Free Will Overrated?

@trismegisto,

trismegisto;150243 wrote:

To believe that free will exists makes it over-rated.

Every decision we make is the result of our experiences. Since it is impossible to duplicate any given moment there is no way of making a different choice.

Why? I have had the same experiences, and chosen chocolate in the past. But this is a derail. It is about whether we do have free will. It is not about the OP. The OP assumes we have free will.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150240 wrote:

If an "essential of free will" is only a necessary condition of free will, then of course, if we have only the necessary conditions of free will, then it does not follow that we have free will unless we also have the sufficient conditions of free will. Now, we may choose, yet be forced to choose. In that case, we are not free even if we can choose.

In short, you agree that the guy didn't moot an objection.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;150235 wrote:

Free will is conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
I can type 01, and I can type 10. It is thereby established that I have two realisable alternatives, my option set {01,10}.

Except you haven't made a choice. If you want to convey 01 then you have to type 01. If you want to convey 10 then you have to type 10. If you do not care then you type randomly, which is not making a chioce at all.

ughaibu;150235 wrote:

A choice is the construction of a set with exactly one element and that element is a proper subset of an option set.

No, a choice is two or more possibilities presented in any given moment. It has nothing to do with creating sets or elements.

ughaibu;150235 wrote:

I am conscious.
I have consciously considered the consequences of my choice.
{01}
I have constructed a set with exactly one element, which is a proper subset of my option set. In fact, I have demonstrated free will.

This doesn't make any sense, can you reword it?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;150245 wrote:

In short, you agree that the guy didn't moot an objection.

I don't understand what you are asking.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150244 wrote:

Why? I have had the same experiences, and chosen chocolate in the past. But this is a derail. It is about whether we do have free will. It is not about the OP. The OP assumes we have free will.

It is a falsity to believe that you have been presented with the same choice twice. There is no duplication of moments.

You only ever get one shot to make any one choice and your choice will always be determined by your experience. There is not free will.

@trismegisto,

trismegisto;150249 wrote:

It is a falsity to believe that you have been presented with the same choice twice. There is no duplication of moments.

You only ever get one shot to make any one choice and your choice will always be determined by your experience. There is not free will.

Have you any good reason for saying that with my same experiences I could not have chosen chocolate? What is that reason? (Saying things that "there is no duplication of moments" isn't a reason. It is just repeating what you are saying). If I had chosen differently, I could have had chocolate instead of vanilla. It is up to you to show I could not have chosen differently. My experiences do not force me to choose as I did. My experiences cause me to want to do as I did. That is why what I did was done freely. I chose vanilla because I wanted to choose vanilla. In fact, had I not chosen vanilla although I wanted vanilla, then, I would not have chosen freely. It is weird that you think that the very thing that means I did choose freely is exactly why you think I did not choose freely. Would I have chosen freely if I did not want to choose what I chose? Is that what you are saying? And, whose experiences should determine my choice if not mine?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;150222 wrote:

Well, you're out of luck, because I'm fully out of tolerance for free will deniers. Work it out yourself.

Then I must deem your former statemen as spoken out of ignorence.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150252 wrote:

Have you any good reason for saying that with my same experiences I could not have chosen chocolate? What is that reason? (Saying things that "there is no duplication of moments" isn't a reason. It is just repeating what you are saying).

Yeah, because you did not choose chocolate. All of the factors in your life leading up to that moment forced you to pick vanilla as evidenced by the fact that you had vanilla. There was never a choice.

kennethamy;150252 wrote:
If I had chosen differently, I could have had chocolate instead of vanilla. It is up to you to show I could not have chosen differently.

I do not have to show that you could not have chosen differently, you already have. You proved that you could not have chosen differently by choosing vanilla.

kennethamy;150252 wrote:
My experiences do not force me to choose as I did. My experiences cause me to want to do as I did.

We have clearly proven that your experiences have forced you to choose vanilla.

kennethamy;150252 wrote:
That is why what I did was done freely. I chose vanilla because I wanted to choose vanilla.

I can see why you would think that but it is not so. You're only option was vanilla at that moment. Your experiences had already decided.

kennethamy;150252 wrote:
In fact, had I not chosen vanilla although I wanted vanilla, then, I would not have chosen freely. It is weird that you think that the very thing that means I did choose freely is exactly why you think I did not choose freely. Would I have chosen freely if I did not want to choose what I chose? Is that what you are saying? And, whose experiences should determine my choice if not mine?

I find it strange that you still hold to free will when it is clear that no such thing exists.

You have no free will. you have never freely made a single choice in your entire life.

@HexHammer,

Let me try to rephrase my question more concisely: Does the supposed value of free will plausibly justify God's creation of a world that permits evil?

@zefloid13,

zefloid13;150261 wrote:

Let me try to rephrase my question more concisely: Does free will plausibly justify God's creation of a world that permits evil?

First. What do you mean by God? second what do you mean by Evil? third what has led you to believe that free will exists?

That question means nothing when there is no consensus on what God or Evil means.

@zefloid13,

zefloid13;150261 wrote:

Let me try to rephrase my question more concisely: Does the supposed value of free will plausibly justify God's creation of a world that permits evil?

Free will has absolutely nothing whatever to do with realism about fictional entities, such as gods.

@ughaibu,

Alright, you guys are just splitting hairs here. I am asking that question from the context of Plantinga's supposed refutation of the argument from evil, which says that it is possible for God to not be able to actualize a world in which only good exists, because that would deprive us of free will, and free will, we suppose, is more valuable than no free will.

We can get into the semantics of this if you'd like (I myself tend to do so), but it only conflates the question.

@zefloid13,

zefloid13;150272 wrote:

I am asking that question from the context of Plantinga's supposed refutation of the argument from evil

I unsubscribe from this thread.

@zefloid13,

zefloid13;150205 wrote:

Yes, another thread on free will (at least I hope it will become a thread). But instead of arguing about whether it is true, I would like to know if anyone believes the idea is overrated. We've had ingrained in our minds that freedom is invaluable, but being free to choose seems to carry just as many bad implications as good. Anyone else?

I agree, I think it is overrated and in fact I think the term should be edited because it gives the wrong impression. I think it should be called limited choice because that is more realistic to what free will if it even exists would actually be. There is no actual free will to do as one wills to do. That simply is not possible.

@Krumple,

Do we have hurt feelings already? This is why I don't get forums--they're meant for casual discussion and they turn into little fights since this stuff can be so ambiguous.

And thanks for you input, Krumple Smile

@zefloid13,

zefloid13;150261 wrote:

Let me try to rephrase my question more concisely: Does the supposed value of free will plausibly justify God's creation of a world that permits evil?

Right. The underlying issue is the existence of an entity that is separate from God. This entity would have to have its own will... separate from God's will. Otherwise, the universe would only be the home of a divine puppet show.

Proof that God succeeded in bestowing real separation to his creations is the existence of pathos. This line of thought results in our holding God responsible for our own suffering. God is evil.

At this point, the logic of the story has been undone. In other words, your question is a dead-end street.

Some notion of what's really going on here could be gathered from analyzing the idea of potential: what it means to say that you contain a potential made up of many possibilities... some good, some bad.

Otherwise, you can put yourself in the role of God. Create a play. You are now the God of that world. The characters are fragments of your consciousness. You are alive, so they are too. If any of them try to understand the truth, they'll be faced with a paradox. Understanding the truth would require destruction of the separation that makes their existence possible.

@trismegisto,

I post something similar in most free will threads that go on here, so here goes again.

Does it really matter if we have free will or if we think it is important or not. We act as if we have it and we act as if we should in some way have it. Even people born into slavery act as if they should have it within the sphere of influence they can control. In many cases of human behavior, desire , and preference what we actually have moot, it is waht we think we have/should have that motivates our behavior as such.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;150288 wrote:

Does it really matter if we have free will or if we think it is important or not.

Of course it matters. Like what is true and what is false, do you think that there is any case in which it doesn't matter?

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;150288 wrote:

I post something similar in most free will threads that go on here, so here goes again.

Does it really matter if we have free will or if we think it is important or not. We act as if we have it and we act as if we should in some way have it. Even people born into slavery act as if they should have it within the sphere of influence they can control. In many cases of human behavior, desire , and preference what we actually have moot, it is waht we think we have/should have that motivates our behavior as such.

I was understanding the OP to be assuming that. We assume we have free will. We also assume our actions are determined. We don't do both simultaneously.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;150288 wrote:

I post something similar in most free will threads that go on here, so here goes again.

Does it really matter if we have free will or if we think it is important or not. We act as if we have it and we act as if we should in some way have it.

I think GoshisDead has something going here. I too have to wonder whether there is any sense in pondering if we have free will--we seem to have convinced ourselves so. Does it really matter at this point (setting aside that it's fun to discuss)?

Philosophy Forum

Free Will Overrated?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know