Free Will

definition
Of course, if you are stuck in the quandry over "free will vs determinism" there is the concept of free agency to be considered:
Free agency is the ability to choose our actions based upon our thoughts, emotions, circumstances, and desires. However we are answerable to God and the rest of humanity for the outcome of those choices. i.e. If we choose to commit a crime we can expect to answer to the authorities for that crime and if we choose to commit a sin we can expect to answer to God for that sin. We can and often do freely choose to commit one or the other or both.

But isn't our "free will" bound by our nature? I mean if it was not bound by our physical nature couldn't we grow feathers and fly if we so choose? And if it were not bound by our spiritual nature couldn't we choose to be sinless and please God in our every action?

Re: definition
JohnB

But is not our "nature" also the result of our choices and decisions?
Anyway,there are limits to our freedom of action, but that is not the same as saying that those limits are also in our will. I cannot grow feathers and fly but I can wish to have feathers and to fly. I only walk because I have legs, but I can choose between walking or not walking.

nature
val,
By definition, our nature is composed of the physical and spiritual characteristics with which we are born-- that is our nature is innate. I can by the exercise of my will neither cause one hair on my head to be black nor white and I can add not one inch to my stature. Agruments that credit conditioning or pre-conditioning of our nature from the choices we make or have made ignore the a priori fact that nature is an innate quality or rather a complex combination of qualities over which we had no input. No matter how much conditioning one has one cannot act outside or beyond that of which he is by nature capable, either physically or spiritually.

Is it a true statement that saying we have limits to our freedom of action is not the same as saying those limits are also in our will?

Let's see, if I cannot exercise my will through my freedom of action isn't it then a logical necessity that my will is limited? I mean is a wish the same as a causal will? Obviously not otherwise I COULD grow feathers and fly because my freedom of action would only be limited by my will. Then the freedom of my will is limited by the innate nature of my being to carry out any action which my will is otherwise free to express through action.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the definition of free will I posted on this thread a couple of days back.

For a great source on free will, read Richard Bach's "Illusions". I'm sure you will value the insight he provides, it's a great read, and not a long one either, you could probably read it in a couple hours if you tried.

Okay, continuing the thread (since it's an interesting thread :wink: ).

Determinism:
cause -> effect
Is this a deductive or an inductive reasoning?
Could there be things that cause itself?

I think that the free will debate should include the fact that we exist as rational creatures choosing between options. The consciousness and rational capability are effects of causes that create the information to form the agency, but at that point alone, the agent exist independent of the causes and since the agents have rational capability, they are inevitably "choosing" their actions even though their actions are affected by non-rational feelings.

The main problem that I see with the declaration of the absence of free will is perhaps the mixed messages that the term might imply. Most likely it would imply to many people that our sense of responsibility is futile. We are rational beings that depend on choosing our actions through reasons after all. This apparent contradiction (perhaps its a semantics problem) is a problem.

Ray

I think determinism is not only "cause - effect". It is more. It supposes that a given cause will produce a specific effect and not others.
I agree that there no events not caused. But I deny that an event is a cause of only a specific event.
That means that the cause A is able to produce a undeterminable number of possible events, although only one will really occur.

I see where you are getting at Val. I've never thought of it that way before.

Val, what did you mean by:


It seems self-contradictory. Am I missing something?

Umm Val, are you suggesting that one cause might have multiple number of outcomes, or that an event is not just caused by one cause?

Ray

What I mean is this:
A) There is no event that has not been caused.
B) But, if you look for that cause, I think you will find very difficult to point one single and precise cause to theat event.
C) One event can cause a multitude of events.
D) And, that is the most important, one event can cause an multitude of other possible events; even if only one is produced.

The question of free will implies either we are in control of ourselves or someone or something else is. If we assign that someone or something else a name... God, higher power, universe whatever.... we have a matrix where we can logically deduce the answer.
The matrix is (God for now):

1 2 3 4
God God No God No God
no free will free will No free will free will

#3 Just doesnt make sense because this implies there is no puppet master controling the puppet.
#1 Doesnt make sense because a loving god would not want to force love.
#2 Part of the definition of God is that he is omnicient (all knowing). That means he knows what we are going to do in the future. Therefor the future is already laid out and we follow the plan. Unless, he knows what we are going to do but allows us to make decisions.
That leaves #4

Regardless, the only parts of the matrix that make sense is #2 & #4.
God or no God... we have free will. So, the real question is......
since you have free will... you have to make the choice between God and no God.
But, since the question of God is included as part of the matrix.....

Ahhh, logic trees. Mmmmm.

....

Anyway.



... and if it's true about puppetry, logically it must be true about life.



I love it when people say "So, in this logic chain we have something that exists. It could be a force field, or super-advanced alien or some kind of deity like in christian mythology.... so anyway, like I was saying we've got the biblical God." without any kind of point in the chain where they have a reason to go from the general to the specific.

That sudden abstract leap of equivocation is almost enough to distract someone from the assumption that they're capable of understanding the psychology of God in thinking that a loving being wouldn't want to force love when in human psychology people almost universally want to force love.

Or then again maybe 95% of the books on "magic" that exist don't have love spells in them. Pheremone laced perfumes don't sell like pheremone laced hotcakes. There aren't a thousand tips in cosmopolitan and other trashy magazines about "how to make him love you"....

Everyone likes to think that they know the truth. I love it.

Anonymouse

So you love to think that you know the truth.
Well, "à chacun son goût".

free....to a certain a degree
I do believe that we as humans have free will. However, as was said earlier certain things we cannot control influences our decision. Things like environment and mental well being. These factors are completely out of our control. Because of this I believe humanity t has limited free will. We do have the ability to make our own decisions but becuase so much of who we are is made up by our environs adn we cannot control this it is limited free will.

Can things be so intricately intertwined by numerous causes each affecting the other causes that it would be complicated and near-random that free will arises?

Just a thought...