Free Will

echi wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
echi wrote:
So do you think that our sense of "free will" is only a product of religion?

I would say the intellectual tapdancing around the subject at question, as evidenced in this discussion, is born whole-cloth of religion.

timber--
What are you talking about? Who's tapdancing?

Apparently its hard for members of the chorus line to get a good overall take on the entire show.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Well yeah; why do they call it pro choice?

Because if they do that, they can blame one person for the conditions of the world that we all share and have a part of, that makes it not always a hospitable or welcome place for a new citizen.

The proponents on either side of that issue go about saying 'pro choice' or 'baby murderer' but I doubt it is anything at all so neat and dogmatic to the woman lying there waiting for an abortion.
It is her choice, but how much choice did she have? Only she and God truly know. And the rest judge and condemn, and even fight and kill over such an issue.

Quote:

I personally think we do have choices, or free will, within the boundaries of natural law, of course.

Then there is human government and social dictates...and more, too, surely. We are bound in on every side.

Quote:

But you know what happens when I think.

Smoke comes out of your ears? Laughing

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

I skipped a lot of pages.

Quote:
Whatever is our true identity (maybe not worded correctly) is not the product of any effect. I don't argue our sense abilities (which IMO may include the recognition of reason or rationality), but I don't accept that we have the ability to make choices.

But then what is a "choice?" What exactly do you mean by the word choice, and what exactly do you mean by "I"?

I think we ultimately makes a choice. If "I" were to be my conscious self, then "I" am choosing what I am doing. If I did not choose what I am doing, then I am either sleep-walking (unconscious), almost unconscious, or under some sort of hypnosis.

(This has probably been said better by others on this thread, but...) I do not think it can be said that anyone has free will because we all are required to choose whatever it is we want most. As far as I can tell, that fits with the idea of determinism. "Choice", then, is an experience.
What do I mean by "I"? The concept of self is probably the result of some misperception, that the self is its own separate entity.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ray, is it not possible that most of our motivations reflect drives that operate unconsciously and that we formulate our "motivations" after the fact to give our expressed drives sense and justification? Do we have solid grounds for assuming that there such a thing as the ego's conscious will?
Frankly, I doubt the existence of will, free or determined.

Many things are in the realm of the possible. Haven't you ever stopped and think of what you're going to do next? You weigh out certain things and do what you think is best. You even question your own motivation sometimes.

Habituation may indeed be a part of our tendency to do something, but even we can target habits that we think need to change.

I don't understand your last statement. It may be some Buddhist notion that I am unaware of. The emptiness idea?

I find it hard to imagine that a person fully commits him or herself to the idea that he or she does not have a will. To refuse the existence of a will is to give up one's actions to the direct effect of environmental causes like when the protagonist of "The Outsider" shoots the Arab because the sun was in his eyes...

Quote:

(This has probably been said better by others on this thread, but...) I do not think it can be said that anyone has free will because we all are required to choose whatever it is we want most. As far as I can tell, that fits with the idea of determinism. "Choice", then, is an experience.
What do I mean by "I"? The concept of self is probably the result of some misperception, that the self is its own separate entity.

Required by who? If we are "required" to choose whatever we want the most, is it not at that time, that our desires are a part of "us" and thus it is we who are choosing? Even things that we want the most we may say no to. Sometimes our desires contradict our values.

I do not think that the self is a misperception, I think it is a recognition of the existence of a conscious being within spacetime. What I think is the misperception, is the exclusive importance that one puts on oneself over other people.

0 Replies

echi said:

Quote:

(This has probably been said better by others on this thread, but...) I do not think it can be said that anyone has free will because we all are required to choose whatever it is we want most. As far as I can tell, that fits with the idea of determinism. "Choice", then, is an experience.
What do I mean by "I"? The concept of self is probably the result of some misperception, that the self is its own separate entity.

Ray said:

Quote:

Required by who? If we are "required" to choose whatever we want the most, is it not at that time, that our desires are a part of "us" and thus it is we who are choosing? Even things that we want the most we may say no to. Sometimes our desires contradict our values.

My only point here is that we always make the decision that we most want to make (otherwise we wouldn't make it).

Quote:

I do not think that the self is a misperception, I think it is a recognition of the existence of a conscious being within spacetime. What I think is the misperception, is the exclusive importance that one puts on oneself over other people.

Okay, I can pretty much agree with your last sentence. But I don't get what you mean in the one before where you say that the self "is a recognition of the existence of a conscious being within spacetime".
I'm having trouble with the "existence of a conscious being" part.
First, I don't think anything is more or less conscious than any other thing (which also means that I pretty much find it useless to refer to "consciousness" in that context, at least).
Second, I haven't found any reason to support the idea that there are any "beings" that are separate from "being". IOW, there is no clear, defining line between my "self" and anything else.
Of course, I haven't reached any final conclusion on this, and my mind remains wide open.

0 Replies

There is no "being", only becoming, no objectss, only processes. But while we can theoretically recognize this reality, we cannnot function mentally and socially without thinking and speaking AS IF the world consisted of interacting things, including being-things like selves. Now I may be challenged with the question, "And who is making this statement?" I would rest my case with that.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

That seems possible because there is evidence for both sides of each coin.

Really?
Where is the evidence for the 'freewill' side of THIS debate?

Probably HERE Unless the 'S' in Doktor S means slippery.

0 Replies

Autotheism does not require invocation of the supernatural, as a belief in freewill constitutes.
I fail to see this as evidence for freewill.

0 Replies

Freewill requires chaos to exist. There is no evidence for pure necessary non contingent chaos.
The knowledge that we are determined to act how we act does not lessen or change how we act, only adds perspective.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Autotheism does not require invocation of the supernatural, as a belief in freewill constitutes.
I fail to see this as evidence for freewill.

AND:

Doktor S wrote:

Freewill requires chaos to exist. There is no evidence for pure necessary non contingent chaos.
The knowledge that we are determined to act how we act does not lessen or change how we act, only adds perspective.

You make these as authoritative statements without providing the authority. Some explanation is necessary.

Thanking you in advance, I am,
neo

0 Replies

Are you looking for a definition of freewill?

How familiar are you with the freewill vs causality argument?

I've been going over this one in so many threads for so many years it's probably best we agree on our terminology before we continue.

I started this mess, for the record, on the freewill side. The lack of supportive arguments and abundance of arguments for determinism, both hard and soft, eventually convinced me...

0 Replies

Define away

Be back later

0 Replies

ok
Freewill, in order to be 'free', must be choice independent of causality. To be free of causality necessarily implies chaos, which has no precedent in the known natural world.
Nothing we know so far is free of cause. To suggest something exists free of cause is an extraordinary claim, and we all know what kind of evidence such claims require.

0 Replies

I submit that our understanding of space, time and causality is insuffficient to explain the processes at work in cognition.

Is an idea an event? (Think outside the box here.)

You have satisfied this insufficiency by professing autotheism.

Sort of a 'have cake and eat it' solution.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Come on now, Timber ... don't forget that it is we humans who come up definitions in the first place ... definitions which tend to change over time

Sorta difficult to press that point if one is to assert The Canon be the innerrant, revealed, unchanging, absolute truth as expressed through the will and by the word of God.

What is meant by "unchanging"? Does that mean the words on the page never change - the meanings of the words - or the underlying concepts that the words express? I would vote for the last option, myself.

I can write a book that is "unchanging" even though it is translated into other languages, and even revised at a later point because the definitions of words change. The fact that the words on the page may change doesn't necessitate that the original concepts expressed in my first edition have changed.

If one assumes this definition of "unchanging", then I don't see a problem pressing the point at all.

I

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Would you folks agree that the traditional concept of an almighty God applies to him the attribute of free will?

This fine fellow believed such:
Martin Luther wrote:
God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and effacious will. By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.

Truly, if this were so, I would revile such a god with my dying breath.

I believe Luther would state that God's will is self-determined, yet constrained by his own nature. Some might call that free, others might not.

I

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Ray wrote:
I skipped a lot of pages.

Quote:
Whatever is our true identity (maybe not worded correctly) is not the product of any effect. I don't argue our sense abilities (which IMO may include the recognition of reason or rationality), but I don't accept that we have the ability to make choices.

But then what is a "choice?" What exactly do you mean by the word choice, and what exactly do you mean by "I"?

I think we ultimately makes a choice. If "I" were to be my conscious self, then "I" am choosing what I am doing. If I did not choose what I am doing, then I am either sleep-walking (unconscious), almost unconscious, or under some sort of hypnosis.

(This has probably been said better by others on this thread, but...) I do not think it can be said that anyone has free will because we all are required to choose whatever it is we want most. As far as I can tell, that fits with the idea of determinism. "Choice", then, is an experience.
What do I mean by "I"? The concept of self is probably the result of some misperception, that the self is its own separate entity.

Or maybe choice is simply the name for evaluating our desires, given the current circumstances, and selecting which desire we are going to act upon. That our circumstances and desires (which tend to be the result of past circumstances) may be determined does not negate the fact that this selection process takes place.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

neologist wrote:
Would you folks agree that the traditional concept of an almighty God applies to him the attribute of free will?

This fine fellow believed such:
Martin Luther wrote:
God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and effacious will. By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.

Truly, if this were so, I would revile such a god with my dying breath.

I believe Luther would state that God's will is self-determined, yet constrained by his own nature. Some might call that free, others might not.

I

Do you mean, for example, that God cannot lie?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Implicator wrote:
neologist wrote:
Would you folks agree that the traditional concept of an almighty God applies to him the attribute of free will?

This fine fellow believed such:
Martin Luther wrote:
God foresees, foreordains, and accomplishes all things by an unchanging, eternal, and effacious will. By this thunderbolt free will sinks shattered in the dust.

Truly, if this were so, I would revile such a god with my dying breath.

I believe Luther would state that God's will is self-determined, yet constrained by his own nature. Some might call that free, others might not.

I
Do you mean, for example, that God cannot lie?

Yes, just that sort of thing.

I

0 Replies

OK, and to aver that in creating man in his own image, God would have omitted the attribute of free will, implies what?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know