Free Will

Yes, Ray, quality post. However, this:

Quote:

All those factors that are within us, is at that time, isn't it, a part of our thoughts? If those things are a part of our mind then we are still choosing. Thus we are not being forced to do certain things, we are choosing for what we think is right, and so that is free will.

contradicts itself slightly. If those "factors" exist, they limit free will, not define it. If I were, say, shackled, then while I would be aware and incorporating that factor into my thoughts, the shackles reduce my free will to a speck. So, if you meant that we always have some free will, despite these "factors", and I just didn't fully comprehend, then I agree. if you meant something else...explain further, please. This is a good topic.

0 Replies

Ray
You say that first we must define free will. I agree.
Here is my definition: the possibility of making choices that are not previously determinated. Which implies that we are responsible.
In that sense, I think we have the possibility of making conditioned choices. Not entirely free, but condicioned to what we are.

So, I reject determinist theories.

0 Replies

FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOUVE MADE A DECISION INDEPENDENT OF EXTERNAL FORCES YOUVE ACTUALLY BEEN INFLUENCED BY INTERNAL EMOTIONS OR DESIRES

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOUVE MADE A DECISION INDEPENDENT OF EXTERNAL FORCES YOUVE ACTUALLY BEEN INFLUENCED BY INTERNAL EMOTIONS OR DESIRES

I've dealt with this elsewhere: in short, it's a strawman argument. No one contends that choices are not conditioned. To suggest, then, that free will is impossible because all choices are influenced by extraneous factors is to misrepresent the nature of free will.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOUVE MADE A DECISION INDEPENDENT OF EXTERNAL FORCES YOUVE ACTUALLY BEEN INFLUENCED BY INTERNAL EMOTIONS OR DESIRES

I've dealt with this elsewhere: in short, it's a strawman argument. No one contends that choices are not conditioned. To suggest, then, that free will is impossible because all choices are influenced by extraneous factors is to misrepresent the nature of free will.

I stated that Free Will was an "illusion" not "impossible"

0 Replies

Quote:

contradicts itself slightly. If those "factors" exist, they limit free will, not define it. If I were, say, shackled, then while I would be aware and incorporating that factor into my thoughts, the shackles reduce my free will to a speck. So, if you meant that we always have some free will, despite these "factors", and I just didn't fully comprehend, then I agree. if you meant something else...explain further, please. This is a good topic.

Hmm... I see what you mean. I guess I do think that we do have some free will. Anyways what I meant was that even if say we have those desires and emotions inside of us, we are still choosing. Thus there is really nothing that makes our will not "free" since if we choose to act on our desire then we are basicallly thinking that it is right to choose to go with our desire. However, this does not mean that a person has not made an error of choice. I kinda sound like an existentialist here... However if we know that a certain desire is not right and yet we're still going with this desire, then I guess our free will is limited. So yeah, you're right. It was a contradiction. We would still be free to act, but our will not be free.
Anyways I'm a believer that we, at least most of us, can shape our desire and emotions towards what is right.

Quote:

You say that first we must define free will. I agree.
Here is my definition: the possibility of making choices that are not previously determinated. Which implies that we are responsible.
In that sense, I think we have the possibility of making conditioned choices. Not entirely free, but condicioned to what we are.

So, I reject determinist theories.

Yeah I'm with you here. Anyways I reject determinism theories that set about to destroy human responsibility. However, determinism in the sense that one things follows another is acceptable.

I read a post of yours that noted something about Kant's view on cause and effect. Can you elaborate on that again? Thank you.

Prediction of the future is impossible. If we do know the future, then we have probably already changed it by knowing about it. How can we know the future?

0 Replies

And I agree on that point, Ray. My view is that we all have Freud's three components(Id, Ego, Super-Ego), with the corresponding balancing act, but the relative strength of each of those three parts determines what type of person we are. So, while these parts are, in a sense, us, we do have free will, but in the sense that some of these parts, especially the Id, are biologically determined, we don't. Kind of a "half-full/empty" conundrum. it all depends on where you draw the line between external forces and internal ones.

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

I stated that Free Will was an "illusion" not "impossible"

So you'd say that illusory things are still possible?

0 Replies

Ray
As you know, Hume claimed that causality was nothing more than an habit, due to observation of regular succession of events. Kant couldn't accept that, because it would destroy the scientif vision he had of the universe - following the newtonian model. So he claimed in The Critic of Pure Reason that causality was not an habit due to empiric constations, but an atribute, a category of human mind. Since he believed we can only perceive things in space and time, our mind has the property of conceiving them in succession but also in mutual relation. Causality is in our mind, because our reason can only represent the world in relational modalities.
That doesn't mean that causality is an illusion. It is the way we can configure things, so it's real for us. We are not able to know how things are in themselves.

0 Replies

Re: Free Will

~Rei+Ki ~ wrote:

I'm asking on a karmic, cosmic, universal, spiritual, religious,
humanity level ... what do you think about free will. do we have it?
is everything already written and we only have the choice to use it
for good or bad? do we have no choice in the outcomes at all?

I think it's interesting to note that "free will" and "freedom" are two completely different things. Freedom is the ability to make choices from options. Free will is the ability to choose what options you want to have. It is a rather depressing thought to believe that we have no say in what our future will hold. If everything is predestined, what makes us go on living? And yet, if one looks at the philosophical definitions, is it not freedom (choosing an option) to believe in the ability to have free will? (I do not know if Sarte could actually admit that he did not believe in free will, because it would throw off his entire philosophy.)
On a human level, what happens if free will (or freedom) is used or taken advantage of in a negative pattern? We see this everyday with individual freedoms that lead to downfall and destructive habits... can we curb our own destiny? I realize this is a reinterpretation of the question, but if a choice in the outcome of our lives has both negative and positive effects and we can choose our destiny, does determining only the positive results cause us to actually lose something in life?

0 Replies

Steph: Welcome, and very nice post. I like the distinction between "free will" and "freedom", and I have no qualms about your definitions of either.
I was a bit confused by this statement:

Quote:

And yet, if one looks at the philosophical definitions, is it not freedom (choosing an option) to believe in the ability to have free will?

it seems a bit paradoxical, since I think you'd need free will before you could have freedom, but that's just my view. What do you think? BTW, re-interpret away, that's what we're here for. :wink:
Again, welcome.

0 Replies

Something relevent to this discussion might be something I think can be contributed to freud. Just a simple proposition:

You can't do anything you don't want to do.

Go ahead, try! You may say that you could be forced to do something, like, not at gunpoint (because then you'd just be choosing to cooperate in order to live) but rather like a big guy grabs you and ties you up or something, but I say that's just something being done TO you, so it's not relevent to this discussion, as we are talking about things we CHOOSE to do. So you're not PERFORMING the action of being tied up, but rather the action is being performed upon you.

Anyway, I agree with stuh:

stuh505 wrote:

...there is only 1 possible linear chain of events for the future.

The only rational way to disagree is to believe in magic or God.

I want to defend the second part from the assault it received:

Frank Apisa wrote:

That is the ONLY rational way to disagree????

I don't "believe" in God or in magic...yet I just did disagree. And I like to think it was a logical, rational disagreement.

Do you disagree?

I disagree. I think believing in innate randomness in the universe means we have to face the reality, at some level, that given two instances of the same situation (exactly the same, mind you, not just seeming the same because we can't tell the difference), one might inspire one event, while the other would not inspire that event. This is the opposite of logical, the opposite of rational, which both are based on the concept of results being "reasonable on the basis of earlier statements or events", as my dictionary puts it.

0 Replies

binnyboy

If you accept that "there is only 1 possible linear chain of events for the future" then you must also accept that our present is the result of only one possible linear chain of events. This, because in the past, our present was the futur.
In this case, free will is impossible. All your choices are determinated by that linear chain of events.
So, when you say we can't do anything we don't want to do, you are just saying that we want to do what we would do anyway.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Anyway, I agree with stuh:

stuh505 wrote:
...there is only 1 possible linear chain of events for the future.

The only rational way to disagree is to believe in magic or God.

I want to defend the second part from the assault it received:

Frank Apisa wrote:
That is the ONLY rational way to disagree????

I don't "believe" in God or in magic...yet I just did disagree. And I like to think it was a logical, rational disagreement.

Do you disagree?

I disagree. I think believing in innate randomness in the universe means we have to face the reality, at some level, that given two instances of the same situation (exactly the same, mind you, not just seeming the same because we can't tell the difference), one might inspire one event, while the other would not inspire that event. This is the opposite of logical, the opposite of rational, which both are based on the concept of results being "reasonable on the basis of earlier statements or events", as my dictionary puts it.

Are you telling me that you KNOW randomness is not a part of REALITY, Binny?

Scientists already disagree with you in the world of quanta!

But so that I can assess what you have to say...and give it the consideration it is due...please tell me:

How do you know what the Ultimate REALITY is (so that you can insist upon what it does not contain)...and why do you disagree with the speculations of some of the most brilliant scientific minds now working on the planet?

0 Replies

Still fighting Frank?

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

Still fighting Frank?

Nope.

Just looking for answers.

Just wanna see if Binny's hold water. :wink:

0 Replies

Speak to you soon, Frank...with some "answers"

0 Replies

-I-1-2-No-U- wrote:

Speak to you soon, Frank...with some "answers"

That will be a pleasant experience. :wink:

0 Replies

I'll speak to you with my proper moniker...once I get it going again.

0 Replies

val, exactly Smile

I think the first step is to accept the fact that there is only one linear chain of events... then build whatever construction you need to appease your need to think you have control of anything around that fact. And if it can't be done tough luck Smile

Frank,
As far as knowing anything, I don't know jack. But what I think is that if I'm going to think anything, it's going to be based on logic and rationality, and since I don't know too much about quanta, I'm going to not base my arguments on that. It's this humble student of science's opinion that if even the most brilliant scientist's opinion is that two "objects" in the same two "spaces" cause different outcomes, then that's not somebody I want to do my taxes. Until I see it happen. Because I think he's probably mistaken somehow about the exactness of the objects' identity. But like I say you have every right to believe the "smart" people Smile

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know