am now on the other side of the doorway.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm going back to my speeding car example (see previous posts). Each choice that could be made has a bad consequence when acted upon. Actually, now that I think about it, each choice also has a good consequence, as well. Choice 1) Do nothing and child dies. Bad consequence: child dies. Good consequence: you live. Choice 2) Die saving the child. Bad consequence: you die. Good consequence: child lives. Choice 3) Stand there trying to decide what to do. Consequences are the same as choice 1. As you can see, free action can have multiple consequences, both good and bad. You have the free will to choose and the free action to carry out that choice regarless of the consequences.
Free will has nothing to do with cost or consequence.
Free action has nothing to do with cost, but everything to do with consequence.
You have the free will to agree or disagree
You have the ability to act freely by posting the above choice to this forum regardless of the consequences.
P.S. I'm starting to think I'll put that as my sig.
Sorry dude, I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but you are all over the place.
First you claim that there is no free will because there is a cost in everything...
If cost limits free will, then there has never been free will. There's always a cost. A cost in opportunity, resources, time. If nothing else, there's the cost of calories burned walking from point a to point b, or the seconds it takes you to decide.
that has always been my point.
and...
"free" will , "free" action ", free"dom cannot exist as long as there is any type of cost
then you say that freewill is an illusion and freedom is slavery (according to the novel 1984)
What if you "break" someone? Like at the end of the novel 1984. They break the main protagonist's will. Can we still consider that he has free will since psychologicaly the guy is broken and won't think or act like he use too? Even if he still can make choices, the drive and will power to make them have been taken away from him, like conditionning. Maybe I am going to far with my interpretaion of the novel.
In the same novel, the authorities try to restraint individual free thinking (I am guessing a extention of free will) by limiting how people can conceptualize the world by limiting the words they can use. Can we consider these individual to have free will?
actually 1984 explains why free will is an illusion FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
then you claim that religion and politics prove that freewill does not exist because these are outside (?) factors that somehow negate freewill..
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.
then you do a 180 and say that freewill does exist in certain circumstances...
Would an atheist who lived out in the woods, away from society, have free will?
Yes, as long as no outside influence can get to him to tell him what to do.
then it changes again...
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
You are all over the place. so my question is...
Do you believe than humans have freewill or not?
You can't claim that humans don't have freewill, but then claim that we do under these special circumstances. If we have freewill under these special circumstances then we have freewill.
Neuroscience of free will refers to recent neuroscientific investigations that have been interpreted as shedding light on the question of free will, which is a philosophical and scientific question as to whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices. As it has become possible to study the living brain, researchers can now watch the brain's decision-making process at work.
One significant finding of these studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_fr...
So are you inferring that an individual must be conscious of making a descision in order to demostrate freewill?
Also from the same wiki page...
"It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation (of self awareness) with causation (of the movement). These studies have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions."
The most important part is in bold.
The most important choices we make are based on instinct. We may think about consequenses. our instinces however do not. do i stand here and let the lion eat me... no like a gazelle i try to get away from the lion. do i let my friend/relative get hit by a car or do i take the hit... i take the hit. its not a matter of choice. its pure instinct not "free will" human beings invented the phrase "free will" so as to put ourselves above the animals and nature but we are not above the animals nor nature. the only way you can have true free will is if you can control nature. but nature will always win in the end.
I don't think your examples meet the criteria for it to be considered instinct. in fact, I could argue that humans don't have any true instincts...
psychology.jrank.org/pages/337/Instinct....
Behavior is considered instinctive only if it occurs in the same form in all members of a species. Instincts must be unlearned and characteristic of a specific species. Animals provide the best examples of instinctive behavior. Birds naturally build nests without being taught and feed and protect their young in the exact same ways. Other animals, such as squirrels or dogs, behave in manners characteristic of only squirrels or dogs. Ethologists, scientists who study animals in their natural environments, devote much of their efforts to the observation of instinctive behavior
Read more: Instinct - Example Of Mean, Mean Example, Instinct, Instincts, Animals, Human, Instinctive, and Species psychology.jrank.org/pages/337/Instinct....
Read more: Instinct - Example Of Mean, Mean Example, Instinct, Instincts, Animals, Human, Instinctive, and Species psychology.jrank.org/pages/337/Instinct....
Free action: the ability to act freely in spite of the consequences.
There was another errata? D:
Seriously though, I'm surprised how long is this thread surviving and that I am reading it. That's all.
The most important choices we make are based on instinct. We may think about consequenses. our instinces however do not. do i stand here and let the lion eat me... no like a gazelle i try to get away from the lion. do i let my friend/relative get hit by a car or do i take the hit... i take the hit. its not a matter of choice. its pure instinct not "free will" human beings invented the phrase "free will" so as to put ourselves above the animals and nature but we are not above the animals nor nature. the only way you can have true free will is if you can control nature. but nature will always win in the end.
Humans may have some semblance of instinct, however, humans also have the ability to overcome instinct. Not all humans will "instinctively" run away form a charging lion. Some will stand there in shock, some will run, some will be indecisive. Same goes for my car scenario. I will honestly say that I'm probably in the the third choice of that scenario, standing there trying to decide what the right thing to do is and by the time I decide, it is too late.
As far as human instinct is concerned, instinct is nothing more than the ability to instantly evaluate a number of choices and choose the one most suited for the occasion and the free action of acting on what was chosen, good or bad. The person running away from a charging lion shows that sort of instinct. A person standing in shock does not. A person standing there indecisively also does not. In the child/car example, some people will call it instinct to save one's own life over that of another. Others will call it instinct to save the life of the child over your own. The one standing on the sidelines trying to decide the correct course of action shows no such instinct.
If were to talk about what is the correct choice from a list of choices, that is a different discussion for a different forum.
Here's some definitions from various sources:
Dictionary.com: Free and independent choice; voluntary decision.
Collins English Dictionary: The apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily.
Encyclopedia Britannica: In humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints.
"Not externally determined" basically means external circumstances do not determine the outcome of the choice. For example, a locked door without a key is an external determinent. Being faced with a charging lion is NOT an external determinent. A person could still to choose to stand there and fight.
"independently of . . ." in this circumstance means in spite of or in the face of such restraints. You know what the restraints are, but they are not a factor in the ability to choose. The restraints only factor in on how you act.
Re: Kargir01's latest post:
Free will has absolutely nothing to do with controlling a situation. Boss telling you what to do or get fired. A choice is still a choice no matter what the circumstance. Most people will do what the boss wants done. Others will choose to get fired (they usually choose to quit before that happens). The boss is trying to control his/her underlings, but as long as there is free will, the control is fleeting. If the law says it is illegal to murder and what the consequences of murder are, why are there still murderers out there? The murderer is exibiting their free will to choose to murder knowing full well what the consequences will be if they get caught. The law only determines the outcome of the choice, not the choice itself. If the law determines the choice itself, then there would be no murderers, no shoplifters, no muggers, no etc.
As long as humans have free will there will be law abiders and law breakers.
EDIT: Blast, the quotes did not copy into a readable format. Will correct soon.
EDIT2: Corrected.
"Not externally determined" basically means external circumstances do not determine the outcome of the choice. For example, a locked door without a key is an external determinent. Being faced with a charging lion is NOT an external determinent. A person could still to choose to stand there and fight.
"independently of . . ." in this circumstance means in spite of or in the face of such restraints. You know what the restraints are, but they are not a factor in the ability to choose. The restraints only factor in on how you act.
Re: Kargir01's latest post:
Free will has absolutely nothing to do with controlling a situation.
Atually, a lion charging you is an external determinant. it is an environmental stimulus that forces you to make a choice. Whether you choose to run, fight, or lay down and let the lion have his way with you, it is a choice forced on you by the lion charging you. If a lion is not charging you, you don't have to make any of those choices.
Sorry if i have confused anyone but if you look at any of the conditions that i gave for true free will to exist or occur with humans you would see that none of those conditions could ever occur because there is always some outside factor controling the desicion making process, be it a law set down by a government or the laws of nature or your own instincts you are never truely and totally in control of any situation. to have true free will you must be able to control every situation that could ever occur which in life that is not possible. do what your boss tells you to do or your fired, do what the law tells you to do or go to jail. and even if you do follow the rules to get something you want or need if someone or something doesn't want you to have it then you won't get it.
I am going to have to disagree with you there. You did claim that there was one situation that can, and does occur, during which people have freewill. You said that Dreaming is the only time that you have true freewill. I'm ging to assume that you, like most people have had dreams. By your statement, you have freewill while you are dreaming as would anyone else dreaming.
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
You could errata that statement.
Sorry if i have confused anyone but if you look at any of the conditions that i gave for true free will to exist or occur with humans you would see that none of those conditions could ever occur because there is always some outside factor controling the desicion making process, be it a law set down by a government or the laws of nature or your own instincts you are never truely and totally in control of any situation. to have true free will you must be able to control every situation that could ever occur which in life that is not possible. do what your boss tells you to do or your fired, do what the law tells you to do or go to jail. and even if you do follow the rules to get something you want or need if someone or something doesn't want you to have it then you won't get it.I am going to have to disagree with you there. You did claim that there was one situation that can, and does occur, during which people have freewill. You said that Dreaming is the only time that you have true freewill. I'm ging to assume that you, like most people have had dreams. By your statement, you have freewill while you are dreaming as would anyone else dreaming.
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
You could errata that statement.
When one dreams they have the power to determine the outcome if events in the dream. if in a dream you walk through a door and don't like whats on the other side of said door you can instantly change it to your liking (rain becomes sunshine). You are in total control, nobody else you.
free will is about control, and as long as others can control you (directly or indirectly) you dont have free will, just the illusion that you do.
Sorry if i have confused anyone but if you look at any of the conditions that i gave for true free will to exist or occur with humans you would see that none of those conditions could ever occur because there is always some outside factor controling the desicion making process, be it a law set down by a government or the laws of nature or your own instincts you are never truely and totally in control of any situation. to have true free will you must be able to control every situation that could ever occur which in life that is not possible. do what your boss tells you to do or your fired, do what the law tells you to do or go to jail. and even if you do follow the rules to get something you want or need if someone or something doesn't want you to have it then you won't get it.I am going to have to disagree with you there. You did claim that there was one situation that can, and does occur, during which people have freewill. You said that Dreaming is the only time that you have true freewill. I'm ging to assume that you, like most people have had dreams. By your statement, you have freewill while you are dreaming as would anyone else dreaming.
sleeping dreaming is the only time you have true free will. You don't know what's coming next nor what could come next, therefore in your dream you can go anywhere you want do anything you want.
You could errata that statement.
When one dreams they have the power to determine the outcome if events in the dream. if in a dream you walk through a door and don't like whats on the other side of said door you can instantly change it to your liking (rain becomes sunshine). You are in total control, nobody else you.
free will is about control, and as long as others can control you (directly or indirectly) you dont have free will, just the illusion that you do.
So are you saying that you have free will while you are sleeping, but not while you are awake?
If I hold a gun to your head and say "if you move, I shoot," am I taking away your free will? Absolutely not. You still have the ability to choose. You can still choose to move. It is only when you act on that choice that the gun will go off. Free will DOES NOT EQUAL free action.
Kargir01 has yet to show how free will is being limited. So far, all he has shown is how action can be limited.
It is absolutely and utterly impossible for a normal person to limit somebody's free will without the use of brainwashing techniques through isolation and brought up that way by having whatever subject being pounded into your brain which can take years, through hypnotism, or through drugs.
Free will is also not the same thing as determining the outcome of a choice. Just because you made a choice where you think you know what the outcome is, it doesn't mean that the outcome is the what you want.
Let's take a look at the D&D Wish spell. You have the free will to make whatever wish you want. The problem comes in is when you actually make that wish. Let's wish for something simple, like a +1 sword. Ok, you made your choice. Now, for the actual wish: "I wish to own a +1 sword." You believe that you will receive a +1 sword. Now, depending on the DM, the fulfillment of the wish could be you get the +1 sword right away, or the wish will notify you when you will receive the +1 sword. In other words, you made a choice where you determined the outcome, but the actual outcome was not what you determined.
I say again (and again, and again) that if there is no such thing as free will, then you are a robot where all your choices are predetermined by the programmer, either a 0 or a 1.
To Kargir01, do you believe that you are a robot? If you don't believe that you are a robot, then you have exhibited free will in choosing that belief, and by telling me that you are not a robot, you have exhibited free action despite the consequences connected to that action. What is the consequence of this particular action? You knowing that I now know that you are not a robot.
Let's change the scenario a little bit. Let me ask this with a qualifying statement: "do you believe that you are a robot and that I will shoot you with this gun if you say that you are not a robot." Do you A) say that you are a robot so that you will not get shot? B) say that you are not a robot and by shooting me, you prove that I am not a bunch of gears and electronic parts. So, will you lie and say that you are a robot? Or tell the truth. If you say you are a robot, I just might shoot you anyway just for lying because I know that you are not a robot, but you will not know that. Question: have I taken away your ability to choose A or B? No. Have I limited your actions. Yes. Have I limited your free actions. No.
Remember, free will is the ability to choose. Nothing more, nothing less.
Free action is the ability to act freely in spite of or in the face of consequences. In other words, "I don't care about the consequences, I'm going to do it my way anyway!"
Since I've defined free action (my personal definition), let me define actions in this way: Action is the ability to act while taking the consequences into account. By defining action this way, you will see that actions can be limited, while free actions cannot.
Since I've defined free action (my personal definition), let me define actions in this way: Action is the ability to act while taking the consequences into account. By defining action this way, you will see that actions can be limited, while free actions cannot.
Well that is a bit convinient. Why define it as an ability? The way you define something can make it so you can prove or disprove whatever you want. Why not just use the dictionary definition of action?
Since I've defined free action (my personal definition), let me define actions in this way: Action is the ability to act while taking the consequences into account. By defining action this way, you will see that actions can be limited, while free actions cannot.
Well that is a bit convinient. Why define it as an ability? The way you define something can make it so you can prove or disprove whatever you want. Why not just use the dictionary definition of action?
good point now also use the dictionary definition of will as well.
Webster's dictionary defines will as (with regards to this discussion) as: power of controlling one's actions or emotions.
Now when you add free to that definision that means, no outside power is in control of you, you are, however since outside influences limit your actions directly or indirectly using a cost (consequences) or restriction (rule or law) true free will is not possible (with the execption of dreaming). As long as someone or something else can control what you do or feel, you do not have free will.
the illusion of free will is that you are in complete an total control, if one has true free will then there are never "circumstances beyond my control"
ELLIE
John, John. John, you're still building onto that Flea Circus, that illusion.
HAMMOND
Once we have control again we - -
ELLIE
Control?! You never had control! That's the illusion.
I just thought of something about Kargir01. He seems to be under the assumption that no one would willingly make a choice where the consequence is bad. That is absolutely ludicrous. People make choices with bad consequences all the time, even when the alternate choice has a good consequence.
does someone go into business to loose money? no they go into business to make money.
the illusion of free will is that you are in complete an total control, if one has true free will then there are never "circumstances beyond my control"
Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. But that's ok because you are exercising your free will by choosing that opinion and exercising your free action to post that opinion in spite of the consequences of an opinion different than yours. I NEVER forced you to choose, and I NEVER forced you to post. You used your free will and free action to do that.
Free will only means you are in control of what choices YOU make, NOT what others make for you. The only people that's without free will are robots. My understanding of your opinion of free will is that you are a robot with no will of your own. Others have complete control over you. They are the ones who tell you when to eat, when to sleep, when to go to the bathroom, when to work, etc . . . even when to cease functioning (die).
Again free will has absolutely nothing to do with control except in relation to yourself. Of course, there will be "circumstances beyond your control". However, that has nothing to do with free will either. If there are cicumstances beyond your control, that only means a choice for that circumstance does not even exist. A choice of an action with a consequence will always be in your control because you can control which consequence you will receive.
I've also already defined free will with my own definition, as well as definitions from 4 different sources (see post #186).
Forcing somebody to do something is not the same as complete nullifying the choice to begin with. That's what brainwashing is for.
I'm going to go back to the locked door again. If you come upon a locked door and you don't have a key, your choices are limited to going to find somebody with the key, waiting for somebody with the key, giving up and go a different route, or trying to break down the door. Let's take away choice 4 by saying that you don't have the strength or the means to break down the door. You can't go through the door because that choice no longer exists.
Now, for an open doorway or an opening the size of a door like an archway. You can see what's on the other side and you see something that would be dangerous to you (use your imagination). My first question is does the choice of going through the doorway no longer exist? Answer: No! That choice still exists. The consequence DOES NOT invalidate the choice.
Let me tell you a story from my own personal experience. First of a very short background. I am a person that is comfortable wearing sweatshirts even in 80 degree weather. End of background. One day, my mother was complaining that I must be hot with that sweatshirt on. She figured that since she is hot, I must be and even more so. She's complained about this before. It's just this time my father snapped and tried using force to take the sweatshirt off from me. Up to an even including a closed fist across my face that produced a severe bloody nose. Eventually he did succeed. However, my mother, seeing how far I was going to keep my sweatshirt on tried to intervene, but without success. My father was all dressed up to go to a school board meeting (he was superintendent the school district). With blood running down into my mouth, I had one thought. How would he like it if I blew all that blood on his nice clean suit. The consequences of that action never crossed my mind. I didn't do it, though. After he left and I got my bloody nose under control, I put the sweatshirt back on and my mother and I went to visit a neighbor. When my father came back from the meeting and saw me with my sweatshirt back on, he never said a word. My mother also let up on her complaints about me being hot, though not entirely. I think this happened when I was still in high school.
Now, where does free will figure into this. 1) I chose the action to leave the sweatshirt on in spite of her complaints. 2) I chose the action that would force my father to use all of his strength to take the sweatshirt off. 3) I chose the action of not blowing blood onto his suit. 4) I chose the action to put the sweatshirt back on. The consequence of choice 1: my father blowing up. The consequence of choice 2: getting a bloody nose. The consequence of choice 3: none, since I chose not to do it. Consequence of choice 4: to feel comfortable again, as well as having my parents back off about my sweatshirt (this was an unforseen, but nice consequence).
Now, according to Kargir01, since I have no free will of my own, the moment my mother started to complain I would have taken my sweatshirt off. If I had no free will of my own, my father would not have need to use force because my sweartshirt was already off. If I had no free will of my own, I would not have gotten that bloody nose as a result of my father using force. If I had no free will of my own, I would not have put the sweatshirt back on because it would start my mother complaining all over again. So in other words, according to Kargir01, what I went through back then was all an "illusion" all because I had no free will.
I had complete control over my own personal circumstance. I knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, what I was doing. What I had no control of was my mother's or father's response to my circumstance.
I just thought of something about Kargir01. He seems to be under the assumption that no one would willingly make a choice where the consequence is bad. That is absolutely ludicrous. People make choices with bad consequences all the time, even when the alternate choice has a good consequence.
does someone go into business to loose money? no they go into business to make money.
Let's look at this. Sometimes they go into business for the experience. Making money is a side benefit. However, I will agree with the first statement (and only partially agree with the second) in that nobody (to my limited knowledge) has ever started a business with the purpose of losing money. Maybe somebody has, I don't know.
How is this person losing money in the business he started? By using actions with bad consequences. For example, not coming up with a business plan, not advertising, not consulting with successful business owners. I will admit that once in a while you will get a business virtuoso that will make money in spite of bad consequences.
How about these examples: failing business owners trying to make money make choices where acting on those choices have bad consequences, criminals make choices where acting on those choices have bad consequences, students failing in school make choices where acting on those choices have bad consequences. I could keep going, but you get the picture.
No the murderer is exhibiting their will (power of controlling one's actions or emotions). But it is NOT FREE ["for zero price" (gratis) "with few or no restrictions" (libre).] Once they are caught and have to face the concequences they find that they must pay (non gratis) for their actions by going to jail (non libre).
Now when you add free to that definision that means, no outside power is in control of you, you are, however since outside influences limit your actions directly or indirectly using a cost (consequences) or restriction (rule or law) true free will is not possible (with the execption of dreaming). As long as someone or something else can control what you do or feel, you do not have free will.
the illusion of free will is that you are in complete an total control, if one has true free will then there are never "circumstances beyond my control"
If you have freewill while dreaming then you have freewill. It's an all or nothing kind of thing.
I have an Ipod touch my girlfriend gave me about 2 years ago. Sometimes I use it while at school to listen to music while I walk around campus. Sometimes I forgeet my Ipod at home or in my car. I still have an Ipod. It really doesn't matter whether it is in my pocket, my car, or at home. I still have an Ipod.
Lets use another example. An individual has the capability to run a mile in 7 minutes. The same individual works in an office and sits at a desk most of the day. In order to run a mile in 7 minutes, there have to be special environmental circumstances: 1) He/she must be standing or in a position that is not preventing him from running. 2) he/she must be on a terrain that does not prevent him from running (like in the ocen). 3) There must be at least a mile of available environmental terrain in order to run a mile. Any less space and this individual would be limitted by the ammount of room he can run (This is assuming that we are talking about running in a straight line and given that he/ she does not turn around and complete the mile by running som distance back to the starting place).
Even if one or all off these conditions are not met, the "capability" to run a mile is still within that individual given the chance. So if that same individual is at work (or asleep), they still have the capability to run a mile in 7 minutes even if the are not currently able to do so.
This is the problem with your claim. you can't claim that it only exists in people when they are dreaming, but dissapears once they wake up. If people have freewill in one circumstance, they have it in all circumstances.
as long as there is a cost or resriction involved it is NOT free
What if we called it Liberty Will or Flagalagala Will? Could that be a question of choice and not of cost?
I vote we start calling it Flagalagala Will.
Sriously... that made me laugh...
It is absolutely and utterly impossible for a normal person to limit somebody's free will without the use of brainwashing techniques through isolation and brought up that way by having whatever subject being pounded into your brain which can take years, through hypnotism, or through drugs.
I do believe that's why I avoided the discussion of "free will" all together, and went straight to whether or not meaningful free will was something that existed or could be taken away.
On a random note though: if free will is all about control, then you don't even have it in your dreams. Because at any moment you have zero control over whether or not someone is going to start kicking you in your very-real ribs and wake you up. Having zero control over being prematurely ejected from the dream violates the illusion of control the dream gives you.
Astromath states:
I say the opposite of free will is a robot (not android or cyborg) where its actions are programmed into it and cannot deviate from those actions.
As long as humans have free will there will be law abiders and law breakers.
Those statements describe personality or psychological makeup, not will. Everybody has a will, I never denied that. One's personality, or psychological makeup, controls their will, and personality IS geneticaly hardwired into your brain at consecption, and until it is reprogrammed by some outside influence (ie drugs, psychothearapy, etc.) you cannot deviate from those actions. Personality dictates everything you do, by nullifying all but one choice. A person who is a survivor is hardwired to do what it takes to survive. They will break the law if survival means breaking the law such as kill or be killed, or stealing food not to starve. Another person who is hardwired to abide the law, may not survive unless someone gives them food. So if the opposite of free will is a robot, then we are all robots because our personality makes us a robot. If robots don't have free will, then free will does not exist.
The word free in the phrase free will does not use that definition. It's more along the lines of definition #5 (exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., such as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent, unrestricted), which has nothing to do with cost or consequence.
The definitions of free will that I have alluded to come from here: dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+wil.... The main definition from Dictionary.com is free and independent choice; voluntary decision. The word free in this definition is defined by definition #5 (see above).
The word exempt in definition #5 has the following definition (found here: dictionary.reference.com/browse/exempt) released from, or not subject to, an obligation, liability, etc.
Now putting all the above definitions together you come up with something like this for the definition of free will: not subject to an external authority and independent choice; voluntary decision. This definition supports my defintion that free will has no consequence attached to the ability to make a choice.
The only part I'll agree with you is that the choices may have consequences attached to them when acted upon, but the ability to choose does not, and free will is nothing more and nothing less than the ability to choose. (Also notice, I'm still separating choice and action.)
This isn't the way to demonstrate that there is no free will. See, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY is a tenet created by BB. It's purpose was to coerce people into relinquishing their free will. As that was the purpose, the statement's manufacture is proof that free will exists and not some denial of that fact. Umm, at least in the world of 1984, that is. ;)
Question: Why is a consequence a cost?
Answer:
I offer you an orange at no cost, the man across the street from me offers you an orange @ $5. What is the consequence for accepting his orange over mine? You have $5 less in your pocket by accepting his, that is the cost or consequence.
...
And either way, you recieve an orange, as a consequence. A choice without consequence is a choice without effect. What you are describing as 'Libres Gratious' is actually a situation of complete powerless ness. No choice you make can have any effect: the base line of power is your ability to affect the things around you, 'will' is your ability to use that power towards the ends of your choosing. If your choice has no consequence, it is meaningless, and you may as well have no 'Will'.
Kargir01 seems to be on two points (that I can see, although it is kind of muddled).
There's the idea that you do not actually make choices because of societal and other influences. The idea that you think you are choosing, but the choice was actually make for you by the factors which made you. Its like my alley example. You can walk down two alleys. You avoid one because you were traumized in the past. Or you just came out of a movie about someone overcoming their fears, so you choose the other one. I can see that logic, although I don't agree with the lack of personal influence.
Another idea seems to step solely on the word "free". He seems to be agreeing with the idea of free will as stated, but calls it will. So that just seems to be hung up on specific terms. And I agree that the idea of free will presented by Kargir01 is not only impossible, but not meaningful.
I think for the most part, I agree with Astromath's definitions and stance. Although I'm not sure if I believe that free will cannot be taken away by means like severe brainwashing.
Although I'm not sure if I believe that free will cannot be taken away by means like severe brainwashing.
Let put it a different way: free will can be modified by brainwashing. Free will can never be completely eradicated by brainwashing, otherwise you have something like what we call "vegetable". You are physically alive, but have no conscious/subconscious/unconscious brain activity. In other words, no will (free or otherwise) and is otherwise brain dead. What brainwashing can do is take away/block/expunge/invalidate choices. Think of brainwashing as closing a door in front of you, locking it, throwing away the key, and making sure the door cannot be broken down by you. The choice of going through the door no longer exists.
Does maturing take your free will? You're not the same person you were when you were 12. Decisions will be made differently. Brainwashing, while a vile practice, is in effect no different. You have been changed, yes, but your decisions are still yours.
Those statements describe personality or psychological makeup, not will. Everybody has a will, I never denied that. One's personality, or psychological makeup, controls their will, and personality IS geneticaly hardwired into your brain at consecption, and until it is reprogrammed by some outside influence (ie drugs, psychothearapy, etc.) you cannot deviate from those actions. Personality dictates everything you do, by nullifying all but one choice. A person who is a survivor is hardwired to do what it takes to survive. They will break the law if survival means breaking the law such as kill or be killed, or stealing food not to starve. Another person who is hardwired to abide the law, may not survive unless someone gives them food. So if the opposite of free will is a robot, then we are all robots because our personality makes us a robot. If robots don't have free will, then free will does not exist.
No. Seriously… No. Where do you get this?
Oh, my. I made a mistake. If free will is an illusion according to Kargir01, I cannot make mistakes because I am not in control of my actions. If I am not in control of my actions, somebody else must be. Therefore since somebody else was in control of me, it was that person's mistake and not mine. I am nothing but a scapegoat for them.
Those statements describe personality or psychological makeup, not will. Everybody has a will, I never denied that. One's personality, or psychological makeup, controls their will, and personality IS geneticaly hardwired into your brain at consecption, and until it is reprogrammed by some outside influence (ie drugs, psychothearapy, etc.) you cannot deviate from those actions. Personality dictates everything you do, by nullifying all but one choice. A person who is a survivor is hardwired to do what it takes to survive. They will break the law if survival means breaking the law such as kill or be killed, or stealing food not to starve. Another person who is hardwired to abide the law, may not survive unless someone gives them food. So if the opposite of free will is a robot, then we are all robots because our personality makes us a robot. If robots don't have free will, then free will does not exist.
No. Seriously… No. Where do you get this?
What part do you not understand? Its Psych 101.
Those statements describe personality or psychological makeup, not will. Everybody has a will, I never denied that. One's personality, or psychological makeup, controls their will, and personality IS geneticaly hardwired into your brain at consecption, and until it is reprogrammed by some outside influence (ie drugs, psychothearapy, etc.) you cannot deviate from those actions. Personality dictates everything you do, by nullifying all but one choice. A person who is a survivor is hardwired to do what it takes to survive. They will break the law if survival means breaking the law such as kill or be killed, or stealing food not to starve. Another person who is hardwired to abide the law, may not survive unless someone gives them food. So if the opposite of free will is a robot, then we are all robots because our personality makes us a robot. If robots don't have free will, then free will does not exist.
No. Seriously… No. Where do you get this?
I'm not sure where he gets this and I've known him for years. I also see that he is still equating free will with action which is absolutely ludicrous. One's personality cannot force you to do anything, but on the other hand, it does have a direct influence.
One's personality can be influenced by genes, it is not dictated by genes.
According to anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm there are two main factors in personality development: hereditary and environmental. Hereditary seems to control basic traits such as emotional tone. Environmental controls the acquisition of values, beliefs, and expectations. Based on these statements, I conclude that one's personality is not hardwired, only influenced by genes.
Anyhoo, since who we are is determined at conception, we'd likely best get on some pre-birth detection methods to weed out undesirables. You know, murderers, rapists, Democ ...
But the point is that if we're who we are before we are who we are, there oughtta be a way to see who we're gonna be before we hatch. I mean, it's already been determined, no? So yeah, someone needs to make a test for this crap so we can abort the li'l buggers before they get old enough to act on their predetermined path. And then ... ok, I'm done. I can't even do this in jest anymore. It's so ... stupid.Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.
Then your definition of "freewill" is clearly nonsensical. Seeing as I prefeer words that actually have a meaning, I'm going to just assume you are wrong and that the rest of your ideas on the subject are as pointless and dead-ended as they have appeared thus far. Thanks for your time.
Free will cannot be discussed without relegion and politics being involved because they along with society are all outside factors that prove that free will does not exist because they limit your choices as to what you can and cannot or will and will not do. which has been my point. true free will can only exist with NO outside factors involved, which is not possible, as long as there are consequences, and there are always consequences.
Then your definition of "freewill" is clearly nonsensical. Seeing as I prefeer words that actually have a meaning, I'm going to just assume you are wrong and that the rest of your ideas on the subject are as pointless and dead-ended as they have appeared thus far. Thanks for your time.
There are inherent natural, genetic, and environmental factors that contribute to the development of our personality. According to process of socialization, "personality also colors our values, beliefs, and expectations ... Hereditary factors that contribute to personality development do so as a result of interactions with the particular social environment in which people live." There are several personality types as Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers illustrated in several personalities typology tests. These tests only provide enlightenment based on the preliminary insight scored according to the answers judged by the parameters of the test. Other theories on personality development are Jean Piaget stages of development, and personality development in Sigmund Freud's theory being formed through the interaction of id, ego, and super-ego.
Let me sum up some previous definitions:
Free will: the ability to make a choice.
Free action: the ability to act freely in spite of the consequences.
You have the free will to agree or disagree.
You have the use your free action to make a post about it in spite or the consequences.
I've been thinking on this a bit, and I would like to propose a diffrent set of definitions:
Power: The ability to affect your environment and the things in it.
Will: The drive to use your power to achieve ends of your choosing.
Thus, Freewill would be when you are able to use your power as you choose.
A situation in which you are unable to exert any power is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which another's free-will is overpowering your own (when you are being forced) is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which your will has been broken is a situation in which you have no free will.
Freewill, in short, should not be conisered to be a substance a person can possess, or a state of being of a thing, but rather an attribute of a situation. A situation that you possess both the power to affect, and the freedom to express your will in regards too, is a situation in which you possess freewill.
EX1: Tied to a table: You have free will over wether or not you struggle agisnt your restraints, or if you continue to attempt to breath. You have no free will over wether or not the door across the room is opened or closed. (No Power)
EX2: The dark street: Your at a cross roads. There is a dark street up ahead. You want to go down the dark street: it's cold out, your tired, so you try and go down the street. But you can't, you panic in fear when you try and run the other way. You have no free will in this situation. (Broken will)
EX3: The Cliff: Your standing next to a cliff. You want to stay next to the cliff.You dig in your feet, and try not to move towards the edge. You go over the edge of the cliff anyways, 'cause that jerk pushed you. You have no free will in this situation. (Overpowered)
do i stand here and let the lion eat me... no like a gazelle i try to get away from the lion.
You act as though no other course of action exists. You are wrong. Many people have stood their ground against lions, and much worse. Perhapes you are just a coward, who lacks willpower. Or perhapes you are just a Beast, waiting on the Gom jabbar.
snip
Yep. Genes have an effect upon who you are. Still does not mean you can't make choices. As I said, freewill is a word, it has a definition, and any meaning I will accept for freewill must NOT be nonsensical. Your definition of free will: that it is a propertiey that can only exist in a being without personality or needs that exists completly in a vacume, does not meet said criteria. As such, I see no reason to continue discussing it with you. Should you decide to reason out a definition for freewill, I may deem to examine it for merit. Repeatedly telling you "Your words make no sense, please stop repeating them" is not a conversation I am interested in having.
Those statements describe personality or psychological makeup, not will. Everybody has a will, I never denied that. One's personality, or psychological makeup, controls their will, and personality IS geneticaly hardwired into your brain at consecption, and until it is reprogrammed by some outside influence (ie drugs, psychothearapy, etc.) you cannot deviate from those actions. Personality dictates everything you do, by nullifying all but one choice. A person who is a survivor is hardwired to do what it takes to survive. They will break the law if survival means breaking the law such as kill or be killed, or stealing food not to starve. Another person who is hardwired to abide the law, may not survive unless someone gives them food. So if the opposite of free will is a robot, then we are all robots because our personality makes us a robot. If robots don't have free will, then free will does not exist.
No. Seriously… No. Where do you get this?
What part do you not understand? Its Psych 101.
I don't understand how you can state that personality is genetically hardwired into your brain at conception. That would mean that there is no personality development. If it is genetically hardwired, it cannot change. Your personality would predict your behavior at all times. That is not the case. For example, an individual can be said to have a shy personality. When around people in the general public, they may be quiet, timid and not comfortable just being around people. Yes, it would be possible to predict that this individual will act in a similar manner every time he/she goes out. The problem is that you cannot use this theory to predict his/ her behavior at all times. When with his/ her friends, this individual may actually act like a completely different person. He she may be funny, outgoing, talkative, friendly, and maybe even the center of attention. If personality was genetically hardwired, it would be impossible for this individual to alter the way he/ she acted around different groups of people. This individual must act shy with strangers and friends at all times. No outside stimuli could ever change this.
A genetically biologically hardwired behavior would be blinking. You are always going to have to blink. Sure, you could try to stop yourself and succeed for a limited time. But you must blink. It is the method your body uses to moisturize your eyes and not allow them to dry up. If it was possible to change biologically hardwired behaviors, you would be able to train a person to not blink.
Also, if personality was genetically hardwired at conception, you would act exactly as your parents do. They are the source of your genetic makeup. While you might act similarly, you do not act exactly like them. Since your parents got their genetic makeup from their parents, they would act like them as well. Which would mean you would act like your grandparents. I’m willing to be that you don’t.
And no, that is not Psych 101. That is a tragic attempt at trying to use trait theories of personalities ( Gordon Allport, Raymond CattellHans Eysenk). By the way trait theories has about as many holes in it as swiss cheese. It does not explain how personality is developed, and it can't be used to predict behavior in every situation among many other weaknesses.
Please, If you are going to attempt to use psychology, read it and understand it.
I'll give you some advice. If you want to be able to support your claim that freewill is an illusion, try reading something about determinism and freewill. Look up, read (as many times as it takes to actually understand) B.F. Skinner's book Beyond freedom and Dignity., read about behaviorism, and behavior analysis.
do i stand here and let the lion eat me... no like a gazelle i try to get away from the lion.
You act as though no other course of action exists. You are wrong. Many people have stood their ground against lions, and much worse. Perhapes you are just a coward, who lacks willpower. Or perhapes you are just a Beast, waiting on the Gom jabbar.
A coward i am not. I know if I go unarmed against a lion, the lion is going to win. However if i have a bow w/arrows or a rifle w/bullets i will shoot said lion, (hopefuly killing it before it kills me). Its called common sense, my will to survive vs the lions will to survive. think about it a gazelle trys to get away because they cannot surveve against a lion otherwise btw while 1 gazelle is being eaten by the lion the rest of the herd gets away.
And as for the rest of my "ideas" about "feewill" i observe nature, human and nonhuman.
Well, at the moment of conception you don't even have a brain yet. So ... uhh ... yeah. Or something. Anyhoo, I for one thought that there was plenty out there to fuel that whole Nature vs Nurture kerfluffle. I had no idea a consensus had been reached.
Anyhoo, since who we are is determined at conception, we'd likely best get on some pre-birth detection methods to weed out undesirables. You know, murderers, rapists, Democ ...
You're joking right? Haven't you ever heard of the angry, racist, road-raging zygote?
I don't understand how you can state that personality is genetically hardwired into your brain at conception.
Really? I find it quite easy to understand how he can state that. The reason is that he is wrong owing to a lack of understanding of the topic.
All one needs do to disprove his naiive theory is look to twins. Since twins are genetically identical, but do not have identical personalities, clearly ones genes are not the sole contributior to personality. QED.
-----
It seems that the majority consensus is that Kar's ideas are absurd and lacking in merit. Does anyone intend to continue the disucsiion on other points, or just keep arguing aginst kar? If the latter, let me know please, so I can stop checking this thread. ;)
Let me sum up some previous definitions:
Free will: the ability to make a choice.
Free action: the ability to act freely in spite of the consequences.
You have the free will to agree or disagree.
You have the use your free action to make a post about it in spite or the consequences.
I've been thinking on this a bit, and I would like to propose a diffrent set of definitions:
Power: The ability to affect your environment and the things in it.
Will: The drive to use your power to achieve ends of your choosing.
Thus, Freewill would be when you are able to use your power as you choose.
A situation in which you are unable to exert any power is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which another's free-will is overpowering your own (when you are being forced) is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which your will has been broken is a situation in which you have no free will.
Freewill, in short, should not be conisered to be a substance a person can possess, or a state of being of a thing, but rather an attribute of a situation. A situation that you possess both the power to affect, and the freedom to express your will in regards too, is a situation in which you possess freewill.
EX1: Tied to a table: You have free will over wether or not you struggle agisnt your restraints, or if you continue to attempt to breath. You have no free will over wether or not the door across the room is opened or closed. (No Power)
EX2: The dark street: Your at a cross roads. There is a dark street up ahead. You want to go down the dark street: it's cold out, your tired, so you try and go down the street. But you can't, you panic in fear when you try and run the other way. You have no free will in this situation. (Broken will)
EX3: The Cliff: Your standing next to a cliff. You want to stay next to the cliff.You dig in your feet, and try not to move towards the edge. You go over the edge of the cliff anyways, 'cause that jerk pushed you. You have no free will in this situation. (Overpowered)
Toasted. You have finally brought up a good,well thought out rebuttal to my view on free will. Let me try to rebut your rebuttal.
EX1: Tied to a table. You make my point for me in this one. When you are tied to the table, the choice of opening the door (or closing it) does not exist (yet). Since the choice does not exist, you cannot use your free will to make that choice.
EX2: The dark street. The choices seem simple enough on the surface, either go down the dark street or not. So you choose to go down the steet, then act on that choice. However, once you start down the dark street, subconsciously you remember something really bad happened on a dark street and the choices re-present themselves. Here your free will is being used on a subconscious level. Since the choices re-presented themselves, by the subconscious telling the conscious through the avenue of fear, you now make the choice of "I think it would be better to go the other way". Once you made up your mind, you now act on the choice you made. Even though I presented this as if the person in question did this in a well thought out manner, he didn't. The time it took to from having the choices re-presented and acting on the new choice was less than a second. Now, he still had the choice of overcoming his fear, but in this case, chose not to.
EX3: The Cliff. The choices are simple. Choice 1: keep away from the cliff. Choice 2: jump. Unless you are suicidal, you will choose 1. Now you act on that choice by backing away. Now, as far as the jerk is concerned. He's a murderer, but that's beside the point. The question here is how did the jerk take away your free will. If we define free will as just simply the ability to make a choice, then the jerk did not take away your free will. All he did was take away the action that you chose. You are in complete control of your own actions. You are not in complete control of the jerk's actions.
Well, acording to my alternate definition, I would say brainwashing is a breaking of will, thus it removes your free will. The Will you are expressing in that situation is not your own, but someone elses. Someone else has exerted their will upon you in such a way that they have usurped your power over certain situations such that you do not use it in the way you would if you where free to choose but instead use it in the way they want you to. [Either by changing your will from what it truely should be, or removing your ability to act upon what you actually want. I'm not real sure how 'brainwashing' functions mechanically.]
Another good argument. My rebuttal: brainwashing does not remove the ability to make a choice. What it does is removes the ability to act on the choice being made by prioritizing the choices to the brainwasher's liking. In other words, the brainwasher is in control of which door the brainwashee goes through by shutting and locking certain doors.
Here's a choice that's normally invisible to the average person: going to the bathroom in the middle of the street. That is a completely valid, but totally insane, choice, and one that has severe consequences attached to that action. Nobody that I know would make a choice like that and act upon it. In brainwashing, certain doors can be shut in such a way that it seems like the only choice left is to go to the bathroom in the middle of the street. To make matters worse, the brainwasher could also put it so that one of the previous doors to open automatically after the event happens. This door is the choice of being aware of your surroundings. This particular brainwasher is one sick puppy and should be put away for life. Oh shoot. I was the one who thought this up. This means I am the sick puppy. Darn, darn, and darn again.
Yep. Genes have an effect upon who you are. Still does not mean you can't make choices. As I said, freewill is a word, it has a definition, and any meaning I will accept for freewill must NOT be nonsensical. Your definition of free will: that it is a propertiey that can only exist in a being without personality or needs that exists completly in a vacume, does not meet said criteria. As such, I see no reason to continue discussing it with you. Should you decide to reason out a definition for freewill, I may deem to examine it for merit. Repeatedly telling you "Your words make no sense, please stop repeating them" is not a conversation I am interested in having.
Webster’s dictionary defines:
Free: "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre).
Price: The cost required to gain possession of something. The cost of an action or deed.
Cost: A negative consequence or loss that occurs or is required to occur.
Restriction: regulation or limitation
Regulation: A law or administrative rule, issued by an organization, used to guide or prescribe the conduct of members of that organization.
Will: The act of choosing to do something that is desired. (ie, thy will be done.)
Therefore I define true free will as the act of choosing to do something that is desired with few or no restrictions for zero price. Does true free will exist? No, because there is always a price or restriction.
Another good argument. My rebuttal: brainwashing does not remove the ability to make a choice. What it does is removes the ability to act on the choice being made by prioritizing the choices to the brainwasher's liking. In other words, the brainwasher is in control of which door the brainwashee goes through by shutting and locking certain doors.
Interesting. I'd like to see if I can modefy your theory a bit. Your choices are made according to your history. For example, everytime you are in front of a door, you turn the doornob in order to open the door. You do this everytime because every previous time you have turned the doorknob, the door has opened. I seems that the way you are stating it, brainwashing actually erases this learned history of turning a doorknob to open a door. So instead of opening the door by turning the doorknob, you do whatever the "brainwasher" has replaced your learning history with.
How does that sound?
Then that is not instinct.
-----
It seems that the majority consensus is that Kar's ideas are absurd and lacking in merit. Does anyone intend to continue the disucsiion on other points, or just keep arguing aginst kar? If the latter, let me know please, so I can stop checking this thread. ;)
I totally agree. We should move on to dicussing the issue with those capable of making logical and sensical claims.
God gave us free will, which means he doesn't make us do anything. We make choices on our own.
But how does that factor in "the devil made me do it"? Can the devil take away free will (if only temporarily) but God chooses not to?
God gave us free will, which means he doesn't make us do anything. We make choices on our own.
But how does that factor in "the devil made me do it"? Can the devil take away free will (if only temporarily) but God chooses not to?
It all depends on what you believe I guess.
1) You lie to justify/explain your actions
2) A honest metaphor to explain something out of character or immoral that you did
3) Schidzophrenia
4) The Devil can make you do stuff. God just doesn't do that out of principale. After all, God gave it to us so why who he take it away?
Wouldn't that mean that freewill is an illusion? Saying that God gave you free will and doesn't take it away out of principle indicates that you only have freewill as long as he allows you to have freewill. which is basically being limited by another's decision on your choice.
Yep. Genes have an effect upon who you are. Still does not mean you can't make choices. As I said, freewill is a word, it has a definition, and any meaning I will accept for freewill must NOT be nonsensical. Your definition of free will: that it is a propertiey that can only exist in a being without personality or needs that exists completly in a vacume, does not meet said criteria. As such, I see no reason to continue discussing it with you. Should you decide to reason out a definition for freewill, I may deem to examine it for merit. Repeatedly telling you "Your words make no sense, please stop repeating them" is not a conversation I am interested in having.Webster’s dictionary defines:
Free: "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre).
Price: The cost required to gain possession of something. The cost of an action or deed.
Cost: A negative consequence or loss that occurs or is required to occur.
Restriction: regulation or limitation
Regulation: A law or administrative rule, issued by an organization, used to guide or prescribe the conduct of members of that organization.
Will: The act of choosing to do something that is desired. (ie, thy will be done.)Therefore I define true free will as the act of choosing to do something that is desired with few or no restrictions for zero price. Does true free will exist? No, because there is always a price or restriction.
Let's quote dictionary.com
Free (definition #5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. (Note: there are 36 definitions for the word free used as an adjective. There is only, #5, that can really be used in conjunction with the word will in proper context.)
Will (definition #1): the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
Free Will (definition #1): free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
So, you see, even though Webster's Dictionary has useful definitions, you really need to use the correct ones in their proper context.
The above definitions from dictionary.com support my view that free will is nothing more and nothing less than the ability to choose. Especially if you take the second phrase "voluntary decision". In other words, there is not cost and no consequence in the ability to choose. The consequences only get applied when you act on that choice.
Yep. Genes have an effect upon who you are. Still does not mean you can't make choices. As I said, freewill is a word, it has a definition, and any meaning I will accept for freewill must NOT be nonsensical. Your definition of free will: that it is a propertiey that can only exist in a being without personality or needs that exists completly in a vacume, does not meet said criteria. As such, I see no reason to continue discussing it with you. Should you decide to reason out a definition for freewill, I may deem to examine it for merit. Repeatedly telling you "Your words make no sense, please stop repeating them" is not a conversation I am interested in having.Webster’s dictionary defines:
Free: "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre).
Price: The cost required to gain possession of something. The cost of an action or deed.
Cost: A negative consequence or loss that occurs or is required to occur.
Restriction: regulation or limitation
Regulation: A law or administrative rule, issued by an organization, used to guide or prescribe the conduct of members of that organization.
Will: The act of choosing to do something that is desired. (ie, thy will be done.)Therefore I define true free will as the act of choosing to do something that is desired with few or no restrictions for zero price. Does true free will exist? No, because there is always a price or restriction.
Let's quote dictionary.com
Free (definition #5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
Will (definition #1): the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
Free Will (definition #1): free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
So, you see, even though Webster's Dictionary has useful definitions, you really need to use the correct ones.
The above definitions from dictionary.com support my view that free will is nothing more and nothing less than the ability to choose. Especially if you take the second phrase "voluntary decision". In other words, there is not cost and no consequence in the ability to choose. The consequences only get applied when you act on that choice.
Let's quote dictionary.com indeed
Free (definition #11): provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment (definition #30) not subject to rules.
Will (definition #3): the act or process of using or asserting one's choice (definition #4): wish or desire.
gee those are the same as webster's
Let's quote dictionary.com indeed
Free (definition #11): provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment (definition #30) not subject to rules, exempt from external authority, interferance, restriction, etc.
Will (definition #3): the act or process of using or asserting one's choice (definition #4): wish or desire.
gee those are the same as webster's
There you go. I fixed it for you. Now you can discuss free in the same context as everyone else.
Yep. Genes have an effect upon who you are. Still does not mean you can't make choices. As I said, freewill is a word, it has a definition, and any meaning I will accept for freewill must NOT be nonsensical. Your definition of free will: that it is a propertiey that can only exist in a being without personality or needs that exists completly in a vacume, does not meet said criteria. As such, I see no reason to continue discussing it with you. Should you decide to reason out a definition for freewill, I may deem to examine it for merit. Repeatedly telling you "Your words make no sense, please stop repeating them" is not a conversation I am interested in having.
They do make perfect sense, unless you suffer from Bendii Syndrome.
God gave us free will, which means he doesn't make us do anything. We make choices on our own.
But how does that factor in "the devil made me do it"? Can the devil take away free will (if only temporarily) but God chooses not to?
It all depends on what you believe I guess.
1) You lie to justify/explain your actions
2) A honest metaphor to explain something out of character or immoral that you did
3) Schidzophrenia
4) The Devil can make you do stuff. God just doesn't do that out of principale. After all, God gave it to us so why who he take it away?
Wouldn't that mean that freewill is an illusion? Saying that God gave you free will and doesn't take it away out of principle indicates that you only have freewill as long as he allows you to have freewill. which is basically being limited by another's decision on your choice.
Yes you are correct. If you look throughout the bible or any relegious/mythological text every time a human being goes against the will of the god(s) disaster befalls them (Adam & Eve, Jonah, Pandora, the list goes on). History its self illistrates how free will is an illusion.
Yes you are correct. If you look throughout the bible or any relegious/mythological text every time a human being goes against the will of the god(s) disaster befalls them (Adam & Eve, Jonah, Pandora, the list goes on). History its self illistrates how free will is an illusion.
Would you like to ellaborate on this?
I would not call food that I put infront of a child an illusion. At any moment I can take that food away, but the food is real. Same with free will if God gave it to us. He gave it, he can take it away, but it is there anyway. But he won't take it away.
Well I wouldn't call the Bible history.
Gods wrath wasn't taking away our free will, it was punishement for using our free will in the wrong way. Because we made bad moral choices. But this won't happen anymore because Jesus died to pardon all of our sins to come. Ain't that great!?!
Now the Devil making us do stuff. I think for that to happen we must use our God given free will and do something bad that will open a door to let Satan in. Not sure about that but it makes sense. So the Devil can't take our free will whenever he wants.
In other words, we must surrender our free will to the Devil for him to influence us. Preachers often say:"Do you renounce the Devil and his ways!" It's like taken your free will back from the Devil!... And giving it to that preacher...
1. If some physical object is given, it can be taken away.
2. Whether God would take freewill away or not is unknown. The fact that he can take it away before you have used it up (like eating the food) means that he still has controll over it.
3. Freewill is not a physical object. It is a concept. It would be like trying to take away an idea.
Ask youself this: are you really making an independent choice or are you being allowed to make that choice?
Kargir01, you are taking the definitions and using them out of context. When free will is broken down into individual word definitions, you will find that definition #5 for the word free and definition #1 for the word will are the only definitions that can fit the context of free will. Just look at dictionary.com's definition of free will itself, expecially the clarifying statement "voluntary decision".
Looking at the etymology of the word free, the definition of "without cost" does not even occur until the 1580s. The original definition comes from Old English freo which means free, exempt from, not in bondage. Here's the website: www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=free.... Looking at the word free in this way still supports my view that free will is the ability to choose, which is completely separate from the ability to act on that choice.
Kargir01: I have a question for you. Is there any way possible to take away somebody's ABILITY to choose? If you say no, you just proved my point that you have free will. If you say yes, then you must be dead. There's only one way to take somebody's ability to choose away and that is to kill the person. Even the mentally incompetent has free will. The problem with them are that the normally available choices they can see is severely limited to make it seem they have no free will. They are incapable of seeing those choices and thereby cannot make that choice. They still have the ability to choose, it's just that, to them, there are no choices to be chosen. If they can, somehow, be given a way to see the choices that are invisible to them, they can become more productive. Usually this is a long, and strenous task for the teacher, and also pretty frustrating (at least in my mind). Especially if the mentally incompetent's brain is hardwired to not see those choices rather than softwired (such as through mental trauma, or brainwashing).
It's completely possible to limit the available choices, but you still get to choose what choices are left after the limitations are taken into account. Here's another thought: you can limit your own choice list. Doing this is also an exercise of free will. The dark alley with a fear factor is a self-limiting choice. You are the one that chooses that choice to be not available. If you equate choices to be doors, you close the door of going down the dark alley. However, you still have the key to that door because you still have the choice of overcoming that fear. The only way to 100% completely eliminate going down the dark alley is for that alley to be physially blocked somehow in such a way that going down it is impossible.
Well, acording to my alternate definition, I would say brainwashing is a breaking of will, thus it removes your free will. The Will you are expressing in that situation is not your own, but someone elses. Someone else has exerted their will upon you in such a way that they have usurped your power over certain situations such that you do not use it in the way you would if you where free to choose but instead use it in the way they want you to. [Either by changing your will from what it truely should be, or removing your ability to act upon what you actually want. I'm not real sure how 'brainwashing' functions mechanically.]
The way I'm looking at it is that instead of exerting their will upon you, they've changed your baseline for decision making. You still make the choices on your own after all. You just arrive at those decisions based upon the altered perspective you now have. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like growing older. Your decision making process is changed based on new information (age: experiece, brainwashing: external input) but it is still your own. When a brainwashed person does X, they are the ones doing it. They decide to do X because their new perspective leads them to do so. While they may not have done it had they not been brainwashed, they still have decided to do it on their own.
What seems like the difference in view is how we see the brainwashing itself. To me, any loss of free will ceases the moment the reconditioning is over. Brainwashing is a process with an end (IMO) and that end is where the person begins to act of their own volition once again. With altered decision making criteria, sure, but still on their own.
Therefore I define true free will as the act of choosing to do something that is desired with few or no restrictions for zero price. Does true free will exist? No, because there is always a price or restriction.
You underlined the wrong part, which I have now remedied for you. The key point here is that is just your definition and it is wrong, largely because you are using the wrong definition of "free". It is as wrong as saying "free will" means it doesn't cost me anything to say what happens to all my assets when I die.
Free will simply means that we are able to make our own choices, that our actions and their outcomes are not predetermined. Yes this seems a pretty obvious fact to most right-thinking people nowadays, but for centuries this was a very hotly debated topic.
Yes you are correct. If you look throughout the bible or any relegious/mythological text every time a human being goes against the will of the god(s) disaster befalls them (Adam & Eve, Jonah, Pandora, the list goes on). History its self illistrates how free will is an illusion.
Non sequitur. "The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is not history.
Yes you are correct. If you look throughout the bible or any relegious/mythological text every time a human being goes against the will of the god(s) disaster befalls them (Adam & Eve, Jonah, Pandora, the list goes on). History its self illistrates how free will is an illusion.
Non sequitur. "The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is not history.
Why do I get the feeling that Kargir01's definition of history is about as appropriate as his definition of free?
Why do I get the feeling that Kargir01's definition of history is about as appropriate as his definition of free?
Zing!
Yes you are correct. If you look throughout the bible or any relegious/mythological text every time a human being goes against the will of the god(s) disaster befalls them (Adam & Eve, Jonah, Pandora, the list goes on). History its self illistrates how free will is an illusion.
Non sequitur. "The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is not history.
Why do I get the feeling that Kargir01's definition of history is about as appropriate as his definition of free?
History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation"[2]) is the study of the human past. Past is the portion of time that has already occurred. The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is history because it was written in the past.
Kargir01, you are taking the definitions and using them out of context. When free will is broken down into individual word definitions, you will find that definition #5 for the word free and definition #1 for the word will are the only definitions that can fit the context of free will. Just look at dictionary.com's definition of free will itself, expecially the clarifying statement "voluntary decision".
Looking at the etymology of the word free, the definition of "without cost" does not even occur until the 1580s. The original definition comes from Old English freo which means free, exempt from, not in bondage. Here's the website: www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=free.... Looking at the word free in this way still supports my view that free will is the ability to choose, which is completely separate from the ability to act on that choice.
Kargir01: I have a question for you. Is there any way possible to take away somebody's ABILITY to choose? If you say no, you just proved my point that you have free will. If you say yes, then you must be dead. There's only one way to take somebody's ability to choose away and that is to kill the person. Even the mentally incompetent has free will. The problem with them are that the normally available choices they can see is severely limited to make it seem they have no free will. They are incapable of seeing those choices and thereby cannot make that choice. They still have the ability to choose, it's just that, to them, there are no choices to be chosen. If they can, somehow, be given a way to see the choices that are invisible to them, they can become more productive. Usually this is a long, and strenous task for the teacher, and also pretty frustrating (at least in my mind). Especially if the mentally incompetent's brain is hardwired to not see those choices rather than softwired (such as through mental trauma, or brainwashing).
It's completely possible to limit the available choices, but you still get to choose what choices are left after the limitations are taken into account. Here's another thought: you can limit your own choice list. Doing this is also an exercise of free will. The dark alley with a fear factor is a self-limiting choice. You are the one that chooses that choice to be not available. If you equate choices to be doors, you close the door of going down the dark alley. However, you still have the key to that door because you still have the choice of overcoming that fear. The only way to 100% completely eliminate going down the dark alley is for that alley to be physially blocked somehow in such a way that going down it is impossible.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=free....
free (adj.) O.E. freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage," also "noble, joyful," from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. M.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis "free"), from PIE *prijos "dear, beloved" (cf. Skt. priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" O.C.S. prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free"). The adverb is from O.E. freon, freogan "to free, love." The primary sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Gmc. and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both "free" and "children"). Cf. Goth. frijon "to love;" O.E. freod "affection, friendship," friga "love," friðu "peace;" O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede "peace;" O.E. freo "wife;" O.N. Frigg "wife of Odin," lit. "beloved" or "loving;" M.L.G. vrien "to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien "to woo." Sense of "given without cost" is 1580s, from notion of "free of cost." Of nations, "not subject to foreign rule or to despotism," it is recorded from late 14c. Related: Freed; freeing. Free-hand is from 1862; free-thinker is from 1690s. Free-for-all "mass brawl" (in which anyone may participate) first recorded 1881. Freebase (n. and v.) in ref. to cocaine first recorded 1980. Free enterprise recorded from 1890; free trade is from 1823. Free will is from early 13c.
Besides "I chose to do this against advice to the contrary and Bad Stuff happened, just as predicted!" is free will.
Not free will would be "I was incapable of doing anything against advice to the contrary!"
'Sides, all of those figures had plenty of options that wouldn't bring about Bad Stuff, they just used their free will to choose not to do any of those.
The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is history because it was written in the past.
Dude, stop, you're killing me! Just to try and clear it up while being nice about it, just because something was written in the past does not mean what's contained in it actually happened. Unless that's what you're contending, your point is meaningless. And even then, you're on damned shaky ground.
Let me sum up some previous definitions:
Free will: the ability to make a choice.
Free action: the ability to act freely in spite of the consequences.
You have the free will to agree or disagree.
You have the use your free action to make a post about it in spite or the consequences.
I've been thinking on this a bit, and I would like to propose a diffrent set of definitions:
Power: The ability to affect your environment and the things in it.
Will: The drive to use your power to achieve ends of your choosing.
Thus, Freewill would be when you are able to use your power as you choose.
A situation in which you are unable to exert any power is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which another's free-will is overpowering your own (when you are being forced) is a situation in which you have no free will.
A situation in which your will has been broken is a situation in which you have no free will.
Freewill, in short, should not be conisered to be a substance a person can possess, or a state of being of a thing, but rather an attribute of a situation. A situation that you possess both the power to affect, and the freedom to express your will in regards too, is a situation in which you possess freewill.
EX1: Tied to a table: You have free will over wether or not you struggle agisnt your restraints, or if you continue to attempt to breath. You have no free will over wether or not the door across the room is opened or closed. (No Power)
EX2: The dark street: Your at a cross roads. There is a dark street up ahead. You want to go down the dark street: it's cold out, your tired, so you try and go down the street. But you can't, you panic in fear when you try and run the other way. You have no free will in this situation. (Broken will)
EX3: The Cliff: Your standing next to a cliff. You want to stay next to the cliff.You dig in your feet, and try not to move towards the edge. You go over the edge of the cliff anyways, 'cause that jerk pushed you. You have no free will in this situation. (Overpowered)
Toasted. You have finally brought up a good,well thought out rebuttal to my view on free will. Let me try to rebut your rebuttal.
EX1: Tied to a table. You make my point for me in this one. When you are tied to the table, the choice of opening the door (or closing it) does not exist (yet). Since the choice does not exist, you cannot use your free will to make that choice.
EX2: The dark street. The choices seem simple enough on the surface, either go down the dark street or not. So you choose to go down the steet, then act on that choice. However, once you start down the dark street, subconsciously you remember something really bad happened on a dark street and the choices re-present themselves. Here your free will is being used on a subconscious level. Since the choices re-presented themselves, by the subconscious telling the conscious through the avenue of fear, you now make the choice of "I think it would be better to go the other way". Once you made up your mind, you now act on the choice you made. Even though I presented this as if the person in question did this in a well thought out manner, he didn't. The time it took to from having the choices re-presented and acting on the new choice was less than a second. Now, he still had the choice of overcoming his fear, but in this case, chose not to.
EX3: The Cliff. The choices are simple. Choice 1: keep away from the cliff. Choice 2: jump. Unless you are suicidal, you will choose 1. Now you act on that choice by backing away. Now, as far as the jerk is concerned. He's a murderer, but that's beside the point. The question here is how did the jerk take away your free will. If we define free will as just simply the ability to make a choice, then the jerk did not take away your free will. All he did was take away the action that you chose. You are in complete control of your own actions. You are not in complete control of the jerk's actions.
Based upon your definition of free will, your rebuttal may be correct. But I reject your definition of free will. What is Will, to you? Not 'free will' but just 'will'. You cannot put an adjective to a word with no meaning and have it suddenly gain meaning independent of said adjective. Your definition of 'free will' is what I am calling simply 'will'. I think my way works better; a couple examples.
EX1: Of course you can choose to open the door. People choose to take actions they cannot actually take all the time. I can choose to go for a walk, right now, but if I find I am locked in, I cannot take that choice. But that is still what I chose to do. The person tied to the table; his will is to open the door, but his will is restrained by, well, physical restraints in this scenario, and thus not free. 'Will' is a cat, and it is still a cat, but a cat in a cage is not a free cat, but still does not stop being a cat.
EX2: I'm not talking of a person with a rational fear of the dark, or simple aversion, but rather one with an extreeme phobia. Fear is not part of your will. Fear can and very frequently does act in opposition to ones goals and desires, and often wins out. Only through taking extreme and frequent steps, or being in dire need, can strengthen a will sufficently to overcome a large enough fear.
EX3: The choice you made was not to jump, true. But your 'will' was to not go over the edge of the cliff. That didnt happen. You will was overpowered. You still made a choice, but your choice was irrelevant. Your will had precisely zero ability to effect the outcome of events, you had no power, and thus no free will to speak of. You still had will, however, just not Free Will.
Kargir01, you are taking the definitions and using them out of context. When free will is broken down into individual word definitions, you will find that definition #5 for the word free and definition #1 for the word will are the only definitions that can fit the context of free will. Just look at www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=free....
free (adj.) O.E. freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage," also "noble, joyful," from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. M.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis "free"), from PIE *prijos "dear, beloved" (cf. Skt. priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" O.C.S. prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free"). The adverb is from O.E. freon, freogan "to free, love." The primary sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Gmc. and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both "free" and "children"). Cf. Goth. frijon "to love;" O.E. freod "affection, friendship," friga "love," friðu "peace;" O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede "peace;" O.E. freo "wife;" O.N. Frigg "wife of Odin," lit. "beloved" or "loving;" M.L.G. vrien "to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien "to woo." Sense of "given without cost" is 1580s, from notion of "free of cost." Of nations, "not subject to foreign rule or to despotism," it is recorded from late 14c. Related: Freed; freeing. Free-hand is from 1862; free-thinker is from 1690s. Free-for-all "mass brawl" (in which anyone may participate) first recorded 1881. Freebase (n. and v.) in ref. to cocaine first recorded 1980. Free enterprise recorded from 1890; free trade is from 1823. Free will is from early 13c.
Kargir01, you just made my point for me. Since free will is from early 13c and the definition of the word free meaning "no cost" comes from the 1580s, and the definition of the word free to mean "free, exempt from, not in bondage", my question to is is then how in the word did free will have a cost when the word free itself did not have that definition when the term free will was coined?
I would not call food that I put infront of a child an illusion. At any moment I can take that food away, but the food is real. Same with free will if God gave it to us. He gave it, he can take it away, but it is there anyway. But he won't take it away.
Well I wouldn't call the Bible history.
Gods wrath wasn't taking away our free will, it was punishement for using our free will in the wrong way. Because we made bad moral choices. But this won't happen anymore because Jesus died to pardon all of our sins to come. Ain't that great!?!
Now the Devil making us do stuff. I think for that to happen we must use our God given free will and do something bad that will open a door to let Satan in. Not sure about that but it makes sense. So the Devil can't take our free will whenever he wants.
In other words, we must surrender our free will to the Devil for him to influence us. Preachers often say:"Do you renounce the Devil and his ways!" It's like taken your free will back from the Devil!... And giving it to that preacher...
1. If some physical object is given, it can be taken away.
2. Whether God would take freewill away or not is unknown. The fact that he can take it away before you have used it up (like eating the food) means that he still has controll over it.
3. Freewill is not a physical object. It is a concept. It would be like trying to take away an idea.
Ask youself this: are you really making an independent choice or are you being allowed to make that choice?
Are you really taking a breath, or are you being allowed to take a breath? Think about it man! Trippy!
If your smoking pot, you are smoking pot. If the government or any other agency allows you to do so is irrelevant. Your doing it, so your doing it.
Kargir01, you just made my point for me. Since free will is from early 13c and the definition of the word free meaning "no cost" comes from the 1580s, and the definition of the word free to mean "free, exempt from, not in bondage", my question to is is then how in the word did free will have a cost when the word free itself did not have that definition when the term free will was coined?
time machine
n.
A device by means of which one may travel into the future and the past.
time machine
n.A device by means of which one may travel into the future and the past.
Even the mentally incompetent has free will. The problem with them are that the normally available choices they can see is severely limited to make it seem they have no free will. They are incapable of seeing those choices and thereby cannot make that choice. They still have the ability to choose, it's just that, to them, there are no choices to be chosen.
So, your saying, the person can make choices, but they cannot see any choiches to make, so they cannot make any choices. Sounds to me like that person lacks the ability to make choices... By this logic, blind people can see. The notion that the ability to make choices may be returned to a person who cannot make them through one disability or another does not mean that they had that ability all along, anymore than curing a persons blindness means that they where not blind.
It's completely possible to limit the available choices, but you still get to choose what choices are left after the limitations are taken into account. Here's another thought: you can limit your own choice list. Doing this is also an exercise of free will. The dark alley with a fear factor is a self-limiting choice. You are the one that chooses that choice to be not available. If you equate choices to be doors, you close the door of going down the dark alley. However, you still have the key to that door because you still have the choice of overcoming that fear. The only way to 100% completely eliminate going down the dark alley is for that alley to be physially blocked somehow in such a way that going down it is impossible.
Because you did soemthing, does not mean you chose to do it. Because somethign comes from within, does not mean you willed it.
Well, acording to my alternate definition, I would say brainwashing is a breaking of will, thus it removes your free will. The Will you are expressing in that situation is not your own, but someone elses. Someone else has exerted their will upon you in such a way that they have usurped your power over certain situations such that you do not use it in the way you would if you where free to choose but instead use it in the way they want you to. [Either by changing your will from what it truely should be, or removing your ability to act upon what you actually want. I'm not real sure how 'brainwashing' functions mechanically.]
The way I'm looking at it is that instead of exerting their will upon you, they've changed your baseline for decision making. You still make the choices on your own after all. You just arrive at those decisions based upon the altered perspective you now have. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like growing older. Your decision making process is changed based on new information (age: experiece, brainwashing: external input) but it is still your own. When a brainwashed person does X, they are the ones doing it. They decide to do X because their new perspective leads them to do so. While they may not have done it had they not been brainwashed, they still have decided to do it on their own.
What seems like the difference in view is how we see the brainwashing itself. To me, any loss of free will ceases the moment the reconditioning is over. Brainwashing is a process with an end (IMO) and that end is where the person begins to act of their own volition once again. With altered decision making criteria, sure, but still on their own.
It depends on the time frame through which you look at the choice. Short frame; person made a choice, carried out that choice, free will. Long frame; person made a choice, that choice was changed through no choice of their own, carried out that new choice, not free will.
Someone told them what to choose, and made it so that they would choose to do that.
In the cliff example you made the choice to back away. That is a deliberate choice made by your free will. But when your will came into play to act on that choice, your will was overpowered by the jerk.
To everybody: I've been thinking (and my wife tells me I should not do this because I'll hurt myself someday). Let equate choices to doors. Let's set up an example using this image.
You come to the cliff face and you have two doors. Door 1 is labeled "jump" and door 2 is labeled "don't jump". You further have somebody that is near the doors. You evaluate the situation and choose to go through the door labeled "don't jump". That's where my definition of free will is coming into play. Until you act on that choice, nothing is going to happen. Here's where your will comes into play, you act on your choice and procede to go through the "don't jump" door. Now, the jerk comes to life and shuts that door in your face so that you go through the "jump" door. Did he overrule you ability to choose (free will)? No. Did he overrule your ability to act on the choice chosen (will)? Yes.
You all continue to feed Kar?
Pitty.
Toasted. All I did was to paraphrase the words "voluntary decision" to make it a little more understandable. In my mind free will is nothing more than the ability to make choice and "the will" is what allows you to act on those choices. I will also give you another complement in that you reasoning seems to be well thought out. I'm not going to say it's completely right or wrong, just someplace in between.
In the cliff example you made the choice to back away. That is a deliberate choice made by your free will. But when your will came into play to act on that choice, your will was overpowered by the jerk.
To everybody: I've been thinking (and my wife tells me I should not do this because I'll hurt myself someday). Let equate choices to doors. Let's set up an example using this image.
You come to the cliff face and you have two doors. Door 1 is labeled "jump" and door 2 is labeled "don't jump". You further have somebody that is near the doors. You evaluate the situation and choose to go through the door labeled "don't jump". That's where my definition of free will is coming into play. Until you act on that choice, nothing is going to happen. Here's where your will comes into play, you act on your choice and procede to go through the "don't jump" door. Now, the jerk comes to life and shuts that door in your face so that you go through the "jump" door. Did he overrule you ability to choose (free will)? No. Did he overrule your ability to act on the choice chosen (will)? Yes.
We seem to have a fundemental disagreement then, although a rather silly and trivial one. You define 'free will' as the desire/ability to decide, and 'will' as your ability to act upon your decision. I think this is backasswards. I contest that 'will' is your desire/ability to decide, and 'free will' is when you are able to act upon the decisions you make. You know, your will, when it is 'free', unrestrained. When you have the liberty to act based upon your ability to decide for yourself, you have Free Will.
Me: Free + Will = Free Will
You: Free Will + Will = Free Will
By your definition it is possible to take away someons will, but not their free will, which by all logic should be a subset of their will. I think that Free Will should describe a particular type of will, just as free men describes a particular type of men (Thoes that are free).
That is why I think my definition is superior to yours.
At any rate, in my examples, switch every instance where I speak of 'will' with 'free will' and every instance of 'free will' with 'will' and see if they fall more inline with your thoughts on the subject.
History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation"[2]) is the study of the human past. Past is the portion of time that has already occurred. The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is history because it was written in the past.
I just have one thing to say to this...
www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
On a serious note...
Kargir01, just wanted to let you know that my cousin is a lawyer. If you'd like, I can get you her contact information. She can help you sue the school district you attended school in (as well as the school and all your teachers) for the disservice they have done to you.
Are you really taking a breath, or are you being allowed to take a breath? Think about it man! Trippy!
If your smoking pot, you are smoking pot. If the government or any other agency allows you to do so is irrelevant. Your doing it, so your doing it.
I agree, if you are doing it, you are doing it. The problem comes in when we interject a God that grants us freewill. Assuming we are talking about an all knowing and all powerfull God that can (if he wants) take your freewill away at any moment, then it is different then say, the government allowing you to do something. The government creates laws to limit your activities and then enforces some punishment if you break one of these laws. The thing is that the government has to catch you doing it. God on the other hand doesn't have to catch you doing it, he knows what you are going to do before you do and he can decide that you do not do it.
I don't think we can say that we have freewill if we also say that God gave us freewill and could take it away but chooses not to. If you do something and he doesn't stop you, you can claim that he agreed with your choice. If he stops you, then you don't have freewill. Because he knows what you are going to do even before you do it, once you do it, you can't be sure wether or not it was actually you who chose to do it or if God changed your decision.
This is why I would rather leave God, omniscience, and omnipotence out of a freewill discussion.
Because you did soemthing, does not mean you chose to do it. Because somethign comes from within, does not mean you willed it.
Are you really taking a breath, or are you being allowed to take a breath? Think about it man! Trippy!
If your smoking pot, you are smoking pot. If the government or any other agency allows you to do so is irrelevant. Your doing it, so your doing it.
I agree, if you are doing it, you are doing it. The problem comes in when we interject a God that grants us freewill. Assuming we are talking about an all knowing and all powerfull God that can (if he wants) take your freewill away at any moment, then it is different then say, the government allowing you to do something. The government creates laws to limit your activities and then enforces some punishment if you break one of these laws. The thing is that the government has to catch you doing it. God on the other hand doesn't have to catch you doing it, he knows what you are going to do before you do and he can decide that you do not do it.
I don't think we can say that we have freewill if we also say that God gave us freewill and could take it away but chooses not to. If you do something and he doesn't stop you, you can claim that he agreed with your choice. If he stops you, then you don't have freewill. Because he knows what you are going to do even before you do it, once you do it, you can't be sure wether or not it was actually you who chose to do it or if God changed your decision.
This is why I would rather leave God, omniscience, and omnipotence out of a freewill discussion.
A couple of things:
1)'Free' might as well be synonomous with 'Allowed'. Your free to leave, your free to speak, ect.
2) These things you are saying are true only if you believe that god knows all things to come. The sources that tend to portray god as all knowing and wise, well, they don't tend to portray him as a liar too often. Most go so far as to declare god infallable. If a source tells you that god will not take away your free will, and that god knows everything that will happen, then either god will not take away your free will, or the source/god is lying and/or wrong. If the source you are reading or god himself is lying about taking away your will, then I see no reason to assume he/it is not also lying/wrong about gods ability to know the future.
3) If god knows what you are going to do with your freewill, then he must have always known. He must have known when he decided to give it to you. Why would he later decide to back out? It's not like an all knowing god is suddenly going to have a revelation....
This is why we should not include god in a discussion of free will: he is irrelevant. We have free will. If we have always had it, if god could take it, if he gave it to begin with: thoes things do not matter. Mabey he could take it, mabey he couldn't, but so far he hasn't, so why discuss it?
This is why we should not include god in a discussion of free will: he is irrelevant. We have free will. If we have always had it, if god could take it, if he gave it to begin with: thoes things do not matter. Mabey he could take it, mabey he couldn't, but so far he hasn't, so why discuss it?
My point exactly. You and I have a different way of thinking about it, but in the end we both seem to conclude that involving and discussing God or saying that God gave humans freewill is counter productive to a freewill discussion. At a minimum, it distracts you from the point of the discussion.
Toasted. It seems we have a slight impass. You make good arguments for what you believe will and free will is. I would like to think I have done the same. I think, instead of us hitting each other over the head and try to get each other to come to believe the way the other is thinking, we probably should, at this point, agree to disagree. I believe both of our views have merit, even if we think the other is incorrect in their belief.
At this point in time, I think I've made my point clear. I have no ill feelings to any of the contributors of this topic. Some contributors are just plain wrong, others merely have a different way to view my point of view (Toasted for example), but more or less agree on the end result.
To everybody: your opinion is your own. You have the free will to choose how you express it, and you can always act on what you chose.
Above all, you have the free will to disagree and the will to put that disagreement into action.
Signing off.
Astromath.
When you have the liberty to act based upon your ability to decide for yourself, you have Free Will.
Thats what i've been trying to explain. As long as there are restrictions and concequences you are not free to do what you want, and since there are always restrictions and concequences Free Will does not exist.
Of course it was demonstrated that time repeats itself [...]
Hey now, you only have to repeat history if you fail it.
History (from Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation"[2]) is the study of the human past. Past is the portion of timethat has already occurred. The bible or any relegious (sic)/mythological text" is history because it was written in the past.
... Neat. So everything ever written is "history".
You really like making words meaningless, don't you?
When you have the liberty to act based upon your ability to decide for yourself, you have Free Will.
Thats what i've been trying to explain. As long as there are restrictions and concequences you are not free to do what you want, and since there are always restrictions and concequences Free Will does not exist.
If I push something, it will fall over.
Free will is the ability to decide to do something. If my actions result in nothing, they are meaningless; I have done nothing.
Free will could not exist without consequences.
Choose which consequences you're going to try for and do so.
Ask youself this: are you really making an independent choice or are you being allowed to make that choice?
Does it matter (for this debate)?
Hrm... I would argue that it does.
The very concept of being "allowed" to do something has the implicit notion of being disallowed. That is, that it's merely a kindness or courtesy to give you the choice, but that it isn't a necessary part of the situation for you to have that choice.
And with the notion of you being disallowed the choice, is the implicit threat of it being denied to you should you choose wrong, which leads us back to free will being an illusion again, permitted to us only so long as we choose correctly. Perhaps the threat will never be acted upon. But that the threat exists is a notion that begs consideration, particularly if you remember that in some common uses of "free will" is the assumption that you are not making choices under duress or threats.
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
Rather ironic.
First of all, that's a gross generalization, and a markedly inaccurate one.
Second, you may wish to look up "ironic", because that's not at all what it means.
www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/h...
A couple of centuries after Alexander, a subtle argument for free will was favored by early Christian theologians. They wanted human free will in order to absolve an omnipotent God of responsibility for evil actions. This is called the problem of evil. Those who held God to be omniscient, Augustine for example, maintained that God's foreknowledge was compatible with human freedom, an illogical position still held today by most theologians. His more sensible contemporary, the British monk Pelagius (Morgan) held, with Cicero, that human freedom prohibited divine foreknowledge. The success of Augustine's ideas led the church to judge Pelagius a heretic. 8
Pereboom, Smilansky, Galen Strawson, and the psychologist Daniel Wegner are hard incompatibilists who follow many earlier thinkers and say that free will is merely an illusion.
Unlike the others who find it uplifting and therapeutic to disabuse the public of illusions about free will, Saul Smilansky may share the "dismay" that Ted Honderich sees in the apparent loss of control implicit in determinism. Smilansky thinks we need to maintain the public illusion of free will as a contribution to maintaining public morality.
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
Rather ironic.
I wouldn't call it a threat. I'd say a possibility. Whether you believe or not wouldn't matter. The possibility would still be there. That is assuming that there is an omniponent being. If there isn't then the possibility wouldn't exist.
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
True. In the sense of being free from outside influence, atheists are potentially more free then those with religious convictions.
But that goes for any belief system/code of ethics/world view, whether you think there's a threat of divine retribution or eternal damnation behind such a behavioral code or not.
Which, of course, brings us back to the simple truism... anarchists are more free then you. Whether that's good or bad is, naturally, a different question.
Ask youself this: are you really making an independent choice or are you being allowed to make that choice?
Does it matter (for this debate)?
Hrm... I would argue that it does.
The very concept of being "allowed" to do something has the implicit notion of being disallowed. That is, that it's merely a kindness or courtesy to give you the choice, but that it isn't a necessary part of the situation for you to have that choice.
And with the notion of you being disallowed the choice, is the implicit threat of it being denied to you should you choose wrong, which leads us back to free will being an illusion again, permitted to us only so long as we choose correctly. Perhaps the threat will never be acted upon. But that the threat exists is a notion that begs consideration, particularly if you remember that in some common uses of "free will" is the assumption that you are not making choices under duress or threats.
This...
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
Rather ironic.
I wouldn't call it a threat. I'd say a possibility. Whether you believe or not wouldn't matter. The possibility would still be there. That is assuming that there is an omniponent being. If there isn't then the possibility wouldn't exist.
EE called it a threat.
I know he did. I'm refering to your statement.
Pereboom, Smilansky, Galen Strawson, and the psychologist Daniel Wegner are hard incompatibilists who follow many earlier thinkers and say that free will is merely an illusion.
Unlike the others who find it uplifting and therapeutic to disabuse the public of illusions about free will, Saul Smilansky may share the "dismay" that Ted Honderich sees in the apparent loss of control implicit in determinism. Smilansky thinks we need to maintain the public illusion of free will as a contribution to maintaining public morality.
Stop. Seriously... stop. Why do you insist on using information you obviously don't understand? You have copied and pasted a statement about what several philosophers and psychologist (who are "hard Determinist") think, but you fail to copy and paste any information that would be useful in proving your point.
Do you even understand determinism?
(I'll give you a minute so you can google it then copy and paste your response)
When you have the liberty to act based upon your ability to decide for yourself, you have Free Will.
Thats what i've been trying to explain. As long as there are restrictions and concequences you are not free to do what you want, and since there are always restrictions and concequences Free Will does not exist.
That ... that's not at all what he said. I've highlighted the important bits for you. The only restriction he implied is the ability to decide for yourself. Not any religious, moral, legal, etc code. The ability to decide for yourself. So, not at all what you think he said. See, you can decide to go against your religious learnings, you can decide to flout the moral ideals of your contemporaries, you can break the law, etc. All these decisions would be reached by your being able to decide for yourself what to do about them. Consequences are ignored. They don't matter. Any restrictions from sources of this nature are in your head and, therefore, something you can choose to ignore. So they mean nothing outside of what you choose to do about them. You choose. Get it?
Hope that helped. And, if I'm way off on this, please correct my mistakes, TA.
When you have the liberty to act based upon your ability to decide for yourself, you have Free Will.
Thats what i've been trying to explain. As long as there are restrictions and concequences you are not free to do what you want, and since there are always restrictions and concequences Free Will does not exist.
Except the above quote doesn't say that at all, and you are still wrong.
Stop. Seriously... stop. Why do you insist on using information you obviously don't understand? You have copied and pasted a statement about what several philosophers and psychologist (who are "hard Determinist") think, but you fail to copy and paste any information that would be useful in proving your point.Do you even understand determinism?
(I'll give you a minute so you can google it then copy and paste your response)
I'm getting a very strong whiff of "I have recently been exposed to new ideas but have yet to really comprehend them" from Kar's posts. I'm thinking he might be a senior in high school or a first-year college student.
Stop. Seriously... stop. Why do you insist on using information you obviously don't understand? You have copied and pasted a statement about what several philosophers and psychologist (who are "hard Determinist") think, but you fail to copy and paste any information that would be useful in proving your point.Do you even understand determinism?
(I'll give you a minute so you can google it then copy and paste your response)
I'm getting a very strong whiff of "I have recently been exposed to new ideas but have yet to really comprehend them" from Kar's posts. I'm thinking he might be a senior in high school or a first-year college student.
I agree.
Stop. Seriously... stop. Why do you insist on using information you obviously don't understand? You have copied and pasted a statement about what several philosophers and psychologist (who are "hard Determinist") think, but you fail to copy and paste any information that would be useful in proving your point.Do you even understand determinism?
(I'll give you a minute so you can google it then copy and paste your response)
I'm getting a very strong whiff of "I have recently been exposed to new ideas but have yet to really comprehend them" from Kar's posts. I'm thinking he might be a senior in high school or a first-year college student.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself
I am 36 years old. I have been to college, 3 semesters, before I was hit by a car and landed on my headat the age of 30. Did I choose to cross the street yes. did ilook both ways befor crossing yes. was it a clear street when i choose to cross yes. was i driving the car that hit me no. But according to the accepted definition of free will i choose th get hit by the car, i did not. I cannot be held responsible for the actons of another person, yet acording to the accepted definition of free will since i choose to walk across a clear street and got hit by a car I am responsable. If that is true then it was predetermined that i would be hit by that car at that prescice moment, if it was predeterminded how can i or anyone but a "higher athurity" be responsible? But acording to the accepted definition of free will that is NOT possable. the accepted definition of "free will" blames the victium, that defies all logic.
its not my fault i shot you, its your fault i shot you. does that REALLY make since, if i'm the one holding the gun to your head
So the answer to the question of where do i get my ideas is LIFE ITSELF.
btw, i have known astromath since before i was hit by the car, and he knew that i had been hit by a car before he used his "child about to be hit by a car" senerio
Let me tell you a little bit about myself
I am 36 years old. I have been to college, 3 semesters, before I was hit by a car and landed on my headat the age of 30.
My condolences on your accident, but this head injury potentially explains much about your lack of understanding.
Did I choose to cross the street yes. did ilook both ways befor crossing yes. was it a clear street when i choose to cross yes. was i driving the car that hit me no. But according to the accepted definition of free will i choose th get hit by the car, i did not. I cannot be held responsible for the actons of another person, yet acording to the accepted definition of free will since i choose to walk across a clear street and got hit by a car I am responsable.
Nonsense. Again you demonstrate that you fail to comprehend what is being said. There is no definition of free will by any sane person which says anything like "you chose to get hit by the car". That is complete and utter nonsense.
If that is true then it was predetermined that i would be hit by that car at that prescice moment, if it was predeterminded how can i or anyone but a "higher athurity" be responsible? But acording to the accepted definition of free will that is NOT possable. it defies all logic.
That statement defies all logic.
So the answer to the question of where do i get my ideas is LIFE ITSELF.
Huh?
@EE: I would disagree. Any self-imposed limitation - such as conforming to a moral, ethical, religious, legal, etc. code - is a choice, in and of itself, made freely.
If the majority of people actually chose their religion, I'd agree. Seeing as, even today, in which religious conversion is more popular then ever, most people still simply go with what their parents taught them, I'm not so sure.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself
I am 36 years old. I have been to college, 3 semesters, before I was hit by a car and landed on my headat the age of 30. Did I choose to cross the street yes. did ilook both ways befor crossing yes. was it a clear street when i choose to cross yes. was i driving the car that hit me no. But according to the accepted definition of free will i choose th get hit by the car, i did not. I cannot be held responsible for the actons of another person, yet acording to the accepted definition of free will since i choose to walk across a clear street and got hit by a car I am responsable. If that is true then it was predetermined that i would be hit by that car at that prescice moment, if it was predeterminded how can i or anyone but a "higher athurity" be responsible? But acording to the accepted definition of free will that is NOT possable. the accepted definition of "free will" blames the victium, that defies all logic.
its not my fault i shot you, its your fault i shot you. does that REALLY make since, if i'm the one holding the gun to your head
So the answer to the question of where do i get my ideas is LIFE ITSELF.
btw, i have known astromath since before i was hit by the car, and he knew that i had been hit by a car before he used his "child about to be hit by a car" senerio
You know what the problem is? It's not that you believe that Freewill is an illusion. There are many great philosophers and academics who would agree witht hat point. Anyone who follows a deterministic philosophy would or at least should agree with you. This is why I adviced that you read up on B.F. Skinner's book and read up on determinism and freewill.
The real problem is your logic. Granted, car accidents and traumatic brain injury can definitly impare your mental abilities, but the problem still stands... there is a lapse in logic to your arguement. You have chosen to use the incorrect definition of free even after everyone else has pointed out that you are using the wrong definition of the word free. You make a claim that the bible is hystory because it was writen in the past. You could have said it was writen by people who where there (which is probably not true), you could have said it was based on past events, you could have use so many other ways to support your claim that the bible should be concidered history. Instead, you just say it is history because it was writen in the past. By that logic the short story I wrote in High school about killing my uncle (English class assignment based on Mcbeth) should be concidered hitory. Would you support my claim that my short story is history? I wouldn't, and I'm the one making the claim.
Then you also claim that there is no free will, except when you are asleep and dreaming. as I mentioned earlier in this thread, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe that freewill exist or you believe that it doesn't. Even if you believe that it exist in a limited way, it still exists. It's like saying that a half a hole is not a hole.
The worst part for me is when you start quoting pdychologist and make claims about getting your information from psychology 101 classes. i am sure you were introduced to trait theories of personality in an introductory psychology class. The problem is you are usin g information that you barely have a grasp on. Then quotiing other philosophers and a psychologist that are "hard determinist" without first understanding what determinism is... much less what the difference between hard and soft determinism. he best part is that you copied and pasted a statement that basically says what they believe, but you don't even use any of there stuff to show how they back it up. That is the equivelant to me saying that it is so because my mommy said so.
Again, it is not that you claim that freewill is an illusion that makes so many people here pounce on you. It is the claims that you you use to support your origional statement.
I'll repeat myself again, if you want to support your claim that freewill is an illusion, read up on determinism and freewill, read B. F. Skinner's book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." Seriously. Read it. Trust me. I have read it. It is good. It is right up your alley (but with well thought out ideas and support). Google determinsim. As my degree is in psychology, and I have read this stuff in depth, I can tell you that it will support your claim.
Free will != blaming the victim.
So Jews only have themselves to blame? Makes sense.
The '!' in front of the '=' means 'not'. ;)
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
Rather ironic.
I wouldn't call it a threat. I'd say a possibility. Whether you believe or not wouldn't matter. The possibility would still be there. That is assuming that there is an omniponent being. If there isn't then the possibility wouldn't exist.
EE called it a threat.
I know he did. I'm refering to your statement.
Oups. You make a good point. But now I am wondering if head injuries can be considered act of God or God trying to limite your free will to be more precise.
That sir, is quite a barberic way to limit freewill. I don't like what you are going to do, so I will have someone hit you with a bat and nearly debrain you.
Nah, it's just a typo.
Well, since you said so ...
[That sir, is quite a barberic way to limit freewill. I don't like what you are going to do, so I will have someone hit you with a bat and nearly debrain you.
God can be a real bastard. It's in the Bible.
[That sir, is quite a barberic way to limit freewill. I don't like what you are going to do, so I will have someone hit you with a bat and nearly debrain you.
God can be a real bastard. It's in the Bible.
And the Bible is official history and the inspiration for the Democratic-Republic of the United States of America.
Interesting...
I always thought it was the great flying spaghetti monster who founded the Democratic-republich of the United States of America.
Pastafariasm is paganism. Thus evil.
here you go...
Ask youself this: are you really making an independent choice or are you being allowed to make that choice?
Does it matter (for this debate)?
Hrm... I would argue that it does.
The very concept of being "allowed" to do something has the implicit notion of being disallowed. That is, that it's merely a kindness or courtesy to give you the choice, but that it isn't a necessary part of the situation for you to have that choice.
And with the notion of you being disallowed the choice, is the implicit threat of it being denied to you should you choose wrong, which leads us back to free will being an illusion again, permitted to us only so long as we choose correctly. Perhaps the threat will never be acted upon. But that the threat exists is a notion that begs consideration, particularly if you remember that in some common uses of "free will" is the assumption that you are not making choices under duress or threats.
Again, "free to" and "allowed to" mean the same thing. Actually, I guess there is a diffrence. When you are allowed, it means one specific thing is not hindering you. When you are free in an action, it means that no things are hindering you. When you are free to do something, that means that everything and everyone is allowing you to do it.
Religious people might feel they are under that threat. People who do not give a **** or are not conscious of the threat, even if God exist, won't live under that threat.
Rather ironic.
First of all, that's a gross generalization, and a markedly inaccurate one.
Second, you may wish to look up "ironic", because that's not at all what it means.
That non-religious people are more threatened by a true god than heathens? I'd say thats rather ironic, yes.
[That sir, is quite a barberic way to limit freewill. I don't like what you are going to do, so I will have someone hit you with a bat and nearly debrain you.
God can be a real bastard. It's in the Bible.
And the Bible is official history and the inspiration for the Democratic-Republic of the United States of America.
Sweet, so we have a working model for bat wielding mind cops backed up ethically by the bible and good ol' americanisim!
Now we just need a name and, you know, thought reading tech.
[I propose "The LUEs"]
If the majority of people actually chose their religion, I'd agree. Seeing as, even today, in which religious conversion is more popular then ever, most people still simply go with what their parents taught them, I'm not so sure.
That's still a choice. It may not always be the most well thought-out choice, but choosing not to think about it much is also a choice.
If the majority of people actually chose their religion, I'd agree. Seeing as, even today, in which religious conversion is more popular then ever, most people still simply go with what their parents taught them, I'm not so sure.
I suppose that is the source of the disagreement, then. Two points. My daughter is approaching (a couple of years yet) the age of Confirmation. I had an agreement with my wife to remain silent on the subject of religion until she reached this age. This is to insure that my wife's desire to have a "foundation" established was not interfered with. However, as the name of the sacrament implies - this SHOULD be a choice, and, as such, I wish to make sure that when she vows (a promise - that, along with honesty, something I value highly) it is sincere. So, in that regard, perhaps I am bucking what you state "most" do. Second - there are few (at least in this country) who do not question what they have received from their parents, to choose their own path. (a trend that hit it's heyday in the 1960's, re religion)
Whether it's "right" or "wrong" for it to be as such is a different question entirely.
So the issue is does coercion remove choice (or free will) and if so, how much.
Doesn't say anything interesting about the overall discussion, just a little tangent.
Free will states you are responsible. To be responsible you need control. Since you are not always in control, how can you be responsable? The illusion free will gives is the illusion of control. At least to me it does. That is why I feel/believe free will is an illusion.
Free will states you are responsible. To be responsible you need control. Since you are not always in control, how can you be responsable? The illusion free will gives is the illusion of control. At least to me it does. That is why I feel/believe free will is an illusion.
Sorry, but it seems the only illusion is your understanding of free will. You just don't seem to get it at all.
The only thing free will "states" is that your actions are not predetermined but are instead the result of your choices. All this stuff about "responsibility" and "consequences" is bunk with precisely as much merit as saying free will is an illusion cos it's not purple enough.
From Dictionary.com which quotes Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010:
free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
To Kargir01, I boldfaced the relevant parts of the definitions. You are only responsible for your own decisions. You are NOT responsible for the decisions of others. Maybe you have no control over your actions (being pushed over the cliff), but you still are in control over your decision (not to be pushed over the cliff).
Free will is not about control over your actions, it is control over your decisions.
Free will states you are responsible. To be responsible you need control. Since you are not always in control, how can you be responsable? The illusion free will gives is the illusion of control. At least to me it does. That is why I feel/believe free will is an illusion.
I tend to agree that free will is an illusion. I think that I am basically an extremely complicated robot, wherein every choice that I have ever made is a consequence of all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice.
Were some identical alternate universe to exist, I suspect that my identical double would make identical choices.
However, all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice are so myriad and incomprehensible, that it appears as if I have the free will to make the choice on my own.
Go back to my sick puppy post. As I said, nobody in their right mind (to my knowledge) would deliberately choose to use the middle of the road as a toilet facility. My question to you is, does that choice even exist? Yes, it does, but it has severe enough consequences to give it the illusion that the choice does not exist. This is what I call an invisible choice.
A choice is a choice regardless of the consequences. And you will always have the freedom to make your own choices (i.e. free will).
Let's look at this way. You go to a restaurant and look at the menu. Let's keep it simple and say the menu has the following items: hamburger, hot dog, pizza, coca cola, pepsi. Those are your choices. You can freely order any (or even all, if you are a glutton). That's what free will is all about. Now when you go to order, the waiter tells you they are all out of hamburger. The hamburger choice now does not even exist. You still have the ability to choose freely from the other choices. Ok, let's change it from being out of hamburger to the hamburger's price being 10x the menu price. The hamburger is still there as a legitimate choice, but because of the cost going up, it will be less likely be seen as a choice. But THE CHOICE IS STILL THERE! You are still making a voluntary decision.
In other words, as long as a choice still exists (even invisible choices), you still have the free will to choose it. It's just that if you don't see the choice, you are much less likely to contemplate making that choice.
I tend to agree that free will is an illusion. I think that I am basically an extremely complicated robot, wherein every choice that I have ever made is a consequence of all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice.
Were some identical alternate universe to exist, I suspect that my identical double would make identical choices.
However, all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice are so myriad and incomprehensible, that it appears as if I have the free will to make the choice on my own.
This. There is no magic essence inside you to make decisions. EVERYTHING is governed by the laws of physics, that means your brain chemistry too.
I tend to agree that free will is an illusion. I think that I am basically an extremely complicated robot, wherein every choice that I have ever made is a consequence of all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice.
Were some identical alternate universe to exist, I suspect that my identical double would make identical choices.
However, all the various things that have influenced me throughout my life and at the given time of a particular choice are so myriad and incomprehensible, that it appears as if I have the free will to make the choice on my own.
This.
Meaningless. Free will does not mean "access to limitless choices", it means your ability to make choices is no predetermined.
There is no magic essence inside you to make decisions.
Yes there is. It is called a "mind". it lives in your brain. It's not magic, though, cos magic is unnecessary.
EVERYTHING is governed by the laws of physics, that means your brain chemistry too.
Also meaningless. This has no bearing on one;s ability to make choices that are not predetermined.
This. There is no magic essence inside you to make decisions. EVERYTHING is governed by the laws of physics, that means your brain chemistry too.
Very true. And yes, even though I have argued against Kargir01, I agree with him in that freewill is an illusion. I just didn't like his logic.
It really comes down to this: there will always, always, always, be a minimum of two choices. The choice of doing something and the choice of doing nothing. As long as those two choices exist, you can freely choose between the two.
The only thing consequences do is to give the illusion of limiting the list of choices available.
So, you are saying that the ability to choose is an illusion?
It really comes down to this: there will always, always, always, be a minimum of two choices. The choice of doing something and the choice of doing nothing. As long as those two choices exist, you can freely choose between the two.
The only thing consequences do is to give the illusion of limiting the list of choices available.
The thing is that you are being forced to choose. No, no one is holding a gun to your head and "forcing" you to choose. You are however presented with those choices and you must choose. You can’t choose to jump in front of a car and push a child to safety unless there is a child and a car about to hit the child.
There is a reason kept on suggesting to kargir01 to read up on determinism. W exists in a universe that has rules. Things don't happen randomly, they are caused by previous events. Your behaviors are the same. Behavior is not random either. Before we get off topic, behavior is defined as anything an organism does. Thinking is a behavior, eating is a behavior, and choosing is a behavior.
Think of it this way, why are you choosing? You are choosing because your environment has placed these options before you. If you weren't in a restaurant with a menu, you would not be forced to choose between the foods items listed on the menu. Again, you aren't being forced at gun point, but your choices aren't really free in that they are placed before you by the environment. In effect you are forced to choose from the menu.
You can't choose to go up a flight of stairs into your swimming pool if there are no stairs or a swimming pool. You are limited by your environment. So, no, in a true sense, you aren't free to choose. It is limited to the options given to you.
Sure you could claim that you are still making a choice between the options given, but it is a choice that is limited by your environment and not completely your own.
As for the consequences... I think we all agree that kargir01 was off base stating that they had a cost. I don't believe they have a cost. Even so, the consequences are why you make certain choices. What do you do when you are hungry? Get food and eat right? Where do you get food from? If you are at home you may go to your fridge and open it up... because generally you have food in there. You aren't going to turn on your radio to get food right?
As far as consequences are concerned, they can be used to predict your choices fairly accurately.
So how much freewill do you have if your choices are limited by your environment and the choice you make can be predicted fairly accurately?
Yeah, I'm not convinced that the ability to choose is an illusion. Does anyone have any sort of argument to attempt to show this?
The problem with saying that freewill is an ability is how do you know you have this ability? The only way you can say an individual has the ability to do something is by seeing that individual do that something.
you can say that you have the ability to walk because you can be observed walking. Having legs is not enough to show that you have the ability to walk. Does a quadriplegic have the ability to walk? How about one with legs?
Think about it. Try to define ability. Try to prove that someone or something has an ability without the actual behvior being observed in some manner.
The problem with saying that freewill is an ability is how do you know you have this ability? The only way you can say an individual has the ability to do something is by seeing that individual do that something.
you can say that you have the ability to walk because you can be observed walking. Having legs is not enough to show that you have the ability to walk. Does a quadriplegic have the ability to walk? How about one with legs?
Think about it. Try to define ability. Try to prove that someone or something has an ability without the actual behvior being observed in some manner.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
The problem with saying that freewill is an ability is how do you know you have this ability? The only way you can say an individual has the ability to do something is by seeing that individual do that something.
you can say that you have the ability to walk because you can be observed walking. Having legs is not enough to show that you have the ability to walk. Does a quadriplegic have the ability to walk? How about one with legs?
Think about it. Try to define ability. Try to prove that someone or something has an ability without the actual behvior being observed in some manner.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Meaningless. Free will does not mean "access to limitless choices", it means your ability to make choices is no predetermined.
My particular point being that any given choice I make is predetermined. The predetermination is based upon every influence I have ever had. Since it is impossible to quantify every influence I have ever had, it will to me feel like I am making my own choice.
Yes there is. It is called a "mind". it lives in your brain. It's not magic, though, cos magic is unnecessary.
I am certainly no biological chemist, but my understanding is that my brain is basically one complicated computer that follows specific programming. It is also my understanding that the current state of science isn't even close to understanding everything that is involved in such programming. Everything that might be considered my mind is basically a subroutine of my brain, controlled by such programming.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Buh? If I observe something happening, obviously the something in question is possible.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Buh? If I observe someone happening, obviously the something in question is possible.
Someone happening? You mean like existing? I'm not sure what you mean so I can't really reply to this. Please explain happening.
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Umm ... if I see you make a choice, I know you have the ability to do so. Cuz, you know, you just did it. Right in front of me.
Buh? If I observe something happening, obviously the something in question is possible.
Someone happening? You mean like existing? I'm not sure what you mean so I can't really reply to this. Please explain happening.
Sorry, that better?
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Correct. You cannot observe every influence and process involved in why any particular individual makes any particular choice. That person can describe what reasoning they used to make such a choice, but that is about the extent of it.
For instance, I have absolutely no problem with dog fighting. I can attempt to explain the reasoning why I think that I have no problem with dog fighting, but I cannot say for certain all of the influences involved in why I chose those particular reasons.
Most individuals will have problems with dog fighting. They can attempt to explain the reasoning why they think they have problems with dog fighting, but they cannot say for certain all of the influences involved in why they chose those particular reasons.
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Umm ... if I see you make a choice, I know you have the ability to do so. Cuz, you know, you just did it. Right in front of me.
Yes, you see me make a choice. You did not observe my ability to make that choice.
How do you know someone has an ability to do something?
Buh? If I observe something happening, obviously the something in question is possible.
Someone happening? You mean like existing? I'm not sure what you mean so I can't really reply to this. Please explain happening.
Sorry, that better?
Very true. You have observed something happening. The possibility of it happening exist. You have not observed the ability that an individual has to make it happen. The possibility of something happening is not the same as the ability to do something.
Correct. You cannot observe every influence and process involved in why any particular individual makes any particular choice.
So? That's not a question anyone asked.
Obviously, you have lots of reasons for doing this thing and not doing that thing, and there were reasons why you should have done that thing that you chose were less significant. So? I don't need to know what all the reasons were to know that you did this thing and that you didn't do that thing.
Yes, you see me make a choice. You did not observe my ability to make that choice.
How do you know someone has an ability to do something?
If you do something, you obviously have the ability to do so. If you didn't have the ability, you couldn't have done it.
Duh?
For example, by posting this message, I will demonstrate that I have the ability to post messages. One ability that I do lack is the ability to post this message without demonstrating my ability to do so.
If you do something, you obviously have the ability to do so. If you didn't have the ability, you couldn't have done it.
Duh?
For example, by posting this message, I will demonstrate that I have the ability to post messages. One ability that I do lack is the ability to post this message without demonstrating my ability to do so.
And if you did not post this message, how would you prove that you still poses the ability to so so?
You must do so to demostrate any ability. As such, it is impossible to observe ability without observing the actual behavior.
And if you did not post this message, how would you prove that you still poses the ability to so so?
You must do so to demostrate any ability. As such, it is impossible to observe ability without observing the actual behavior.
...
So?
You said that it was impossbily to know of ability, despite several people pointing out that you could observe the action itself--which obviously proves ability.
And if you did not post this message, how would you prove that you still poses the ability to so so?
You must do so to demostrate any ability. As such, it is impossible to observe ability without observing the actual behavior.
...
So?
You said that it was impossbily to know of ability, despite several people pointing out that you could observe the action itself--which obviously proves ability.
No. What I said was that you could not observe ability independent of the action. Without seeing a person do something, you can't be sure that that person has the ability to do that something.
So claiming that freewill is an ability is pointless. You don't have an ability to choose freely. Your choices are limited for you when they are presented.
If you really had the ability to choose freely, you could choose to respond to this post using a crayon and a napkin. Sure, you could write a reply to my post on a napkin with a crayon, but you would need a napkin and a crayon.
If you really had the ability to choose freely, you could choose to respond to this post using a crayon and a napkin. Sure, you could write a reply to my post on a napkin with a crayon, but you would need a napkin and a crayon.
I could freely choose to respond to you in any number of ways, including not responding at all. I could have chosen not to read the post in the fist place, but that choice is already made.
The list of choices need not be infinite (although it essentially is, I suppose), I've still freely made a choice.
If you really had the ability to choose freely, you could choose to respond to this post using a crayon and a napkin. Sure, you could write a reply to my post on a napkin with a crayon, but you would need a napkin and a crayon.
I could freely choose to respond to you in any number of ways, including not responding at all. I could have chosen not to read the post in the fist place, but that choice is already made.
The list of choices need not be infinite (although it essentially is, I suppose), I've still freely made a choice.
If this thread did not exist, would you have had the option of not reading it? would you have had the ability to ignore it? could you make a choice about a non-existing post?
I shall make a clarifying statement from my original post.
Free will is the ability to choose from a list of existing choices regarless of the consequences.
I say existing choices because it is possible a choice you want to make does not exist. For example, I went to Waffle House and ordered hamburger and fries. I was told they do not serve fries. Since that choice no longer existed, I had to choose something else (in this case the something else was the choice of no side dish).
I say again, consequences only give the illusion of having no choice. For example, mugger with gun to your head saying to give him your money or die. Many of us would give the mugger our money because the consequences are too high if we didn't. Does this mean that the choice of not giving him the money no longer exists? By no means. All it means is that there's only one sensible choice.
Just because a choice does not make sense does not mean it doesn't exist. People make senseless choices all the time. Just watch the program "World's Dumbest" series sometime.
My point of view is that the ability to choose is inherent until proven otherwise. Some say just the opposite. Which is their choice that was chosen freely by their own free will.
I shall make a clarifying statement from my original post.
Free will is the ability to choose from a list of existing choices regarless of the consequences.
I say existing choices because it is possible a choice you want to make does not exist. For example, I went to Waffle House and ordered hamburger and fries. I was told they do not serve fries. Since that choice no longer existed, I had to choose something else (in this case the something else was the choice of no side dish).
I say again, consequences only give the illusion of having no choice. For example, mugger with gun to your head saying to give him your money or die. Many of us would give the mugger our money because the consequences are too high if we didn't. Does this mean that the choice of not giving him the money no longer exists? By no means. All it means is that there's only one sensible choice.
Just because a choice does not make sense does not mean it doesn't exist. People make senseless choices all the time. Just watch the program "World's Dumbest" series sometime.
My point of view is that the ability to choose is inherent until proven otherwise. Some say just the opposite. Which is their choice that was chosen freely by their own free will.
So until you prove other wise, you would believe that I have the inherent ability to sprout wings and fly?
@homicidal: Here's an alternate definition of free will: the capability of making up your own mind. This meshes completely with my other definition. To me, you seem to be quite capable of making up your own mind. You have yet to prove to me that this capability is not inherent to you. Most base psychological functions (such as emotions & free will) of the mind are inherent. The non-base psychological functions (ones that develop through learning) are not inherent. Physiology is different. It is completely inherent that you have the capability of breathing. It is also completely inherent that you don't have the capability of non-artificial flight (e.g. sprouting wings).
Well if you are going to continuously change your definition of wht freewill is then it shows that it isn't an ability or a capability or any of the other things you can come up with. Pick a definition and stick with it.
Besides, that definition implies that there is something else that lets you decide the minds of others.
Until you have a set definition, you are just talking in circles.
Why don't we try this. Try to define the parts of freewill. Define what is meant by free (within the context of freewill) first. And no, it has nothing to do with cost. After free is defined we can define will and then we can join those two definitions to get a definition for freewill. For now, the definition of free should be enough.
I realize that this takes the thread all the way back to the start... but unless you can define what you are discussing, you can't properly discuss it.
to look as someone and say, "they look like they can do it" [...] is not enough. its meaningless. its a generalization not what would be concidered "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
True, but nobody said that.
to look as someone and say [...] "they look like they can do it because i see them doing it" is not enough. its meaningless. its a generalization not what would be concidered "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
False. Obviously. If I know you did it, I know you can do it. Because, you see, you did.
Not that "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is necessary in a discussion anyway. It's not even necessary in all court cases.
I've also gave dictionary.com's definition of the words "free," "will," and "free will" in an earlier post. Though one poster continually uses the wrong definition of the word "free" to make his arguments seem valid. But if you want, I'll post them again:
Free (definition 5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. (This is the only definition out of the 36 listed that applies to the term "free will").
Will (first 3 definitions):
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
Free will (both definitions):
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
I interpret definition 1 of "free will" two ways: 1) the ability (or power) to choose one's own actions that is exempt from external influences. (This is from def 5 of "free" and def 2 of "will" 2) the capability (or power) of making up your own mind exempt from outside influences. (From the same two defs of "free" and "will").
I also keep saying consequences do not take away your ability to choose, but it does give the illusion of limiting your choices.
@homicidal: I didn't think I was changing the definition, just giving an alternate view point. You could say my first definition is the head's side of a coin and this last definition is the tail's side of the same coin. The two definitions go hand in hand.
An alternate point of view is a changed view point. If your second definition is the “tails” side of the definition then it is even more so a changed definition. Let’s face it, you can continuously change and alter your definition to counter any argument anyone may bring, but in the end you will no longer be talking about freewill.
Now let’s look at your definitions…
Free (definition 5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. (This is the only definition out of the 36 listed that applies to the term "free will").
This is an excellent definition. We both agree that this is the best definition of free within the context of freewill. I highlighted a few key words. Keep those in mind for the moment.
Will (first 3 definitions):
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
These are also very good definitions of will. Notice, however, that none of these definitions say that it is a ability. There is one problem with definition number 2. Here it is not referring to having the power to choose, but the strength of one’s will. “to have a strong or weak will” implies that definition number two is more concerned with the strength of will and not what it is. Would you protest if we removed this definition?
Free will (both definitions):
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
I’m not exactly sure why you are defining philosophy, so let’s ignore that definition.This definition fits the best definition of freewill… at least in my opinion. If you disagree, let me know why you disagree.
I interpret definition 1 of "free will" two ways: 1) the ability (or power) to choose one's own actions that is exempt from external influences. (This is from def 5 of "free" and def 2 of "will" 2) the capability (or power) of making up your own mind exempt from outside influences. (From the same two defs of "free" and "will").
I also keep saying consequences do not take away your ability to choose, but it does give the illusion of limiting your choices.
Even though you are using the terms “ability” and “capability” we can still use you “interpretations” of the definitions you have give (why we need further interpretation of the excellent definitions you gave is beyond me).
Would you agree that we live in an ordered universe were things don’t happen randomly? I will assume that this is true: we live in an ordered universe were things don’t happen randomly, but are caused by previous events.
If you disagree, then you would believe that we live in a universe that had things happen randomly. In which case, it would be pointless to press down on the accelerator pedal of your car because that does not cause the car to go faster. Turning a door knob would not open the door. Pressing the power button on your electronics would not turn them on. Most frightenly of all... women would become randomly pregnant.
Now let’s imagine that you are walking and you come to an intersection. Some guy walks up behind you, puts a gun to the back of your head and says “you must either cross the street or not cross the street, or I’ll put two in the back of your head. Choose.”
Would you agree that he is forcing you to choose? I’m going to assume that you do agree that you are being forced to choose.
Now let’s say that you are walking down the street and you come to an intersection. You can choose to cross the street or not cross the street.
This example does not have that overt force of a guy with a gun to your head. You would think that you are not being forced to choose, but in truth you are. Up until the point that you walked up to the intersection you did not have a choice of whether or not to cross. The moment that street came into your environment you had to choose whether to cross it or not. The option you take does not matter. You were forced to choose. The guy holding a gun to your head is not choosing for you. He didn’t say cross the street or I’ll put two in the back of your head; he said choose. He has forced you to choose. By your own chosen definition, freewill must be exempt from external/ outside influences (-- 1) the ability (or power) to choose one's own actions that is exempt from external influences. (This is from def 5 of "free" and def 2 of "will" 2) the capability (or power) of making up your own mind exempt from outside influences). Your choices were dictated by your environment. The fact that you are choosing any of the available options is not up to you, but again, dictated by your environment.
Your definition of free was:
Free (definition 5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. (This is the only definition out of the 36 listed that applies to the term "free will").
If your environment dictates the choices you have, it is restricting those choices. You do not choose to cross the street randomly. There has to be a street for you to cross. When you are at home, in your bed, do you randomly choose to cross streets? I doubt it. You cannot make choices about non-existing options. You can’t choose to cross a non-existing street, you can’t choose to eat a non existing food item, you can’t choose to listen to an non-existing song, and you can't choose to read, reply to, or ignore my post if it did not exist. you and I and everyone else who has posted on this thread has restricted the choices of anyone who comes into contact with this thread.
Every choice you have ever had to make was caused by these options being placed before you by your environment. You have control over your body to act on these “choices.” You do not have freewill in the true sense of free. As such, freewill is an illusion.
While the consequences do not take your ability to choose, they are the reason you have chosen a specific option. Let me give you an example. You are driving to work. You get to an intersection. You have three choices: go straight, turn right, or turn left. Whatever your choice is, is dependent on what direction your job is in. Why would you choose to go in that direction? You would choose that direction because the consequence of choosing that direction is getting closer to work.
The option you choose is heavily influenced by the consequence of making that choice and your behavioral history. Let’s use the menu example. Let’s say you have a menu. On that menu there are various dishes made with chicken, various dishes made with beef, and various dishes made with pork. We can determine fairly accurately what you will choose by looking at your behavioral history. Let’s say that when you were given the choice of chicken, beef, or pork meals previously (many times throughout your life), you usually chose chicken. If you are hungry, it is more probable that you will choose a dish that contains chicken than beef or pork.
It should be noted that I never claimed that consequences take away your ability to choose. If I am not mistaken, that was something kargir01 said.
). It's almost midnight and I'm tired. I'll try to come up with some sort of rebuttal to your rebuttal tomorrow.@homicidal. You give one of the most well thought out rebuttals to my views. I give you a complement (or a cookie, your choice). It's almost midnight and I'm tired. I'll try to come up with some sort of rebuttal to your rebuttal tomorrow.
looking forward to it.
Now, back to the mugger example. Mugger says, "give me your money or you die." Since the dictionary definition is voluntary decision, you can either voluntarily decide to give the mugger your money, or you can voluntarily decide to die. The "forced" choice is completely illusionary when it comes to free will. You are in control of your own choices. If you decide to give the mugger your money that is your choice. If you decide to die, that again is your choice.
Your free will is exempt from outside influences, however, your will is not. I'll concede only one one point. That point being since your will can be influenced by consequences. You can think of your will filtering out the unacceptable choices from the acceptable choices your free will can volutarily decide on. I use the terms unacceptable/acceptable because everybody decides differently what is or isn't acceptable to them. A few will think it is acceptable do die, while most of us will think it is acceptable to give the mugger their money. This, by no means, mean that free will is illusionary. All it means, is that you are using your free will to voluntarily decide what is acceptable and unacceptable even before the choice of giving the mugger your money or dying.
I'll post something later about my views on the randomness (or not) of the universe later. I've got to pick my wife up from work now.
Ok. Back to my two definitions. I don't consider my second definition to be different from my first definition. I consider them identical, but worded differently.
Now, back to the mugger example. Mugger says, "give me your money or you die." Since the dictionary definition is voluntary decision, you can either voluntarily decide to give the mugger your money, or you can voluntarily decide to die. The "forced" choice is completely illusionary when it comes to free will. You are in control of your own choices. If you decide to give the mugger your money that is your choice. If you decide to die, that again is your choice.
Your free will is exempt from outside influences, however, your will is not. I'll concede only one one point. That point being since your will can be influenced by consequences. You can think of your will filtering out the unacceptable choices from the acceptable choices your free will can volutarily decide on. I use the terms unacceptable/acceptable because everybody decides differently what is or isn't acceptable to them. A few will think it is acceptable do die, while most of us will think it is acceptable to give the mugger their money. This, by no means, mean that free will is illusionary. All it means, is that you are using your free will to voluntarily decide what is acceptable and unacceptable even before the choice of giving the mugger your money or dying.
I'll post something later about my views on the randomness (or not) of the universe later. I've got to pick my wife up from work now.
I think you are missing the point. Ask yourself this: before the mugger presented the “choices”, did you have the choice to either “give him your money or die?” If this mugger did not exist, did not come into contact with you, or was not a mugger mugging you, would you have the choice to give him your money or die? Who would you be giving your money to? Who would kill you if you did not give him the money? The mugger right? So without the mugger those choices do not exist without the mugger. Your “ability” to choose is dependent on there being a choice event. This choice event is caused by previous stimuli.
Remember your definitions…
Free (definition 5): exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. (This is the only definition out of the 36 listed that applies to the term "free will").
Will (first 3 definitions):
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
Free will (both definitions):
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
I interpret definition 1 of "free will" two ways: 1) the ability (or power) to choose one's own actions that is exempt from external influences. (This is from def 5 of "free" and def 2 of "will" 2) the capability (or power) of making up your own mind exempt from outside influences. (From the same two defs of "free" and "will").
Your mugger example fails to meet the definition of free as well as the definition of freewill.
In the definition of the word free as it applies to the word will, it says that it is exempt from outside influences. Let's look at the exact opposite of this term. The opposide definition would say it is NOT exempt from outside influences. I can't think of what this word is at the top of my head, but slavery comes close. But slavery is not the word I want because that is the extreme case of not being exempt from outside influences.
Looking at the mugger example, if there is no mugger, even the opposite definition "??? will" cannot come into play.
So far, all you have convinced me of is that in order to exercise your free will (or free will's exact opposite), a choice must exist. Which is something I've also been saying all along.
Now for my ordered vs random views. I believe both exist. What I mean by this is that in order for something not to be random, the exact conditions producing the effect must be able to reproduce that effect if the exact conditions have been met the next time. I'm thinking billiards or pool for this example. It is easy to show in pool trick shots if the set up is identical in every way every time using the same english and stroke speed, the balls would go on the predicted paths every time.
Now for the randomness argument. Let's suppose you have two cooks. They have identical recepies for a cake. The use identical ingredients from the identical sourses, identical ovens, identical everything, but yet the cake by one cook tastes different than the cake by the second cook. Even if they reproduce everything in an exact and identical manner, the next two cakes also taste ever so slightly different than the next two cakes. How can this be if everything was identical everything. But yet it happens. I don't think there's been any scientific studies on this effect, but it has been shown through scientific means that randomness can occur when everything producing the first effect has been duplicated exactly down to the smallest detail for the second effect and the two effects differ by some minute way. Since most scientists believe in an ordered universe, this is very problematic for them. They believe that something had to be different when the experiment was duplicated. Once in a while, they'll find something that could cause the seemingly random event, but when they duplicate that as part of the experiment, the random event still occurs.
Results of rolling dice is also random when given the perfect d6. Scientist have gone so far as to make sure the d6 is not weighted in any shape or fashion by the adding the pips to the die face. They replicated the starting point exactly every time, but the die always rolls randomly. How can this happen in an ordered universe. Casinos always test their dice in this fashion to make sure their dice can produce almost perfect random results. If they can't, the dice are not usable and are sold as curios. (Even "broken" dice can still make money for the casinos.)
Correct. You cannot observe every influence and process involved in why any particular individual makes any particular choice. That person can describe what reasoning they used to make such a choice, but that is about the extent of it.
For instance, I have absolutely no problem with dog fighting. I can attempt to explain the reasoning why I think that I have no problem with dog fighting, but I cannot say for certain all of the influences involved in why I chose those particular reasons.
Most individuals will have problems with dog fighting. They can attempt to explain the reasoning why they think they have problems with dog fighting, but they cannot say for certain all of the influences involved in why they chose those particular reasons.
Umm, I never said anything about seeing the reasons behind the choice.
Yes, you see me make a choice. You did not observe my ability to make that choice.
How do you know someone has an ability to do something?
I see you make a choice, therefore you must have the ability to make a choice.
We must also stop with the 'if there was no mugger' stuff. Cuz I'm not being mugged right now, but I'm still exercising free will by responding in this thread - among other things. If this thread didn't exist, I'd be exercising free will by making some other choice. Absence of a specific choice does not mean there are no choices to make.
If there is no mugger, there are no choices concerning the mugger. That much I will agree with. However, in order for you to exercise your free will, a choice must exist.
So what you are saying is that your freewill is dependent on a choice existing? A choice that is presented by an external stimulus (such as the mugger)? I would completely agree with you.
I would add that the presentation of this choice forces you to choose. If so, you don’t meet the definition of free if you are forced to choose. Again, it doesn’t matter what you choose or what the choices are. You are still being forced to choose.
In the definition of the word free as it applies to the word will, it says that it is exempt from outside influences. Let's look at the exact opposite of this term. The opposide definition would say it is NOT exempt from outside influences. I can't think of what this word is at the top of my head, but slavery comes close. But slavery is not the word I want because that is the extreme case of not being exempt from outside influences.
Looking at the mugger example, if there is no mugger, even the opposite definition "??? will" cannot come into play.
That is correct. Your choices about what the mugger asks you would not meet the “opposite” definition of free if the mugger wasn’t there. It is because the situation does not exist. How can a non-existing situation meet any definition? If the mugger does exist and he is mugging you, then it does fit your opposite definition. Because he is introducing the choice event, he is influencing you by being the stimulus that forces you to choose. Again, what you choose does not matter. The point is he made you choose.
So far, all you have convinced me of is that in order to exercise your free will (or free will's exact opposite), a choice must exist. Which is something I've also been saying all along.
Yup... a choice that is presented by an outside stimulus (the mugger for example). Again, your freewill is dependent on some outside stimulus presenting you a choice. Thus it does not meet the definition of free.
Now for my ordered vs random views. I believe both exist. What I mean by this is that in order for something not to be random, the exact conditions producing the effect must be able to reproduce that effect if the exact conditions have been met the next time. I'm thinking billiards or pool for this example. It is easy to show in pool trick shots if the set up is identical in every way every time using the same english and stroke speed, the balls would go on the predicted paths every time.
Now for the randomness argument. Let's suppose you have two cooks. They have identical recepies for a cake. The use identical ingredients from the identical sourses, identical ovens, identical everything, but yet the cake by one cook tastes different than the cake by the second cook. Even if they reproduce everything in an exact and identical manner, the next two cakes also taste ever so slightly different than the next two cakes. How can this be if everything was identical everything. But yet it happens. I don't think there's been any scientific studies on this effect, but it has been shown through scientific means that randomness can occur when everything producing the first effect has been duplicated exactly down to the smallest detail for the second effect and the two effects differ by some minute way. Since most scientists believe in an ordered universe, this is very problematic for them. They believe that something had to be different when the experiment was duplicated. Once in a while, they'll find something that could cause the seemingly random event, but when they duplicate that as part of the experiment, the random event still occurs.
Results of rolling dice is also random when given the perfect d6. Scientist have gone so far as to make sure the d6 is not weighted in any shape or fashion by the adding the pips to the die face. They replicated the starting point exactly every time, but the die always rolls randomly. How can this happen in an ordered universe. Casinos always test their dice in this fashion to make sure their dice can produce almost perfect random results. If they can't, the dice are not usable and are sold as curios. (Even "broken" dice can still make money for the casinos.)
First, if you have two different cooks, you have 2 variables that are not exact. You don’t know what unknown variables the two different cooks introduce.
Similarly, you assume that you know all the variables that affect the rolling of dice. You may have similar dice that are perfectly weighted, and the same starting position, but you can’t be sure about the angle of the drop, the force applied to the throwing of the dice, the angle at which a specific die hits the surface… among an unknown number of other variables that may affect what is rolled.
Besides, if it was randomness that affected the die rolls, Mr. Jiggaboo Jones would not be able to call his rolls. Check him out, he is quite amazing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ufOkRoShk
Also, if you read up on some of these scientific journals you will see that scientists replicate studies all the time. They usually come to the same, or very similar, conclusions. It is a given that they are not able to replicate every single extraneous variable because they may not be able to identify every extraneous variable. What you refer to as a randomness is actually an unknown extraneous variable. Again, because you don’t know what it is or can’t identify it, does not mean it does not exist or that it is a random event. It is a mistake to assume that you know every single extraneous variable that is affecting your experiment or situation.
Every time you have had to make a choice it was preceded by a stimulus that caused this choice. You are not free to choose whatever you want, whenever you want. You may not realize that there was a preceding stimulus that caused you to choose, but there is. You don’t choose randomly to read, reply to, or ignore my post without my post. My post and you seeing my post caused you to choose how to respond to it. As such, your “ability” to choose is dependent on preceding stimuli.
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
No, just that in different situations you have different amounts of freedom to choose.
You may not choose to be mugged, but you choose how to respond. That you didn't choose for the situation to happen is irrelevant to the overall question of whether you have free will.
I see you make a choice, therefore you must have the ability to make a choice.
So if you don’t see me make a choice, do I have the ability to do so?
We must also stop with the 'if there was no mugger' stuff. Cuz I'm not being mugged right now, but I'm still exercising free will by responding in this thread - among other things. If this thread didn't exist, I'd be exercising free will by making some other choice. Absence of a specific choice does not mean there are no choices to make.
Absence of a specific choice means that there is no choice to make about that specific choice. The same principle applies to all your choices. If they do not exist, you have no choices. Your ability to choose any choice option is limited by a choice existing. Yes, not being mugged by a mugger does not mean you can't choose other things not related to the mugger. If you had true freewill, you would be able to make a choice about the mugger, even if he didn’t exist. You can’t. you can’t make a choice about a choice that is not presented to you.
So if you don’t see me make a choice, do I have the ability to do so?
Since in every conceivable interaction we two may have, some choice of some sort will be made, I don't think that's anything I have to worry about. In other words, choice is so common an event I don't have any trouble making the assumption that other human beings are as able to exercise free will as I.
Absence of a specific choice means that there is no choice to make about that specific choice. The same principle applies to all your choices. If they do not exist, you have no choices. Your ability to choose any choice option is limited by a choice existing. Yes, not being mugged by a mugger does not mean you can't choose other things not related to the mugger. If you had true freewill, you would be able to make a choice about the mugger, even if he didn’t exist. You can’t. you can’t make a choice about a choice that is not presented to you.
Yeah, I don't think that's the way it works. I'm free to choose from the choices available. That I can't defeat or yield to a mystical and imaginary mugger means absolutely nothing. What matters is what is, not what isn't. 'But you can't make a choice regarding everything possibly imagined' means precisely nothing to me as I'm perfectly capable of making choices in relation to the things that actually have an impact on my life. In other words, free will applies to the real world and examples of the impossible do not refute it.
To, instead, play along with this silliness, I give you this: regarding your hypothetical mugger, I've made a choice. If he is unarmed, I will attempt to flee. If not, I shall give him my wallet. No mugger here, choice made. Ball's in your court now ... or we can stop with the 'what if it's not a choice you can make cuz you don't need to' silliness.
Since in every conceivable interaction we two may have, some choice of some sort will be made, I don't think that's anything I have to worry about. In other words, choice is so common an event I don't have any trouble making the assumption that other human beings are as able to exercise free will as I.
There are many humans who can calculate complex calculus equations. Would you assume I have the ability to do so?
The problem I have with defining freewill as an ability is that you can only determine if an organism has an ability if it performs some action. At the point that you are performing the behavior, you are not demonstrating the concept of ability, you are demonstrating the behavior. But if you feel comfortable with defining it as an ability, by all means, continue.
Yeah, I don't think that's the way it works. I'm free to choose from the choices available. That I can't defeat or yield to a mystical and imaginary mugger means absolutely nothing. What matters is what is, not what isn't. 'But you can't make a choice regarding everything possibly imagined' means precisely nothing to me as I'm perfectly capable of making choices in relation to the things that actually have an impact on my life. In other words, free will applies to the real world and examples of the impossible do not refute it.To, instead, play along with this silliness, I give you this: regarding your hypothetical mugger, I've made a choice. If he is unarmed, I will attempt to flee. If not, I shall give him my wallet. No mugger here, choice made. Ball's in your court now ... or we can stop with the 'what if it's not a choice you can make cuz you don't need to' silliness.
I’ll give you this… you tried.
Astromath and I are not talking about asking someone a question about what they would do if a mugger, or anything else, gave them a choice. What we are talking about is an actual event. We are talking about being forced to choose an option by a mugger. Obviously as we are discussing this on the boards, the situation is hypothetical.
As you said, you choose from the choices available. The thing is, those options are dictated by a preceding stimulus, not you.
So how about we use this post (the one I’m writing/written) as an example? The existence of this post and you coming into contact with it has done two things: 1) it has caused you to make a choice by creating a choice event. The moment you come into contact with this, you are forced to respond to it (You can read it, ignore it or reply to it. I’m willing to bet that you will read it and respond to it since you have responded to my previous post); and 2) it has limited your choices about how you respond. You can ignore it, read it and not respond, read it and respond, read it and report it… etc. You don’t read my post and choose to cross the street. You get to a street and decide to cross it.
You making a choice about this post is dependent on me writing this post. You need me to write this post before you can respond to it. Sure, you could respond to the many other choices that are presented to you, but they still have to be presented to you.
You don’t make choices randomly. You make choices that are presented to you. You choosing is caused by the options being presented to you. So… once again, if you choosing is dependent on a previous stimulus, it is does not meet the requirements of the definition of free.
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
No, just that in different situations you have different amounts of freedom to choose.
You may not choose to be mugged, but you choose how to respond. That you didn't choose for the situation to happen is irrelevant to the overall question of whether you have free will.
Give an example of where you have completely freewill. Diferent amounts of freewill indicates different amount of limitations on freewill. which in effect indicates that freewill is not free.
I know I was going bow out of this debate, but since Kargir01 is still making inaccurate observations, I'm chiming in again.
From Dictionary.com which quotes Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010:
free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
To Kargir01, I boldfaced the relevant parts of the definitions. You are only responsible for your own decisions. You are NOT responsible for the decisions of others. Maybe you have no control over your actions (being pushed over the cliff), but you still are in control over your decision (not to be pushed over the cliff).
Free will is not about control over your actions, it is control over your decisions.
Conduct: Noun; a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles
Behavior: Noun; anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
Free Will: Noun; The doctrine that any personal action or response to stimulation on the part of a human being is an exspression of personal choice and not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
In short, the definition you quoted does more to refute your point than to support it. Conduct is how you act.
That would be omnipotence, you see. Quite different.
For example, I could choose not to post on this thread any more, but I am not doing so. I've made a choice of action. For some reason.
I could be doing what I'm actually supposed to be doing, and might do a little of that shortly. At present, however, I have chosen to type.
I could jump out of the window, and upon discovering that this was an insigificant choice, jump off the balcony I would be standing on.
I could walk out the front door and continue walking until stopped by a physical obstacle (wouldn't take long given that my front door is facing a large river that's only a few blocks away, though I suppose I could continue attempting to walk upon encountering the river [or I could swim]).
I could take any other of the infinite possibilities for choices available to me.
Complete free will. Right now.
You are correct that I can not summon a slice of cherry pie and throw it at non-existant muggers. I could, however, obtain a cherry pie and move to a location where I am likely to encounter muggers, at which point I may be able to throw it at them; I will do none of these things.
The problem with saying that freewill is an ability is how do you know you have this ability? The only way you can say an individual has the ability to do something is by seeing that individual do that something.
you can say that you have the ability to walk because you can be observed walking. Having legs is not enough to show that you have the ability to walk. Does a quadriplegic have the ability to walk? How about one with legs?
Think about it. Try to define ability. Try to prove that someone or something has an ability without the actual behvior being observed in some manner.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
So... me walking does not at all prove that I have the ability to walk. Ok then.
See, my understanding of 'ability' is that, something you can do, is something you have the ability to do. If I am not walking, then I may or may not have the ability to do so. If I am walking, then clearly I have the ability to do so.
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Umm ... if I see you make a choice, I know you have the ability to do so. Cuz, you know, you just did it. Right in front of me.
Yes, you see me make a choice. You did not observe my ability to make that choice.
How do you know someone has an ability to do something?
...
by observing them do it.
As you yourself pointed out.
Free will is the ability to decide freely. It is not the ability to freely make anything happen.
That would be omnipotence, you see. Quite different.
For example, I could choose not to post on this thread any more, but I am not doing so. I've made a choice of action. For some reason.
I could be doing what I'm actually supposed to be doing, and might do a little of that shortly. At present, however, I have chosen to type.
I could jump out of the window, and upon discovering that this was an insigificant choice, jump off the balcony I would be standing on.
I could walk out the front door and continue walking until stopped by a physical obstacle (wouldn't take long given that my front door is facing a large river that's only a few blocks away, though I suppose I could continue attempting to walk upon encountering the river [or I could swim]).
I could take any other of the infinite possibilities for choices available to me.
Complete free will. Right now.
You are correct that I can not summon a slice of cherry pie and throw it at non-existant muggers. I could, however, obtain a cherry pie and move to a location where I am likely to encounter muggers, at which point I may be able to throw it at them; I will do none of these things.
Look... my point is that you could not choose to respond to this thread without the thread. whatever your response to the thread is, it is still a response to the thread. Without it, you are no longer responding to the htread but some other stimulus. Your response to this thread is dependent on this thread.
dependence on this thread has limited your freewill regarding your choice of response to this thread.
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
Umm ... if I see you make a choice, I know you have the ability to do so. Cuz, you know, you just did it. Right in front of me.
Yes, you see me make a choice. You did not observe my ability to make that choice.
How do you know someone has an ability to do something?
...
by observing them do it.
As you yourself pointed out.
So according to yoou, you are observing ability? You can observe them to it. You can't observe ability. even though it is used as a noun, it is not an object that you can observe. You fail to see the language trap that words like ability, the mind, and freewill fall into.
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
Free will does not mean "access to infinite options", it means the actions you take are not predetermined. Determinism is, IMO, self-evidently a load of absolute horse
.Your response to this thread is dependent on this thread.
True. I then look at the thread, take in all the information and lack thereoff, and decide how to respond.
So it's also dependent on my free will! Without the thread, there would have been no response; without free will, there would have been no response; without my laptop, there would have been no response.
All were necessary. Stuff can depend on more than one thing.
The problem with saying that freewill is an ability is how do you know you have this ability? The only way you can say an individual has the ability to do something is by seeing that individual do that something.
you can say that you have the ability to walk because you can be observed walking. Having legs is not enough to show that you have the ability to walk. Does a quadriplegic have the ability to walk? How about one with legs?
Think about it. Try to define ability. Try to prove that someone or something has an ability without the actual behvior being observed in some manner.
So you're saying you can't observe someone making a choice?
Of course you can. You just can't observe the ability to make a choice.
So... me walking does not at all prove that I have the ability to walk. Ok then.
See, my understanding of 'ability' is that, something you can do, is something you have the ability to do. If I am not walking, then I may or may not have the ability to do so. If I am walking, then clearly I have the ability to do so.
you are almost there....
Your response to this thread is dependent on this thread.
True. I then look at the thread, take in all the information and lack thereoff, and decide how to respond.
So it's also dependent on my free will! Without the thread, there would have been no response; without free will, there would have been no response; without my laptop, there would have been no response.
All were necessary. Stuff can depend on more than one thing.
Good point. I am glad that you are realizing this.
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
Free will does not mean "access to infinite options", it means the actions you take are not predetermined. Determinism is, IMO, self-evidently a load of absolute horse
So you believe things happen randomly? You replied to this thread randomly? What you actually meant to do was make some cookies right? It's just that the randomness of existance randomly created a thread response to this thread in yur oven.
Tell me oh great one, what does though believe in? Enlighten us with your theories of existance.
So according to you, you are observing ability?
Ability is not a physical object that can be seen. You can observe the action, however, which proves the ability. You don't have to see it to know it's there; that's kinda how proof works.
You fail to see the language trap that words like ability, the mind, and freewill fall into.
Nope! You have spotted one that does not actually exist, and it has limited your freewill in this situation.
Except that it hasn't; you're still making choices.
So you believe things happen randomly? You replied to this thread randomly? What you actually meant to do was make some cookies right?
That is very nearly completely the opposite of what he actually said.
He said he chose to do it.
Tell me oh great one, what does though believe in? Enlighten us with your theories of existance.
Wait, seriously, you're mocking people here?
I know I was going bow out of this debate, but since Kargir01 is still making inaccurate observations, I'm chiming in again.
From Dictionary.com which quotes Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010:
free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
To Kargir01, I boldfaced the relevant parts of the definitions. You are only responsible for your own decisions. You are NOT responsible for the decisions of others. Maybe you have no control over your actions (being pushed over the cliff), but you still are in control over your decision (not to be pushed over the cliff).
Free will is not about control over your actions, it is control over your decisions.
Conduct: Noun; a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles
Behavior: Noun; anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation
Free Will: Noun; The doctrine that any personal action or response to stimulation on the part of a human being is an exspression of personal choice and not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
In short, the definition you quoted does more to refute your point than to support it. Conduct is how you act.
No one used that definition of freewill except for you. Astromath attempted to use that definition for philosophy. Again (I know... it sucks having to repeat myself so many times.... if people could just grasp the concept) 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision indicates that you choosing anything is independent of outside influences. Heck, it even says independent. If it is dependent on anything, it is not independent and thus not free.
If there is no mugger, there are no choices concerning the mugger. That much I will agree with. However, in order for you to exercise your free will, a choice must exist.So what you are saying is that your freewill is dependent on a choice existing? A choice that is presented by an external stimulus (such as the mugger)? I would completely agree with you.
I would add that the presentation of this choice forces you to choose. If so, you don’t meet the definition of free if you are forced to choose. Again, it doesn’t matter what you choose or what the choices are. You are still being forced to choose.
I guess I am missing something here. It seems that you are arguing along the lines of "You cannot walk through this wall, therefore you cannot walk." I fail to see how proving that you cannot pick choices that do not exist somehow porves that you are unable to pick, anymore than showing that there are places I cannot walk proves that I cannot walk.
If your definition of free will implies that you can pick the outcome of any situation (or actively choose not to choose), then I think you may have free will confused with omnipotence.
The conduct in question is the act of making the decision itself. Therefore this definition supports my view.
When I think of the word "forced" when used in conjuction to "free will" to show there is no free will, I picture total mind control. In other words, if there is no free will, the choice you make is not your own. It is somebody else's. You did not voluntarily decide what to do, because somebody mind controlled you into doing it.
When at a restaurant did somebody force you to choose hamburger instead of pizza? If not, you show your free will through the action of "waiter, I would like to order the hamburger." If the waiter replies, "we're out of hamburger today" did that force you to choose the pizza? No, because you still had the choice to leave and go someplace else. Once you found out the choice did not exist, you used your free will to reevaluate the choices and chose something else better to your liking.
The mugger with a gun to your head is an attempt at mind control, but not total mind control. You can voluntarily decide to give the mugger your money or you can voluntarily decide to get shot. It's your decision and nobody else's.
Don't forget that doing nothing is also an action as well as a choice. As long as two or more choices exist, you can voluntarily decide amongst those choices.
So you believe things happen randomly? You replied to this thread randomly? What you actually meant to do was make some cookies right? It's just that the randomness of existance randomly created a thread response to this thread in yur oven.
The universe is not a digital system where the only two options are predetermination and randomness.
Tell me oh great one, what does though believe in? Enlighten us with your theories of existance.
The worst part is not that you resorted to childish sarcasm, it is that you did so a poor job of it.
So you believe things happen randomly? You replied to this thread randomly? What you actually meant to do was make some cookies right?
That is very nearly completely the opposite of what he actually said.
He said he chose to do it.Tell me oh great one, what does though believe in? Enlighten us with your theories of existance.
Wait, seriously, you're mocking people here?
No... What he said was
Free will does not mean "access to infinite options", it means the actions you take are not predetermined. Determinism is, IMO, self-evidently a load of absolute horse
The opposite of a deterministic universe would be a random one.
Are you telling me that I shouldn't mock anyone? Are you limiting my freewill?
The opposite of a deterministic universe would be a random one.
I said "almost". It is "almost" the opposite.
Are you telling me that I shouldn't mock anyone? Are you limiting my freewill?
"Shouldn't" and "can't" are not the same. "May not" is a third thing, though it theoretically coincides with "shouldn't"; it often does.
I am in no way limiting you, not even making a suggestion really, merely noting some degree of surprise at the choice you made.
Your particular use of free will caught me off guard, you see.
If there is no mugger, there are no choices concerning the mugger. That much I will agree with. However, in order for you to exercise your free will, a choice must exist.So what you are saying is that your freewill is dependent on a choice existing? A choice that is presented by an external stimulus (such as the mugger)? I would completely agree with you.
I would add that the presentation of this choice forces you to choose. If so, you don’t meet the definition of free if you are forced to choose. Again, it doesn’t matter what you choose or what the choices are. You are still being forced to choose.
I guess I am missing something here. It seems that you are arguing along the lines of "You cannot walk through this wall, therefore you cannot walk." I fail to see how proving that you cannot pick choices that do not exist somehow porves that you are unable to pick, anymore than showing that there are places I cannot walk proves that I cannot walk.
If your definition of free will implies that you can pick the outcome of any situation (or actively choose not to choose), then I think you may have free will confused with omnipotence.
You are missinterpreting it. I am not saying that if you can't walk through a wall you don't have the ability to walk. I am saying if you can't walk through this wall, so you do not have the ability to walk through walls. hopefully that is a bit more clear.
Also, I am not saying that freewill is being able to pick the outcome of any situation. I am saying freewill is the ability to pick your options. Your definitions allows you to have freewill by choosing which of the options that are given to you, you get to choose. I say, freewill is in choosing the options, not picking from the available ones. Whether or not you can complete that option is another matter.
So you believe things happen randomly? You replied to this thread randomly? What you actually meant to do was make some cookies right? It's just that the randomness of existance randomly created a thread response to this thread in yur oven.
The universe is not a digital system where the only two options are predetermination and randomness.Tell me oh great one, what does though believe in? Enlighten us with your theories of existance.
The worst part is not that you resorted to childish sarcasm, it is that you did so a poor job of it.
I think I should clarify something, Determinism isn't the same thing as predetermination. Determinism is focused on causation. basically, everything that happens, happens because of some previous event. You hit the "H" key and an "H" appears on your screen. You turn a door knob and the internal mechanisms of the lock move in a way that the door opens. Sure, there are things that appear random to us, but that does not mean that they are. Like I said before, we can't identify every single variable, but it does not mean that one of these undentified variables did not affect what happens.
Would you at least admit that the reason you are choosing anything is because a choice has been presented to you?
Oh, and you can pick your actual options with some degree of success, too. What I choose to do now will set up my options for later. I want to have the option to do X? I can if I just do Y.
Now, are the negatives of doing Y enough that I will choose not to despite it offering me the chance to do X later? Possibly, but free will would be meaningless if the options had no value.
I need to pick what's most important to me right now and make my decisions based on that.
No one used that definition of freewill except for you.
I never used the definition. I defined it myself, very clearly, quite a bit back.
Astromath attempted to use that definition for philosophy.
No he didn't. You simply misunderstood the format in which his definition was presented.
Example
Mean: Noun
1. Not a nice person
2. Math. The sum of all numerical data in a set divided by the number of data points in the set.
If that example is not clear enough, the "2. Philosophy" means that the words following philosophy in the quoted text is the second definition for the term Free Will that the quoted dictionary included, and that it is the one that has to do with philosophy. That is, acording to that dictionary, it is what Free Will means in the context of Philosophy.
Again (I know... it sucks having to repeat myself so many times.... if people could just grasp the concept) 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision indicates that you choosing anything is independent of outside influences. Heck, it even says independent. If it is dependent on anything, it is not independent and thus not free.
And again, you are falling into the same trap as kar, you are defining a thing too narrowly so as to insure that it cannot ever exist. No thing has ever been determined to be independent of all other things, so far as I know, and if such a thing where to exist, we would have no way of knowing of it, by definition. The word independent exists, and is in common use. Your definition of independent is completly worthless, and so I reject it in favor of a definition that makes sense and is usefull in communicating ideas.
If you define free will as needing to be independent, and define independent as not being affected by anything, then yes, free will, as you define it, cannot exist. As nothing that can exist in the realm of human existance can be independent, anything that you define as needing to be independent (again, by your ussage of the word) cannot exist.
The opposite of a deterministic universe would be a random one.
I said "almost". It is "almost" the opposite.Are you telling me that I shouldn't mock anyone? Are you limiting my freewill?
"Shouldn't" and "can't" are not the same. "May not" is a third thing, though it theoretically coincides with "shouldn't"; it often does.
I am in no way limiting you, not even making a suggestion really, merely noting some degree of surprise at the choice you made.
Your particular use of free will caught me off guard, you see.
O.k. so let me get this right... what you are saying is that there are things that are caused by previous things and there are things that are caused randomly? This would not be a deterministic universe nor a random one. Would that fit what you are saying?
Also, I am not saying that freewill is being able to pick the outcome of any situation. I am saying freewill is the ability to pick your options. Your definitions allows you to have freewill by choosing which of the options that are given to you, you get to choose. I say, freewill is in choosing the options, not picking from the available ones. Whether or not you can complete that option is another matter.
I finally get where you are coming from. I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion, just like I have with Toasted. I'll give you the same offer that I did with Toasted: agree to disagree. This way, we can stop trying to beat each other over the head with this. Is that ok with you?
I'm going to stop posting for now. You know my view and I know yours. If Kargir01 jumps on the bandwagon again, I might also start posting again. He's a friend of mine.
No one used that definition of freewill except for you.
I never used the definition. I defined it myself, very clearly, quite a bit back.Astromath attempted to use that definition for philosophy.
No he didn't. You simply misunderstood the format in which his definition was presented.
Example
Mean: Noun
1. Not a nice person
2. Math. The sum of all numerical data in a set divided by the number of data points in the set.
If that example is not clear enough, the "2. Philosophy" means that the words following philosophy in the quoted text is the second definition for the term Free Will that the quoted dictionary included, and that it is the one that has to do with philosophy. That is, acording to that dictionary, it is what Free Will means in the context of Philosophy.Again (I know... it sucks having to repeat myself so many times.... if people could just grasp the concept) 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision indicates that you choosing anything is independent of outside influences. Heck, it even says independent. If it is dependent on anything, it is not independent and thus not free.
And again, you are falling into the same trap as kar, you are defining a thing too narrowly so as to insure that it cannot ever exist. No thing has ever been determined to be independent of all other things, so far as I know, and if such a thing where to exist, we would have no way of knowing of it, by definition. The word independent exists, and is in common use. Your definition of independent is completly worthless, and so I reject it in favor of a definition that makes sense and is usefull in communicating ideas.
If you define free will as needing to be independent, and define independent as not being affected by anything, then yes, free will, as you define it, cannot exist. As nothing that can exist in the realm of human existance can be independent, anything that you define as needing to be independent (again, by your ussage of the word) cannot exist.
I would define "independent" as not being dependent on anything else. I guess since my definition of "independent" is worthless we are going to need a new one. How would you define "independent"?
Wait, seriously, you're mocking people here?
Well, making ad hominem attacks is much so much easier. ;)
Wait, seriously, you're mocking people here?
Well, making ad hominem attacks is much so much easier. ;)
Actually, I was mocking you, not attempting to discredit your arguement because of who you are.
I think I should clarify something, Determinism isn't the same thing as predetermination. Determinism is focused on causation. basically, everything that happens, happens because of some previous event. You hit the "H" key and an "H" appears on your screen. You turn a door knob and the internal mechanisms of the lock move in a way that the door opens. Sure, there are things that appear random to us, but that does not mean that they are. Like I said before, we can't identify every single variable, but it does not mean that one of these undentified variables did not affect what happens.
Except determinism says just that. It says that, at the moment you press the "H" key, everything event leading to that point has made it so you pressing the "H" key is literally the only possible state the Universe can be in, which is utter nonsense.
Would you at least admit that the reason you are choosing anything is because a choice has been presented to you?
No. Were that true there'd be no new ideas, inventions, concepts, or actions. Creativity and inspiration are the antithesis of determinism.
Also, I am not saying that freewill is being able to pick the outcome of any situation. I am saying freewill is the ability to pick your options. Your definitions allows you to have freewill by choosing which of the options that are given to you, you get to choose. I say, freewill is in choosing the options, not picking from the available ones. Whether or not you can complete that option is another matter.
I finally get where you are coming from. I guess we have a fundamental difference of opinion, just like I have with Toasted. I'll give you the same offer that I did with Toasted: agree to disagree. This way, we can stop trying to beat each other over the head with this. Is that ok with you?
I'm going to stop posting for now. You know my view and I know yours. If Kargir01 jumps on the bandwagon again, I might also start posting again. He's a friend of mine.
I'm glad someone gets it. i also hope that I made you think about it in a way that you hadn't done so before.
Actually, I was mocking you, not attempting to discredit your arguement because of who you are.
Right.
I think I should clarify something, Determinism isn't the same thing as predetermination. Determinism is focused on causation. basically, everything that happens, happens because of some previous event. You hit the "H" key and an "H" appears on your screen. You turn a door knob and the internal mechanisms of the lock move in a way that the door opens. Sure, there are things that appear random to us, but that does not mean that they are. Like I said before, we can't identify every single variable, but it does not mean that one of these undentified variables did not affect what happens.
Except determinism says just that. It says that, at the moment you press the "H" key, everything event leading to that point has made it so you pressing the "H" key is literally the only possible state the Universe can be in, which is utter nonsense.Would you at least admit that the reason you are choosing anything is because a choice has been presented to you?
No. Were that true there'd be no new ideas, inventions, concepts, or actions. Creativity and inspiration are the antithesis of determinism.
So should I assume that you believe that if your computer is working perfectly, when you press the "H" key sometimes something else happens? This is independent of any flaw or damage with your computer right?
Actually, I was mocking you, not attempting to discredit your arguement because of who you are.
Right.
Well, you have a limited number of choices how you can take it so I won't fault you not believing me.
So should I assume that you believe that if your computer is working perfectly, when you press the "H" key sometimes something else happens? This is independent of any flaw or damage with your computer right?
Should I assume that you never make typos?
Well, you have a limited number of choices how you can take it so I won't fault you not believing me.
Well there were really only two choices: you had not valid response so you were being a jerk to discredit me, or you were just being a jerk. You claim it's not the former so there's really only one option remaining…
So should I assume that you believe that if your computer is working perfectly, when you press the "H" key sometimes something else happens? This is independent of any flaw or damage with your computer right?
Should I assume that you never make typos?
That is quite different. Hitting the "H" should, under ideal conditions, produce an "H" on the screen. Now if you hit a different key, a different result will come about. Determinism just says that whatever happened was caused by a previous stimuli.
Well, you have a limited number of choices how you can take it so I won't fault you not believing me.
Well there were really only two choices: you had not valid response so you were being a jerk to discredit me, or you were just being a jerk. You claim it's not the former so there's really only one option remaining…
So in effect, I limited your freewill?
That is quite different. Hitting the "H" should, under ideal conditions, produce an "H" on the screen. Now if you hit a different key, a different result will come about. Determinism just says that whatever happened was caused by a previous stimuli.
That's not determinism, that is cause and effect. Big difference.
That is quite different. Hitting the "H" should, under ideal conditions, produce an "H" on the screen. Now if you hit a different key, a different result will come about. Determinism just says that whatever happened was caused by a previous stimuli.
That's not determinism, that is cause and effect. Big difference.
Cause and effect is determinism.
Here you go...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
So in effect, I limited your freewill?
You're kidding, right?
So in effect, I limited your freewill?
You're kidding, right?
Im going by what you said...
"Well there were really only two choices: you had not valid response so you were being a jerk to discredit me, or you were just being a jerk. You claim it's not the former so there's really only one option remaining"
If I took away one of you options I limited what options you have left.
Cause and effect is determinism.
Here you go...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
You're kidding, right?
Cause and effect is determinism.
Here you go...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
You're kidding, right?
So what source would you site for determinism? I'd site several journal articles, philosophers, books and more, but It would take much more time than I want to invest.
Im going by what you said...
Not very well, it would seem.
"Well there were really only two choices: you had not valid response so you were being a jerk to discredit me, or you were just being a jerk. You claim it's not the former so there's really only one option remaining"
If I took away one of you options I limited what options you have left.
Which has preciesely nothing to do with free will.
Im going by what you said...
Not very well, it would seem."Well there were really only two choices: you had not valid response so you were being a jerk to discredit me, or you were just being a jerk. You claim it's not the former so there's really only one option remaining"
If I took away one of you options I limited what options you have left.
Which has preciesely nothing to do with free will.
You're joking right?
I would define "independent" as not being dependent on anything else. I guess since my definition of "independent" is worthless we are going to need a new one. How would you define "independent"?
And can you find one common ussage of that word where the definition your presenting makes any sense?
An Idependent Variable is not a variable that is dependent on nothing, it is a variable that is not dependent upon the other variables being discused.
An Independent Woman is still dependent upon eating, and having oxygen in her air supply.
An Independent Country is still probably dependent upon having a revenue source, and the sun not exploding and vaporizing the planet.
The notion of "independent" only makes sense in discussing the relationship of one thing or set of things to one or more other, specific, things. If the only way to use the word was to define that second group of things as being all things ever the word has no point, would never be used, and thus would really not exist in any usefull way.
What this second group of things consists of tends to be implied rather than stated, and is typically implied by an assumption about what the first thing is typically assumed to be dependent on (Variables: the other variables. Woman: a man) or by the nature and content of the conversation in which it is used (Nation: another nation).
In a conversation of free will, I would say that the most likely 'other things' candidate for independent would be the will of another. If your choice is dependent upon the choice of another, then you do not have free will in the given situation. Your state of being in such a situation where you sacrifice your freewill in the matter may well be one into which you entered and remain in through your own free will, or one in which you are placed into through a breaking of your will, but this is irrelevant as far as the choice in question is concerned.
(Side note: being influenced by is not the same as being dependent upon.)
I would define "independent" as not being dependent on anything else. I guess since my definition of "independent" is worthless we are going to need a new one. How would you define "independent"?
And can you find one common ussage of that word where the definition your presenting makes any sense?
An Idependent Variable is not a variable that is dependent on nothing, it is a variable that is not dependent upon the other variables being discused.
An Independent Woman is still dependent upon eating, and having oxygen in her air supply.
An Independent Country is still probably dependent upon having a revenue source, and the sun not exploding and vaporizing the planet.
The notion of "independent" only makes sense in discussing the relationship of one thing or set of things to one or more other, specific, things. If the only way to use the word was to define that second group of things as being all things ever the word has no point, would never be used, and thus would really not exist in any usefull way.
What this second group of things consists of tends to be implied rather than stated, and is typically implied by an assumption about what the first thing is typically assumed to be dependent on (Variables: the other variables. Woman: a man) or by the nature and content of the conversation in which it is used (Nation: another nation).
In a conversation of free will, I would say that the most likely 'other things' candidate for independent would be the will of another. If your choice is dependent upon the choice of another, then you do not have free will in the given situation. Your state of being in such a situation where you sacrifice your freewill in the matter may well be one into which you entered and remain in through your own free will, or one in which you are placed into through a breaking of your will, but this is irrelevant as far as the choice in question is concerned.
(Side note: being influenced by is not the same as being dependent upon.)
Lets see if we can come to some sort of agreement...
Would you agree that when it comes to freewill, the variables that we should be looking at (in a very broad sense) are the choice event (the choice), the choices (options that are available), and the actions you take (same as the choice you make)?
Would you agree to that or would you like to refine it in some other way?
(If you will recall, I already rejected the notion that 'freewill' is a thing that can be possed by a creature, asserting that it can only be meaningfull in the context of an event.)
If the former, then no. I would assume 'independent' to mean not dependent upon the will of another, unless it is specifically stated otherwise by the user.
If the latter, then no. We should be looking at wether or not the person was able to act as their Will demanded. If their, erm, choice or action was dependent upon the will of another, then they did not have free will in regards to that situation. (Either the situation was not within their power, they had chosen to substitute someone elses will for their own, or their will had been broken through fear or some other force.)
You're joking right?
I wish I were, man, but sadly there's nothing funny about your misunderstanding of free will.
Would you agree that when it comes to freewill, the variables that we should be looking at (in a very broad sense) are the choice event (the choice), the choices (options that are available), and the actions you take (same as the choice you make)?
Would you agree to that or would you like to refine it in some other way?
I don't think my last post was particularly clear. Assuming, for the sake of this post, that you are asking what criteria are necessary for a situation to fall under the heading of an expression of free will, I think the variables we should be looking at are:
Power: Can you meaningfully affect the situation
Will: What you desire (in the broad sense) from the situation.
Anything that physically removes your ability to affect the situation (Subverting or removing your power) or replaces or counteracts your Will (fear, defeerence, vasselage) removes your free will from that situation.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you mean "what we should expect 'independent' to be refering to in a conversation about the nature of free will" or "what we should be looking at to determine if a person had free will in a given situation"?
(If you will recall, I already rejected the notion that 'freewill' is a thing that can be possed by a creature, asserting that it can only be meaningfull in the context of an event.)
Well in that case, I agree with you. Creatures (people) don't posses freewill. It is a concept that can only have any meaning within an event.
You're joking right?
I wish I were, man, but sadly there's nothing funny about your misunderstanding of free will.
Hello kettle, this is the pot, you are black.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you mean "what we should expect 'independent' to be refering to in a conversation about the nature of free will" or "what we should be looking at to determine if a person had free will in a given situation"?
(If you will recall, I already rejected the notion that 'freewill' is a thing that can be possed by a creature, asserting that it can only be meaningfull in the context of an event.)
Well in that case, I agree with you. Creatures (people) don't posses freewill. It is a concept that can only have any meaning within an event.
Having free will in all situations would require Power over every situation. Assuming there is no functional limits upon the number of situations that may occur, having free will over all situations requiers infinite power, putting it well beyond the kind of mortal man. It is something that could only be possessed by a hypothetical omnipotent being.
If you assert that free will can exist within an event (as you have) and by any party that is not said diety, then the reasonable conclusion is that there is either no such being (athiests or polytheists or others who belive in gods of limited power) or that said being chooses not to exercise that power as far as humans are concerned (Christian though, as far as I understand it).
I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you mean "what we should expect 'independent' to be refering to in a conversation about the nature of free will" or "what we should be looking at to determine if a person had free will in a given situation"?
(If you will recall, I already rejected the notion that 'freewill' is a thing that can be possed by a creature, asserting that it can only be meaningfull in the context of an event.)
Well in that case, I agree with you. Creatures (people) don't posses freewill. It is a concept that can only have any meaning within an event.
Having free will in all situations would require Power over every situation. Assuming there is no functional limits upon the number of situations that may occur, having free will over all situations requiers infinite power, putting it well beyond the kind of mortal man. It is something that could only be possessed by a hypothetical omnipotent being.
If you assert that free will can exist within an event (as you have) and by any party that is not said diety, then the reasonable conclusion is that there is either no such being (athiests or polytheists or others who belive in gods of limited power) or that said being chooses not to exercise that power as far as humans are concerned (Christian though, as far as I understand it).
Sorry, No. I never claimed that it existed within an event. I said the concept of freewill can only have any meaning within an event. It all depends how you conceptualize freewill within that event.
Diferent amounts of freewill indicates different amount of limitations on freewill. which in effect indicates that freewill is not free.
Nah, it just indicates that the world is more complicated then would be convenient.
You're joking right?
I wish I were, man, but sadly there's nothing funny about your misunderstanding of free will.
Hello kettle, this is the pot, you are black.
/sigh
You're joking right?
I wish I were, man, but sadly there's nothing funny about your misunderstanding of free will.
Hello kettle, this is the pot, you are black.
/sigh
You entertain me... thanks
Laws of Physics -> Chemical Reactions in the Brain -> Signals Sent by the Brain -> Our Actions
("->" means "determines")
Therefore, the ultimate source of our actions IS the laws of physics, and we know the laws of physics are DEFINITE, gravity never takes a day off.
So if the ultimate source of our choices is definite, where is the choice? Our answer is already definite and defined by the laws of physics.
Prove me wrong.
You entertain me...
Wish I could say the same. Even though I disagree with you I quite liked your posts right up until you decided to act so immature and insulting.
The only reason you do anything, even the twitch of a finger or breathing, is because of signals sent from the brain. The brain has chemistry so that it sends these signals. The chemistry in the brain is governed by the laws of physics.
Laws of Physics -> Chemical Reactions in the Brain -> Signals Sent by the Brain -> Our Actions
("->" means "determines")
Therefore, the ultimate source of our actions IS the laws of physics, and we know the laws of physics are DEFINITE, gravity never takes a day off.
So if the ultimate source of our choices is definite, where is the choice? Our answer is already definite and defined by the laws of physics.
Prove me wrong.
There's nothing to prove, really. Your claim is wrong on its face cos you skipped a crucial step the middle (the one about thought and intelligence that determines what we do with input to the the brain and which determines those signals sent out from it). You argument is kind of like saying planes are actually teleporters cos you walk onto it in New York and walk off it in Dallas, skipping over the bit in the middle where the plane makes the intervening journey.
Sorry, No. I never claimed that it existed within an event. I said the concept of freewill can only have any meaning within an event. It all depends how you conceptualize freewill within that event.
Applying the same lable to multiple concepts does not make them the same concept, despite what these types of discussions tend to reveal about human nature.
Diferent amounts of freewill indicates different amount of limitations on freewill. which in effect indicates that freewill is not free.
Nah, it just indicates that the world is more complicated then would be convenient.
How very true.
Diferent amounts of freewill indicates different amount of limitations on freewill. which in effect indicates that freewill is not free.
What good is this sentence? As far as I can tell, you are either:
A) Listing attributes you belive a thing to have, and then using that to support your belife that it does not exist, which is clearly contradictory
or
B) Changing the definition of a word you are using within the same sentence without any indication of doing so or explanation of such
or
C) Saying that gaining something has a price
A is self contradictory.
B is completly worthless, if you cannot stick to one defenition of one word for even one sentence, why bother trying to read what your write?
C is completly beyond the point of any discussion I have so far seen in this thread. It's like saying "There is a price to freedom, so noone is free." The presence or absence of a cost associated with having or executing free will has little to do with what it is, or in arguing that it does not exist.
You entertain me...
Wish I could say the same. Even though I disagree with you I quite liked your posts right up until you decided to act so immature and insulting.
I’m sure you did.
Free will does not mean "access to infinite options", it means the actions you take are not predetermined. Determinism is, IMO, self-evidently a load of absolute horse
Funny enough I apologized for the first remark I made (an apology you chose to ignore, and I have since retracted by way of deleting).
There's nothing to prove, really. Your claim is wrong on its face cos you skipped a crucial step the middle (the one about thought and intelligence that determines what we do with input to the the brain and which determines those signals sent out from it). You argument is kind of like saying planes are actually teleporters cos you walk onto it in New York and walk off it in Dallas, skipping over the bit in the middle where the plane makes the intervening journey.
Let’s see if we can continue this discussion civilly. I agree with you in that he brushed over the decision making process very quickly, but you have made some assumptions that do the same thing. You claim that he skips over a thought process that determines the signals sent out from the brain (that is unless I do not understand what you typed up). The problem with this argument is that you don’t know what came first, the thought or the brain activity. There are some studies that show that there is brain activity and a specific choice has been made by an individually before the individual realizes what their choice is. I would give you a citation, but I don’t remember the name of the researcher, and I’m not looking forward to having to look for the citation.
Hopefully you see my point.
Diferent amounts of freewill indicates different amount of limitations on freewill. which in effect indicates that freewill is not free.
What good is this sentence? As far as I can tell, you are either:
A) Listing attributes you belive a thing to have, and then using that to support your belife that it does not exist, which is clearly contradictory
or
B) Changing the definition of a word you are using within the same sentence without any indication of doing so or explanation of such
or
C) Saying that gaining something has a price
A is self contradictory.
B is completly worthless, if you cannot stick to one defenition of one word for even one sentence, why bother trying to read what your write?
C is completly beyond the point of any discussion I have so far seen in this thread. It's like saying "There is a price to freedom, so noone is free." The presence or absence of a cost associated with having or executing free will has little to do with what it is, or in arguing that it does not exist.
Actually, I was referring to what EE said:
If your freewill is dependent on a preceding stimulus causing/creating a choice event, your freewill is not free. It is dependent.
No, just that in different situations you have different amounts of freedom to choose.
You may not choose to be mugged, but you choose how to respond. That you didn't choose for the situation to happen is irrelevant to the overall question of whether you have free will.
As to point (b) I really do wish you had read what I wrote and about what I wrote. Point (c), well, I never said it had a price. I’m not really sure where you get that. Please read what I write. The only one that I can recall writing about price has been kagrir01.
At least you managed to kill the strawman that was hanging around. That guy always gets in the way.
Actually, I was referring to what EE said:
I am aware of that. It does not, however, answer my question. Unless someone is arguing the existance of free freewill, then I fail to see how saying their free will is in possession of quality X helps you disprove that their free will exists. "Your car is red, thus your car does not exist" makes no sense.
What follows is three guesses as to what on earth you where trying to convey. I was not claiming that you said all three. If one of thoes was closest to your purpose, feel free to say which and elaborate. If you ment something completly diffrent, feel free to do the same.
As to point (b) I really do wish you had read what I wrote and about what I wrote. Point (c), well, I never said it had a price. I’m not really sure where you get that. Please read what I write. The only one that I can recall writing about price has been kagrir01.
You said that his free will was not free. Assuming that you are using a diffrent definition of 'free' at the end of the sentence than the one you are using in 'free will' is as good an explanation for what your sentence is intended to mean as any that I could think of, and better (simpler) than most.
I am aware of that. It does not, however, answer my question. Unless someone is arguing the existance of free freewill, then I fail to see how saying their free will is in possession of quality X helps you disprove that their free will exists. "Your car is red, thus your car does not exist" makes no sense.
You are right, saying that if your car is red, it does not exist makes absolutely no sense. Good thing I didn’t say that.Iit would make sense to say that if your car is red, and it has one blue door, your car is not completely red. Would you agree?
If you claim that there are different levels of freedom (not you, EE claimed this), it is inferred that those levels of freedom are somehow limited, thus, different. What else would dictate the level of freedom? It would have to be a limitation. If it was not limited then all levels of freedom would be the same. The free in freewill is an all or nothing. It is either free or it is limited and thus not free. So what you posses isn’t freewill. As you said, creatures (and I’ll include people as creatures) do not posses freewill.
You said that his free will was not free. Assuming that you are using a diffrent definition of 'free' at the end of the sentence than the one you are using in 'free will' is as good an explanation for what your sentence is intended to mean as any that I could think of, and better (simpler) than most.
Well that would be why you didn’t understand what I said. I am still using the same definition of free. What I mean is that f there is any kind of limitation to freewill; it is not free (nothing to do with price). It is limited “free” will. Not really free, just free to an extent of the controlling limitation.
Does that make more sense?
If you claim that there are different levels of freedom (not you, EE claimed this)
I'm not sure I'd quantify it as having different levels of "freedom", but it's quite clear that it's easy to limit people's choices. If you lock a door, you remove the option of opening it without force. If you shoot them in the chest, you remove the choice of not being shot in the chest. If you propose to someone, you deny them the choice of proposing first.
That you have to deal with the consequences of other people's actions does not mean you don't have free will. It just means you don't exist in a vacuum.
If you claim that there are different levels of freedom (not you, EE claimed this)
I'm not sure I'd quantify it as having different levels of "freedom", but it's quite clear that it's easy to limit people's choices. If you lock a door, you remove the option of opening it without force. If you shoot them in the chest, you remove the choice of not being shot in the chest. If you propose to someone, you deny them the choice of proposing first.
That you have to deal with the consequences of other people's actions does not mean you don't have free will. It just means you don't exist in a vacuum.
Levels, amount, it's all the same really. I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing. You make a very good arguement for determinsim... besides the freewill part.
There's nothing to prove, really. Your claim is wrong on its face cos you skipped a crucial step the middle (the one about thought and intelligence that determines what we do with input to the the brain and which determines those signals sent out from it). You argument is kind of like saying planes are actually teleporters cos you walk onto it in New York and walk off it in Dallas, skipping over the bit in the middle where the plane makes the intervening journey.
And where, pray tell, does this "thought" and "intelligence" take place?
If your answer is brain then it's still governed by brain chemistry.
If your answer is not the brain, then where?
I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing. You make a very good arguement for determinsim... besides the freewill part.
Because determinism is more complicated then "I'm not omnipotent".
And where, pray tell, does this "thought" and "intelligence" take place?
If your answer is brain then it's still governed by brain chemistry.
Just 'cause brain chemistry is involved doesn't mean the brain has to be a deterministic machine. It's plenty complicated enough to be an NFA.
And where, pray tell, does this "thought" and "intelligence" take place?
If your answer is brain then it's still governed by brain chemistry.
Just 'cause brain chemistry is involved doesn't mean the brain has to be a deterministic machine. It's plenty complicated enough to be an NFA.
NFA = ?
Brian chemistry is just that, chemistry. Albiet a lot of complicated chemistry, but chemistry none the less. Chemistry is deterministic, thats why when you mix baking soda and vinegar it always bubbles over.
I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing. You make a very good arguement for determinsim... besides the freewill part.
Because determinism is more complicated then "I'm not omnipotent".
NFA = ?
NFA = nondeterministic finite automata.
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Special message for Toasted
roark13 has PMed you about the PbP we're in. Go to the 4e Clan Wars OOC thread and find out what's going on.
Have we all been presented with the same options more than once in life? Have we all always chosen the same thing?
You may have been presented with the same options, but the environment was different.
For instance, if someone offered you a stuffed puppy when you were 6, you'd probably take it. If someone offered you one now, would you?
The difference is no matter of will, simply the situation around you.
EDIT: Removed counter example. Suffice it to say, I do not agree with this line of thought and have decided not to continue this discussion. It's not as interesting as it once was.
Agreed, and I think I shall join you, sir. It's gone from a interesting discussion to a handful of entrenched individuals lobbing volleys back-and-forth. And yes, before anyone shouts "J'accuse!" I am well aware I am one of them, which is precisely why I am also choosing to whithdraw. Suffice to say I think Determinism is a quaint, outdated notion - like Numerology or Phlogiston - and I've read nothing, here or elsewhere, that even begins to convince me otherwise.
Cheers, all.
EDIT: Removed counter example. Suffice it to say, I do not agree with this line of thought and have decided not to continue this discussion. It's not as interesting as it once was.
Agreed, and I think I shall join you, sir. It's gone from a interesting discussion to a handful of entrenched individuals lobbing volleys back-and-forth. And yes, before anyone shouts "J'accuse!" I am well aware I am one of them, which is precisely why I am also choosing to whithdraw. Suffice to say I think Determinism is a quaint, outdated notion - like Numerology or Phlogiston - and I've read nothing, here or elsewhere, that even begins to convince me otherwise.
Cheers, all.
Good thing you didn't try and take one last parting shot.
I'm joking, relax, I don't take it personally and you shouldn't either.
But I agree, the discussion is no longer interesting or fun.
Good thing you didn't try and take one last parting shot.
I'm joking, relax, I don't take it personally and you shouldn't either.
I was hoping people would take it as the good-natured jab it was intended to be.
But I agree, the discussion is no longer interesting or fun.
I suspect there will be more. And who knows, perhaps next time we'll be on the same side. ;)
I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing. You make a very good arguement for determinsim... besides the freewill part.
Because determinism is more complicated then "I'm not omnipotent".
I belive he is saying that the equation you seem to be making;
"There are things not under my control" = "Determinisim"
Is absurdly false. Determinisim requiers more than the simple realization that all people are not in controll of all things at all times.
Good thing you didn't try and take one last parting shot.
I'm joking, relax, I don't take it personally and you shouldn't either.
I was hoping people would take it as the good-natured jab it was intended to be.But I agree, the discussion is no longer interesting or fun.
I suspect there will be more. And who knows, perhaps next time we'll be on the same side. ;)
Anything is possible. What are your views on elf shoes?
www.softstarshoes.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...
I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing. You make a very good arguement for determinsim... besides the freewill part.
Because determinism is more complicated then "I'm not omnipotent".
I belive he is saying that the equation you seem to be making;
"There are things not under my control" = "Determinisim"
Is absurdly false. Determinisim requiers more than the simple realization that all people are not in controll of all things at all times.
Here you go...
Seriously though, I'm done with this thread.