What is Free Will?

@fast,

addiction to evil limits our freedom of choice. Only the truth can set us free.

@sword,

sword;120567 wrote:

addiction to evil limits our freedom of choice. Only the truth can set us free.

Shouldn't this be in the evangelism forum?

@kennethamy,

well, if you make a square with the options of us being robots/ being not robots and believing we are robots/believing we are not robots, any combination leads us to understand that it's most sensible to act in the same way; as if we are not robots and believe we are not robots.

@memester,

memester;120585 wrote:

well, if you make a square with the options of us being robots/ being not robots and believing we are robots/believing we are not robots, any combination leads us to understand that it's most sensible to act in the same way; as if we are not robots and believe we are not robots.

And so does everyone else. We all presume, presuppose and behave like "free will" (the ability to do otherwise) is true. Except when one is playing word games or mind games, free will is presupposed in the practice of living and no one denies it except in theory.

@prothero,

prothero;120606 wrote:

And so does everyone else. We all presume, presuppose and behave like "free will" (the ability to do otherwise) is true. Except when one is playing word games or mind games, free will is presupposed in the practice of living and no one denies it except in theory.

yeah, I mean, even if we are robots, but believe we are not, it makes sense to go with the flow in that case and follow the program ( believing we are not robots ), as we have no choice anyway ( being robots, after all).

@memester,

memester;120608 wrote:

yeah, I mean, even if we are robots, but believe we are not, it makes sense to go with the flow in that case and follow the program ( believing we are not robots ), as we have no choice anyway ( being robots, after all).

Einstein who was a hard determinist of sorts said, "Free will is an illusion, albeit a persistant one". Personally I think that is wrong that we do in fact have the ability to do otherwise and the future contains multiple possiblities but that is a metaphysical speculation not a scientific hypothesis. Philosophy escpecially metaphysics is just reasoned speculation, not confirmed but coherent with other knowledge. In any event I always judge what people really believe by what they do; not by what they say, and no one behaves like free will is an irrelevant illusion. I doubt it is possible to live that hypothesis.

@prothero,

prothero;120606 wrote:

And so does everyone else. We all presume, presuppose and behave like "free will" (the ability to do otherwise) is true. Except when one is playing word games or mind games, free will is presupposed in the practice of living and no one denies it except in theory.

This is not true. We excuse people who had the ability to do otherwise quite often, or at least blame them to varying degrees. It is clearly different from assumptions about mind independent external reality.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;120612 wrote:

This is not true. We excuse people who had the ability to do otherwise quite often, or at least blame them to varying degrees.

Give an example of what you mean, and why it would indicate we do not accept free will in practice?

Jebediah;120612 wrote:

It is clearly different from assumptions about mind independent external reality.

The relationship between free will and mind independent reality is only that both are presupposed in living; in practice. In conducting your life do you consider free will false and the external world not to exist independent of your mind and your actions? The burden of proof would be on those who deny these common sense assumptions about the nature of reality of of human existence. They are as some one remarked "existentially true", presupposed in practice.

@prothero,

prothero;120613 wrote:

Give an example of what you mean, and why it would indicate we do not accept free will in practice?

The relationship between free will and mind independent reality is only that both are presupposed in living; in practice. In conducting your life do you consider free will false and the external world not to exist independent of your mind and your actions? The burden of proof would be on those who deny these common sense assumptions about the nature of reality of of human existence. They are as some one remarked "existentially true", presupposed in practice.

We always act as if the world is true, we don't always act as if certain definitions of free will are true.

Someone who is trying to quit smoking has the ability to "just not smoke anymore" and someone who is trying to lose weight has the ability to "just exercise more and eat less". But we all know that a smokers ability to not smoke is different than our ability to not smoke. What would you say to someone who didn't acknowledge that?

Locus of control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems relevant here.

@Jebediah,

[QUOTE=Jebediah;120614] We always act as if the world is true, we don't always act as if certain definitions of free will are true. [/QUOTE] The "Free" in free will is a misnomer as our actions are always constrained and influenced. The question more directly relates to determinism. Is there the "ability to do otherwise" do I have more than one possible action and more than one possible future which is dependent upon choice and "will". In this I think everyone believes and behaves as though they do have choices (the ability to do otherwise) and that those choices matter (result in alternative futures).

[QUOTE=Jebediah;120614] Someone who is trying to quit smoking has the ability to "just not smoke anymore" and someone who is trying to lose weight has the ability to "just exercise more and eat less". But we all know that a smokers ability to not smoke is different than our ability to not smoke. What would you say to someone who didn't acknowledge that?. [/QUOTE] Did someone say we all have the same or equal choices? It may be harder for an addict to quit drugs, or a smoker (a form of addiction) to stop smoking or an obese sedentary person to lose weight. No one would deny this but to accept that it is harder does not mean that it is not "possible" for them to do "otherwise". The addict who heats the heroin, draws it into the syringe, injects it into his vein may be responding to or giving into his craving, his addiction and he may find it hard or difficult to stop but most of us assume that he could in fact do "otherwise", that his actions are not fixed "determined" by the laws of nature.

Our entire system of laws, justice and punishments and notions of morality and values are based on the notion of "free" will. In fact our entire behavior and notions of the future are based on the presumption of choices (truth) and consequences (alternative futures). You can verbally deny this but it would be hard to live without that notion of both choice and consequences. Why deny (especially without overwhelming evidence) that which you must presuppose in practice? Of what practical value is the denial of the notion of "free will"?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;120614 wrote:

we all know that a smokers ability to not smoke is different than our ability to not smoke. What would you say to someone who didn't acknowledge that?

Locus of control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems relevant here.

That loss of Will is related to loss of Living.

@prothero,

prothero;120684 wrote:

The "Free" in free will is a misnomer as our actions are always constrained and influenced. The question more directly relates to determinism. Is there the "ability to do otherwise" do I have more than one possible action and more than one possible future which is dependent upon choice and "will". In this I think everyone believes and behaves as though they do have choices (the ability to do otherwise) and that those choices matter (result in alternative futures).

Did someone say we all have the same or equal choices? It may be harder for an addict to quit drugs, or a smoker (a form of addiction) to stop smoking or an obese sedentary person to lose weight. No one would deny this but to accept that it is harder does not mean that it is not "possible" for them to do "otherwise". The addict who heats the heroin, draws it into the syringe, injects it into his vein may be responding to or giving into his craving, his addiction and he may find it hard or difficult to stop but most of us assume that he could in fact do "otherwise", that his actions are not fixed "determined" by the laws of nature.

Our entire system of laws, justice and punishments and notions of morality and values are based on the notion of "free" will. In fact our entire behavior and notions of the future are based on the presumption of choices (truth) and consequences (alternative futures). You can verbally deny this but it would be hard to live without that notion of both choice and consequences. Why deny (especially without overwhelming evidence) that which you must presuppose in practice? Of what practical value is the denial of the notion of "free will"?

Let me try and be clear...

You equated the idea that there wasn't free will with the idea that there isn't a mind independent external reality. They can both be argued theoretically (although the free will one more convincingly), but, you claim, people don't act as if they are true. In other words, there isn't a situation where someone would say "well, there isn't actually an external reality, so I will do this". I agree with that. But there are situations where people would say "our actions are determined externally". So determinism etc are very relevant. One cannot simply dismiss it.

To say that no one completely denies free will is to say very little. On the other hand, acknowledging the truth of cause and effect increases our understanding of human nature and human behavior.

Are fat people fat because they are lazy? Are poor people poor because they are lazy? When someone tries to quit smoking and fails is it because they are weak? If your sole measuring stick is "could they do otherwise" (as it is for some people) how would you judge those people?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;120695 wrote:

Are fat people fat because they are lazy? Are poor people poor because they are lazy? When someone tries to quit smoking and fails is it because they are weak? If your sole measuring stick is "could they do otherwise" (as it is for some people) how would you judge those people?

Well it is not always easy to do otherwise. I have to believe yes it is possilbe to choose to quit smoking, it is possible to choose to diet and some people are poor because they choose not to work. I do not think the notion of free will either blames those people or fails to hold them responsible. It is not the only factor in that judgement but the notion that they could "do otherwise" is part of the judgement and part of the hope for change in their behavior. I do not just accept their behavior is determined by factors "entirely" beyond their influence and control.

.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;120695 wrote:

To say that no one completely denies free will is to say very little. On the other hand, acknowledging the truth of cause and effect increases our understanding of human nature and human behavior.

Are fat people fat because they are lazy? Are poor people poor because they are lazy? When someone tries to quit smoking and fails is it because they are weak? If your sole measuring stick is "could they do otherwise" (as it is for some people) how would you judge those people?

Our understanding of cause and effect does increase our understanding of the world, and of human beings. But the assertion of cause and effect is not only consistent with free will, but is a necessary condition of any free will worth having. Some people are fat because they are lazy, and don't get enough exercise, and some are poor because they don't work hard enough, and some who try to quit smoking don't try hard enough. Why deny it?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;120703 wrote:

Our understanding of cause and effect does increase our understanding of the world, and of human beings. But the assertion of cause and effect is not only consistent with free will, but is a necessary condition of any free will worth having. Some people are fat because they are lazy, and don't get enough exercise, and some are poor because they don't work hard enough, and some who try to quit smoking don't try hard enough. Why deny it?

That sounded surprisingly like we were on the same side of that issue.:flowers:

@prothero,

prothero;120712 wrote:

That sounded surprisingly like we were on the same side of that issue.:flowers:

At least the appearnce of agreement.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;120718 wrote:

At least the appearnce of agreement.

Your right, it probably is an illusion of sorts, like "free will", eh?

@prothero,

prothero;120741 wrote:

Your right, it probably is an illusion of sorts, like "free will", eh?

No, since free will is not an illusion. Although, what some people insist would be free will (if it existed) is an illusion.

@kennethamy,

(in order to become)...ACTION MUST ALLWAYS BE NECESSARY...
(therefore not free even if you chose it)
...to me this is the hot point for taking Hard determinism side instead of Soft...
(I would love to see kenneth laughing in is desk now...

)
(...because I get his point quite well, but still I don?t agree with it in any possible sense...)

This is about the notion of LAW...to its ultimate meaning...

As for the stochastic probabilistic table argument I would say that the table itself (discrete space concept, not continuous...) acts as a variable in witch the Whole determines the circumstantial appearance of variability to the observer, this given two different moments in Time\Space for the experiment to be repeated...

As for Black Holes "eating"\destroying information... say that to Hawking's radiation in the event horizon of the thing...information transforms itself but its not lost or without final purpose...besides, not traceable does not mean destroyed...

@fast,

Would you ever hear a believer in hell say, "I am choosing to go to hell." It never happens because it is a system of imposing choice. Only the non believers or the non repentant end up there. Some will even ignore the death of family or friends who were either non believers or non repentant and imply they went to heaven. It is only those mean strangers whom I have never met who end up in hell, only the people I care about get into heaven.

Alright going a little off the topic but, my point is, you really don't have any ability to chose when one is hanging damnation over your head for making the "wrong" choice. Because really the only time free will gets talked about is when it's in religious context. We all know that all the rest of the choices you make are not free in any sense of the word, free.

This is the only argument that supporters of the faith will use, but they just can not seem to realize that the free will argument is horribly flawed.

Philosophy Forum

What is Free Will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know