... is it really necessary? ... if I flip a "fair" coin, the outcome of the flip is fully determined in the instant that I flip it - and so given enough computational power and muscle control I could theoretically state with 100% certainty the outcome of my next flip ... so in the context of flipping a coin, there is no such thing as probability ... but given that I don't have anywhere near enough computational power nor muscle control, for all practical purposes there might as well be such a thing as probability ... is free will a similar kind of animal? ... that is, even if the universe is fully deterministic, given the finite constraints on the human mind, for all practical (ethical?, moral?) purposes might there as well be free will?

There is no 100% certainty because there will always be some unknown variable to affect the outcome. The coin may be controlled to always hit tails but it will never have 100% accuracy, because not all factors can be controlled during the action. I think anyways.

To say it in it's absolute form-->

1."The Freedom of what choice's you can choose are limited by the freedom's of such another, your self, nature, or god"

2."Free will is the choice to choose or not to choose, and the choice to not have or have a choice to choose or not choose."

3."For if you have the choice to choose, you then have freewill."

4."If you have given your choice to choose willingly to another, nature, or god, then you have willingly given your free will to the way's of such, and still retain your choice to choose since you have willingly choosen to follow the way's of another, nature, or god."

5."If another, nature, or god, has taken your choice to choose from you, and you have not willingly choosen for such to be taken from you, then you would have no free will in the matter, and therefore would be a unwilling slave to another, nature, or god's free will."

What is really free will? Is it just a man made term?
We are very vulnerable to influence, and we are very easy to manipulate. That must then be one of the factors we use to make choices.
I think we need another factor too. Isn't this second factor is just a random choice? If there is no good reason why we made a choice I'll call it contingency.

But then it's time to discuss whether contingency exists or not.

free Will or not to free Will. this thought is tricky some one with the knowledge of ure futre could either say dont worry everythings going to be alright or evrythings going wrong. they could demonstrate this by scratching their head right before u scratch ure head or saying a sentence that was on the tip of ure lips that u then didnt say because u felt so powerless. it says in the bible that god knows ure future i belive that there could only be one mind composed of two similar and entities both living and loving. it also says in the bible that satan knows the future to but i have learned that what ever they know means nothing coz they are all living in the present not in annother dimension. which is a relief to find out. this question really annoys me as i have thought about it alot and hate the fact that someone knows my future like every action is predictable and boring but i know this its my future and it will end on a note that most complements me and not those of another.

I believe free will is not only the choices that you make, but whether or not you make them judged on the situation you're in. If you're choices are limited and you can only choose out of the choices that are in front of you, that's not exactly free will, even if you get to make the decision.

Free will, as said, should be free, and done willingly. If some else gives you the choices, or if the possibility choices are already chosen for you, then it's not free will.

So, the idea that free is just an illusion, is pretty much correct, from what I see. Though we get to make our own choices, our choices are limited and depend on our situation. So, no one really has any free will.

Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

What about the idea that although your choices are limited in certain situations, if you would not choose either of them willingly, you decide not to choose altogether? Is that not a demonstration of free will?

No.

What convergence of events led to your being in a particular position on the time-space continuum to have to make a decision in the first place? Before answering this, you also must also consider what circumstances led to the creation of the situation itself, regardless of your involvement or non-involvement.

Don't like the idea of a Deterministic universe?
Try a Probabilistic universe.
Is it any better?

I have decided i have free will so whose going to stop me believing i have free will, come on just try it ....

Haha, excellent! Bless you.

I think this sentiment, despite all our postulations of cause, effect and influence, has real human worth. It's the voice that says, "I'm going to assert this!"... really believes it and perhaps even works to overcome influences. Then maybe, just maybe, could one actually be free of constraints and do so?

I know, I know... causality, cause and effect, "where we are is where we've been" and all that. On a strictly-rational level this is all valid; and to our reasoning I firmly believe that it shows there isn't any 'free will'. But if we admit we can't know all the factors, all the influences and dynamics of these influences, can we not also admit that there exists the possibility of the ardent mind to - by will or obstinace alone - break out? If even for an instant?

This is, of course, completely aside from the real worth to human potential that believes there is choice (which to my mind may be a reason enough to buy-in). What might be the effects of embracing, too closely, the notion that "we have no choice"? A fatalistic attitude? A reticence to even try? Perhaps even skirting responsibility for ones actions? ... just tossing out stuff here as a devil's advocate.

Something to think about...

YO!

I find dialogue on free will often avoids the obvious, to define free will as having choice is in my understanding not free will. Like all other creatures on the planet we are reactionary organisms. It is true we have a wider range of choices than many of our animal cousins, but we have no choice not to react, reaction is the only possibilty for life. Reaction is the basis of there being anything whatsoever--chemistry is our master. The world is relational, relations are established through reaction. Reaction is not choice, it is the way of reality. Consciousness itself is a reactionary process producing apparent reality. If this thinking is flawed please do enlighten. If the defination of free will is choice, what is the magic number of choices that establishes free will to humanity and not the rest of the animal world?
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]

Change the word to reaction or whatever you like to call it...we react to certain events that occur of course we do but we do or should with reason and consideration. We are a product of this life and its equations... we have certain valued inputs , if we observe those lessons we can exert our will,our free will to our purpose...Trying to call it something else or reducing it to a simple cry of hunger or anger is down right diculous

This might be worth watching:

YouTube - Waking Life - David Sosa

Xris,

So, then your defination of free will is then choice, I ask again, what is the magic number that establishes the free will of humanity over the rest of the animal kingdom? And gain, you do not have the ability not to react, reaction it is basically what you are. Your identiy is your experience but to think that you are not governed by the same physical laws as the rest of the animal world is just plain ego speaking.

Sorry but that only restated the accepted problem, most scientific philosophers are only to ready to keep ramming down my throat..Its one of those tooo dissected element of the human condition that we ponder on for too long and not really question the motives..If i could prove just one little aspect of the human world that is not that easy to explain, say telepathy or distant viewing our view of the humanity and its relation to this mundane existance would start being a lot more complex than we could ever imagine..The argument that the brain is just reactionary bit of machinery with no hidden nooks would be cast in to doubt..so all those who support the view that we have no free will are usually those who oppose any suggestion of pseudoscience that might crack their argument..

Xris,

When you have something substantial we can talk.

Calling James Randi, are you in?

His requirements are for laboratory rats not human experiences.Now tell that to the US goverment who are spending millions on researching telepathy..I think the two replies ive received proves my point.

Xris,

If you have a statement to make which you believe is fact then please do enlighten us, until then we have nothing to work with.:brickwall:

"To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests." :brickwall:













The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant.":brickwall:

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.
Click here to see the application.
Click here to see the current $1 million statement which shows the current amount in our prize account.
Randi's Personal FAQ.
The Log of Applicants:brickwall:





Sideline interest:

Did Carl Sagan in fact merely tear down old beliefs without putting anything better in their place? Far from it! Even for those who never met him, he left behind a treasure trove of published works which put the lie to that accusation. His life was dedicated, not to tearing down, but to building a positive, integrated world view capable of providing better guidance for human beings in the centuries to come than our ancient inherited mythologies could ever do.

Do you think i live in noddy land of course i have heard of his gamble and yes it is impossible to prove telepathy by scientific means and i dont intend getting into another subject while discussing free will..BUT my supposition remains there is what i might call a trend that developes in all discussions that leads one to believe the certain mind set of certain debaters..sciophilosophers who deny any attention to pseudo sciences and will ridicule any mention of its worth...In my opinion for what its worth, if you refuse to accept it as a possibility then any discussions are fruitless as its a complete package of ideologies that conflict one with the other..