What is Free Will?

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;143806 wrote:

I think this is an ingenious way of looking at it...I think I was pushing this general conclusion earlier but I was never quite comfortable explaining why. People don't really feel that the fact that we jerk our hand away from something hot is an indication that we don't have free will. That's a very direct and obvious causal chain. So why do we feel differently when we see that our other actions are longer, more obscure causal chains?

The comparison to consciousness hits it exactly.

Jebediah I respect your opinions in many Threads, they are usually straight forward well constructed thinking, but here, I don?t see how it relates...are n?t you forcing the question or bending the answer a little bit ?
There are causes for Conscientiousness, Conscious to some degree, some would say. But this causes are not reason to question its validity, or to validate freedom, on the contrary... Consciousness emerges progressively precisely because there are things that cause it and strengthen its scope process.

Freedom is nothing more that the coincident phenomena of our conscious will and desires with the surrounding facts that may or may not be favourable to it...we say we are free because such and such action is what we consciously desire and chose...but we can?t say that what we desire and chose was not induced on to us...they are different concepts...

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------

beyond Conscientiousness, would you say that a rock its "free" because it follows its natural path in the sky without being compelled by another to change its path ? would that matter ? it seems to me that this natural path was caused and it does matter...

...such that in your view if a cause influences the way we will conscientiously you say that this cause does n?t matter once we will it, but that if this cause imposes itself against other causes to our will and prevails you say that we were compelled...as I said its a bit like bending the rules to me.

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@fast,

But I think the mistake is assuming that since our actions are "forced" by the electrons in the brain, that they are forced on the whole. The fact that we didn't choose our basic biology doesn't mean that we don't make choices. I think I was saying this earlier--I just had trouble saying why, because the "every action you take was decided ages ago" argument is impressive.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;143829 wrote:

But I think the mistake is assuming that since our actions are "forced" by the electrons in the brain, that they are forced on the whole. The fact that we didn't choose our basic biology doesn't mean that we don't make choices. I think I was saying this earlier--I just had trouble saying why, because the "every action you take was decided ages ago" argument is impressive.

On that level I am with you its not a problem of electrons forcing whatever specifically...but the problem arises if you think that your consciousness is itself in the reason of cause in its Whole....will is caused, it does n?t arise from nothingness, and its caused by organized complex chain systems, and not just "single minded" loose electrons...anyway using emerging properties as fundament for freedom is a clever argument I give you that ! Smile

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;143829 wrote:

But I think the mistake is assuming that since our actions are "forced" by the electrons in the brain, that they are forced on the whole. The fact that we didn't choose our basic biology doesn't mean that we don't make choices. I think I was saying this earlier--I just had trouble saying why, because the "every action you take was decided ages ago" argument is impressive.

A more elegant solution is to deny that anything is "forced" at all. The laws of nature are true statements in that they accurately describe how the physical universe behaves. The laws of nature are not actual law-like rules that the universe must obey. If I say "you will wear a yellow shirt tomorrow" and it turns out to be true, it's only because you actually did wear a yellow shirt. The truth (or falsity) of my statement follows from whatever you do. In the same way, the laws of nature follow from however the universe behaves. If I say "nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light" then that statement is true (or false) based on what actually happens and how light actually behaves. Why would anyone think that the universe acts a certain way because some statement, some law, is true?

@Fil Albuquerque,

My problem with this, as you probably know if you read my posts, is that I see Reality with such Perfection, that its all becoming in the Historical process seems to me done from the beginning...
I can, who knows, be completely wrong...but it sounds so right, so Necessary that I can?t avoid it...

---------- Post added 03-25-2010 at 10:46 PM ----------

Night Ripper;143836 wrote:

A more elegant solution is to deny that anything is "forced" at all. The laws of nature are true statements in that they accurately describe how the physical universe behaves. The laws of nature are not actual law-like rules that the universe must obey. If I say "you will wear a yellow shirt tomorrow" and it turns out to be true, it's only because you actually did wear a yellow shirt. The truth (or falsity) of my statement follows from whatever you do. In the same way, the laws of nature follow from however the universe behaves. If I say "nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light" then that statement is true (or false) based on what actually happens and how light actually behaves. Why would anyone think that the universe acts a certain way because some statement, some law, is true?

Its not a question of the Universe following the LAW its more like about, it Being the LAW, in a supra Time conception...something done, finished, and packed...a perfect circle/bubble...anyway I truly respect your perspective and only expect tough fighting back from you ! The same goes for you Night Ripper ! Smile

@fast,

fast;111522 wrote:

I'd like to begin the process of creating a special written definition of "free will" that I agree with. I call it a special definition because I don't know what else to call it. It may start out as a stipulative definition, but as I tweak it more and more, I'd like it to resemble what some may call a lexical definition, but I want it to be highly informative and superior to typical lexical definitions. I'd like it to resemble an explanation flush with particularly important buzzwords.

As we begin talking about what you think free will is, I'll be particularly interested in the exact words you use. For example, if you use the word, "desire," and if I think that word conveys too much passion, then I may prefer to use the word, "want" instead.

Although I do want to know what you think free will is, keep in mind that what I want in the end is a good working definition of "free will" that I agree with, so despite any disagreement we may have, any help in formulating the definition that fits what I believe is true will be appreciated.

To give you an idea of what I believe is true, understand that I lean heavily towards how a soft determinist may use the term.

It's when you are freed of all morals, ethics, laws, group think, and other basic instincts that will control your behaviour.

..in short ..an utterly psycotic person.

@fast,

fast;111522 wrote:

I'd like to begin the process of creating a special written definition of "free will" that I agree with. I call it a special definition because I don't know what else to call it. It may start out as a stipulative definition, but as I tweak it more and more, I'd like it to resemble what some may call a lexical definition, but I want it to be highly informative and superior to typical lexical definitions. I'd like it to resemble an explanation flush with particularly important buzzwords.

As we begin talking about what you think free will is, I'll be particularly interested in the exact words you use. For example, if you use the word, "desire," and if I think that word conveys too much passion, then I may prefer to use the word, "want" instead.

Although I do want to know what you think free will is, keep in mind that what I want in the end is a good working definition of "free will" that I agree with, so despite any disagreement we may have, any help in formulating the definition that fits what I believe is true will be appreciated.

To give you an idea of what I believe is true, understand that I lean heavily towards how a soft determinist may use the term.

Is free will relevant? are we not just doing and being what we are deemed to do and bee.

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;161239 wrote:

Is free will relevant? are we not just doing and being what we are deemed to do and bee.

Imo it's very importaint to know the concept, maybe then we can better understand to free us from group think. Free us from manipulative demagogues, bossy leaders ..etc.

From a free will, we can better think objectivly, think clearer, make better laws, be more just and lawful.

Specially in the military it's very importaint not to follow an illegal order. At some point a private should stand guard, and some cournel or whatever it was, came to his watch post, and wanted to pass but couldn't rememer the pass word, he was denyed passage and the officer became furious, then was orderd belly down in the mud, it ended in court where the private won the case, when it comes to guard duty, the guard is the "%#?&?%/ highest ranking of all!!! The guard must follow the last lawful given order ..and that will overrule ANY illegal order from ANYONE else.

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;161239 wrote:

Is free will relevant? are we not just doing and being what we are deemed to do and bee.

Deemed by? And bees just buzz around.

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;161239 wrote:

Is free will relevant? are we not just doing and being what we are deemed to do and bee.

Who's doing the deeming?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;161287 wrote:

Who's doing the deeming?

The answer to your question is, anyone, thing or power that resides in control. Is there an overall greater power that resides? thats another question, another question is are we in control of every factor of our lives and existence if the answer is no then free will does not work or stand.

Mark.

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;161301 wrote:

The answer to your question is, anyone, thing or power that resides in control. Is there an overall greater power that resides? thats another question, another question is are we in control of every factor of our lives and existence if the answer is no then free will does not work or stand.

Mark.

Since we are not in control of every factor of our lives, we do not have free will?

So, because I didn't control my predisposition for colon cancer, I can't choose to eat icecream today?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;161306 wrote:

Since we are not in control of every factor of our lives, we do not have free will?

So, because I didn't control my predisposition for colon cancer, I can't choose to eat icecream today?

That's the general idea, yes.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;161801 wrote:

That's the general idea, yes.

If that were the "general idea" it would be clearly false, But I don't think that is the "general idea". What is the idea is that although it may not be up to me whether I contract colon cancer, it is up to me whether I eat ice-cream. Unless, of course, it is forced down my throat.

Philosophy Forum

What is Free Will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know