Do humans actually have free will?

@PeterDamian,

I don't get why we have 5 threads for free will. Its not hard to me to understrand that you can believe what you want to believe and it wwon't change the truth.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

When I say that a murder is guilty, I mean that he did the crime, and that he did it intentionally. Don't you? Everyone who speaks English does, I think.

When I choose vanilla ice-cream rather than a different flavor, I am doing it of my own free will, because I wasn't forced to do it. That is what we ordinarily mean by "free will".

If you like defining concepts in meaningless ways, then yes we can take that "ordinary" meaning of "free will".

If we are interested in meaningful discussion of guilt and choice, then we must consider ultimate cause, and I am willing to wager that you cannot show me how you are the ultimate cause for your preference for vanilla.

The glass on my desk is presently leaving a ring of condensation without prompting, does it possess free will?

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

If you like defining concepts in meaningless ways, then yes we can take that "ordinary" meaning of "free will".

If we are interested in meaningful discussion of guilt and choice, then we must consider ultimate cause, and I am willing to wager that you cannot show me how you are the ultimate cause for your preference for vanilla.

The glass on my desk is presently leaving a ring of condensation without prompting, does it possess free will?

Of course not. What would lead you to think that I believe that a glass has free will? Glasses do not make choices, or even perform actions. Persons are nothing like glasses, nor any other inanimate object. So, I really don't understand what is apparently a rhetorical question.

I don't know what an "ultimate cause" is. But I do know that although there were causes of some of my choices and action, many of the causes are not causes that compel me to make that choice or action. For example, I may have been caused to see a film because I like the star of the film. But, since I was not forced to see the film, I went to see the film of my own free will. I did it because I wanted to see the film. I don't find that meaningless. It is what people say and think in perfectly good English. I bet everyone who speaks English knows what that means.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course not. What would lead you to think that I believe that a glass has free will? Glasses do not make choices, or even perform actions. Persons are nothing like glasses, nor any other inanimate object. So, I really don't understand what is apparently a rhetorical question.

I don't know what an "ultimate cause" is. But I do know that although there were causes of some of my choices and action, many of the causes are not causes that compel me to make that choice or action. For example, I may have been caused to see a film because I like the star of the film. But, since I was not forced to see the film, I went to see the film of my own free will. I did it because I wanted to see the film. I don't find that meaningless. It is what people say and think in perfectly good English. I bet everyone who speaks English knows what that means.

The point is that simple intentional coercion is not the only prohibition from free will, and all of your intentions can be reduced to external forces, just the same as my glass of water.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The point is that simple intentional coercion is not the only prohibition from free will, and all of your intentions can be reduced to external forces, just the same as my glass of water.

I did not use the term "simple intentional coercion" that I recall. There are a good many kinds of coercion, including psychological coercion which is not intentional, like the compulsion to steal (kleptomania) or a heavy drug addiction. But causation is not, necessarily compulsion, for only certain causes compel. For instance, when I go to see a film because I admire the main actor in the film, I am not being compelled to see the film, although, of course, I am (partly) caused to see the film by my admiration of the actor.

@shindig284,

To me free will is knowing that I can cause something to happen but I can have no say over the the effect to that cause.

@Richardgrant,

Richard,

What you say is True! However, rest assured that if your cause is just and in keeping with the Spiritual Law so well the effect, be in keeping with the Spiritual Law. It can not be any other way.

Even if we think we do not have Freewill, it means that we have given control of our lives to something else. We give control to the ego's thought system in ourselves or another person. The ego's thought system is the false god the bible talks about. The ego's thought system can act in harmony with God or not. The ego will fade into the nothingness that it came from.

Because we have Freewill we are personally responsible for our thoughts and actions. This is way any form of socialism will never work.

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

To me free will is knowing that I can cause something to happen but I can have no say over the the effect to that cause.

Now, that is hard to understand. How can you do something that causes something to happen, but not have control over what does happen? Isn't the effect exactly what happens as a result of the cause?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I did not use the term "simple intentional coercion" that I recall. There are a good many kinds of coercion, including psychological coercion which is not intentional, like the compulsion to steal (kleptomania) or a heavy drug addiction. But causation is not, necessarily compulsion, for only certain causes compel. For instance, when I go to see a film because I admire the main actor in the film, I am not being compelled to see the film, although, of course, I am (partly) caused to see the film by my admiration of the actor.

you can use your example, but I want to see where you chose one part of your value system that made that decision.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

you can use your example, but I want to see where you chose one part of your value system that made that decision.

I did not "choose my value system", but I do not see what that has to do with it. My point is that I was not forced to go to that film. Do you think that I was?
In any case, sometimes people do change their values intentionally. They (for instance) decide to get more education so that they can know more about matters, and so, get new perspectives on matters.

@kennethamy,

My thoughts are my most powerful creating force that I have to use in the material world, its what I give thought to that is the cause of what happens in my life, its the generating half of the cycle, the radiating half is the effect, which is reflected back to me, that which I have caused to happen. Thoughts - beliefs - worry - resistance are all powerful creating forces, they are cause. If I worry about sickness in my life, the effect will be that sickness will appear in my body, what that sickness will be I have no say in what form it takes. if I treat the sickness (symptom) in the body, it will most likely appear again. but if I treat the cause - my thinking, the chances of not suffering sickness again will eliminated. Whatever my thoughts create will be reflected back to in some form or another, what that form is I have no say in. As I sow (cause) so shall I reap,effect

@PeterDamian,

PeterDamian wrote:

Determinism seems to breach the so called free will because all things you do have been theologically determined by the supreme being. If determinism have all humans programmed like a computer operator does with computers, what happens to free will?

The is no doubt in all aspects, some people even think that all man's action is determined by his environment.

What is free will?

The question is whether there is the kind of free will that involves moral responsibility, and that is the kind of free will which does not mean the our actions and our choices are random accidents that come out of the blue, which would be free will without determinism. So, is there a kind of free will which is consistent with determinism?

@kennethamy,

I am of the opinion that I create everything that happens in my life, and is reflected out there in the material world, if I don't like what I see I can change it (the reflection). To me everything starts with self and finishes with self. If I am involved in a traumatic experience, I know I have created it with a purpose to help me wake up to who I AM, these are what I call blessings in life, even though they may be traumatic.

@Richardgrant,

Freewill and morality are mutually exclusive. Smile

Let me qualify that, freewill and a social morality system are mutually exclusive.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Freewill and morality are mutually exclusive. Let me qualify that, freewill and a social morality system are mutually exclusive.

Do you say that for any particular reason, or did it come to you in a dream. How about producing an argument to support what you said. You know, premises and conclusion??

@kennethamy,

Kennethamy,

It is self explanatory, but for your benifit, if one is serveing something foreign to ones own nature, it is at the price of said nature.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Kennethamy,

It is self explanatory, but for your benifit, if one is serveing something foreign to ones own nature, it is at the price of said nature.

Just who is supposed to be serving what which is foreign to whose nature? And, what on earth are you talking about?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Just who is supposed to be serving what which is foreign to whose nature? And, what on earth are you talking about?

kennethamy,

Face it kennethamy, its to complicated for you.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

Face it kennethamy, its to complicated for you.

Well, why don't we find out? I wonder how many will reply to your incomprehensible post. Let's ask anyone who thinks he understood it, to reply to it. All right?

@boagie,

boagie;20711 wrote:

Freewill and morality are mutually exclusive. Let me qualify that, freewill and a social morality system are mutually exclusive.

Seems to me that boagie is refering to 'free-will' as making 'choices' in accordance with one's own nature.
And that he is saying that 'morality' is part of many Perspectives, and for them, that it influences some of those 'free-will' decisions.
Further I hear him saying that if one imbibes one's 'morality' from 'external sources', like the community/society at large, the 'freeness' of that 'will' becomes, to the extent of the imbibition of 'external' morality, lessened; diametrically opposed.
Thats how I see it, anyway.
Close boagie?

Philosophy Forum

Do humans actually have free will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know