Free Will?!

Terry:
When I mencioned the moral rule "Killing is wrong" and the reason why, I was only giving an example of Kant's categoric imperative. For reasons I explained then, I don't agree with Kant's perspective.
My point in this discussion is only to establish that we have a conditioned freedom of choice. Conditions depend on the circumstances. Your example shows a case where a choice is almost arbitrary because whatever number I choose that would have no impact in my life.
But for me, the importance of the discussion "determinism/free will" is centered on responsability. If we have, as I believe, a certain freedom of choice, even conditioned, we have a certain responsability. The responsability depends on how strong are those conditions, how they intefere with my will.

0 Replies

If we make room only for the absolute notions of COMPLETE freedom (the Doctrine of Free Will) or a COMPLETE lack of freedom (the Doctrine of Determinism), we must agree with the logic of Joe's response to Terry.
But I do not accept these metaphysical notions. It does seem to me, as I mentioned before, that when we look backwards at our life we see an image of determinism (what HAS happened could not have been otherwise, because it has not been otherwise). When we look forward to the imagined future, all looks "open-ended" or the framework for free acts and choices between options.
It's all in our heads, and to that extent, illusory.

0 Replies

Options are not necessarily free will, because they have been established by our genes and environment.

0 Replies

About will and punishment - there is quite a lot of mentioning of freedom of will in the OT, for instance, the episode of Pharaoh hardening his heart in comparison to God hardening it for him. And likewise, a lot of punishing based on the use of free will. although there's also a lot of punishing based on random power tripping.

0 Replies

You can't call free will an illusion. We need and have a sense of free will since all those factors that were mentioned to affect our will is at that moment regarded as a part of us. Thus the being making the decision is us.
It's dangerous to think that we don't have free will since it will tend to restrict our need to think and make the right decisions. Never give up the sense of free will or else you probably won't think properly. We can't live as if we are puppets.
Objectively though, our will is not entirely "free", but nevertheless we do have and need "free will". Rolling Eyes

It kinda sounds like a paradox.

BTW I replied in this thread before.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But I do not accept these metaphysical notions. It does seem to me, as I mentioned before, that when we look backwards at our life we see an image of determinism (what HAS happened could not have been otherwise, because it has not been otherwise). When we look forward to the imagined future, all looks "open-ended" or the framework for free acts and choices between options.
It's all in our heads, and to that extent, illusory.

0 Replies

nipok, We all have our dilusions don't we? We're not sure what we actually see, hear, smell, or touch with varying degrees of reality and dilusion. It all boils down to how well our chemistry, biology, and electrical currents are working in our brain. As we get older, it may become less accurate in our perception of the world around us.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

nipok, We all have our dilusions don't we? We're not sure what we actually see, hear, smell, or touch with varying degrees of reality and dilusion. It all boils down to how well our chemistry, biology, and electrical currents are working in our brain. As we get older, it may become less accurate in our perception of the world around us.

My ability to observe or interpret what I observe does not lessen the reality that is the object or event that I observe was real or acted real or had a real interaction with the space, time, matter, and energy around it.

0 Replies

No it doesn't, but people that have dilusions don't know what's real and what's not. Ofcoarse what happens, happens whether anybody observes it or not. I'm just talking about the accuracy of our observations.

0 Replies

Nipok, nice argument. My discussion of determinism and freedom in terms of whether we are looking back or forward, was not intended as an argument for determinism (when looking back) or free will (when looking forward). I don't believe in either one. I think the issue is essentially bogus and based on a false dichotomy. I was saying that it looks as if looking back and forward defined constraint and freedom. I was referring not so much to illusions but to perspectives.
As I see it, your keyboard is what you and I see (naive realism), as well as patterns of molecular and atomic activity and who knows what else?-- all at once. What we see depends on our perspective. Every perception/conception reflects perspectives (or "frames of reference, as BoGoWo noted) which are inherently relativistic and can only be labelled illusions (or delusions) when we perceive them to be absolutely so, that one perspective is privileged or the only "natural" one.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Nipok, nice argument. My discussion of determinism and freedom in terms of whether we are looking back or forward, was not intended as an argument for determinism (when looking back) or free will (when looking forward). I don't believe in either one. I think the issue is essentially bogus and based on a false dichotomy. I was saying that it looks as if looking back and forward defined constraint and freedom. I was referring not so much to illusions but to perspectives.
As I see it, your keyboard is what you and I see (naive realism), as well as patterns of molecular and atomic activity and who knows what else?-- all at once. What we see depends on our perspective. Every perception/conception reflects perspectives (or "frames of reference, as BoGoWo noted) which are inherently relativistic and can only be labelled illusions (or delusions) when we perceive them to be absolutely so, that one perspective is privileged or the only "natural" one.

I'll buy the fact that 50 people could look at a keyboard and you could get 20-30 different perspectives and a handful of duplicate perspectives. I'll buy the fact that the keyboard is made up of tiny atoms in motion that I can't see. I'll buy the fact that for every object and event there may exist what you call a natural perspective which is the relative perspective that supercedes any human association. What I don't buy is calling the keyboad an illusion. All it takes is the one natural perspective to put an object in it's rightful place among all other object and to me that removes the illusion. My perception could be altered by two too many vodka on the rocks and I could see shapes in the shadows the keys make or four too many vodka on the rocks and I could see extra brilliance in the caps lock led or I could have six too many of them and see blurry letters on the keys or eight too many and see keys that don't exist. But the keyboard is just as real as it was before I took a drink. And it will be just as real when I go to bed and it will be just as real when I wake up the next morning and type one finger at a time very slowly.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

If we make room only for the absolute notions of COMPLETE freedom (the Doctrine of Free Will) or a COMPLETE lack of freedom (the Doctrine of Determinism), we must agree with the logic of Joe's response to Terry.

Excellent point. More people should agree with me.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know